I’m not necessarily a proponent of biofuel as THE solution, but I do think it makes sense to focus on technologies for renewable energy – the sooner the better.

IMO the largest barrier in the US to increased energy efficiency and creation of energy from renewable energy is our individual and group insistance on ‘choice’. Especially with regard to transportion and lodging. It’s almost curious that there isn’t much discussion of the benefits of increasing access to mass transportation, or of requiring individual residences or small businesses to be more energy efficient. Yet those probably have larger effects on global warming than individual transportation to and from work. However people would rather pay more individually for transportation in the short-term than ‘invest’ collectively in increased efficiency from mass-transit or support anything that limits their choice.

I’d also say that the overall movement toward electric solutions is coming from individuals who WANT to do the right thing – and see an electric or hybrid vehicle as a way that they can personally contribute to the right thing. (Whether it is the right thing or not is -almost- beside the point!)

I think people focus most on what they think can actually be done. Addressing the issue of heating and cooling billions of residences, stores, and workplaces as well as transporting GOODS from place to place (and not just getting individuals to work) is beyond most people’s vision – so they focus on the personal vehicle.

Yep. The Climate is so much more complicated than Gore and his ilk want us to believe, in order to control our lives and con us out of our money.

But then I ran across a blog for the Science Policy at the U of Colorado. And oddly enough, several there had the same question… what is the effects of increasing water vapor on the global climate, and what results would the wide use of hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles have?

Their point was that further research should be conducted to explore whether or not (and to what degree) such effects would be significant, even if such research leads to a dismissal of concerns. So perhaps my hypothetical jump, asking if increased water vapor was such a good idea, isn’t such a dumb question afterall.

A global fleet could have the potential to emit amounts large enough to affect local or regional distribution of water vapor. Variation in water vapor affects local, regional, and global climates

(1). Data on such effects are sparse because of complexities in the water vapor life cycle. However, our preliminary calculations indicate that a complete shift to fuel cell vehicles would do little to slow water vapor emissions, which presumably have increased perceptibly in some metropolitan locations through the growth in use of internal combustion engines. In some locations, changes in relative humidity related to human activity have arguably affected local and regional climate

(2, 3). Depending on the fuel cell technologies actually employed, relative humidity in some locales might conceivably increase by an amount greater than with internal combustion engines. This increase could lead to shifts in local or regional precipitation or temperature patterns, with discernible effects on people and ecosystems The broad environmental effects of fuel cell vehicles are an issue worth addressing via a technology assessment before implementing a solution

(4). Not all problems can be anticipated in this manner, but if some can, then the effort will have been well spent (5). In the case of hydrogen cars, the cure may indeed be better than the disease, but we should make sure before taking our medicine.”

Their point was not that the increased vapor would, or would not be significant, as they hadn’t done that research. But they certainly believed more research was necessary before implementation.

Three of them wrote a letter to Science magazine, addressing the wisdom of hydrogen cars, and the lack of data for their impact. This was printed in the letters to the editor section. They got one of those “we are skeptical” type responses from the editors. Of note in their rebuttal was:

We are skeptical, however, that water vapor produced by combustion can have any important effect except when it is emitted into the stratosphere.

Again, we come back to water vapor in the upper layers of the atmosphere, and it’s effect. Evidently, there is just not a lot known about this global vapor flow. For example in 2006, NASA found that that thunderstorms over Tibet provide a main pathway for water vapor and chemicals to travel from the lower atmosphere, where human activity directly affects atmospheric composition, into the stratosphere, where the protective ozone layer resides. They also found that even tho there was more thunderstorms over India, the storms over Tibet transported nearly three times more water vapor into the lower stratosphere than happened in India.

The study also found that the same pathway is responsible for transporting carbon monoxide, an indicator of air pollution, into the upper atmosphere.

“There’s almost no carbon monoxide production in Tibet, so it’s widely believed that carbon monoxide is transported to the tropopause over Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent,” Fu said. The tropopause divides the lower atmosphere from the stratosphere, and is located at an altitude of about 18 kilometers (11 miles) above Earth over the tropics and Tibet.

Fu added, “Our study finds thunderstorms over Tibet transport as much carbon monoxide to the lower stratosphere as do those over India. When long-lived pollutants are transported out of the lower atmosphere, they can move rapidly. Pollutants from Asia, for example, can wind up on the other side of the world.”

In the 2nd paragraph of this article, they point out they really need to learn more about how water vapor reaches the stratosphere. Which basically asserts the U of Colorado Science Policy group’s suggestion that far more needs to be learned before we “take our medicine.”

That’s what nits are for, to be picked. Good work! (Better to make a small mistake looking for the truth, then to do nothing and think you are avoiding errors, because that is the biggest mistake of all.)

And note that I didn’t say it was “the same”, just “about the same.”

Also, don’t forget that H2 is (alleged to be) about twice as efficient as gasoline, so if that is true you only have to “burn” 1/2 as much to get the same amt of work as for gas containing the same energy equivalent, which then makes it about 4.5 Kg H20 produced instead of 9 Kg, or “about the same” as for gasoline. — a LOT closer than I thought, actually!

And, even if gas produced less, that would indeed make gas “better” by that criterion, which is the wrong way for the eccofreaks (is that why they don’t talk about it?) who really aren’t interrested in making things better, just feeling better about themselves, regardless of the damage they do (as I’m guessing you know).

1 Kg of Hydrogen is about equal in energy to 3 Kg of gasoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density).

Atomic weights:
H = 1
C = 12
O = 16

3 Kg C8H18 (pure octane) contains 2.5 Kg Carbon and .5 Kg Hydrogen

1 Kg H2 => 9 Kg of H20 (1 Kg H2 + .5×16 Kg O2)

2.5 Kg C => 6.7 Kg CO2 (2.5 Kg C + 2×2.5x(16/12) Kg 02)
.5 Kg H2 => 4.5 Kg H20

So, unless my math is off. Gasoline outputs half the water vapor as hydrogen for the same energy output.

Frankly, tt doesn’t mean much to me because I don’t thing that we have a problem with human caused greenhouse warming anyway, but I just wanted to pick a few nits.

Is your source on-line? If so I would like to take a look at it. Actually, no one knows the precise number, although there are ranges that many researchers accept as valid. In fact, no precise number exists, because the effect of each component varies by season, latitude, topography, etc., and concentration of itself and other components. And since the dynamics aren’t understood, the models are flawed. I don’t believe a model even if it tells me everything is ok, so I’m certainly not going to believe one that tells me there’s a problem. Anyway, thanks in advance for any link to that # you can provide.

@MataHarley

In addition to wasting water and wasting food, there is another problem with biofuels.
Biofuels Produce More Greenhouse Gases Than Oil and Gasoline It has to do with the Nitrogen fertilizers that result in Nitrous Oxide production. And, unlike OmegaPaladin’s claim about water being a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, Nitrous Oxide really is. Ooops!

My source says water vapor is 44X as potent but it’s not clear whether it’s per molecule or in total.

I’m glad someone mentioned that all burned fuels generate water vapor. In the case of methane, twice as many molecules of water are created than of CO2.

I know that to be false, but I’m curious to see why you think it’s not. Please, explain, WITH references.

Minimata Bay was NOT due to battery recycling or lithium. It was due to methyl mercury from factories using the mercury as a catalyst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
Lithium is toxic, but it has considerably different effects. en.wikipedia.org…

And the corn to ethanol scam was shown to have the same weakness with the floods in the MidWest, which caused crop damage, and delayed plantings, all told causing a considerable decrease in expected yield. And who knows what else could happen. The oil, on the other hand, is there already. If we mess up, we could lose it, but with crops we can’t be sure of what we will get till we’ve got it. And that’s year after year after year… It’s an crisis waiting to happen!

Flaw in your arguments:

Electric vehicles don’t produce water vapour.
Fuel cells are the devices that produce pure water vapour from hydrogen and oxygen.

You are technically correct, Arthur. I should have made it clear I was talking about the hydrogen powered electric cars that emit water vapor – as you like to put it, because of the fuel cell propulsion technology.

And technically you are corrrect in that you aren’t pouring water into the cars to work. But the water usage required to advance the technology is undeniable. And that same problem of one step forward and three steps back applies to hydrogen as well.

The reason hydrogen-powered cars would produce more carbon dioxide emissions than regular cars starts with the fact that it takes energy to create hydrogen. One way to produce hydrogen is to extract it directly from fossil fuels; indeed, a 2004 National Academy of Sciences study predicted that fossil fuels would be the main source of hydrogen for “several decades.” The other way is to split water molecules using electricity. Naturally, BMW talks up this approach, envisioning electricity that would ultimately be supplied by renewable sources. BMW brochures feature the Hydrogen 7 parked in front of wind turbines and shiny photovoltaic arrays. But renewable sources furnish only 2 percent of the world’s electricity (not counting hydropower’s 16 percent). Coal, by contrast, supplies 39 percent–and is the worst emitter of carbon dioxide, watt for watt. Clearly, a great use for renewable power is to replace coal power. But is it worthwhile to divert even a small part of it to the task of manufacturing hydrogen?

According to Romm’s analysis, the math for hydrogen cars simply doesn’t work out. Burning coal to generate one megawatt-hour of electricity produces about 2,100 pounds of carbon dioxide. It follows that one megawatt-hour of renewable power can avert those emissions. Using that electricity to make hydrogen would yield enough fuel for a fuel-cell car to travel about 1,000 miles, Romm says. But driving those 1,000 miles in a gasoline-­powered car that gets 40 miles per gallon would produce just 485 pounds of carbon dioxide. In this sense, Romm says, a vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cells would indirectly create four times the carbon dioxide emissions of today’s most efficient gasoline cars.

And the numbers for the Hydrogen 7 are worse, because it burns hydrogen. Combustion produces thrilling torque, but it’s far less efficient than fuel-cell technology. Also counting against the Hydrogen 7 is the fact that it stores hydrogen as a liquid; chilling hydrogen and compressing it into liquid form consumes more energy than storing it as a compressed gas. “It’s safe to say this is a pointless activity,” Romm says. “BMW has managed to develop the least efficient conceivable vehicle that you could invent.”

According to a Seattle Times article, they said if the entire US vehicle fleet turned electric overnight, they estimate 70% drop in gas consumption, and a 17% jump in power useage. In order to supply the extra needs, wind and solar farms aren’t going to be enough, and nuclear power must be added to the mix. This article was discussing the GM plug in hybrid, the Volt… requiring a six hour charge from a normal outlet for a 40 mile commute.

Needless to say, if plug ins are the future of the world, it’s a good time to get a class A electrician’s license, because there’s going to be a lot of new outlets wired to accommodate for everyone plugging in their cars….

And what happens in a power outage? Everyone takes the day off? Kewl…. Amazing to think you can bring a nation to a complete halt with a brown out.

Dunno…. still have to come to the conclusion that most of these cures just create other problems. I suspect we’ll end up with a potpourri of “cure”. Auto manuf will improve the combustion engine, and some will go the plug in/hybrid way.

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19125621.200.html

You might consider…
http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm
…with caution, of course…
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/329904/hydrogen_gas_generator_for_your_car.html?page=5&cat=27

How a fuel cell works…
http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm