According to one of my 'mentors', the original Tesla turbine of ~100 years ago suffered from two 'real world' problems ... the first was that in order to achieve efficiency it had to operate at extremely high rpms ( like 50,000+ ) that the metallurgy and bearing technology of the time simply could not support. The second was that no investor money was forthcoming to promote Tesla's bladeless turbine in a market climate where internal combustion engines were still considered to be a 'new' technology in need of refinement. It was only the demands of WW2 defense technology ( and billions from various gov'ts ) that truly spurred gas turbine technological development ... and then they chose bladed turbines because the lower operating rpm's gave a better chance of quick success.
As to the original development of railroads via private investment, this is true of areas where economic conditions were such that railroad operating revenues could justify the investment. Thus early rail developed near US eastern cities, near US eastern coal mines etc. The gov't subsidy angle came in when other areas that did NOT have sufficient potential for profitable railroad operation wanted rail service.
In the case of Tesla roadsters, it would appear that the potential customer base that actually wants to buy, let alone can afford to buy the vehicle, is miniscule. Thus the entire Tesla pursuit has been, and will continue to be totally dependent on gov't subsidies in one form or another. Again, putting the electric vehicle arguments aside, the core question is whether or not the 1/2 billion in gov't subsidies already provided to Tesla Motors was a reasonably productive use of those taxpayer funds versus other possibilities that didn't happen for lack of gov't funding ( i.e. the new Constellation nuke power plant ).



Reply With Quote



Bookmarks