Originally posted by Madman
water vapour may be less dangerous than carbon dioxide and definitely than monoxide, but any greenhouse gas has the potential to damage the environment,
OK, well I'll ignore the fact that you're the only person on this planet whom I've ever heard claim that water vapor is harmful to the environment, and I'll move on to a few simple facts:
- There is no way to tell if enough water vapor could be released to do any sort of damage.
- Even if it were possible, we must remember that a great deal of this water vapor would instantly condense and turn to liquid almost immediately after exiting the tailpipe of the vehicle.
- Further, a great deal if the remaining water would condense and fall back to Earth the farther is rose, because the atmosphere would be cooler at higher altitudes. The cooler the air, the less water vapor it can sustain.
a hydrogen engine is a great solution, but unfortunately we need to clear the atmosphere of the current excess of greenhouse gasses and that could take nearly a hundred years
Once again ignoring the fact that nobody has ever been able to prove that these co-called "greenhouse gases" do anything (there is equal or greater evidence to the contrary,) I'd still like to know where you pulled 100 years from. Let me see the calculations that led you to that conclusion.
a billion cars producing even 100ml of water vapour a day would definitely be a noticeable amount
First of all, I'd be terribly surprised to learn that one billion functioning automobiles are operated daily, I should think the actual numbers would fall a couple hundred-million below that.
Even if that were true, however, we once again have the question of your mathematics. I'd love to see the calculations you did that prove such releases would be harmful.
I should hope you did some calculations at all, instead of something silly, like pulling figures out of your ass.
My point is, since the greenies are so up-tight about cars today, and they think fuel-cells are a solution, hydrogen-fueled internal combustion is obviously an even better solution, superior to fuel cells in every relevant way. If they're willing to settle for fuel cells, they should have no problem settling for this instead. Besides, I think you're overreacting about this water vapor business. Nobody has been able to prove that these so-called "greenhouse gases" are in any way harmful, or even that excess amounts of them exist, so I doubt the situation should be any different concerning water vapor.
Don't believe every little thing you're told. Originally, the same people who cry about "global warming" today, were weeping over "global cooling" 30 years ago. And the funniest part is, they blamed it on the same things they blame global warming on now.
The truth is, nobody has done enough research to be able to prove anything outright, and it'd unlikely anybody will too soon. It has been proven that Earth goes through cycles of warm/cool temperatures, and there's no evidence that we are the cause of any fluctuations in that pattern.
One has to remember that the planet is a very very large place, which has survived natural catastrophes far worse than anything we have yet to create with our technology. It is more likely than not that our Earth has a very wide margin of error for things like carbon-dioxide levels, and that we don't have the capacity to exceed that margin yet.
I don't see the point in getting all worked up over these phantom facts.