[Oeva-list] Nomination to "trolldom" - a comment by the nominee

Hansen, Chris chris.hansen at intel.com
Thu Apr 24 09:07:48 PDT 2014

But the argument of Americans not using mass transit enough is valid.

Gary, your statement,  “The mass transit argument: Americans are not going to give up their cars. Period.”, is not the argument. What is argued is that Americans should support and use mass transit to a much higher degree than we do today. Even us EV owners.

From: oeva-list-bounces at oeva.org [mailto:oeva-list-bounces at oeva.org] On Behalf Of Peter Hoeckel
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:33 PM
To: Gary Munkhoff; oeva-list at oeva.org
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Nomination to "trolldom" - a comment by the nominee

+1; couldn't have said it better.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Nomination to "trolldom" - a comment by the
From: Gary Munkhoff <gary at greenlivingjournal.com<mailto:gary at greenlivingjournal.com>>
Date: Wed, April 23, 2014 10:02 am
To: oeva-list at oeva.org<mailto:oeva-list at oeva.org>


I do not consider you to be a troll. However, your statements that EVs
are not the "greenest" solution to our personal transportation needs,
are, IMHO, filled with negativity and are not in line with the real
world. Your belief that only the perfect solutions to the challenges of
kicking our addiction to oil are worthy of consideration, flies in the
face of the historical course every new technology that has emerged in
the last hundred years.

The dirty grid argument: Stanford has completed a study that shows the
USA could be powered 100% by renewable energy sources by the year 2050.
Check out the Solutions Project. Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain
Institute gathered exhaustive amounts of data and concluded that the US
can be completely off of oil and reduce natural gas consumption by 2/3
by 2050. And grow the economy at the same time. Check out "Reinventing Fire"

Now If we wait until the grid is "clean" before we start converting to
EVs, we've missed the boat. Each year that passes, 15 to 17 million new
ICE cars roll out in the US, and worldwide the picture is even more
desperate as oil demand rises and supplies shrink.

Yes there are environmental issues with any form of renewable power
generation, but they are all far less than those created by coal, oil or
natural gas when you add in the health, extraction and security issues.

The mass transit argument: Americans are not going to give up their
cars. Period. And why would they, since mass transit does not the meet
our needs for all that we do. Mass transit has a place in, and is one
more piece of, the solution, but it is not a replacement for the
personal car.

The EV of today with its range limits, serves the American consumer very
well, and when combined with mass transit, biking, walking, car sharing,
and car rentals, could get oil out of our system very nicely.

Your position that we should turn our backs on the EV as one piece of
the solution, and continue with the status quo until the perfect
solution arrives, is both ludicrous and dangerous. Perhaps if you paid
more attention to what the visionaries are doing, and less attention to
what the naysayers are spreading around, you might see the world in a
different light. And hopefully, your comments on this list would be more
conducive to meaningful debate.

Gary M

On 4/22/14 11:50 PM, Steve's Account wrote:
> 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
> energy.
> 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!)
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org<mailto:Oeva-list at oeva.org>
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list

The EVs are coming

Gary Munkhoff, Publisher
Green Living Journal
P.O. Box 677
Cascade Locks, OR 97014

Oeva-list mailing list
Oeva-list at oeva.org<mailto:Oeva-list at oeva.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20140424/1f3623b2/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Oeva-list mailing list