There is nothing new under the sun. The first automobile was electric.
I'm a little uncomfortable with the article's "See, this is what happens when the government gets involved" slant. The "government" in this case was one jerk at the EPA. The same government put both Voyager spacecraft and both Mars landers out there. Would it be fair of me to note that this happened under a Republican administration? Maybe not -- I don't remember that Gerry Ford was as hostile to science as George W. Bush was-- but it would probably be fair to note that a person of that time, or this time, might well reason that a gasoline-electric hybrid still burns gasoline, no matter how efficiently, and if we really want to cut pollution we need to get gasoline out of the mix entirely, which means improved batteries or ideally fuel cells, (which are running neck-and-neck with atomic fusion for the "Happening Real Soon Now" prize), not another way to burn gasoline. So Stork while was obviously wrong from today's perspective, he could have been more outrageously wrong -- say, by insisting on corn-derived ethanol.
What we really need is for congress to pass legislation that mandates certain tests for safety & compliance, and spells out exactly what results would constitute passing marks. Then require the EPA and other agencies to use those tests, and anything (ANYTHING) which passes is required to be recognized and allowed.
As long as the tests and passing results allow fusion-powered hovertanks. Or at least combat cars. :) (I'm even willing to pass on the tribarrels for now...)
I think you're right. Daniel Sperling's and Deborah Gordon's Two Billion Cars gives examples showing that we get the best results when we (i.e., the government) put up appropriate targets and let people figure out how to achieve them; when we/government spell out the solutions in advance (e.g., ethanol) we often end up backing the wrong horse.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm a little uncomfortable with the article's "See, this is what happens when the government gets involved" slant. The "government" in this case was one jerk at the EPA. The same government put both Voyager spacecraft and both Mars landers out there. Would it be fair of me to note that this happened under a Republican administration? Maybe not -- I don't remember that Gerry Ford was as hostile to science as George W. Bush was-- but it would probably be fair to note that a person of that time, or this time, might well reason that a gasoline-electric hybrid still burns gasoline, no matter how efficiently, and if we really want to cut pollution we need to get gasoline out of the mix entirely, which means improved batteries or ideally fuel cells, (which are running neck-and-neck with atomic fusion for the "Happening Real Soon Now" prize), not another way to burn gasoline. So Stork while was obviously wrong from today's perspective, he could have been more outrageously wrong -- say, by insisting on corn-derived ethanol.
no subject
no subject
no subject
(I'm even willing to pass on the tribarrels for now...)
no subject
no subject
It's cute.