Savings indeed pencil out for green vehicles

To the editor:

In response to Thomas E. Petika's Sunday letter, "Senator needs to re-examine the math":

Mr. Petika is correct that driving 20 miles a day will not save you $5,000 in gasoline. Unfortunately, during Sen. Harry Reid's tour of our facility, the reporters could not hear the whole conversation between the senator and me as we were moving around quickly and they were not right next to us. The actual discussion was that if you drive 20 to 60 miles per day in one of our vehicles you can save up to $5,000.

We also discussed the reduction in carbon emissions and noise pollution and that we can reach these reductions while having a fiscally responsible reason for purchasing our vehicles.

Let me explain the math. Our electric vehicles are specialty vehicles like ATVs, UTVs, and three-wheel security/police vehicles; not cars. As such, they are meant to replace work vehicles in situations where they are used for specific purposes such as security and maintenance. They can be used in downtown areas by the police, fire departments, airports, convention centers, corporate campuses, factories, warehouses, farms, etc.

The gas/diesel work vehicles being replaced average less than 14 miles per gallon. As an example of the savings, let's look at replacing a gas security vehicle that averages 40 miles per day. This vehicle would use about 2.8 gallons of gas per day. At a cost of $3.90 per gallon, that is about $11 per day, or $3,960 a year. This is just the cost of fuel and doesn't take into account the fact there are no oil changes, cooling systems, exhaust systems and other maintenance costs.

The cost of electricity to run the vehicle is about 40 cents per day (that is at a cost of 20 cents per KWH, much higher than we pay in Nevada) or $144 per year for a net savings of $3,816 per year excluding maintenance savings. At 60 miles per day this jumps to more than $5,000. Even at 20 miles per day, there is a savings of almost $2,000 per year.

Neil Roth

North Las Vegas

The writer is president of Xtreme Green Products Inc.

Washington's property

To the editor:

In his Sunday column, Vin Suprynowicz gives credence to the legitimacy of the "Sagebrush Rebellion" when it is only a futile attempt by ranchers to avoid paying their grazing fees at the expense of taxpayers. The issue was brought to the courts twice and each time the court threw out the case as being legally unsupportable.

Mr. Suprynowicz quotes a former Nevada judge and rancher who said that federal claims to ownership of some Nevada lands "amounted not only to a violation of the intention of Lincoln's administration in promoting Nevada's statehood in 1864, but of previous constitutional findings on the 'equal footing' of states admitted to the union."

But Mr. Suprynowicz doesn't mention that two federal appeals courts have agreed that "equal footing" refers only to politically equal footing. In other words, each state must have the same number of senators (two) and the same number of proportional representatives (based on the population of the state).

As for the Nevada judge's incorrect statement that federal land ownership violated Lincoln's intention, that intention could not have been made more clear than in the prefix provision in the state constitution. Lincoln insisted that Nevada agree to that provision before it becomes a state. Nevada agreed and the constitution is preceded by a statement "declaring the public lands to be the property of the United States."

The law and the intentions at the time Nevada was granted statehood are quite clear. The ranchers should pay their grazing fees just like everyone else.

Mel Lipman

Las Vegas

Us vs. them

To the editor:

I enjoyed Glenn Cook's Sunday column in which he points out the hypocrisy of today's politicians. The always erudite Mr. Cook elaborates on how the system works - i.e., there are "them" guys and "us" guys and the politicians of both parties have become masters at making the masses believe that they are on our side when they make the rules.

In this instance they are with "us" guys. And we are all, therefore, against "them" guys. "Them" guys can be whoever they can demonize this week - Big Oil, the coal industry, Wall Street, the Tea Party, those rascally Republicans or, when all else fails, George W. Bush.

But when they return to their dens - be it in Washington, D.C., or Carson City - the definition of "them" guys and "us" guys changes.

As Mr. Cook points out in this case, congressional candidate John Oceguera, by his actions, is a hypocrite. And he is not alone. If you peel back the layers of the onion, you will see that far too many of the laws they pass don't really apply to them - now the "us" guys - but rather to the great, unwashed masses, now "them" guys. It all depends on viewpoint and in the houses of political power the delineation is crystal clear.

The solution?

We, the taxpayers, must not let them do what they want to do. We must watch them and when they don't do as they promised while campaigning, vote them out. Replace them with new people. Repeat as necessary. They aren't stupid, but more like willful children who will try to get away with everything they can. We, as taxpayers (parents) have to remind them to do just what they said they would do and nothing more.

Thanks, Mr Cook, for bringing this to our attention. We need constant reminders as to who is the boss. And it isn't them - or shouldn't be.

B. Wilderman

Las Vegas