Re: Warren Brown "Thumbs Down" article

["MR23=Christopher Meier \(Mtka, MN, USA\)" <mr23@worldspy.net>]

I likely won't be able to make it to the online discussion,
but here are my comments for someone to raise:

Quote: ""Pure electrics" are battery-operated. They have
    no other source of power. As such, they emit no tailpipe
    pollutants. That is why environmentalists also call them
    ZEVs - zero emission vehicles."

Rebuttal: Not only are tailpipe emissions eliminated, but
    so are those "emissions" associated with: engine coolant,
    engine oil, pvc valves/breathers, oil filters, leaking fuel
    (including during refueling), trucking/refining/etc of fuel, etc.


Quote: "Those were expensive sales and leases, too.
    Car companies subsidized leases for individual
    consumers. Federal, state and local governments
    - that is, your taxes - subsidized the purchase of
    government electric fleets. Public utility companies
    - your bill payments - subsidized the high cost of their
    electric truck fleets."

Rebuttal: High mpg vehicle owners subsidize low mpg
    vehicle owners, w.r.t. the "True Cost of Gasoline", for
    example, the higher air pollution health impact.  The
    public appears to have won the battle over cigarettes,
    let's win the battle over highly polluting vehicles.  There
    is between $3.50 and $13.50 *per gallon* fuel subsidy
    by the government (ie public taxes) and the public.

Quote: "Ford sold 76 Ranger EV models in 1997, 440
    in 1998, and 404 in 1999, not exactly enough to keep
    a factory humming."

Rebuttal: If they were made available in my area, I would
    definitely consider one.  It would meet my needs for a
    *primary* vehicle.

Quote: "Accepting them would mean accepting the notion
    that car companies have the power to sell anything,
    which isn't true. Remember Ford's Edsel?

Rebuttal: Automakers manage to sell SUV at a huge
    profit, the result of good marketing. Practical models
    (seating for more than 2), availability in all states/cities,
    high volume production (cost reduction/etc), and above
    all, *good marketing* would sell EV's, even those with
    less than 100 mile range. I soon hope to own 2 small
    EV's (for >95% of my family's trips), and one large
    vehicle (EV hopefully, but more likely an ICE) to hold
    the 6 of us for 1-3 trips per week all of which are under
    50 miles *round-trip*. 

Quote: "Their driving ranges are short, about 115 miles
    before battery discharge..."

Rebuttal: Your driving needs may exceed 100 miles per
    day with no opportunity for recharging, but studies
    show that most people would require no more than
    half the 115 mile range you mention. I suggest conducting
    your own personal poll of family and friends to see how
    many miles they drive in one day.  Unless they all live
    in a setting requiring long (50+ mile) commutes, you'll
    likely find at least a few people (that presently own more
    than one vehicle) whose many shorter range trips could
    be handled by EV's.

Quote: "The betting among industry and Clinton
    administration officials is that hybrid electric vehicles
    stand a better chance with consumers."

Rebuttal: Dinosaurs move slowly. And the automakers
    have proven themselves wrong when it comes to
    "it can't be done" statements.

Quote: "The results are vehicles that can get the equivalent
    of 70 or more miles per gallon."

Rebuttal: ...while still forcing those following them on the
    road to breathe the exhaust.  Note that it's easier to
    monitor and enforce minimized emissions on one
    electrical power plant than to police countless tailpipes.
    ICE vehicles generally increase emissions as they age,
    even shortly after they're first put into use.  And electricity
    can be generated via renewables.

Quote: "But the companies are willing to take the risk
    because the hybrids have market appeal - good styling,
    excellent driving range, decent passenger and cargo
    space, and reasonably good handling. "

Rebuttal: EV's can have good styling (many do), more
    than *sufficient* driving range ("excellent range" w.r.t.
    ICE range is less accurate than "overabundant range"
    or "overly-excessive range".  ICE's need that range
    *primarily* to let their owners avoid having to stop at
    gas stations frequently.  But all drivers stop at home
    frequently, and pure EV charging is as easy as refueling
    an ICE).

Quote: "Yet, the bottom line remains: Battery cars, or their
    equivalents, must deliver the same or better driving range,
    performance, convenience and utility as gasoline-powered
    models at the same or better gasoline-powered purchase
    and operating prices. If they can't do that, they're dead."

Rebuttal: I agree with the performance, convenience and utility
    issues (and believe EV's (not necessarily all EV models -
    even many ICEV's are inadequate in their own ways)
    can and do).  In my rebuttals above, I believe I have proven
    you incorrect on the other issues.

Quote: "Honda Motor Co. last year announced that it was
    disconnecting its program"

Rebuttal: Aren't spell checkers wonderful?  (discontinuing).
Too bad there are no checkers for truth/fact/mistatements.



If anyone tracks down the WP 'readers letters' submission
address, or the author's email address, please forward it
to me. Thank you.

Christopher M. Meier
Minnesota