[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I clearly got the energy density part wrong. I was going on (obviously faulty) memory.

Also, I hadn’t realized that the energy density of a lithium-air battery is so high. That’s very interesting.

I felt the need to play devil’s advocate, because I think that there’s too much of a tendency to politicize certain technologies on FR. To me, technological options should be judged on their merits; and not by a political litmus test.

I realize that air cars, battery-electric cars, hybrids, etc. have been politicized by the “other side” — all part and parcel of the greatest boondoggle of all times (the AGW, carbon-credit, “green” energy subsidy, anti-coal, wealth-redistribution, knock-the-west-down-to-size, watermelon conspiracy). That does make it hard to be dispassionate about any technology that gets ensnared in that mess. I have a simple rule for approaching such technologies: if it’s subsidized, criticize; if it’s a product of free markets — then leave it to willing buyers and willing sellers.

As a confirmed gadget freak; if I had the mad money I might indulge myself with an air car, or air motorcycle, just to play with it.

[chaos_5]

To me, technological options should be judged on their merits; and not by a political litmus test.

Well, I couldn’t agree with you more on that point. Also, reading through your other post I have to say it is refreshing to see some looking at energy issues from a system wide prospective.

I don’t use the subsidized litmus test though since nearly every breakthrough technology is arguably subsidized in its infancy, especially if the technology is in the research phase and resaving government funding through university grants etc. Then there is the idea that you subsidize what you want more of and tax what you want less of. Clearly dumping billions of dollars into solar power companies that just go belly up is stupid.

Anyway, the writing is on the wall as far as alternative energy goes. It’s frustrating when people support it for ridiculous reasons like CO2 emissions instead of more reasonable terms like conserving finite and diminishing resources. But, honestly, I think the big dogs in power just use things like global warming to grab more power from the sheeple and artificially drive up the cost of energy to make alternatives more economically attractive.

Perhaps the end game is the same...