Yes, I understand.
But at the moment it seems a moot point since fuel cells appear to be the
future of clean power for automobiles, central plant electric generation,
and home heating.
Bill
90 Westy Syncro
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Lussier <coyote@ANDROMEDIA.COM>
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: clean air again

>> >This is why California is mandating that a certain
>> >percentage of cars be "zero" pollution (electric cars, and
>> we know how
>> >pollution free the generation of electricity is) by some date in the
>> >future.  (This makes sense??!)
>>
>> Agreed -- electric cars just move the pollution around.  We
>> need to find something  better for the mean time.
>
>I keep hearing this argument, even though it contains very little sense.
>Perhaps this hasn't occurred to you, but
>
>     1)  It's a lot easier to put 'scrubbers' and other expensive
>         anti-polution measures on a few hundred well-regulated
>         power plants than a few million private automobiles.
>
>     2)  It's a lot easier to keep these power plants up-to-date
>         with the latest clean energy technology.
>
>For example, a huge percentage of the polution in California comes from a
>small percentage of older automobiles.  These were built before polution
was
>an issue in the state.  It's very hard to go back and 'clean up' these
>vehicles, and in most of California things don't rust, so they keep going.
>If they used electric power, the few dozen power plants in the state would
>have gotten cleaner over the last 20 years, reducing polution.
>
>Understand?
>Coyote
>
>--                      /\_/\      ____
>Ron 'Coyote' Lussier   (     )     \ _/__            Andromedia, Inc.
>coyote@andromedia.com   \   /       \X  /             818 Mission St.
>1.415.365.6467           \_/          \/      San Francisco, CA 94103
>