Letters to the editor

Down the road

As mobility evolves, plan to get beyond fossilized engineering

Editor, The Times:

Steve Marshall's and Bruce Agnew's "plug" for electric vehicles ["Plug-in energy independence," Times guest commentary, May 23] misses the important point: that most of our electric energy comes from coal or oil, both with their inherent carbon-dioxide emissions.

Unless we find pollution-free ways to produce electric energy, we simply are moving one source of pollution (and dependency on foreign oil) from one place to another. There is, of course, no shortage of attempts to find new pollution-free energy sources, like wind power, solar panels or the various bio-mass schemes, but in the best of cases, none of these will come anywhere near our expectations of economically sustainable large-scale solutions.

The only proven and essentially pollution-free ways to produce large-scale electric energy economically are hydroelectric and, yes, nuclear, with its admirable safety records, no matter what some ardent critics want you to believe. Just look at the more than 100 nuclear power plants that have been in operation in the U.S. for many years. We need a lot more of these plants.

Japan, Germany, France and other modern nations are using nuclear power for more than half their entire needs for electric energy. The specter of dependency on foreign oil has thus become a lot less threatening to them, and they have also been able to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions much below our levels.

We should not give in to the temptations of pie-in-the-sky schemes that may make us feel good, but that reality cannot support. Let us listen to what science and engineering can tell us.

— Wolfgang Mack, Seattle

The energizer benefit

Instead of hybrid electric cars and trucks that use fuel, how about electric vehicles with quick-change batteries. Just like cordless power tools, when the batteries run low, remove the dead battery and slip in a fresh one. You would still plug in the car to maintain a full charge; however, when you're on the road, you would stop at a battery-exchange station if necessary. Never ever buy gas again!

Electric vehicles of this nature would not require any new technology. It would require an industry mandate that all batteries fit all the cars and trucks. Heavier vehicles would use more than one battery. Remember, one size battery fits all.

In time, electric vehicles and battery technology will improve. As it does, battery-exchange stations will become as common as gas stations. Furthermore, you would be able to change batteries more quickly than you can fill a gas tank.

— Jeff Schnelz, Vashon Island

Running out of juice

If we attempt to put much weight behind ethanol, we'll find ourselves using limited farmland for producing liquid fuels for the transportation sector rather than for the agricultural sector ["Exchange of ideas aim of trade mission to Brazil," Business & Technology, May 18].

As a human being, not a machine, I believe that it's wiser to side with the agricultural sector here. People need to understand that we cannot grow anything without viable soil. Brazil is promoted as the ethanol model. A recent (2004) report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has this to say about the health of Brazil's soil:

"In general terms, the fertilizer nutrient balance in Brazilian agriculture is unsatisfactory. The removal of nutrients by the 16 main crops (of which sugar cane is one) is higher than the quantities applied in the form of mineral fertilizers. The deficit is much greater in the case of nitrogen than in those of phosphorus and potassium. Thus the soil is being seriously depleted of nutrients and this represents a serious threat to long-term agricultural sustainability."

Note: Nitrogen production is heavily dependent on natural gas. Brazil has increased its ethanol production at the expense of its soils. This should raise a big warning flag for all consumers of food.

— Mark Nagel, Everett

Main drag on economy

As I was driving on Mercer Street on a recent Saturday, I passed a survey crew working on the street. This reminded me of the proposals for the area. I hope the selection committee has enough common sense to reject any proposal that includes taking away any eastbound traffic lanes.

Mercer Street certainly does need work; the road and roadbed need to be replaced. An active traffic-management system to allow all of the feeder roads a fair shot at moving would be an even better idea, and any Mercer Street project should also include moving the on/off ramps from the left lanes to the right lanes on north- and southbound I-5.

Either by design or by default, Mercer Street has become one of the primary access points to the freeway and as such, we cannot afford to reduce its capacity, mainly because trying to shift the traffic from Mercer Street to the other, equally overloaded on/off ramps would result in gridlock and Seattle is already climbing the ranks of the worst traffic cities as it is.

It is all well and good the try to wean drivers from their cars by making it easier to take mass transit, but if you make downtown inaccessible in the meantime, all of the businesses we have attracted there will go somewhere their employees don't have to spend hours getting to downtown and back home again each day.

— Tom Kesterson, Seattle

Merging with the flow

With the federal government failing to address global warming despite the warnings of Hurricane Katrina, the scientific community and our own diminished snowpack, it is vital that Washington look to solutions at home. The Sierra Club is proud to be part of the coalition of business, labor and environmental groups backing I-937.

Faced with growing energy demands, more than 75 percent of Washington voters support a state policy that embraces energy conservation and renewable resources over unhealthy alternatives such as coal and other fossil fuels.

In "Renewable resources focus of I-937" [Local News, May 9], big-business opponents claim the initiative is a "sledgehammer approach" when we are, in reality, simply embracing the policies of 20 other states and D.C. Right now, the governors of both Texas and California are working to further improve the renewable standards we still lack.

The choice this fall is clear: Washington deserves the same clean, safe and affordable energy the rest of our nation is moving toward.

— Trevor Kaul, Cascade Chapter director, Sierra Club, Seattle

The cataclysmic converter

Regarding "Hurricane lessons go unheeded" [News, May 22]: There are things we can do and are doing to mitigate hurricanes. Granted, like all work with weather, there are a few unknowns, but treating the issues like the whole world is [made up of] Democrats is not a path headed for progress.

— Hugh Coleman, Kelso