The BMW UUC Digest Volume 3 : Issue 212 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: I confess, I confess/ Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: tesla (ref: Bedard article)] Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: tesla (ref: Bedard article)] Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: tesla (ref: Bedard article)] Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: tesla (ref: Bedard article)] Re: PEI Re: OBD-II Cats? OT- emissions, was Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen Re: OT- emissions, was Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:48:13 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Subject: I confess, I confess/ Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: tesla (ref: Bedard article)] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I freely confess. Can those of us who are able to cut ourselves free of our cars for our daily commute not seem elitist to those who are not able to (yet?) Being a member of my town's bicycle and pedestrian advisory comittee, I may be a pot calling the kettle black, but part of what got me appointed to the seat is that when the council members interviewed me I expressed that I am just as much a driving enthusiast as cyclist, just as likely to park my //M3 downtown as to bike or walk, rather than a screaming radical standing at busy intersections holding up "gas hog" signs at every SUV that drives by. My centrist views (for CA politics at least) do receive criticism at times from the reactionary side of the non-motor vehicle transportation activism. But _yes, non-motor vehicle transportation transit infrastructure can provide viable alternatives to some driving trips in all climates. Chicago is a prime example of a colder climate persuing this. Through central New Jersey, a bicycle beltway interconnecting many existing trails and bicycle lane marked roads, running from cancer alley to Trenton, and the shore is a realistic objective. This _would make bicycling to work at least some of the year an option for hundreds of thousands who currently feel they have no alternative but to drive, along with the recreational possibilities it would provide. Emission controls already can deliver near flatliner levels. Reduction in part per million emissions are not worth persuing, compared to decreasing overall tailpipe emissions further by madating higher fuel economy standards. Less fuel burned, less millions of the parts per millions of pollutants to be emitted. Without the standards put in place in the seventies and eighties, we would still be looking at 10mpg for a hot performance car. Standard listed fuel consumption for a 2002 was listed at 23.5mph (10 l/100km). Now I get that in a 1000 pound heavier 50% larger engined //M3, and up to 30mpg highway at a steady 80mph. In my old '78 530i, 20mpg was the best it would ever get. Its time to strap on the helmet, hop on the bike, pedal over to the full capacity bicycle car on Caltrain, up a few stops, and bike to the office from there. As the //M3 stays in the garage not wearing itself out. Barry Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks wrote: >Was that "elist" or "elitist"? > >Sorry, couldn't resist. > >But for those not living in perpetually-sunny-and-beautiful-Californialand >two miles from our university offices, bicycling is not an option. What I >do see missing from this hobbyist's blue-sky view is the black-sky view of >the increased usage of older power plants which have not been updated and >"cleaned up". I'm not so sure it's easier or less expensive to update a >20-50 year energy plant build cycle than to update the vehicles which >generally have little more than a 7-year lifecycle. > >I'm not "for" pollution - in fact, I just commissioned our own line of >high-efficiency catalytic converters - but I am for a realistic view of >things. Current technology always being the problem, there still isn't a >reasonable battery solution. They're too heavy, too toxic, too expensive >(both in dollars and in production energy). I believe that an efficient >battery technology is possible, but it requires an exponential increase in >efficiency compared to what we have now. > >With that in mind, I strongly believe that government-forced continual >increases in emmissions controls need to stop. The gains are rapidly >diminishing while the costs keep escalating. The same "forced technology >development" funds would yield immensely better results if put toward the >battery technology. But none of that is a surprise, a 4-year election cycle >breeds shortsightedness. > >- Rob > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "[uucdigest]" <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:48 AM >Subject: [Fwd: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: [UUC] tesla (ref: Bedard article)] > > > > >>From a similar thread on the Silicone Valley Bicycle Coalition elist, >>written by an electric car hobbyist: >> >>That is exactly why everyone who understands the energy economy >>is convinced that today the only alternative to the internal combustion >>engine is the Battery Electric Vehicle. >>We see more and more signs that they become popular again, after >>many years of being only an "uncomfortable truth". >>Most notably the electric scooters and bicycles are slowly becoming >>popular, but the Electric Auto Associations and the EVDL mail list for >>discussion of Electric Vehicle owners, builders and enthusiasts are >>seeing more and more traffic. >>Let's also not forget the electric drag racers who silently blow the doors >>off the noisiest muscle cars. The Tesla Roadster is the first real >>production >>vehicle to be in this class, but there are many self-built (converted) >> >> >cars > > >>that are street-legal, sometimes daily driver, while also racing on the >>drag-strips. >>One of the most noteworthy is a 1973 Econobox Datsun 1200 that >>runs under 12 seconds in 1/4 mile. (name: White Zombie) >>Most vehicles though are grocery-getters and commute-vehicles >>that silently and without tailpipe transport their drivers around. >>Not only is this the most efficient (least energy required) of all >>variants of transport, but also is it natural to combine it with a >>renewable energy system to recharge the batteries, resulting >>in truly zero emissions for the fueling up. >>Charging it from the electricity grid does not require new power >>plants and does not cause more blackouts, because almost all >>charging happens at night when the electricity is abundantly >>available due to low demand, rates drop to 5c per kWh between >>midnight and 7 AM due to this, so the efficiency leads to an even >>lower cost for fuel of approximately 2c/mi. >>Think of it this way: at today's gas prices you would need a car >>with 150 MPG to get the same fuel cost per mile as electric. >>Oh, and if you think that these are sort of golf carts then you are >>mistaken - I am talking about normal sedans and light trucks, >>that are allowed to use the Carpool lane and toll bridges for free >>on the Freeway with one occupant due to being ZEV. >> >>One of the things I love about an EV is that I do not feel guilty >>over making a few short trips, like groceries and picking up or >>dropping off someone, because the motor does not have a >>warm-up phase in which it emits far more than when it is warm. >>Short trips in a petrol car will create a lot of pollution in the >>first mile of driving. The EV is just as clean in the first mile as >>in any other: zero tail-pipe emissions. >> >>Last important thing to keep in mind - petrol vehicles get dirtier >>when they get older, due to wear on the emission components. >>Electric vehicles' source of emissions is the smokestack of the >>power plant. The few power plants are much easier to clean up >>than the millions of cars. The restrictions and filtering requirements >>on power plants are increased about every year. In California only >>3% of the power (of PG&E) is produced using coal for example, >>more and more renewable energy is used. This makes the EV >>pollution go down every year, contrary to the conventional car. >> >>BTW - my second Electric Vehicle has 2 wheels and 90% of the >>time I am pedaling the 20 miles commute. >> >>Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] >> >> >>__________________________________________________________________________ >>In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. >> >>UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate >>Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! >>908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/401 - Release Date: 7/26/2006 >> >> >> >> > >Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > >__________________________________________________________________________ >In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > >UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate >Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! >908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:11:52 -0400 From: "Chet Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: tesla (ref: Bedard article)] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rob, I agree whole-heartedly with one exception......my job (and a passion of mine) depends on engine development! It is independent of fuel type however, so I have a chance at making a living. :) It is most interesting to think of all those CARB regulations in effect in San Diego yet Tijuana Mexico is only a few short miles away! Somehow I don't think pollution stops at immigration before entering the US. I'm not promoting mass pollution either through relaxed standards, just perspective. If you want to save the earth from pollution, take the low hanging fruit first and you'll clean up more than anything CARB can do in it's own borders with transportation that is already ULEV/SULEV standards! I'm of the opinion if one were to institute a global minimum standard in which auto manufacturers must meet the world would benefit more. Then if CARB wants to make their jurisdiction cleaner-yet, go for it! Just my opinion, Chet Dawes -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: [UUC] tesla (ref: Bedard article)] Was that "elist" or "elitist"? Sorry, couldn't resist. But for those not living in perpetually-sunny-and-beautiful-Californialand two miles from our university offices, bicycling is not an option. What I do see missing from this hobbyist's blue-sky view is the black-sky view of the increased usage of older power plants which have not been updated and "cleaned up". I'm not so sure it's easier or less expensive to update a 20-50 year energy plant build cycle than to update the vehicles which generally have little more than a 7-year lifecycle. I'm not "for" pollution - in fact, I just commissioned our own line of high-efficiency catalytic converters - but I am for a realistic view of things. Current technology always being the problem, there still isn't a reasonable battery solution. They're too heavy, too toxic, too expensive (both in dollars and in production energy). I believe that an efficient battery technology is possible, but it requires an exponential increase in efficiency compared to what we have now. With that in mind, I strongly believe that government-forced continual increases in emmissions controls need to stop. The gains are rapidly diminishing while the costs keep escalating. The same "forced technology development" funds would yield immensely better results if put toward the battery technology. But none of that is a surprise, a 4-year election cycle breeds shortsightedness. - Rob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:23:55 -0400 From: "Andy Messer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: tesla (ref: Bedard article)] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I'm of the opinion if one were to institute a global minimum standard in which auto manufacturers must meet the world would benefit more Getting governments to agree on emissions regulations is not likely to happen any time soon. The fact of the matter is in many non-emissionized countries, the economies simply can't (or won't) support the penalties associated with improved emissions (cost, fuel consumption, expensive technologies/materials, etc). Even when amortizing the costs across a more global base, the people in the poorer areas of the world could not afford the 'global' vehicles. There is a reason it is cheaper to ship raw goods to China/India/Mexico, assemble, then ship product to the US at a cost lower than locally made products... Cheap labor. Without a decent amount of income things like low emissions cars are just not attainable, which pretty much blows the whole idea of spreading the development costs over a larger population out of the water. As much as people want to say they are for reduced emissions, cost is king. If saving a few bucks means spitting out more emissions, most are OK with that. Otherwise, we'd all be driving around in SULEV Hondas. And we'd buy brand new every year, to get the lowest emissions possible. Time for a bike ride... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:06:25 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen, was: tesla (ref: Bedard article)] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To build on what inputs from Mark, Vic, and Rob: it's interesting that the writer also takes a very regional outlook in so far as contending that continuous improvement in plant emissions are a constant. In fact, in China and India they are slow or nonexistent and the growth of "dirty" coal fired plants in the PRC easily overcomes any improvements in emissions of the US or European plants. Models can be made very compelling.... reality is a dope slap. -Kevin ---------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail communication is confidential and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose the contents of this communication to others. Please notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error by replying to the e-mail. Please then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:34:32 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PEI Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There are a lot of Californians who would also be happy to be living without these influences. Scott Miller - native Californian raising his hand GGC BMW CCA >Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:24:58 -0300 >From: "Roger Langille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: PEI >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <snip> >8. Young pups trying to 'score a babe' are hanging fast and furious >'mufflers' on their Civics and Preludes, and installing thumpy base >speakers, and god-awful large chrome wheels - California influences with >which most of North America would likely have been happy to live without. <snip> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:45:06 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OBD-II Cats? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Although several people in the discussion thread mentioned problems with failing HCs, the person who replaced the DEC cat with a factory cat did not specify why his car had failed with the DEC cat. Anyway, everyone's responses have been enlightening and will give me much to share (I'll summarize, I'm not going to include every word that was posted on the subject). Thanks, Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA >Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:31:25 -0400 >From: "Chet Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "UUC Digest" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: OBD-II Cats? >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <snip> >Any idea how the car failed the test? NOx, HC, CO too high? Probably had >pre-existing conditions and little to do with the catalyst unless some other >condition smoked the catalyst! > >Cheers, >Chet Dawes ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:06:44 -0400 From: "Jason Kay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: OT- emissions, was Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Another one of the great C&D articles was on how to improve air quality... the study reveiled that 1 car out of 10 (that is out of tune) will spit out 90% or more of the emissions of the group... the article then went on about drive-by emissions testing... If you ever have been in China or Hong Kong, you know that the air is not exactly clean there... -Jason '86 951 "Sparky" '70 240Z "Dusty" '97 Contour "Bambi" '03 325xi "Daisy" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:25:52 -0400 From: Vic Maslanka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jason Kay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] Subject: Re: OT- emissions, was Re: [SVBC] OT- Hydrogen Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> These are the gross polluters. But when CA tried to get them off the road, the public went nuts. First, "you're just trying to scrap all the classic old cars," so the auto clubs were in opposition. Including Bimwads defending their smoking 2002's. Second, you're eliminating the transportation of the poor, so a number of groups were in opposition. Everybody wants clean air, as long as they don't have to do anything about it. A corollary of transit is good, everyone else should ride it so there's more room for my SUV on the freeway. Vic At 09:06 AM 7/28/2006, Jason wrote: >Another one of the great C&D articles was on how to improve air >quality... the study reveiled that 1 car out of 10 (that is out of >tune) will spit out 90% or more of the emissions of the group... the >article then went on about drive-by emissions testing... > >If you ever have been in China or Hong Kong, you know that the air >is not exactly clean there... ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(8 messages) **********
