Tom is Clever: January 2021

It's story time.

Once upon a time, I was on my High School Debate Team. We played in the Policy Debate format, meaning we were divided into teams of two, I had a partner, and there was one topic, or resolution, for the entire season. Each team prepared to either agree with the resolution and argue to affirm it, or disagree and argue to uphold the status quo. The debate is structured around four 8 minute speeches, one given by each team member, each speech rebutted by a 4 minute cross examination, and then closed with a 4 minute rebuttal closing speech. The debate is mediated and judged by an impartial debate judge, usually an adult/teacher.

In the late 90's the National Policy Debate Resolution one year was as follows:

That the Federal Government Should Establish a Policy to Substantially Increase Renewable Energy Use in the United States

My partner and I were both first year debaters. We were persuaded to debate as the Affirmative Team. There are some advantages to that. The Affirmative Team goes first in the debate structure. We get to define the terms of the resolution, and set the agenda for what will be debated and what can be challenged by the other side. Not only does the Affirmative Team have to show why the resolution should be adopted, but also create a plan for implementation. In contrast, the Negative team has to address and defeat each of the opposition's assertions for necessity, but also cast the plan in doubt.

We set to work establishing our argument. While researching renewables, we ran into a few obscure articles on hydrogen fuel cells. At the time, the use of hydrogen fuel had barely begun to make a resurgence, long abandoned after the '40s. The papers, articles, and anecdotes we were able to collect told a story of a very real possibility of a clean burning fuel source, theoretically renewable, able to fully supplant coal and oil in fixed point power plants, but also theoretically replace gasoline in transportation.

Our plan... 1: Hydrogen captured, burned for energy 2: waste water then collected and split using energy from solar farms. 3: Hydrogen recaptured , burned for energy 4: rinse. repeat.

The arguments against were predictable.

What about the waste water? Physically speaking, combustion happens when a substance is ignited, it combines with oxygen and burns, releasing energy. Hydrogen + Oxygen = H2O and nothing else. We found proof that hydrogen fuel waste water was safe enough to drink.

Where does the energy come from to split the water back into hydrogen and oxygen? Solar power cells at the time would not be able to yield the power needed on a small scale for the continuous electrolysis needed to split molecules. Also, solar battery storage at the time was not good. However, as the Resolved points out, we only need to argue for policy change, and eventually the research and investment will yield future technology. Our sources predicted with proper investment, solar and hydrogen technologies would make leaps in the next 10 to 20 years.

The biggest set back? Public opinion.

You see... at the turn of the 20th century, rigid airships were newly engineered transport vessels. These vessels were created from massive fixed metal frames which housed ballasts filled with lighter than air gases, allowing for flight. Helium was the preferred gas used for these things, but due to helium shortages and US trade embargoes, hydrogen became a substitute, despite being more volatile.

If anyone has some of these stamps, let me know

This volatility became a real public issue when, in 1937, the Hindenberg caught on fire at the Lakehurst Naval Yard in New Jersey. The incident was widely broadcast, famously by Herbert Morrison from WLS Chicago, and documented by newsreel footage. The newsreels, still photographs, and radio broadcast are even now easily recognized. 36 people lost their lives.

As a consequence, zeppelin technology was abandoned, and would have been eclipsed by passenger jet aircraft anyway. Hydrogen as a fuel would suffer the same fate, despite several other issues and factors contributing to the deadliness of the accident.

Anyway, my partner and I understood the easy arguments to dismiss hydrogen as dangerous and outdated, and we worked hard to find information to counter these biases born more than 60 years ago and reinforced by every high school history textbook ever since.

The gas itself is no more flammable, or combustible than gasoline, and materials used to store this material are far advanced compared to 1930s technology. And, speaking of technology, just like solar tech, these things will also develop over time and become safer and more user friendly.

During the debate season, we fared pretty well. Not many Negative Teams had prepared to argue against such an obscure fuel source plan. When we were mediated and judged by impartial judges, we usually won.

Read that again.... "When we were mediated and judged by IMPARTIAL judges...."

Despite the rules for hearing and judging debates, we still ran into judges that awarded the debate to the other side simply due to the fact that they couldn't get past hydrogen as being dangerous and impractical, even when the Negative Team failed at arguing and winning that point based on the rules. Keep in mind, these judges were all either public school teachers, or debate league volunteers, not our high school peers.

Yes, this still makes me salty. It's been 20 years and I'm still mad.

Lately, though, my partner and I have been vindicated.

I have been finding more and more articles from Popular Mechanics, SciTech Daily, and other science and engineering publications about hydrogen fuel cell innovations. In fact, one article, by Fuel Cell Works, specifically details the kind of water splitting fuel cells we hypothesized.

Below are some more linky links. As you can tell, I'm proud of my teenage self for predicting the future. Also, this is my big F U to those biased judges of the past.