Do you reckon hydrogen cars are the future and petrol cars will go down in history like steam?

Question

and even if we stop all these CO2 emisions could we repair the ozone layer in any way?

Answer 1

You're about half right.

Electric cars are the future and will soon replace petrol cars.  Electric cars technology is advancing rapidly and the infrastructure (the power grid) is already in place.

Hydrogen cars on the other hand have some serious problems.  For starters there's no environmentally friendly way to get the hydrogen fuel.  The only efficient way we currently have is to get it from natural gas, and the process emits more CO2 than just burning the natural gas directly as fuel, so there's no benefit.

Even if we had a good source of hydrogen, there's no transportation or storage infrastructure.  How are you going to refuel hydrogen cars when there are no refueling stations?  Building such a refueling structure would cost billions of dollars, and who's going to pay for it?

Also, global warming and the hole in the ozone layer are 2 seperate problems.  We've basically solved the hole in the ozone layer problem by phasing-out our use of clorofluorocarbons (CFCs).  The hole is now repairing itself.

Answer 2

no it will not be hydrogen fuel cell cars.

but it may be a another type fuel cell powered car.

there are many types of fuel cells and just as many fuel for them.

more types of fuel cells are being developed each years.

what i am looking at to be the fuel cell of the future is a one cell type that uses a oil or a bio fuel gets three time the range or a car that burns the same fuel and puts out zero CO2

http://overpotential.blogspot.com/2005/0...

the big killer of Hydrogen fuel cells is the cost of making the fuel.

now of someone could just invent a CO2 fueled fuel cell that put out O2.

that would solve the whole problem.

CO2 has nothing to do with the ozone layer.

that is caused by CFC's

http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/cfcozn.html.

and the holes in the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming.

get your facts right

Answer 3

No hydrogen is not the answer.  You need electricity to produce hydrogen.  We are now turning on more and more thermal-electric plants with the use of coal.  Coal is not clean and may never be clean though there are emerging coal technologies that can help to some degree.  As yet, pumping coal gas waste underground is unproven and may not work at all.  It is very difficult to store gas pollutants.

Also, when you burn hydrogen your pollutant becomes water vapor.  Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.  There seems to be no technologies in the works making sure that instead of water vapor coming out of the exhaust it would be only water.  However, even if only water is spewed from an engine it will land upon the ground in thin layers and evaporate back into water at an alarming rate.  Containment may be an answer.

There is no big problem with infrastructure with hydrogen.  Very quickly an infrastructure was created for propane.  Same technology for hydrogen.

Creating hydrogen from natural gas or methane really isn't an answer as we still get the same CO2 off it as if we used it directly as fuel.  Methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as is CO2.  Since we are bleeding methane into the air from our garbage dumps, cattle, excrement, swamps we would be far better off burning the methane than not.  In less than 20 years methane will be the star greenhouse gas and much more potent than CO2.  It is time now to begin dealing with this matter.

The ozone layer is in no way related to Climate Change as regarding temperature.  The climate change here is the amount of UV radiation allowed through our atmosphere.  Too much UV creates more skin cancer.  On a higher level too much UV could begin to kill vegetation.  It does seem that the ozone layer may repair itself.

Answer 4

Well, the CO2 emissions don't have anything to do with the ozone layer--two different issues.  Stopping CO2 emissions will stop global warming from getting worse--and eventually stop it altogether (though that will take many decades--there is no quick fix).

Hydrogen is a possible technology--but personally, I don't think it a likely candidate.  The reason is this: currently, we get the hydrogen from oil; for hydrogen cars to do any good, we have to develop a means of cost-effictively getting hydrogen from water.  Doing that is easy--jsut run a n electric current through water. Doing it cost effectively is another matter--it takes a lot of electricity.

Here's the thing--if we develop systems to produce all that electricity using alternative energy (very likely we can--we are almost there,in fact)-its much easier, cheaper, and more efficient to jsut build electric cars.  With current technology, they perform as welll as gasoline-powered cars and have more range than hydrogen cars would.

Either way, you are right about one thing--gasoline (petrol) is obsolete.  It really schould have been scrapped years ago.

Answer 5

Maybe! The fuel we use is up for grabs. Saw where plactic was being made into hydrogen. We have to fix the ozone layer if we want to live on earth!

We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. We do not have time to go through the government red tape, government has to change. Without governments mandating renewable resources that do not harm the environment, we are doomed. We have to take the time to get it right. With oil on the decline, we have to make massive changes, swiftly. But we can not do this twice, or three times - like in the past; we have to put our money in the best return on investments and where we get multiple benefits. We can not redo this one. We have had most of this technology for 20 years but have not implemented it. We know what is cost effective; we know where we need better technology. The fossil fuel depression with global warming will be the worst economic downturn in world history. But this is not doom and gloom; we have the ability to fix our mess and enough time. Solar Concentrating Electric Power Plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are what we need. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and cleanup) for oil, natural gas, coal, cigarettes, cooling towers, cars, trains and airplanes. Raising the price of fossil fuel today gives us more time to solve these problems and helps pay for the 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years. Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal.

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve global warming. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon – anyone willing to pay $30 per gallon for gas. The problem is the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages (gone at least to run cars, heat homes, power electric plants or air travel). The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%, but I would prefer a 5% Solution over the next 10 years for a 50% reduction. At the same time, we have to be building renewable energy so at the end of 10 years we can cut an additional 20%. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak natural gas in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. Global warming projects over the next 90 years that carbon dioxide will skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels, but where is this fuel? We have to come up with what will take its place and cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuclear winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain and other forests, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy food from out side the USA to send to starving people since our grain is not available.

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and we are far behind).

Now what USA Presidential candidate is giving you the facts so you can make an educated decision of which one to vote for?

Education is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface. Watch for changes in the sight coming soon.

Answer 6

No, hydrogen will never replace petroleum as a transportation fuel.

Answer 7

Hydrogen cars suck. I'm hoping someday petrol cars will disappear into history and almost all cars will be electric.

The truth is, gasoline cars are the ones that should be in niche applications.

Answer 8

Yah, but that will happen about 200 years from now.