popularmechanics.com — To test the advantages of gas versus electric propulsion, the MythBusters tear apart a perfectly good gasoline-powered go-kart and transform it into a tire-smoking machine that's fast?and clean. Check out behind-the-scenes action and test results
May 19, 2008 View in Crawl 4
halokhanMay 20, 2008
This is a companion article to yesterdays.
tubatechnoMay 20, 2008
Congratulations MrBabyMan, yet another duplicate story submitted and made front page AGAIN. Do you even see the "duplicate story" warning!?
jpowlusMay 20, 2008
Why is this being dugg down? He didn't say anything that isn't true. He didn't say this isn't a *better* choice over using an internal combustion engine, he just said that it isn't "emission free." I'm so tired of seeing people driving in electric cars (on the internet, not in person) saying "this is so great, I'm having zero-impact on the environment" ... don't kid yourself, you are having *less* of an impact on the environment....and it isn't just the batteries ending up in landfills, it is the manufacturing process to create the batteries. Have you ever seen a battery factory? I have... huge huge polluter.electric cars = big improvementelectric cars are not anywhere near zero-environmental-impact
welldoitliveMay 20, 2008
MrBabyMan dangles on the douches of insanity.
norman619May 20, 2008
No s**t. The new reactors will never melt down due to the fact that the reaction is tied directly into the cooling system. No coolant and we have no reaction. The idiots who are against nuclear power love to point to Chernobyl but if you ask them why it melted down and it's health prior to the melt down you will get blank looks. Even if you went by 1960's standards for nuclear reactor construction it was still a poorly designed reactor.
leerayig88May 20, 2008
First, you need to braid it into a colorful butterfly.
diggalicious3May 20, 2008
One positive thing about the soviets nuclear reactors-they were all the same. That way, when one thing failed on one of them, it was fixed on all of them. Not a bad idea. Sometimes people like to point out three mile island, but I believe the radiation released there was equivalent to an x ray or two.
diggalicious3May 20, 2008
Ebo.blue is a physicist? He must have failed chemistry. The only widely available source of hydrogen is water. There is the basic chemical principle that whatever energy goes in to breaking the bonds of a molecule is the same that it takes to form that molecule. When you burn hydrogen, the product is water. Therefore, assuming we can manufacture hydrogen with zero energy loss, we have a net gain of 0 Joules. Hydrogen cannot be used to as a fuel source, however, it can be used as sort of a battery to store energy.
encablossaMay 22, 2008
Don't go running out the door or you'll calcify like a vampire.