There has been a lot of talk recently about how the candidates for the Republican nomination for President in 2012 are dismissive of science. I wonder if they are as dismissive of engineering, which is where the rubber meets the road. I wonder if there is any talk of that in the corridors of The New York Times?
At any rate, here is an opinion piece from Canada on electric cars. It is the engineering side of it.
Regards — Cliff
3 comments:
People mistake "science" with its theories. Science is the process of continually testing hypotheses and beliefs against measurable results. Theories are quite generally wrong or at least in dire need of update. (Think about flat worlds, Newtonian physics, and *anthropomorphic* global warming, and I include the last because I believe there is a great distinction to be made between "global warming", which is unequivocally and inarguably, despite the arguments by idiots who oppose liberals just for the sake of opposing liberals, measured to be happening, and the various causes, from bovine methane emissions to sun cycles to, yes, human-generated CO2).
Engineering is the application of science, and anyone enamored with electric cars has to understand the causal relationship involved. Battery science is critically involved in electric cars' shortcomings in range, cost, and efficiency, (batteries are HEAVY), and unless we continue to pursue new breakthroughs, we will never produce a cheap, effective electric car.
The purpose of science is to continually disprove the status quo and good science never rests. Science is based on the sure knowledge that we don't even know what we don't know..but we need to find out.
Engineering merely "operationalizes" the current "science" and is thus constantly challenged to find new ways to accommodate the new science. Electric cars is one example of "changing science." At the "rubber meets the road" end of the chain, private enterprise conspires to find a way to make a buck out of the current knowledge..but is constantly pushing back to science to evolve into something more efficient..more effective.
It is a classic symbiotic relationship...or as the military acquisition world became fond of saying....a perfect model of "spiral development."
It is sad that we allow government to become part of that spiral as it politicizes a process that to be optimally effective must remain pure. We could be light years ahead on so many frontiers were it not for the politics that underlie everything...threatening to bring the force ...or allowing the force...of government to intervene.
Argue with me you must, but when it comes to politics and government, less is best.
A horrible part of the human condition is the behavior that one believes what they want to be true to be true, no matter what the evidence says.
The electric car is one of those things. As the article points out, just because it doesn't use gasoline doesn't mean it's better for the environment. Just because we take the batteries in our cell phones for granted doesn't mean that batteries on the scale to power even a fraction of our vehicle fleet are at all realistic.
This is a situation that blinds quite a bit of the left and certain factions on the right. Looking at current renewables, many provide intermittent power and there isn't nearly enough lead in the world to store even a fraction of the required energy - never mind lithium.
Meanwhile, reports like this one keep coming out, showing how dire our fossil fuel situation is - and get little attention. Man-made global warning or not, I'm going to go out there and disagree that government shouldn't be involved in science.
Solving the issues of our fossil fuel predicament without demolishing modern civilization is going to be this generation's version of going to the moon. Pretending your average American can continue driving 14,000+ miles a year and live on an acre of land in a 2,500 square foot house by doing things like switching to an electric car and CFL bulbs just isn't going to cut it.
Post a Comment