Newsgroups: sci.energy From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) Subject: Re: Amory Lovins as "Butterfly Scientis Message-ID: <!xyswsp@dixie.com> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 04:46:56 GMT Essential Information <ei@igc.apc.org> writes: >which is all very well and fine, with the exception that Amory Lovins happens >to be an advocate as well as a scientist, which may seem like a very fine >line to walk. Of course, the notion of complete "objectivity" in science >may be a little difficult to find in any situation, given the need for >funding, etc., etc. "Butterfly scientist" indeed. Would you care to >include Arthur Rosenfeld of LBL, also a renown energy efficiency advocate, >in the same class Pheh. Yep. As coincidence would have it, today's (sat's) paper has more anal oozings from Lovins. This time he is playing automotive engineer. A 36 point headline screams: "Technology, not demand, exists for 100 mpg cars". One has to read the article a bit before one figures out this article is not news but instead Lovins ooze. Here are his technology claims: "Safe, dependable cars that get 100 mpg could be built with existing technology if automakers were willing and consumers wanted them." Now dig this "existing technology". "Cars made of a carbon-fiber composite like that used in the Voyager, the first plane to fly nonstop around the world, could be produced for about the same cost as conventional automobiles with production changes." Let's see, carbon fiber's about, what, $400 a pound and steel is maybe $0.70 or so? How does he address this cost difference. Why the magic of fantasyland manufacturing, of course. He says "Although carbon-fiber costs about 100 X as much as sheet steel per lb, the savings in fabrication and assembly means the cars should cost about the same as steel cars to produce." Right. Let's see, on one hand, to make a steel body, one invests perhaps half a million dollars in dies and then starts stamping out bodies out of 70 cent a pound steel. And stamps and stamps and stamps. Now we look at carbon composite. We lay in $500 a pound prepreg in a mold and then pack the thing in an autoclave for vacuum curing for a few hours. And then throw away a significant percentage of the output because of quality problems. He cites a GM ultralight concept car as the example of a practical production car. He claims this little roller skate "comfortably accomodates 4 large adults and has only 1/100th the number of parts as a conventional car." Now here's the coup de gras. "They are also likely to be safe in crashes for several reasons. Their low weight allows them to BOUNCE OFF OTHER VEHICLES RATHER THAN BE CRUSHED and drivers with seatbelts and air bags would fare well in such accidents." The image come to mind of an air bag, a shred of seatbelt, a few carbon fibers and a leg sticking out from under a semi truck wheel. Anyone want to contemplate the acceleration factors involved in elastic collision as opposed to the inelastic, damped thud we get with today's cars? "Another reason is in cases where carbon-fiber composite is crushed, it crumbles rather than breaking into sharp, jagged pieces as sheet metal does." Anyone else old enough to remember when the same claims were made for polycarbonate motorcycle helmets? Hmm, wonder if he's confusing sheet metal with neutron embrittled reactor vessel metal? :-) Still waiting to see a piece of sheet metal break into sharp, jagged pieces. THIS is the kind of nutcase the likes of jym and the other green weenies worship. Can there be any doubt as to this man's credentials as an engineer or scientist? John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility? Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? Marietta, Ga | Send ur snail-mail address to jgd@dixie.com | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com. |