Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | ... | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

16978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3377

Trusted

# 2257623 13-Jun-2019 21:26

One person supports this post

frednz:

It's annoying how these false theories burn up so much precious time, while our only home slowly dies. There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

To people who are not climate change scientists, I guess the internet is the main source of information about greenhouse gases etc. So, in simple terms, is it correct to say that, because of the emission of water vapour, hydrogen powered electric vehicles are worse for the environment than battery electric vehicles, which are said to have no emissions?

That was the point made by "LinuxLuver", so do you think it's a fair observation when comparing battery EVs with hydrogen powered EVs? After all, quite a large percentage of people who buy EVs are doing so because they wish to play their part in reducing global emissions, so why choose a hydrogen powered EV if in fact it emits a greenhouse gas?

I thought KingDragoinFly's post debunked the water vapour problem?

frednz

1171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

# 2257890 14-Jun-2019 08:22

tdgeek:

frednz:

It's annoying how these false theories burn up so much precious time, while our only home slowly dies. There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

To people who are not climate change scientists, I guess the internet is the main source of information about greenhouse gases etc. So, in simple terms, is it correct to say that, because of the emission of water vapour, hydrogen powered electric vehicles are worse for the environment than battery electric vehicles, which are said to have no emissions?

That was the point made by "LinuxLuver", so do you think it's a fair observation when comparing battery EVs with hydrogen powered EVs? After all, quite a large percentage of people who buy EVs are doing so because they wish to play their part in reducing global emissions, so why choose a hydrogen powered EV if in fact it emits a greenhouse gas?

I thought KingDragoinFly's post debunked the water vapour problem?

The post from "KingDragonFly",although very helpful, mainly included links to articles about the effects on the environment of battery electric vehicles (BEVs). But, "Linuxluver", has raised very worthwhile discussion points specifically about the effects on the environment of hydrogen powered electric vehicles.

The emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are water and warm air. In that sense, they could be argued to be better than fossil fuels, which emit carbon and other things.

But water vapour is, itself, a powerful greenhouse factor.....and a billion fuel cell vehicles could end up making little difference to the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

EVs emit nothing.

Linuxluver fairly points out that we should be looking ahead and considering the effect on the environment of there being a billion fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) on the planet (not just the relatively few FCVs that we have at present).

So, I would be interested to hear what a recognised climate scientist has to say about the likely effects on the environment of a billion, or even 2 billion FCVs. Well, if I was in Government that is certainly what I would be interested in because FCVs are very different in several ways to BEVs.

tdgeek

16978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3377

Trusted

# 2257902 14-Jun-2019 08:35

frednz:

The post from "KingDragonFly",although very helpful, mainly included links to articles about the effects on the environment of battery electric vehicles (BEVs). But, "Linuxluver", has raised very worthwhile discussion points specifically about the effects on the environment of hydrogen powered electric vehicles.

The emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are water and warm air. In that sense, they could be argued to be better than fossil fuels, which emit carbon and other things.

But water vapour is, itself, a powerful greenhouse factor.....and a billion fuel cell vehicles could end up making little difference to the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

EVs emit nothing.

Linuxluver fairly points out that we should be looking ahead and considering the effect on the environment of there being a billion fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) on the planet (not just the relatively few FCVs that we have at present).

So, I would be interested to hear what a recognised climate scientist has to say about the likely effects on the environment of a billion, or even 2 billion FCVs. Well, if I was in Government that is certainly what I would be interested in because FCVs are very different in several ways to BEVs.

Ok, ill re read his links. I'm not interested in what they say about EV the issue is water vapour. We have one side saying vapour is bad, the other saying its not relevant

tdgeek

16978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3377

Trusted

# 2257904 14-Jun-2019 08:41

One person supports this post

As KingDragonFly posted

The argument you're alluding to is the "iris effect" by MIT scientist Richard Lindzen.

He is often cited by those trying to contradict global warming. Like flat earth, faked moon landings and "evolution doesn't exist", it one of those persistent memes that won't die.

The article you gave is from 2009. Lindzen's water vapor theory was first debunked six months afterwards. It has been repeatedly debunked since.

There's no shortage of materials debunking him, but here's one.

frednz

1171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

# 2257905 14-Jun-2019 08:43

tdgeek:

frednz:

The post from "KingDragonFly",although very helpful, mainly included links to articles about the effects on the environment of battery electric vehicles (BEVs). But, "Linuxluver", has raised very worthwhile discussion points specifically about the effects on the environment of hydrogen powered electric vehicles.

The emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are water and warm air. In that sense, they could be argued to be better than fossil fuels, which emit carbon and other things.

But water vapour is, itself, a powerful greenhouse factor.....and a billion fuel cell vehicles could end up making little difference to the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

EVs emit nothing.

Linuxluver fairly points out that we should be looking ahead and considering the effect on the environment of there being a billion fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) on the planet (not just the relatively few FCVs that we have at present).

So, I would be interested to hear what a recognised climate scientist has to say about the likely effects on the environment of a billion, or even 2 billion FCVs. Well, if I was in Government that is certainly what I would be interested in because FCVs are very different in several ways to BEVs.

Ok, ill re read his links. I'm not interested in what they say about EV the issue is water vapour. We have one side saying vapour is bad, the other saying its not relevant

Good, and at the same time see if you can come up with any recent authoritative research, dealing specifically with hydrogen powered vehicles, which concludes that the emissions etc from, say, two billion FCVs would not be at all harmful to the environment.

tdgeek

16978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3377

Trusted

# 2257911 14-Jun-2019 08:53

One person supports this post

frednz:

Good, and at the same time see if you can come up with any recent authoritative research, dealing specifically with hydrogen powered vehicles, which concludes that the emissions etc from, say, two billion FCVs would not be at all harmful to the environment.

His links say that. Or are they fake? The info that water vapour is bad is correct? You need to provide authoritative research that water vapour is harmful to the environment. One poster here has given detailed information that this has been clearly debunked

TBH the theme here now seems to be if its not pro EV its wrong?

The initial link gave many advantages of H, and many disdvantages. Here we seem to focus on the disadvantages and ignore the advantages. Two car companies are investing in H, I feel they know more than us. It seems like an Inconvenient Truth

frednz

1171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

# 2257914 14-Jun-2019 09:04

tdgeek:

frednz:

Good, and at the same time see if you can come up with any recent authoritative research, dealing specifically with hydrogen powered vehicles, which concludes that the emissions etc from, say, two billion FCVs would not be at all harmful to the environment.

His links say that. Or are they fake?

If the links were to recent research which said that the emissions etc from two billion FCVs are not likely to be at all harmful to the environment, then that would be great. But, as far as I can see, none of the links point to research specifically about the likely effects on the environment of a very large number of FCVs.

tdgeek

16978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3377

Trusted

# 2257919 14-Jun-2019 09:12

frednz:

tdgeek:

frednz:

Good, and at the same time see if you can come up with any recent authoritative research, dealing specifically with hydrogen powered vehicles, which concludes that the emissions etc from, say, two billion FCVs would not be at all harmful to the environment.

His links say that. Or are they fake?

If the links were to recent research which said that the emissions etc from two billion FCVs are not likely to be at all harmful to the environment, then that would be great. But, as far as I can see, none of the links point to research specifically about the likely effects on the environment of a very large number of FCVs.

So the post and links that the water vapour damage is fake, debunked many times and so on is fake? Or wrong? Orr cant be belived. But the one that states it is harmful is correct?

frednz

1171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

# 2257927 14-Jun-2019 09:33

tdgeek:

frednz:

tdgeek:

frednz:

Good, and at the same time see if you can come up with any recent authoritative research, dealing specifically with hydrogen powered vehicles, which concludes that the emissions etc from, say, two billion FCVs would not be at all harmful to the environment.

His links say that. Or are they fake?

If the links were to recent research which said that the emissions etc from two billion FCVs are not likely to be at all harmful to the environment, then that would be great. But, as far as I can see, none of the links point to research specifically about the likely effects on the environment of a very large number of FCVs.

So the post and links that the water vapour damage is fake, debunked many times and so on is fake? Or wrong? Orr cant be belived. But the one that states it is harmful is correct?

I very much doubt that a qualified climate scientist would conclude that the research you refer to provides sufficient evidence that the addition of two billion FCVs to the planet, would have no greater harmful effects on the environment than the addition of two billion battery electric vehicles. This comparison isn't made in the research you refer to and I don't think FCVs are even specifically mentioned.

However, I accept that some people are prepared to accept a lot lower standard of research than I would demand on this important issue.

tdgeek

16978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3377

Trusted

# 2257932 14-Jun-2019 09:40

frednz:

I very much doubt that a qualified climate scientist would conclude that the research you refer to provides sufficient evidence that the addition of two billion FCVs to the planet, would have no greater harmful effects on the environment than the addition of two billion battery electric vehicles. This comparison isn't made in the research you refer to and I don't think FCVs are even specifically mentioned.

However, I accept that some people are prepared to accept a lot lower standard of research than I would demand on this important issue.

You keep avoiding the point. Its about WATER VAPOUR. But I get the theme, its just denial. I thought this thread was about H, but its really about promoting EV and denigrating anything else, and washing away debate with comments such as "accept a lot lower standard of research"

If you dont wish to debate whether water vapour is an issue, then easier to just say so. I'm yet to see your superior research that proves that water vapour effect is harmful, or if it in fact exists in any shape or form. And no, I am not talking about EV I am talking about water vapour being harmful or not

kingdragonfly

2506 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1529

# 2257933 14-Jun-2019 09:40

I'm also confused by frednz queries.

Regarding hydrogen powered vehicles, I don't think they will catch on except for fleet vehicles. The reason is the accessibility of electric power points versus availability of hydrogen storage tanks

Perhaps a more relevant question it how much pollution is created by current hydrogen production.

My understanding is most hydrogen involves mixing methane with water at 815 degrees Celsius. This generates significant amount of CO2.

Obviously if electrolysis were used on water with renewable energy instead, there were be almost no climate warming (except production of solar cells, ...)

Again the water vapour produced by hydrogen powered vehicles does not contribute the global warming.

Here's a book on the subject, and in particular hydrogen

Hell and High Water: Global Warming--the Solution and the Politics--and What We Should Do

https://www.amazon.com/Hell-High-Water-Warming-Politics/dp/006117212X

tdgeek

16978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3377

Trusted

# 2257940 14-Jun-2019 09:43

One person supports this post

kingdragonfly: I'm also confused by frednz queries.

Regarding hydrogen powered vehicles, I don't think they will catch on except for fleet vehicles. The reason is the accessibility of electric power points versus availability of hydrogen storage tanks

Perhaps a more relevant question it how much pollution is created by current hydrogen production.

My understanding is most hydrogen involves mixing methane with water at 815 degrees Celsius. This generates significant amount of CO2.

Obviously if electrolysis were used on water with renewable energy instead, there were be almost no climate warming (except production of solar cells, ...)

Again the water vapour produced by hydrogen powered vehicles does not contribute the global warming.

Here's a book on the subject, and in particular hydrogen

Hell and High Water: Global Warming--the Solution and the Politics--and What We Should Do

https://www.amazon.com/Hell-High-Water-Warming-Politics/dp/006117212X

Well sir, I hope that link offers an acceptable standard of research.... :-)

frednz

1171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

# 2257959 14-Jun-2019 10:02

tdgeek:

kingdragonfly: I'm also confused by frednz queries.

Regarding hydrogen powered vehicles, I don't think they will catch on except for fleet vehicles. The reason is the accessibility of electric power points versus availability of hydrogen storage tanks

Perhaps a more relevant question it how much pollution is created by current hydrogen production.

My understanding is most hydrogen involves mixing methane with water at 815 degrees Celsius. This generates significant amount of CO2.

Obviously if electrolysis were used on water with renewable energy instead, there were be almost no climate warming (except production of solar cells, ...)

Again the water vapour produced by hydrogen powered vehicles does not contribute the global warming.

Here's a book on the subject, and in particular hydrogen

Hell and High Water: Global Warming--the Solution and the Politics--and What We Should Do

https://www.amazon.com/Hell-High-Water-Warming-Politics/dp/006117212X

Well sir, I hope that link offers an acceptable standard of research.... :-)

I think the required research project is about comparing the effects on the environment of producing and running a large number of hydrogen powered vehicles vs producing and running a large number of battery powered vehicles.

Does the research from the above link deal with that issue in a scientific way, have you read the book?

The issue is not just about water vapour, but as mentioned by kingdragonfly, "how much pollution is created by current hydrogen production".

Another environmental point is made in this article:

https://futureofworking.com/10-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-hydrogen-fuel-cells/

If we were to release hydrogen as a gas into our environment in significant quantities, then we would create a negative impact on the ozone layer that could be as severe as what CFCs did in the generation before. Although it would require an extensive hydrogen economy that included transportation, manufacturing, and home heating to accomplish this disadvantage, it is an issue which should not be overlooked. We cannot allow the gas to accumulate if we want to continue working to improve the environment.

Adding hydrogen to our atmosphere would create more water at a higher altitude. That means we could experience higher levels of radiation at ground level, see mutations in plants, and shifts in our weather patterns which could change our growing seasons.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1757

Subscriber

# 2258004 14-Jun-2019 10:11

I hope that you guys are remembering that fossil fuel vehicles also emit lots of water vapor. In fact, burning any fossil fuels emits water vapor. So I dont think that water vapor from H2 vehicles could be any worse than fossil fuel vehicles. Notice how there is a cloud of what looks like steam coming out of the exhaust on petrol cars on cold mornings. Especially if the car was only recently started? That cloud literally is stream/ water vapor.

tdgeek

16978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3377

Trusted

# 2258007 14-Jun-2019 10:13

If I wanted to talk about doors, I dont want a reply about windows. I, thats me, was discussing water vapour that you decided is bad and that anything else is fake.

But I give up as you dont want to discuss the one topic I was posting about.

There are advantages and disadvantages to H

There are advantages and disadvantages to EV

There is the real problem of when will all this actually make a difference?

These are the real questions. Or is it better to only discuss the disadvantages of H, and only discuss the advantages of EV? Thats where this thread sees to be going.

1 | ... | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20