Let's Discuss Manned EVTOL's

Cap'n Jack said:
They do, to the tune of around 16 billion dollars for the fuel used to run them.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fa...-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

That doesn't count the state subsidies:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

The EV subsidies have a cap to each manufacturer
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/electric-vehicles-for-tax-credit
Click to expand...

Subsidizing fuel is not the same as subsidizing the cars. EVs are currently subsidized on both "fuel" and the actual cars. I don't appreciate the subsidies for electric cars because my tax dollars could be doing something productive instead of going to someone who can afford to buy a $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 car.
 
TCABM said:
NASA sent astronauts in orbit on Soyuz spacecraft as far back as 1975 and risk management is in question? We’ve been to the moon before. Some of those dudes are still alive.

Space may be hard, but going back to the moon is literally nothing new. We did it with slide rules and cigarettes. At least with the e-plane race, the organizers are challenging state of tech. It really kind of reminds of those challenegs Rutan took on with project like Voyager and AeroVironment’s Helios.
Click to expand...


I don't think we're willing to accept the same level of risk today that they accepted back then.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I suspect that you don’t think much of anything new. You don’t resent your taxes subsidizing regular ICE cars?
Click to expand...


Oh brother.

I'm an engineer. I have been creating new technology all my life, with patents and awards to prove it. But that also means I have some ability to assess technical viability.
 
Half Fast said:
I don't think we're willing to accept the same level of risk today that they accepted back then.
Click to expand...

I mean it’s not like they haven’t been to Mars, Jupiter, or even left the solar system or anything. I find it hard to believe nothing was learned from those efforts or from manned space programs, either.

But that was my point….all this transferrable knowledge, yet there are things we still learn. So is it unreasonable to take the sum of what we know, do some experimenting and test with some limits so we can make technological advances?

None of that is market viability…it’s research and development/developmental testing to validate the current state of the art. What is learned from those experiments can be used to inform future work. From a risk management standpoint, I can certainly understand reasons why the race organizer might want the downtime exclusion, specifically because of valid risks involved with speed events.
 
Half Fast said:
Oh brother.

I'm an engineer. I have been creating new technology all my life, with patents and awards to prove it. But that also means I have some ability to assess technical viability.
Click to expand...
Yet electric cars are technically viable and you still discount them. They have proven themselves for some years.
 
SkyChaser said:
Subsidizing fuel is not the same as subsidizing the cars. EVs are currently subsidized on both "fuel" and the actual cars. I don't appreciate the subsidies for electric cars because my tax dollars could be doing something productive instead of going to someone who can afford to buy a $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 car.
Click to expand...
I agree the subsidies are not the same. The car subsidy will go away and the fuel subsidy won't. If I had an EV, my "fuel" isn't subsidized any more than the "fuel" for my electric stove. The EV would be plugged in at night at my house. The city owns the electric plant here and isn't subsidized.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I agree the subsidies are not the same. The car subsidy will go away and the fuel subsidy won't. If I had an EV, my "fuel" isn't subsidized any more than the "fuel" for my electric stove. The EV would be plugged in at night at my house. The city owns the electric plant here and isn't subsidized.
Click to expand...

They put in a solar "garden" in the fields near my house when I lived in MN. Both the state and the federal government heavily subsidized the project. Unless you're planning to solely use electricity produced by coal-burning power plants, your fuel for your electric car would also be subsidized. And I certainly hope that the electric car subsidies go away. Research grants, I can understand and get behind. What doesn't make sense is rewarding people who either can't handle their own finances and are buying a car that is worth their entire yearly income or rewarding people who already make a very good salary. Especially when the government really should be putting that money towards paying down the debt and funding more important things.
 
SkyChaser said:
Unless you're planning to solely use electricity produced by coal-burning power plants, your fuel for your electric car would also be subsidized.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry- you are partly correct. Here in Nebraska, they use mostly coal and I forgot about the federal coal subsidy. Natural gas is also subsidized, so EV's do get subsidized "fuel" as well as ICE cars. AFAIK, wind energy isn't subsidized in the same way although the companies behind those projects get tax credits and loan guarantees for a time period. So yes, EV's do get "fuel" subsidies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top