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.
That will be interesting when your iPhone gets hacked.
In a slowly-moving traffic, a running A/C will really eat into battery life... Somebody working, say, 40 miles from home — not that unusual — will need the charge to last 80 miles plus whatever extra for the air conditioning... Depending on how hot it is, they may or may not be able to pick kids from school on the way home...
Unless it is really cheap, I don't see, why many people would rush to buy it. "Normal" cars last about 300 miles and can be "recharged" (to 100%) in 3 minutes, instead of 80% in 30...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Hm, but how many people drive with no electronics? No AC, no heat, etc? A 30-40 mile commute isn't unheard of (in fact its very typical) where I live, and it tends to be very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter, so that is 60-80 miles both ways, every day. Lets mix in the fact that heat (has to be electric thus running down the battery) or AC (also electric) is going to without a doubt cut down on the battery's life, making it uncertain if you can make it any other place (such as to pick up your kids, run and grab some groceries, etc) without taking it home to charge. However, what I think is the worst part about electric vehicles is there is no easy way to get started if you get stranded. Its happened to all of us, either you forgot to get gas, or the gas gauge was inaccurate, but you run out of gas. Most of the time its not a huge problem. Just call up someone and have them bring a bit of gas to make it to the next gas station, but how are you going to move that electric car? Its unfeasible to just call up someone to lug 100 pounds + of batteries to you, and solar just isn't efficient/fast enough to charge it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Not everyone owns a swimming pool.. are you suggesting people should stop making diving boards?
Not everything is about you.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Let's remember some other things that I think are relevant to the discussion. Or really just one thing: Amdahl's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law, which I think is woefully ignored in the green-car world. As an result-oriented environmentalist, this disappoints me immensely.
In short, Amdahl's law says that when you want to improve a system that is made up of lots of different components, you do best to improve the lowest-performing part first. In programming, that means focusing your performance analysis on the parts of the program that are taking the most time before you focus on making the fast parts faster. In terms of automobiles, that means you should replace the most fuel-guzzling part of the fleet before you start thinking about making the thrifty cars thriftier.
Let's do some numbers, for the same number of miles driven, replacing a 12 mpg vehicle with a 15 mpg vehicle saves you as much as replacing a 30 MPG vehicle with a 60 MPG vehicle. Improve that 12 mpg to 18 mpg and now you need to replace a 30 mpg with a 180 MPG car (the EPA calculates the carbon-cost of an electric vehicle using our mix of power source to be roughly 120 mpg) to match the fuel savings.
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.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether we value results or whether we value cool technology. As a gadget-nerd, I freely admit that all-electric cars are much sexier than a new pickup truck that gets 16 mpg instead of 12. But the programmer inside me knows that the pickup truck will probably do a lot more good over the lifetime of the vehicle. There are only so many R&D dollars going around and I feel like they aren't being well spent (from the point of view of the environment -- for marketing, the halo effect of the Prius is definitely worth it).
Lets say my commute is 60 miles. You're saying that improving a 30mpg to a 60mpg vehicle, which halves the gas usage, is the same as a 12mpg to a 15mpg, which does nowhere near that kind of improvement?
60/12=5
60/15=4
60/30=2
60/60=1
And then you state:
180/12=12 to 180/18=10
is a greater improvement than
180/30=6 to 180/180=1
What kind of math is this?
The problem, of course, is moving freight around. Rail is insanely more efficient than any other method available. And no, your pickup truck is going to be used for commuting 95% of the time, so over it's lifetime, you will have the worst vehicle for your situation 19 out of every 20 times you use it.
The metered outlets will be installed by a third party and offered as an amenity. It's just like when internet started in apartments first. You install one EV Charge Parking Spot, and you have ten times as many potential customers driving by it every day.
Again, once there's an inexpensive, safe, reliable EV that goes 100 miles on a single charge, all other problems become trivial to solve.
According to their press release, they claim that 70% of their target consumers drive less than 100 miles a day. I know there are many USian cities that would make that unfeasable, but it's important to remember that this car is going to be a slam dunk for a lot of people out there.
Furthermore, once these things start to sell, I can't imagine it'd be too long before the capacity becomes comparable to a regular gas-guzzler.
So, I'm 50% wrong, and out of the box we can only charge 90 million cars. Or I'm 75% wrong and it's 45 million. Or I'm 90% wrong, and we can only immediately put 22 million EVs on the road.
Can you give up on progress and go back to whittling wooden crucifixes where you don't have access to a computer? Jesus fucking Christ. I've never run into so many absolutely stupid and cynical naysayers. Just give up and die already, and at least leave more oxygen unmolested.
There are places in the world that are literally just a single city, with nowhere else to go: Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong, Monaco, Windhoek and many little islands. Those could make good use of these type of cars.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
A Tesla Model S
It has a better range, a quicker full charge, a potential 5 minute battery swap, and the "S" is for SEXY.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
Seriously... is everyone in America a "can't do" blowhard these days?
An auto manufacturer from Japan just did what American companies said was impossible, and has built a 5 seater EV with a 100 mile range with today's technology.. and the problem will be running some goddamn conduit and 220V?
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?
So, given the choice between saving thousands dollars a year on gasoline and maintenance, or renting a car for the entire week you get for vacation and the few weekends you can get out of town, you'll pick the more expensive option?
You said this car was "doomed" because it doesn't work for anyone, which is complete nonsense. For many people I know, who nearly always travel to their vacation via airplane, and who rarely leave town on the weekends, a cheap electric plus an occasional rental is the most economic option. And most people live in cities, not out in the sticks.
If you regularly leave on the weekends and you can only afford one car, then go with an ICE. If you live in the sticks, get an ICE. Otherwise, if you do the math, this is the way to go.
Electric vehicles are nearly twice as efficient as ICEs converting their energy store into forward motion. Even if electric energy was 50% more expensive than gasoline energy, it would still save you money.
Why do people always worry about optimizing the wrong things?!?!
Seriously... I'm 36 years old and I've never run out of gas. Never. Am I really that much of an anomoly? Even for someone like yourself, it's got to be more rare than having your car break down with a flat tire or a busted hose or a water pump failure or an alternator.
So yes... running out of juice would require that you call AAA and get yourself towed home. It would suck.
But seriously. I think I'd rather worry about optimizing the other 99.9% of the time. My guess is that with the electric car you'd have a net decrease in the number of times you'd need a tow.
Why would someone driving a 12mpg truck want to buy a 120mpg shoebox? Those people are not interested in mileage or they'd already be driving something that got 40mpg.
Keep in mind that the Tesla battery packs are prototypes, designed for a limited run of cars, expressly created for the purpose of funding more research into improved production methods and economies of scale in battery technology and electric cars. Thus, the $30,000 dollar price tag will not stand. Computers used to cost millions of dollars 50 years ago. Technologies in their infancy usually don't match up well up compared to technologies with a century of R&D behind them like the gasoline car. The Wright flyer flew at 30 mph, for a couple hundred yards. Early refrigerators were so failure-prone that a repairman often brought two replacements on a service call in the 1920s because one was likely to be DOA. Wired telephones were not able to make transcontinental calls until the invention of the tube amplifier, 40 years after the telephone's invention. Have a little appreciation for the evolution of technology; realize that your complaints are being worked on and are likely resolvable and that limitations of bleeding-edge technology are often totally irrelevant to its final form.
There are plenty of people in the world who don't travel more then 160 miles on a regular basis. Sticking a gas engine in there would be stupid, as it would add a lot of weight and complexity that isn't needed. And of course lots of families buy two cars already anyway, so why not have one be pure electric one?
Yes, if you want to preserve the battery you'll have to lay off the heater and put on a coat.
Why then, if we are losing convenience of a warm car, not to make the next logical step and simply ride a horse?
Because maintenance of a horse is much more complicated than maintenance of an electric car. To start with, you can leave your electric car alone for a week without it getting damaged. A horse needs regular food and care even when not used. Also, electric cars don't produce horse shit.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
That's why GM did hybrid SUVs. They took the Tahoe from something like 14MPG to 21. There are a few other vehicles with the 2-mode system as well. While you are probably right about attacking the worst vehicles first, most people think "hybrid SUV" is an oxymoron. They feel the way to attack that part of the market is to kill it, not make it better. Of course that neglects the actual utility of such vehicles which cannot be replaced by small cars. Anyway, GM already took the approach you mention.
Now there's the real scam. Why, if one person owns two vehicles do they have to pay insurance for both vehicles? You can only drive one at a time. I had the same deal for a time there when I owned two motorcycles. Oh boy, I think I got a 10% discount for the second motorcycle. The risk to the insurer is the same for two as one. Price it at the higher vehicle and the second should be free. There's no way I can wreck both vehicles at the same time.
Simple solution: reimburse him by the mile rather than by the vehicle he drives. If he gets less money to cover gas, he'll use the more fuel-efficient vehicle. I have a Jeep and a Suburban. I take the Jeep everywhere unless I need to use the larger vehicle. Sure, the Jeep may not be the most fuel-efficient vehicle out there, but it's better than the Suburban. Between needing 6+ seats and the towing capacity on occasion, it is worth it to keep the Suburban over renting a truck every few days.