Slashdot Mirror


Nissan Unveils All-Electric LEAF

MojoRilla writes "In Japan, Nissan unveiled their all-electric LEAF (press release, and Flash site). Slated to launch in late 2010 in Japan, the US, and Europe, this car will have a 100-mile range, seats 5, has an advanced computer system with remote control by IPhone, and promises to be competitively priced. While this car's range won't work for everyone, it could be a game changer as a commuter car." Recharge time is 8 hours with a 200-volt power source, and "just under 30 minutes with a quick charger" (no further details given) to charge to 80% of capacity.

7 of 586 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This puts the lie to the H-1B program. by amiga3D · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Did you bother to read that muddled up mess before you hit submit? you really shouldn't post while you're under the influence.

  2. FUD by copponex · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Nice FUD.

    However, if their employer allows them to plug in their car, problem solved. I'm sure some companies will be offering outlet metering devices within months of the release of the first batch of mass manufactured electric cars.

    As electric vehicles become more commonplace, your local DOT will probably have a few hundred pounds of batteries on board and charge up your car enough to get home or to the nearest charging station.

    Sure, the first adopters may have some weird problems. But they don't have to change the oil, they probably won't have a transmission to worry about, and they are going to save a ton of money on fuel costs, not counting tax credits. But being stranded? Come on, man. You're really grasping at straws there.

  3. Re:100 miles with or without A/C? by copponex · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Why, these new cars only go 15 mph! The tires bust all of the time, and you have to put in gas and maintain them. Tell me, who is going to build all of these fueling stations! It's ridiculous! I'm sticking with my horse... reliable, inexpensive, trustworthy...

    But seriously, 40 mile commutes are above average. You can plug it in at work if you really have to, and it's still going to be far cheaper than gas.

    As I've said elsewhere, I imagine companies will be selling outlet metering devices within months of the sale of the first mass produced EV. As soon as they reach critical mass, charging stations will be more ubiquitous than gas stations. But you can stick with the horse and buggy as long as you like.

  4. Re:Doomed. by copponex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This car's range and charging time are suitable for 90% of commuters. You may think it's not, but your baseless opinions have nothing to do with reality.

  5. Re:100 miles with or without A/C? by AuMatar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    DId you just really suggest I get out of the car? If I'm in stop and go traffic, I'm on the fucking freeway. You really think its a good idea to get out of the car in the middle of the fucking freeway?

    I know some of you really really want this idea to work, but please put some thought into your rebuttals. The point about turning it on and off would at least work- but I'm not going to do that. I just don't care enough. I just want to get to my destination, and not be uncomfortable. I don't want to be monkeying with the damn car the entire time.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  6. Equivilent Carbon Numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Saying this car is emission free is misleading. Most energy, electricity in this case, creates carbon. Anyway, I couldn't find the numbers in the replies so I used a Carbon Pollution Calculator I googled to see the comparison between coal powered electricity carbon and what the equivalent mpg would be needed from a gasoline car.
    9.6Kw = 63lbs of carbon generated from a coal power plant (100 miles)
    So this would equivalent to a gasoline powered car getting 114mpg for 63lbs of carbon
    I know my numbers are rough, but I think it's a valid observation.

  7. Re:Let's remember a few things for this discussion by GooberToo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    You've made some very excellent points!

    So if we were really serious about making a dent in oil consumption and CO2, we would be pushing for more fuel-efficient pickup trucks, cargo vans and SUVs instead of this inane (but highly press-friendly!) pursuit of ever-more-efficient small vehicles. The people that drive those vehicles can't or won't replace them with small cars no matter how efficient.

    Under the assumption of "can't", that's actually not true. Many studies have shown, in the US, anywhere from 60%-80% of all SUVs and trucks can be replaced by a car tomorrow. That's because the vast majority of these people use them as a status symbol. These vehicles never leave pavement (meaning they don't need to be 4x4 either) and have a single occupant greater than 80% of the time. In short, 60%-80% of all truck/SUV owners are dicks taking money out of all of our pockets by needlessly driving up oil costs in an empty attempt to convince the world their penis really isn't small.

    I want to stress again, you have excellent points but I want to add yet one more. If Obama is serious about kick starting the economy and reducing the US' demand for oil, he need only get congress to pass a single bill. Thus far he has not even hinted at doing so. Most people don't realize the US's military is the world's largest single consumer of oil; bar none. Furthermore, the bulk of the US military is using engine and turbine technology from the 50's, 60's, and 70's. We have made drastic turbine improvements since the 70's. One study I read stated if the Air Force was to modernize their jet engines, the US military's consumption of oil would drop almost in half. Furthermore, passing a military modernization law would immediately spawn jobs to design/adapt replacement turbines as well as new jobs to manufacture and upgrade the equipment. Not to mention all the new jobs required for training. Also, most people don't realize but the bulk of non-deployed turbine maintenance in for the US military is actually subcontracted to civilians so all of this immediately translates to additional work in the civilian population.

    So long story short, Obama has proved to be nothing but a farce. If he wants to be anything other than a joke, he need only pass a law requiring turbine modernization over the next five years for the Air Force to drastically reduce the US' dependence on oil while at the same time creating thousands of new jobs. And best of all, such law would pay for it self very quickly because of the drastic reduction in our nation's oil consumption. Such a law is a win-win-win for everyone except foreign nations who sell oil. So come on Obama, stop being a joke and actually do something that makes a difference.