I plan to send the following reply to the editor. I'll give it a bit to see if there are any factual or source errors anyone can see.
After reading Mark Landbaum’s article “Future not now for electric cars”, there are only two reasonable conclusions that would explain the level of factual error contained therein: 1) he honestly knows absolutely nothing about what he decided to report, or 2) he willfully misrepresented fact after fact in order to convey a political point. So, may I ask, which is it? Several far-from-complete points:
1) The article continually harps on subsidies, ignoring the fact that 30+ BILLION per year is spent in long-term, ongoing gasoline/oil subsidies; Compare this to the short-term EV incentive: If it drives as much adoption of EVs as targeted - a long target of 1 million EVs by 2015 - it will have spent 7.5 billion over the course of 4 years, at which point it expires. Add to that the article’s much-maligned 2.4 billion, and you're almost up to 10B - ALMOST a THIRD of one year's oil subsidies.
2) The article repeatedly use quotes from political organizations to make points about technical capabilities; this would be illogical even if the points were correct.
3) I'm personally not dying to find out what using the A/C will do, I already know quite well. It's been 100-110 here 30 of the 42 days I've had my leaf. Still getting 50+ miles a day out of it, with some left over at the end of the day, and I'm only charging to 80%. A/C impact is minimal. Heater impact is more significant, by most estimates around 10%. There are NUMEROUS sources available where the author could have seen this tested. Either nearly no research was done, or facts were ignored in order to imply the opposite to further the author’s political viewpoints.
4) The co2 emissions numbers seem to be factually incorrect.
My leaf is getting 3.5 mpk or better (that's consumed at the meter vs. driven, so that accounts for all losses in the charger, car, acc, etc.), and published numbers for the volt are similar. In 2000, the US Average rate of co2 production was 1.35 lbs/kwh. http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#table_1
In 2008, that had improved to 93% of the 2000 level, so 1.25 lbs/kwh.
http://205.254.135.24/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html#electric
As such, even at current rates, co2 production per mile for the US average is under .36 lbs per EV mile and dropping.
Comparing that to gasoline: http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.htm at 19.4 lbs/gallon, only vehicles 37mpg or better will be at the .53 lbs/mi you quoted. The US average is around 20mpg, meaning it’s well above your figure.
That's, at minimum, compared to new, efficient gas vehicles, that’s a reduction of over 30% in co2 emissions, much more in comparison to average vehicles.
And of course, you ignore the fact that these cars are being primarily targeted in regions where electricity production is much more renewable than the US average.
5) They are not "about twice as expensive as comparable gas-powered cars". Even if you do ignore the subsidy, the leaf is around $35k, and includes quite a few luxury features. Even if you took a base model hatchback versa and equipped it with matching options, it would be above $22k. When you then assume $3.70/gal gas and $0.10/kwh electricity (again national averages), and assume average driving (1k miles/month), even if you assume an efficient (35mpg) car, that's still a difference of $74/mo. The US average gas mileage, however, is still a relatively low 20mpg, and compared to that the difference is $155 per month. In other words, you'll save money in 5 years compared to the US average, and you'll pay an extra $8500 after 5 years as compared to a more efficient gas car..
But here's the kicker: that's if you IGNORE the EV subsidies, but keep the gasoline subsidies in place. As noted above, that's nonsensical considering that EV subsidies are a tiny fraction of gas subsidies. So, comparing apples to apples including BOTH subsidies equally, you could find a cheaper car with the same options, but not by much.
6) the batteries do not "drop dead in about 8 years". Both these vehicles actually include an 8 year battery warranty, and expect the range to be in the 70% range after that term. At that pace they could still be usable without exchange for well into the 15 year range. That's a similar usable lifetime to a gasoline engine.
7) Every leaf and every volt ever produced has been sold as quickly as it could be produced; there are still thousands of people waiting for cars. The manufacturers are producing them in a slow ramp-up. Citing those numbers as proof of low demand is an unsurprising, at this point, additional example of deception.
You might have had some good points in there about how the government handles its tax money. I couldn't tell, as it was buried under a mountain of lies and misdirection.
