jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (55 posts)

Think your little electric car is gonna save the planet? Think again.

  1. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    I've finally had my fill of people preaching electric vehicles (EVs) as the salvation of the world.  It might make a body feel 'green' but it actually does nothing in terms of conservation or 'saving' the planet.  But, of course, we all realize that the 'feeling' is everything.  Results or facts have no place in the equation.

    Buy that EV to do your part.  How does it store that good old electric power?  Batteries.  What vital element is necessary for the construction of a battery?  Nickel, a very limited, natural element.  When we start eating up the available nickel to use in the construction of these wonderful batteries the price of every other product manufactured relying on nickel skyrockets.  (see ethynol vs the price of corn)  Hop over to Google and check out a nickel mine.  Boy yeah, that's saving the environment.

    When these wonderful batteries run down what are you required to do?  Yep, plug 'em in, after all, they run on electricity.  Check the facts.  50% of all the electricity generated in the country is generated by burning coal.  I thought environmentalist hated coal almost as much as they hated strip mining.

    Buying an EV does nothing more than make the purchaser 'feel' like he or she is doing their part to save the world see Volt.  Sorry, I forget very few are selling so you've probably never seen one or ever will).  Well, my SUV gas guzzling monster is helping limit strip mining and not contributing to the burning of coal as well as preserving one of our natural resources, nickel.

    1. OutWest profile image60
      OutWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately the oil and gas industry owns the world.  They have control and are against any kind of true "green" power development.  So we are left with a compramise that essentially does nothing.  Solar and especially wind powered electricity are the best solutions but are held back by the oil and gas industry.

      1. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Outwest:

        RIGHT ON THE MONEY! 2 THUMBS UP!

        The CEO of Exxon: "Tillison" said that oil will rule until the last drop is siphoned from the earth! (That is a paraphrase.)

        The world economy is absolutely controlled by "OIL!"

        EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!

        Qwark

        1. OutWest profile image60
          OutWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for the kudos qwark

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            My pleasure!  smile
            Qwark

            1. Castlepaloma profile image25
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Within a years, I will be completely running on nature’s energy, and likley will keep it,  for life.

              Que pasa, who needs that stinking oil

      2. OpinionDuck profile image61
        OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So what is your solution?

      3. Shadesbreath profile image86
        Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is one of those things that makes me sort of laugh and cry about America.

        The well-meaning idealists out there run around hugging trees and saving chipmunks because, well, it is the right thing to do. But they are so blinded by kindness (albeit selective) and utopian blah blah, they don't see that capitalist interests are always ahead of the common man. Wealth saw the hippy wave coming and has been setting the trap for three decades.

        SNAP! SNAP!
        Prius driving hippies in a trap.
        Corporate America sells poisoned cheese
        To little green mice begging, "More, please."

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's one hell of a view Shadesbreath. lol lol

          1. Shadesbreath profile image86
            Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Lol. I just call it like I see it.

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I know my friend, it's always the comical philosophy you display that is always spot on. tongue big_smile

          2. Castlepaloma profile image25
            Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Shadesbreath

            SNAP! SNAP!
            Prius driving hippies in a trap.
            Corporate America sells poisoned cheese
            To little green mice begging, "More, please."

            True for most, yet, there is always another way

            True, for most people they are trapped by the cheesy cheese, or pushed or pulled by the carrot and stick, yet, there is always another way. Many people are becoming more and more aware of those traps and will change for the better. I say, keep the cheese, and I'll sneak around those traps, for there is always a better way,

            I know from experience, that stubborn passionate desires works better in my circle than the richman’s fake cheese and sour wines.

        2. joer4x4 profile image79
          joer4x4posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          to quote from one of my hubs...

          General Motors spent $9,570,000 and hired 76 lobbyists to influence 99 bills during 2010. Despite bad business practices, uninspired products, and union giveaways, GM was kept afloat by a large government bailout. GM handed out bonuses to its employees despite its red ink. Its latest product, the Chevy Volt, is passed off as 'green technology” and “environmental friendly”. The Volt's gasoline engine emits 0.53 lbs of CO2 per mile. When powered by its battery it emits 0.55 lbs of CO2 per mile. In states that use coal to generate electricity the Volt can dump up to 0.95 lbs of CO2 per mile. The Chevy Volt is an outstanding example of the “green” lie. Should carbon taxes be instituted GM won't pay – your electric company will and it will cost you more.

          My son works for a structural steel company and they are putting up a new building in Newark NJ. The investors funding the building decided to go "green" with solar panels. In order to generate enough electricity they are using huge panels and quite a few of them. To hold them in place they have to use extra structural steel for reinforcement on top the regular structure. The cost is ridiculous. Each panel adds a few tons to the structure.

          I know you eco tree huggers don't want to hear or know the truth. But if you have any courage at all take a hard look at Spain. A country that legislated green. Look at the resutls. Also take a look at green house emissions and energy to make this stuff. There is a reason recycled goods cost more than bran new.

          Save the environment - absolutely! But we are being stupid about it and I never felt good over stupid.

          And stupidity is why we are in a mess today.

          Think! Life requires it.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What is the source of your information on CO2 emissions when running on battery?

            I would have to question that one - no mass input, yet the battery emits both carbon and oxygen.  Lead Acid batteries emit hydrogen when charging, but also require water periodically, which contains hydrogen.  Where can all the carbon be coming from?  The only way I can see it happening is if somehow the battery removes carbon from the atmosphere (CO2) during charging then releases it during the discharge phase.

            Stupidly saving the environment?  How about burning diesel (oil) to grow corn, then burning more oil to make it into alcohol, then adding it to our gasoline to reduce power and mileage?  While increasing the cost of both human and animal feed?

            1. joer4x4 profile image79
              joer4x4posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              After you figure out and average the emissions of the gas vs. coal burning states, the volts mileage, CO2 from a gallon of gas, battery storage charge you run the numbers through

              CO2 per kWh is 1.2 lbs/kWh. (2.16 lbs/kWh x 0.4446 = 0.96 lbs/kWh (coal)

              plus 1.01 lbs/kWh x 0.2331 = 0.24 lbs/kWh (gas).

              Then the stored charge is then 16 kWh x 1.2 lbs-kWh / 35 MPG = 0.55 lb CO2/mile

              Then 19.6 lbs. of CO2 per gallon / 37 miles per gallon = 0.53lb CO2/mile

              .55lb vs .53lb

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

              The carbon is coming from the electric company while charging that thing.
              Come on! Think! Batteries don't recharge themselves.

              It always takes more energy to charge than discharge a battery due to heat  and other losses. On top of that energy is only being stored and not put to good use. Even when a battery is not in use it looses it charge. That's why they have a shelf life. Batteries add carbon. If your car battery did not have to be constantly recharged, you would get a little better gas mileage

              Electronics 101

              So lets hire thousands of people to harvest corn, pay them a good wage with health benefits, vacation, and all else that goes with it. How much do you think corn will cost?

              And if you could not afford corn the would you complain? Simple math and economics. Work out the numbers.

              This is our problem, we don't think things out to their logical conclusion. We just believe what we are told.

        3. Ben Evans profile image72
          Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          While I agree with you that the EV won't be saving the world.  There are some advantages to electric vehicles and yes there are disadvantages.

          The typical gasoline engine has a thermal efficiency of around 18%-20%.  Your typical power plant can have a thermal efficiencies of 45%-60%.  These are basically due to the temperature at which each process releases its exhaust.  The power plant turns this energy into electric power.  This electric power is again turned into motive energy of the ev.

          A gasoline engine exhausts at very high temperatures (800F-1100F).  That is about 425C-600C.  Automobile engines also have narrow bands (measured in rpms) where the maximum efficiency is acheived.  This actually decreases the already low efficiency.

          The power from an electric motor is (Omega)X(tau) which is angular frequency times torgue and an electric motor has an awful lot of torque at low rpms and while it is not 100% efficient it acheives effeciencies of over 90%.

          The electric car will be a solution for some peoples driving habits.  Currently the key advantage to petroleum based fuels is the amount of energy that is produced per weight which is quite high for gasoline and even higher for diesel fuel.  So one of the main reasons many people will remain driving gasoline powered cars is that they will be more convenient.

          It is true that electric cars are powered from another greenhouse emiting source.

          While I am not in the argument for or against the ev, it is certainly much more efficient when we are looking btu or joule motive energy at the wheels as compared to energy consumed.

          1. joer4x4 profile image79
            joer4x4posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I would love nothing more that an EV. So many advantages. The torque generated by an ev would make it one awesome off-road vehicle. But with our current technology the numbers  don't lie. EV = more CO2 and higher cost.

            We need better  storage technology.

            1. Ben Evans profile image72
              Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I would just off the cuff have to agree with you that both coal as well as gasoline produce about as much co2 per unit energy.  Coal is approximately pure carbon and gasoline approximates c8h18 (octane but it is actually a mixture of butane -dodecane).
              For natural gas burning plants (ch4) there will be less co2 per btu, joule or kwh.

              The key to efficiency is probably how we drive.  Diesel vehicles actually can be quite a bit more efficient even though many people think of diesels as dirty.

              The key I beleive for having some really nice electric vehicles like off road etc will actually be the sodium battery as opposed to lithium or nickle metal hydride. 

              I do not really know at what point a person would switch to an electric vehicle but as we all know it will all be based on the finances of the person.  Right now ev is quite a bit more expensive than a person is willing to pay.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image25
                Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Electic bikes are already there and electic cars are not so far behind.

                My bike has only cost me $100 a year, it twice the speed around town than a bus, only a little slower than a car ,

      4. Greg Sage profile image58
        Greg Sageposted 6 years ago

        While it is true that it doesn't necessarily help the environment directly depending on local energy production techniques, and batteries are quite toxic in addition to using limited resources...

        ... a bigger, but very real benefit is breaking dependence on foreign fuels.  This is no small thing, and just might revolutionize world politics.

        You're also looking at it from a current point of view.  If the tide turns electric, by the time the average consumer catches up, we'll have had a decade or more to address issues on the domestic energy production side.

        Personally, I'll take strip mined coal any day over paying money to a dictator who takes our money, and uses it to buy billions in military hardware from our enemies while publicly threatening to wipe us off the map.

        That doesn't mean those are the only choices, though... still ANYTHING that breaks foreign dependence is a good thing.  We can discuss the finer points and environmental details as we go.

        Frankly, and not just for the US, but for any nation... breaking foreign energy dependence is not only good policy, it's a matter of survival.

        1. tobey100 profile image60
          tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Couldn't agree more.  I was being a little (well, maybe alot) sarcastic but the fact remains that yes, we need to break foreign energy dependence and yes, somewhere down the road electric may be the answer but now is not the time to 'force' change.  If the EV industry cannot survive without sucking from the government teat, it doesn't need to survive.  The government will never learn you cannot force the purchase of a product.  Just last week another environmentally friendly car company in Europe went belly up.  There is no demand at this point in time.  We need to face the fact that 'new energy' is in its infant stages and is not ready for mass distribution, just like electricity, the phone, the car, the microwave, etc., were not when they were first developed.  It's time will come.

      5. Judi Burton profile image70
        Judi Burtonposted 6 years ago via iphone

        My friend has an idea of making all EVs with the same size battery. Then you can pull yours out at the gas station and exchange it for a charged one. A lot of these batteries are lithium powered as well. It might not be the perfect solution as of yet but you're right. It sure does feel good knowing your not contributing to Arab terrorists money. This way, maybe we can prolong the inevitable. Drilling here, the last frontier, the place that will have oil when everyone else has pumped there's dry. I am not huge on electric either. We've been blasting our purple mountain majesties off for decades just to get cheap coal. You wanna feel "green" as you put it? Turn off your ac this summer.  Bet ya can't do it. Just try one day. That's what I do.

      6. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 years ago

        EV cars are not by any stretch of the imagination the salvation of the world.  However, they can help a little.

        Yes, they use nickel (or worse, lithium), but batteries are highly recyclable.  Even the old lead batteries currently put in cars carry a few dollars "core charge" - when that charge is several hundred dollars they will definitely be salvaged.

        Yes, EV cars need to be plugged in, and as you point out 50% of the time the power comes from coal.  The other 50%, however doesn't (my own area is mostly hydro) and even when it is coal, the efficiency of even a coal plant compared to a gas engine is far superior.  Whether you consider resources used or pollution produced it is far superior.  It also helps to maintain an even energy usage (particularly when using hydro) and most charging will be done at night when normal usage is low.  This will also help the overall efficiency picture of total energy and pollution problems.

        EV cars are not at this time useful for everyone.  Over half of my trips could not be done on current vehicles and therefore make them useless for me.  A plug in hybrid is superior and being developed - I'm excited about that.  An EV for short trips coupled with a highly efficient gasoline engine for longer trips.

        Even more useful, of course, would be to get rid of the massive SUV's running around.  While some actually need a large vehicle, for the vast majority there is no need whatsoever to carry around several tons of additional dead metal that do nothing for the passengers.  Such machines often use large quantities of nickel (chrome) and while they conserve coal they certainly burn even larger quantities of oil.

      7. TMMason profile image63
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago

        There is no future in any alternative fuel sorce on the near horizon... they are simply not fesable. Oil, coal and Natural Gas are the key for America.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Alternative fuel sources might be valuable, but only in that they are used to produce electricity fed into our current distribution system.  Such things as wind, wave and solar can and are being used, but none of these (even hydrogen) can effectively be used in the cars we drive.  The infrastructure just isn't there.

          1. TMMason profile image63
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And not a one of them can supply the amount of supply we need on their own, nor together. Even if you add in Bio and Algea and every other alt. source... it isn't there.

            http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-a … index.html

            They are just a drop in the bucket Psyche... they are a long way out. I am not saying do not researcha nd develop, but lets not invest ourselves into a hole have nothing to show for it in 10 or 20 years. These alt resources are at ;least a 70 to a  100 years out.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know about being 70 years out - they are in use now in limited quantities.  Unfortunately that is all they can ever be - a very limited resource.

              Fusion power is definitely worth researching, and possibly thermal power (currently also in use).

              1. Barbara Kay profile image86
                Barbara Kayposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Methane too is worth using more.

        2. Barbara Kay profile image86
          Barbara Kayposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          TMMason,  I'm beginning to think you just like to argue on the forums.

          1. TMMason profile image63
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why?...

            Honesty?...

            It happens...

      8. JohnCW profile image61
        JohnCWposted 6 years ago

        Probably will not, but I think that is the right way we should follow in the future. Electric cars, recycling, no guns,... I really like idea to have electric car which not produce toxic gas and poisoning our air.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image25
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I bought an electric bike for $300 second hand, it gets 25km, per charge great for getting around town. I’m building an entire home off grid run on butane and solar energy and designing it, so even a person who earns study minimum wage could afford to rent to own this home on our land.

      9. Stump Parrish profile image61
        Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

        TM, I checked the link and no where did it say that alternative enegy sources aqre 70 to 100 years out. Axctually it state that
        "The benefits of clean energy include:
        Reduced emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases
        Lower consumer energy bills
        Enhanced state and local economic development and job creation
        Improved reliability and security of our nation’s energy system"

        It showed a graph that indictaes that coal accounts for 49.1% of the power generated right now. This doesn't indicate that this figure is unchangable. There would be rapid advancements if the alternative energy researchers were given the $20 billion a year that is handed to the oil industry. Yes siree, it would mean a drop in the record profits the oil industry is making but as Tobey said, if a company cant survive with out sucking at the government teat they should go belly up.

        1. TMMason profile image63
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't say the link stated that... I said it? All I linked for was the chart showing the amount of Gas, Oil and Coal among all the others, Vs Alts,thats it. Thus the, "They are just a drop in the bucket"-, I was just going to put up the chart, but it wouldn't put it... So...

          And you have no argument from me on taking all the money from all subsidies, green included stump, it is a free market get the backing somewhere else.

          My point was you cannot just drop all our resources we are currently using and switch it on tomorrow.... not that simple... a long long way off.

          1. Shadesbreath profile image86
            Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Never ceases to amaze me how far apart you and I are on some things and in complete agreement on others.

            1. TMMason profile image63
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It is what makes the world a wonderful place, Shade.

              http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m … 166552.ece

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Its stuff like this that gives science a bad name. 

                An "unknown" nuclear reaction???  They are claiming a nuclear reaction but have no idea what it is??  All you have to do is know what is in the reaction chamber before and after the reaction!

                Very careful measurements show a possible error of 10%??  Had I turned in results like that in my college chemistry classes 40 years ago I would have been booted out!  More reasonable might be .001%.

                More energy than is possible from a chemical reaction??  About that of a stove burner from a 50 cc reaction chamber?  My high school chemistry class produced a chemical reaction with less that 5 (five) cc of material that melted steel and produced a hole in a concrete pad.  In the open where most of the heat dissipated into the air. 

                Sensationalism at its best, or perhaps a bid for "research" monies.  Highly unlikely that there is any truth at all in it.

      10. knolyourself profile image61
        knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

        "if a company cant survive with out sucking at the government teat they should go belly up." Like Chrysler, General Motors and the big-banks. China is going to bury the US.

      11. knolyourself profile image61
        knolyourselfposted 6 years ago
        1. TMMason profile image63
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          A long ways to go if it is all true

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          In contrast,:

          http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-fus … rface.html

          Which includes this:

          "The Italian scientists (reporting the cold fusion using nickel), like Pons and Fleischmann, skipped the typical route of publishing their study and results in a peer-reviewed science journal, instead taking it directly to the press and public. This is a strong sign of pseudoscience, and smacks of a mistake, if not an outright hoax.

          In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."

      12. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 6 years ago

        I don't think electric cars or hybrids are going to transform the auto industry overnight. Or in a year. Or even in a decade.

        What they are doing is incentivizing the development of new technologies and scale to ensure that in 20-30 years electric from renewable resources is competitive with or more competitive than fossil fuels.

      13. knolyourself profile image61
        knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

        In any case with that or say the 'Bloombox', the energy monopolies would become dinosaurs. Personally can't see them let that happening.

      14. gracenotes profile image92
        gracenotesposted 6 years ago

        I have nothing against green energy if you're in a position to implement it, stand ready to make the necessary sacrifices, and have the financial resources for the staggering up-front costs.

        There are some parts of the U.S. that are much more suited for this.  For instance, there are parts of Colorado that never go more than 2 days without sunshine.  I have visited my cousin in Colorado several times, where she has a passive-solar, rammed earth home that her late husband built.  It's 100% off the grid.  Here in North Texas, there are facets of this which wouldn't work very well!  We would be only partially successful trying a similar strategy.

        So where you live is very important, and you can't be a dummy either about the technology.  You'd better know what you are doing.  For instance, my cousin is very bright, but has already had two significant problems with her solar batteries and her automatic back-up heat system that she didn't know how to fix, after her husband passed away suddenly.  Her house has been standing only 4 years.

      15. TMMason profile image63
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago

        Yes... as I said Wilderness... way off.

        No where near  being anything equivalent to what is necessary.

        I had to follow the links from one to another to finally see this great saviour of mankind's society, needless to say, I was left very disaponted... sad

        It looks as if they are in the dude's kitchen... sad

        I will not subsidize someone's kitchen.

        Way off...

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          While the technology is here and in use, to supply even a goodly percentage of our needs is indeed way off.  Or more likely impossible.  They can be of value and can reduce pollution somewhat but that's about it. 

          Things such as wind could be of more value than they are simply by building them.  Of course the greenies (they kill birds) and the NIMBY crowd won't allow it, so we're back to square one.

          Ultimately, I think we'll find fusion the only realistic source.

      16. mattdigiulio profile image78
        mattdigiulioposted 6 years ago

        Hey tobey,

        Nicely argued. I gotta ask though, what's your suggestion for saving the environment?

        Best, Matt

      17. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago

        Honda have one idea that may work for new cars. Fuel cells that are charged with hydrogen from solar panels. Not in commercial use yet, but the Clarion returns an equivalent of 61 mpg.

        As far as the 600 million ICE's on the road now, they will need fuel to burn for at least another 40 years.
        Apart from LPG, all there is left to cover the massive quantity of fuel use is petroleum so far.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Can't see the Honda working.  My Prius battery has a capacity of 6.5 amp hours at 201 volts, or around 1.3 KW hours.  Of which only about half is used to promote battery longevity.

          That will run the car for about 1 mile at slow speeds with no AC, no heat or other auxiliary electrical uses.  Which is why it takes so long to charge an EV - the electrical uses are massive.  More than most homes use.

          When I looked several years ago at a solar panel for my RV a 4X8 panel would produce about 100 watts under optimal conditions.  A 6 hour charge would thus run the Prius for 1 mile, disregarding energy losses charging the battery. 

          If that energy is used to gather hydrogen, compress it and feed it into fuel cells there will always be other losses in total energy available.

          Or am I misunderstanding what the Honda does?

      18. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago

        Yes I agree the electric car has many problems, and you have covered that well.

        The new Honda clarity runs on vertical hydrogen cells, in to a small electronic power system and convertor regulating power to a 300 volt ac motor. Very efficient, and they have also developed a means of producing the hydrogen directly from solar to charge the cells. smile
        For the home and car of course, the car does not recharge itself. smile

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The problem is that you just can't get enough solar cells on a car (even if you covered every square cm of skin) to do the job.  Oil (and oil byproducts such as natural gas) can be cracked to get hydrogen, water may be electrolyzed and you can even extract it from air, but all take large amounts of power or material such as oil.

          If, on the other hand, you have a large array of panels at home you can plug into it would work.

          I work during the day.  Away from home.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry about my lousy explanation. The Honda does have some solar panels but only to handle the low power side of things.

            Honda have designed a home based recharge system, which they currently run from the natural gas in the house, and recently a solar to hydrogen solar panel has been designed.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Aha!  That makes much more sense and takes it from impossible to simply engineering.  Thanks - I had not been aware of any of this.

              1. earnestshub profile image87
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The solar to hydrogen conversion is big time... aparently it simplifies the conversion to eliminate the necessity for the most expensive element of the conversion too!

                I will be updating on it when it is in production in a hub I have somewhere. smile

      19. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 6 years ago

        Never ceases to amaze me how intelligent hubbers are.  Excellent comments all!

       
      working