[sammuller]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

.... Add that H2, once freed, is a gas with very low energy density it makes for a lousy fuel for vehicles.
.

Just want to jump in here and clarify: By weight/mass, hydrogen contains much more energy than almost any other fuel, however it is very voluminous (in gaseous state) so a certain amount of energy takes up much more volume than say a fossil fuel. The fuel tank in a car for a 400 mile range would take up more than 5 times the volume of the same energy in gasoline form. Not very easy to package...

In liquid form it gets much better but still not on par with fossil fuels and then you have the problem of long term storage. No matter how well you insulate the tank, you'll lose a substantial amount of fuel (=range) while you park your car at an airport for 2 weeks.

Look at the most powerful and efficient rocket engines. What is their fuel? Hydrogen! Pound for pound it packs more energy than anything else.

I do like the idea of hydrogen, but the storage and distribution are MAJOR obstacles. I am curious to see how the aviation industry, that is now trying out a transition to hydrogen, is going to tackle that problem.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

About 30% of automotive CO2 gets recycled into O2 every day.

Interested in knowing where you got this and what it means.

Where does the other 70% go?

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

About 30% of automotive CO2 gets recycled into O2 every day.

Let's assume the figure is correct. The system can only absorb so much.

This is why C02 levels have been increasing dramatically since the industrial revolution.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by David70

Interested in knowing where you got this and what it means.

Where does the other 70% go?

Remember the Carbon cycle from grade school?

[Scrippy]

Oh I know, my buddies rock crawler runs on LPG. He likes it because he can never flood on extreme inclines or angles. But there is still spent gas coming out of the pipe, albeit much less. The conversion was easy and most motors can swap to this. But to be scared of the engineering needed to make hydrogen feasible is silly when it comes with the most acceptable byproduct. You know that Toyota did this already with the Mirai? You did nail it when you said it’s not known for performance but that’s what BMW and mostly all auto manufacturers do. They push the engineering into function. If it were my call……I’d like to stay with petrol because the sound and performance is amazing. Not to mention the motors are runnining cleaner and cleaner with each iteration. I guess all I’m getting at is that it could be done and will be done.

[David70]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Remember the Carbon cycle from grade school?

Hard to believe only 30% is absorbed and 70% isn't. I realize he said "today" but tomorrow will be another day of 30% absorbed and 70% that isn't. Seems far worse than I would have expected. Imagine someone that said that each day they burn 30% of the calories they take in each day.

Still interested in hearing where this number came from.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Let's assume the figure is correct. The system can only absorb so much.

This is why C02 levels have been increasing dramatically since the industrial revolution.

Even if this were true, it could be easily dealt with through the global greening that results.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

About 30% of automotive CO2 gets recycled into O2 every day.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The terrestrial carbon sink.

Neither say anything about automotive CO2 and both are talking about role forests play in the the total CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Neusser

Even if this were true, it could be easily dealt with through the global greening that results.

No it won't because the amount of emissions continues to grow. This is why companies are working on sequestering carbon.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Ah, another internet argument that requires a thesis paper...

The terrestrial carbon sink (forest) consumes "about 30% of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels" (read in the attachment to my previous post). NASA states "Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions" by photosynthesis (read in the attachment to my previous post). NOAA states about 31% of CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the earth's oceans. The ocean can sequester CO2 for hundreds or even thousands of years. CO2 in the atmosphere is CO2, the source of the CO2 is immaterial to the discussion; all CO2 sources mix together in the atmosphere.

So, add the terrestrial carbon sink with the ocean carbon sink and that's around 60% of automotive emissions are recycled by mother earth. 60% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation are also recycled by mother earth. Mother earth doesn't recycle the toxic chemicals in EV batteries. In fact, once EV battery recycling comes on line in significant capacity, that industry will produce additional carbon emissions because most recycling activities require energy for the recycling process.

Believe the science.

We need more forest, more oceans, and less cities.

If what you said in the first statement made sense I wouldn't have questioned it.

About 30% of automotive CO2 gets recycled into O2 every day.

What you should have said- - 30% of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is absorbed by forests.

As for the disposal problem, you are acting like CO2 is the only pollutant ICE is producing. Note the brown haze that hangs over most major cities that we breath in. Batteries, if recycled, disposed of properly I won't ingest any of it.

As for the net result of batteries, there are ways to recyle most of the battery, there are ways to dispose of the waste properly. Plastics don't decay in a reasonable amount of time, neither does nuclear waste.

No idea what you are proposing with the "we need more forest, more oceans, and less cities" --- We aren't getting more oceans, if everyone from the city left and went to the country it would be far worse for society.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Less cities and more forest...

The accumulation and what it means is at the center of the debate of course. Saying it is increasing means nothing really. Deciding on what is a proper or correct level in the atmosphere is just a guess.

CO2 is good. It just depends on how you look at it. I plan on exhaling it for the rest of my life. To help the trees of course.

The question is over the impact to the climate over the rapid, in geological terms, iincrease in CO2

Oceans absorb some but eventually it'll reduce the pH of saltwater which can have a negative impact on fish stocks.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

No it won't because the amount of emissions continues to grow. This is why companies are working on sequestering carbon.

That is why you think they are working on sequestering carbon.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Ah, another internet argument that requires a thesis paper...

The terrestrial carbon sink (forest) consumes "about 30% of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels" (read in the attachment to my previous post). NASA states "Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions" by photosynthesis (read in the attachment to my previous post). NOAA states about 31% of CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the earth's oceans. The ocean can sequester CO2 for hundreds or even thousands of years. CO2 in the atmosphere is CO2, the source of the CO2 is immaterial to the discussion; all CO2 sources mix together in the atmosphere.

So, add the terrestrial carbon sink with the ocean carbon sink and that's around 60% of automotive emissions are recycled by mother earth. 60% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation are also recycled by mother earth. Mother earth doesn't recycle the toxic chemicals in EV batteries. In fact, once EV battery recycling comes on line in significant capacity, that industry will produce additional carbon emissions because most recycling activities require energy for the recycling process.

Believe the science.

We need more forest, more oceans, and less cities.

I agree with much of what you write, but at this point I don't even think we need fewer cities.

The idea that we are pushing the global ecosystem toward catastrophe is unfounded and serves only to push the Davos agenda. And that agenda means the end of private property, geofencing, and digital trackers linked up to the IoT.

A dystopian nightmare.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Neusser

That is why you think they are working on sequestering carbon.

I know they are. Oil companies specifically are working on it.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Yeah, that was the newest fear mongering once enough people talked back that the climate constantly changes, the argument pivoted to the rate of CO2 increase. Again, all modeling. The geological record has proven the earth has built in climate controls.

CO2 and other GHG have always been the underlying reason.

The concern is how disruptive a changing climate will be for the human race. Concerns range from a loss of capital due to rising sea levels along coastal cities to food/water shortages which cause massive migrations of people across national boundaries.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm sticking with Darwin; animals adapt to the climate rather than the other way around.

Yes, and the crux of the BS remains the idea that more CO2 is bad. CO2 simply greens the planet. Nature has already provided the tools for the job.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Again, I don't need to write an internet thesis paper every time I post. You asked for the source for the number and I presented the source. The two sources state CO2 is absorbed by the forest and vegetation. CO2 is cited by most climate fearers as the concerning greenhouse gas mostly created by automobiles (there are nearly 8 billion people on the planet that exhaust CO2 as well, but let's leave that subject alone). I never discounted other oxides, such as nitrogen, don't warrant concern, but catalytic converters were invented to burn most of those compounds post combustion in the cylinder. And we are getting more oceans, as the climate fearers tell us, the oceans are rising. If oceans both recycle and sequester CO2, rising oceans are a good thing. If green plants recycle CO2 into oxygen, we need more green plants.

I question your statements when they don't make sense as written. You are welcome to write whatever you want. Yes CO2 is absorbed by the forest, thanks.

For a year, our human produces about 365 x 0.7 kilograms a year, or 255 kilograms.

https://www.globe.gov/explore-scienc...5%20kilograms.

The average annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from a typical passenger vehicle is around 4.6 metric tons. This is based on the assumption that the average gasoline vehicle gets 22.2 miles per gallon and drives 11,500 miles per year.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/gr...senger-vehicle

255 kilograms = .255 metric tons ==== The car is the same as 18 people.

This thread is turning in the same sh7t show as the EV thread, must be slow over there. No longer anything to do with the topic of hydrogen, same old story.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by David70

I question your statements when they don't make sense as written. You are welcome to write whatever you want. Yes CO2 is absorbed by the forest, thanks.




https://www.globe.gov/explore-scienc...5%20kilograms.



https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/gr...senger-vehicle

255 kilograms = .255 metric tons ==== The car is the same as 18 people.

This thread is turning in the same sh7t show as the EV thread, must be slow over there. No longer anything to do with the topic of hydrogen, same old story.

Perhaps the thread took the turn it did is because all of these new technologies are predicated on the idea that we need something to replace oil.

It seems fine to me to question the very genesis of the supposed need for these technologies in a thread about one of them.

Over here in Germany, the auto industry is being slowly dismantled (and the national economy with it) under the guise that we need to save the climate. EVs, hydrogen, etc., are being floated as solutions, but we can already see that EVs are not a solution, so before betting the farm on the next idea, perhaps we should examine who is telling us we have to do these things and why...

[SportySpice]

Originally Posted by Neusser

Perhaps the thread took the turn it did is because all of these new technologies are predicated on the idea that we need something to replace oil.

It seems fine to me to question the very genesis of the supposed need for these technologies in a thread about one of them.

Over here in Germany, the auto industry is being slowly dismantled (and the national economy with it) under the guise that we need to save the climate. EVs, hydrogen, etc., are being floated as solutions, but we can already see that EVs are not a solution, so before betting the farm on the next idea, perhaps we should examine who is telling us we have to do these things and why...

Are “we” really still questioning anthropogenic climate change? Just wow.

[BroDoze]

What temperature should it be right now?

First to actually answer that question gets a cookie.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by SportySpice

Are “we” really still questioning anthropogenic climate change? Just wow.

Eco-greenie with his B58.

It takes all kinds, I guess.

[Nahlem]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Again, I don't need to write an internet thesis paper every time I post. You asked for the source for the number and I presented the source. The two sources state CO2 is absorbed by the forest and vegetation. CO2 is cited by most climate fearers as the concerning greenhouse gas mostly created by automobiles (there are nearly 8 billion people on the planet that exhaust CO2 as well, but let's leave that subject alone). I never discounted other oxides, such as nitrogen, don't warrant concern, but catalytic converters were invented to burn most of those compounds post combustion in the cylinder. And we are getting more oceans, as the climate fearers tell us, the oceans are rising. If oceans both recycle and sequester CO2, rising oceans are a good thing. If green plants recycle CO2 into oxygen, we need more green plants.

Lets see where to start with this first and foremost it is correct nature do absorb co2 but not all co2 that is a false claim, our plants and vegetations do adapt but not as fast as we pour out co2, we also do not know how much co2 is stored in our oceans or can be stored nor do we want to find out alright sense once the oceans tips to a certain threshold its game over.

The fact that you use one of the worst arguments in history if ever one existed about humans exhaling co2 and saying that is not an issue without realising that everything we exhale is part of the natural cycle and fossil fuels aint so stop spreading that myth. The fossil fuels that we are burning is co2 that has been stored away from our atmosphere and removed by time it self that we are now pouring back in to our atmosphere again causing weather events to become worse then they actually need to be.

No catalytic converters do not convert all our emissions in to less harmful stuff nor do they work properly the first 10-15 min of starting a car before they get to the proper operating temperature a lot of people has less then that to their work in their cars. So no they do not get the cars up to proper temperature before turning the car off again.

If the emissions weren't harmful to us from the cars then by all means it shouldn't be dangerous to sit in a garage with the car on right?

So stop spreading miss information that is being pumped out by the big oil companies and get your facts straight.