From: Larry.Mc.Donald@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: impact is dead
X-Sender: newtout 0.05 Dec 30 1992
Date: 31 Dec 92  08:47:00

 bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu 
   
   (Brian J Queiser)
 > Maybe the expression, "monkeys always look" is applicable here.  Can I
 > not refer to the crowd outside rec.autos?

   I don't think the crowd outside of rec.autos reads rec.autos.
 
> >   People won't accept EVs because they have been brainwashed
> >into thinking they can't be used.
>
> Brainwashed by oil companies, auto manufacturers, and Hitler, right?
> Yep, they're all in on it.  Right now they're shelving those
> high-capacity batteries next to those 100 mile carbs.

   I didn't say that there were and high-mileage carbs or high 
capacity batteries, did i?  Seems to me that you are trying to 
defend your point of view by making my arguments for me. 
 
> >                                           Most EVs have a range of 100
> >miles or so. How far do you travel to work?
>
> 25 miles one way.  That includes dropping my wife off at work.  With
> travelling and misc. driving, I average 22,000 miles a year.

   So what do you need a 300 mile range for?  Looks like the 
average EV would have twice the range you need to commute.
 
> >I drive a total of 6 miles a day, to work and back.
>
> You should walk.  Or bike.

   I have tried biking. The streets here are way too filthy for 
that. I almost never get more than a week before I run across 
something the bike tire can't deal with.  I'm too lazy to walk 
and that would take way too much time. I have better things to 
do.
 
> >                                Yeah, I can see where I'd need a
> >300 mile range, in case I got lost.  My IC car costs about $2 a
> >day to drive. When I had an EV, it was about $.25. Plug it in
> >once a week and that's it. How about forgetting about the
> >ecological reasons to drive an EV and consider just how much
> >money you'd save?
>
> How do you figure your IC car costs $2 to drive 6 miles?  Do you get
> 4 mpg or something?  What are you driving?  A Diablo?  Gasoline at
> $1.25/gal and a car that gets 20mpg costs only $0.38 a day; still
> greater than $0.25 (if we can believe that) but far less than $2.  A
> Geo Metro would cost you only $0.15 a day.

   That assumes that you don't have to start the car, which 
consumes four times the gas while its cold and waiting at stop 
lights.  Sure, if the car was warm and I could do 60 for the 
three miles, it would only be .1 gallons. However, what I did is 
divide the price I pay at the pump be the actual miles driven. My 
IC car gets 30 mpg on the freeway.
 
> >   I wonder if there is a single person who is against EVs that
> >ever owned or drove one?  Uninformed opinions are sure easy to
> >come by...
>
> I've driven a golf cart many times.

   Now there's an informed opinion for ya.  I take it that your 
commuter car is a riding lawnmower?  It would be about the same 
comparison.

> newsgroup.  None of us are above learning and accepting something as
> fact, but all of us require a complete, systematic analysis of subjects
> like EVs. 

   I'd love to see some research that proves that EVs are worse 
than IC cars.  I've owned EVs and am building another. I've done 
much research into the EV end and due to recent posts here, I'm 
also researching the fossil fuel power plant efficiencies to try 
and discover what the overall eff of an EV is.  When I do, I'll 
post my findings.

> stupid the rest of us are for driving ICE vehicles.  Your "80%" EVs are
> a fantasy when you look at the efficency of power plants, transfer
> lines, substations, and current battery technology.  

   You IC types like to use this argument, but I've yet to see 
actual figures.
   
> somewhere else.  EVs don't remove the old clunkers from the road that
> are spewing out the majority of the crap anyway. Fossil fuels will last

   I'd agree with that, but I don't think the "old clunkers" need 
to be removed. I have a '67 Volvo that I've retrofitted to fuel 
injection in an attempt to clean it up.  There should just be 
smog specs written that you must meet with any car, by any means 
possible. We have a smog inspection program here and to pass it, 
I have to put the old, smelly carbs back on the car and create 
more smog, since the local laws require that the car be 
completely unmodified. There's logic for ya.
   Old cars aren't the only offenders, either. The new car 
manufacturers will try and get away with what ever they think 
they can get away with. On my way home, there is a sizable hill. 
I've noticed that new Hondas spew smoke when loaded going up this 
hill. These are the '92 models.

> us much longer than most think because there's reserves that haven't
> even been tapped yet and some geologists think that the oil/gas may

   You mean that my native Southern California will never be 
clean again?

> actually be able to replace itself.  Even if they don't, there's the
> possibility of widespread solar power and alternative fuels. Don't
> forget about cold fusion or smaller, safer fision reactors.  Given
> time, all these things will develop nicely.  Today's engines burn
> cleaner and give us better and better mileage.  What we need are better
> urban road systems, less traffic, and better public transportation.  We
> don't need knee-jerk reacting, ill-informed, lobby motivated, desperate
> politicans telling us or our companies what to do.

   What do you think is happening now?  No real research is being 
done to further nuclear power due to the efforts of reactionaries. 
We should have had fusion reactors twenty years ago. We do need 
less traffic. We do need decent public transportation. Are we 
getting these? No. The mess we are in now is a result of the 
lobbying and control of the auto companies and oil interests. If 
you don't believe this, research what happened to the Red Car 
line here in southern Cal.

> You and others may have differing opinions on these subjects, and you
> certainly have the right to have them.  You can also go out right now
> and buy a stripped out Fiero or Festiva that has been made into an

   or Fiat

> electric car.  But before you force a manufacturer to sell 2% (or
> whatever) of their vehicles as zero emission (which right now,
> essentially  means electric powered)
> you better make damn sure it's a good idea.

   Given that we aren't going to get fusion reactors or decent 
public transportation anytime soon, I think that the EV is the 
best alternative.  This might me more important to me than it is 
to you, due to where we live.  I've lived all my life here in So 
Cal and at one time it was beautiful here. The IC car destroyed 
all that. Now it's loud everywhere you go and smoggy as hell. 
Doing nothing else but converting to EVs would solve most of this 
problem. EVs are almost silent and they produce almost no smog on 
their own. Even if the smog produced by the generating facilities 
equalled that of IC cars, at least at the stationary plants have 
greatly superior scrubbing facilities, so the airborne smog would 
be reduced.  EVs ain't the solution to our problems, but it's a 
hell of a lot better alternative than what we are doing now.

> I say it isn't.

   We disagree. I get a bit hot under the collar when people tell 
me that there ain't a way to clean up So. Cal. when I know there 
is.  Possibly the pollution from powering EVs with coal-fired 
plants would be worse, but then we don't have those here in the 
west. Most of the night-time power here comes from a nearby 
nuclear plant that just idles during the night. The capacity is 
there, if people would just buy the EVs and use it.
   Now I won't claim that there's a conspiracy to kill the EV in 
America, but that Impact from GM wasn't anything special. If a 
team of GM engineers can't do any better than a guy with a 
toolbox in his backyard, then we need better engineers.  
   Battery technology is another sore point. The batteries 
suitable for use in EVs have actually gotten worse in recent 
years. My EV used lead-acid batteries that are essentially the 
same as ones produced almost 100 years ago. During the '30s and 
'40s, nickel-iron batteries were easily had and are superior to 
lead-acid.  You can still but nickel-iron, but they are a 
specialty item today and you'll pay through the nose.

   Anyway, time will tell.  I don't hope for a lot. I suspect 
that we'll have to run out of oil before anything significant is 
done.
   


... Larry.Mc.Donald, N6ZMB, Fullerton, California!  <cough, cough>
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10

--- Maximus 2.01wb