🚀 go-pugleaf

>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. 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.


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

>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.


>incentive is providing the environment to research, develop, and field
>energy storage 
>devices that were otherwise pushed aside as unimportant.

As it ALWAYS is.  As fossil fuel sources deplete, nuclear power will
make more sense and an EV is the only vehicle that can be powered by a
nuke plant.


>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.

Well lets see, you said few generations .... children born today will
likely see the end of the 21st century. Their kids will likely see the
middle of teh 22nd, the THEIR kids will see the beginning of the 23rd.

So three (a few) generations and we are looking at the 23rd century
.. I agree with you.

>>I am not against EVs 

>That's difficult to surmise from your posts...

BTW, I am not against EV's either. They WILL come.  And they are a
good long term investment, in my opinion, but I would not risk my own
retirement on it.

>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.

>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. 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.

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

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

>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.  Cars operate at maximum at everywhere EXCEPT full throttle.
I do not know of too many drivers that send a lot of time a
wide-open-throttle (WOT) in their car.

> 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.

You seem to believe everything you read on the web. OK, I will but
some stuff on the web and cite it if it will make you feel better.


George Bonser
grep@cris.com

Forbes for President in '96