Democrats anti-science?

This long seemed obvious to me, but something may be catching on when there is an op-ed in the Washington Post. This piece has a point about how long it would take for the Volt to pay for its saving money on gas (something that I have written about many times), and it is not a pretty sight.

. . . The electric vehicle flop also illuminates a point about science — or the politics of science.

Democrats and liberals are fond of calling their conservative and Republican adversaries “anti-science.” To the extent that the right espouses “creation science,” or disputes established facts about environmental degradation, it’s an appropriate label.

But progressives’ fascination with electric cars and other alternative-energy schemes reflects their own refusal to face the practical limitations of alternative energy — limitations that themselves reflect stubborn scientific facts.

Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt. . . .



Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Anti-science, and anti-reality. The laws of physics, economics, and the Constitution are ignored in the Dems quest for domination over all Americans.

3/09/2012 4:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home