…are not a moon shot:
“What people overlook is that accomplishing ‘big picture’ programs like Apollo require accepting the concept of unlimited spending to achieve the mission,” says Ron Cogan, editor and publisher of the industry authority Green Car Journal and editor of GreenCar.com. “Current levels of unprecedented federal spending notwithstanding, electric cars are not an exclusive answer to future transportation challenges and consumers will not be willing to buy them at all costs.”
As I pointed out at the last Apollo anniversary, it’s time to stop using this economically ignorant analogy. And that means you, Mr. President. The only time that he ever talks about space is when he can use it as an excuse for one of his non-space economically nutty programs.
electric cars are an exclusive answer to future transportation challenges
Nobody in their right mind would say that. Edit that to
electric cars and partly electric cars are an answer to quite a big part of future transportation challenges
And most technologically adept people will agree. And thats what everybody is saying.
exclusive answer
is a strawman.
Electric cars fans seem blind to the things extreme costs, and higher air pollution levels. Though they brag at the low cost of electric power relative to gasoline power, A EV-1 batter pack could (in good warm weather) give over 100 miles range, but it cost abut $30,000, and needed to be replaced after about 30,000 miles. At $3 a gallon for gasoline, vs. $1 a mile cost for batteries, you could drive around in a gasoline powered city bus and still beat the miles per $ of electrics. And given modern gasoline powered cars exhausts are cleaner the air in cities, and electric cars are affectively powered mainly by coal plants – electrics make a lot more air pollution per mile.
Wait until the coal plants are all shut down by Cap and Tax, and electricity is from “green” sources. The cost per mile of an M1 Abrams tank will look good compared to an electric car.
There was no unlimited funding during the Apollo era. Von Braun, of all people in 1964 told congress that more funding would not help the issues that he was dealing with in order to build the Saturn V.
> The cost per mile of an M1 Abrams tank will look good compared to an electric car.
Oh man – it already does!!
An Abrams gets about 1 gallon per mile of what ever you like to feed it. Say $3 a mile compared to $1 a mile for electric cars. Given the Abrams is a 70 ton craft, rather then 2 for most electric cars. You move about 10 times as much mass for the same $ per mile in the Abrams!!! Hell 18wheelers get something close to 20 mpg, or what 7 miles per $? So you’ld save money commuting in a 18wheeler carrying 320 sq foot studio apartment in the trailer!!!
Electric cars fans seem blind to the things extreme costs,
Spaceflight fans seem blind to the things extreme costs ..
Heavier than air flight fans seem blind to the things extreme costs ..
Automobile fans seem blind to the things extreme costs .. oh well.
And given modern gasoline powered cars exhausts are cleaner the air in cities, and electric cars are affectively powered mainly by coal plants – electrics make a lot more air pollution per mile.
You are very, very wrong here. On average, any battery-electric, even when powered from regular coal power plant electricity, emits about four times less Co4 per km at powerstation, compared to a Prius, measured from wall to wheels ( not accounting for losses in grid )
If you are measuring well to wheels, its even worse picture for gasoline because oil refinement and transportation and distribution infrastructure is way more inefficent than power grid.
Where do i get the data ? Well, take Michelin Challenge Bibendum reports for instance. Or any independent report.
There was no unlimited funding during the Apollo era. Von Braun, of all people in 1964 told congress that more funding would not help the issues that he was dealing with in order to build the Saturn V.
Thing is, he was already speaking from the enviable position of an agency with a $34 billion (in today’s dollars) annual budget, that was on a path to rise to a peak of $44 billion in FY66, and did not have $6 billion per year in legacy programs to support as today’s agency does.
Kert,
The point you’re missing is that there’s no available battery technology capable of replacing internal combustion engines in terms of range, cost, performance, or durability. Not only that, but we’d need a major technological breakthrough in order to get there. The battery-powered cars out there have mainly been tested in California, and even then have been marginal as a vehicle technology. Force those batteries to work at freezing temperatures, or at prolonged highway speeds, or supporting a heavy vehicle accessory load and their range and durability will decrease drastically. At least the Apollo program didn’t have to invent new technology so much as learn to engineer what was already invented…
This is about the last place I expected to find luddites. Electric cars pollute less than gasoline cars even in a country which generates most of its electricity from coal such as the USA.
The main problem is battery cost but given mass-production of electric vehicles battery costs will come down. Musk was smart by starting the Tesla business based around high-end sports vehicles. I wouldn’t have gone for the Whitestar next though. I would have gone for a luxury vehicle with “low-noise” as an asset. But I guess if it wasn’t for Whitestar he wouldn’t have got the government credits anyway.
I have heard the “Apollo Program for Energy” call from the late Richard Smalley several years back:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2962283/Richard-Smalleys-energy-talk
I do not think the Apollo Program is a good analogy. But government has developed useful energy solutions before, despite the snide remarks I hear here. Pressurized water nuclear fission reactors were designed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for use in nuclear submarines and much windmill technology used today was developed by NASA (it is an aerodynamics problem after all).
>> And given modern gasoline powered cars exhausts are
>> cleaner the air in cities, and electric cars are affectively
>> powered mainly by coal plants – electrics make a lot more
>> air pollution per mile.
> You are very, very wrong here. ==
EPA disagrees with you.
>.. The main problem is battery cost but given mass-
> production of electric vehicles battery costs will come
> down. ==
Unlikely – the batteries the electric cars use have been in mass production for generations, and given the bats currently force a cost of at least a $ per mile driven in electric cars – they would need to come down a stagering amount to compete with gasoline cars even if gasoline goes to $10 a gallon.
Abrams actually get closer to 2 gallons per mile in best-case scenario. Actual real-world usage (where there’s a lot of slow movement and idling mixed in) is more like 4 gallons per mile.
I call BS.
I drove an electric car (75 Porsche 914 Electro-Automotive style conversion ) from 2001 to 2006. In that time it cost me a total of $0.15/mi for ~ 25K miles ( I had some breakdowns) With my 19 golf cart batteries I could go ~ 40 Mi at 60 MPH. $0.12/Mi was replacing the golf cart batteries and $0.03 was for everything else (tires, bearings, brake pads, new controller (the magic smoke came out of the old one), and electricity).
Golf cart battery tech is about 100 years old. It’s not for everyone, but it does work. Look at all of the NEVs (Street legal golf carts) in the southwest and in retirement communities.