Hydrogen fuel may disturb ozone layer

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Funny, no mention of the most important emission of fuel cell cars, Dihydrogen Monoxide, which can be really nasty stuff if you're not careful. Originally a fertilizer, we now use this chemical in everything from flame retardants to cement to cooking. It is the primary emission of fuel cells.

*groan*
You know many people actually signed that petition? You could make anything sound intimidating and mystical by referring to it by its official chemical name. I wonder if people would pay for exorcists when I told them that this creepy DihydrogenMonoxide-stuff has already infiltrated their bodies and taken over roughly 60% of it...

As for the investigation mentioned in the article (no, it's not Onion-esque, contrary to popular belief displayed in this topic so far ), it's just a research from a few scientists who are pointing out potential problems with hydrogen fuel so they can be solved or considered before starting on an infrastructure.

John Eiler, an assistant professor of geochemistry at Cal Tech and one of the article's authors, acknowledged that the concerns raised in the study might eventually be resolved when more is learned about the hydrogen fuel cycle. For example, much of the leaking hydrogen might become absorbed in the soil instead of drifting into the sky, he said. "If soils dominate, a hydrogen economy might have little effect on the environment. But if the atmosphere is the big player, the stratospheric cooling and destruction of the ozone ... are more likely to occur." Cal Tech scientist Tracey Tromp, another of the authors, said that with advanced warnings of a problem, a hydrogen energy infrastructure could be fashioned to allow more control of leaks and reduce the adverse environmental impact.

If it turns out to be false alarm or widely exaggerated, so be it; but at least it's investigated beforehand for a change, instead of afterwards as seems to have been the general consensus with many of people's inventions over the last century.

[ 06-13-2003, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Timber Loftis]

Let us not forget that when these cars were first conceptualized Chicken Littles all compared them to miniature H-bombs running around town.

Translation of the project:
"We needed to use grant money, and this is what we came up with."

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Funny, no mention of the most important emission of fuel cell cars, Dihydrogen Monoxide, which can be really nasty stuff if you're not careful. Originally a fertilizer, we now use this chemical in everything from flame retardants to cement to cooking. It is the primary emission of fuel cells.

Don't make me haul out the [img]graemlins/troll.jpg[/img] signt TL

[ 06-13-2003, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Let us not forget that when these cars were first conceptualized Chicken Littles all compared them to miniature H-bombs running around town. Translation of the project: "We needed to use grant money, and this is what we came up with."

Ah, but what's wrong with investigating the possible effects of bringing this technique into practise on a worldwide scale? If they are able to use this knowledge to point out potential problems in order to solve or consider them before entering mass-production, to make the entire process more effective and safer for the environment, then I'm not complaining; and if it's all one big load of drivel, no great loss either (except for grant money and some wasted time, of course [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img] ). You almost sound like you're afraid that the oil companies want to use an investigation like this one as an argument against the usage of hydrogen fuel, as if this is all one big conspiracy to discredit hydrogen as a good energy resource alternative.
I can understand your underlying skepticism, I'm not completely without some of it myself; but honestly, I think a little bit of skepticism in a stage when it's still not used en masse isn't really a bad thing at all. I think the investigators quoted in the article sound reasonable about their findings and especially the error-margins in their conclusions; they're also focusing on a possible problem caused by leaks, not the use of H2 as a fuel an sich. [img]smile.gif[/img] And at least they're not spouting far-fetched and catchy-sounding paranoia-slogans like "the radiation in micro-waves/mobile phones causes cancer!" or "those cars are all miniature H-bombs!".

Trust me, I'm pretty much on the (open-minded) environmentalists' side of things, but I myself don't believe by default in a "Holy Grail To Solve All Of Our Energy Problems Without Harming The Environment In Any Way And Shut Up Those Evil Oil Companies Once And For All, While Ignoring Any Possible Criticism Because It's All One Big Conspiracy Anyways, And Well Duh, It's The Holy Grail And Stuff! You Can't Criticise That! And Anyone Who Does Just Has To Have A Secret Agenda Or An Oil Company Financed Pay-Check".

[ 06-13-2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Zero Alpha]

Can you say Hindenburg?

they still dont know what caused that, and the hydrogen burning destoyed most of the evidence. oh it may be better for the environment, i just hope that we can avoid a nast mess of explosive cars.

can you imgagine the car bomb of the future?

[ 06-13-2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Zero Alpha ]

[Harkoliar]

well if there is no more carbon or oil emmision then there wouldnt be any ozone hole problems in the first place... just my 2c

[Timber Loftis]

When Dan Rather was driving the fuel cell van around on TV at 80mph, I became convinced. This technology has suffered over a decade of harsh review, including the "H-Bomb" thingy. Let us hope they got it right, and future scrutiny will of course prove or disprove this.

As for Hydrogen being released into the air, let us not forget it is the single most common element in the universe. It began the Big Bang, if all the Big Bangers are right, and all elements developed from it. So long as its isotopes aren't being released, I think the science will tell us we're all right. Besides, how much worse for the atmosphere can it be than CO2.

It is funny. You know, I once had to write a paper to EPA explaining how CO2 could be nominated a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Isn't it funny how much fighting we do about basic chemicals that have been around for ages. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]