Some good news about the new Jetta

While it is true that no mass-produced EV can go 500 miles (yet) between
charges, the technology is certainly not decades away. The fossil fuel
people like to foster on everyone's thinking precisely what you just said ("
we actually create more pollution making the power to charge pure electrics
then it does to run gasoline or diesel motors to make the same power").

Don't fall for that myth. It is just not true. The California Air Quality
Management Districts and the California Energy Commission have both made
studies which show that coal-fired electric power plants operate at
efficiencies three times that of cars with gasoline engines. Transportation
via internal combustion engines that use gas and oil is responsible for more
than 17 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. In
industrialized countries, cars spew 75 percent of carbon monoxide emissions,
48 percent of nitrogen oxide (smog) and 40 percent of hydrocarbon pollutants
into the atmosphere. Mile for mile, electric vehicles travel with one-half
the resource depletion and one-fifteenth the air pollution.

Nobody enjoys a good conspiracy theory more than me, especially after a few
beers, so I'd never doubt that oil and other powerful interests have a hand
in holding back the commercialization of EV technology. Unfortunately, these
powerful interests also control our mass media, the same mass media that
decides for Americans what they believe. We've been told that our only
reasonable alternative to automotive gasoline engines are hybrids, and oh
yeah, we believe it. They're certainly better than those dirty, stinking,
gutless diesels right? Never mind that modern automotive diesels are none of
these things.

VW operates in the real world, and in the real world, they'd like to see
their market share in the U.S. go up, rather than down. This means that they
need to go with the flow and offer a hybrid, not a pure EV.
--
Kent
1987 VW GTI 8V, original owner, 222,000+ miles

"Papa" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Don't believe the automobile industry hype regarding the claim that "most
> car buyers have decided that (the) hybrid is better" than the EVs. The
> industry, after being leaned on by petroleum interests and our glorious US
> government, dropped all US EVs around 2002. This was in spite of the fact
> that many buyers had expressed a desire for such vehicles, wanted to buy
> them, and had placed orders. Most of the industry never offered any EVs
for
> sale, other than golf carts or NEVs (very lightweight neighborhood EVs
> incapable of speeds exceeding 25 MPH). Nearly all of them were leased.
When
> the industry got leaned on, EVERY manufacturer of leased EVs (GM, Ford,
> Toyota, etc.) recalled these vehicles from the leases, refused to sell
them
> to the individuals leasing them, and GM even went as far as to actually
> destroy all of their EVs. This has been widely reported, and if you do a
> quick Google search, you will see the reports and the photographs of the
> destroyed vehicles.
>
> So the EV technology has existed for quite some time, and such vehicles
have
> been successfully mass-produced. Take a look at the specifications of the
> 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV, which is an SUV. Quoting Toyota, "With the looks and
> style of our popular SUV, the RAV4 EV gives your company a roomy,
practical
> vehicle with a 827-lb. payload and over 125 miles on one charge. Charge it
> overnight and your employees may forget they're driving an electric
vehicle.
> And with standard ABS, cassette stereo, air conditioning and a 78-mph top
> speed, it's understandable how they might. But with lower overhead costs
and
> government incentives, you'll never forget." At least, for a short time
> anyway, people were able to actually PURCHASE the RAV4 EV, and the
> government provided incentives.
>
> By the way, the Toyota Prius hybrid is undergoing research by a private
> group (not Toyota) in California to make it a plug-in hybrid. Basically it
> involves adding a second battery pack and a redesigned power management
> system. With that capability, the Prius will be able to use all-electric
> mode for local trips (not burning an ounce of gasoline), then recharge at
> home overnight - yet still be able to make long distance trips using the
ICE
> (Internal Combustion Engine).

Papa > wrote:
> Don't believe the automobile industry hype regarding the claim that "most
> car buyers have decided that (the) hybrid is better" than the EVs. The
> industry, after being leaned on by petroleum interests and our glorious US

It's not better. It's different. GM lost *TONS* of money with their
EV1. They had no problem selling them because they subsidized the cost,
and set up free fueling stations. Selling isn't even a good term, they had
no problem leasing them, because they weren't willing to sell them.

> government, dropped all US EVs around 2002. This was in spite of the fact
> that many buyers had expressed a desire for such vehicles, wanted to buy
> them, and had placed orders. Most of the industry never offered any EVs for
> sale, other than golf carts or NEVs (very lightweight neighborhood EVs
> incapable of speeds exceeding 25 MPH). Nearly all of them were leased. When
> the industry got leaned on, EVERY manufacturer of leased EVs (GM, Ford,
> Toyota, etc.) recalled these vehicles from the leases, refused to sell them
> to the individuals leasing them, and GM even went as far as to actually
> destroy all of their EVs. This has been widely reported, and if you do a
> quick Google search, you will see the reports and the photographs of the
> destroyed vehicles.

> So the EV technology has existed for quite some time, and such vehicles have

Of course it has... Golf carts are often EV. Its nothing new. Who said it
was? The problem is the batteries.

> been successfully mass-produced. Take a look at the specifications of the
> 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV, which is an SUV. Quoting Toyota, "With the looks and

I think the term "successful" is highly subjective. How many of them did
they actually sell? How many EVs are still on the road?

> style of our popular SUV, the RAV4 EV gives your company a roomy, practical
> vehicle with a 827-lb. payload and over 125 miles on one charge. Charge it
> overnight and your employees may forget they're driving an electric vehicle.
> And with standard ABS, cassette stereo, air conditioning and a 78-mph top
> speed, it's understandable how they might. But with lower overhead costs and
> government incentives, you'll never forget." At least, for a short time
> anyway, people were able to actually PURCHASE the RAV4 EV, and the
> government provided incentives.

So what you are saying is that compared to a Geo Metro (at half the price or
less), you have a third the range (and by the way, from what I can tell, even
EV proponents admit that 125 miles is... optimistic), and 80% of the top speed.
Do you have to go to a special refueling station? It sure takes a long time to
refuel compared to the Geo which probably takes 5 minutes.

EVs may be reasonable for urban driving, but I wouldn't want to get on the
highway in one and I certainly wouldn't want to drive any significant
distance from home. Why you need an SUV for something that literally can
only be used for urban driving is beyond me, but oh well... And an EV
is going to be a hard sell for a car that costs twice what a cheap economy
car costs and offers substantially lower performance and can't be used
to haul anything or go any significant distance.

> By the way, the Toyota Prius hybrid is undergoing research by a private
> group (not Toyota) in California to make it a plug-in hybrid. Basically it
> involves adding a second battery pack and a redesigned power management
> system. With that capability, the Prius will be able to use all-electric
> mode for local trips (not burning an ounce of gasoline), then recharge at
> home overnight - yet still be able to make long distance trips using the ICE
> (Internal Combustion Engine).

And how much space (and weight) does this "second battery" take up?
Unfortunately, batteries just can't store energy very densely (either in
volume or weight) compared to fossil fuels.

dan

All I can say is, look it up. Perhaps then you won't be so sure.

Although the media (thank God for the media) is the popular scapegoat for
just about everything these days, actually they are not commenting one way
or the other on the subject of EVs and hybrids. Almost all of the EV/hybrid
development and testing is being conducted and reported on the internet
through groups of private enthusiasts interested in promoting a better way.
These individuals are providing their own funding.

For an example, go to http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/priusplus/, which
is a group of private individuals working on the development of an
all-electric mode for the Toyota Prius hybrid.

"Papa" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> Although the media (thank God for the media) is the popular scapegoat for
> just about everything these days, actually they are not commenting one way
> or the other on the subject of EVs and hybrids.

I couldn't disagree more. Every time I turn on the television or open one of
the popular automotive rags (Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Road & Track), I see
someone touting hybrid cars, or talking about how this or that celebrity
drives a Prius. What does actor Ed Begley Jr. drive? A Prius. What does
Cameron Diaz drive? A Prius. Here's an excerpt: "She's beautiful, funny and
environmentally friendly. What more could you ask for in a Hollywood
superstar? Cameron Diaz, who along with fellow starlet Gwyneth Paltrow has
recorded numerous public service announcements for the conservation group,
Act Green, puts action behind her words with the purchase of a 2002 Toyota
Prius." I just saw a news spot where the star of a popular sitcom was one of
the first people on the waiting list for the hybrid Toyota RX. I see almost
nothing about pure EVs anymore. This is where most Americans get their news;
you don't think this constitutes "commenting" on the subject of EVs vs.
hybrids?

And as for using the media as a scapegoat for just about everything these
days, I think these criticisms are misdirected. By now we should all expect
the media to twist the news for the purposes of marketing. Fool me once,
shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. The real culprit is the majority
of Americans that unquestioningly believe all the crap they're being fed.

> Almost all of the EV/hybrid
> development and testing is being conducted and reported on the internet
> through groups of private enthusiasts interested in promoting a better
way.
> These individuals are providing their own funding.

I'm not talking about the "geek" press here. I'm talking about the popular
media that molds and shapes most Americans' view of the world and in most
cases is nothing more than thinly veiled advertising. Since just about every
"typical" American checks out the reviews in automotive rags when they are
in the market for a new car, you can bet their getting the "right" message
regarding hybrids vs. EVs.

Don't get me wrong, it's optimistic, forward-thinking people like you that
eventually change the world for the better. It's just going to be a long,
tough fight.
--
Kent
1987 VW GTI 8V, original owner, 222,000+ miles

Well, I agree with you on at least one thing "The real culprit is the
majority of Americans that unquestioningly believe all the crap they're
being fed." But it is not the media (unless you count Fox News) that is
misleading the American public, it is Washington.

The battery thing is pretty much true - you have to remember this batter has
to be AFFORDABLE (this is the key) reliable enough for a longer service life
then the car itself - be able to recharge in under, i'd say 10 mintures from
flat (who wants to do a road trip and have to spend the night because your
car needs a full recharge, oven tho the day is only 1/2 done)... and around
a 700kms range.

The technology is not there, and from what I've heard won't be for decades -
especially the recharging part.... SO much current at once.
"Papa" > wrote in message
k.net...
> While it is true that no mass-produced EV can go 500 miles (yet) between
> charges, the technology is certainly not decades away. The fossil fuel
> people like to foster on everyone's thinking precisely what you just said
> (" we actually create more pollution making the power to charge pure
> electrics then it does to run gasoline or diesel motors to make the same
> power").
>
> Don't fall for that myth. It is just not true. The California Air Quality
> Management Districts and the California Energy Commission have both made
> studies which show that coal-fired electric power plants operate at
> efficiencies three times that of cars with gasoline engines.
> Transportation via internal combustion engines that use gas and oil is
> responsible for more than 17 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions on
> the planet. In industrialized countries, cars spew 75 percent of carbon
> monoxide emissions, 48 percent of nitrogen oxide (smog) and 40 percent of
> hydrocarbon pollutants into the atmosphere. Mile for mile, electric
> vehicles travel with one-half the resource depletion and one-fifteenth the
> air pollution.
>
>

Papa wrote:

> All I can say is, look it up. Perhaps then you won't be so sure.

Look what up? That EVs have limited range, payload, and performance?
What's to look up? Until a battery technology is available that allows
an EV to go 400 miles (highway) between charges, can last 200,000 miles,
and doesn't reduce payload capacity, I ain't interested.

--
Mike Smith

Are you really informed, or is that just an opinion?

> The technology is not there, and from what I've heard won't be for
> decades - especially the recharging part.... SO much current at once.