Quote:
It seems that the government applying incentives to innovate alternate means of propulsion for automobiles is encouraging innovation BEFORE it's needed (i.e. when finite oil supplies run out, or become diminished in output to the point that the cost is outside economic viability) is really a means of solving a future problem in advance. I'd rather begin preparing for the inevitable NOW rather than scrambling when it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. But, then again, I'm a fan of science, and apparently you're not.
http://jalopnik.com/5129433/byd-e6-250-miles-per-charge-electric-car
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/05/la-ev-charging-stations.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20050501-1.html
http://grassrootsev.com/100club.htm
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thi...harge-electric-car-only-a-few-years-away/7270
http://www.worldculturepictorial.co...-build-manufacturing-plant-headquarters-silic
http://gas2.org/2009/01/03/boring-electric-car-gets-100-miles-per-charge-goes-85-mph-still-due-2010/
http://www.blacklistednews.com/115-...r_Charge_as_Chevy_Volt/16147/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Take note of the last link. If technology continued to advance down the electric-car path back then, we'd likely be even further ahead today.
I saw that on Drudge about a week ago. All the advances in technology, and they can't get past 115 year old technology. That's how I see it. Batteries simply have limited life and limited charge... The technology has advanced to the point that they deliver a full charge up to the point of collapse.
I'm just not a handwringer about "Fossil fuel", because I believe that the earth is still producing carbon based products, continually. Just like it is producing diamonds, gold, iron, etc. Far better to use the supplies which are available, while preparing for other possibilities.
The advances didn't continue because the advancement stopped....and then restarted again. And if you read more carefully, you'd find that they most certainly DID "get past 115 year old technology" -- there are cars that outperform it, and even those with the same distance range can reach higher speeds. I posted the old car to show that, had interest in electric cars continued THEN, we'd be farther ahead NOW....though we already are ahead NOW compared to THEN in terms of ability. Availability is another matter.
You may "believe" that fossil fuels are continuing to be produced at a sustainable rate, but until you provide "evidence" then I will simply dismiss your claim with the same amount of evidence you provide -- none.
The earth is not "producing" gold or iron -- what we have is what we have. We might "find more" but the earth isn't "producing more" because they are elemental. Diamonds are a particular configuration of carbon as a result of heat and pressure, and yes, more are being produced at a rate for consumption -- in labs (oooh, by science...ssshhh) in controlled high-energy conditions. For them to be produced in nature will take much longer, or an incredible amount of energy released in a small area -- something that doesn't happen to the required degree frequently enough to replenish the supply of diamonds at the rate they are being removed from the earth.
The same idea applies to fossil fuels -- the rate of production is vastly dwarfed by the rate of extraction. Creating an energy policy based on such a "belief" which is contradicted by "evidence" is a modern application of Lysenkoism (resulting in catastrophic failure, but perhaps without all the "magic" of Soviet totalitarianism). Thankfully, you do not determine public policy.
