Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Your electric car of the future.

B

Balanced View

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
Balanced View wrote:



Still doesn't make your definition correct.

And the *ELECTRICITY* itself ?

Graham

Yes it does, an EV does not burn hydrocarbons, therefore is a Zero
Emission vehicle. As for the electricity itself,
it depends were you live. Where I live it's nearly all Hydro and
nuclear. If you had a solar array to charge an EV
even better.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Balanced said:
Yes it does, an EV does not burn hydrocarbons, therefore is a Zero
Emission vehicle. As for the electricity itself,
it depends were you live. Where I live it's nearly all Hydro

Well, lucky YOU. If only we all did, all our problems would be over.

and nuclear.

Do you not count nuclear emissions btw ? Taken a geiger counter into the Irish
Sea ever or off Dounreay ?

If you had a solar array to charge an EV even better.

As long as your journey is only a few miles you MIGHT just manage on PV but I
doubt it. PV is, after the 'hydrogen economy', the biggest scam in recent
history.

So in other words, taken overall, it's anything BUT a ZEV.

I suggest you learn some science, physics, electronics, engineering, propulsion
systems, mechanical design etc, etc and come back in a few decades with your
alleged ZEV.

Graham
 
B

Balanced View

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
Balanced View wrote:



Well, lucky YOU. If only we all did, all our problems would be over.

Never said the solution was a magic bullet, but for the average commuter
current EV's are more than capable
of driving to work and back.

Do you not count nuclear emissions btw ? Taken a geiger counter into the Irish
Sea ever or off Dounreay ?

I don't live in Ireland

As long as your journey is only a few miles you MIGHT just manage on PV but I
doubt it. PV is, after the 'hydrogen economy', the biggest scam in recent
history.

I've already mentioned our longest commute is only about five miles, I'd
hardly need much to top that up.

So in other words, taken overall, it's anything BUT a ZEV.

We have already determined a EV does not emit burned hydro carbons, and
fits the definition of
"Zero Emissions" as accepted by the Automobile manufacturers and the
Government.

I suggest you learn some science, physics, electronics, engineering, propulsion
systems, mechanical design etc, etc and come back in a few decades with your
alleged ZEV.

Graham


Coming from someone like you who can't even follow a newsgroup thread
that's highly amusing.....
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Balanced said:
Never said the solution was a magic bullet, but for the average commuter
current EV's are more than capable
of driving to work and back.
WRONG



I don't live in Ireland

Or Scotland ?

I've already mentioned our longest commute is only about five miles, I'd
hardly need much to top that up.

Oh FFS, you can CYCLE that. Stuff tre car.

We have already determined a EV does not emit burned hydro carbons,

No we haven't. That's where most electricity comes from.
and fits the definition of "Zero Emissions" as accepted by the Automobile
manufacturers and the Government.

They can **** themselves up the arse, because they are LIARS.

Coming from someone like you who can't even follow a newsgroup thread
that's highly amusing.....

Coming from someone with a brain that doesn't work, I'll ignore your stupid comments.

Graham
 
B

Balanced View

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
Balanced View wrote:



WRONG

I already posted the cite that shows the stats for commuting to work,
it's less than 30 miles, well within
the range of current EV's
Or Scotland ?

No

Oh FFS, you can CYCLE that. Stuff tre car.

I bike all the time, but I have a home office and don't have to commute,
but my wife does.

No we haven't. That's where most electricity comes from.

We have already established there are no carbon emissions from Hydro or
Nuclear, of which are
all that's used in my location
They can **** themselves up the arse, because they are LIARS.


Oh I see , "Everyone else is Wrong"
Coming from someone with a brain that doesn't work, I'll ignore your stupid comments.

Graham

Typical, you can't refute fact, or provide cites to back up your
position, so just swear or yell louder.....
As they used to say in the old days...Plonk.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Neon said:
So let me get this straight. If I live somewhere else (here my power is
nuclear) and I plug my car into that great long extension cord called the grid
and on the other end of that cord, a coal plant ramps up its firing rate just
a little to charge my batteries, then I'm still driving a zero emission car?
Is that what you're trying to tell me, grasshopper?

Wow.

Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?

If only it were that simple.

hmmm,,, simple being a very suitable word.

Graham
 
B

Balanced View

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
Neon John wrote:



If only it were that simple.

hmmm,,, simple being a very suitable word.

Graham


The point is the car isn't emitting anything. According to California's
Air Resources Board (CARB), a "Zero-emissions vehicle"
is a vehicle that has:

* No tailpipe emissions
* No evaporative emissions
* No onboard emission-control systems that can deteriorate over time
* No emissions from gasoline refining or sales

You guys can split hairs all you want, even if coal is used to generate
the power, the pollution from the plant is less tan and
easier to control than in thousands of individual ICE cars.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Balanced said:
According to California's
Air Resources Board (CARB), a "Zero-emissions vehicle"
is a vehicle that has:

Is a load of bollocks.

'Boards' do not impress me one bit. They are usually a politically mnotivated (i.e.
bad) method of ensuring idiocy rules.

Graham
 
R

RW Salnick

Jan 1, 1970
0
Balanced said:
The point is the car isn't emitting anything. According to California's
Air Resources Board (CARB), a "Zero-emissions vehicle"
is a vehicle that has:

* No tailpipe emissions
* No evaporative emissions
* No onboard emission-control systems that can deteriorate over time
* No emissions from gasoline refining or sales

You guys can split hairs all you want, even if coal is used to generate
the power, the pollution from the plant is less tan and
easier to control than in thousands of individual ICE cars.


Question: When are the enviro-wackos going to allow a new coal-fired
power plant to be built in California?

Answer: Never. They want it to be built in Nevada or New Mexico or
Arizona, but most importantly, out of sight and out of mind, so they
don't have to face up to the consequences of their actions, and so they
can continue to feel smugly "green" and all zero-emissiony
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Neon said:
It used to be a joke that the air going into an engine was dirtier than that
coming out but now it's true in many cases.

When Saab introduced their Trionic ECU in *1993*, their proud boast was that the
Saab 9000 actually cleaned city air as you drove it. It's a fact too.

Graham
 
B

Balanced View

Jan 1, 1970
0
RW said:
Question: When are the enviro-wackos going to allow a new coal-fired
power plant to be built in California?

Answer: Never. They want it to be built in Nevada or New Mexico or
Arizona, but most importantly, out of sight and out of mind, so they
don't have to face up to the consequences of their actions, and so
they can continue to feel smugly "green" and all zero-emissiony



If it wasn't for " enviro -wackos" the USA would have the pollution
level of China and third world working conditions.
If it wasn't for California it would be unlikely we would have any air
pollution control at all on American vehicles.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Balanced said:
If it wasn't for " enviro-wackos" the USA would have the pollution
level of China and third world working conditions.

What makes you think that ?

Graham
 
B

Balanced View

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
Balanced View wrote:



What makes you think that ?

Graham

Oh please, where have you been since the 1960's? Industry and the Big
Three auto makers fought tooth and nail
against any legislation regarding pollution. Lake Erie was on the verge
of being dead and the Cuyahoga River
actually caught on fire. It was the Wacko's protests that brought about
the clean up......
 
B

Balanced View

Jan 1, 1970
0
Neon said:
The problem with the environmental religion, as with most religions, is that
there is no moderation. Extremism is the norm.

You might want to flip the coin, the polluters where just as extreme
with their "Profits above all else" Mantra.
I remember going over Missionary Ridge into Chattanooga and seeing the orange
haze and smelling the foundry smoke. The smell of money.

I'm kinda, but not completely glad the orange haze is gone. Along with the
haze went the foundry jobs where a guy with barely a high school education
could work his ass off but make enough money to raise a family with the mother
staying at home to BE the mother. He made $8 to $12 an hour IN THE 70s. Back
when a decent three bedroom house could be had for $20,000 and a car for
$2500.

And now they are all keeling over with POD and Cancer as a result, and
we all pay for it. The same companies
are now overseas, quite happy to pay slave wages pollute without
restriction or worry about pesky labor laws.
Now a guy who barely graduated from high school or who has a GED can make the
same hourly wage flipping burgers in the "tourism and hospitality industry"
but the dollars are tiny in comparison.

Problem is, government is like cancer, a growing thing with the suicide gene
disabled. The pollution problem was solved in Chattanooga by the late 70s by
running many heavy industries out of town and forcing emission controls on the
rest. The air became clear and downtown employees could step out on their
lunch break and see sparkling blue skies. And then go back inside the
kitchens to their minimum wage jobs.

Then maybe they should have stayed in school and got an education.

Just as a cancer devours its host, so the EPA and local air quality people
devoured the city. They couldn't just say "job well done" and go away. No,
they kept looking for smaller and smaller, ever more inconsequential
"emitters" to regulate. When the air got clean enough that the EPA's mission
was in jeopardy, why, they simply ratcheted down the standards to define more
ordinary things as "pollution".

A couple of years ago, after one of these ratcheting-downs, the EPA declared
that Chattanooga was a "non-attainment" area because it failed to meet these
new air quality standards something like 11 days out of the summer the
previous year. The result? A massive and un-necessary auto emissions testing
system that costs citizens a fortune in both money and time and hassle.

The EPA patted itself on the back and declared the program a success. However,
if one looks at the data, one realizes that "attainment" in the last year or
two is simply normal statistical variations due to weather and other factors.

One interesting tidbit is that the ex-mayor who was in office when emissions
testing train wreck came about seems to own the land that most of the dyno
testing facilities are located on. Hmmmm.

I don't know that the government was the problem, Globalizeation was
what made the companies leave
most cities in NA, not pollution control
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
And the "air sewer" coming up across the great lakes from the Ohio
Valley that gives Central Ontario some of the worst air quality in
North America. Mostly from dirty coal fired generating plants.

Scrubbers for coal plants are already seriously 'old tech' now.

The only reason for coal station flues to be emitting serious pollution is failure
of political policy or will, not failure of technology.

Grahama
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Balanced said:
Oh please, where have you been since the 1960's? Industry and the Big
Three auto makers fought tooth and nail
against any legislation regarding pollution. Lake Erie was on the verge
of being dead and the Cuyahoga River
actually caught on fire. It was the Wacko's protests that brought about
the clean up......

Wrong COUNTRY. I live in the UK. We had Clean Air acts before you were born
I'm sure.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
daestrom said:
"Eeyore" wrote

Well air quality in northern Michigan where I grew up was never much of an
issue. But when I was young (late 50's) you had to get a tetnus shot if you
fell into some lakes / rivers. It was so polluted you couldn't see down two
feet into the water.

Read up where AIUI, modern clean air legislation originated.

Visiting the same area now you can see down ten to fifteen feet to the lake
bottom standing on docks. A lot of the reason is the Clean Water Act. And
the other big reason is the invasive Zebra Mussel.

Ah, you should go to Werden's Ende sp? (lit World's End) in Norway. Blew me
away.

Graham
 
V

Vaughn Simon

Jan 1, 1970
0
All because we are (a) too cheap to pay for quality, and (b) don't
have the money to buy quality because our good paying factory jobs are
gone.

Most rational consumers instinctively seek best VALUE for their money, not
always the lowest cost. Small example: If low price were of prime importance,
Yugos would still be selling like hotcakes, rather than flopping because they
quickly gained a reputation as a POS.

I was brought up in Detroit (makes me almost Canadian) but I haven't bought a
car from the former big three in decades. Instead, I pay a bit extra for
quality because I have figured out that it is cheaper.

Vaughn
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Vaughn said:
Most rational consumers instinctively seek best VALUE for their money, not
always the lowest cost. Small example: If low price were of prime importance,
Yugos would still be selling like hotcakes, rather than flopping because they
quickly gained a reputation as a POS.

Yes. Well maybe not Yugos, but Skodas sold rather well. Handled pretty well too
NO matter how miserable Communism can be, you can't totally kill the inventiveness
of their engineers.

I was brought up in Detroit (makes me almost Canadian) but I haven't bought a
car from the former big three in decades. Instead, I pay a bit extra for
quality because I have figured out that it is cheaper.

Cheaper to run you mean ? Could hardly be diffiicult surely ?

Graham
 
Top