Hydrogen can hurt the environment?
Yahoo news......
Obviously this isn't final, and it seems like they could fix it given enough time but just thought that it was intersting that even hydrogen can kill the ozone layer.
Obviously this isn't final, and it seems like they could fix it given enough time but just thought that it was intersting that even hydrogen can kill the ozone layer.
Comments
Oh well. I'm just saying this reads more like "fluff" (with a grain of truth) than real, life-impacting news.
Never heard of this atmospheric CFC-like ozone depletion issue. I wonder if there are adequate computer models to test such things out with any degree of reliability.
Maybe it should have read :
"Yahoo news causes Ozone breakdown "
One environmental problem with burning hydrogen that I've heard of before is the production of nitrous oxide:
wait, so if we switch to hydrogen fuel, instead of CO pollution we'll get Nitrus?
dude, laughing gas for everyone! Woo Hoo!!!
the world will be a happier place.
Originally posted by aquafire
"Yahoo news causes Ozone breakdown "
Good one!
As for mitigation of NOx's, it's called a catalytic convertor. Since they have them for cars now, I don't thing it will be such a stretch to come up with one for hydrogen.
Originally posted by shetline
One environmental problem with burning hydrogen that I've heard of before is the production of nitrous oxide: using ordinary air to burn hydrogen, air which is about 70% nitrogen, can cause some of the oxygen in the air to combine with available nitrogen as well as the hydrogen fuel.
Fuel Cells are not actually "burning" hydrogen. Burning gaz in a regular engine produces heat and pressure that move the pistons. In fuel cells the hydrogen is oxydized to produce directly free electrons, which causes an electric current. I'm not sure, but i think nitrous oxydes cannot form unless there is some heat involved, and fuel cells do not get hot (except maybe from the resistance to electric current, but that's another matter, and if well designed, it won't happen). But you may correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by tonton
So the ozone gets eaten up."
That shows how it takes a single chloride atom to start a chain reaction that potentially eats up a hell of a lot of ozone.
One of the Major scientific flaws with the " CFC eats up the Ozone hypothesis " is that not a single atmospheric scientist ( meteorolgist ) has been able to show or indeed model how the CFC gases allegedly transmigrate from the Northern hemisphere ( where the bulk of industrially made-CFC-production occured ) to rent a hole in ozone at the southern pole. It is in itself a mojor hurdle.
But even if we accept for a moment that such man made CFC's cleverly migrate to the Antarctic for the summer holidays, it still needs to be pointed out that unlike the Artic , the Antarctic is a continental land mass which includes one of the world's largest & most active volcanoes..Mount Erubus.
Since the mid 1980's volcanologists & atmospheric scientists have discovered that Mount Erubus spews out over 150,000 tons of HF per year ( Hydrogen Flouride ) directly into the ozone hole.
in comparison, only 2,500 tons of man made flourines are released as the result of CFC break-up.
(1995 figures ). This finding is supported by further research into the relationship between natural volcanic activity & ozone depletion. (Nature 8/4/88 ).
It is increasingly clear that the "Ozone Depletion " theory is in need of a serious re-assesment, mainly because evidence is growing to suggest that rather than it being a direct outcome of mankind's industrial pollutants, it is a naturally ocuring cycle.
But your correct in being concerned about CFC's.
It is one of the culprits, but in comparison to what Erebus & the numerous volcanoes that rim the southern pacific, including the Andes, Indonesia, New Guinea, new Zealand spew into the southern atmosphere..it truly is tiddly winks in its effect on the Ozone " Problem " 8)
Benefits are, of course, in no longer having to pussyfoot with errant Arabs, and though not "free and clean" it's still better than what we're using right now. Research into bio-fuels, however, should not be abandoned, we will still burn organic fuels by all accounts, perhaps it would be better to grow them rather than mine them?
Originally posted by aquafire
One of the Major scientific flaws with the " CFC eats up the Ozone hypothesis " is that not a single atmospheric scientist ( meteorolgist ) has been able to show or indeed model how the CFC gases allegedly transmigrate from the Northern hemisphere ( where the bulk of industrially made-CFC-production occured ) to rent a hole in ozone at the southern pole. It is in itself a mojor hurdle.
But even if we accept for a moment that such man made CFC's cleverly migrate to the Antarctic for the summer holidays, it still needs to be pointed out that unlike the Artic , the Antarctic is a continental land mass which includes one of the world's largest & most active volcanoes..Mount Erubus.
Since the mid 1980's volcanologists & atmospheric scientists have discovered that Mount Erubus spews out over 150,000 tons of HF per year ( Hydrogen Flouride ) directly into the ozone hole.
in comparison, only 2,500 tons of man made flourines are released as the result of CFC break-up.
(1995 figures ). This finding is supported by further research into the relationship between natural volcanic activity & ozone depletion. (Nature 8/4/88 ).
It is increasingly clear that the "Ozone Depletion " theory is in need of a serious re-assesment, mainly because evidence is growing to suggest that rather than it being a direct outcome of mankind's industrial pollutants, it is a naturally ocuring cycle.
But your correct in being concerned about CFC's.
It is one of the culprits, but in comparison to what Erebus & the numerous volcanoes that rim the southern pacific, including the Andes, Indonesia, New Guinea, new Zealand spew into the southern atmosphere..it truly is tiddly winks in its effect on the Ozone " Problem " 8)
Its not the flourine that is causing the ozone depletion in models, it is the chlorine. Florine radicals are simply not as stable (and thus are not formed as readily)as chlorine radicals and cannot propigate the radical reaction as easily.
and to answer tonton's question, the stars after the hydroxyl (HO*) and the oxygen O2*, indicate that these species are radicals capable of continuing to react... However, I suspect that it is a lot easier to form atomic chlorine than it is to for atomic hydrogen (actually, i am sure of it)...
(oh, and i have some inside information on the direction the government (and Apple!!11!,jk) is taking on the production of h2 in large quantities) )
Originally posted by groverat
The o-zone layer is a myth perpetuated by Communists and lesbians.
cynical moderator emeritus, why do you forsake the communist lesbians?
Originally posted by billybobsky
Its not the flourine that is causing the ozone depletion in models, it is the chlorine. Florine radicals are simply not as stable (and thus are not formed as readily)as chlorine radicals and cannot propigate the radical reaction as easily.
I beg to differ re Flourine, that it is in the quantity of output.
Furthermore if Chlorine is shown to be the culprit, how do you account for the fact that over 600 million tons of Chloride are evaporated from the ocean every year.?
And yes whilst the vast percentage is returned within a short span cycle, it still leaves over sufficient quantities of Chlorine in the air to far outway anything we ever put into the atmosphere by way of industrially manufactured CFC's
Sadly, much of what passes for dogma is questionable science.
Rowland & Molina (1973) Theory of Ozone depletion based on the Chlorine radical model assumed that CFC's were so inert that there are no sinks*
Further, they assumed that ultraviolet radiation breaks up CFC's in the stratosphere thereby freeing a chlorine atom. The theory futher assumes that Chlorine reacts with ozone to produce daitomic oxygen and a highly reactive compound, Chlorine monoxide.
This is the basis of the claimed Molina model of Chain reaction.
Using the CFC-12 refrigerant as the base we see :
CC12F2+Ultraviolet radiation--->C1+CC1F2
C1+O3...>C1O+O2
C1O+O...>C1=O2
Unfortunately neither Molina or Rowland had backgrounds in Atmospheric chemistry ( stratospheric ) nor in its modelling. ( Molina's background was in Chemical lasers. )
So they never took into account the fact that CFC ( depending on which compound is being weighed ) can be as much as 8 times heavier than air. Massive air updrafting is needed to catapult such heavy-weight compounds into the upper stratosphere where they are meant reamain long enough to do their damage.
As per Sinks I can't list them all but some immediately come to mind.
Oceans ( both inorganic & organic sinks ), soils, terrestial biomass ( lipoproteins ), even air borne biota all gobble up CFC's as a food source.
This is the same fate that Australian Doctor's A.Khalil & Rasmussen came upon when they were attempting to calibrate Freon gas exchange on soils infested with termite colonies. ( 1989 ) CSIRO
I don't have all the facts & figures before me, but these at least should raise a few doubts..about the standard research ( tied to research funding ) answers that are poured out by the doom merchants.
8)
produce more CFC's! then they won't have any problem finding eachother, and will leave the ozone alone!
Originally posted by aquafire
Furthermore if Chlorine is shown to be the culprit, how do you account for the fact that over 600 million tons of Chloride are evaporated from the ocean every year.?
So they never took into account the fact that CFC ( depending on which compound is being weighed ) can be as much as 8 times heavier than air. Massive air updrafting is needed to catapult such heavy-weight compounds into the upper stratosphere where they are meant reamain long enough to do their damage.
First a little chemistry. The formation of a chlorine radical from CFC's is strongly dependent on the florines. Why? Because florines stabilize the carbon radical. Homeolytic cleavage of a Cl-C bond is a very high energy process, adding flourines reduces the energy of this cleavage by stabiliting the carbon radical, reducing the energy increases the wavelength of light needed to break the bond which subsequently increases the amount of output of Cl*.
Second a little common sense. Weight eh? Weight has very little (other than difussion locally and the a low correlation to boiling point) to do with volitility of compounds (boiling point is a better scale). Once a compound is in the air it remains in the air unless a) the pressure increases when the temperature remains the same or decreases or b) the temperature decreases to below boiling point at the given pressure or c) it becomes part of a solution that is liquid. No massive uplifting is needed.
The CFCs are just lonely. All they want in life is to meet a nice CFC and take that CFC home to the CFC family and make little happy CFC babies and live in peace.
Goddam Communist lesbians with their O-Zone! The destruction of the American Fluorocarbon family!
Originally posted by groverat
alcimedes is right.
The CFCs are just lonely. All they want in life is to meet a nice CFC and take that CFC home to the CFC family and make little happy CFC babies and live in peace.
Goddam Communist lesbians with their O-Zone! The destruction of the American Fluorocarbon family!
goddam commies.
they're the ones who put flourine in our water to begin with. now they just want to f*ck with our heads...