 |
Re: So you understand... Well, you know with us "out of date" dinosaurs...
Author: BOB2
Date: 10-08-2019 - 02:16
You don't have to do a peer reviewed paper for my 200 level transportation planning class, you just have to find some, and do a book report on the purported benefits of maintenance cost savings that offset operating down time costs for E-bus recharging. I wouldn't make you do a peer review quality paper or research until your MS or PhD program.
I have students do that, and even have had interns and new planner do that kind of assignment, so they understand how to collect, interpret, and use this kind "research". This is so that they will learn how to use that kind of research to do better "analysis" so we can use "knowledge" to make better informed decisions, rather than relying of what may "appear" to be "true", or what people "believe" "might be" and/ or "wish" were "true", but often may not be.
Now, I know that I'm obviously a "dinosaur", since I've only been doing this kind of research on alt fuel costs since back in the "ancient times", of the late 80's. And, if you don't have the facts to make the case you asserted and corrected me on, it's obviously "my fault", because I'm old, right?
But, haven't there been thousands of EV's and E-buses, from those first prototype and demonstrations models I saw back when the "dinosaurs" still "roamed", to thousands of "production" models in operation for the last 30 years?
So, what does the data actually say? Have the cost savings from maintenance, exceed the additional costs from vehicle and driver down time due to recharging, as you asserted? After you are done "correcting" me, on my obviously "out of date" and clearly "geriatric" thinking about this subject, that would be nice to see.
Since I get distribution on about a half a dozen transit and clean vehicle industry research distribution lists every week, you should see the work going on with fuel cells, including even some recent work Max clued me in on, for "choo-choo's", like for "evil" SMART doodle-bugs... Unlike EV's and E-buses, fuel cell vehicles really were "rare" back in the late 80's, when "dinosaurs" like me first roamed the planet....
I have students do that, and even have had interns and new planner do that kind of assignment, so they understand how to collect, interpret, and use this kind "research". This is so that they will learn how to use that kind of research to do better "analysis" so we can use "knowledge" to make better informed decisions, rather than relying of what may "appear" to be "true", or what people "believe" "might be" and/ or "wish" were "true", but often may not be.
Now, I know that I'm obviously a "dinosaur", since I've only been doing this kind of research on alt fuel costs since back in the "ancient times", of the late 80's. And, if you don't have the facts to make the case you asserted and corrected me on, it's obviously "my fault", because I'm old, right?
But, haven't there been thousands of EV's and E-buses, from those first prototype and demonstrations models I saw back when the "dinosaurs" still "roamed", to thousands of "production" models in operation for the last 30 years?
So, what does the data actually say? Have the cost savings from maintenance, exceed the additional costs from vehicle and driver down time due to recharging, as you asserted? After you are done "correcting" me, on my obviously "out of date" and clearly "geriatric" thinking about this subject, that would be nice to see.
Since I get distribution on about a half a dozen transit and clean vehicle industry research distribution lists every week, you should see the work going on with fuel cells, including even some recent work Max clued me in on, for "choo-choo's", like for "evil" SMART doodle-bugs... Unlike EV's and E-buses, fuel cell vehicles really were "rare" back in the late 80's, when "dinosaurs" like me first roamed the planet....
