Green, electric bicycle company, seeks intern!
mr.b...@gmail.com
cycles? Would you like to help spread the word about this new
transport technology, and get practical training on the ground floor?
I run a small business, selling and servicing electric bicycles. I'm
looking for an intern to join me, either for the summer, or for a
longer period.
The ideal intern has these qualities:
* passionate about bicycles and/or electric bicycles
* committed to "green" causes
* interested in learning about electric bike technology
* mechanically adept
* lives in bike commute distance of Milpitas
* basic bicycle maintenance experience
This internship will give you experience working with electric bikes,
helping people adapt and adopt them. It's environmentally friendly
and socially responsible.
Please send me email if you're interested.
mr.b...@gmail.com
The email should go to mr.bikes at the gmail place.
Jym Dyer
non-polluting transportation mode and adding a motor to it
that's powered by fossil and/or nuclear power?
<_Jym_>
mr.b...@gmail.com
First, "Jym", it opens up the transportation to a very large number of
people for whom it would otherwise not be attractive or practical.
Second, you are confusing the current dysfunctional generating fuels,
with the generating technologies we will all be using in a few years
time - solar.
Think beyond your current limitations, "Jym", and we will build that
bridge to a better future. Come and help me do it.
Skip
news:f4a3c131-c75b-4ce0...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
For the record, I am skeptical about "causes", but for this one I have to
agree with mr.bikes.
Even if the same (polluting, environment-damaging) power source is used,
there is benefit to using a 50-pound vehicle to transport a signle person
over a 1,000-plus-pound vehicle. Not to mention the roadway space and
infrastructure saved.
I do agree with Jym that it would be better to use the human-powered version
(the traditional bicycle), but anything that gets people out of
single-occupancy cars for distances less than 10 miles has to help.
I confess -- I do not bicycle to work (the distance is too short -- I walk).
- Skip
jaw...@gmail.com
> non-polluting transportation mode and adding a motor to it
Yeah, I gotta agree with the other two, Jym.
Not only is your name an affectation, but it seems to have affected
your analytic ability.
Do you really not understand that movement in a positive direction, is
much much better than continuing sucking down oil and enriching a
number of violent dictatorships?
Perhaps there is a gym for minds, where you could work to improve your
mental faculties, Jym?
Franque
Jym Dyer
> number of people for whom it would otherwise not be attractive
> or practical.
=v= I've seen these gadgets hyped in this way for decades, yet
somehow they've made no dent in the transportation mix. Maybe
part of the problem is they're not targeted to motorists (which
would be a "greener" thing to do), but to bicyclists.
> Second, you are confusing the current dysfunctional generating
> fuels, with the generating technologies we will all be using
> in a few years time - solar.
=v= No confusion on this end. The "solar in a few years' time"
argument has also been hpyed for decades, but where are the
actual numbers? How much of the energy mix will be solar,
at what point in time, and how much of it should go towards
individual transportation versus other worthy uses? Got that
figured out to any degree?
> Think beyond your current limitations, "Jym", and we will
> build that bridge to a better future.
=v= I've thought it through plenty, thank you. See above.
<_Jym_>
Mr Bikes
but I don't accept the premise that "if I don't have all the answers
today, I don't have anything".
Tom Kunich
news:0b4e688f-3df6-48f0...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> There's something to the points you make, Jym,
> but I don't accept the premise that "if I don't have all the answers
> today, I don't have anything".
Don't be put out by Jym. He is negative on just about everything on the
internet. My guess is that he is quite different in person.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:87c02161-fa91-4834...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
It's a tough one because there's also that whole thing of "you can't get
something for nothing" and a great number of people aren't looking for
electric bikes as they exist today, but rather as they *think* they exist,
or should exist... and that's woefully different from the current offerings.
Asking people to make a wholesale leap into the concept of the electric
bike, at this point in time, is going to result in a lot of end-user
frustration. And those supplying the product are basically counting on the
early adopters to subsidize the efforts required to come up with a decent
product (while in the meantime, providing profit opportunities for stuff
that just ain't there yet).
What, me, cynical? You should see the garbage that comes in the door under
the guise of being an "electric" bike. Mostly very poor adaptations of
existing bikes to which a motor has been added, with no thought whatsoever
to the effect that doing so has on the drivetrain or even ease of wheel
removal. A self-contained hub design probably shows the most promise, and I
saw one today on a recumbent.
As for Jym specifically, keep in mind the guy's got his hands full with
advocacy issues for mainstream bicycles, for which present facilities are
woefully inadequate, and now you're talking about people trying to drag
bikes onto existing transit systems that weigh, what, 20-30 pounds more than
a non-electric bike?
And I've got my hands full with people bringing in various types of electric
bikes thinking that hey, they've got two wheels, so of course a bike shop
can fix them! Right. From companies that are either out of business or
aren't making parts for models just a few years old. And nobody ever told
the customer that it might be a half hour job removing a rear wheel for a
flat tire, and what that would cost. And they look at US like we're the bad
guy. And gee, what do you know, these electric bikes are generally sold
"blind" through the internet, with no local support. Or they're sold through
a retailer that has no service facilities. Irresponsible at best, bordering
at times on fraud.
Electric bikes, done right, are undoubtedly part of the solution. But we're
not there yet, and there has to be a realization of what it means to be an
early adopter, not to mention the special needs these bikes place upon their
users, those who work on them, and any transit system someone might wish to
bring one on to.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Jym Dyer
>> There's something to the points you make, Jym, but I don't
>> accept the premise that "if I don't have all the answers
>> today, I don't have anything".
=v= My point is that this particular construct -- individual
personal transportation will be powered by totally renewable
energy sources real soon now -- has been argued for decades.
In fact I've read variants of this going all the way back to
the 1970s. It's not about having "all the answers today;"
it's about having had 30 years to come up with *something*.
=v= The closest thing I've seen was a 1993 report done by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (L.A.'s analogue
to our own BAAQMD), back when the state was looking to mandate
the use of EVs and so-called ZEVs. They came up with the local
utility, they came up with a scenario in which utilities would
make an effort to use demand-side management and bring new
renewable sources online and devote *all* of it (and taking
off-peak recharging into account) to electric cars.
=v= Even with this best-case scenario -- which didn't even take
into account the carbon emissions embodied in deployment, and
would of course require all other electricity users to rely on
"dirty" energy sources just so cars could be "clean" -- they
couldn't come up with enough electricity for more than 19% of
the cars on the road. Power up more than that (which, today,
is exactly what the plug-in hybrid crowd proposes to do) and
you actually *increase* fossil-fuel emissions, thanks to those
pesky laws of thermodynamics.
=v= I realize, of course, that electric bikes are much more
efficient than electric cars, but my point is that it's long
past time to see some actual numbers. 30 years of handwaving
is a bit much.
> = Tom Kunich
> Don't be put out by Jym. He is negative on just about
> everything on the internet. My guess is that he is quite
> different in person.
=v= This isn't about perception of internet personalities.
This is about substance.
<_Jym_>
Tom Kunich
news:Jym.04Aug20...@econet.org...
>
> =v= My point is that this particular construct -- individual
> personal transportation will be powered by totally renewable
> energy sources real soon now -- has been argued for decades.
> In fact I've read variants of this going all the way back to
> the 1970s. It's not about having "all the answers today;"
> it's about having had 30 years to come up with *something*.
I tripped across an old (1970) slow mail discussion in a local high tech
newspaper between me and PG&E. They were proclaiming that we would be
driving electric cars by 1980 and I was making fun of them for not having
any idea of just how difficult making a practical electric car could be. So
here we are 25 years after their deadline and we're still limited because of
the battery technology that was the actual destruction of the electric car
back in the 1910's. Of course that hasn't stopped the leftists from
proclaiming that Ford and General Motors destroyed the electric car business
because they wanted to sell oil back then.
> =v= The closest thing I've seen was a 1993 report done by the
> South Coast Air Quality Management District (L.A.'s analogue
> to our own BAAQMD), back when the state was looking to mandate
> the use of EVs and so-called ZEVs. They came up with the local
> utility, they came up with a scenario in which utilities would
> make an effort to use demand-side management and bring new
> renewable sources online and devote *all* of it (and taking
> off-peak recharging into account) to electric cars.
The problem is and will remain the battery technology and the inability to
"fuel up" in a short period of time as you can with liquid fuel vehicles.
> =v= Even with this best-case scenario -- which didn't even take
> into account the carbon emissions embodied in deployment, and
> would of course require all other electricity users to rely on
> "dirty" energy sources just so cars could be "clean" -- they
> couldn't come up with enough electricity for more than 19% of
> the cars on the road. Power up more than that (which, today,
> is exactly what the plug-in hybrid crowd proposes to do) and
> you actually *increase* fossil-fuel emissions, thanks to those
> pesky laws of thermodynamics.
I'm glad that you're the one noting this since I've been saying it for
decades and no one has been listening.
bunn...@sealiecomputing.com
> into account the carbon emissions embodied in deployment, and
> would of course require all other electricity users to rely on
> "dirty" energy sources just so cars could be "clean" -- they
> couldn't come up with enough electricity for more than 19% of
> the cars on the road. Power up more than that (which, today,
> is exactly what the plug-in hybrid crowd proposes to do) and
> you actually *increase* fossil-fuel emissions, thanks to those
> pesky laws of thermodynamics.
>
(sorry for the thread hijacking)
How does more than 19% electric cars increase emission? Losses in
power transmission or just inefficiency?
Jym Dyer
>> 19% of the cars on the road. Power up more than that (which,
>> today, is exactly what the plug-in hybrid crowd proposes to
>> do) and you actually *increase* fossil-fuel emissions, thanks
>> to those pesky laws of thermodynamics.
> in power transmission or just inefficiency?
=v= That and losses in conversion from one form of energy
to another. With gasoline it's fossil fuel -> motor; with
electricity it's fossil fuel (natural gas) -> electricity ->
power transmission -> battery-charging -> motor.
<_Jym_>
peter
But those factors apply to the first percent of converted vehicles
just as much as they do to the twentieth. I presume the 19% figure
was derived by looking at the mix of electric plants currently
available and noting that at some level of increased production the
relatively high polluting oil and/or coal burning plants would need to
be utilized.
The 19% figure is not the inevitable result of the laws of
thermodynamics since in an area with sufficient electricity production
from nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geo, etc. one could operate all cars
electrically without using fossil fuels. But it would require an
extensive change in the electricity infrastructure.
Bill Bushnell
Not exactly.
The idea behind electric cars or plug-in hybrids is that they are plugged in to
recharge at night when most of the electricity generated is from nuclear plants
that cannot be throttled efficiently. Today some of the surplus is used to pump
water uphill into reservoirs for hydroelectric generation the next day. PG&E has
rate schedules (e.g. E-9) for those with electric vehicles that give favorable
rates for nighttime consumption.
Even if using electricity derived from fossil fuel, conversion efficiencies are
greater than for gasoline or diesel engines in autos, and pollution can be more
easily controlled and is generally less per watt-hour generated.
Comparing efficiency of human vs. electric draws some unexpected conclusions.
http://tinyurl.com/6fogja
--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/
Tom Kunich
news:4898a26d$0$17218$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> The idea behind electric cars or plug-in hybrids is that they are plugged
> in to
> recharge at night when most of the electricity generated is from nuclear
> plants
> that cannot be throttled efficiently. Today some of the surplus is used
> to pump
> water uphill into reservoirs for hydroelectric generation the next day.
> PG&E has
> rate schedules (e.g. E-9) for those with electric vehicles that give
> favorable
> rates for nighttime consumption.
Excuse me Bill - what nuclear power plants are those again?
> Even if using electricity derived from fossil fuel, conversion
> efficiencies are
> greater than for gasoline or diesel engines in autos, and pollution can be
> more
> easily controlled and is generally less per watt-hour generated.
The multiple conversions AND the line losses are FAR less efficient than gas
engines.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> efficiencies are
>> greater than for gasoline or diesel engines in autos, and pollution can
>> be more
>> easily controlled and is generally less per watt-hour generated.
>
> The multiple conversions AND the line losses are FAR less efficient than
> gas engines.
Don't tell that to the railroads. They might lose faith in their
diesel-electric engines and they'd all grind to a halt. Some sort of
voodoo-science must be going on that allows them to run more efficiently on
a gas/diesel powered generator that creates electricity for electric motors
that actually drive the train.
Bill Bushnell
> "Bill Bushnell" <mrb...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:4898a26d$0$17218$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >
> > The idea behind electric cars or plug-in hybrids is that they are plugged
> > in to
> > recharge at night when most of the electricity generated is from nuclear
> > plants
> > that cannot be throttled efficiently. Today some of the surplus is used
> > to pump
> > water uphill into reservoirs for hydroelectric generation the next day.
> > PG&E has
> > rate schedules (e.g. E-9) for those with electric vehicles that give
> > favorable
> > rates for nighttime consumption.
> Excuse me Bill - what nuclear power plants are those again?
About 22% of PG&E energy mix comes from nuclear. The only plant I'm familiar with
is Diablo Canyon, which I believe is still in service.
> > Even if using electricity derived from fossil fuel, conversion
> > efficiencies are
> > greater than for gasoline or diesel engines in autos, and pollution can be
> > more
> > easily controlled and is generally less per watt-hour generated.
> The multiple conversions AND the line losses are FAR less efficient than gas
> engines.
Transmissions and distribution losses in the U.S. were estimated at 7.2% in 1995.
http://tinyurl.com/3jytz
Generation efficiency varies from about 38 to 60%, depending on the age of the
plant for combined cycle gas turbines. (44% of PG&E's mix is from natural gas.)
Newer coal-burning plants are in the 40-45% range.
http://tinyurl.com/6rk7yt
Assuming battery charging efficiency is 80% and motor/controller efficiency is
80%, the overall efficiency of obtaining motive power from electricity generated
solely from remote fossil fuel burning plants is about 24%.
Internal combustion engines (ICE) have an average efficiency of about 20%.
http://tinyurl.com/m7zz7
I'm willing to grant for this argument that the overall efficiency is about the
same if we're sourcing all of the electric power from fossil fuels. But, it's not
FAR less efficient.
Skip
news:Ad5mk.16376$xZ....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> Don't tell that to the railroads. They might lose faith in their
> diesel-electric engines and they'd all grind to a halt. Some sort of
> voodoo-science must be going on that allows them to run more efficiently
> on a gas/diesel powered generator that creates electricity for electric
> motors that actually drive the train.
Even cruise ships use the diesel-electric engines.
The last time I was on a cruise (Princess line) I chatted with one of the
engineers and asked about the engines.
They are desired both for manuverability (the electric motors pivot nicely)
and for fuel efficiency (the motors run at maximum efficiency and do not
have mechanical-transmission losses in driving the propellers).
- Skip
Tom Kunich
news:Ad5mk.16376$xZ....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> gas engines.
>
> Don't tell that to the railroads. They might lose faith in their
> diesel-electric engines and they'd all grind to a halt. Some sort of
> voodoo-science must be going on that allows them to run more efficiently
> on a gas/diesel powered generator that creates electricity for electric
> motors that actually drive the train.
uh Mike- the railroads already know that the Diesel-Electrics aren't as
efficient as the diesels alone. But they are a small amount more efficient
than a diesel with transmissions. And the electric motors are essentially an
infinitely variable speed transmission.
Let's be clear here - it ain't efficient but it is better than the other
way.
Jym Dyer
> they are plugged in to recharge at night when most of the
> electricity generated is from nuclear plants that cannot
> be throttled efficiently.
=v= That was considered in the scenario -- recharging from idle
capacity (which is not specific to nuclear plants in particular)
is *always* considered when it comes to electric vehicles. Of
course, if we increase demand enough during off-peak hours, they
become peak hours.
=v= Today's early adopters don't always this, not even if they
work for environmental nonprofits. You know the drill: A few
million people all saying, "It's just me, just this once, it
won't hurt anything if it's just me one time."
<_Jym_>
Tom Kunich
>
> =v= Today's early adopters don't always this, not even if they
> work for environmental nonprofits. You know the drill: A few
> million people all saying, "It's just me, just this once, it
> won't hurt anything if it's just me one time."
Let's not forget to mention that the recharging stations at all of the
government buildings for electric vehicles operate during the "peak hours"
time of day.
Skip
news:M8qdnfSNVcM-mQTV...@earthlink.com...
>
> Let's be clear here - it ain't efficient but it is better than the other
> way.
Agreed. Perhaps the term should be "effective" or "efficacy" instead of
"efficient".
In any case, "better than the other way" -- your quote -- sounds like the
more effective (if not efficient) course of action.
- Skip
danme...@yahoo.com
Liquid fossil fuels are an incredibly convenient, compact and
lightweight way to store and transport large amounts of energy. That
is one of the fundamental problems alt energy vehicles can’t beat.
I don’t think that most people understand how much energy we use so
casually. Getting me and my bicycle around town is long, hard work but
a few dollars for a few pounds of cheap, readily available gas will
hurtle a 3500 lb SUV anyplace I want to go, no problem. It is easy to
see which option most people will choose
I’m for anything that uses less energy overall and electric bikes do
this (as opposed to cars) but so would a truly functional public
transit system or the already available, more reliable and better
developed gas scooter.
The general population responds to expense. The best way to get people
out of their cars is to make the vehicle and the fuel expensive. A 10
$/gal gas tax and a 1 $/lb purchase tax on the car would do the trick.
Wouldn’t it be great if the $ went to develop an efficient mass
transit system, bike facilities, etc.
Mass transit would be very attractive if it was free. The masses get
upset when Caltrain, AMTRAC or the bus system lose money but the
freeways around here don’t make money and the masses seem to like
them. I guess people think a system should make money if a fare is
charged so the solution might be to not charge a fare. Free transit
would mean more riders, more routes and tighter schedules. The
transit system we have now often costs more and takes longer than
driving – again, it is easy to see what most people will choose.
Tom Kunich
news:ae62f895-b9cd-494c...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> The general population responds to expense. The best way to get people
> out of their cars is to make the vehicle and the fuel expensive. A 10
> $/gal gas tax and a 1 $/lb purchase tax on the car would do the trick.
> Wouldn't it be great if the $ went to develop an efficient mass
> transit system, bike facilities, etc.
Any government agency that passed such a bill would foment civil war. People
pushing such a fascist policy would likely end up on the end of a rope as
well.
Here's the problem - cities have purposely chased business out into suburbs
or neighboring towns so that they could have "nice, clean, quiet"
neighborhoods. The problem with that is that it becomes incredibly expensive
to move the people to the work.
But then the government has decided to fix that - it is now cheaper and
easier to get all of the labor outside of the USA and it costs a company
nothing to then bring the goods into the USA.
Most of the population of any nation are good for labor and generally NOT
for management. Somehow the morons in the government and those "educated"
money people got the idea that the citizens of the USA could ALL be managers
for companies employing people in other, dirtier and less intelligent,
countries.
Nothing could have been more stupid. Now we see entire companies moving
outside of the USA not because they couldn't have perfectly acceptable and
profitable products made here - but because they can make MORE profit having
them made outside of the USA since it costs them nothing to bring these job
destroying products into the USA.
Something had been happen and soon or the USA will fall completely off of
the map of industrialized countries - by the way, something that Berkeley
and other socialist groups have been attempting to do for years.
Bill Bushnell
> =v= Today's early adopters don't always this, not even if they
> work for environmental nonprofits. You know the drill: A few
> million people all saying, "It's just me, just this once, it
> won't hurt anything if it's just me one time."
That's how we rationalize doing anything that benefits us personally but harms us
collectively, a tragedy of the commons.
Electric vehicles are a mechanism that allows us to use some of the surplus energy
where and as it is available. Today electricity is generated from many sources,
some renewable and some not. The nature of this diversified mix of sources
creates surpluses of energy in certain markets. These markets are where electric
vehicles fit in.
A bigger problem is that too many people want to transport themselves in vehicles
that are 20x heavier and 20x more powerful than necessary to get where they want
to go. Personal transportation is marketed as an ego-booster for the buyer's
fragile self-image. Small, lightweight, and efficient automobiles, ICE-powered or
not, don't cater to this mindset.
But the main problem as I see it is that a majority world population
understandably wants to enjoy a modern standard of living that requires enormous
amounts of energy that our world can neither increasingly provide nor the
externalities of its consumption sustain.
I am pessimistic. Just as we seem more than willing to borrow billions from
future generations to fund our profligacy today, I believe we will deny and ignore
the warning signs that we are unsustainably consuming our planet's bounty until it
becomes too late for technology to save us from an uncomfortably more modest
future.
Tom Kunich
>
> I am pessimistic. Just as we seem more than willing to borrow billions
> from
> future generations to fund our profligacy today, I believe we will deny
> and ignore
> the warning signs that we are unsustainably consuming our planet's bounty
> until it
> becomes too late for technology to save us from an uncomfortably more
> modest
> future.
Bill, firstly you need to remain upbeat. We can win this one but not by
turning negative. We have to make profligate use of energy something that
displays very bad taste. We need to pull industry and housing BACK into the
same areas so that people can ride bikes to work, ride busses to work or
even walk.
We absolutely MUST install economic burdens on companies that remove the
production from this country for products used in this country.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:M8qdnfSNVcM-mQTV...@earthlink.com...
Modern AC diesel-electrics are quite efficient and extraordinarily-reliable.
Are they as efficient as a diesel with efficient transmission? I don't know.
I cannot find an answer to that question anywhere. I do know that it was the
advent of the AC-powered traction motors that pretty much did away with
further research into non-converted (diesel-only) train engines, which
included such exotic beasties as hydraulic power transmission.
danme...@yahoo.com
> <danmerr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ae62f895-b9cd-494c...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The general population responds to expense. The best way to get people
> > out of their cars is to make the vehicle and the fuel expensive. A 10
> > $/gal gas tax and a 1 $/lb purchase tax on the car would do the trick.
> > Wouldn't it be great if the $ went to develop an efficient mass
> > transit system, bike facilities, etc.
>
> Any government agency that passed such a bill would foment civil war. People
> pushing such a fascist policy would likely end up on the end of a rope as
> well.
>
Yep. the end of a rope is where fascists seem to end up. After they
get rid of liberals and get the trains to run on time of course.
However, money is what talks to americans. The current gas price
increase (still cheap by european standards) has certainly triggered a
boom in little and hybrid cars. I have a friend who is a toyota
dealer. He says he could seli priuses (priusi?) if he could get them
and describes the sequoia as "sell proof" now.