Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

EV Digest, Vol 40, Issue 31

Expand Messages
  • ev-request@lists.sjsu.edu
    Send EV mailing list submissions to ev@lists.sjsu.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev or,
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 21, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Send EV mailing list submissions to
      ev@...

      To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
      http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
      ev-request@...

      You can reach the person managing the list at
      ev-owner@...

      When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
      than "Re: Contents of EV digest..."


      Also, please be careful not to append the entire digest to your reply. Many mail systems do this by default. Trim or delete the digest text from the bottom of your message, and quote only the parts to which you're replying.



      Today's Topics:

      1. Re: j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new EVs?
      (Mike Willmon)
      2. Re: Re-licensing an EV in WA State requires an inspection?
      (voganni)
      3. Re: j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new EVs?
      (Bill Dube)
      4. Re: Reaction to US News article (Dave Hale)
      5. "Payback time" (was:Reaction to US News article) (Bill Dube)
      6. Reaction to the US News article (Marc de Piolenc)
      7. Re: Reaction to the US News article (Douglas A. Stansfield)
      8. Re: Reaction to US News article (Gary Munkhoff)
      9. Re: Reaction to the US News article (David Dymaxion)
      10. Re: US News & World Reports Attacks EV's. (David Dymaxion)
      11. Re: US News & World Reports Attacks EV's. (Dennis Miles)
      12. Re: "Payback time" (was:Reaction to US News article) (damon henry)
      13. Re: j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new EVs?
      (Dennis Miles)
      14. Re: "Payback time" (was:Reaction to US News article) (Bill Dube)
      15. Re: j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new EVs?
      (Bill Dube)
      16. Re: US News & World Reports Attacks EV's. (EVDL Administrator)
      17. Re: The Torque is the Torque, of course, or course
      (EVDL Administrator)
      18. Re: US News & World Reports Attacks EV's. (Mike Nickerson)
      19. Re: US News & World Reports Attacks EV's. (David Dymaxion)


      ----------------------------------------------------------------------

      Message: 1
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:21:47 -0800
      From: Mike Willmon <electrabishi@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new
      EVs?
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID:
      <AANLkTi=11c9MjeT5OT28D++fvB4RqKAe2gYDWKKYDF_X@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

      NEC are actually only "recommended" Guidlines much as the J1772. Many
      municipalities are allowed to and will deviate from those codes if they are
      stupid.

      For home charging in your garage there 'should' be no problem plugging into
      a GFCI NEMA 14-50 installed in your garage.

      mike


      On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Bill Dube <billdube@...> wrote:

      > You can actually blame GM and Hughes. The inventors of the
      > MagnaCharge inductive charging system used on the EV1.
      >
      > They managed to get on the board that revises the National Electrical
      > Code rules back in the mid 90's. They wrote Article 625 in a way to
      > make conductive charging as difficult and expensive as possible. I
      > complained loudly and bitterly, but with no effect.
      >
      > There are key phrases in Article 625 that make conductive
      > charging really expensive, without actually looking like that was the
      > goal. Here are two of the worst/best:
      >
      > 1) "Parts made live must be covered" when the connector is disconnected.
      >
      > 2) "Locking connector" is required to prevent inadvertent disconnection.
      >
      > 1) "Parts made live" is not the same as "live parts". Also,
      > "covered" is not the same as "inaccessible" or "protected from
      > accidental contact" or "Live parts not exposed." A normal connector
      > is required to prevent accidental contact with the live high voltage
      > parts after you disconnect it. The EV connector must "cover" _all_
      > contacts that were ever live. Even if they are intrinsically dead
      > when the connector comes apart, and even if they only have 5 volts
      > and are harmless. This makes the connector really complicated and
      > expensive.
      >
      > 2) The NEC exists to regulate for safety, not for convenience. Making
      > the connector locking on a vehicle reduces safety. The connector
      > should simply pull apart safely if the vehicle rolls away (or is
      > towed away or driven away, or is hit by another vehicle.) Making it a
      > locking connector adds the requirement of a cord strain sensor and a
      > contactor the is controlled by that strain sensor. The strain sensor
      > won't prevent damage to the structure wiring or the car wiring. Thus,
      > when the car is towed away, live wires are likely to be exposed as
      > the charger rips off the wall or the inlet rips out of the car.
      >
      > Article 625 forbids the use of an ordinary connector to
      > charge the car. It is required to be different than all other
      > connectors. This makes no sense, unless you are trying to make i
      > expensive and difficult to charge an EV.
      >
      > To top all this off, the NEC is _not_ allowed to regulate
      > what is plugged in. It is only allowed to regulate what is attached
      > to a building or structure that is occupied. An outside plug next to
      > a parking place is the same no matter what is parked there, at least
      > that is the how the NEC is supposed to act according to the laws that
      > govern it.
      >
      > The smart thing to do is to lobby your state or municipality
      > to exclude Article 625 entirely. (They typically exclude parts of
      > Art. 625 and well as other specific parts of the NEC.)
      >
      > Bill D.
      >
      >
      > At 02:27 PM 11/21/2010, you wrote:
      > >Agree 100%, I been saying all along.
      > >
      > >It is ludicrous to have to pay for a $3000 extension cord that has a diode
      > >and a resistor in it.
      > >
      > >The "Charge Port" smarts necessary can be run with a $3 PIC..
      > >
      > >Mike
      > >
      > >On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Dennis Miles <evti@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > Would you buy an appliance if an outlet costing 15% of the price was
      > > > required to plug it in?
      > > >
      > > > Price Gouging in the USA is highly frowned upon and in times of
      > Emergency
      > > > is
      > > > often illegal. We arrested and fined individuals after Hurricane Andrew
      > in
      > > > Miami and Katrina in New Orleans for selling portable electric
      > generators
      > > > for premium prices of two to ten times the usual.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Why then are we allowing dozens of firms all over the USA to charge the
      > > > American Public *twenty times the usual price* for an electric outlet
      > and
      > > > installing it in their garage? Requiring citizens to waste $2,750 more
      > than
      > > > necessary.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > What am I talking about? The so called "Charging Stations" being
      > installed
      > > > in the homes of every individual who wants to buy a "Plug-In "electric
      > > > vehicle. An Electric or Hybrid Plug-In Vehicle is required to have a
      > > > "Specialized Outlet" to connect the charging unit actually located in
      > the
      > > > Vehicle. WHY ?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > In every home laundry area are two outlets, one is for the Washer it is
      > 120
      > > > v. @ 15 a. and there are dozens of outlets all around your home just
      > like
      > > > that (Stated simply, If you can plug in a Toaster, you can usually plug
      > in
      > > > an EV.)The other one is for the Electric Dryer it is 208 to 240 v. @ 30
      > a.
      > > > If
      > > > you own a Recreational Camper those come with a cord that plugs right
      > in to
      > > > one or the other, but if you get a new Electric Vehicle, you must buy a
      > > > $3,000 socket and cord set and pay an additional $1,000 TO $2,000 to
      > have
      > > > it
      > > > installed. However to add an additional Dryer Outlet only costs about
      > $250
      > > > including the parts needed.
      > > >
      > > > Why then does an EV need a $5,000 outlet? Because, the Underwriter's
      > > > Laboratory said it? That is not reasonable. The only justification is
      > > > Safety, but I can plug a $300,000 RV bus into a "Dryer Outlet" and the
      > > > 10,000 plug-in vehicles in the USA today can plug into a "dryer outlet"
      > or
      > > > a
      > > > "Standard home outlet" So that argument is unsubstantiated. If there
      > is
      > > > concern to have a "Ground Fault" protection, build it into the car.
      > That is
      > > > the proven method with Recreational Vehicles like Motor-homes.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > IMHO, the j1772 connection is inhibiting the public adoption of
      > Electric
      > > > "Plug-In" Vehicles. I ask "Why should we pay to have data collected
      > > > regarding our habits? Let the utilities pay , Why should we pay for
      > this
      > > > Data collection so the "Charging Station" companies can then SELL the
      > data
      > > > to the electric Utilities? The Idea does not sit well with me. Do you
      > Like
      > > > it ? ? ?
      > > >
      > > > --
      > > > Regards,
      > > > *Dennis Lee Miles* (Director) *E.V.T.I. inc*.
      > > > *www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <http://www.e-v-t-i-inc.com/> *(Adviser)*
      > > > EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter
      > > > *
      > > > Phone (813) ID4 - E V T I or (813) 434 - 3884
      > > > -------------- next part --------------
      > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      > > > URL:
      > > >
      > >
      > http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/d4b8e81e/attachment.html
      > > > _______________________________________________
      > > > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > > > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > > > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > > > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > > > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      > > >
      > >-------------- next part --------------
      > >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      > >URL:
      > >
      > http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/03f0f3f4/attachment.html
      > >
      > >_______________________________________________
      > >| REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > >| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > >| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > >| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > >| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      >
      -------------- next part --------------
      An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/5199c7e1/attachment.html


      ------------------------------

      Message: 2
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:07:56 -0800 (PST)
      From: voganni <voganni@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] Re-licensing an EV in WA State requires an
      inspection?
      To: ev@...
      Message-ID: <1290391676408-3053010.post@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


      Tom is right. I licensed the Ohm Ranger without an inspection, although when
      I initially transferred the title they told me it would need to be
      inspected. But when I went to get the 3-day trip permit for the inspection
      drive, they said no inspection required since it had not been out of
      Washington. Hadn't been licensed for the past 3 years either. They could
      not, however, change the power class from "g" (gas) to "e" (electric)
      without an inspection. And if you live in an emissions test county, you
      would need to get a permanent exemption from emissions tests, which would
      require an inspection.
      --
      View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Re-licensing-an-EV-in-WA-State-requires-an-inspection-tp3024558p3053010.html
      Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



      ------------------------------

      Message: 3
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:58:38 -0700
      From: Bill Dube <billdube@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new
      EVs?
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101121192222.085f57f0@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

      Actually, if you look search "NEC" in your local statutes, you will
      find the specific parts of the NEC that your local municipality has
      chosen to exclude.

      It is quite typical for them to exclude the section of Article 625
      that specifies ventilation requirements for EV parking structures.
      (That section requires a _tornado_ of ventilation, and would apply to
      parking garages and government parking buildings. It is completely
      ridiculous so it is very often excluded.)

      In California, they exclude section 625.29 D (the EV parking
      ventilation section):
      http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/prpsd_chngs/2009/CAC_09/HCD-1_08-ISOR-CEC.pdf

      While Article 625 attempts to do so, the NEC has absolutely no legal
      say in _what_ you plug into an outlet. They can dictate how the
      outlet is wired, installed, and protected, but their legal authority
      ends at the box on the wall.

      What really tells "the story behind the story" is when you
      read what vehicles are covered by 625 and what vehicles are excluded.
      Forklifts and industrial vehicles are excluded. Why? RV's are
      excluded? Boats are excluded. Why? How are they any different in
      terms of safety?

      At 06:21 PM 11/21/2010, you wrote:
      >NEC are actually only "recommended" Guidlines much as the J1772. Many
      >municipalities are allowed to and will deviate from those codes if they are
      >stupid.
      >
      >For home charging in your garage there 'should' be no problem plugging into
      >a GFCI NEMA 14-50 installed in your garage.
      >
      >mike
      >
      >
      >On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Bill Dube <billdube@...> wrote:
      >
      > > You can actually blame GM and Hughes. The inventors of the
      > > MagnaCharge inductive charging system used on the EV1.
      > >
      > > They managed to get on the board that revises the National Electrical
      > > Code rules back in the mid 90's. They wrote Article 625 in a way to
      > > make conductive charging as difficult and expensive as possible. I
      > > complained loudly and bitterly, but with no effect.
      > >
      > > There are key phrases in Article 625 that make conductive
      > > charging really expensive, without actually looking like that was the
      > > goal. Here are two of the worst/best:
      > >
      > > 1) "Parts made live must be covered" when the connector is disconnected.
      > >
      > > 2) "Locking connector" is required to prevent inadvertent disconnection.
      > >
      > > 1) "Parts made live" is not the same as "live parts". Also,
      > > "covered" is not the same as "inaccessible" or "protected from
      > > accidental contact" or "Live parts not exposed." A normal connector
      > > is required to prevent accidental contact with the live high voltage
      > > parts after you disconnect it. The EV connector must "cover" _all_
      > > contacts that were ever live. Even if they are intrinsically dead
      > > when the connector comes apart, and even if they only have 5 volts
      > > and are harmless. This makes the connector really complicated and
      > > expensive.
      > >
      > > 2) The NEC exists to regulate for safety, not for convenience. Making
      > > the connector locking on a vehicle reduces safety. The connector
      > > should simply pull apart safely if the vehicle rolls away (or is
      > > towed away or driven away, or is hit by another vehicle.) Making it a
      > > locking connector adds the requirement of a cord strain sensor and a
      > > contactor the is controlled by that strain sensor. The strain sensor
      > > won't prevent damage to the structure wiring or the car wiring. Thus,
      > > when the car is towed away, live wires are likely to be exposed as
      > > the charger rips off the wall or the inlet rips out of the car.
      > >
      > > Article 625 forbids the use of an ordinary connector to
      > > charge the car. It is required to be different than all other
      > > connectors. This makes no sense, unless you are trying to make i
      > > expensive and difficult to charge an EV.
      > >
      > > To top all this off, the NEC is _not_ allowed to regulate
      > > what is plugged in. It is only allowed to regulate what is attached
      > > to a building or structure that is occupied. An outside plug next to
      > > a parking place is the same no matter what is parked there, at least
      > > that is the how the NEC is supposed to act according to the laws that
      > > govern it.
      > >
      > > The smart thing to do is to lobby your state or municipality
      > > to exclude Article 625 entirely. (They typically exclude parts of
      > > Art. 625 and well as other specific parts of the NEC.)
      > >
      > > Bill D.
      > >
      > >
      > > At 02:27 PM 11/21/2010, you wrote:
      > > >Agree 100%, I been saying all along.
      > > >
      > > >It is ludicrous to have to pay for a $3000 extension cord that has a diode
      > > >and a resistor in it.
      > > >
      > > >The "Charge Port" smarts necessary can be run with a $3 PIC..
      > > >
      > > >Mike
      > > >
      > > >On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Dennis Miles <evti@...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Would you buy an appliance if an outlet costing 15% of the price was
      > > > > required to plug it in?
      > > > >
      > > > > Price Gouging in the USA is highly frowned upon and in times of
      > > Emergency
      > > > > is
      > > > > often illegal. We arrested and fined individuals after Hurricane Andrew
      > > in
      > > > > Miami and Katrina in New Orleans for selling portable electric
      > > generators
      > > > > for premium prices of two to ten times the usual.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Why then are we allowing dozens of firms all over the USA to charge the
      > > > > American Public *twenty times the usual price* for an electric outlet
      > > and
      > > > > installing it in their garage? Requiring citizens to waste $2,750 more
      > > than
      > > > > necessary.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > What am I talking about? The so called "Charging Stations" being
      > > installed
      > > > > in the homes of every individual who wants to buy a "Plug-In "electric
      > > > > vehicle. An Electric or Hybrid Plug-In Vehicle is required to have a
      > > > > "Specialized Outlet" to connect the charging unit actually located in
      > > the
      > > > > Vehicle. WHY ?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > In every home laundry area are two outlets, one is for the Washer it is
      > > 120
      > > > > v. @ 15 a. and there are dozens of outlets all around your home just
      > > like
      > > > > that (Stated simply, If you can plug in a Toaster, you can usually plug
      > > in
      > > > > an EV.)The other one is for the Electric Dryer it is 208 to 240 v. @ 30
      > > a.
      > > > > If
      > > > > you own a Recreational Camper those come with a cord that plugs right
      > > in to
      > > > > one or the other, but if you get a new Electric Vehicle, you must buy a
      > > > > $3,000 socket and cord set and pay an additional $1,000 TO $2,000 to
      > > have
      > > > > it
      > > > > installed. However to add an additional Dryer Outlet only costs about
      > > $250
      > > > > including the parts needed.
      > > > >
      > > > > Why then does an EV need a $5,000 outlet? Because, the Underwriter's
      > > > > Laboratory said it? That is not reasonable. The only justification is
      > > > > Safety, but I can plug a $300,000 RV bus into a "Dryer Outlet" and the
      > > > > 10,000 plug-in vehicles in the USA today can plug into a "dryer outlet"
      > > or
      > > > > a
      > > > > "Standard home outlet" So that argument is unsubstantiated. If there
      > > is
      > > > > concern to have a "Ground Fault" protection, build it into the car.
      > > That is
      > > > > the proven method with Recreational Vehicles like Motor-homes.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > IMHO, the j1772 connection is inhibiting the public adoption of
      > > Electric
      > > > > "Plug-In" Vehicles. I ask "Why should we pay to have data collected
      > > > > regarding our habits? Let the utilities pay , Why should we pay for
      > > this
      > > > > Data collection so the "Charging Station" companies can then SELL the
      > > data
      > > > > to the electric Utilities? The Idea does not sit well with me. Do you
      > > Like
      > > > > it ? ? ?
      > > > >
      > > > > --
      > > > > Regards,
      > > > > *Dennis Lee Miles* (Director) *E.V.T.I. inc*.
      > > > > *www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <http://www.e-v-t-i-inc.com/> *(Adviser)*
      > > > > EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter
      > > > > *
      > > > > Phone (813) ID4 - E V T I or (813) 434 - 3884
      > > > > -------------- next part --------------
      > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      > > > > URL:
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/d4b8e81e/attachment.html
      > > > > _______________________________________________
      > > > > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > > > > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > > > > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > > > > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > > > > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      > > > >
      > > >-------------- next part --------------
      > > >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      > > >URL:
      > > >
      > >
      > http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/03f0f3f4/attachment.html
      > > >
      > > >_______________________________________________
      > > >| REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > > >| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > > >| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > > >| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > > >| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      > >
      > > _______________________________________________
      > > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      > >
      >-------------- next part --------------
      >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      >URL:
      >http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/5199c7e1/attachment.html
      >
      >_______________________________________________
      >| REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      >| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      >| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      >| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      >| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev



      ------------------------------

      Message: 4
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:18:33 -0800
      From: Dave Hale <dave@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] Reaction to US News article
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID:
      <AANLkTik=O3yNyZ5p+9LDGX_DVQtd+ZN1d6hg1kqYC1vt@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

      I think it's a natural reaction. My friends and acquaintances saw me take a
      40 year old $2500 car and turn it into a 40 year old $20,000 car with
      reduced capability. I *guess* they assumed I was getting something out of it
      and they must have understood or heard that electricity was cheaper, so I am
      often asked about the payback time.

      Of course, it's ridiculous; with today's gasoline and electricity prices my
      break-even time is something like 350,000 miles There's not really a
      financial reason to drive an EV right now. But that's my cue to bring up the
      other reasons to drive an EV (including the fact that people sometimes
      forget, that no one asks for payback time on an ICE).

      But, still, it seems to be a natural reaction. The minuses are more obvious
      that the pluses, so people hope there must be a cost savings in there.


      On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Marc de Piolenc <piolenc@...>wrote:

      > "1) It will take 10 years for the gasoline savings to payback the
      > initial cost of an EV!!! No Gas car is ever put to the "Payback Test"
      > EVER!"
      >
      > Of course it isn't. Gas is the established technology - electric and
      > hybrid propulsion come at a significant premium. It is perfectly
      > reasonable to ask - and every prospective buyer WILL ask - how long it
      > will take for the benefits of the new and more expensive electric
      > technology to compensate him for the difference in price.
      >
      > Marc de Piolenc
      >
      > --
      > Archivale catalog: http://www.archivale.com/catalog
      > Ducted fans: http://massflow.archivale.com/
      > Polymath weblog: http://www.archivale.com/weblog
      > Translation services (BeWords): http://www.bewords.com/Marc-dePiolenc
      > Translation services (ProZ): http://www.proz.com/profile/639380
      > Translation services (translatorscafe):
      >
      > http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/profile/default.asp?LID=130919&ForOthers=true#Profile_Start
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      >
      >


      --
      Dave
      http://evalbum.com/2500
      -------------- next part --------------
      An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/a5724e77/attachment.html


      ------------------------------

      Message: 5
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:28:02 -0700
      From: Bill Dube <billdube@...>
      Subject: [EVDL] "Payback time" (was:Reaction to US News article)
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101121205235.08016a88@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

      Folks select a car for emotional, not practical reasons. However....

      OEM EVs really are cost effective. It is not just the difference in
      fuel cost, but that is a significant factor, especially since these
      costs go up every year. The real difference is drive system
      maintenance. There is none for the EV.

      No oil changes. No oil filter. No fuel filter. No tune ups. No air
      filter. No clutch. No catalytic converter. No exhaust system. No fuel
      injectors. No alternator. No starter. No EGR valve. No fan belt.

      Brakes on the Prius typically last the life of the car, and will
      likely do the same on an EV.

      By the time the dust settles, the total cost of ownership on an OEM
      EV will be the same and likely significantly less than an ICE car.

      Bill D.



      ------------------------------

      Message: 6
      Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:32:25 +0800
      From: Marc de Piolenc <piolenc@...>
      Subject: [EVDL] Reaction to the US News article
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <4CE9F259.7050708@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

      Well, this is better - at least specific arguments are made.

      Unfortunately, they don't address the point of the article. US News - a
      business-oriented magazine - is saying that consumers, who are in
      general not motivated by a desire to save the world or to deprive the
      House of Saud of some of its revenue, will compare the costs and
      benefits of the old way with the costs and benefits of the new, and (the
      author believes) will mostly opt for the old. Having the option of
      buying the old technology, or even just keeping their checkbooks in
      their pockets, they will - or so US News believes. You are free to
      differ, but just because they disagree with you doesn't make them enemy
      agents. Treating them as such damages your credibility, not theirs.

      The simple fact is that the price of petroleum fuel is not as high, in
      real terms, as it was in the days of the Model A. Reading the automotive
      literature of the turn of the 20th century is instructive, because they
      were saying the same things then as you are now: petroleum will run out
      soon; petroleum prices are already too high; electric is the only viable
      option. Such statements require proof, not passion, to sustain them.

      Another fact: if the House of Saud and all our other foreign petroleum
      suppliers were to disappear, US oil companies could still find enough
      crude at home to supply demand. At present, with foreign supplies
      abundant and cheap, they are making bigger profits refining foreign oil,
      so that is what they do. Fuel prices would rise, of course, if we had to
      rely only on domestic production - heck, we might even have to pay as
      much as Europeans have been paying for generations.

      EV advocates are making the same mistake they made in the 1970's. With
      stricter emissions restrictions looming, they assumed that the
      internal-combustion engine was dead and told everybody who would listen
      that, in a few years, everybody would be driving an electric or taking
      the (electric) bus. (The steam freaks were saying more or less the same
      thing about their hobby horse, but that is another story.) The IC engine
      makers didn't get the memo. Instead, they cranked up their research labs
      and easily met the new standards, whereupon all the real merits of the
      alternatives were forgotten, because their advocates had pinned all
      their expectations on what they thought was a sure thing.

      Five years from now I'm afraid we'll hear echos of the early 1980's.
      "The gas pumps are still open - I guess we don't really need electrics."

      We need to face facts - not scream at the people who point them out to us.

      Best,
      Marc
      --
      Archivale catalog: http://www.archivale.com/catalog
      Ducted fans: http://massflow.archivale.com/
      Polymath weblog: http://www.archivale.com/weblog
      Translation services (BeWords): http://www.bewords.com/Marc-dePiolenc
      Translation services (ProZ): http://www.proz.com/profile/639380
      Translation services (translatorscafe):
      http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/profile/default.asp?LID=130919&ForOthers=true#Profile_Start



      ------------------------------

      Message: 7
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:51:32 -0500
      From: "Douglas A. Stansfield"
      <Doug@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] Reaction to the US News article
      To: "'Electric Vehicle Discussion List'" <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <0aa701cb8a00$f036afe0$d0a40fa0$@com>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

      Have fun driving in your gas car Marc. You are delusional to think we can
      find enough oil in this country to supply our current demand.

      Cheap oil is becoming increasingly hard to find. Deep water, Oil shale,
      etc. You have really demonstrated that you don't know the facts about our
      current world oil demand.

      This story is 3 days old.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS50409640120101118

      According to the article, World Wide Peak oil was hit back in 2006!!!
      Funny, no mention of that fact in the US news article.


      Sincerely;

      Douglas A. Stansfield
      President
      www.TransAtlanticElectricConversions.com
      973-875-6276 (office)
      973-670-9208 (cell)
      973-440-1619 (fax)

      ELECTRIC CAR PRODUCERS






      -----Original Message-----
      From: ev-bounces@... [mailto:ev-bounces@...] On Behalf
      Of Marc de Piolenc
      Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 11:32 PM
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
      Subject: [EVDL] Reaction to the US News article

      Well, this is better - at least specific arguments are made.

      Unfortunately, they don't address the point of the article. US News - a
      business-oriented magazine - is saying that consumers, who are in
      general not motivated by a desire to save the world or to deprive the
      House of Saud of some of its revenue, will compare the costs and
      benefits of the old way with the costs and benefits of the new, and (the
      author believes) will mostly opt for the old. Having the option of
      buying the old technology, or even just keeping their checkbooks in
      their pockets, they will - or so US News believes. You are free to
      differ, but just because they disagree with you doesn't make them enemy
      agents. Treating them as such damages your credibility, not theirs.

      The simple fact is that the price of petroleum fuel is not as high, in
      real terms, as it was in the days of the Model A. Reading the automotive
      literature of the turn of the 20th century is instructive, because they
      were saying the same things then as you are now: petroleum will run out
      soon; petroleum prices are already too high; electric is the only viable
      option. Such statements require proof, not passion, to sustain them.

      Another fact: if the House of Saud and all our other foreign petroleum
      suppliers were to disappear, US oil companies could still find enough
      crude at home to supply demand. At present, with foreign supplies
      abundant and cheap, they are making bigger profits refining foreign oil,
      so that is what they do. Fuel prices would rise, of course, if we had to
      rely only on domestic production - heck, we might even have to pay as
      much as Europeans have been paying for generations.

      EV advocates are making the same mistake they made in the 1970's. With
      stricter emissions restrictions looming, they assumed that the
      internal-combustion engine was dead and told everybody who would listen
      that, in a few years, everybody would be driving an electric or taking
      the (electric) bus. (The steam freaks were saying more or less the same
      thing about their hobby horse, but that is another story.) The IC engine
      makers didn't get the memo. Instead, they cranked up their research labs
      and easily met the new standards, whereupon all the real merits of the
      alternatives were forgotten, because their advocates had pinned all
      their expectations on what they thought was a sure thing.

      Five years from now I'm afraid we'll hear echos of the early 1980's.
      "The gas pumps are still open - I guess we don't really need electrics."

      We need to face facts - not scream at the people who point them out to us.

      Best,
      Marc
      --
      Archivale catalog: http://www.archivale.com/catalog
      Ducted fans: http://massflow.archivale.com/
      Polymath weblog: http://www.archivale.com/weblog
      Translation services (BeWords): http://www.bewords.com/Marc-dePiolenc
      Translation services (ProZ): http://www.proz.com/profile/639380
      Translation services (translatorscafe):
      http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/profile/default.asp?LID=130919&ForOthers
      =true#Profile_Start

      _______________________________________________
      | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev



      ------------------------------

      Message: 8
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:02:58 -0800
      From: Gary Munkhoff <gary@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] Reaction to US News article
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <4CE9F982.5010707@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

      Hi Marc,

      Your are correct, I made no attempt to refute the article, simply
      because there is no way to do so given that the author is only
      interested in the direct and upfront costs of driving either type of
      vehicle. There is no question that the purchase price of the EV is
      higher than an equivalent sized and equipped ICE vehicle and there is no
      question that the limited range of the EV is an inconvenience when
      traveling extended distances.

      I don't believe I came anywhere near to accusing the author of either
      treason or apostasy, but I do hope that I made the point that he is
      guilty of putting payback over patriotism. I object to that
      narrow-minded attitude especially when he failed to bring into the
      conversation the indirect and hidden costs of operating an ICE vehicle.
      Of course, if he had done that, he would have been forced to change the
      title of his article to "5 Reasons Electric Cars Will Benefit Our
      Grandchildren", which in turn just might encourage some of his readers
      to go out and invest in an EV.

      Again you are correct, I did admit to the members of the EVDL that I
      know little of the technical aspects of the EV. However,to appreciate
      the full measure of my admission, you must consider the make up of the
      audience to whom I was writing.These are the folks that have been
      studying, building, driving and improving Evs for years and possess
      skills and knowledge far beyond my basic high school physics level of
      understanding of volts, amps, watts, batteries, capacitors, and
      resistors. My inability to build an EV in no way precludes me from being
      able to understand the basics of their operation and more importantly
      their true value in breaking our addiction to oil and the exporting of
      American dollars to OPEC.

      And finally in response to your question "Does this mean we should stop
      thinking?", I certainly hope not, and am somewhat confused as to how you
      could think that I even remotely suggested that. On the contrary,it was
      my intent to chastise the author for failing to think. Had he given any
      thought at all to the true cost of operating ICE vehicles and had he
      brought those thoughts to the table the entire premise of his article
      would be taken from him. And for him to declare that America is not the
      right place for electrics clearly reveals the level of thought that he
      is capable of bringing to his readers (which I hope are few and far
      between).

      Gary

      On 11/21/10 3:34 PM, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
      > The US News article made points that I thought were valid. Obviously,
      > you didn't think so. But your letter does not make the slightest attempt
      > to refute the article. Instead, you accuse the writer of treason and
      > apostasy for having the temerity to question the value of EVs.
      > (Actually, he doesn't even do that; he only says they won't be as
      > successful in the market as enthusiasts are predicting.)
      >
      > The irony of it is that you freely admit to the list that you don't know
      > much about EVs. Shouldn't you learn something about the subject matter
      > before attacking the opinions of others?
      >
      > Some of your letter is downright frightening. You write: "The time for
      > intellectualizing the ICE vs. EV issue from any perspective is over."
      > Does this mean we should stop thinking?
      >
      > Regards,
      > Marc de Piolenc
      >
      --
      An EV In Every Garage

      Gary Munkhoff, Editor& Publisher
      Green Living Journal
      P.O. Box 677
      Cascade Locks, OR 97014
      541.374.5454

      -------------- next part --------------
      An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/11dca150/attachment.html


      ------------------------------

      Message: 9
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:29:14 -0800 (PST)
      From: David Dymaxion <david_dymaxion@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] Reaction to the US News article
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <721354.69532.qm@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

      Don't forget coal can be gasified (that has been done in other countries).
      Doesn't the U.S. have hundreds of years of coal reserves? In light of this peak
      oil is not the end-all argument for EVs. Less pollution, less noise, less cost
      (well, hopefully eventually), less maintenance, multifuel for charging are all
      great arguments.




      ________________________________
      From: Douglas A. Stansfield <Doug@...>
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Sent: Sun, November 21, 2010 9:51:32 PM
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] Reaction to the US News article

      Have fun driving in your gas car Marc. You are delusional to think we can find
      enough oil in this country to supply our current demand.


      Cheap oil is becoming increasingly hard to find. Deep water, Oil shale, etc.
      You have really demonstrated that you don't know the facts about our current
      world oil demand.


      This story is 3 days old.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS50409640120101118

      According to the article, World Wide Peak oil was hit back in 2006!!! Funny, no
      mention of that fact in the US news article.



      -------------- next part --------------
      An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/2ca3c86f/attachment.html


      ------------------------------

      Message: 10
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:30:28 -0800 (PST)
      From: David Dymaxion <david_dymaxion@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] US News & World Reports Attacks EV's.
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <755390.42422.qm@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

      I have seen reviews of things like:

      * Payback for hybrid vs. economy car
      * Payback for diesel vs. gasoline
      * Payback for gasoline vs. natural gas

      It is only natural to compare other technologies to the "standard" (gasoline,
      the stuff most cars run on).


      ________________________________
      From: Douglas A. Stansfield <Doug@...>
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Sent: Sun, November 21, 2010 11:36:55 AM
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] US News & World Reports Attacks EV's.

      ... 1) It will take 10 years for the gasoline savings to payback the initial
      cost of an EV!!! No Gas car is ever put to the "Payback Test" EVER! ...



      -------------- next part --------------
      An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/1824c179/attachment.html


      ------------------------------

      Message: 11
      Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:39:13 -0500
      From: Dennis Miles <evti@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] US News & World Reports Attacks EV's.
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID:
      <AANLkTi=VuVrFOS828quDV2-KDPgreqNoyNBaOQ80K_ih@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

      Some of you have pointed out the truth, high mileage has never sold a poorly
      built vehicle, (IE the Vega 30 years ago.) Actually most purchasers want a
      vehicle that makes them feel Superior whether it is an SUV, or Corvette, or
      (Omigosh) a Hummer. Why do some of us like driving an 18 wheel 500 hp Semi?
      for 104 hours a week? cause you are KING of the ROAD, I know I was one. I
      was also a New Car Salesman for a while and we didn't sell the cars for high
      mileage, we sold them for LOVE and EGO boost.
      But enough on selling ICE Junk. Comparing an EV to an Ice needs to include
      something other than the price of Gasoline versus Electricity. You have to
      consider "SAVING THE WORLD" And the reduced pollution from an EV cannot be
      beat, Look at pictures of L.A. in the 70's even, "SMOG" did not come from
      the Electric Cars! And it still does not. and that "SMOG" made people sick!
      Now if smoking one's Cigarettes near a baby may contribute to that child or
      you someday having Emphysema or another respiratory condition. Remember the
      "Marlboro Man" (er actor) actually did die of Emphysema. Now the hard
      Question, how much does your health benefit by your burning 20 gallons of
      Gasoline or low sulfur Diesel and dumping the exhaust into the atmosphere we
      all breathe ? And don't try that burning fuel in the power plant argument,
      because we all know that a huge stationary plant can do a much better job of
      scrubbing it's exhaust than we get from a 12 year old SUV. And how are you
      going to compare oil based fuel to Hydro and Wind, and Solar or other
      alternative energy sources that can power my EV ? So as Daddy used to say
      stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
      Regards,
      *Dennis Lee Miles* (Director) *E.V.T.I. inc*.
      *www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <http://www.e-v-t-i-inc.com/> *(Adviser)*
      EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter
      *
      Phone (813) ID4 - E V T I or (813) 434 - 3884
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Eric <eric@...> wrote:

      > The posting of this blatantly biased OIL supporting article by Yahoo
      > News, just goes to show you why they are the #2 search engine. Google is
      > the MASTER at a whopping 44%-66% of total market share, which Yahoo
      > envies to no end! Yahoo SUCKS! And it's obvious they are all about OIL,
      > and are certainly not as GREEN as they claim... Or do they claim to be
      > green?
      >
      > Oh yeah, one more thing... Google is all about advancing technology! The
      > Google Lunar X-Prize is one example. Perhaps Google should have
      > sponsored the Automotive X-Prize instead of an automotive insurance
      > company with obvious bias in favor of the current OIL addicted auto
      > industry.
      >
      > To hell with Yahoo...
      >
      > Let Google sponsor an EV prize!
      >
      > Regards,
      > Eric
      >
      >
      > On 11/21/2010 7:22 AM, Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
      > > Yahoo is no saint featuring this on their home page.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1561/5-reasons-electric-cars-will-disappoint/
      > >
      > > _______________________________________________
      > > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      > >
      > >
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      >



      --
      -------------- next part --------------
      An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101122/a6e7fcee/attachment.html


      ------------------------------

      Message: 12
      Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:45:20 +0000
      From: damon henry <damonhenry@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] "Payback time" (was:Reaction to US News article)
      To: EV List <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <SNT104-W35806C3EFF31B86F84DB4CE3D0@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


      Of course there is the looming pack replacement to consider as well. After 9 plus years and 170K miles on my Honda Insight I needed to replace the pack. I was able to do it for $500 by buying a pack off ebay and doing all the work myself. Having it replaced at a dealership likely would have cost $2000 - $3000. That's a lot to spend on maintenance for a car that is only worth $5000 - $6000. This is a 120v 6.5ahr NIMH pack The pack in a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt is potentially much more expensive and an unknown percentage of them will need to be replaced at the owners expense at some time in their life. I can see where these type of concerns might turn many off.
      However, having been an early adopter of hybrid technology I can say in my instance taking a chance definitely payed off in the long run. Here is the way it breaks down for me.
      I bought my Honda Insight brand new in March of 2001 and paid $18,999. 2001 was the second year Insights were sold and the initial demand had disappeared so I was able to pick mine up for a couple thousand less then the first wave of buyers :)
      To make the math simple I will use very round numbers which aren't 100% accurate but close enough for a good payback summary.
      Insight lifetime mpg = 60Henry family fleet mpg excluding the Insight = 20Average price of gas $3 gallon.
      Total miles driven 180000Total fuel consumed in Insight 3000 gallonsTotal spent on fuel for Insight $9000Amount which would have been spent on fuel for same mileage using other fleet vehicles 18000/20*3 = $27000Total savings in fuel from Insight $18000
      So did I get a good payback out of the deal. To me it seems like I got the car for free :)
      I expect over the long term owners of the new generation of EV's will will feel like they got excellent payback, but it is hard for people to see this up front, and there is some real risk involved, which I think falls in line with what the author of the article was stating. I did not see any anti-EV sentiments, only reasons why the new EVs may be a tough sale to the masses.


      damon

      > Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:28:02 -0700
      > To: ev@...
      > From: billdube@...
      > Subject: [EVDL] "Payback time" (was:Reaction to US News article)
      >
      > Folks select a car for emotional, not practical reasons. However....
      >
      > OEM EVs really are cost effective. It is not just the difference in
      > fuel cost, but that is a significant factor, especially since these
      > costs go up every year. The real difference is drive system
      > maintenance. There is none for the EV.
      >
      > No oil changes. No oil filter. No fuel filter. No tune ups. No air
      > filter. No clutch. No catalytic converter. No exhaust system. No fuel
      > injectors. No alternator. No starter. No EGR valve. No fan belt.
      >
      > Brakes on the Prius typically last the life of the car, and will
      > likely do the same on an EV.
      >
      > By the time the dust settles, the total cost of ownership on an OEM
      > EV will be the same and likely significantly less than an ICE car.
      >
      > Bill D.
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

      -------------- next part --------------
      An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101122/4b670fe1/attachment.html


      ------------------------------

      Message: 13
      Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 01:03:08 -0500
      From: Dennis Miles <evti@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new
      EVs?
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID:
      <AANLkTi=0-SLEkKFr2Gdj2TZFQyiC6So_QthUUc61-jrm@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

      If I put a sleeping bag in my trunk. Useable for camping or emergencies,
      that make my EV an RV? LOL [8^) And exempt from 625??
      Regards,
      Dennis Miles
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Bill Dube <billdube@...> wrote:

      > Actually, if you look search "NEC" in your local statutes, you will
      > find the specific parts of the NEC that your local municipality has
      > chosen to exclude.
      >
      > It is quite typical for them to exclude the section of Article 625
      > that specifies ventilation requirements for EV parking structures.
      > (That section requires a _tornado_ of ventilation, and would apply to
      > parking garages and government parking buildings. It is completely
      > ridiculous so it is very often excluded.)
      >
      > In California, they exclude section 625.29 D (the EV parking
      > ventilation section):
      >
      > http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/prpsd_chngs/2009/CAC_09/HCD-1_08-ISOR-CEC.pdf
      >
      > While Article 625 attempts to do so, the NEC has absolutely no legal
      > say in _what_ you plug into an outlet. They can dictate how the
      > outlet is wired, installed, and protected, but their legal authority
      > ends at the box on the wall.
      >
      > What really tells "the story behind the story" is when you
      > read what vehicles are covered by 625 and what vehicles are excluded.
      > Forklifts and industrial vehicles are excluded. Why? RV's are
      > excluded? Boats are excluded. Why? How are they any different in
      > terms of safety?
      >
      > At 06:21 PM 11/21/2010, you wrote:
      > >NEC are actually only "recommended" Guidlines much as the J1772. Many
      > >municipalities are allowed to and will deviate from those codes if they
      > are
      > >stupid.
      > >
      > >For home charging in your garage there 'should' be no problem plugging
      > into
      > >a GFCI NEMA 14-50 installed in your garage.
      > >
      > >mike
      > >
      > >
      > >On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Bill Dube <billdube@...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > > You can actually blame GM and Hughes. The inventors of the
      > > > MagnaCharge inductive charging system used on the EV1.
      > > >
      > > > They managed to get on the board that revises the National Electrical
      > > > Code rules back in the mid 90's. They wrote Article 625 in a way to
      > > > make conductive charging as difficult and expensive as possible. I
      > > > complained loudly and bitterly, but with no effect.
      > > >
      > > > There are key phrases in Article 625 that make conductive
      > > > charging really expensive, without actually looking like that was the
      > > > goal. Here are two of the worst/best:
      > > >
      > > > 1) "Parts made live must be covered" when the connector is
      > disconnected.
      > > >
      > > > 2) "Locking connector" is required to prevent inadvertent
      > disconnection.
      > > >
      > > > 1) "Parts made live" is not the same as "live parts". Also,
      > > > "covered" is not the same as "inaccessible" or "protected from
      > > > accidental contact" or "Live parts not exposed." A normal connector
      > > > is required to prevent accidental contact with the live high voltage
      > > > parts after you disconnect it. The EV connector must "cover" _all_
      > > > contacts that were ever live. Even if they are intrinsically dead
      > > > when the connector comes apart, and even if they only have 5 volts
      > > > and are harmless. This makes the connector really complicated and
      > > > expensive.
      > > >
      > > > 2) The NEC exists to regulate for safety, not for convenience. Making
      > > > the connector locking on a vehicle reduces safety. The connector
      > > > should simply pull apart safely if the vehicle rolls away (or is
      > > > towed away or driven away, or is hit by another vehicle.) Making it a
      > > > locking connector adds the requirement of a cord strain sensor and a
      > > > contactor the is controlled by that strain sensor. The strain sensor
      > > > won't prevent damage to the structure wiring or the car wiring. Thus,
      > > > when the car is towed away, live wires are likely to be exposed as
      > > > the charger rips off the wall or the inlet rips out of the car.
      > > >
      > > > Article 625 forbids the use of an ordinary connector to
      > > > charge the car. It is required to be different than all other
      > > > connectors. This makes no sense, unless you are trying to make i
      > > > expensive and difficult to charge an EV.
      > > >
      > > > To top all this off, the NEC is _not_ allowed to regulate
      > > > what is plugged in. It is only allowed to regulate what is attached
      > > > to a building or structure that is occupied. An outside plug next to
      > > > a parking place is the same no matter what is parked there, at least
      > > > that is the how the NEC is supposed to act according to the laws that
      > > > govern it.
      > > >
      > > > The smart thing to do is to lobby your state or municipality
      > > > to exclude Article 625 entirely. (They typically exclude parts of
      > > > Art. 625 and well as other specific parts of the NEC.)
      > > >
      > > > Bill D.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > At 02:27 PM 11/21/2010, you wrote:
      > > > >Agree 100%, I been saying all along.
      > > > >
      > > > >It is ludicrous to have to pay for a $3000 extension cord that has a
      > diode
      > > > >and a resistor in it.
      > > > >
      > > > >The "Charge Port" smarts necessary can be run with a $3 PIC..
      > > > >
      > > > >Mike
      > > > >
      > > > >On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Dennis Miles <evti@...>
      > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > > Would you buy an appliance if an outlet costing 15% of the price
      > was
      > > > > > required to plug it in?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Price Gouging in the USA is highly frowned upon and in times of
      > > > Emergency
      > > > > > is
      > > > > > often illegal. We arrested and fined individuals after Hurricane
      > Andrew
      > > > in
      > > > > > Miami and Katrina in New Orleans for selling portable electric
      > > > generators
      > > > > > for premium prices of two to ten times the usual.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Why then are we allowing dozens of firms all over the USA to charge
      > the
      > > > > > American Public *twenty times the usual price* for an electric
      > outlet
      > > > and
      > > > > > installing it in their garage? Requiring citizens to waste $2,750
      > more
      > > > than
      > > > > > necessary.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > What am I talking about? The so called "Charging Stations" being
      > > > installed
      > > > > > in the homes of every individual who wants to buy a "Plug-In
      > "electric
      > > > > > vehicle. An Electric or Hybrid Plug-In Vehicle is required to have
      > a
      > > > > > "Specialized Outlet" to connect the charging unit actually located
      > in
      > > > the
      > > > > > Vehicle. WHY ?
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > In every home laundry area are two outlets, one is for the Washer
      > it is
      > > > 120
      > > > > > v. @ 15 a. and there are dozens of outlets all around your home
      > just
      > > > like
      > > > > > that (Stated simply, If you can plug in a Toaster, you can usually
      > plug
      > > > in
      > > > > > an EV.)The other one is for the Electric Dryer it is 208 to 240 v.
      > @ 30
      > > > a.
      > > > > > If
      > > > > > you own a Recreational Camper those come with a cord that plugs
      > right
      > > > in to
      > > > > > one or the other, but if you get a new Electric Vehicle, you must
      > buy a
      > > > > > $3,000 socket and cord set and pay an additional $1,000 TO $2,000
      > to
      > > > have
      > > > > > it
      > > > > > installed. However to add an additional Dryer Outlet only costs
      > about
      > > > $250
      > > > > > including the parts needed.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Why then does an EV need a $5,000 outlet? Because, the
      > Underwriter's
      > > > > > Laboratory said it? That is not reasonable. The only justification
      > is
      > > > > > Safety, but I can plug a $300,000 RV bus into a "Dryer Outlet" and
      > the
      > > > > > 10,000 plug-in vehicles in the USA today can plug into a "dryer
      > outlet"
      > > > or
      > > > > > a
      > > > > > "Standard home outlet" So that argument is unsubstantiated. If
      > there
      > > > is
      > > > > > concern to have a "Ground Fault" protection, build it into the car.
      > > > That is
      > > > > > the proven method with Recreational Vehicles like Motor-homes.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > IMHO, the j1772 connection is inhibiting the public adoption of
      > > > Electric
      > > > > > "Plug-In" Vehicles. I ask "Why should we pay to have data collected
      > > > > > regarding our habits? Let the utilities pay , Why should we pay for
      > > > this
      > > > > > Data collection so the "Charging Station" companies can then SELL
      > the
      > > > data
      > > > > > to the electric Utilities? The Idea does not sit well with me. Do
      > you
      > > > Like
      > > > > > it ? ? ?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --
      > > > > > Regards,
      > > > > > *Dennis Lee Miles* (Director) *E.V.T.I. inc*.
      > > > > > *www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <http://www.e-v-t-i-inc.com/> *(Adviser)*
      > > > > > EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter
      > > > > > *
      > > > > > Phone (813) ID4 - E V T I or (813) 434 - 3884
      > > > > > -------------- next part --------------
      > > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      > > > > > URL:
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/d4b8e81e/attachment.html
      > > > > > _______________________________________________
      > > > > > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > > > > > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > > > > > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > > > > > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > > > > > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      > > > > >
      > > > >-------------- next part --------------
      > > > >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      > > > >URL:
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/03f0f3f4/attachment.html
      > > > >
      > > > >_______________________________________________
      > > > >| REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > > > >| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > > > >| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > > > >| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > > > >| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      > > >
      > > > _______________________________________________
      > > > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > > > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > > > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > > > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > > > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      > > >
      > >-------------- next part --------------
      > >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      > >URL:
      > >
      > http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101121/5199c7e1/attachment.html
      > >
      > >_______________________________________________
      > >| REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > >| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > >| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > >| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > >| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      >



      --
      Regards,
      *Dennis Lee Miles* (Director) *E.V.T.I. inc*.
      *www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <http://www.e-v-t-i-inc.com/> *(Adviser)*
      EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter
      *
      Phone (813) ID4 - E V T I or (813) 434 - 3884
      -------------- next part --------------
      An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101122/e8b736bd/attachment.html


      ------------------------------

      Message: 14
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:06:54 -0700
      From: Bill Dube <billdube@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] "Payback time" (was:Reaction to US News article)
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101121230404.082d2e48@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

      The Li-Ion pack in an OEM EV will last the life of the car.

      170k miles is pretty close to "the life of the car". Li-Ion in an EV
      will last even longer.


      At 10:45 PM 11/21/2010, you wrote:

      >Of course there is the looming pack replacement to consider as
      >well. After 9 plus years and 170K miles on my Honda Insight I
      >needed to replace the pack. I was able to do it for $500 by buying
      >a pack off ebay and doing all the work myself. Having it replaced
      >at a dealership likely would have cost $2000 - $3000. That's a lot
      >to spend on maintenance for a car that is only worth $5000 -
      >$6000. This is a 120v 6.5ahr NIMH pack The pack in a Nissan Leaf
      >or Chevy Volt is potentially much more expensive and an unknown
      >percentage of them will need to be replaced at the owners expense at
      >some time in their life. I can see where these type of concerns
      >might turn many off.
      >However, having been an early adopter of hybrid technology I can say
      >in my instance taking a chance definitely payed off in the long
      >run. Here is the way it breaks down for me.
      >I bought my Honda Insight brand new in March of 2001 and paid
      >$18,999. 2001 was the second year Insights were sold and the
      >initial demand had disappeared so I was able to pick mine up for a
      >couple thousand less then the first wave of buyers :)
      >To make the math simple I will use very round numbers which aren't
      >100% accurate but close enough for a good payback summary.
      >Insight lifetime mpg = 60Henry family fleet mpg excluding the
      >Insight = 20Average price of gas $3 gallon.
      >Total miles driven 180000Total fuel consumed in Insight 3000
      >gallonsTotal spent on fuel for Insight $9000Amount which would have
      >been spent on fuel for same mileage using other fleet vehicles
      >18000/20*3 = $27000Total savings in fuel from Insight $18000
      >So did I get a good payback out of the deal. To me it seems like I
      >got the car for free :)
      >I expect over the long term owners of the new generation of EV's
      >will will feel like they got excellent payback, but it is hard for
      >people to see this up front, and there is some real risk involved,
      >which I think falls in line with what the author of the article was
      >stating. I did not see any anti-EV sentiments, only reasons why the
      >new EVs may be a tough sale to the masses.
      >
      >
      >damon
      >
      > > Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:28:02 -0700
      > > To: ev@...
      > > From: billdube@...
      > > Subject: [EVDL] "Payback time" (was:Reaction to US News article)
      > >
      > > Folks select a car for emotional, not practical reasons. However....
      > >
      > > OEM EVs really are cost effective. It is not just the difference in
      > > fuel cost, but that is a significant factor, especially since these
      > > costs go up every year. The real difference is drive system
      > > maintenance. There is none for the EV.
      > >
      > > No oil changes. No oil filter. No fuel filter. No tune ups. No air
      > > filter. No clutch. No catalytic converter. No exhaust system. No fuel
      > > injectors. No alternator. No starter. No EGR valve. No fan belt.
      > >
      > > Brakes on the Prius typically last the life of the car, and will
      > > likely do the same on an EV.
      > >
      > > By the time the dust settles, the total cost of ownership on an OEM
      > > EV will be the same and likely significantly less than an ICE car.
      > >
      > > Bill D.
      > >
      > > _______________________________________________
      > > | REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      > > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      > > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      > > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      > > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
      >
      >-------------- next part --------------
      >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
      >URL:
      >http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101122/4b670fe1/attachment.html
      >
      >_______________________________________________
      >| REPLYING: address your message to ev@... only.
      >| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
      >| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
      >| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
      >| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev



      ------------------------------

      Message: 15
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:20:19 -0700
      From: Bill Dube <billdube@...>
      Subject: Re: [EVDL] j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new
      EVs?
      To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@...>
      Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101121231047.089ce4d8@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

      Nope. They thought of this. At least they make it appear that you
      can't plug into an RV outlet, but legally, you can.

      Read Ar
      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.