• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The fuel of the future

What would be the fuel of the future?

  • Oil

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Coal

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Biomass

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nuclear

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Cold Fusion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Solar

    Votes: 5 23.8%
  • Wind

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hydrogen

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • It's not invented yet

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 28.6%

  • Total voters
    21
Thats a myth if you think its flammability actually affects the safety of the car... it doesnt... gasoline is actually more dangerous

Takes more BTU's???? The electricity used to making hydrogen in our own homes can come from solar energy.

And i didnt say federal funding either -_-.

Your knowledge of physics and chemistry is about nil.....
It takes more energy to produce H2 than you can get back out of it, source of the electricity means nothing. It is a net LOSS. You would be better off using your solar panels to charge batteries.

Explain how gasoline, which is in liquid form, will burn.....you can run over a rock, rip a hole in your gasoline tank, and all it does most of the time is leak out. Been there, myself....
Don't believe the stuff you see on TV, cars seldon explode in fireballs.. OTOH, ever see the footage of the Hindenburg Airship?
H2 burns over a wide range of concentrations and temperatures, because it is already a gas.
Gasoline needs to be vaporized first.
 
Last edited:
So, you've never heard of Chernobyl and Fukushima, huh? :shock:

Chernobyl was diversion of Gorbatschow's henchmans to launch "Perestroika", all security devices were off.
Fukushima is a problem which will be never happens again.
 
Your knowledge of physics and chemistry is about nil.....
It takes more energy to produce H2 than you can get back out of it, source of the electricity means nothing. It is a net LOSS. You would be better off using your solar panels to charge batteries.

Explain how gasoline, which is in liquid form, will burn.....you can run over a rock, rip a hole in your gasoline tank, and all it does most of the time is leak out. Been there, myself....
Don't believe the stuff you see on TV, cars seldon explode in fireballs.. OTOH, ever see the footage of the Hindenburg Airship?

My major is in Physics, and like my friend i mentioned before had his degree in Hydro cell engines and he personally made engines that worked in the 80s.

Your ignorance astounds me...http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/i...rogen_in_cars_is_less_dangerous_than_gasoline
Myth #2. Hydrogen is too dangerous, explosive, or “volatile” for common use as a fuel. The hydrogen industry has an enviable safety record spanning more than a half-century. Any fuel is hazardous and needs due care, but hydrogen’s hazards are different and generally more tractable than those of hydrocarbon fuels.34 It’s extremely buoyant — 14.4 times lighter than air (natural gas is only 1.7 times lighter than air). Hydrogen is four times more diffusive than natural gas or 12 times more than gasoline fumes, so leaking hydrogen rapidly disperses up and away from its source.35 If ignited, hydrogen burns rapidly with a nonluminous flame that can’t readily scorch you at a distance, emitting only one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire and burning 7% cooler than gasoline. Although firefighters dislike hydrogen’s clear flame because they need a viewing device to see it in daylight, victims generally aren’t burned unless they’re actually in the flame, nor are they choked by smoke.

Hydrogen mixtures in air are hard to explode, requiring a constrained volume of elongated shape. In high-school chemistry experiments, hydrogen detonates with a “pop” when lit in a test tube, but if it were in free air rather than a long cylindrical enclosure, it wouldn’t detonate at all. Explosion requires at least twice as rich a mixture of hydrogen as of natural gas, though hydrogen’s explosive potential continues to a fourfold higher upper limit. Hydrogen does ignite easily, needing 14 times less energy than natural gas, but that’s of dubious relevance because even natural gas can be ignited by a static-electricity spark.36 Unlike natural gas, however, leaking hydrogen encountering an ignition source is far likelier to burn than to explode, even inside a building, because it burns at concentrations far below its lower explosive limit. Ignition also requires a fourfold higher minimum concentration of hydrogen than of gasoline vapor. In short, in the vast majority of cases, leaking hydrogen, if lit, will burn but not explode. And in the rare cases where it might explode, its theoretical explosive power per unit volume of gas is 22 times weaker than that of gasoline vapor. It is not, as has been claimed, “essentially a liquid or gaseous form of dynamite.”

Contrary to a popular misunderstanding, these safety attributes actually helped save 62 lives in the 1937 Hindenburg disaster. An investigation by NASA scientist Dr. Addison Bain found38 that the disaster would have been essentially unchanged even if the dirigible were lifted not by hydrogen but by nonflammable helium, and that probably nobody aboard was killed by a hydrogen fire. (There was no explosion.) The 35% who died were killed by jumping out, or by the burning diesel oil, canopy, and debris (the cloth canopy was coated with what nowadays would be called rocket fuel). The other 65% survived, riding the flaming dirigible to earth as the clear hydrogen flames swirled harmlessly above them. This would hardly be the case if an aircraft with only liquid hydrocarbons caught fire while aloft. It emphasizes that hydrogen is generally at least as safe as natural gas or LPG, and is arguably inherently safer than gasoline,39 although the character of their risks is not identical.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill, how about this? :2wave:
 
Your knowledge of physics and chemistry is about nil.....
It takes more energy to produce H2 than you can get back out of it, source of the electricity means nothing. It is a net LOSS. You would be better off using your solar panels to charge batteries.

Explain how gasoline, which is in liquid form, will burn.....you can run over a rock, rip a hole in your gasoline tank, and all it does most of the time is leak out. Been there, myself....
Don't believe the stuff you see on TV, cars seldon explode in fireballs.. OTOH, ever see the footage of the Hindenburg Airship?
H2 burns over a wide range of concentrations and temperatures, because it is already a gas.
Gasoline needs to be vaporized first.

-_- Batteries are not eco-friendly ....AT ALL.
Electric cars cause just as much pollution because of the making of car batteries.
The solar energy used to make hydrogen in your home is cheap and is really good at storing the solar energy, by electrolysis. Batteries arn't as efficient at holding their charge, but you can store hydrogen. And the sun's energy is basically infinite.
 
Last edited:
What would be the primary (most used) fuel of the future? :cool:
What's your say?

Depends how far into the future we're talking. If we're looking maybe 30 years out, I think that solar energy will be the most common source of energy. Automobiles will primarily be electric, and therefore will feed off the solar grid as well. Fossil fuels will mostly be relegated to niche uses.
 
Hydrogen is useful if you want to simply store energy from a solar panel using electroylsis. It isn't particularly dangerous in metal hydride tanks. That still doesn't make it useful for cars. The cost and weight of fuel cells+hydride tanks is high enough that batteries are a better option.
 
Last edited:
Hydrogen fuel cell. Endless sources and supply, no emission (other than water) and with more research will be dirt cheap.
 
Hydrogen fuel cell. Endless sources and supply, no emission (other than water) and with more research will be dirt cheap.

As others have pointed out, first you have to get the hydrogen. Fuel cells don't really produce energy, they simply store it, and not that efficiently.
 
As others have pointed out, first you have to get the hydrogen. Fuel cells don't really produce energy, they simply store it, and not that efficiently.

Well, it's only early in. Electric cars have near been perfected, because they've been around longer. This is only a decade and there is slew of potential in it. Look at Honda's FCX Clarity. It gets 60 miles a kilo, and has a 4 kilo tank. Hydrogen fuel right now is $5 -$10 a kilo. Plus the car only cost $150'000 to make. I don't know about you but I'm throughly convinced that this is a serious possibility for a new fuel source. I say by 2040 hydrogen cars own the market.
 
UtahBill, how about this? :2wave:

Looks good to me....especially the energy density part. IMO, H2 will be cheap enough to use in cars about the same time we develop tele-transporters.
Just because something is possible doens't mean it is feasible....
 
-_- Batteries are not eco-friendly ....AT ALL.
Electric cars cause just as much pollution because of the making of car batteries.
The solar energy used to make hydrogen in your home is cheap and is really good at storing the solar energy, by electrolysis. Batteries arn't as efficient at holding their charge, but you can store hydrogen. And the sun's energy is basically infinite.

why add an extra step to the process? Use solar to charge batteries for an electric car. Maintenance for battery operated cars are minimal compared to the H2 powered internal combustion engine.
 
Well, it's only early in. Electric cars have near been perfected, because they've been around longer. This is only a decade and there is slew of potential in it. Look at Honda's FCX Clarity. It gets 60 miles a kilo, and has a 4 kilo tank. Hydrogen fuel right now is $5 -$10 a kilo. Plus the car only cost $150'000 to make. I don't know about you but I'm throughly convinced that this is a serious possibility for a new fuel source. I say by 2040 hydrogen cars own the market.

$150,000, about the value of the average HOUSE in the Phoenix area.....I'll take 2..:2razz:
 
$150,000, about the value of the average HOUSE in the Phoenix area.....I'll take 2..:2razz:

You're missing the point, a decade ago the same car cost $1'000'000. Thats a wicked price drop, and I see no reason to doubt the potential of it, although at the moment it's completely not feasible.
 
What would be the primary (most used) fuel of the future? :cool:
What's your say?

This is a good poll. I wouldn't have thought solar would be winning... kind of cool
 
What about magnets? If we build high speed rails with magnets, that could change how we consume energy... :)
 
What about magnets? If we build high speed rails with magnets, that could change how we consume energy... :)

For that purpose, they still need a constant source of electricity, maybe they would consume as much as motors, but they is still the dilemma of how to get that electricity. Solar, plug-in? What? I support the idea of Hydrogen fuel cells.
 
You're missing the point, a decade ago the same car cost $1'000'000. Thats a wicked price drop, and I see no reason to doubt the potential of it, although at the moment it's completely not feasible.

if the car is using H2 in an internal combustion engine, the main issue is the fuel tank, and THAT can't be the reason for the high price. Is this car using a fuel cell to make electicity?
 
if the car is using H2 in an internal combustion engine, the main issue is the fuel tank, and THAT can't be the reason for the high price. Is this car using a fuel cell to make electicity?

Yeah, it's a fuel cell car. The Internal combustion H2 cars are absolute crap and have no potential. But this fuel cell thing man....
 
Yeah, it's a fuel cell car. The Internal combustion H2 cars are absolute crap and have no potential. But this fuel cell thing man....

OK, devil's advocate, what kind of rare earth elements go into the making of a fuel cell? What countries have these elements? When will they form a cartel to jack the prices up. :2razz:
 
OK, devil's advocate, what kind of rare earth elements go into the making of a fuel cell? What countries have these elements? When will they form a cartel to jack the prices up. :2razz:


Don't know, don't know, and again, I have no clue. I'm not a freaking scientist, I'm just eager to see how this turns out.
 
Hydrogen fuel cell. Endless sources and supply, no emission (other than water) and with more research will be dirt cheap.

all those H2 powered cars dripping water, in already humid coastal cities.....who woulda thunk it, water will become a pollutant.!!!:2razz:
 
why add an extra step to the process? Use solar to charge batteries for an electric car. Maintenance for battery operated cars are minimal compared to the H2 powered internal combustion engine.

Cause batteries are not eco friendly. The amount of toxic metals used to produce them equals the amount of damage gasoline does. Hydrogen can be produced in the house, or in huge electrolysis factories, completely eco-free
 
The clarity is good example of why hydrogen vehicles aren't the right choice. It requires an absurdly bulky 160 liter fuel tank in addition to a 57 liter fuel cell. On top of that it costs 150K, has miserable performance and has a dangerous compressed gas fuel storage mechanism.
Compare it to the Tesla which is 70% of the cost and has sports car performance. On top of that the development potential of hydrogen is much lower than electric vehicles. Hydrogen storage technology can't really improve due to physical limitations. Meanwhile prototype batteries that exist today already promise 100% improvements over current production models. That doesn't even get into the advantages of simply using existing electric infrastructure VS trying to ship hydrogen around.
 
Back
Top Bottom