Hydrogen economy and Climate

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Mr. Hamtastic, Aug 20, 2008.

  1. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    What is the effect of hydrogen fuel cells on the climate? More specifically...

    I have searched high and low for the effect of water vapor in large quantities being released into the atmosphere. Wouldn't this affect climate, at least local to heavily populated areas? Would it affect climate on the global scale? If so, how? I have searched the internet for any info on this, and have been unable to find any.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    water vapor is considered a green house gas. im sure i read that water vapor is the most prevelant green house gas on the planet. something like 90%.

    environmentalists tend to exclude water vapor. it would create more skeptics and defeat their "man causes" global warming therory. dont get me wrong im sure we have our hands in the pot when it comes to global warming, i just dont believe that its the main cause of and i dont believe that removing our fossil fuel use would make a noticeable difference.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    The thing is, water vapor is very common. A slight increase in water vapor isn't much, when most of the atmosphere is water vapor. But when you start drastically increasing the amount of CO2, which is quite scarce (in the hundreths of a percent), well, you've all seen thehockey stick curve.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I'm sorry to have to burst the few remaining bubbles but the "hydrogen economy" was nothing but a wishful myth. Therefore, the question is moot.

    Just a few quick words of explanation: in case you haven't noticed, hydrogen - as a fuel - has pretty well disappeared from the news everywhere. It never was an energy source, just a method of energy storage. In fact, when it's used as fuel, it's an energy sink - meaning it takes more energy to produce it than it returns when used.

    If we ever see a full-blown massive return to building nuclear power generating plants, it might sneak back in as a remote possibility. I say 'remote' because it would never be efficient to simply burn in ICE-powered vehicles and fuel cell technology still has a LONG way to go before becoming affordable. They also have fairly short service lives, too as well as using very expensive catalysts.

    No one has ever figured out how the build a proper infrastructure for the delivery of hydrogen, either. It would be very dangerous to transport in bulk by trucks as gasoline currently is. And it cannot be shipped by pipeline either because it turns metal brittle, has a crossover effect on plastic pipes and can escape through holes so small that nothing else can.

    In short, the hydrogen economy appears to have died even quicker than the idea took to get started in the first place. It turned out to be a no-branier.
     
  8. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    if youve ever done research then you know that you can make a chart behave anyway that you would like. you could make one additional rat in new york look like a plague, using charts.

    by 90% i mean that water vapor is said to be the cause of 90+ % of global warming. personally i think that the sun is the cause of 100% of global warming. haha

    could the earth warm? yes, it has in the past just as it has cooled. the earth fluctuates

    does carbon dioxide help in warming trends? im sure it does as do many other things.

    methane is 30 times stronger than co2, as a greenhouse gas. methane levels have increased 2.5 times in the last 250 years. while co2 has only incresed by 30 % in the same time period. why all the focus on co2?

    because controlling co2 will change economies. what would controlling methane do? controlling methane would only help the environment. controlling all the other greenhouse gases does only one thing and that is help the enviroment.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2008
  9. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    i agree with many of your statements. the hydrogen economy was created by the oil industry. its the only way they can really save their butts. many of the current transportaion and delivery sytems that the oil companys use could be retro fitted to distribute hydrogen. currently the least expensive way to derive hydrogen is by reforming oil. so algore will not support hydrogen fuel. his main focus is to drive fossil fuel companies out of power.

    look into sstar, star, and star-h2 reactors. amazing stuff.
     
  10. Gently Passing Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    *falls off chair laughing*

    Okay, okay. I think I have control of myself now.

    Coral bleaching is a sign that global warming is underway, and the fact that algae is growing a whole bunch of places it shouldn't be indicates that CO2 and heat have both increased. These increases coincide with the increases in fossil fuel use in the past century, the curves match up. It's uncanny.

    And let's pretend there are fairies and Santa Claus and hobbits and elves for a moment...

    Assuming global warming wasn't our fault, it still is a big f'ing problem. Furthermore, let's pretend that all it does is convince us to be more considerate of the environment and use energy more efficiently and sustainably. What's the problem?

    :shrug:

    I swear, if you do the digging you'll find oil money somewhere in this whole "skepticism" campaign. 20 million dollars changed hands somewhere, so some underpaid PhD has traded his/her credibility for the ability to buy groceries and pay the rent for a change.
     
  11. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    i am very familiar with coral bleaching. are you? what is the number one cause of coral bleaching? what is the number one way to eliminate it? what does coral love when its surface temperature increases. do all corals react the same as far as temp and uv light. whats the difference between diffused light and focused light and the way that coral may react due to the water surface. are all bleaching events temp related. the role of uv light and corals reaction to it. what is bleaching? phosphates and their roles in coral bleaching. phosphates and there roles in calcium uptake. the importances of magnisium. water clarity and light penetration.

    please engage me in a discussion about Scleractinians

    i do not whole heartedly deny global warming exists. i do argue over what is causing it, who is causing it. how best to help stop it as well as should we help stop it. the possible economic and environmental ramifications of attempting to stop it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2008
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

    Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.


    If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

    This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

    CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

    An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject.

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837/90
     
  13. Gently Passing Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    "Coral reef bleaching is caused by various anthropogenic and natural variations in the reef environment including sea temperature, solar irradiance, sedimentation, xenobiotics, subaerial exposure, inorganic nutrients, freshwater dilution, and epizootics. Coral bleaching events have been increasing in both frequency and extent worldwide in the past 20 years. Global climate change may play a role in the increase in coral bleaching events, and could cause the destruction of major reef tracts and the extinction of many coral species."

    "Three hypotheses have been advanced to explain the cellular mechanism of bleaching, and all are based on extreme sea temperatures as one of the causative factors. High temperature and irradiance stressors have been implicated in the disruption of enzyme systems in zooxanthellae that offer protection against oxygen toxicity. Photosynthesis pathways in zooxanthallae are impaired at temperatures above 30 degrees C, this effect could activate the disassociation of coral / algal symbiosis. Low- or high-temperature shocks results in zooxanthellae low as a result of cell adhesion dysfunction. This involves the detachment of cnidarian endodermal cells with their zooxanthellae and the eventual expulsion of both cell types."

    Jason Buchheim
    Director, Odyssey Expeditions

    What is the number one cause of coral bleaching where?

    When?

    It's more complex than stubbing your toe. What's the number one cause of that?

    Someone put a wall where there wasn't supposed to be one.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2008
  14. Gently Passing Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    Do I have Marine Biology piled higher and deeper? No.

    But I know what it is, yes.

    Sea temperature, solar irradiance, sedimentation, xenobiotics, subaerial exposure, inorganic nutrients, freshwater dilution, and epizootics.

    A recent story on National Public Radio discussed the indirect effects of agricultural fertilizers and industrial wastes on this ecosystem.

    While these are not direct results of global warming, they are a part of the same larger picture. For instance, agriculture in Africa: the elimination of rainforests and use of chemicals contributes to coral bleaching in two ways; the loss of rainforest habitat directly affects local and global climate, which heats the sea, and the runoff of chemicals affects the symbiant organisms living in/on the corals.

    Part of the solution is preservation of the rainforests. Another? Responsible agriculture.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2008
  15. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    water circulation. its nice that you can cut and paste. ive spent 7 years learning about it as well as testing therory.

    but lack of water circulation. coral can with stand many changes in temperature, light etc as long as it has proper circulation. coral can become so entangled that that it no longer has proper circulation. this will cause bleaching (which is not death). its not so much the water temp as it is the light hitting the coral surface. think garbage can lid on a hot day. water temp and circulation are key to cooling the coral. the best remedy is to move the coral a little deeper. 6-12 inches will generaly do. or just increase water circulation.

    my point is that coral bleaching can be caused by warmer water. but warmer water will also allow coral to move into other areas. increased solar activy will also cause coral bleaching as will clearer days. plus it opens those areas to more diversity. some of the worst coral detructions in the world have occurred of no consequence to man and coral survives. in fact it is very robust. nature is pretty hard to destroy. so do we alter our world and stop nature or do we allow it to do what it does?

    check salton sea. what do you think?
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2008
  16. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Humanity has less than zero impact on the climate of the earth. It's on account of absolute geological and chemical ignorance and extreme egotism that people think that they do.
     
  17. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Do the math, if you don't believe me. CO2 increased more than 20%.
     
  18. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Hey, guys. What about the fact that the global temp hasn't increased since 1998 and is predicted to continue to decrease in temp for the next ten years. Some are even predicting a "little ice age".

    So enough with the global warming already.
     
  19. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I generally agree with you but not this time. Can you provide solid evidence that your assertion is correct?
     
  20. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Since when? Actually carbon in the atmosphere has decreased not increased. You must be using that "New Math" they teach in government schools.
     
  21. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    According to the founder of the Weather Channel, namely John Coleman, global temperatures have declined 8 consecutive years. Also there was climate change before the first combustion engine and before the first human being. Ever heard of volcanoes?
     
  22. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    There have been climate changes for millions of years. So what else is new? Except for the fact that this one seems quite different.

    Just how good a climatologist is John Coleman, anyway? You've made the statement, now provide a link to where he said that AND one that shows his credentials - because I have more faith in ice-core samples than in any "John" anywhere.
     
  23. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    LOL. Your last sentence contradicts your first sentence and the implication of your question.

    I'll bet you $100 he's more qualified than you are.

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

    If you want to focus all your energy on ad hominem fallacy you're going to have to do the work yourself.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2008

Share This Page