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.
But I prefer my leaves unelectrified.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
From TFA: "An iPhone application allows for remote monitoring of battery levels and control of air conditioning in electric cars"
The "remote control" just lets you check if it's charged, and lets you start the AC/heat early to get the cabin comfortable while it's still plugged in.
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.
Apple's iTunes app store bans Nissan's iPhone application allows for remote monitoring of battery levels and control of air conditioning in electric cars.
1) There is already enough juice in the grid at night to power 80% of the 220 million cars without any further need for more power plants. (According to the DoE).
2) The average commute for people is far less than 100 miles, which means the only thing you could be missing out on is a truck for hauling or a car for road trip vacations.
Now, the price hasn't been released. If it's under 30K, it's a winner. As the summary said, there's no details on the charge, but as long as I can plug it in at night and it's charged in the morning, it will not only save me gas, but I don't have to bother with filling up.
If this car is less than $22k, I will buy one day-of-release. TFPR does not provide an MSRP, but it does say it will be low-priced. Four doors, and your gas bill gets moved over to your house electric bill. I never drive more than 100 miles in a day, so it would be perfect for getting me around town on all my stop-start errands.
Moving the cost of driving from a fuel purchase tracked with credit card might make it more difficult for people to get reimbursed by their company for business driving. I wonder how that's going to get sorted. Also, in a roommate situation, it becomes a little unfair to evenly split the electric bill if only one tennant is charging a car.
Looks cool.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
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.
Based on AESCs testing, the cells will retain more than 80% capacity after 7 years, including 70,000 km (43,496 miles).
9.2 kWh pack recharges in 15 minutes time. This truly could be a game changer in EV-battery technology.
Full detail on the battery tech:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/aesc-lithium-io.html
The Volt is not a BEV, it is an EREV. That is, the Volt is a plug-in series hybrid that uses a small gas engine to drive the electrical system (somewhat like a diesel-electric locomotive except with gasoline). The goal is to run all-electric for 40 miles (covering 75% of commuters) and kick in the gas engine when the battery gets low enough.
And it appears to be on schedule for 2010. More info here and here.
You might want to double-check those figures before accepting them as gospel. They're not assuming charging at night; they're assuming that any and all excess non-peaking capacity in the electrical grid is used to charge the cars. This is wildly unrealistic and provides only a best-case figure. Basically they're saying that if you ran every coal plant in the country balls-out at all times, you could provide power to 180 million cars... average. In the summer and winter less, in the fall and spring more.
From the report:
"The valley-filling methodology is predicated on the notion that the entire PHEV load is managed to fit perfectly into the valley without setting new peaks."
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.
It could make the car disappear. Parking problem, solved
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Two Nissan LEAF cars + duct tape = 320km range.
I like your idea!
I was wondering if I could do the same thing I have for camping trips. I have a front and rear receiver hitch, and a 220V generator on a mount that slides into the receiver hitch. It's 5 hp, and runs a RV air conditioner for 5 hours on under 5 gallons, I am sure you could do a better generator mount than this guy if we get a hitch mount, and just plug the car charger into it for road trips, ditch the weight for in town. Hopefully the chargers aren't locked out while moving. Not only does the GEN not have to meet as many emissions standards ( = cheaper) but has other uses also.
If the batteries for electric cards turns into a BluRay-HDDVD type format war things would get messy and hobble the efforts of getting this off the ground. All car manufacturers need to look the greater good (environment and consumers)and be in agreement on one standard form factor. Here's to hoping this happens.
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).
You have posted elsewhere the same thing. What are you, the brain damaged step-child of an Exxon board member?
A DOT vehicle can easily carry the batteries to get you to a charging station or even back to your house.
The hurricane fear mongering is just sad.
And maintenance is far less expensive for an EV, because it's far less complicated mechanically. If you'd done any research on the GM vehicle, you'd know that they basically rotated the tires. There are Priuses with over a hundred thousand miles that haven't needed new batteries. And the batteries will be less expensive too replace than putting in an entirely new engine, so you could literally keep the same car for decades if you kept it rust free.
Honestly, who is paying you to repeat the same inane bullshit?
Recharge time is 8 hours with a 200-volt power source
Recharge time is dependent on amp-hours, not volts. If you hook up a 200 volt power source that can only deliver 1 amp, you are not going to charge your batteries in 8 hours because that is only 8 amp-hours.
I image that the car is designed around residential wiring, which is usually 12 gauge and rated at 20 amps, so in 8 hours you should get 8*20=160 amp-hours, which at the quoted 200 volts is 32kWatt-hours. Based on $0.10 per kWh, it should cost $3.20 per charge.
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.
Um, I'm an engineer, and I'm in Japan, and I'm working for a Japanese company despite my American nationality. Watch it before you make such blanket statements. ;-)
Liar. If you live in Japan, tell me what Mothra is doing right now.
Thought so.
XML causes global warming.
I wish I can get a hold of the batteries. I am sure they are a better replacement to the Trojan batteries I am using for my solar system.
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.
The article fail to mention that owner doesn't own the battery and the infrastructure of electricity to power the electric car.
Nissan Leaf is part of Project Better Place have been discussed since last year. Wired have a article about it http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-09/ff_agassi?currentPage=all
And this is the presentation about the Project Better Place. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfGEbTcNuzA
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?
The examples are correct. If you go from requiring 5 units to 4 units of fuel, it's the same *saving* (not expenditure) as going from 2 units to 1 unit of fuel. In both cases, you *save* 1 unit. In the second example, 180/12 is actually 15, so you're saving 5 (15-10) units here, as you are when going from 30mpg to 180. (6-1).
...
:) Nothing like sitting on the fence :)
His point is therefore that improving the worse-performing engines (SUV's, trucks, vans, lorries, busses, etc.) so that they *save* an extra N units of fuel will be the largest factor in reducing the fuel consumption. For each truck that gains 6 miles/gallon in efficiency, you'd need a car that gained 120 miles/gallon, or 2 that gained 60,
FWIW, I think his argument falters when you take into account the overwhelming number of cars on the road, compared to other vehicles. If you figure a 20:1 ratio, then that saving of 120 miles/gallon is still only (6*20) or 6 miles/gallon/car. The reciprocal problem, however, is one of uptake (you need 20 cars to have their efficiency increased for the effect of 1 truck, if both cars and trucks gain 6mpg). Personally I think it probably comes out in the wash, so we should strive to improve both
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
>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
Did you know there are only 2 models of cargo vans in the U.S.? Ford makes the E150/250/350, and Chevy+GMC make the 1500/2500/3500. They get about 12 MPG, and you can't get diesel on anything less than a 350/3500. Thing is, all the car magazines rave about how "modern" these vehicles are.
Then there is the Dodge, aka Mercedes Benz "Sprinter" which is diesel and gets 29 MPG. It also costs $40,000.
>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.
OK let's check this:
12mpg over 60 mi = 5 gallons
15mpg over 60 mi = 4 gallons
30 mpg over 60 mi = 2 gallons
60 mpg over 60 mi = 1 gallon
WOW you are right. In both cases, the savings is 1gallon.
Lithium-ion batteries are not ready for this task. They are not easy to make. That is why they cost a fortune. I don't think I am alone, but I have never had a Li-ion laptop battery make it more than 1 year in a laptop. After about 1 year the run time on the battery goes from 2 hours ( new ) down to 30-45 minutes. Plus, I don't run on battery power that often. Less than 2 hours a week. This tech is not ready to be put in mass produced cars. I know all the new claims about longevity. I bet the those who believe those claims also believe the claims Lenovo made about the battery in my current laptop. Battery life claims are notoriously unreliable.
One issue is that Li-ion batteries are very sensitive to heat. Leave them out in the sun, and their capacity will drop like a rock - even if you do not use them. This is going to be a huge problem anywhere where it is sunny through much of the year. Heat kills a Li-ion battery's longevity. Parking a car under the LA sun is a perfect way to quickly kill an electric car.
I don't know how much the Nissan battery pack will cost, but a Tesla battery pack runs about $30,000. If you replace it every 2 years, the cost quickly gets out of hand. My guess is that Nissan will not make an binding promises about warranting the battery pack. If it fails ( drops to less than 50% initial capacity ) in less than 3 years, you will be SOL.
I did see an article in the WSJ ( Wall Street Journal ) about an electric lawn mover about 2 months ago. The company clearly stated that the $800 battery pack would have to be replaced approximately every 2 years. Sadly, I think this is the brutal reality when it comes to battery powered vehicles. Massive piles of batteries that will require disposal, and the expense of purchasing new while disposing on the old.
I think a better solution is a supercharged engine that is 1.5 liters or less. Add to that capacitors and electric motors for acceleration. Capacitors are light, so they don't weigh down a car like batteries do. When and only when accelerating, the capacitors power the electric motors to give acceptable acceleration. When cruising, a 1.5 liter supercharge engine should be able to carry most light cars along at 100 mph or less no problem. Massive power is only needed for high speeds ( 100+ mph ) and rapid acceleration. When cruising at constant speed, it does not matter if you have 600 hp or 90 hp. During cruising and braking, the capacitors can be recharged. The capacitors only need enough power for short bursts. They discharge quickly, but also recharge quickly. Start and stop traffic might wear down the power in the capacitors fast than the system can recharge. However, you can accelerate on the engine alone in start and stop traffic. You generally don't need rapid acceleration in start and stop traffic.
Keep in mind coal power production is not exactly what one would call efficient ( less than 50% ). Nor is power transmission ( 10% or more loss ). Nor is turning electricity back into forward momentum. Also, high efficiency batteries are going to require a lot of rare earth metals. Unfortunately, world supply is limited.
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.
Sure, I use another car for driving vacations, but these battery electric cars are perfect for some of us.
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.
AC (also electric) is going to without a doubt cut down on the battery's life
Actually, not that much, unless you drive *really* slowly. The LEAF will have a 24 kW-h battery. The motor gets .24 kW-h/mile[1], and assuming you average 30 mph[2], the AC draws .75kW[3], and you use it 100% of the time, we have (x is hours drive time):
24 kW-h = 30 * .24 * x + .75 * x
[algebra happens]
x =~ 3.0
30mph * 3.0 hours = 90 miles, a 10% hit to overall range.
If they use the AC system as a heat pump instead of a resistive array, range on full heat will be about the same.
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?
And then, the next gas crunch hits. Everyone's gonna be calling me up to borrow my electric vehicle, but how are you going to move that gas-powered car?
I give a decent percentage chance of this actually occurring for some reason in a closer timeframe than my mean-time-to-oops-dry-tank, which is currently measured in decades.
[1] 100 mile range / 24 kW-h battery
[2] With a crappy 1 hour, 30 mile commute, where you spend good chunk of time cruising the freeway followed by some traffic lights when you get to the city
[3] The amount a 8200 BTU/h window-type air conditioner pulls, which is a reasonable comparable for this size car.
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?
yeah. you know, i live in a mountainous area and there aren't any roads and until someone makes a car that can fly they're just totally unfeasable and no one will buy 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.
It's a little more difficult to hook up an idiot-, water-, abrasion-, and UV-proof 220V public outlet than a (hopefully) stationary indoor dryer or oven. The problems I see are liability and charging (no pun intended) for use. The rules are already in place for the logistics of installing the outlet, although they're pretty expensive to implement (GFCI [and possibly arc fault], watertight conduit, covered-in-use receptacle, etc). The aesthetic and insurance angles remain open issues.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
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.
Nissan is knowingly setting itself up to over-promise and under-deliver by quoting the EPA range of 100 miles, because the EPA test is well known to be extremely optimistic for EVs. AC Propulsion's eBox has an EPA range of ~170 miles, but a realistic range of 130. Tesla's Roadster has an EPA range of ~220 miles, but a realistic range of 175.
Nissan's car will probably have a realistic range of 70-80 miles. The good news is that this is more than enough for many, many households. The bad news is that many households don't realize it, because "range anxiety" is a very real (psychological) phenomenon, even though actual range limits are not.
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.