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 >