[LINK] Standards, please! The third coming of electric vehicles

Karl Auer kauer at biplane.com.au
Sun Apr 22 13:02:28 AEST 2012


On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 09:29 +1000, David Boxall wrote:
> On 19/04/2012 10:55 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 09:48 +1000, David Boxall wrote:
> >> You're clearly passionate about battery-powered vehicles (BPVs)
> > Is passionate bad?
> Is it necessarily good?

No - but I understood you to be implying that it was. Good if that
wasn't the case, because the world is changed by only three things -
natural disaster, passion and apathy.

> Maybe it's idealism (or my well-developed sense of the ridiculous),
> but I'd rather support a technology with the potential to improve
> lives than one which history has shown to blight them.

In what way has history shown EVs to blight lives?!?

Any technology which helps matters is worth supporting. I am happy to
support any alternative fuel that creates a net carbon loss. The
question for me though is also whether one should support one thing *at
the cost* of some other thing. There is no conflict between EV and
alternative fuels, but the tone of your initial message basically was
that EV technology was rubbish and dangerous, while alternative fuels
were the way forward.

I have problems with alternative fuels because they are something else
to burn. They do not solve the emissions problem. EVs do; they can use
dirty or clean energy, meaning they work right now, and will continue to
work as we produce more and more clean energy.

Perhaps this is the difficulty - that we are seeking solutions to
different problems. How do alternative fuels solve the emissions
problem?

> Your behaviour is that of a True Believer. Your faith, it seems,
> blinds you at times.

If my behaviour brands me thus, then yours does you... and your
statement above does rather suggest that your comment about passion was
indeed meant as a criticism. At no stage have I so much as intimated
that your opinions may be informed by blind faith. I think you are
wrong, not stupid.

> For most people, short range and long charging times are killers.

"Most people"? The killer app for the EV is urban transport. "Most
people" live in urban areas, and travel relatively short distances for
the vast majority of their trips. Your statement is true for perception,
untrue for reality.

>  Living in a rural area, that's true for me as well. My primary
> concerns, however, are environmental. End to end, cradle to grave,
> taking into account production, use and recycling of fuel, batteries
> and vehicles, I see biofuels as less damaging to the environment and
> human wellbeing than batteries.

Hm. I come to the exact opposite conclusion in all the same categories.
However, I don't really care if you think alternative fuels are the
bee's knees - my only real objection is to your destructive denigration
of EV technology which, while not without flaws, still has the capacity
*right now* to reduce emissions.

> I haven't heard of any recommendations for full-body protection when 
> servicing conventional vehicles. Hazardous work quite rightly attracts
> higher remuneration. Someone has to pay those costs. Don't count on 
> servicing being cheap.

I'd like a bit more information about this alleged full-body protection
before I comment.

> In the event of an accident involving battery-powered vehicles, you'd 
> best pray for the speedy arrival of a hazmat team. You might rather
> come into contact with acid than petrol or diesel, but what about some
> of the other toxic battery technologies?

This is just vague hand-waving, not an argument. What about the tendency
for cars to go up in flames when their fuel tanks are breached? You'd
better pray for the speedy arrival of a fire truck - oh, wait, we do in
fact dispatch fire trucks to serious accidents. And what about NON-toxic
battery technologies? Or the fact that all cars contain an apparently
deadly battery in them right now? Presumably a matter of degree.

> Don't lead-acid batteries weigh a bit?

Yes. So do wheels, chassis and passengers. Only the batteries are likely
to get smaller, cheaper and lighter as development of the technology
progresses.

> > "Nonsense", as a counter-argument, really doesn't cut it.
> > ...
> Sorry about that. I have limited tolerance for True Believers. My gag 
> reflex tends to trigger when they feign ignorance.

At no stage in this discussion have I insulted you. I have taken issue
with your arguments. You, on the other hand continue to insult me. Not
placing the same importance on your arguments as you do is not the same
as "feigning ignorance".

Labelling someone a "true believer", or anything else, makes no
difference to the truth value of their statements. Even if I believe
that 1+1=2 "because the Great Spaghetti Monster says so" it is still
true that 1+1=2.

> As I mentioned earlier, industry and the military demonstrate the true
> state of affairs. Biofuel technology - in particular, algal biofuel - 
> are ready to go now.

I have described, in detail, why that is not the case. Knowing how to
make something, even making in it small quantities for a particular
market is one thing. Being able to create and distribute 70 million
barrels of it every day is a totally other thing, and there are no
alternative fuels except to some extent ethanol, that are anywhere near
ready for that.

I repeat my challenge - show me the producer, distribution network,
retailer, vehicle manufacturer and vehicle retailer for your alternative
fuel. Or show me that all those things can reasonably be in place within
ten years. Or twenty.

> Several times, you've asserted that battery-powered vehicles are a 
> solution that's practical here and now. The same has been said of 
> nuclear power. Both are presented as solutions to one set of problems,
> but will inevitably create another (arguably worse) set.

You have made some arguments that EVs may be of limited use. You have
completely failed to describe the set of problems that EVs will
allegedly create, aside from a vague pronouncement that they are
"toxic". What set of problems, specifically, will EVs create, and how do
those problems compare to the set of problems that FFVs have already
created?

> Even if I could drive 500 kilometres on a charge, then recharge in
> less than 15 minutes, I wouldn't have a battery-powered vehicle.

The Argument From Personal Preference is close kin to the Argument From
Personal Incredulity, and carries as little weight.

As you say, perhaps we should agree to disagree.

Regards, K.
 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/attachments/20120422/15611c05/attachment.sig>


More information about the Link mailing list