🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4d4if7$ltc@spectator.cris.com> grep@cris.com (George B) writes: 
>
>
>>Certainly, though it has not been pursued because of the energy cheap
>>nature of gasoline. 
>
>That is all that matters. As LONG as gasoline is cheaper it will be
>the fuel of choice ... period. 

Now you're the one with psychics...  :-)

>People need the largest energy value
>they can get for their dollar, many can not afford to spend extra for
>a political statement or as an enviro-charity contribution.

People spend lots of money for unneccessary features; if they wanted
to, they could spend it on something that did not pollute as much or
that required non-renewable energy sources.

>>As pollution and resource depletion questions
>>emerge, lawmakers have seen fit to legislate action to avoid the
>>unpleasant effects produced by ICEs.

>What unplesent effects? ICV's have been getting CLEANER every year. I
>think you are just plain anti ICV even if they DO produce less
>pollution than an EV.

Pollution is only one of the problems with ICEVs.  You seem to have
forgotton oil resources in the US.  Have you?

>How much money do you have staked to EV's? I think that is the real 
>issue here.

This is cute.  I own no stock or other holdings in any company that has
anything to do with EVs or their components.

I *am* toying with the idea of converting a car to an EV once I finish
building my house.

>>This has created a market for electric vehicles,
>>with the superior EVs taking the lion's share of the market. 

>You make it sound like there IS a market. I suspect we are talking a
>fraction of one percent of vehicles sold.

Your psychic again?  :-)

>>The proof will be in the fielding and use of the vehicles.  Gasoline
>>ICEVs, on the other hand, are impractical for sustained usage over
the
>>next few generations.

>I agree with you.

>>Lack of reliability of batteries?  Every car I know relies upon
>>batteries to start.

>Are you totally ... never mind. A ICV relies on ONE battery for a
>short burst of power ONE time (to get started) before recharging it.
>It DOES NOT rely on the battery once running, there is an interesting
>part called the Alternator that generates power for accessories and
>also recharges the battery for the next start.

Again, if the battery doesn't work, then the car doesn't start.
Again, what lack of reliability is being referred to here?

>>Yes, and I am guilty of being an EV proponent.  I just tend to
>>overreact after seeing many posts that profer ridiculous scenarios
that
>>EVs can't satisfy, and pretend that the scenarios are commonplace.

>I tend to agree with that, most of what I have seen on these threads I
>would consider POSSIBLE but ridiculous at affordable prices.

>>Widely known?  Or widely speculated?  If you visit
>>http://www.calstart.org/reference/papers/emission.html you will find
a
>>sample estimation/comparison.

>A pound of hydrocarbon combined with air produces about the same
>amount of CO2 regardless of the type of hydrocarbon ... or maybe I
>should be accurate and speak in moles.

Conversion efficiency affects the capture of the heat energy into work,
so a simple comparision such as this needs to be viewed in light of
total work.

>Anyhow, in open air, gasoline
>and coal are about the same. With EGR, catalytic converters and closed
>loop control, I would rather live with ICV exhaust than a coal power
>plant smokestack.

See above.  Of course, no one wants to live on top of a coal plant
smokestack.  And people are finding it more difficult to live in a
large city with the exhaust of an ICEV to contend with.

>Natural gas would be best. It is the exception and burnes VERY clean
>even in open air.

It is clean, but how much do we have?  If we started using it for
automobiles and the consumption rose considerably, how much quicker
would it too be exhausted?

Reference http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infocard.html

>>Don't forget the losses for oil exploration, drilling,
transportation,
>>refining (significant), and other transportation and pumping
>>requirements.

>You have to include ALL those factors in EV's as well. 

I did, but you snipped it away.

>Where to you
>think your computer's power is comming from right now?

Is this a pop quiz or is it extra credit?  :-)

>>ICEVs, especially in commuting profiles, operate over a wide range of
>>engine speeds and loads.  The emission controls cannot operate at a
>>optimum level over most of these ranges, but a power plant, at a far
>>narrower range, can. 

>I disagree. Power plants operate at maximum efficiency only at full
>throttle.

They have a far smaller operating range than do automobiles.  They
don't have to start, stop, accelerate, change lanes, etc, etc.

>Cars operate at maximum at everywhere EXCEPT full throttle.

Err, can you provide some references to back up your claim?  Certainly
you don't claim cold starts, idling, accelerations, decelerations, etc,
are times of maximum pollution control for automobiles?  You're
sounding like talk radio again, and don't forget you're in sci.*
groups, not rec.autos.*

>I do not know of too many drivers that send a lot of time a
>wide-open-throttle (WOT) in their car.

Another odd scenario.

>> Plus, it's easier to control emissions at one
>>point source rather than a million.

>I disagree. It is much easier to put a catalytic converter on very
>auto than to put a single one on a power plant.

Power plants have their own pollution control systems; don't confuse
them with those invented for small, inefficient power systems.

>You seem to believe everything you read on the web. 

You seem to make up disinformation as it suits you.  Please feel free
to challenge anything I reference and provide a convincing argument for
your point of view.

>OK, I will but
>some stuff on the web and cite it if it will make you feel better.

If you were a reputable research firm or government agency, I might
consider what you posted.  But we know that is not the case...

Cheers,

Will Stewart