[Oeva-list] Nomination to "trolldom" - a comment by the nominee
stevel at fern.com
Tue Apr 22 23:50:00 PDT 2014
> I've patiently endured negative emails on here from stevel at fern.com and
> calvinjean2 at comcast.net for a couple of years. Just read through some, and
> in my opinion, there's a pattern of unproductive posts stating how EV's
> aren't good enough, they only go 70 miles on a charge, the owners are
> freeloaders who don't pay a fuel tax, high performance Tesla's horsepower
> achievements are meaningless/inaccurate, they are a waste of money, and now
> that the owners are criminals who drink to intoxication and drive. Also,
> that you're giving us a "dose of reality". A lot of us started with the
> reality of owning an EV that goes 35 miles on a charge on lead acid
> batteries, lots of us live within 30 miles of our work and school, I'd be
> thrilled to have 70 miles. I've heard all of these arguments against EV's
> before. Tesla has busted a lot of these barriers with a fraction of the
> production numbers of the big 3, and then gets bashed for being too
> expensive. EV's just can't win with some people and that's fine, but I
> prefer not to hear about that on an EV promotion email group.
> There's also been advocating for natural gas over EV's, a non-renewable
> resource that will dry up some day and leave us in the same spot that
> standard gasoline did. It's been stated that EV's run dirty because the
> electrical grid is dirty, yet there's lots of renewables making the grid
> cleaner every year and smart grid technologies in the works that can work
> to discharge power, decreasing peak power draws and charge at night.
> Saying negative things doesn't really help anything. If you truly care
> about EV's instead you'd look for or work towards a solution. This is
> still a relatively new industry, but the most promising one. Combustion
> has had 100+ years to figure it out, and production electric vehicles are
> very new in comparison, yet still better in a lot of aspects, like cost of
> operation, being 90% efficient instead of 20%, independence of petrol
> costs, as some of them are powered by 100% solar power. I like hearing
> about new revelations in the EV industry and new milestones.
> I've studied battery technology long enough to be suspicious of any claims
> of new battery technology, but there will be great revelations in our
> future. Graphene and other nanotechnology will some day power our electric
> vehicles to go 1000 miles on a 100 lb battery pack that's made from carbon
> and costs 1/4 of what Lithium batteries do, charged in less than a minute,
> and I can not wait for that day. But it takes hard work and some time to
> get there.
> In my opinion, this falls into trolling defined below. I can take a dose
> of EV hatred once in a while, but this group is to help promote EV's, not
> beat them down. From the oeva website, "The Oregon Electric Vehicle
> Association (OEVA) is a non-profit association of electric vehicle
> enthusiasts. We *promote* electric vehicle education." Maybe there's a
> better email group to suit those who want to bash EV's somewhere. It's not
> that I want everyone to agree with me or the majority of the group, it's
> just not productive. If you hate EV's and OEVA, I don't know why you
> bother. Maybe try constructive criticism.
> In Internet slang <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang>, a *troll* (
> / <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English>?<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>
> t <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>r<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>
> o? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>l<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>
> / <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English>,
> ? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>t<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>
> r <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>?<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>
> l <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key>/<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English>)
> is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or
> upsetting people,<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-Campbell-Trolls-1>
> posting inflammatory,<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-2>
> extraneous <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective>, or
> off-topic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic> messages in an online
> community (such as a forum, chat room<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_room>,
> or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an
> of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic
Since this is the most well thought out calls for my nomination to troll-dom I'll choose this one
to respond to.
I have been a member of the OEVA list for a long time.. And I was, at one time, a dues paying member
of the group. (I have not been a dues paying member for a while now.)
I've been interested in EV's since the vary earlisest efforts to build EV's in the area.. and yes,
it was back in the day when they were built out of old "gliders" with electric motors salvedged from
things like fork lifts.
I'm still interested in EV's.. and would buy one that met my needs, which I've laid out in a few
posts from time to time. (and won't repeat here.. for the sake of brevity.)
I don't consider my needs to be outside the realm of "reasonable" by any means.. but I'm not your
"Perl District Yuppie with $100K to burn" which means that solutions like the Tesla are not a
workable solution. The other factor is that, for many people whos transportation needs can be
met by the current EV are ideal candidates for Mass Transit. Moving those transportation miles
into an EV isn't the "greenest" solution to their transportation needs. And the seats on those
mass transit system go empty when they do use an EV. Is this the best solution if you are
worried about the environmental and climatic impacts of our "transportation solutions"?
I don't think so.
Yes, I've been critical of some of the things that have been said.
1) I've commented on the fact that EV's arn't "polution free".. Many of the posters have made
statments that seem to imply that if you buy an EV that you will suddenly be absolved of any
sin related to polution caused by EV's. This simply isn't true. (Examples of this are calls for
displays of EV's showing "no pollution" and an ICE showing an "EPA superfund cleanup site" as a
"comparison" of the pollution impact of the two transportation alternatives.) This simply
doesn't reflect reality.
2) The "fuel mix" data that I've cited, in support of my possition that EV's suffer from the
"long tail pipe syndrome" come directly from recognized sources that describe how electricity
is generated in the United States. These statments were often met with claims like "I buy only
wind generated energy" or "I've installed solar pannels". There are two problems with both of
these claims. PGE and others can not buy enough wind energy to meet the needs of the people
who have signed up for the wind energy program. They state that they don't guarantee to buy
wind generated power in exchange for your participation in the program, and that they will spend
the funds they get from your participation in the program to "encourage" the development of wind
There are "problems" with the generation, load dispatch and environmental impact of wind energy
that, in my opinion don't make it as useful and as "clean" as we would like for it to be.
Hydro power isn't without it's impacts on the environment, and on fish stocks in the rivers where
hydro power is generated. (Topics such as changes in river temperature, silt content etc.)
Much of the power used by EV's at the present time is generated by coal. Ignoreing that, is
mis-stating the reality of the use of electrical power for transportation.
(I remain skeptical of the claims that are made for EV MPGe.... largely because of certain
innefficiencies caused by the need for frequent recharging, and for transportation miles
spent going to and from those recharge sites.)
So.. I guess the question remains, does this make me a "troll"?
I think I've brought up legitimate concerns regarding statements made about EV's and their
impact on our society and environment. Many of these discussions have been triggered by
posts which make "overly optomistic" claims about the benefits of EV's.
I've never engaged in "name calling", profanity, or other tactics common amoung trolls. I've
restricted my comments (for the most part) to topics brought up on the list.
The fact that I've compared alternate fuels to EV's I think is only "realistic" in light
of the importance of the impact of transportation on our environment and economy. (I think
we should all be looking for the best solution, not a "preconceived" solution based on a
narrow set of constraints of the solutions to be considered.
I'd like to think that my position is a relistic one, and that calls for my nomination to
"trolldom" come from people who just don't like to consider alternatives and the impact
of their decisions.
I continue to be interested in EV's as a possible solution to my own transportation needs,
and will, if such a solution comes to pass, that is truly workable and clean enough to
make a difference in the environmental impact of my transportation needs, will buy such
a vehicle. I continue to read the OEVA list, in the hope of being alerted to such a solution.
I don't believe that the nature of my postings has been designed to be disruptive or malicious.
Sincerly (and I mean this!)
More information about the Oeva-list