Arguments for Electric Vehicle Recharging Stations
A forum to collect information that can be used to support applications for new recharging stations.
To convince your boss, your company, your country to support your efforts in getting Electric Vehicles running and keeping them running.
Mr. Mik
In my experience, to be most effective in any argument you need to know how to persuade your audience. Hence, you need to know the audience well. It might be all fine and good to praise electric vehicles, and their benefits, but they might not care. And this might not carry any weight to help persuade.
Government organizations are usually strictly opposed to discrimination. You could base your argument on the fact that your method of transportation requires that you recharge at work. For them to not provide that opportunity could be considered discrimination and unfair to you, because it would not permit you to travel to work. It is as if you need a wheelchair and the building is not suitable for one. Or if you need light indoors to work, and the company doesn't allow you to use a light bulb because this would set precedent (even though you can't possibly bring the energy for the light with you, and you need light to see being human).
I know this is kind of far out, but this could set the opening stage. They will be hit off guard because you've gone straight from the defensive to the offensive, and they will be more inclined to just give you the outlet (which is really a petty thing) 
Than you can cover how cheap the electricity that you need is, and how little energy you use. Your desktop computer (if you have one at work) will likely use more energy over the course of one day than charging the vectrix. And let them know that you'd gladly reimburse them 200% of the energy cost, even though you don't for your desktop computer, or for running the lights that you use. And not that it would matter anyway to you, because you can mention that this is only a few dollars per month anyway that they are so strained to incur.
Next, you could briefly cover how BEVs don't emit any pollutants that cause smog. This is chiefly why the CARB mandate was enacted in California in the early 1990s---to help with their smog problems. Do some research on smog and the health effects.
Than finally, you can end on a positive note that if the company provides you an outlet, they will be helping to facilitate positive environmental change. You might even consider contacting your local news paper in regards to how they chose to proceed. Mention how this could be very good green opportunity or very bad for their PR, and you could get the message out that the company is taking a positive stance by providing a motorcycle EV charging space. Your closing statement should be something on the lines of "the ball is in your court, it's your move", so they can feel like they are in control and making the decision, and it's their actions that will result in whatever consequences may follow.
In my experience, to be most effective in any argument you need to know how to persuade your audience. Hence, you need to know the audience well. It might be all fine and good to praise electric vehicles, and their benefits, but they might not care. And this might not carry any weight to help persuade.
Thanks Andi, good advice.
I don't want to use any "big guns" like discrimination or the press etc, at least not initially.
Here is a draft document I wrote, it might get changed to some extent before handing it in.
Unfortunately the formatting (font sizes, colors, hyper links etc) gets lost to some extent by putting it on V.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 22nd, 2008
Business Case requesting permission to use an existing power point for recharging of a Vectrix Maxi Electric Scooter.
I respectfully request that the XXXXX Meeting reconsider my application to get permission to recharge my Vectrix Electric Scooter whilst it is parked at my workplace at XXXX.
I did not expect that my previous (verbal) request for permission to recharge would be taken straight to the XXX Meeting without prior formulation of a business case.
The XXX might therefore not have been in possession of all relevant facts in regards to the application.
I would like to show that granting me permission to recharge the Vectrix would be in the best interest of XXXX XXXX as well as in the best interest of the Queensland population.
I propose that not supporting the use of electric vehicles would be against the core mission statement of XXXX XXXXX, which is to improve the health of the people of Queensland.
The evidence for this proposition is conclusive, overwhelming and incontrovertible.
I further propose that not supporting the use of electric vehicles is against the clearly stated intentions of the Queensland Government:
‘Climate Change is one of the great challenges facing Queensland and the world—it can’t be ignored. The Smart State will light the path to the future.’
“Doing nothing is not an option; we must make a commitment to deliver real cuts in our State’s greenhouse gas emissions and find new ways of generating power.
We aim to achieve all this by:
• engaging in national and international efforts to establish emissions trading
• reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by investing in technological innovation in clean coal and renewable energy sources
• supporting Queenslanders to lower their emissions and conserve water at home, at work and in their local communities.
“Getting it right will require the input of the best and brightest from across Queensland and the nation.
“In Queensland we are facing up to climate change and committing ourselves to making a real difference to future generations.”
—Premier Peter Beattie 2007
The costs associated with the proposed recharging are small and will be returned by myself to the community via donations to the XXXX XXXX XXXXX Fund.
The benefits in terms of reduced energy consumption, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced air and noise pollution and reduced cost of EV ownership are very substantial.
The positive signal that XXXX XXXX would be setting is invaluable.
This could also be a prime opportunity to generate positive publicity for the XXXXX by being the first to promote EV recharging for employees at work.
XXX are currently testing a Vectrix Maxi Scooter in Brisbane with a view to introducing them as low-pollution fleet vehicles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Initial setup costs:
There might be a small cost to have the XXX electrician "test" and affix the required compliance label to the scooters charging cable (like for all other electrical equipment which is to be plugged in at XXXX facilities).
Apart from that there is zero cost for establishment of the power point: It is already present and working. It is located at the designated motorbike parking spot at the back of XXXXX.
It has an on/off switch and is fully weather proof in combination with the sealed screw-in power plug connector of the Vectrix.
Recurrent costs for electricity:
From extensive experience with 2 Vectrix scooters, including photographic documentation, I can give you a very close estimate of the maximum possible cost to be incurred by XXXX.
I would suggest that I donate this amount to the XXXXX Foundation each year in advance, making sure that the electricity used cannot be interpreted as a “freebee” for staff.
The maximum amount of electrical energy that the Vectrix can absorb (if it is completely discharged before beginning the recharge) is 5.5kWh.
The actual amount used daily would be closer to 2kWh because it is less than ½ empty after my commute to work.
5 days/week x 48 weeks/year x 5.5kWh = 1320kWh/year as the absolute maximum possible.
4 days/week x 46 weeks x 2kWh = 368kWh/year is a much more realistic estimate (due to occasional use of my car and additional leave periods.
1320kWh x AU$0.14/kWh = AU$184.80 (maximum possible cost at current electricity prices).
368kWh x AU$0.14/kWh = AU$51.52 (likely actual electricity cost per year).
I am prepared to donate the maximum possible AU$184.80 to the XXXX XXX Foundation per year and to increase the amount if electricity prices rise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
There is an enormous volume of scientific evidence supporting the benefits of Electric Vehicles (EV’s) compared to Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles.
I have compiled a small selection of statements from various Australian authorities for your perusal.
I am only quoting some key phrases here to keep it short. You may follow the provided links to the full text of the quoted documents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
“National Strategy to Combat Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles
A comprehensive review into how Australia should adopt tougher motor vehicle emission standards is one of the key projects in a national motor vehicle environment strategy…..
The strategy involves a major coordinated approach between transport and environment agencies to guide Australia's efforts to reduce the impact of motor vehicles on public health and the environment.
Its major thrusts are to reduce motor vehicle emissions to improve air quality, to ensure that vehicle noise is within acceptable levels and to minimise greenhouse emissions.
It has been endorsed by all Commonwealth, State and Territory Transport and Environment Ministers, and was developed by the Motor Vehicle Environment Committee, established by the NRTC and NEPC in 1998.
Alternative technology vehicles such as fuel cells, electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel offer long term solutions to significantly reducing road transport emissions.”
The National Transport Commission
(The NTC was established to assist Australian governments in achieving their jointly agreed objective set out in the Inter-Governmental Agreement1(IGA) of: “…improving transport productivity, efficiency, safety and environmental performance and regulatory efficiency in a uniform or nationally consistent manner.”)
http://]http://ntc.gov.au/NewsDetail.aspx?page=A024003055000000200060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“ It would be even better to move to plug in, no tailpipe emission, electric vehicles.
Only the Vectrix fully electric motorcycle has so far been approved for Australian roads. It costs only $45 a year to run and even using coal fired electricity is responsible for a tenth of the CO2 of its petrol-powered equivalents.
We need to roll out hundreds of smart-card operated pavement power posts. Electric wheelchair users would benefit and our air would be so much cleaner.”
Senator Lyn Allison, Leader of the Australian Democrats
in Science Alert Australia and New Zealand.
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081502-16905.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health benefits:
“Does an electric vehicle fleet hold the key to urban transport?
However, conventional petrol or diesel engine cars have been reported to be the main sources of urban air pollution in major Australian cities - pollutants such as carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, particles (up to 50 microns) and lead - as well as being considerable contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
The most effective way of reducing pollutants is through use of electric vehicles (EVs), which are approximately 97 per cent cleaner than petrol-powered cars.”
By Professor Alek Samarin, ( a private consultant and adviser in the development and implementation of the concepts of sustainable development. From 1980 to 1994 he was Director of Research at Boral Ltd and Professorial Fellow at the University of Wollongong, and was then was appointed Adjunct Professor with the Faculty of Science, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). He is currently with the Centre for Built Infrastructure Research, Faculty of Engineering, at UTS.) Monday, 21 January 2008 Science Alert Australia and New Zealand http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20082101-16807-2.html
First published in the December 2007 edition of The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE). http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=1110
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was published by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing in collaboration with the National Asthma Council:
“Health effects of outdoor air pollution
While concentrations of individual outdoor air pollutants are generally low in Australian cities, the combined effect of the pollutants is complex and the health impacts are not restricted to the respiratory system.
The following table lists pollutants with known health effects on people with asthma.
Airborne particles: (Combustion of fossil fuel and organic matter, tobacco smoke and exhaust fumes)
Known health effects:
Respiratory tract irritation and infection, allergies
Bronchitis, eye irritation
Exacerbation of respiratory and cardiopulmonary diseases
Asthma requiring hospital admission
Lung cancer
Sulphur dioxide : (from Fossil fuel combustion)
Known health effects:
Respiratory tract irritation, bronchitis, bronchoconstriction
Provocation of asthmatic episodes
Exacerbation of cardiopulmonary diseases
Nitrogen oxides: (Biomass and fossil fuel combustion, tobacco smoke and exhaust fumes)
Known health effects:
Eye irritation
Respiratory tract infection (especially in children)
Exacerbation of asthma, irritation of bronchi
Asthma requiring hospital admission
Ozone: (Secondary pollutant - traffic, hydrocarbon release, fossil fuel combustion)
Known health effects:
Eye and respiratory tract irritation
Reduced exercise capacity
Exacerbation of asthma
Asthma requiring hospital admission
Some of the scientific evidence for these health effects includes:
A recent European study found that hospital admissions for asthma increase by 1 per cent for every 10 micrograms per cubic metre increase in particles with diameters less than 10 micrometres (known as PM10).,
· Associations between particles, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and asthma hospital admissions have been confirmed in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.2,3,4, ,
· A recent study in Darwin demonstrated an association between modest levels of PM10 from bushfires and emergency attendances for asthma.,
· Effects of particles on symptoms and lung function have not been confirmed in cohorts of children with asthma.,
· However, other studies involving cohorts of children with asthma have shown clear effects of nitrogen oxides and ozone., With more sensitive techniques health effects of ozone are observed at ever-lower concentrations.8,9,10,
· Prior exposure to ozone or nitrogen dioxide increases the response to allergens in people with allergic asthma.11,12,
· Long-term effects of air pollution appear to be related more to bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer,13, than to asthma.
Authors:
A/Prof Michael Abramson, Monash University; Dr Stephen Brown, CSIRO; Dr Shyamali Dharmage, The University Of Melbourne; A/Prof Nicholas Glasgow, The University Of Sydney; Peter Holder, Community Pharmacist, ACT; Peter Lewis, Consumer Representative, VIC; Dr James Markos, Launceston General Hospital; Prof Rod Simpson, University Of The Sunshine Coast
http://www.nationalasthma.org.au/html/management/infopapers/health_professionals/4003.asp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is part of an article published in The Medical Journal of Australia:
“ Air pollution and its health impacts: the changing panorama
Abstract: Urban air pollution levels are associated with increased mortality and cardiorespiratory morbidity.
These health effects occur even at exposure levels below those stipulated in current air-quality guidelines, and it is unclear whether a safe threshold exists.
Air pollution in Australia and New Zealand comes primarily from motor vehicle emissions, electricity generation from fossil fuels, heavy industry, and home heating using wood and coal. In individual patients a direct link between symptoms and air pollution exposure may be difficult to establish and may not change their clinical management. However, avoiding exposure during periods of peak pollution may be beneficial.
Although there is some evidence that urban air pollution in Australia and New Zealand has been decreasing (through reduced car use, improved emission-control technology and use of more energy-efficient devices in the household and in industry), pollution levels are still unsatisfactory. Further reductions may prevent hundreds of cardiorespiratory hospital admissions and deaths each year.”
Tord E Kjellstrom, Anne Neller and Rod W Simpson MJA 2002 177 (11/12): 604-608
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/177_11_021202/kje10481_fm.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is from the Environment Protection Authority Victoria:
“Effects of air pollution on mortality - Melbourne Mortality Study
This report presents the results of an epidemiological study conducted by EPA and its partners into the effects of air pollution on daily mortality in Melbourne. The statistical analysis, conducted by the researchers at the School of Public Health, Griffith University, utilises state of the art statistical methods to identify the impacts of ambient air pollution on daily mortality. The results of the study show that current levels of air pollution in Melbourne are associated with increases in daily mortality and are consistent with studies conducted elsewhere in Australia and overseas.”
http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/air/health/mortality_study.asp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits in regards to CO2 emissions reduction and Climate destabilisation:
"Shrinking timeframe to prevent dangerous climate change?
‘But you don’t need to wait for the uncertainties to be quantified to know what to do next - the need for emissions reductions is urgent.’
Dr Mike Raupach - CSIRO 14 February 2008
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?nid=214
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The opportunity for Australia, and CSIRO, is to reduce the likelihood of an economic and social shock of a major disruption to oil supplies and to minimise the cost of implementing change in the transport sector,” CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Geoff Garrett said.
“We have to do this while at the same time reducing the transport sector’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
CSIRO Media Release 7 May 2007
http://www.csiro.au/news/FundingForLowEmissionsTransport.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Cutting greenhouse emissions can start in simple ways
Growth of transport energy use is closely coupled to economic growth. It has to be decoupled if global warming is not to make the Earth uninhabitable.
What's the answer? Well we can wait for technological advance to come up with "the golden bullet" - the hydrogen car, nuclear power stations or clean coal. Or we can get on with the job of reducing carbon emissions right now with what works.
Step 1: Reduce travel demand by 20 per cent.....
Step 2: Shift 20 per cent of journeys to low or non-greenhouse gas emitting modes of transport....
Step 3: Improve vehicle greenhouse performance by 20 per cent by the use of alternative fuels......
Step 4: Improve fuel efficiency for travel by 20 per cent. This is perhaps the easiest step of all. Travel does not require large heavy fuel-guzzling cars. Such vehicles are for style, not travel, and style can be delivered in other ways once the true price of travel is paid.
Step 5: Obtain 20 per cent of energy for travel in individual motor vehicles from zero-carbon sources. Solar electric energy is coming. Electric vehicle refuelling could be linked to housing equipped …………
Australia cannot afford climate change on the scale now predicted. No dollar value can possibly reflect the loss of human habitat and food production that climate change will bring in its train. To meet the challenge, the price of greenhouse gas emitting energy will have to rise to a level that reduces its consumption. But that price will be lower if the alternatives are readily available. We need to start thinking about them now, and planning to adapt to the new reality.
Nicholas Low, Director of the Australasian Centre for Governance and Management of Urban Transport, University of Melbourne. In Science Alert Australia and New Zealand
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20070504-14828-3.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits to myself due to reduced cost of vehicle ownership and increased flexibility:
There is no solid evidence for the below numbers, but they are based on quite educated guesses:
One can expect prolonged battery life due to “opportunistic top-up charging” compared to frequent deep cycling of the Vectrix’ NiMH battery pack:
A reduction of the useable life span of the battery from 5 years to 3 years due to daily deep discharging would increase the ownership cost by AU$800.- / year.
(I estimate the replacement cost for the battery as AU$6000.- )
($6000/5 years)-($6000/3 years)= AU$800.-/year saving.
Recharging at work will enable more frequent and flexible use of the Vectrix because the full range will be available after work, rather than just enough to get home on the shortest route.
I also need to travel to XXX or XXXX at the end or start of the working day on a frequent basis, to XXXX, for XXXX and to XXXXX.
On all these occasions I currently have to use my car because the Vectrix’ range is not sufficient to reliably cover the entire distance without a top-up charge at work.
Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter.
(Mr Mik)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are more hyper-links in the actual document that don't get recognised on "V" for some reason.
I'll continue to go ahead with the application despite the recent break-down of my second Vectrix.
Mr. Mik
Great submission Mik. I cant believe these people did not jump on the opportunity for some goodwill and media opportunity that could have been brought upon them by just allowing you to do this first up.
xxxx xxxxx true to it's mission statement is doing more to look after the health of Queensland residents... ...
How hard is it to change the tide on this mass thinking and complacency really... Sorry non thinking. There surely can't be anyone that really thinks that reducing pollution is a bad thing???
Good luck.
I didn't read every word of this post so I hope I'm not repeating....
My instinct says the compnay will say "What happens if 80% of the staff starts using electrc vehicles? Will we be required to install outlets for everyone and donate all that money to charity?"
I'll be interested to see how this plays out. I wish you the best of luck, but my gut says they will say "get more batteries".
A recent Executive Meeting has decided against my application to use this power point, probably due to concerns it would "create a precedent".
I am appealing against this decision and might get invited to the next Executive Meeting for a short presentation to support the case.
.
Well it turned out I was misinformed, the Executive Meeting had not discussed my request; it had just been verbally refused by one member of the Meeting.
So technically I am not appealing against a decision, just applying.
.
I re-wrote the business case, but somehow it did not make it onto the agenda of the last meeting.
.
.
I got some very competent help from senior staff who are experienced in writing business cases.
The suggested and implemented changes to the business case draft are small but important because they might increase the chances of it being approved.
One group of changes involved changing key sentences to a positive form.
The idea is to let the Meeting Members feel like they are making a good decision, rather than being told not to make a bad decision. They probably do not like to be told...
Compare the below "BEFORE" and "AFTER" to see what I mean:
AFTER = improved
I respectfully request that the XXX Meeting consider my application to get permission to recharge my Vectrix Electric Scooter whilst it is parked at my workplace at the XXX.
The information contained herein shows that granting me permission to recharge the Vectrix would be in the best interest of XXX as well as in the best interest of the Queensland population.
I propose that supporting the use of electric vehicles (EV’s) would be consistent with the core mission statement of XXX, which is to improve the health of the people of Queensland.
I further propose that supporting the use of electric vehicles is in keeping with the stated intentions of the Queensland Government as follows:
BEFORE:
I would like to show that granting me permission to recharge the Vectrix would be in the best interest of XXXX XXXX as well as in the best interest of the Queensland population.
I propose that not supporting the use of electric vehicles would be against the core mission statement of XXXX XXXXX, which is to improve the health of the people of Queensland.
The evidence for this proposition is conclusive, overwhelming and incontrovertible.
I further propose that not supporting the use of electric vehicles is against the clearly stated intentions of the Queensland Government:
.
Can anyone tell me how to link to or show a PDF file in the V forums?
It's too tedious trying to reproduce all the formatting here.
.
The business case has now been submitted and is on the agenda for the next meeting.
Mr. Mik
I have finally received a preliminary answer:
Request was discussed at XXExecutive meetingXX. In principle there is support for encouraging initiatives such as the use of an electric scooter and this will be built into planning for the new XXXXXX facility. The issue of recharging currently needs to be investigated as it has implications for the power board etc. This has been taken on by Xxxxxx who will report back to XXExecutive meetingXX.
I wonder how long this will take!
Mr. Mik
Translation: We will do nothing because we don't care. But, because we don't want to say no, we'll put it into planning for someone to do something at some time...can you please just go away?
Translation: We will do nothing because we don't care. But, because we don't want to say no, we'll put it into planning for someone to do something at some time...can you please just go away?
In the team I work in that wouldn't be an accurate translation. I've seen several presentations to the management where management overall liked the proposal, but the proposal wasn't well enough conceived or had a hole or two, and they vote to "redirect" meaning that the proposer has to go back, rework the proposal a bit, perhaps bring it to another management body for consideration,etc, with the understanding that they had to come back "shortly" with an improved proposal or with the holes filled in the proposal. "Further study" doesn't have to mean a fancy way of "we're burying this".
Yeah, you're right, it sometimes or often does mean it's being buried.
I recall a news piece on National Public Radio approx 10 yrs ago.. it was about proposals to grow Hemp in Kentucky for stuff like paper or cloth production. A member of one of Central Kentucky's leading families had grown sick of growing Tobacco and the clear health badness that comes from Tobacco. He has been proposing to deprecate Kentucky's role in growing Tobacco, and to replace that with Industrial Hemp. Tobacco is very big business in Kentucky. The NPR piece discussed lots of great reasons for this, environmental and otherwise. And clearly Hemp grows very well in Kentucky, just witness all the Marijuana grown there. But the last voice heard on that piece was a very officious sounding guy from either the Government or U of Ky who harrumphed about needing to study this further. And of course that was never approved...
In the team I work in that wouldn't be an accurate translation. I've seen several presentations to the management where management overall liked the proposal, but the proposal wasn't well enough conceived or had a hole or two, and they vote to "redirect" meaning that the proposer has to go back, rework the proposal a bit, perhaps bring it to another management body for consideration,etc, with the understanding that they had to come back "shortly" with an improved proposal or with the holes filled in the proposal. "Further study" doesn't have to mean a fancy way of "we're burying this".
I hope I'll be right with agreeing with David's take on this.
Today I have also been given some verbal feedback along the lines of:
"Good news, they agreed, they just need to check if the power point is up to it. And XXXX requested that you now stop ringing his/her secretary every day...."
Well, the manager who initially refused my request is now charged with getting the power board or power point assessed.
That is not a setup, it's that managers job to do that sort of thing.
So I sent this email today:
Hi XXXXX,
I was advised that the XXmanagement meetingXX has in principle approved my business case regarding recharging of my Vectrix scooter, and that you are getting the power point/board checked out to make sure it is safe and suitable.
Here are some more details which I hope will help you with this:
The Vectrix has been designed to be recharged at standard power outlets.
It uses about 1600 watts (6.7amp at 240V) continuously for 1 to 2.5 hours; the consumption might peak briefly at about 1750W during this time.
In other words, it uses only about 2/3 of the 10amp / 2400watt which a standard power point is rated for. (Electric kettles, vacuum cleaners , microwave ovens etc. typically use the full 2400watt/ 10amp maximum).
The initial 1600 watt charging cycle is usually followed by several hours of "trickle" charging, which consumes between 200 watt to 500 watt depending on the part of the charging cycle.
You might also be able to get some more first hand experience reports from Q-fleet (and the XXXXX security staff) who have been testing a Vectrix over the last 2 month or so.
They would know if the Vectrix unexpectedly caused any problems during recharging.
I saw their "test Vectrix" plugged in at the XXXXX into the same kind of power point that we have here at XXXXX. (see attached photo).
If testing of the power point by an electrician is needed, then it might be useful to have the Vectrix there on that day, so he or she can test (and label) the Vectrix at the same time to keep costs to a minimum.
Please let me know when/if an electrician will be coming for testing so I can make sure the Vectrix is available on that day.
Thank you very much for time and effort to help make this possible.
The attached photo was this one (unfortunately in big-poster-format!):
So there is the precedent if needed....
At this stage I choose to believe that they are not trying to bury the proposal; and that if they are, then I've got a BIGGER SHOVEL!
Mr. Mik
At this stage I choose to believe that they are not trying to bury the proposal; and that if they are, then I've got a BIGGER SHOVEL!
And I continued to shovel away, just in case... and bigger shovels were made by others and left for me to find and use... and I was told of others with even bigger shovels and asked them to put a drop of oil in the right spot...
And today there are 6 power outlets at the motorbike parking spots of my workplace!!!
Once I can beat one of the ICE-bikes to one of them I will find out if they really work...
Mr. Mik
Sorry if this has been mentioned already, as I have not read the whole post, but I would think that the POSITIVE attention that this can generate for the company, showing that this company is doing its small part to help the environment and to encourage alternative fuel vehicles. Just my thought. God Bless :)
There are about 25 motorbike parking spots where I work and 6 of them now have power outlets!
I tested them today with a little device that shows if Earth and Active and Neutral are connected correctly and it lit up just like it should.
All the ICE bike riders are of course so far oblivious to the power points and it will take a bit of turning up early and education to get them to use the standard spots first.
Usually there are a few empty spots available.
A lot of pedestrians walk past that spot each day, too! Most of them would have had to walk a fair bit from far away car parks and might be interested.
Mr. Mik
Well, good while it lasted:
City of London Withdraws free Electric Vehicle Parking
 www.BaseStationZero.com |
| THINKING X-TREME? - Do a Google search for "Alpha Products International" first! |
Hi Mik!
To follow up JDELUNA's idea, I'd encourage you to see if you can get some local press coverage on the event of having those outlets installed. If you can get a reporter to do a peice on it, be sure to involve the person that was reluctant to grant your request, as well as the other executive members. That will probably benefit you to get them some public kudos.
A very good collection of useful arguments etc. can be found at the end of the "Who killed the electric car?" documentary.
Mr. Mik
I work for a large government organization which has the expressed goal of improving the populations health.
There is a suitable power point at my workplace right where I need it, at the designated bike parking spot. It works. My Vectrix' power plug can be screwed into it in a water-proof way.
A recent Executive Meeting has decided against my application to use this power point, probably due to concerns it would "create a precedent".
I am appealing against this decision and might get invited to the next Executive Meeting for a short presentation to support the case.
I would like to quote scientific evidence or other quotes from highly respected sources like universities, celebrities and similar folk.
My argument will probably be along these lines:
A) Not only should the committee not worry about creating a precedent, it should instead actively encourage the use of electric vehicles.
B) The overall cost to the community are greatly reduced by using electric vehicles.
C) Electric Vehicles reduce pollution, health problems, greenhouse emissions, and burning of fossil fuels.
D) It is the declared intention of many governments to achieve the reductions (C) by a variety of means.
E) Spending a few dollars for electricity might cause large savings due to prevention of disease and environmental damage.
Any suggestions?
I'd like to send a polished email to the meeting attendants before the meeting, hand out a double sided A4 sheet of information and speak freely for a few minutes to them.
Graphs depicting scientific evidence supporting the above claims would be most useful to get the message across in a flash.
Thanks,
Mr. Mik
This information may be used entirely at your own risk.
There is always a way if there is no other way!