[lbo-talk] The War on the Car

Gar Lipow the.typo.boy at gmail.com
Mon Nov 14 21:16:40 PST 2005


On 11/14/05, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> > But electrics don't need a whole new infrastructure -
> > not for autos with a 250 mile range.
>
> [ and yet ]
>
> > Provide really good mass transit nationwide - not merely
> > manhattan level, but say better than Euro-travel (such
> > as automated ultra-light rail) and a lot of people would
> > gladly give up their cars.
>
> Yeah, no new infrastructure! That's going to be my campaign slogan.
>
> /jordan
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

Gee. I guess refuting the mistaken belief that electric cars require additional infrastructure is completely contradictory to advocating something OTHER than electric cars that does require infrastructure. Because gee Jordan, rebutting a mistaken argument against alternative A completely rules out advocating even better alternative B.

In the absence of cheap electricity (say 1 cent per kWh or lower) hydrogen is a lot more expensive way to fuel cars and trains than direct electricity via third rails or batteries. One advantage of electric vehicles (trains and cars alike) over hydrogen is that they can be partially fueled with wind electricity which is mostly carbon free, competitive with fossil fuel electricity and cheaper than nuclear power plants. Oh gee, I'm contradicting myself by advocating infrastructure investments again. Cause after all, this whole global warming mess can easily be solved with the Jordan slogan of "no new infrastructure". Yeah, Yeah I know - I'm unfairly taking your cheap ass irony and turning it around by attributing it to you as a literal viewpoint.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list