[Oeva-list] Nomination to "trolldom" - a comment by the nominee
calvinjean2 at comcast.net
Thu Apr 24 09:25:28 PDT 2014
This is what irritates the public- you deciding what SHOULD happen and not the individual in his circumstances.
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:07 AM, "Hansen, Chris" <chris.hansen at intel.com> wrote:
> 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>
> Date: Wed, April 23, 2014 10:02 am
> To: 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
> > 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
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Oeva-list