{BL}Bicycle vs. Electric car?

[Cully J]

Although I'm an avid cyclist, I'm happy to see an interest in
electric cars. This is totally impressive:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/diy-electric-car-mira-ev-japan-world-record-624-miles-one-charge-battery.php?campaign=weekly_nl

Apparently, the E-car shown above gets 623 miles off of a single
battery charge!

Still, most energy and electricity that we use comes from nonrenewable
resources. So, even an E-car cars can be temporarily used.

I get 623 miles per cup of coffee and banana (both renewable items).

Regards,
Cullen Carter

[Ken Freeman]

Yes, impressive, but the article suggests the OEMs should be able to do this.  I'd think the OEMs might well be able to build a 1-off specialized vehicle for a controlled-road world distance record attempt, and I'd be surprised if it couldn't equal or better that result.  The rubber meets the road when you have to maximize overall efficiency (i.e. range) for a road with diverse, real-world conditions, a large number of starts and stops, the electrical accessories on perhaps all the time, a full payload (kids, friends, luggage, et cetera), and a lot of climbing and descending.  Did it have electric power steering and electric air conditioning?  What kind of on-road charge extenders does it have (regen braking, solar trickle charge source)?  Plus having been an engineer of battery-driven systems, how is "full charge" defined?  Is it defined to be a charge (and discharge) level that will ensure 100k to 200k miles of battery life for the population of vehicles (OEMs will hope to sell a production run of 1 million vehicles) while in the hands of consumers?  No such comments are given.  You can get a heck of a lot more out of a battery if you don't follow long-life protocols - you just have to get a new battery rather frequently.

But if my next job opportunity comes through with a car OEM, and they say I have to buy a car, I'll get the electric one, thank you!

You must be really good!  I need a lot of coffee and bananas to do 100 miles, much less 623!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[centurion48]

Do you grow, roast and grind the coffee at home using renewable
resources? Where does your banana come from?
You might find that the real cost tips in favor of the EV.
There is (probably) no such thing as a (resource) free lunch.

rgds,
Darryl
[via reusable Australian electrons]

On Jun 1, 4:08 am, Cully J <ccar...@new.rr.com> wrote:
> Although I'm an avid cyclist,  I'm happy to see an interest in

> electric cars. This is totally impressive:http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/diy-electric-car-mira-ev-japa...

[Michael Richters]

Do people who ride bicycles consume more food than those who drive cars?

Your assumption appears to be that the food that powers the man on the
bicycle is food that wouldn't be eaten by the (electric) motorist, but
this is very unlikely. The cyclist might eat more, but not as much as
is needed for the bicycling -- the motorist likely eats as much, but
runs on a treadmill at the gym (powered by even more electricity,
likely from a coal-fired power plant) or simply converts the excess
into fat stores. Of course, the cyclist, being healthier, probably
lives longer, but this is most likely balanced by a difference the
resource usage of medical procedures and drugs (those defibrilators
use electricity, too). All this isn't even considering differences in
production and longevity of the vehicles in question...

The "big picture" is awfully big, isn't it?

--Mike (from a laptop powered by rivers in Manitoba)

[Fai Mao]

Please remember. I do not have a driver’s license and have not driven
a car in 15 years before you start calling me names over this post.

The electric car has been the next big thing in automobile technology
since at least 1915. As the poster above said making an electric car
run well in a highly controlled setting versus the real world is big
jump. I can't see that the technology is ever going to be there to
make them practical out side of a limited, urban environment. I hope I
am wrong. But I don’t think they can make an electric car at a cost
that a normal person could afford. Toyota subsidizes the cost of the
Prius by adding onto the cost of the Camry and other non-hybrid makes
in its line. If they didn't do this nobody would buy a Prius, they'd
cost too much.

You also have to look at the environmental impact of making and
disposing of the batteries as well as charging them. I am not sure
that batteries made from highly reactive elements like lithium are
really any better than a clean burning internal combustion engine.


On Jun 1, 9:17 am, Michael Richters <michael.richt...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Tim Smith]

On May 31, 2010, at 8:48 PM, Fai Mao wrote:
> I am not sure
> that batteries made from highly reactive elements like lithium are
> really any better than a clean burning internal combustion engine.

Agree. Though this is a bit off the cycling topic, you could claim that a clean-burning 3rd gen diesel engine (like that in the newer VW Jettas) is an even better proposition. About 20-30% better fuel mileage, at worst, and I've read that you can get more diesel fuel out of a barrel of crude than you can gasoline (that could be erroneous).

Anyhow, if you believe the peak oil people, we've only got about 1-5 years (max) of happy motoring left. Mother Nature has a way of fixing problems that even the best regulators cannot better.

Can't wait until my old bikes are worth $6000 or more!

[Michael Richters]

The range of electric vehicles is ultimately likely to depend on the
infrastructure for recharging and replacing the batteries, just as
gasoline-burning vehicles depend on their distribution points. The
way to indefinitely extend the range of electric vehicles is to have
service stations on highways where one can swap batteries. See:

http://www.betterplace.com/

Also, lithium batteries will soon be recycled, so that the lithium
doesn't just leech into landfills:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23215/?a=f

For high-speed (by some definitions), long-distance transportation,
trains would be far more efficient than passenger cars, but that would
be an even bigger infrastructure project in North America.

--Mike

[Michael Richters]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Tim Smith <tss...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Agree. Though this is a bit off the cycling topic, you could claim that a clean-burning 3rd gen diesel engine (like that in the newer VW Jettas) is an even better proposition. About 20-30% better fuel mileage, at worst, and I've read that you can get more diesel fuel out of a barrel of crude than you can gasoline (that could be erroneous).

That depends on how the batteries get charged. Some get charged by
burning coal, some from photovoltaic cells exposed to sunlight.
There's an enormous difference.

> Anyhow, if you believe the peak oil people, we've only got about 1-5 years (max) of happy motoring left. Mother Nature has a way of fixing problems that even the best regulators cannot better.
>
> Can't wait until my old bikes are worth $6000 or more!

You think so? If bicycles are in higher demand, don't you think
people will make more of them? That usually causes prices to go in
the other direction. Unless you've got some real antique machines, of
course.

--Mike

[John Mayson]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Michael Richters
<michael....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can't wait until my old bikes are worth $6000 or more!
>
> You think so?  If bicycles are in higher demand, don't you think
> people will make more of them?  That usually causes prices to go in
> the other direction. Unless you've got some real antique machines, of
> course.

There are a lot of factors here.

If old bikes were $6k, I'd be worried about parking the bike I bought
in 2005 for $550. So I hope prices don't spiral.

If things were to crash suddenly we could end up with a bike shortage.
We don't make them here any more, at least in any real volumes.
It'll be difficult to get them from Asia. Society is, unfortunately,
going direct energy if it becomes scarce to maintaining normalcy.
That is keeping the lights on, keeping car moving, etc. I don't think
there will be a sudden enlightenment that bicycles are the way to go.
In fact we might become easy targets for angry motorists who just paid
$10.00 a gallon for their 2.5 gallon allotment of gas.

Local craftsmen might be able to kludge together bicycles. But
they'll be functional and not fast, comfortable, or stylish.

Just my thoughts. I don't have a crystal ball obviously.

John

--
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA

[Michael Richters]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:22 PM, John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us> wrote:
> If things were to crash suddenly we could end up with a bike shortage.
>  We don't make them here any more, at least in any real volumes.
> It'll be difficult to get them from Asia.  Society is, unfortunately,
> going direct energy if it becomes scarce to maintaining normalcy.
> That is keeping the lights on, keeping car moving, etc.  I don't think
> there will be a sudden enlightenment that bicycles are the way to go.
> In fact we might become easy targets for angry motorists who just paid
> $10.00 a gallon for their 2.5 gallon allotment of gas.

It would have to be a remarkably sudden crash. If the world's supply
of oil dried up that fast, I doubt the immediate bicycle-building
capacity of the US would even register. And for less apocalyptic
scenarios, don't forget about all those neglected bikes sitting unused
in garages and basements across the land.

--Mike

[John Mayson]

I wouldn't expect a sudden crash unless something else was involved
like a major war interrupting oil shipments. I think it's going to be
gradual and most Americans will be hanging on their steering wheels
until the bitter end.

[John Mayson]

Just to be clear. I'm not contradicting myself. I personally expect
a disaster in slow motion. My initial comments were if it were to
happen quickly, which I don't honestly expect.

[Tim Smith]

This is of course classic economics. The peak oil people would argue that the world of less energy will find many of these rules upended. It takes a lot of energy to make stuff, and when energy is in short supply (or very costly), a lot of stuff won't get made, regardless of demand. Hence old stuff that is still useful will be valuable.

In that still hypothetical world, a classic bike might have no more value than a purely utilitarian one, less perhaps.

[Michael Richters]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:39 PM, John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us> wrote:
> Just to be clear.  I'm not contradicting myself.  I personally expect
> a disaster in slow motion.  My initial comments were if it were to
> happen quickly, which I don't honestly expect.

You don't think we're in the middle of the slow-motion disaster
already, then? Have you got cousins named Pangloss? ;-)

--Mike

[John Mayson]

I think we are! Most of us just don't know it yet.

John

[Ken Freeman]

If there's a big upsurge in electric cars or plug-ins, there will need to be a lot more electrical infrastructure, from house wiring, to distribution wiring, transmission lines/controls/transformers, all the way back to the rolling generators and prime movers. 

One baseload source that is very clean in terms of carbon products and has lots of room for growth is nuclear power, of which France is a stellar example.  Not to belittle the nuclear waste issue however.  So far the classic non-carbon renewables, solar, wind, and wave dynamics, are not baseload sources since they won't provide enough to run the country on a continuous basis.  Baseload sources do that.  When they are presented with surges in demand, the renewables and other less stable sources (here including certain types of hydro) share the added load.  If storage systems such as batteries can be added to the network, we could at least draw power from the renewables when say, the wind is high, sun is bright, and waves are very active, and save it for a rainy day.

I'd think if enough nuclear is added, the move to bikes will not be as quick as one might think.  If the recharge energy is truly available, and the recharge time is brought down to maybe 2 hours, the inconvenience factor of an 8-hour charge is greatly decreased.  Smaller vehicles such as electric bikes or mopeds might even be down to the tens of minutes level. meaning you can charge your car while having morning coffee at Starbuck's.  Bikes would again be things of pleasure and fitness.  Our steel bikes, often quaint even now, would be curiousities, as we now see the ordinary.

Whew!  got some bike content in here!

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Cully J <cca...@new.rr.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Michael Richters]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd think if enough nuclear is added, the move to bikes will not be as quick
> as one might think. If the recharge energy is truly available, and the
> recharge time is brought down to maybe 2 hours, the inconvenience factor of
> an 8-hour charge is greatly decreased. Smaller vehicles such as electric
> bikes or mopeds might even be down to the tens of minutes level. meaning you
> can charge your car while having morning coffee at Starbuck's. Bikes would
> again be things of pleasure and fitness. Our steel bikes, often quaint even
> now, would be curiousities, as we now see the ordinary.

Check out Better Place's charging infrastructure
(http://www.betterplace.com/solution/charging/), being built in Israel
and Denmark currently. Note that they include battery switching
stations as part of the infrastructure. This cuts the "recharging"
time to less time than it takes to fill a gas tank. The drivers own
the cars, but not the batteries. In other words, it's the battery
that replaces the fuel, rather than the charge. This makes the range
of a single charge unimportant, because it doesn't limit the distance
of an uninterrupted journey any more than a gasoline engine.

With the right infrastructure, electric vehicles will be strictly more
convenient than internal combustion, and the technology exists
already. Still, there are benefits to bicycles, even for everyday
transportation (size, cost, reliability, simplicity of maintenance,
health) that no electric car could top, no matter how efficient it
gets.

--Mike

[Rob Harrison]

I'll jump in with a couple comments. Being a green architect and
certified Passive House consultant, I'm pretty involved in the energy
issue. Here in Seattle, the Mayor, City Council, and many folks are
thinking seriously about the relationship between climate change and
transportation. (I participated in the Climate Neutral Seattle
unconference, for example: <http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04-06-the-seattle-project/
>. City Council has declared its intention to make Seattle the first
carbon-neutral city in North America.) Setting aside issues of grid-
interconnectedness, etc., about 60% of our carbon emissions come from
transportation--a higher proportion than elsewhere--because our
electricity comes mainly from hydro. So electric cars often come up as
a proposed solution.

The problems are: Electric cars will compete with other industrial and
domestic electrical needs. Transferring a large proportion of
electricity to transportation will drive up demand and prices
considerably for all users. Much more importantly, the problem with
cars is not just the fuel, it's the unsustainable infrastructure
required to support them. Dense, walkable, bike-able urban
neighborhoods well-served by public transit are the better long-term
solution.

As far as nuclear goes, you have to factor in the additional carbon
emitted by other sources during the 20+ years it takes to design,
permit and build a nuclear plant.

With Passive House we can reduce demand to ~9 kBtu/ft2/year of source
energy. (For heating and all other domestic uses including plug loads,
and that's before adding any on-site generated electricity like PV.)
That's about 10% of the energy used by typical houses. It works for
commercial buildings as well. IOW, we can meet the 2025 target of the
2030 Challenge today.

Rob in Seattle

[Ken Freeman]

Yes, I'm aware of that option.  It extends the overall range, but the range to recharge is still limited.  If the car depends on a bat change every 160 km, that's a stop every hundred miles, plus or minus for different terrains or drive cycles.  I grant for urban vehicles or for family vehicles in very dense nations, such as Israel, Denmark, perhaps the Northeast of the United States, and the Netherlands, where it may well become trivial to be able to find a bat station whenever you meet your 160 km limit. 

Very likely a GPS-based navi system can help, by looking at the frequency of bat/charge stations in or near the driver's route, and recommend an early recharge when the density is becoming low.

But is there an irritation factor?  Many people in the United States like vehicles that can go 600 miles without a fuel stop when necessary.  OEMs make design decisions based on what they think are irritation factors as much as on the technical merits of a solution.

But more nukes doesn't help with this problem, either.  What does is hybridization.  When the fuels are finally sorted out, fuel cell electrics may also help.

Having worked for an OEM and knowing something about the company internal thought processes, I can tell you beautiful systems engineering (a term that in my mind subsumes concepts of environmental sustainability and optimized protection of the resources humans and other life require) is not enough to make one of them sign up to such a system on anything more than a fleet trial basis.  The business proposition is not strictly driven by great engineering.  They're there to make money.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Ken Freeman]

Thank you, Rob, my assumption has been that little would change other than the vehicles and their fuel cycle.

Has anyone analyzed Passive House as set in a more severe environment than Seattle, such as an upper Midwestern city with a lot more cold weather, as well as hotter hots?  Does the concept still work?

And will my new house have room for 8 bikes (back to bikes again, finally!)?

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Rob Harrison <robh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll jump in with a couple comments. Being a green architect and certified Passive House consultant, I'm pretty involved in the energy issue. Here in Seattle, the Mayor, City Council, and many folks are thinking seriously about the relationship between climate change and transportation. (I participated in the Climate Neutral Seattle unconference, for example: <http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04-06-the-seattle-project/>. City Council has declared its intention to make Seattle the first carbon-neutral city in North America.) Setting aside issues of grid-interconnectedness, etc., about 60% of our carbon emissions come from transportation--a higher proportion than elsewhere--because our electricity comes mainly from hydro. So electric cars often come up as a proposed solution.

The problems are: Electric cars will compete with other industrial and domestic electrical needs. Transferring a large proportion of electricity to transportation will drive up demand and prices considerably for all users. Much more importantly, the problem with cars is not just the fuel, it's the unsustainable infrastructure required to support them. Dense, walkable, bike-able urban neighborhoods well-served by public transit are the better long-term solution.

As far as nuclear goes, you have to factor in the additional carbon emitted by other sources during the 20+ years it takes to design, permit and build a nuclear plant.

With Passive House we can reduce demand to ~9 kBtu/ft2/year of source energy. (For heating and all other domestic uses including plug loads, and that's before adding any on-site generated electricity like PV.) That's about 10% of the energy used by typical houses. It works for commercial buildings as well. IOW, we can meet the 2025 target of the 2030 Challenge today.

Rob in Seattle

On Jun 1, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Michael Richters wrote:

With the right infrastructure, electric vehicles will be strictly more
convenient than internal combustion, and the technology exists
already.  Still, there are benefits to bicycles, even for everyday
transportation (size, cost, reliability, simplicity of maintenance,
health) that no electric car could top, no matter how efficient it
gets.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Michael Richters]

Sorry -- I forgot to mention that Better Place is building
infrastructure in Australia, as well as Israel and Denmark. Sparse
population, long distances, and more automobiles per capita than the
US. Swapping the battery takes less than two minutes, and you never
have to get out of the car. Furthermore, if you're driving near home
(commuting, for example), you never have to stop to buy gas. Even if
the range doesn't increase much (very unlikely), the problem is
exactly the same as the placement of current service stations.
Finding a switching station won't be any more difficult than finding
gas is now. It is a problem that has already been solved.

And as for making money, if they succeed in making something that
consumers (and governments) like better, and costs them less, the
other manufacturers will have no choice but to follow suit. Israel
may be a bit of a special case, but if their plan succeeds, they won't
be importing oil any more in just ten years.

--Mike

[Michael Richters]

I'm not an expert on this by any stretch, but I can tell you that my
parents built a house in New Hampshire twelve years ago with lots of
south-facing windows, and it works remarkably well. On sunnier days
in the winter, they occasionally open a door to keep the house from
getting too warm during the day. And in summer, the sunlight only
projects a few feet onto the floor through those same windows, and the
house generally stays cool without air conditioning.

--Mike

[Ken Freeman]

Right down to it: who's delivering the cars to the three projects, and could a Danish, Israeli, or Australian citizen buy one through the OEM's normal channels?

[Rob Harrison]

The concept still works. One of the first Passive Houses in the US is
in northern Minnesota. (There have only been six or seven built in the
US so far, whereas there are 15,000 in Europe.) There is some
discussion as to whether the standard should be relaxed for more-
northern climes. <http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2010/3/31/Passive-House-Arrives-in-North-America-Could-It-Revolutionize-the-Way-We-Build/
> In Seattle, a furnace is not necessary. In Minneapolis,
supplemental heat would be. The mechanical consultant with whom we are
working on our current Passive House project lives in Duluth. I can
connect you with him, if you ever get to that point. :)

Important to note that "Passive House" is not the same as "Passive
Solar," though Passive House does take advantage of the sun to heat,
and takes the sun into account in shading to prevent overheating. The
standard was developed by a German, who called it Passivhaus. The
relatively recent US branch of the Passive House Institute decided to
translate that as Passive House, which causes no end of confusion.

Rob in Seattle, who just watched the new owner of his motorcycle ride
away, and is now fossil-fuel-free. (Bittersweet, that.)

[Ken Freeman]

Thanks, Rob, I'll check it out.

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Rob Harrison <robh...@gmail.com> wrote:

The concept still works. One of the first Passive Houses in the US is in northern Minnesota. (There have only been six or seven built in the US so far, whereas there are 15,000 in Europe.) There is some discussion as to whether the standard should be relaxed for more-northern climes. <http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2010/3/31/Passive-House-Arrives-in-North-America-Could-It-Revolutionize-the-Way-We-Build/> In Seattle, a furnace is not necessary. In Minneapolis, supplemental heat would be. The mechanical consultant with whom we are working on our current Passive House project lives in Duluth. I can connect you with him, if you ever get to that point. :)

Important to note that "Passive House" is not the same as "Passive Solar," though Passive House does take advantage of the sun to heat, and takes the sun into account in shading to prevent overheating. The standard was developed by a German, who called it Passivhaus. The relatively recent US branch of the Passive House Institute decided to translate that as Passive House, which causes no end of confusion.

Rob in Seattle, who just watched the new owner of his motorcycle ride away, and is now fossil-fuel-free. (Bittersweet, that.)

On Jun 1, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Ken Freeman wrote:

Thank you, Rob, my assumption has been that little would change other than the vehicles and their fuel cycle.

Has anyone analyzed Passive House as set in a more severe environment than Seattle, such as an upper Midwestern city with a lot more cold weather, as well as hotter hots?  Does the concept still work?

And will my new house have room for 8 bikes (back to bikes again, finally!)?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[PDX Randonneur]

The basic problem is that none of the renewable energy sources that
would supposedly power the electric car can produce enough energy for
a nation of electric drivers. Many of the green energy projects are
little more than mechanisms to consume grant funding if not outright
scams. If we want to burn coal to run our electric cars, that will
work, until the coal runs out at least. Otherwise the only option that
can produce anywhere near enough power is nuclear. Nuclear is
incredibly expensive, requires a highly trained workforce (that we
don't have), and when you cut corners at a nuclear plant, you end up
with chernobyl.

I understand that everyone wants to "look on the bright side", but the
end of oil has no bright side. It will bring war, starvation, and
death. Nothing is going to replace the 200/1 energy ratio of oil. It
was a free lunch of cosmic proportions, and we have been living at the
buffet table like it will never close.

--
R.R.

[JoelMatthews]

> Rob in Seattle, who just watched the new owner of his motorcycle ride
> away, and is now fossil-fuel-free. (Bittersweet, that.)

I know that feeling. My last car was a Mazda Miata. I did the right
thing, but watching it go away ...

Thank you for the links.

On Jun 1, 2:49 pm, Rob Harrison <robha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The concept still works. One of the first Passive Houses in the US is  
> in northern Minnesota. (There have only been six or seven built in the  
> US so far, whereas there are 15,000 in Europe.) There is some  
> discussion as to whether the standard should be relaxed for more-

> northern climes. <http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2010/3/31/Passive-House...

>  > In Seattle, a furnace is not necessary. In Minneapolis,  
> supplemental heat would be. The mechanical consultant with whom we are  
> working on our current Passive House project lives in Duluth. I can  
> connect you with him, if you ever get to that point. :)
>
> Important to note that "Passive House" is not the same as "Passive  
> Solar," though Passive House does take advantage of the sun to heat,  
> and takes the sun into account in shading to prevent overheating. The  
> standard was developed by a German, who called it Passivhaus. The  
> relatively recent US branch of the Passive House Institute decided to  
> translate that as Passive House, which causes no end of confusion.
>
> Rob in Seattle, who just watched the new owner of his motorcycle ride  
> away, and is now fossil-fuel-free. (Bittersweet, that.)
>
> On Jun 1, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Ken Freeman wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thank you, Rob, my assumption has been that little would change  
> > other than the vehicles and their fuel cycle.
>
> > Has anyone analyzed Passive House as set in a more severe  
> > environment than Seattle, such as an upper Midwestern city with a  
> > lot more cold weather, as well as hotter hots?  Does the concept  
> > still work?
>
> > And will my new house have room for 8 bikes (back to bikes again,  

> > finally!)?- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Schneider]

Ken Freeman wrote:

> But is there an irritation factor? Many people in the United States like
> vehicles that can go 600 miles without a fuel stop when necessary. OEMs
> make design decisions based on what they think are irritation factors as
> much as on the technical merits of a solution.

Most cars are built with fuel tanks that will carry them at most 300 miles.

--
Neil Schneider velor...@gmail.com
http://www.velorambler.com

"Work to eat, eat to live, live to bike, bike to work." -- Naomi Bloom

[Ken Freeman]

Yes, most, but some offer a lot more.  Some consumers like that.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Steady As She Goes]

FREE THE WALL QUEENS!

[Mike Arciero]

On Jun 1, 3:49 pm, Rob Harrison <robha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The concept still works. One of the first Passive Houses in the US is  
> in northern Minnesota. (There have only been six or seven built in the  
> US so far, whereas there are 15,000 in Europe.)

Only six? That is striking.

> Rob in Seattle, who just watched the new owner of his motorcycle ride  
> away, and is now fossil-fuel-free. (Bittersweet, that.)

Way cool.

Other thoughts- Ultimately, in addition to developing alternative
energy sources, we simply need to consume less. One way to do this
is through the design of urban, home, and work environments and
infrastructure. But regarding the car, a big challenge is changing
peoples' behaviors and attitudes. Car culture is so embedded in the
American identity, and so many people equate standard of living with
cars and car use. And not just any car, but their car of choice,
Hummer, etc. How obscene is NASCAR? It's a petroleum orgy.

This BP spill has me seriously considering going car-free, and I
applaud and am inspired by those here who have made that move. On the
other hand, my crash-replacement Gunnar frame just got shipped
yesterday. I received another bike-related package from UPS yesterday.
I like having stuff arrive at my door with a few mouse-clicks. This is
all fossil fuel intensive. Of course I try to buy local...

Mike

[Ken Freeman]

It's a big system, isn't it?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Marc Irwin]

For what it's worth, here is the text of an article I wrote on the
subject in a local paper a year or so ago:

Electric cars drive me nuts!
The development of cars which run exclusively on electricity sounds
like a promising solution to our dependence on petroleum, but it is
totally impractical for the forseeable or even the distant future.
What prompted me to think about this was the comment that President
Busch made during a recent news conference implying that electric cars
were a viable possibility. What good would that do? The best have a
range of 200 miles with a half-ton battery. It would only be usable
for light, short commutes, local errands and…hurry home to plug it
in. It would still be drawing upon a power grid fueled by fossil
sources contributing to the growing cycle of expense and environmental
concerns we suffer from now. Then...what will we do with millions of
tons of batteries when they wear out? I’m surprised that the
discussions of energy problems we see in the press never mention
cycling as a practical alternative.
While cycling is used as a middle class means of transportation in
many other societies (Europe being the best example), the Americans
insist on spending a fortune developing new ways to sit on their
butts. Europeans have for years been paying 4-6 dollars a gallon for
gas and I think it no accident they choose to bicycle for short daily
errands or commutes. I think Americans should look forward to the
same. In Amsterdam, for instance, there are approximately 700,000
people and 600,000 bicycles. The idea of getting in the car to drive
10 blocks to the store is a ridiculous notion to them. I myself have
been cycling for over 35 years as an adult and very rarely have time
to ride. I started because I had an evening office job as a college
student and, having been a good athlete all my life, I couldn’t stand
to sit around all day. It wasn’t a matter of money, I just didn’t
like to sit around. So every day the weather permitted I would
choose my bike rather than my car.
As the years have passed, I continued cycling despite the demands of a
business career and family. I have very little time to ride for
pleasure and most of the 2-3 thousand miles I ride each year are
recorded on local errands. For example, last week I went to the
store 4 times for a few items at a time, the Post Office once and to a
Scout meeting. That week I rode 60 miles. That amounts to $15 in gas
that I didn’t burn and 2500 calories I did. None of those trips were
long, difficult or uncomfortable, it was quite nice to be outside
enjoying the weather, and I felt better for it. This doesn’t sound
like a whole lot until you look at an entire season. Doing this I
average 300 miles a month, during an eight month season it amounts to
2400 miles. Since, realistically, the cost of driving a car is
approaching 50 cents a mile, I probably save around $1200 dollars a
year. Not much, but twice the one time “economic stimulus” payment we
are receiving from the government. Now consider the effect if half
the 300 million Americans learned to do the same. The savings would
amount to more than 180 billion dollars a year we could spend on
things beyond the petrochemical clutch we’ve chosen in the past.
Whether it is spent on dresses, steaks or new placemats, our economy
would be continually diversified, new industries and jobs would be
created, and more local businesses would be patronized.

There are two major obstacles to this possibility. The first is ego;
we have grown to identify our autos as a means of social acceptance
and can’t separate ourselves from the symbol of our accomplishment.
My experience has proven that adults in the USA classify bicycles in
three categories: children’s toys, exotic machines for fitness
fanatics, and transportation of last resort for the poverty stricken
and disadvantaged. Most people are not fitness fanatics, but they are
afraid of what other people might think and would be humiliated if
they were seen riding their bike to the store, post office, bank or
office even though it just makes sense. The second problem is greater
—people are just plain lazy. Americans would rather sit down and eat
than do anything else (gas stations don’t sell chili dogs by
accident). If you don’t believe me, look at the epidemic proportions
of obesity and diabetes in this country. Oh yeah, remember the 2500
calories I burned last week? If you extend that through the season at
300 miles per month you will find I use nearly 30 pounds of fat to
fuel my local transportation.
I’ll have a beer and a clean conscience with that chili dog, hold the
electric car, thank you!



On May 31, 4:51 pm, Ken Freeman <kenfreeman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, impressive, but the article suggests the OEMs should be able to do
> this.  I'd think the OEMs might well be able to build a 1-off specialized
> vehicle for a controlled-road world distance record attempt, and I'd be
> surprised if it couldn't equal or better that result.  The rubber meets the
> road when you have to maximize overall efficiency (i.e. range) for a road
> with diverse, real-world conditions, a large number of starts and stops, the
> electrical accessories on perhaps all the time, a full payload (kids,
> friends, luggage, et cetera), and a lot of climbing and descending.  Did it
> have electric power steering and electric air conditioning?  What kind of
> on-road charge extenders does it have (regen braking, solar trickle charge
> source)?  Plus having been an engineer of battery-driven systems, how is
> "full charge" defined?  Is it defined to be a charge (and discharge) level
> that will ensure 100k to 200k miles of battery life for the population of
> vehicles (OEMs will hope to sell a production run of 1 million vehicles)
> while in the hands of consumers?  No such comments are given.  You can get a
> heck of a lot more out of a battery if you don't follow long-life protocols
> - you just have to get a new battery rather frequently.
>
> But if my next job opportunity comes through with a car OEM, and they say I
> have to buy a car, I'll get the electric one, thank you!
>
> You must be really good!  I need a lot of coffee and bananas to do 100
> miles, much less 623!

>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Cully J <ccar...@new.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Although I'm an avid cyclist,  I'm happy to see an interest in
> > electric cars. This is totally impressive:
>

> >http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/diy-electric-car-mira-ev-japa...

>
> > Apparently, the E-car shown above gets 623 miles off of a single
> > battery charge!
>
> > Still, most energy and electricity that we use comes from nonrenewable
> > resources. So, even an E-car cars can be temporarily used.
>
> > I get 623 miles per cup of coffee and banana (both renewable items).
>
> > Regards,
> > Cullen Carter
>

> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com<bicyclelifestyle%2Bunsubscrib e...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 04:22 -0700, Marc Irwin wrote:
> For what it's worth, here is the text of an article I wrote on the
> subject in a local paper a year or so ago:
>
> Electric cars drive me nuts!
> The development of cars which run exclusively on electricity sounds
> like a promising solution to our dependence on petroleum, but it is
> totally impractical for the forseeable or even the distant future.
> What prompted me to think about this was the comment that President
> Busch

Do you mean George W. Bush? The other guy's a brewer.

> made during a recent news conference implying that electric cars
> were a viable possibility. What good would that do? The best have a
> range of 200 miles with a half-ton battery. It would only be usable
> for light, short commutes, local errands and…hurry home to plug it
> in.

What proportion of commutes are less than 200 miles round trip?

[Garth]

Electric cars?

In the US. . . We love big cars. We love pickups. Electric cars will
always be a very small segment of users, generally more affluent and
living in warmer climates. You won't find many electrics in the Upper
Midwest.

What gets lost in all the talk of lighter, smaller vehicles is their
durability. Most roads in the US are bad, if you live up North,
getting worse every year. My F150 pickup truck can take the abuse.
Little cars cannot. What one may save in gas gets lost in repair
bills. It seems there is no simple solution. Ask people who live in
Pittsburgh, or Minneapolis how the roads are and weather they'd like a
light electric vehicle ..... probably not many takers.

I like riding a bike, it's no substitute for a car, not where I and
many people live. Too much variation in temperature, terrain and not
enough decent roads.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 09:26 -0700, Garth wrote:
> My F150 pickup truck can take the abuse.
> Little cars cannot. What one may save in gas gets lost in repair
> bills.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? I believe cost of
ownership data provided by Consumer Reports contradicts your claim
rather strongly.

[Garth]

My experience is first hand. I, like many people used look to CR as a
vault of knowledge, but I don't find their data to be so accurate
anymore. It likely never was. I can't tell you how many times a "best
buy" of theirs turns out to be a lemon.

My '99 F150 has been quite reliable. Family and friends with minivans
and small cars have had lots of suspension and tire replacements.

[Mike Arciero]

Slightly off topic, but-
I think the issue of increased food consumption for cyclists when
comparing costs with that of driving was addressed in another thread,
but I believe that the additional cost can be taken as income tax
deduction for business-related cycling in Canada. Not sure if you can
do that in the US.
Mike

[Peter Leiss]

Hi Mike 

Bike Couriers can deduct a part of the their food expenses as a business expense. Thanks Wayne 

Waynes new fight to make streets safer

Peter

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Richters]

I would guess that the reason for this is that your truck is built to
carry a rather heavy payload in addition to the passengers, whereas
the small cars do not expect this. The lighter the vehicle, the less
heavy-duty the suspension needs to be for it to endure the same abuse
-- most of the wear on the suspension comes from the weight of the
vehicle (unless we're talking about a bicycle, of course). The only
reason heavier vehicles (trucks and SUVs) last longer is because
they're built with even heavier-duty suspensions, because they're
expected to be driven off-road or on poor-quality roads more.
Passenger cars also tend to have suspensions that are designed to
optimize ride comfort, rather than length of life.

Electric cars can actually be mechanically much simpler than ones with
internal combustion engines, because they just need two or four
electric motors. For instance, there's no need for a driveshaft. Or
and engine. When all's said and done, they should be simpler and
require less maintenance than gasoline-powered vehicles. The real
stumbling blocks are a battery that works well in the cold (and isn't
too heavy) and a heating system that doesn't rely on waste heat from
combustion. The idea that lighter vehicles are inherently less
durable than heavier ones is ridiculous. It is true, however, that
machines with fewer moving parts tend to be more reliable and durable
than similar machines with more moving parts, and all-electric cars
should win big on that score.

--Mike

[Garth]

Smaller, lighter simpler cars should, would or could be more reliable,
but this remains to be seen. Like any product, it depends on how well
it's engineered and manufactured. My point about durability has to do
with the rigors of driving on pot hole strewn roads of the Northern
US. Roads are getting worse every year. Trucks can take this abuse
much better than the small cars, for the obvious reason of being heavy
duty.

I just don't see electric cars ever being mainstream. As stated,
batteries(recharging,durability,disposal), heating and cooling of the
cab are big issues. Also, tall people. I'm tall, and I've never sat
in small car that I didn't feel like I was sitting on a half sized
seat..... no leg support. Then you've got the multitude of overweight
people in the US, how does that fit into the electric cars plan? What
about driving long distances ..... how does one recharge in 5 minutes?

As much as the people may or may not appear to worry about the price
of oil, look at how people adapt. I see people drive as crazy and fast
as ever. Even at gas's highest price. In my local neighborhood you'd
never know gas was expensive. People still drive 2 blocks to go to a
friends/families home. Many people still drive more than they need to.

That's a big problem in the US. We were built on the premise of cheap
energy. The whole infrastructure was built that way. The thing
is ..... I don't believe there ever was or is any shortage of oil.
Americas issue today is that energy can be bought and sold like any
other commodity. The guys at Enron can call up a Power Co. and tell
them to shut down the grid for a few hours. When the investors and
speculators get freaked out by whatever, they jack the price up and
make up some silly excuse as to why the price jumps. . . and no one
questions it. Fear and greed run wild. We're like cows .... we just
stand and take it.

All this said ..... I see nothing wrong with alternative cars. We need
alternatives if for no other reason than to break up the mono culture
of transportation. Just don't expect them to be mainstream anytime
soon.. Like bike riding ...... we all love it... but we are a
minuscule part of the population. I wouldn't expect many Americans to
embrace the bike as a valid form of transport. True change comes from
within ..... otherwise we're just shuffling the same old deck of cards
with it's limited options.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 06:12 -0700, Garth wrote:
>
> I just don't see electric cars ever being mainstream. As stated,
> batteries(recharging,durability,disposal), heating and cooling of the
> cab are big issues. Also, tall people. I'm tall, and I've never sat
> in small car that I didn't feel like I was sitting on a half sized
> seat..... no leg support. Then you've got the multitude of overweight
> people in the US, how does that fit into the electric cars plan? What
> about driving long distances ..... how does one recharge in 5 minutes?

Electric does not have to be small. It probably will continue for a
long time to be primarily short range. However, most trips are short
range, especially commutes.

And as far as those overweight people are concerned, I don't see cycling
as an option for many of those, do you?

[Ken Freeman]

For someone who drives long distances, not having to stop every hundred miles is a common expectation.  In rural areas gas stations can be spaced by pretty large distances.  I don't see how the expected EV range limitation of about 100 miles is going to cut it.  Even if you have battery exchange stations, how many bays will each station have?  If there's a lot of infrastructure construction, it will be expensive for Joe's Desert Rest and Refueling Stop Yew'r Welcome to install enough capacity to prevent waiting.  Contrast to cars which as a class have a highway range of 300 to 600 miles on a tank, with a max 20 minute refill.  The time factor might optimistically be a wash, but the convenience will not.  A hybrid (with a bigger tank than you get now) begins to look like a hot solution, even in your F350 or whatever.

Would it be necessary to upgrade rural electrical distribution systems to provide large amounts of recharge power to vehicle battery exchange and recharge stations located at max 100 mile intervals?  Despite the development of the United States, rural electrification is still not a fully solved problem, to say nothing of high-power vehicle support circuits.

So I would say, pure EVs are not going to solve all of America's private transport problems.  There is a majority of users that may well be helped, not all will be.  But I don't think anyone is talking yet about your pickup being confiscated by cops riding bamboo road bikes clad in hemp pajamas.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Fai Mao]

The passive house concept is actually somewhat funny to my mind
because it it really isn't anything new. People in have been doing
this kind of thing for a long, long time. By a long time I mean
ancient Rome, ancient China, ancient Egypt and Babylon.

An example: the old prairie style house I grew up in had 15 foot
ceilings, air spaces between the attic and the ceiling deep eaves and
porches to provide shade, no windows on the North or West, Trees on
the North and West side to provide shade and wind breaks. There was a
fan in the attic. The windows opened at both the top and the bottom.
We lowered the tops and raised the bottoms at night and the ceiling
fan would circulate the hotter air out the top of the window while
drawing the relatively cooler air in through the bottom. My mother
would get up early and raise/lower the windows and close the drapes
each morning and the house would stay cool, at least compared with the
outside most of the day. This was a house built in 1856 and the only
additions to the orginial system other than some insulation were the
attic and ceiling fans. We had an AC system but didn't use it except
rhen we had guest. In the winter we had gas fueled Franklin stoves in
the main room and a fan driven circulation system to spead the warm
air. Was it as cool as the archive I work in with filtered, humidity
and temperature controlled air? No, but it kept us close to
comfortable and was bunches cheaper than the family friends in their
new house in town. Even when we used the AC all summer my parents
electricity bill seldom rose to above $75-$100 in 1970's money for a
3000+ square foot farm house.

I just can't see how having a passive house that lowers utility bills
wouldn't be something that many people would rather have. Forget about
even environmental issues. It would save them money and add little to
the new construction cost.

On Jun 2, 3:52 am, Ken Freeman <kenfreeman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Rob, I'll check it out.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Rob Harrison <robha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The concept still works. One of the first Passive Houses in the US is in
> > northern Minnesota. (There have only been six or seven built in the US so
> > far, whereas there are 15,000 in Europe.) There is some discussion as to
> > whether the standard should be relaxed for more-northern climes. <

> >http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2010/3/31/Passive-House...>

> > bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com<bicyclelifestyle%2Bunsubscrib­e...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
>
> --
> Ken Freeman

> Ann Arbor, MI USA- Hide quoted text -

[Fai Mao]

Another issue is how big are the batteries? A normal filling station
can refuel what, a couple of thousand automobles before having the
tanker truck? Stack up those batteries and see how much space that
takes. Then you have to some that are charged. The land usage is
tremendious. Could you build a station like that in Manhattan? I don't
think you could build one in the Central District of Hong Kong where I
live. The battery exchange stations would either have to be huge or
the range f the vehicles they serve would have to be short to deal
with the space requirements.

> > bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com<bicyclelifestyle%2Bunsubscrib­e...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
>
> --
> Ken Freeman

[Ken Freeman]

Yes, thank you, Fai!  Size matters, as some say.  Let's just push this vision a little more and see what could be necessary ...

Let's think about handling large equipment.  EV batteries will weigh in the neighborhood of 2000 #, and more for large EVs such as large sedans or light trucks; much more for heavy trucks (goods delivery, servicing, and long distance transport).  Even for a Prius, neither a high power vehicle nor a pure EV, the vehicle weight is surprisingly high, primarily due to energy storage.  There are some exotic aerospace storage cell technologies that are very light in weight (nickel hydrogen batteries, distinct from nickel metal hydride), but very large in volume, high internal pressure, and potentially high temperatures.  Useful in something like a GEO communication satellite or the Hubble Space Telescope, but not in cars where temperature must be manageable and the battery must be compact.

If the battery pack weighs comparable to an engine/transmission, and if it's to be replaced in high volume (several thousand per day as you suggest), yes the facililty must be large, have significant automation, and pay major attention to material handling and storage.  Let's say 3000 cars must be serviced in 12 hours, an average of 250/hour.  Suppose the replacement time is 5 minutes per vehicle, resulting in 1250 service minutes each hour.  Divide by 60 and get 20.8, meaning there must be 21 parallel vehicle servicing processes in the facility to support this.  Just visualizing the size of a car dealer repair facility that has 21 service bays, that's a really big building just to house and manipulate the cars in and out of replacement bays.  Each replacement bay must have built in equipment to manipulate, remove, and replace the battery.  There must be routes to serve the vehicle to the and to remove it, likewise to serve the battery to the station and remove the discharged one.  This says nothing of battery handling and transport within the storage and charging facility, nor storage and charging racks.  But, yes, I am seeing battery replacement stations comparable in size to large American auto sales centers.  And can the driver and occupants remain in the car while the mechanical operations are under way, in such a large industrialized facility?  The smaller hybrids we have now are 400 volt electrical systems.  If they must be removed from the service area, where will 21 families go at one time where they will not be rained on, frozen in the winter, and be allowed access to toilet facilities?  Maybe they should shop?  Anyway, this is hardly a green vision, with ferns and free cool drinks, or even stehcaffee.

A few entrepreneurs might be willing to build to this scale to experiment with investing in a Comfort and Fueling Emporium in dense urban areas like the neighborhoods of Los Angeles, Toronto, Chicago or perhaps New York City, but this scale of service center cannot be the norm, it's just too big.

And with this huge scale of new automotive infrastructure investment, where is the attention that still should be paid and the investment that should be made in cycling, transit, and intermodal urban transport architectures?

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Horace]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's say 3000 cars must be
> serviced in 12 hours, an average of 250/hour.  Suppose the replacement time
> is 5 minutes per vehicle, resulting in 1250 service minutes each hour.
> Divide by 60 and get 20.8, meaning there must be 21 parallel vehicle
> servicing processes in the facility to support this.

Since it currently takes longer than 5 minutes to pump gas, doesn't
this mean that current gas stations also need 21 or more pumps?

[Ken Freeman]

No.  If it really takes 10 minutes, then you need 11.  The main point is the same, it's a lot of infrastructure.  Besides, my assumptions are just my assumptions.  There's nothing gospel here, it's just a vision of how this battery replacement function MIGHT have to work.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Neil Schneider]

Ken Freeman wrote:

>
> If the battery pack weighs comparable to an engine/transmission, and if it's
> to be replaced in high volume (several thousand per day as you suggest), yes
> the facililty must be large, have significant automation, and pay major
> attention to material handling and storage. Let's say 3000 cars must be
> serviced in 12 hours, an average of 250/hour.

This is a ridiculous assumption on it's face. If a gas station had to service
this kind of volume it would require a tanker every two hours. Realistically
they get gas deliveries once or twice a month. So instead of 250/hour figure
250 every two weeks. Now it doesn't look like such a logistical nightmare.

This is what's known as a straw man argument.

[Jeff Cozad]

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I’m waiting for the ultimate EV range extender. A gas/diesel motor/generator set on a towed trailer. You know someone will do it.

Jeff Cozad

Bettendorf - Formerly Iowa's Most Exciting City

--

[Ken Freeman]

Agreed, now that you present some more realistic figures for gas station throughput.  I took the assumptions suggested early in the thread and expanded from there.  The scale is not realistic, garbage in, garbage out as we know.  But I believe the need for automation and the basic material handling requirements are both plausible.  Certainly this will not be a hand operation.  This is still adding/removing a car part that is comparable in weight to an engine/transmission combination, and once removed it needs care and feeding, not just storage.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Ken Freeman]

Yes, especially since the motor/generator can be used for storm backup power for your house.

Another range extender option can be a trailer full of batteries.  Need to be able to put big trailer hitches on a small car, however.

Bettendorf exciting?  I never knew, all that time I spend in Rock Island!

[Scott G.]

> With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I’m waiting for the ultimate EV range
> extender. A gas/diesel motor/generator set on a towed trailer. You know
> someone will do it.
>
> Jeff Cozad

Chevy Volt uses that system, the gas engine that charges the
batteries
or provides power to the electric motors. Not really surprising GM did
it
that way, their diesel electric locomotives use diesel engines to run
electric motors.

Scott G.
'01 Focus with Douglas-Bender fusion pack.

[Ben]

> Most roads in the US are bad, if you live up North,
> getting worse every year. My F150 pickup truck can take the abuse.

Sorry, Garth, but your F150 CAUSES the abuse.

Road surface damage goes as the cube of wheel weight. Edmunds claims
that a 2010 F150 weighs 6450 pounds. I'll randomly pick a large,
fast, safe, high-performance, capable, AWD station wagon for
comparison: the Subaru Outback weighs 4585 lbs. That means that you
are personally responsible for 6450^3/4585^3 = 2.7 times as much road
damage as the Outback per mile. Compared to a Prius (at 3042 lbs),
you create potholes at almost 10 times the rate. If we restricted
SUVs and trucks, we wouldn't have nearly as many potholes, and we
could cut taxes substantially since road maintenance costs would
plummet.

At the very least, I think we could tax vehicles based on weight and
put the costs into road repair in a fair and equitable manner. And
increase those taxes until there is enough money to really keep the
potholes under control so people CAN drive cars.

What do you think?

[Ben]

On Jun 8, 9:14 am, Jeff Cozad <zadma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I’m waiting for the ultimate EV range
> extender. A gas/diesel motor/generator set on a towed trailer. You know
> someone will do it.

I don't see what your cheek has to do with it.

If 95% of trips are easily within the range of a mid-sized battery,
what's wrong with having a trailer that turns your car into a hybrid
for the other 5% of trips--once a month or so? As batteries improve
and 99.5% of trips come within range of a pure electric, UHaul or
whatnot could rent you an ultimate-range-extender trailer for your
annual roadtrip (probably with extra room for luggage), or you could
split the costs of five ICE trailers with 20 of your neighbours. This
trailer idea has been proposed, and it seems to make a whole lot of
sense. Not having to drag an ICE around with you everywhere when you
don't need it does wonders for mileage, maintenance, cost, etc.

[Fai Mao]

A tanker truck is 9000 gallons. A busy urban gasoline station gets a
delivery every other day or every third day

> This is what's known as a straw man argument.- Hide quoted text -

[Fai Mao]

Sorry for the previous short reply I was interupted by something.

Please don't missunderstand. I'd like to see an electric car. But an
urban city filling station typically has at least one but sometimes
two or three sets of underground storage tanks for the various grades
of gasoline and diessel they sell. A large tanker is 9000 gallons and
delivers only one type of fuel. So saying that they only receive fuel
twice a month is both true and not true because they may receive a 94
octane one day, an 87 the next, dessiel the next. If they have
multiple storage tanks then each tank is filled at a different time. I
worked in a 7-11 back in my undergaduate days and the self-service
gasoline had about 250 cars a day or ten an hour on average though at
peak times this was much greater.

The figures given above about the size requirement may be exagerated
but the issue of space is still there. A battery swap system in a
large nations is a huge investment. Another problem would be making
sure that the Toyota batteries fit the Audi plug. What happens if a
"New and Improved" battery is invented that is not backwards
compatible with the old battery and the stations have to carry
multiple types of swap units?

I have wondered if there might not be some way that a sensor could be
implanted in a roadway that would allow automobiles to pick up
electric current to run an onboard electric motor without the
batteries but yet would not electrocute people or animals crossing the
road; like one of those fancy range tops that only get hot when a plan
is placed on the burner. Drivers could then be charged for driving
through a system like automated toll boths. Singapore does this now on
its toll roads. The farther you drive the more tolls you pay. The car
would need a small battery with a 20 or 30 K range or even a gasoline
engine to get on or off the major road. Just as importantly such a
system would require very little additional infrastructure and could
be implimented as roads are maintained.

A last issue I see with all of this is that any conversion to
electrical automobiles is going to require a major investment in
electrical generating facilities

On Jun 8, 11:14 pm, Jeff Cozad <zadma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I’m waiting for the ultimate EV range
> extender. A gas/diesel motor/generator set on a towed trailer. You know
> someone will do it.
>
> Jeff Cozad
> Bettendorf - Formerly Iowa's Most Exciting City
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Horace <max...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Ken Freeman <kenfreeman...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
> > > Let's say 3000 cars must be
> > > serviced in 12 hours, an average of 250/hour.  Suppose the replacement
> > time
> > > is 5 minutes per vehicle, resulting in 1250 service minutes each hour.
> > > Divide by 60 and get 20.8, meaning there must be 21 parallel vehicle
> > > servicing processes in the facility to support this.
>
> > Since it currently takes longer than 5 minutes to pump gas, doesn't
> > this mean that current gas stations also need 21 or more pumps?
>
> > --
> >  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com<bicyclelifestyle%2Bunsubscrib­e...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[Ken Freeman]

The idea of road power distribution is always interesting, either with contacts on the road surface or electromagnetic coupling to vehicles.  On a national US basis the costs will be huge, and have already been evaluated for less-intrusive road systems.  In "California PATH Magnetic Guidance System," a system of magnetic markers is described where strong permanent magnets are inserted into the road surface and detected by magnetic sensors installed on cars.  The result was very precise automatic lane tracking on the test road.  The installation cost for a manual install process was $10,000 per lane per mile.  It was assumed that an automated installation process would be a lot cheaper, but this paper doesn't explore that. 

Another area where road infrastructure could carry electrical services to cars is the Digital (or Direct) Short Range Communication System, which would provide WiFi-like information from the road to each car.  To be fair a wide set of communication linking systems are being looked at, including multi-mode systems.  A wide range of engineering and application issues are being investigated, including applications, vehicle installation standards, the impact of a mixed (equipped to network versus not equipped to network) fleet of vehicles, a data dictionary, and electromagnetic interference and pollution.  This series of experiments is now termed Intellidrive. 

One of the major stumbling blocks is the distributed roadway investment - will the car companies invest in a transciever for every car before the road authorities are made to invest in a network of land-line networked base stations or vice versa?  Both "sides" face enormous costs, and the risks that the other side will not follow suit.  This basic issue remains at the completion of the engineering studies.

One of the results of our free economy is that it's hard to create coordinated industry/government investments like these.  I'm sure a national road propulsion power distribution and coupling system would face the same issues.

As a tech geek, driver and cyclist, I'd really like to see such things come to pass.  Real-time navigation, improved road user situational awareness, and some assurance that on shared roads cars would not deviate into my area of the road are just a few of the attractive benefits.  But will it happen?

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Garth]

I think you're going to throw out numbers ,at least be correct about
them.
My 2WD regular cab F150 has a curb weight of about 4100lbs. It weighs
about the same, or less than most minivans. Less than many SUV's. Not
a whole lot more than a Outback wagon.
I drive about 3000 miles a year. Where in your equation does miles
driven factor in? You see where this is going ? ......

"create potholes at almost 10 times the rate" ? Where does this come
from ?
"restrict/tax SUV's and trucks"? . . . good luck with that one. What
about small business and delivery trucks, commercial trucks etc. ? Try
to restrict/tax those. America runs on the OTR trucker. The OTR road
trucker is already highly taxed.


Why are roads so bad? It's a combination of weather, traffic,
engineering and maintenance . You cannot control the weather or
traffic. Roads could be engineered better. Roads could be maintained
better.

In a perfect world, the roads could be built better and maintained
more frequently. Roads are worse than ever. I remember how road crews
used to seal cracks on roads. I never see that anymore, they wait
until the road is completely falling apart, then do a completed
resurface.... which these days only lasts a few years because of poor
materials and/or workmanship.. Who's to blame for this? Where does
the finger point? .... That's what we all want isn't it? .... Someone
to blame? This is the ultimate failure of humans .........The blame
game has no end...... and no one wants to admit it. Blame away .....
blame away until one day we see it's reflection in a mirror and it is
us. You and me.

In a perfect world we could all be 5'10" and drive a small, light car
that has limitless range and did not pollute.

In a perfect world we'd have better laid out cities and effective
public transportation.

In a perfect world there would be ultimate co-operation.


In a perfect world ..... you see ...... the list goes on forever and
ever. It's the best tasting pie in the sky we will never consume.

[dwluca...@aol.com]

Nuthin's easy or straightforward these days..........

I think we might all agree that public transportation and recycling are good things; however, in my locale, the buses and recycling trucks have caused the majority of damage to our neighborhood streets.

The buses run regularly approximately every half hour and weigh roughly 40,000 pounds.  Smaller, more efficient, less damaging buses could be run, but they do not meet the ADA requirements for access, lifts, etc.  The streets where the buses run have become impossible to ride on with a road bike and are increasingly difficult to drive on due to the potholes and pushed up pavement.

We have 5 separate recycling companies that run through our neighborhood, and each one of these companies runs an enormous garbage type truck with multiple compartments for the various types of recycled items.  I'm not sure what they weight, but I'm guessing that they are equivalent to the buses.

Schools are also something that folks would think are good, but a local school is now expanding it's size, and the heavy dump trucks, cement trucks, semi-trailers carrying steel, etc. have done instantly visible damage to the surrounding streets.

And let's not forget about the school buses that run up and down the street on a regular basis.

When one factors in the heavy equipment brought in to replace private driveways, roofs, etc. I'm thinking that individual cars and trucks are basically a drop in the bucket when it comes to road damage.

Just a thought with tongue in cheek, but I believe that my local roads would last forever if they only carried personal cars and pickup trucks.  For the sake of our roads, let's do away with public transportation, recycling and schools.

Dave

P.S.  I drive a Honda Fit approximately 3,500 miles a year, and there are now many streets in town where I really can't drive due to the very poor road conditions.  An F150 may be in my future.

> wrote:
> > Most roads in the US are bad, if you live up North,
> > getting worse every year. My F150 pickup truck can take the abuse.
>
> Sorry, Garth, but your F150 CAUSES the abuse.
>
> Road surface damage goes as the cube of wheel weight.  Edmunds claims
> that a 2010 F150 weighs 6450 pounds.  I'll randomly pick a large,
> fast, safe, high-performance, capable, AWD station wagon for
> comparison: the Subaru Outback weighs 4585 lbs.  That means that you
> are personally responsible for 6450^3/4585^3 = 2.7 times as much road
> damage as the Outback per mile.  Compared to a Prius (at 3042 lbs),
> you create potholes at almost 10 times the rate.  If we restricted
> SUVs and trucks, we wouldn't have nearly as many potholes, and we
> could cut taxes substantially since road maintenance costs would
> plummet.
>
> At the very least, I think we could tax vehicles based on weight and
> put the costs into road repair in a fair and equitable manner.  And
> increase those taxes until there is enough money to really keep the
> potholes under control so people CAN drive cars.
>
> What do you think?


I think you're going to throw out numbers ,at least be correct about
them.
My 2WD regular cab F150 has a curb weight of about 4100lbs. It weighs
about the same, or less than most minivans. Less than many SUV's. Not
a whole lot more than a Outback wagon.
I drive about 3000 miles a year. Where in your equation does miles
driven factor in?  You see where this is going ? ......

"create potholes at almost 10 times the rate" ?  Where does this come
from ?
"restrict/tax SUV's and trucks"?  . . .  good luck with that one. What
about small business and delivery trucks, commercial trucks etc. ? Try
to restrict/tax those. America runs on the OTR trucker. The OTR road
trucker is already highly taxed.


Why are roads so bad? It's a combination of weather, traffic,
engineering and maintenance .  You cannot control the weather or
traffic. Roads could be engineered better. Roads could be maintained
better.

In a perfect world, the roads could be built better and maintained
more frequently. Roads are worse than ever. I remember how road crews
used to seal cracks on roads. I never see that anymore, they wait
until the road is completely falling apart, then do a completed
resurface.... which these days only lasts a few years because of poor
materials and/or workmanship..  Who's to blame for this? Where does
the finger point? .... That's what we all want isn't it? .... Someone
to blame? This is the ultimate failure of humans .........The blame
game has no end...... and no one wants to admit it. Blame away .....
blame away until one day we see it's reflection in a mirror and it is
us. You and me.

In a perfect world we could all be 5'10" and drive a small, light car
that has limitless range and did not pollute.

In a perfect world we'd have better laid out cities and effective
public transportation.

In a perfect world there would be ultimate co-operation.


In a perfect world ..... you see ...... the list goes on forever and
ever. It's the best tasting pie in the sky we will never consume.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Ken Freeman]

Re the 10x damage factor: IF the F150 did weigh twice what the Prius does (6450/3042)=2.12, and the rate(?) of road surface damage is proportional to the cube of weight, then 2.12^3 = 9.5.

But with your figures, an Outback causes more damage than a F150. 

But I agree, miles traveled should be a factor.  So should speed.

I'd like to know where this "rule" comes from.

However, it seems clear that lighter cars cause less road damage.  On the rural roads here in Southeast Michigan, I see a lot of Contours and other mid-small sedans, all the way down to Focus and Civics.  None look new, so it seems they are handling the roads.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

[Ken Freeman]

Sadly, the Hummer's only on the used market now ... carries more bikes than a Fit!

[tom]

First of all, only a century ago nobody could have predicted the
travel infrastructure and general economy we have in the US today.
The average citizen would have shook his head in disbelief at tales of
an interstate highway system, humungous airports and the planes that
use them and gigantic parking ramps. Ergo, we really have no way of
accurately predicting what the travel situation might be like in even
the relatively short term, much less farther down the line. Second,
Americans, and humans in general, are very much concerned with three
things: comfort, convenience and entertainment. They don't see
bicycles in any of those things. The conversation in this thread
seems to indicate that most of the posters believe that a simple shift
from internal combustion engine powered locomotion to an electric
substitute with the same parameters in travel ease and convenience is
possible. That certainly may not be the case at all. The options for
future travel may be more restricted or more variable, we don't know.
However, we can assume that bicycles will be a viable transportation
option for the forseeable future. Personally, I don't care if some
form of electric car comes to dominate personal transportation, I'll
just keep riding my bike where ever I go.

On Jun 9, 10:01 am, Ken Freeman <kenfreeman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sadly, the Hummer's only on the used market now ... carries more bikes than

> a Fit![?]
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM, <dwlucas62...@aol.com> wrote:
> > *Nuthin's easy or straightforward these days..........*
> > *
> > *
> > *I think we might all agree that public transportation and recycling are

> > good things; however, in my locale, the buses and recycling trucks have

> > caused the majority of damage to our neighborhood streets.*
> > *
> > *
> > *The buses run regularly approximately every half hour and weigh roughly

> > 40,000 pounds.  Smaller, more efficient, less damaging buses could be run,
> > but they do not meet the ADA requirements for access, lifts, etc.  The
> > streets where the buses run have become impossible to ride on with a road
> > bike and are increasingly difficult to drive on due to the potholes and

> > pushed up pavement.*
> > *
> > *
> > *We have 5 separate recycling companies that run through our neighborhood,

> > and each one of these companies runs an enormous garbage type truck with
> > multiple compartments for the various types of recycled items.  I'm not sure

> > what they weight, but I'm guessing that they are equivalent to the buses.*
> > *
> > *
> > *Schools are also something that folks would think are good, but a local

> > school is now expanding it's size, and the heavy dump trucks, cement trucks,
> > semi-trailers carrying steel, etc. have done instantly visible damage to the

> > surrounding streets.*
> > *
> > *
> > *And let's not forget about the school buses that run up and down the
> > street on a regular basis.*
> > *
> > *
> > *When one factors in the heavy equipment brought in to replace private

> > driveways, roofs, etc. I'm thinking that individual cars and trucks are

> > basically a drop in the bucket when it comes to road damage.*
> > *
> > *
> > *Just a thought with tongue in cheek, but I believe that my local roads

> > would last forever if they only carried personal cars and pickup trucks.
> >  For the sake of our roads, let's do away with public transportation,

> > recycling and schools.*
> > *
> > *
> > *Dave*
> > *
> > *
> > *P.S.  I drive a Honda Fit approximately 3,500 miles a year, and there are

> > now many streets in town where I really can't drive due to the very poor
> > road conditions.  An F150 may be in my future.

> > *

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.

>
> >    --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to bicyclel...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > bicyclelifesty...@googlegroups.com<bicyclelifestyle%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
>
> --
> Ken Freeman
> Ann Arbor, MI USA
>

>  360.gif
> < 1KViewDownload

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

> Ergo, we really have no way of
> accurately predicting what the travel situation might be like in even
> the relatively short term, much less farther down the line.

One thing can be said. It's an antrhopic-style argument, and it goes
like this:

The transportation system of the [some time in the fairly near] future
will be clean. If the transportation system doesn't get cleaned up,
there will be no future. It may be efficient, or it may be
inefficient but run on the almost limitless solar energy we have
available, or it may be inefficient but of limited use due to mass
extinction. Oh yes, it will be clean :)

[Ben]

Hi Garth,

Sorry--I didn't see you were in a 1999 F150 'til later. My bad, but I
don't know why you're so upset--I used a correct number, and included
a citation. Easy enough to just reiterate that you don't drive a 2010
F150, no? And wouldn't it be nice if this forum actually knew what a
thread was, so you could tell to which email I was replying and easily
see what fact I was missing? (At least the web interface I'm using
doesn't expose that...)

> I drive about 3000 miles a year. Where in your equation does miles
> driven factor in?

That would be where I said "per mile".

Also, congratulations on using your truck so little. I drive close to
twice that much, but I'm trying to improve.

> "create potholes at almost 10 times the rate" ? Where does this come
> from ?

The math--and my assumption, since proven wrong, that you drove
something resembling a 2010 F150.

> Why are roads so bad? It's a combination of weather, traffic,
> engineering and maintenance .  You cannot control the weather or
> traffic

Really? You certainly _can_ control traffic. You can provide bike
lanes and buses, tax gasoline, mandate standards, set up speed limits,
etc.

As for weather: I feel compelled to point out that our new best
friend, the 2010 F150, exerts about twice as much control over the
weather as my car does.

> Blame away .....
> blame away until one day we see it's reflection in a mirror and it is
> us. You and me.

Anyone who accepts blame can (usually doesn't, but at least can)
choose to do better. Knowing where to place blame is a necessary (but
not a sufficient) condition for improving society.

> In a perfect world we could all be 5'10" and drive a small, light car
> that has limitless range and did not pollute.

I'm 6'2" and I fit into most cars quite comfortably. Little sports
cars often fail, but they fail in so many other ways that they're
irrelevant :)

> In a perfect world ..... you see ...... the list goes on forever and
> ever. It's the best tasting pie in the sky we will never consume.

Your argument seems to be "Because perfection is unachievable there is
no point in trying to improve."

[Ben]

> I think we might all agree that public transportation and recycling are good things; however, in my locale, the buses and recycling trucks have caused the majority of damage to our neighborhood streets.

This is very interesting, and I'm sure it applies here as well, and
most places.

For buses, the most obvious approach is that buses will only run
certain routes, and those routes can be built to withstand the
additional loads. For recycling trucks, I'm not sure I can see a
solution, but presumably the road maintenance is just yet another cost
of consuming things in recyclable containers. Trash disposal really
is terribly expensive, and we keep forgetting that.

Another interesting solution for the bus problem: if you haven't
already, check out "on-demand bus" research. Smaller, lighter, more
efficient in a bunch of ways. Although it remains to be seen how the
pavement-damage factor works out, they're much more efficient than
conventional buses by some measures...

[Ben]

On Jun 9, 8:58 am, Ken Freeman <kenfreeman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But with your figures, an Outback causes more damage than a F150.

Cars have gotten _much_ heavier recently.

In case you're wondering, I'll rant about the reasons for this,
because I believe that this rant needs to be heard more often :)

The reason is safety. Cars are vastly safer in collisions than they
were 20 or even 10 years ago.

Strangely, we still kill 40000 people a year in the USA on roads.

A large part of this must be just increased population, but I've seen
some very good arguments that this is due to SUVs and cellphones.

SUVs are between 2 and 6 times as likely to kill someone in an
accident as are cars. The reasons are probably pretty obvious.

Cell phone use while driving (with or without headset) increases your
risk of being in an accident to approximately the same level as 0.08%
BAC (standard DUI level). That is, by about 4 times.

Which means, by my math, that drunk driving in a car is roughly as
dangerous as sober driving in an SUV. And talking on the phone in an
SUV makes you about 15 times as dangerous as non-phone driving in a
car.

Lucky we have all those air bags and I-beams and crumple zones and
whatnot, eh?

[Garth]

Hey Ben ,

I gotta say .... written communication in forums and newsgroups is
always a crap shoot. You never really know what the other person means
or how they mean it. As great as it is we can communicate like this,
it is like a double edged sword sometimes.

I don't think I stated that my F150 was a '99! so you didn't make
any errors. I was trying point out that even newer ones don't weigh
even close to 6400 lbs. That may be the curb weight of an F-250
SuperDuty 4x4 Crew Cab long wheelbased version, but not a 1/2 ton
pickup! You gotta realize most of a seemingly large pickup is empty
space. My truck is the same size as a Ford Expedition, but about 900
lbs. lighter because it's got only two seats and not all the bling of
an SUV.

Fingering out specific vehicles for more taxes based on weight or
miles just won't fly in America, or anywhere else I know of.

You can manipulate the roads .... but you can't control the number of
vehicles ,or when people choose to drive.

As was mentioned earlier about buses ..... you can make specific
routes for public transport, but not school buses. Not where I live.
We have many buses running on roads not meant for them, and there are
no alternative roads.

Probably the most damaging of all vehicles are the snow plows/salt
trucks. These are basically loaded dump trucks running the city
streets, then scouring the road ... picking up every bit of snow, but
also exploiting cracks to a point beyond simple repair. But, people
need to move safely, and theses days of odd work shifts and a spread
out community, buses are not an option for many.

Improving ... yes ..... we can improve how we live. We can improve on
what we waste, personally and in government. We can stop giving road
contracts to the lowest bidder, letting them do a shoddy job and not
holding them responsible .
Perfection though .... is an illusion. I would say though the closest
I have ever seen to perfection, is in the human reaction to this
imperfection. When the crap hits the fan.... how do we respond. Is it
with compassion or with fear?

Authentic change comes from within. It takes looking in the mirror
and saying "I'll give it up"(whatever that may be). This isn't easy.
Most of us don't want to give up anything. We want to drive(and do
whatever) we want, when we want and however far we want. We just want!
Like the Billy Idol song says .... "I want More More More!"

Where I live, a pickup is very practical . I share it with my elderly
father. We live next door to each other. He had a minivan, but when my
brother in laws truck died, we decided to give the van to him and my
sister and make do with the one vehicle. We carry loads just not
possible with cars. Overall operating costs are low. What many don't
realize is parts for trucks don't cost more than for cars. Service
either. If you're going to have just one vehicle, make it one that
fits a range of needs.

[Ben]

Ah, my mistake (perhaps primed by being terrified of them on the
road?). I'd quoted Edmund's "Gross Weight", not "Curb Weight", which
is only 4743 lbs (for 2010, rather heavier than yours). So that one's
only 4 times the road damage of a Prius, still like 3 times as likely
to kill someone, etc... :)

>  Fingering out specific vehicles for more taxes based on weight or
> miles just won't fly in America, or anywhere else I know of.

Well... I think it might if the people driving lighter-than-average
vehicles see a refund. Just raising taxes is never popular, even if
it's justified (say, a war tax, or a gasoline tax that pays for better
road maintenance (which I think might closely approximate a tax on
vehicle weight, actually) or measures to combat the effects of global
warming). If you demonstrate fairness and adjusting costs according
to actual services consumed, then why not? They already do this with
commercial vehicles.

> You can manipulate the roads .... but you can't control the number of
> vehicles ,or when people choose to drive.

Incentives. Large numbers. Statistics. Closing Memorial Drive to
cars on Sunday. Closing downtown to people with even-numbered license
plates on odd-numbered days. Raise the gas tax.

> As was mentioned earlier about buses ..... you can make specific
> routes for public transport, but not school buses. Not where I live.
> We have many buses running on roads not meant for them, and there are
> no alternative roads.

Hmmm. A pity. Well, at least it's only a few per day, right? And
snowplows are bad. My neighbourhood in Boulder doesn't get
plowed--25mph speed limits and mostly flat, and people with summer
tires _still_ whine ;) Not that winter tires are good for roads
either...

> Improving ... yes ..... we can improve how we live. We can improve on
> what we waste, personally and in government. We can stop giving road
> contracts to the lowest bidder, letting them do a shoddy job and not
> holding them responsible.

Amen.

> Perfection though .... is an illusion. I would say though the closest
> I have ever seen to perfection, is in the human reaction to this
> imperfection. When the crap hits the fan.... how do we respond. Is it
> with compassion or with fear?

Well spoken. Although the Myers-Briggs personality test tries to
determine (among things) whether people prefer compassion or
fairness. Fear is bad either way, though.

> If you're going to have just one vehicle, make it one that
> fits a range of needs.

My brother gets phone calls whenever his friends move. Why? Some
have SUVs (not as useful for hauling crap as a big pickup, granted).
He has a Civic. And a flatbed trailer. A wonderful rig.

It seems important to me not to waste energy--and desperately
important not to burn more fossil fuel than "necessary", whatever that
means. Large vehicles are wonderful for carrying lots of stuff, but
they're wasteful if you're not carrying lots of stuff--that extra
capacity comes at a cost--currently borne mostly by society at large.
I hope that the argument for "a range of needs" starts to encompass
the needs for efficiency and safety at some point.

Until then, *sigh*

Cheers :)

[Robert Tilley]

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Garth <gart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Fingering out specific vehicles for more taxes based on weight or
> miles just won't fly in America, or anywhere else I know of.

I just got my registration in the mail here in CA & there is actually
a weight surcharge on it. I don't recall this being there last year
but it may have been. My bill is higher than it was last year but CA
has been raising taxes & fees so the increase could have been
somewhere else. I believe the extra charge was about $100 for the
coming year on my '07 NIssan Titan 4x4 that weighs around 5,700 lbs.

I'd guess the weight charge applies only to commercial vehicles (which
pickups are in CA) and not to passenger vehicles.

Robert "$500 this year to register" Tilley
San Diego, CA

[Ben]

That's interesting! So a vehicle is commercial or not, rather than a
registrant?

Actually, a related proposal has been floated--light trucks should be
taxed an extra, say, $20000 luxury tax, that fee to be waived to
vehicles registered to businesses. There _is_ a need for them, after
all, but there are a few dozen reasons for trying to get them off the
road whenever they're just "lifestyle choices" (about, what, 95% of
them in California?). Not just for road damage, but for safety,
visibility, pollution, urban sprawl (parking spots have to be bigger
(no, in Boulder we don't really do that "compact car only" thing)),
intimidation / urban warfare, oil addiction / funding terrorism /
etc... Or would this just mean that everyone and his 97-year-old
granny would do the paperwork to become incorporated? Then we could
all act in our capacities as corporations when we put anyone with
lawyers at risk, all contribute unlimited funds to politicians, etc,
too :) Sounds like a Neal Stephenson dystopia...

Personally, I prefer simply enforcing "left lane no trucks",
"residential district--local trucks only", "car parking only", "truck
speed limit 55mph", "private highway--no trucks", etc. for light
trucks. Reasonable?

Other alternatives?

[Peter Jon White]

Let's not forget that this is a cycling forum.

[Ken Freeman]

Restricting trucks would be safer for bikes?

Peter, you wanted an electronic water cooler- looks like you got it!

[Taylor Winfield]

IMHO, I don't think we'll ever see public battery swap stations in common use for electric cars, even though all the technology exists now. Battery swapping is commonly used in industrial settings for fork lifts and similiar devices.   I agree that on a large scale it would be a logistical nightmare.   To me, a more likely scenario is for battery-powered vehicles with on-board chargers to be plugged into electrical outlets in car parks, much the same as block heaters are now in cities where winter temps are often below zero F. I suspect that the power supplied to such outlets will be paid for by the user who will insert money or a pay card into a meter to start the juice flowing. If it is profitable to provide charging points like this, the infrastructure will be developed & PDQ.   Electric battery operated scooters are proliferating, even in unlikely places and I feel that  simple little electric cars (already on the market) will increase greatly in numbers as well.   To me the main barrier to increased use of electric cars is the obsession for complexity of the big manufacturers. The GM "Volt" concept is a case in point. A practical electric car does not have to be high-tech, complicated, or expensive, even in the 21st century.   I think that bicycle transportation is the right solution for perhaps 15% of road users. I am very skeptical about urban "bike share" schemes but if they work, I think I could be open minded about them.   Electrically assisted bicycles are huge in Europe at the moment and might have a future in North America too, even though I don't like them much. I test rode a Honda Racoon nearly 20 years ago but was not much impressed by it. John Alldredge --- On Tue, 6/8/10, Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {BL}Bicycle vs. Electric car?