What is Digg?138 Comments
- naughtyboy, on 08/02/2008, -5/+61Yeah, and now to the million dollar question. Who put the lid on the development back then?
- 9bpm9, on 08/02/2008, -7/+50Remove 58% of pollution from every city.
Lets welcome Mr. Nicholson to the "I just made that up off the top of my head" club. - lunatix, on 08/02/2008, -4/+31the oil companies killed off the engineer
- acmaurer, on 08/02/2008, -1/+25And here I was thinking people loved getting 3-10mpg back then...
- aserer511, on 08/03/2008, -2/+22HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERES FUEL ECONOMY
- SeaFour, on 08/03/2008, -0/+17You can't handle the truth!
- David513, on 08/03/2008, -0/+16chowdary is correct. The word they needed WAS "hawking." Unless he was selling them to pawn shops for a bit of cash when he needed it, he was indeed HAWKING the cars (i.e. selling or promoting them), not hocking. Read the definitions.
- chowdhary, on 08/02/2008, -10/+23hocking or hawking? http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hawking
- GTPilot, on 08/03/2008, -2/+15the reporter mentions the alternative vs paying '35 cents per gallon'
- unpolloloco, on 08/02/2008, -0/+12The hydrogen comes from the hydrolysis of water - i.e. splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen. So it's just taking it from the environment and putting it back in again.
Taking it from octane (what gas is largely made of) puts carbon dioxide and water into the atmosphere from oil in the ground.
That said, hydrogen is just being used as a battery. There's not really much of a benefit of using hydrogen over using a battery (except for increasing inefficiencies in the system) - FishHammer, on 08/03/2008, -2/+14Just goes to show they've had the technology forever, but it's been blackballed by the oil and car companies the whole time. They're the reason we're so dependent on gas, not the government or the economy.
- Shogi, on 08/02/2008, -0/+11Trashing Nicholson's Joker:
Baaaaad idea. - cutchyacokov, on 08/03/2008, -1/+11You're being dugg down, but you are absolutely correct. At least up to this point hydrogen powered cars have been prohibitively expensive, it isn't an easy technology to develop, there are lots of technical issues still yet to be worked out. At this point I think electric cars are a more realistic technology, I'll be putting my money in Tesla motors . . . . or I would, if I had money to put places . . .
- Mystlyfe, on 08/03/2008, -2/+12Platinum and hydrogen economy problems. Platinum is $2000 an OUNCE. There isn't enough platinum in the world to convert all of America's cars to fuel cells. Not to mention the amount of petroleum it takes to mine up the platinum anyway.
Electrolysis is a horribly inefficient process.
Hydrogen economies have MASSIVE potential issues.
Need more reasons? - brad3378, on 08/03/2008, -11/+20The writers of physics and economics books.
If it was easy as some people claim, then these people should be getting off their asses and should start up a company. - her0savestheday, on 08/03/2008, -0/+7No I'm sorry, the answer we're looking for is Reagen. Ronald Wilson Reagen is the correct answer. His policies drove a stake through the heart of the fledgling alternative energy field.
- Mystlyfe, on 08/03/2008, -0/+7I have no idea why you're being dugg down either. Everyone likes to hop on the first "green technology" they see, regardless of whether or not it's actually feasible and/or effective. Hydrogen fuel cells are no where near the point where they are either feasible or effective.
- inactive, on 08/02/2008, -11/+17HERE'S JOHNNY!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/The_ ... - ZenMojo, on 08/03/2008, -0/+6Jimmy Carter was telling people, "Wear a sweater" and the media lost its goddamn *****. And that was when gas was 2 dollars a gallon.
This was a man who had solar panels on the roof of the whitehouse. Reagan rolled up, said, "Get that ***** off my roof," and then went to China and drove the national debt up by MORE THAN 200%.
Now the new "wear a sweater" is "drill fo' some AWL!!!!" except hopefully people have figured out that if they listened to ol' Jimmy back in the 70's the dollar wouldn't be worth ***** and we wouldn't be despoiling our wild places for promise of pennies.
America needs to "get it" and fast or else the lowest common denominator is going to drag us into the *****. - JettaMan, on 08/03/2008, -0/+6Easy answer: we all did by not buying them because hydrocarbon fuels are much cheaper and the cars themselves are much cheaper. Why would consumers be interested in something more costly with less power?
- Flump5000, on 08/03/2008, -3/+9***** that chicks accent.
- Mystlyfe, on 08/03/2008, -0/+6Or it could be the fact that hydrogen fuel cells aren't the answer.
There isn't enough platinum in the world to convert all of America's cars to fuel cells. Platinum is $2000/ounce. Platinum takes massive amount of petroleum to mine and refine.
Hydrogen economies have huge lethal potential.
Electrolysis is a horribly inefficient process.
Etc etc etc - geoboy, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5actually it kinda turned me on dere now doncha know.
- 1ncu3us, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6Not in a war? Not relying on other countries for energy? Not paying through the ass for gasoline? Moving toward even better energy solutions? .. I can keep going.
- 1ncu3us, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5This goes way beyond hydrogen.
- compulsive1, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5Yea, what's a "curr"?
- Mystlyfe, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5And he was found guilty of fraud in 1996...
...oh woops, did I burst your bubble again? - edwartica, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Interesting, so was your mom.
- Mystlyfe, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Stop blaming this on oil. There are massive issues with hydrogen fuel cells. Do a little research.
- cutchyacokov, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Agreed. However it was a very different version of the character. Nicholson's acting was spot on for the type of Joker he was supposed to be playing, as was Ledger's acting. The version of the Joker Ledger played was way cooler, in my opinion but comparing their acting skills based on these two different roles is definitely apples and oranges.
- bobsalt1, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6i'd say it had more to do with the price of gas afterwards. hell, we had global cooling then, now we have global warming. the older I get the more it seems like a big pendulum swinging back and forth....
mars is heating up same as earth along with some moons, but then some peopel say other moons are cooling? does human carbon casue global cooling? I would guess so, but how much is to do with the suns cycles? Hell, they can't even tell me if its going to rain tomorrow. Everyone standing around wringing their hands wondering where the next calamity is coming from. wonder if humans thought the same way 2,000 years ago? I'm betting so -lol - dan222555, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Hydrogen fueled vehicles are worthless. Any energy saved by the actual vehicle is made up for in the amount of energy it takes to produce hydrogen gas from water. It's certainly an interesting technology, but at the moment it's impractical from an energy-saving standpoint.
- RyeBrye, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4RTFA - they were proposing using solar cells to do it.
Using solar cells to drive electrolysis may no be a feasible way to get enough gas - but it was a major part of the video on the topic.
Next time, rtfa before posting stupid questions. - GlassAgate, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Yes, the hydrogen car is a really cool idea, but not
all ideas are possible. I can have the idea of flying
around in a flying car, like in "The Jetsons", but
the actual technology to allow a car of that size to
travel as they do in the cartoon may never exist.
Damn. Now I got the fiction writing bug.
Hello, word processor. - edwartica, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Damned mother ***** republicans.
- gingervergo, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3jack is badass, even when being green
- Sandhog, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Please do.
- dhughes, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3 I never saw it on digg and I read it everyday.
By the way Marketplace is still on, it's a good show, but I didn't realize it was on that long ago! - blapierre, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Jack Nicholson was pawning hydrogen cars in the 70s?
I think you, and the writer of this article meant to use the word "hawk". It's called a dictionary, use it. - inactive, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Only thing Jack Nicholson was hocking in the '70s was every young chick within 40 yards.
- wazzledoozle2, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4It takes energy to seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Where do you think that energy comes from? Dont say hydrogen, that's a fallacy called perpetual motion.
- Mystlyfe, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Why am I retarded? There isn't enough platinum in the world to convert the US's automobiles to hydrogen fuel cells. That's fact, no way around it.
Beyond that, it takes massive amounts of petroleum, the thing you're trying to save, to mine and refine the platinum needed.
Electrolysis is a flawed and inefficient process, which expels more energy than it produces.
Or we can talk about the Hindenburg, and the explosive potential of hydrogen gas. A colorless, odorless gas. You wouldn't even know it's leaking from a tank when you light the match that kills you. - hartley, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Actually, he says its like paying 35 cents. He mentions it would be a quarter to a half of the cost, meaning gas would have been between .70 and 1.40. Since its the late 70's I assume it was up somewhere around $1.
- inactive, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4You HOCK a loogey.
You HAWK a car.
Did I spell "loogey" right? - qwertydvorak, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3"Hydrogen fueled vehicles are worthless. Any energy saved by the actual vehicle is made up for in the amount of energy it takes to produce hydrogen gas from water."
it isn't about SAVING energy. electric cars don't save energy. it is all about energy STORAGE and cost to produce. batteries are limited by range and also by the ability to refill that range. a hydrogen combustion vehicle could be refilled on the go.
fuel cell vehicles are pure BS. it is a distraction. there isn't enough platinum in the world to replace all of our current vehicles with fuel cells. period. no ifs ands or buts.
hydrogen combustion vehicles are the real long term solution. use nuclear power to make the hydrogen, and even come up with a way of capturing the steam to let it cool to water again. then it becomes a somewhat closed process if it can be sucked out while refueling the hydrogen. that way we don't keep using tons of fresh water without putting it back into the system. - 1ncu3us, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5Here's the thing people.. Besides Big Bankers, Big Oil is next in line in terms of power. And you can be damn sure that anything that isn't in their best interests will be bought out and buried. Why do all these water powered cars, and cheap energy alternatives never make it past the local news? Even Tesla's free wireless energy was buried. The people in power, want to keep it, at all costs.
Obama of all people just supported the decision to start offshore drilling again. - Mystlyfe, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3In a massive fireball?
http://www.lamarca.org/flight/imgs/hindenberg.gif - Rudegar, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3which "she"? yours or his?
- cheeseron, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3most of the water powered car things are *****
- Mystlyfe, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Or legitimate problems with electrolysis and platinum supplies. If you can find me all the platinum we need, go ahead. I'll wait.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
