Hindenburg?

UrIt

C'mon people, if this had become a reality, we would have to find new reasons to go to war. Get with the program!

atomx

I enjoy your articles Jesus. You always show passion in the words you write. Keep up the great work and an excellent read.

mangamonster

We should thank our politicians and our greedy auto and oil leaders for not investing in this great opportunity.

miocid31

See! There are two kinds of Canadians those who can speak English properly and those who say khur instead of Car.

fluf

I don't think they'd use terms like "a silicon compound" on the news anymore. The hair cuts may have been bad, but things have definitely been dumbed down since then!

LittleJon

This shows how used we are to the convience of the pragmatism must people live by everyday.

Ok, companies helped kill it... But if there had been a massive demand, and not just a "well, it is just a fad, the enviornment will heal itself... sticking to my CO2 producing 8 cilinder vehicle", they would have had to keep on making them.

Imagine that!!! up to today american cars would rule the world!!!

Talk about a double short term thinking!

iam.gmo

can someone explain why this didn't happen? unrealistic? squashed?

(pardon my ignorance)

bluebottle

@Jesus Diaz: I was just concerned that I'd turned 40 without realizing it.

Silly McFakeypants

That Joker had a hydrogen car before he was in Batman? Shame on the world. And to add insult to injury, its not even a Japanese car! Its a shitty Chevy!

mikepetel

Jack kinda looks a little like Jesus in that picture...

Kaveh

@golferal: @arsignavus: @GlazedDonut2186: @Silly McFakeypants: Man, I'm sleep deprived and it shows. I was thinking 1968 all the time. Duh. Corrected. (I'm not _that_ bad at math :-)

Jesus Diaz

Oil and Auto industry.... Can you imagine how far this technology would be now if it wasn't killed off by certain companies?

Ken_Darrow

"Caaar"...

BTW, love the title pic!

Toshie

Jesus is practicing "fuzzy math".

golferal

@Jesus: Math is hard huh?

arsignavus

@Silly McFakeypants: Damn. Beat me to it.

GlazedDonut2186

30 years ago?

Silly McFakeypants

I like how they confidently showed the clip of Jack talking about how it would "revolutionize suicide" because you couldn't kill yourself with carbon monoxide anymore.

Luke

@Kaveh: I was going to say the same thing.

Rain-man

the video is gone ;[

biofreak

@miocid31:
Indeed. Thirty years would have been ample development time and the world would have become a very different place, as would America's place in it.
Perhaps one day , like the Tribunal in the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity there will be one for Crimes Against the Earth. Then the government and the corporations can have the shining moment in the spotlight they so richly deserve.
That fact that CBC would have aired this 30 years ago speaks to something important about US media and censorship as well.

ANoel

@atomx: What side of an egg to crack?

dry-roasted-peanuts

Why didn't this catch on in America?
Probably because no one in America knew about this. Its on Canadian news, that isn't a clip from the Today Show. Also any alternative innovation inspired by the oil crisis of the 70's was crushed once Reagan got into office.

RoboChop

If nothing else, of course, this will revolutionize suicide - instead of carbon monoxide poisoning, you'll just get a steam bath. Now that's classic Jack.

Munch the BanNail

I keep expecting the woman narrator to burst out with, "Welcome to TRRRRRRRRRRRRGET!"

bilups

When you make 11 Billion a quarter in profits why would you want to change that?

tymiles

I wanna drive a "cur"!

allstarecho

oil makes too much money so obviously no one is going to look into alternative fuels

lilaliendog

@UrIt: boo.

oo0EveryoneElseWasDoingIt0oo

great find. thanks, Jesus.

oo0EveryoneElseWasDoingIt0oo

1978 !!!!????? NICHOLSON FOR PRESIDENT '08

svgjjc

@dry-roasted-peanuts: BIG ENDIAN!!

Human Bomb

IT GOES IN REVERSE!!!!!

parliamentpoet

In case you were wondering why this never got off the ground, I just saw someone calculating that the car he was driving only got 30 miles _per tank_. Tops.

They had air-powered cars trotted out then, too. Funny how that happens when the oil market goes pear-shaped.

14limes

There must be a huge conspiracy afoot! How else could an complicated hydrogen alternative fail to compete with $1 a gallon (or cheaper) gasoline for 30 years?

Sihanouk-s-Poodle

In 1978 solar panels were unbelievably expensive. In addition not everybody was ready to ride around with 4 or 5 potential rocket engines ready to go off in their trunks. In addition, there was no infrastructure for distribution in place and there wouldn't be because people were prefectly happy to pay a buck something for gas. In short, it was an idea that was ahead of it's time and would have taken a huge investment with not much chance of return.

It would have had to have been seriously underwritten by the government to have any chance of being implemented.

Blastfemur

"the people in America and the oil companies and the whole world can't handle the truth!"
*yawn*

Except hydrogen isn't the solution to the "oil crisis". The "oil crisis" here is because we import too much oil and don't pump enough of our own. Increasing our domestic oil production is the solution to that problem. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is the solution to pollution caused by burning the oil.

The_Gas_Man

Kinda reminds me of this company... [www.switch2hydrogen.com] I've been waiting for them to come out with a product for years now. Seems everytime they possibly have a product that will launch the US goverment bans the materials they use.

Froggmann

you could steam yourself to death!

Costermonger

who killed the hydrogen car

Costermonger

Jack freaking Nicholson...what a freaking badass.

Uberdude328i

Theres nothing more anti-american than people complaining about someone else making too much money.

Either get in a time machine and go live in Communist Russia or get a job. Seriously.

hyped89

Wow, you'd think this would have been in crazy demand in the 70's with all the oil shortages back then.

gamecrazychris

When oil prices plummeted again in the late 1970s, Detroit was able to continue making cars with the status quo without repercussion. The existing technology was cheap, if not efficient, and Americans wanted cheap cars. Unfortunately, change like this doesn't ever happen unless the economy demands it, or there's a government mandate. And you know how cozy Big Oil is with the government...

J.T.

@14limes: Isn't that the whole point of the discussion? Car manufacturers should've spent the last 30 years R&D on this technology to make this go 300miles/tank and if they did, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now.

outie

@The_Gas_Man:
The "oil crisis" isn't simply a domestic vs import trade proposition.
It's a world-wide dependance on a HUGE number of services and products that are petroleum-based. Finding sustainable alternatives to materials, processes and lifestyles is critical if we, our children and grandchildren aren't going to be properly fucked.

ie.
Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cold, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician's tape, fertilisers, fishing lures, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair colouring, hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tyres, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper ... oh ya, condoms.

ANoel

@14limes: I believe that I saw 5 tanks in the video...so that's around 150 miles per fill-up.

Not too bad considering most cars in the 70s were getting 10-13mpg.

bobx3

Explosion resistant.

I wonder if that is as effective as a water resistant watch.

comedian

@whatnot22: And another point, if you have a CO2 container and it is SECURED there is far less danger. Sure if the tank is sitting in the middle of the road and you lop off the stem it will fire away like a rocket because there is enough propulsion to move the tank at a high rate of speed. Secure one to a boat or a car or a building and lop off the stem and all you get is a big stream of CO2 because that little teeny tank can't move a boat or a car...or a building.

ninjamurf

He said "35 cents per gallon of gasoline." Gah, wouldn't that be something right now...

justinsane

@robinandtami: Interesting fact for your perusal...there is more natural oil SEEPAGE in the channel islands then there has ever been from any spill. Oil is literally oozing up out of the sea floor. That is what you get on the beaches in Santa Barbara. I, for one, would rather go GET it than let it just wash up on the beach. And yes, I've lived in Ca. (San Diego and Santa Barbara) all my life.

ninjamurf

@whatnot22:
"Who the hell wants to drive a car with a bomb in their trunk?"
Safer than with someone driving bombed in the front.

ANoel

@whatnot22: Your ignorance is astounding. The walls of a CO2 container (or a hydrogen container for that matter) are much thicker than your gas tank. And what's in your gas tank?

ninjamurf

@The_Gas_Man: Yes! Let's ruin all of our nation's beaches and marine wildlife so that YOU can keep driving your giant gas guzzler! What a freaking ingenius solution!

All of you people pushing and pushing for offshore drilling must live in Kansas, because you have absolutely no clue about what it does to the coast. Offshore drilling is just a stop gap solution. The intelligent thing would be to look for a permanent solution. Of course, that's not going to happen so long as the oil companies keep making record profits.

robinandtami

@Blastfemur: "not everybody was ready to ride around with 4 or 5 potential rocket engines ready to go off in their trunks."
Why not? We all drive around with one big flammable barrel of explosives under our cars right now. Hell, there's a couple thousand little explosions going off every minute in my cars engine. There are plenty of ways to make this safe.

@bobx3: "I believe that I saw 5 tanks in the video...so that's around 150 miles per fill-up."
Unless they considered that whole contraption "one tank"? Don't know for sure but like outie points out it would have only gotten better anyway if they would have kept feeding the R&D.

@ANoel: "The "oil crisis" isn't simply a domestic vs import trade proposition.
It's a world-wide dependance on a HUGE number of services and products that are petroleum-based."
I think this is the main point that should be stressed. I'm not big "stop drilling, save the planet!" guy but I do realize that oil is finite and it is getting harder to find, obtain, and refine. Coming up with an alternate would only make things that much better. Everything else that was petroleum based would be cheaper and our current supply would last that much longer.

I thought this video was awesome. 30 years ago?! Sure, it's easy to look back now with oil at $120 a barrel and criticize but even back then I would think that the R&D would have been worth it?! So everyone is clamoring for it now I just hope that someone keeps it going after oil drops back to $90 a barrel and everyone goes, "oh, look at that, nevermind."

ninjamurf

Who the hell wants to drive a car with a bomb in their trunk? Maybe your friendly neighborhood terrorist? Has anyone here ever seen what happens to a pressurized cylinder when it's punctured? Watch Mythbusters... it becomes a missile that can smash through a brick wall, with plain old CO2. Just imagine a cylinder with hydrogen getting punctured and becoming a giant flame thrower or just blowing up the whole block. Read about how flammable hydrogen is, then see if you want to ride with it in your trunk! I'll pass.

whatnot22

Hey! Is that a young Andy Rooney?!?

Noobs-R-Us

So that's what Exxon spends their $13 BILLION profit on... buying out and killing promising technologies and making sure they stay dead. Long live Jack! Long live the internet, we shall prevail!

tifosi0101

Jesus saves.... and edits too

sqeakytoy of the apocalypse

lol i am so confused...

1978 + 30 = 2008

what am i missing?

jrghoull

@ANoel: I think you meant to say "improperly fucked." Speaking for myself, it's been a while since I was "properly fucked" and kinda look forward to jolly good rodgering. On the other hand, being "improperly fucked," well, I can only think that it mean something like dropping the liquid soap. (Liquid soap takes longer to pick up... for the curious)

sqeakytoy of the apocalypse

@bluebottle:

Some folks(mostly folks who chase UFOs while wearing tin-foil hats) would have you believe that Big Oil got ahold of your congressman/MP/Govt. Rep. and threw wads of cash to keep this kind of tech from happening.

I think that it was more consumer/demand side driven. "We have Gasoline aplenty."

That attitude, added to the Hydrogen Electrolosis technology of the day. (more energy in than out...) makes for current woes.

Barum

@14limes: whoa. that's about the same as a single charge for a segway.

the1sen

@whatnot22: Unfortunately we are surrounded by air. Poke that tank and air is now a part of the mixture. It takes a little bit of pressure to make it explosive but believe it or not it IS possible to make a bomb with gasoline. In fact it's very simple. Ever tried to fill up an empty plastic milk jug at the gas station after running out of gas? They shouldn't let you...ever. Most gas stations employees don't even know why but their managers should tell them to ONLY ever let someone fill a red, certified, official like gas container. Here's why, you take that gallon of gas and walk back to your car. You put it in your tank and now your left with an empty gallon jug of gas. What do you do with it? Take it with you? No way, it stinks. So you leave it on the side of the road. Guess what, it's a bomb waiting to happen. The gas residue, now aerosolized, sits in the jug. If the lid is on, and it heats up, the pressure increases. When it gets hot enough BOOM! No spark or flame is even needed.

And is it your contention that having something that is merely a fireball waiting to happen better than a bomb? I would think that both would suck. The fact is gas tanks don't spontaneously burn up because we've taken safety measures to make sure that it doesn't happen. Do you really believe that they would just throw some hydrogen in a little tank and send you bouncing down the road all willy nilly?

ninjamurf

Oh yeah, that hydrogen kerr is what we're talking aboot eh?

Heavy Canadian accents brighten up my day.

Tomahawk214

@whatnot22:

I drive a Geo Metro, I might as well have a bomb in my trunk.

chucklebuck

This not being mass-market by now is hella weak.

chucklebuck

ninjamurf My ignorance? Gasoline is not explosive until it mixes with air. Puncture a tank of gas and it just leaks out until someone lights a match and it just burns. Puncture a high pressure tank of hydrogen and watch out.
Here's an article for ya.

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Jan. 8, 2007 - An explosion this morning at American Electric Power's Muskingum River power plant killed an employee of a supplier delivering hydrogen to the plant. The identity of the victim, who worked for General Hydrogen, is not available at this time.

whatnot22

jajajaja. the oil companies killed the technology, what a math equation. 30 - 25 - 3(for further devolopment of solar tech) = 2 years ago. hjaajajajjaja

Felix26591

@ANoel: That must've taken 20 minutes to type.

OR!

Do you just have that pasted somewhere saved in the computer for special blog situations like this? ;)

CYST!

@CYST!:

Had I commented from my iPod Touch it'd have been 45 minutes because I can't copy & paste from a web page like I did on my desktop.

= )

/Thanks for playing!

ANoel

@Sihanouk-s-Poodle: what's so complicated about hydrogen? You pass electricity through water and collect the hydrogen gas, then burn it in your existing engine. The only thing that is made complicated is storage and handling because its so leaky and because of an unqualified fear of explosion.

I'd argue that the amount of processing involved in turning crude oil into petrol is multiple times more complicated than H, we just don't see it because it has to be made in multi-million dollar facilities. Whereas you can make Hydrogen in your back yard.

Fierock

I know it's not complicated science. Hydrogen explodes. But it's the forward thinking that existed back in 1978 that's only being taken seriously (sorta) today. How many hydrogen cars can you list on the market today? I can think of only one.

Frustrating...simply frustrating.

And it really impresses me that they'd use Jack Nicholas of all people to demonstrate this.

scandalmonger

@lol123: my bad, i realize now this was not the focus of the comment

lol123

@robinandtami: offshore drilling affects the beaches?

lol123

Try 1807 gizmodo, the Europeans had this almost 200 years ago.

[www.hydrogencarsnow.com]

axel000

@ninjamurf: $90 a barrel? the economy was stressed a few years ago when oil hit $60

lol123

@whatnot22: and how flamable is gasoline?

lol123

/cranky mode

Jesus- if you'd fact check and proof-read and edit your posts before posting them the first time, then maybe our RSS reader wouldn't get hit with two and three versions of each of your posts...

The blogo/echosphere has enough same-story stuff going on already without seeing the same story pop up multiple times from the same blog/author.

/cranky mode off

;-)

distortedloop

@lol123:

[www.geotimes.org]

and this one happened this month :

[www.cnn.com]

axel000

@Fierock: If it's so easy, then do it! You can come back here and mock all the naysayers once you've made your first million dollars.

Sihanouk-s-Poodle

Yep... in an ideal world, that would've happened.

But the thing is: We consumers don't get what's best for us. We get what corporations are willing to sell us.

And that's it. We'd have lots more nice technologies and stuff by now if it wasn't for corporation control over industries like that.

If you think on smaller stuff, you'll get what I mean.

For instance: Why do most of us still have to buy proprietary cables for cellphones, computers, DVDs and other electronics if ALL of them does the same damn thing?

It's not because this is good for us, it's because this is profitable for the corporation who designed the product.

So, there you go: The hidrogen car could've happened ages ago... it didn't because it just wasn't profitable for the automobile industry.

And until big corporations involved which the process of manufacturing a car and providing gas to it see big profits on making less poluting and more environment friendly cars, the convertion won't happen.

In the end, as always, it's all about power and money. Screw the environment and the health and welfare of people.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

Currently, hydrogen fuel cells are costly to produce and are fragile. Engineers are studying how to produce inexpensive fuel cells that are robust enough to survive the bumps and vibrations that all automobiles experience. Also, many designs require rare substances such as platinum as a catalyst in order to work properly. Such a catalyst can also become contaminated by impurities in the hydrogen supply. In the past few years, however, a nickel-tin catalyst has been under development which may lower the cost of cells.

[en.wikipedia.org]

ryno365

Love her accent! Minnesota?

Gessho

@portugue:

ethanol man, ethanol. im looking to build a still sometime next year. ethanol is the ONLY fuel which can never be monopolized and price fixed, because ANYONE can make it.

nutbastard

Ah, the CBC. How I love it.

This blows my mind.

bysty

Man, we are definitely not getting hydrogen cars if they were talking about the exact same shit 30 years ago.

ViewtifulJason

What I want to know is how on Earth do people not believe that gas is explosive. Does nobody remember the pinto? As for the "Oil Crisis" statements. The "Oil Crisis" is basically companies controlling supply and demand in order to make profit. The reason tout hydrogen or other alternative fuels is because then they can solve the "Oil Crisis" and help solve "Global Warming" at the same time. The unfortunate part is that they are promoting solar cells which have a very low return on production cost(in terms of energy) when you count in mistakes and actual efficiency(vs theoretical). I may be opening a can of worms when I say we need to find better optionsGeothermal, Oceanic, Wind, etc.

portugue

@ninjamurf:

"but I do realize that oil is finite"

so you still believe hydrocarbons are a biological derivative? then answer me this - why is the moon of Saturn Titan COVERED in methane?

It's going to be shown soon enough (and not a minute too soon) that oil is abiotic.

nutbastard

One of the big differences is that they are actually BURNING the hydrogen instead of using it in a fuel cell to create electricity. The fuel cell way is actually the only 'zero emission' hydrogen vehicle.

In an engine that normally gulps 650cfm of air, all those tanks in the trunk would go dry pretty quick. Inefficiency killed this idea.

Fzzt

@Bokusatsu_Tenshi: /agreed

pharago

@Sihanouk-s-Poodle: I'm usually too busy working or commenting on blogs to make time to do it, but it is certainly on my list of things that I'd like to do if I had free time. Obviously I wouldn't expect to make millions at it or else I'd already be doing it, but I guarantee somebody is going to make millions from it.

Fierock

@nutbastard: And let me know how that still goes. I brew beer but I'd like to make some rum (although illegal) but it takes too damn long to age!

ninjamurf

@nutbastard: "It's going to be shown soon enough (and not a minute too soon) that oil is abiotic."
Hmm, explain. So the theory of the oil coming from dead dinosaurs in incorrect? Haven't heard this yet? (Then again I don't spend much time debating the sources of oil. I just throw a bunch of gas in my Jeep and head for the hills!)

ninjamurf

@lol123: "$90 a barrel? the economy was stressed a few years ago when oil hit $60"
My point was just that, however. If we were to see $90 a barrel people would be so relieved that they might let up in their insistence on other fuel sources. Doesn't matter that it didn't go back below $60, just that it dropped "below $100 a barrel" or whatever magic number you want to throw out.

ninjamurf

@ninjamurf: Oh, you beat me too it, congratulations. Fuel-air bombs are deadly stuff, with regards to the milk jug, no, I don't think the sun could get it hot enough to make it explode, but somehow a fuel-air mix will find a spark. For a low energy illustration, think about a potato gun.

Con Seannery

@whatnot22: I'm most likely splitting hairs here, but gasoline fumes don't actually explode, rather they flash, fireball, but no shockwave. Unless, of course, they're under pressure (no, not the Bowie song).

Con Seannery

@ninjamurf:

indeed decomposing organic material yields hydrocarbons, but they are supplemental. oil production is a geological process as well. either that or theres a bunch of dead dinosaurs on Titan.

nutbastard

How Midwest is that announcer? "Caaar"

ez054098

The market, alone, doesn't decide what to buy.

The Market decides what consumers should buy. If the inverse *were* true there would be no advertising budgets and no designed obsolesence (sp?) and no diet Coke and Supersized Fries and profits would follow supply and demand and...

[ap.google.com]

...oh hell. whatever.

izzaboo

Surprising how the guy on the show managed to predict how little that effected things right at the end of the clip. I have to laugh about Jack demonstrates how the emissions are safe. And is it just me or does he seem to talk a bit faster nowadays?

Mr.Wilson

@nutbastard: Hmm, interesting? Does the presence of methane necessarily dictate the presence of "oil"? I can buy into the whole organic decomposition thing. So if a rainforest dies does all that mass get plowed under a tectonic plate and become oil? That would be awesome.

ninjamurf

@Con Seannery: How about an empty milk jug sitting on the side of a highway which are often tar black? (At least here in the states.)

ninjamurf

@The_Gas_Man: in the continental united states, we have enough oil to last the u.s. for another couple hundred years. the problem is that the methods of retrieval are difficult and costly, so the only way for an oil company to justify the retrieval of said oil is for the price of oil to go up, making it profitable. so sure, if you guys want to pay $10 $15 for a gallon of gas, we're good to go for 300 years.

adaorardor

@lol123: Absolutely off shore drilling affects the beaches. I'd love to be able to show you pictures of Dauphin Island 20 years ago, and Dauphin Island today. The rigs are so close that you can actually see them from the beach. The water that was crystal blue 20 years ago, and teaming with marine life, are now muddy brown and almost lifeless.

robinandtami

Saying that the oil companies squashed this is ridiculous...Everyone knows they were too busy trying to kill the guy with the 100mpg carb design.....

fastharry

No wonder this never went anywhere. No one outside Canada can ever take the CBC seriously. It must be the funny accents.

MightyMarc

@ninjamurf: @nutbastard: "Dead dinosaurs" only produced a small percentage of petroleum; the vast, vast majority came from oceanic algae and plankton.

While it is true that abiogenic processes can produce hydrocarbons (mostly methane), it has not been shown that such processes can produce hydrocarbons in commercially viable amounts. Regarding petroleum, to date there has been no direct evidence of abiogenic production of petroleum.

thebrokencarnage