From: bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian J Queiser)
Subject: Re: impact is dead
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:41:44 GMT

Larry.Mc.Donald@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

>>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.

But I can't refer to them?!?

>>>   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.

It should seem to you that I am refering to the blathering idiots who
believe there is some conspiracy to waste fuel and pollute the air in
this country.  YOU EVEN WROTE ABOVE THAT "WE" ARE BRAINWASHED!

>>>                                           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.

Yes, it might.  But my car already costs less to operate and produces
less smog, overall, than your EV.  If you say I'm wrong, I say prove it.
There are very strong arguements that state that EVs merely transfer the
smog somewhere else and end up costing more in the end when their
inefficiencies are added up.  I won't say the differences are great, but
they're there.  Even if my car produces slightly more smog and costs
slightly more to operate,  I still drive a safer, more comfortable, more
enjoyable driving auto than you.  If you disagree, hey, that's fine with
me.

>>>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.

You mean to say that even _you_ have standards that you'll refuse
to go below?  _You_ have better things to do?  So _your_ standards
are those the rest of us should adopt?  No offense, but you're slipping.

>>>                                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.

Okay, you get the benefit of my doubt.  You, however, are an exception;
most people don't have 3 mile treks to work.  My facts/figures above
are still valid for IC vehicles on average.  I am assuming that your facts/
figures for your EV would be the same relative to the miles driven.
I think, then, that the Metro should beat your EV in cost.  Probably be
safer, more convenient, and produce less smog, too.

>>>   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.

That, my friend, was sarcasm.  Sometimes it doesn't come over the
internet very well.

>>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.

You mean that you accused _me_ of having an uninformed opinion when
you've never read or even heard of research comparing ICEs with EVs?
That takes a lot of gall.

>>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.

You IC types?  You IC types?  Actual figures?  Actual figures?
Don't you know anything about power production?  Look, it's very easy
to open a text and see what efficiency a typical, ideal power cycle
has.  There were even some posted here in rec.autos as follow-ups
to your post about "90%" efficient electric plants.  You're lucky if
those plants are 25% efficient.

If you want to see the results of some very good research into this
matter, may I suggest an article in Car and Driver within the past
year and a half or so.  I'm sorry I don't have the issues anymore,
otherwise I'd tell you the exact copy.  I think Csaba Csere did the
research and wrote the text.  He's an MIT grad if that matters to you.
I thought there wasn't much bias, but as some might expect, he concluded
that EVs aren't as efficient as some think, they are probably going to
be unsafe due to their weight considerations, they don't save much, if
any, pollution, and they don't remove the source(s) of the problem.
That's from memory, so don't quote me.  I do recall clearly that there
were a lot of facts and figures and neat charts/graphs/diagrams.
Have a ball.

>> 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.

Please read Pat Bedard's column in this month's C/D.

>> 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?

Why do you say this?  Do you think that S. Cal. can only be clean again
if fossil fuels are eliminated?  You guys have a problem, sure, but
there are ways to clean up without removing fossil fuels.  Something like
10% of the autos on your roads produce over 50% of the smog from cars.
Cut down you traffic by using better mass transportation and making
better highways into/out of the city.

>>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.

>   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.

Are you so sure?  Don't you think that the money that'll be put into
making a mass-producable electric car and the extra $$$ we'll have to
spend to buy one could be better put to use doing the things I said
above?  You won't be eliminating your traffic problems.  You won't
be saving much, if any (you could be losing it, too), energy.  You won't
be saving much, if any (you could be losing it, too), pollution.
You could be costing some lives.  You could end up spending way more $$$.

>> 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.

There are more considerations taken by the GM engineers than you with
your toolbox.  Now, I'm gonna refer to the crowd outside rec.autos,
and perhaps ourselves, that uses and abuses their cars daily.  We
rely on them to transport us to wherever the hell we want to go, in
as much comfort as we want or can afford, as fast or as slow as we wanna
go, as often or as little as we like, for a very cheap relative cost
with little inconvenience, and as safely as ever before.  Put those
options into your electric car, then let us (and GM) know.

>   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.

Exactly.

>   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.

Now there's optimism for ya.

That's sarcasm, Larry.

Regards,

Brian

bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am the engineer, I can choose K.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Engineering Mechanics
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
Newsgroups: rec.autos