This is a response that I submitted to the CNN Sound Off regarding this article (with a couple of additions):
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/air.car/index.html
The gist of my rant stems from the way I see the media often portraying, through experts, attempts of alternate fuel inventors as not quite good enough. The media seems to have a schizophrenic view on this. They want to side with Saint AlGore, yet any attempts to actually do something are often met with skepticism, and at times derision. Go figure.
Peter
Let the rant begin +++++++++++++
So the "expert" from Cornell says: ". . . there haven't been any lightweight, 100-plus mpg cars to pass crash tests. . ." Correct me if I'm wrong, buuut NO ONE HAS FREAKIN' DESIGNED A LIGHTWEIGHT, 100+ mpg CAR YET!!!????!!!!!! Geez, where'd they get this guy?
That's like saying that a car designed by a mushroom cheese burger has never passed a crash test.
We are in desperate need of a change of paradigm. The "experts" keep saying stuff like, "No one's really proven a six-seater passenger car [can get] any better than 75 miles to the gallon." If this is the case, where's my 6 seater that gets 75mpg! The expert also says that "He noted such dramatic fuel efficiency is associated with tiny experimental cars, not bigger mainstream ones."
Maybe the problem is that the idea that is currently "mainstream", i.e. we need big cars that are able to carry lots of folks and stuff, but generally don't, needs to fundamentally change. I drive 5 miles to work, one way, every day. I usually ride a motorcycle at 40mpg. Even if the air powered car only got 80mpg (equivalent) that's double what I'm getting now, and each mile would cost less since it's based on electricity instead of gas, as well as domestically produced.
The flip side of the problem is that the greenies are slamming the use of grid electricity as a viable domestic fuel. OK, if I'm shifting my "carbon footprint" (which is a flawed idea to begin with but I'll stick with it) from my car to a power plant we still have a net gain by not importing oil. Take into account that a significant portion of our power where I live is generated by a hydro plant just up river, then we're in even better shape. As our "experts" continue on this subject: "it's hard to believe the car would be that much more efficient than an electric vehicle"; so what! We don't currently have production electric cars either, so again the expert brings up a wonderfully moot point. What do you suppose his view on electric cars or electric car conversions is? I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't be very positive....I could be wrong, but I'm going on the quotes from this article.
The greenies can't have it both ways. Either you work with the folks trying to develop alternatives or you don't. You can't dictate what those alternatives will be. Fully sustainable energy is an admirable goal; one that we should continue to pursue. But it ain't here yet: solar is still too inefficient and expensive, wind is location anchored, as is wave power. There are some great advances being made in these technologies, but in the mean time we have to generate energy somehow. I think our first priority needs to be less beholden to other nations. Of course, there is the option of nuclear power electric generation, but let's not throw the greenies into complete apoplexy.
We are in need of a new normal. New technology and practices don't happen because someone sticks with what has worked in the past. So I say: Keep it up MDI, TATA and ZPM!
