Print 60 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Feb 16 at 5:50 PM

Nissan LEAF
Nissan to be aggressive with LEAF pricing

Nissan is revealing a few more details about the buying process and deliveries for its upcoming LEAF fully-electric vehicle. Nissan announced yesterday that potential customers can begin putting down $100 deposits on the LEAF starting in April -- to be the first to get news about when the exact date in April deposits will be taken, Nissan recommends that you sign up at this website.

In August, Nissan will begin taking firm orders for the LEAF. Finally, in December, deliveries of the first LEAF EVs will take place around the same time in the United States, Japan, and Europe.

For inquiring minds, the battery pack will be included in the purchase price of the LEAF contrary to previous reports and speculation on the subject. Speaking of pricing, a Nissan spokesman claims that the official price of the LEAF -- which will also be announced in April -- will be close to that of a base model Toyota Prius. Toyota's Prius currently retails for just under $23,000 in the United States, so that would be an astonishing feat for the Japanese automaker.

We're more inclined to be believe that the "low 20s" price tag is after a $7,500 federal tax credit which is sure to attract quite a few buyers. However, if the price tag is before the $7,500 credit, Nissan dealerships might have trouble keeping up with demand for the compact hatchback.

"The Nissan LEAF purchase process is effortless, transparent and accessible, offering value with a one-stop-shop approach for everything related to the car, including the assessment, permitting and installation of in-home battery charging units," said Carlos Tavares, Chairman, Nissan Americas. "We want everyone to feel good about having a car that is affordable, fun to drive and good for the environment."

The Nissan LEAF uses a 24kWh lithium-ion battery pack and an 80kW electric motor (107hp). The vehicle has a maximum range of 100 miles and can travel at up to 87 mph which should be fast enough for just about every U.S. market save for Atlanta.

Although not a full-electric vehicle like the LEAF, the Chevrolet Volt will also be vying for a place U.S. customers' garages this year. The Volt will hit the streets in the closing months of 2010 and could be priced in the low $30,000 range after a $7,500 federal tax credit. The Volt has a battery-only range of 40 miles, but can use its gasoline engine/generator to travel an additional 300 miles.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Bye Bye...
By bradmshannon on 2/12/2010 8:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
Bye bye Volt!

RE: Bye Bye...
By Hiawa23 on 2/12/2010 9:24:02 AM , Rating: 3
The electric revolution is cool & all but that to me is still too much for a car that size, & I am guessing the car will be $32 to 35k - $7500 credit. I think most will just stick with gas vehicles.

RE: Bye Bye...
By Gyres01 on 2/12/2010 11:43:55 AM , Rating: 1
Hell for that price you can get a Civic & a Scion...and we wonder which will last longer???

RE: Bye Bye...
By ArcliteHawaii on 2/14/2010 3:12:49 AM , Rating: 1
gas will be 4$ a gallon this summer and $8 within 5 years. Anyone with a Nissan Leaf will pretty much have the road to themselves.

RE: Bye Bye...
By semiconshawn on 2/14/2010 1:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
Since you can see the future can you give us the powerball numbers?

RE: Bye Bye...
By quiksilvr on 2/14/2010 1:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean it will be approaching $3 a gallon this summer.

RE: Bye Bye...
By Spuke on 2/12/2010 9:28:39 AM , Rating: 5
Bye bye Volt!
Let the ignorance begin!!!!!

RE: Bye Bye...
By tayb on 2/12/2010 10:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
Volt wasn't going anywhere anyways. 40 miles on a charge and then it basically becomes a standard ICE vehicle. Not to mention it comes standard with the Chevy brand durability and cost about $10,000+ more than the competition. Really the only thing the Volt ever actually had going for it was the styling and they managed to screw that one up somewhere between concept car and production model. They've also delayed the car so many times that by the time it comes to the market, if it ever does, it will be directly competing with what I consider to be superior models instead of being the lone wolf out there.

Now, one thing that the Volt does have going for it is that it can actually be your main car whereas the Leaf could never be your only vehicle. Still, it's too expensive and doesn't get nearly enough miles per charge.

RE: Bye Bye...
By therealnickdanger on 2/12/2010 10:41:08 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah, WTF happened to the initial $15,000 estimates? I would actually consider the LEAF as a commuter car for 15K.

RE: Bye Bye...
By Mitch101 on 2/12/2010 3:46:48 PM , Rating: 1
It is but you have to tack on all the Guilt Credits which raises the price significantly.

RE: Bye Bye...
By Shining Arcanine on 2/15/2010 6:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
The carbon credits for the production of its lithium ion batteries are probably raising the price. Thank the democrats.

RE: Bye Bye...
By Keeir on 2/12/2010 11:24:05 AM , Rating: 5
And so the ignorance begins

Interesting Fact One.

There are no independant verification of the range per charge of the Nissan Leaf. Nissan has claimed that on the LA04 Cycle, the Leaf is capable of 100 miles. The LA04 cycle is pretty gentle and is typically conducted at a temperature close to optimal (low to no accessory loads).

If you drive your car during high heat or cold rain or snow... during the night, I would wait to get some information about the Leaf's range in that condition before replacing my car with the Leaf. Early reports from other electric cars indicate real range in these situations might be 50-60% optimal.

The beauty of the Volt system is that, regardless of the situation, the Volt will get much more than 100 miles when fully charged and with a full tank. The Volt can also grab another 200+ miles of range in 10 minutes at any existing gas station.

Interesting Fact 2.

Nissan is not required to offer the same type of battery warranty of its air cooled pack as PHEV like the Volt or Prius.

Looking at Tesla's example as well as consumer products like the iphone, Nissian's warranty for both purchase and lease might amount to "70% capacity after 5 years is acceptable". The Volt on the other hand, must deliever the same number of AER miles in the same situation for the duration of the warranty period. (As I read California's emission parts regulation)

Interesting Fact 3.

The Volt has never once been delayed. Production plans at the start of the program called for sales to start in late 2010. Gee... Nov, 2010 sure seems ontrack.

RE: Bye Bye...
By TheRequiem on 2/12/2010 12:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your missing the point, as usual. The point of the Chevy Volt is that MOST daily drivers only drive about 40 miles or less, so basically, they'll have to use the cars gas engine less. It is not an ideal vehicle for 200 miles a day usage, obviously. They also have made the car pretty cheap considering the cost of materials.

RE: Bye Bye...
By tayb on 2/16/2010 1:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to meet all of these people who have these amazingly short and comforting rides to and from work and then when they get home just park their car and never bother getting into it the rest of the evening.

Please, introduce me to him.

Take a look at mileage statistics. 90% of peoples daily commutes are NOT 40 miles or less. And that doesn't even include wasted energy sitting in traffic.

RE: Bye Bye...
By namechamps on 2/12/2010 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 3
I think you are missing the point.

For most consumers 90% of driving is commutes and short trips on weekends.

5 days a week * 52 weeks * 40 miles = 10,400 miles.
Figure another 25 per weekend * 52 = 12,000ish miles.

I drove 14,000 miles last year. So that would be only 2000 miles on gasoline. At 40mpg that's 50 gallons of gas per year.

I wouldn't mind having to fill up 5 gallons once a month or so.

Sure electricity isn't free but it is a magnitude cheaper than gasoline.

RE: Bye Bye...
By ArcliteHawaii on 2/14/2010 3:18:22 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't become a standard ICE vehicle. The gas engine produces electricity, it doesn't drive the wheels. I actually think the Volt is the best hybrid out there. It offers the best of both worlds: the vast majority of driving will be done via electric, but it still has range for long trips. The idea to do it this way is the smartest implementation yet, although the Prius design is a close second. The Nissan Leaf is really only useful as a second car, and mostly in urban environs, although it's the perfect car where I live: Oahu. It's pretty much impossible to drive more than 80 miles in a day.

RE: Bye Bye...
By tayb on 2/16/2010 1:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you didn't read where it said "basically becomes a standard ICE vehicle." Thanks for letting me know exactly what I already knew about the Volt and combustion engines though.

RE: Bye Bye...
By Masospaghetti on 2/14/2010 9:36:31 AM , Rating: 2
Volt wasn't going anywhere anyways. 40 miles on a charge and then it basically becomes a standard ICE vehicle.

40 miles on a charge is enough to almost entirely eliminate fuel consumption for daily use, and having the range extender makes the Volt infinitely more practical than the Leaf.

Really the only thing the Volt ever actually had going for it was the styling and they managed to screw that one up somewhere between concept car and production model.

You are complaining about the styling? Compared to what, the Prius or the Leaf? The Leaf looks ridiculous.

They've also delayed the car so many times that by the time it comes to the market, if it ever does, it will be directly competing with what I consider to be superior models instead of being the lone wolf out there.

They haven't delayed the Volt even once. It's always been slated for late 2010 availabiility. And remind me, what models are "superior"? The Leaf is ugly, smaller, less powerful, and range limited - AND - I would bet that the batteries will not have the longevity of the Volt's batteries, as the Leaf will only use air cooling for its batteries and is much more aggressive with the charge and discharge cycles. Remember the Volt only uses 50% of its capacity to improve life - and it uses active cooling to maintain a good environment for the batteries.

The Prius, if its not accelerating to its demise, will only have a 12.5 mile range with full electric and is going to be nowhere near $10k cheaper.

RE: Bye Bye...
By chruschef on 2/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bye Bye...
By chick0n on 2/13/2010 8:11:42 AM , Rating: 2
volt looks cool ?

wow, talk about FAILED.

Sir you are number one.

RE: Bye Bye...
By chruschef on 2/13/2010 1:02:25 PM , Rating: 1
In terms of hybrids? yeah it looks cool. the hybrid looks kind of sissy, the leaf is on another planet, and the volt looks kinda cool ..

by no means, does any hybrid compare visually to say... a ferrari, or an aston martin.

RE: Bye Bye...
By jimbojimbo on 2/15/2010 2:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying it's the least ugly of the ugliest. Honestly the concept design was cool but now it looks lame. If they actually stuck to that original design I guarantee there would be a LOT more excitement behind this car.

RE: Bye Bye...
By muIIet on 2/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bye Bye...
By ArcliteHawaii on 2/14/2010 3:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
You're right about the maintenance, but the Leaf can only ever be a second car/urban runabout for the vast majority of Americans. That's the genius of the Volt: the best of both worlds: electric for the vast majority of driving, but the range and easy of refueling for long trips. I'd hardly call that "a joke".

Unless you live on Oahu, like I do. Then the leaf is the perfect car. YOu can't drive more than 20 miles in any direction here.

RE: Bye Bye...
By Masospaghetti on 2/14/2010 9:41:31 AM , Rating: 4
Volt mitigates some of the double-maintenance problem because it doesn't have a transmission or driveshafts. And how often would you need to change your spark plugs or air cleaner on an engine that doesn't run for more than a couple thousand miles a year? The alternative is to have a primary (gasoline) vehicle and a second EV - which is much more combined maintenance than the Volt alone.

RE: Bye Bye...
By muIIet on 2/14/2010 3:17:17 PM , Rating: 1
Ok I agree but it is double the maintenance but not as bad as a hybrid. If the Volt had 100 mile range on the battery alone like the Leaf then I would think it would be great.

I agree with ArcliteHawaii 100% on it being a second car or just a around town car. I really do think the leaf would be a ton cheaper to operate for in town use.

By Bateluer on 2/12/2010 9:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
We're already short in a lot of areas for electricity because politicians and activists have prevented the building of effective power plants for years. If large numbers of people start driving electric vehicles, the power grid will need to keep pace.

A few solar plants and a wind farm or wo aren't going to cut it.

By The0ne on 2/12/2010 10:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
Same issues here in San Diego, where the Leaf was suppose to be tested with a few charging stations spread out. Haven't seen any news/info out of this so called program yet. Good PR I guess.

By Keeir on 2/12/2010 11:32:08 AM , Rating: 2
While millions of californians can't plug in all at the same time....

It appears todays minimum expected gap is greater than 2 GW of power. Charging at 15 amps, 220V takes roughly 3.3 kW of power.

Today at peak time, enough generator resources exist in California to support 600,000 electric cars all charging at the same time. Years till Californian purchase ~ 1 million electric cars to make this a likely senario... at least a decade.

Most concerns about the power grid settle on local distrbution capabilites...

By porkpie on 2/12/2010 12:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Today at peak time, enough generator resources exist in California to support 600,000 electric cars all charging at the same time..."

Um, hello but TODAY is the middle of winter. California's peak loads come during the summer time.

What good is a car you can't charge for 3 months out of the year, because Cali's grid is shut down from all the extra capacity?

And what if it is a decade before a million of these exist in California? The time required to plan, approve, construct, and build a power plant can easily be longer than that...and that's if California starts today. Do you have any idea how long its been since they approved a new power plant in their state?

By Brovane on 2/12/2010 1:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
Probably most of the time the cars will be plugged in at a residence during the evening when more surplus electricity is available. It is usually only in the afternoons when you have a issue with demand. Even during the summer if people drove into work in the morning by the afternoon probalby most of the cars would be fully charged if they had a place to plug in the car at work.

By porkpie on 2/12/2010 1:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
Most cars will charge at night, sure. But at least some of them won't...and thus electric cars will stress a system already near the breaking point. Furthermore, if you postulate significant penetration of electric vehicles, demand load during winter nights would soon exceed what California is seeing in summer afternoons.

The implication is clear. If California wants electric cars 15 years from now, they need to start building power plants TODAY. Else they're going to trade one set of problems for another.

By namechamps on 2/12/2010 2:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Supply and demand.

Raise rates durring day, cut rates in evening, offer even lower rates (50% off like industrial buyers get) between midnight & 6am.

Consumers will adapt and shift high load consumption to off peak hours.

Flat rate electricity is what needs to change.

By porkpie on 2/12/2010 2:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
" offer even lower rates (50% off like industrial buyers get) between midnight & 6am."

And what happens when electric car penetration reaches the point that winter demand at night is higher than it is during the daytime?

How do you even GET significant EV penetration in the state, if you have to charge so much for daytime charging that people will automatically eschew it in favor of night time charging.

There's no way around it. If California wants electric cars, they need more generating capacity.

By namechamps on 2/12/2010 4:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
To replace that much demand would literally require two hundred million cars plus nationwide.

Of course it is unlikely we will go from a gasoline based transportation network to a EV one in a matter of months. It will be years and likely decades for the switch to happen.

There will be substantial amount of "notice" and it will be rather easy to predict saturation.

As far as encouraging night charging. CA already has expensive electricity (0.15 per kwh, tack on another $0.02 per kwh and offer $0.04 per kwh durring midnight to 6am.

Sell cars with "smart chargers" that engage when in off peak time.

Most consumers aren't going to be stupid enough to pay 4x the rate just to charge during peak load.

If you saw a gas station charging $12 per gallon of gas would you buy it or shop around? Your logic seems to indicate consumers will somehow get stupid just because it is electricity.

By porkpie on 2/12/2010 5:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
"To replace that much demand would literally require two hundred million cars plus nationwide."

Lol, what?? That would be a signifcant portion of our entire fleet, a level of usage that would nearly double electricity demand. (28% of total energy usage is from transportation, 39% is electric generation).

2 million cars charging in California overnight would generate 48 BILLION kw-h of additional demand. That's more than enough to put their nighttime winter usage into the red zone.

"Most consumers aren't going to be stupid enough to pay 4x the rate "

If a consumer has to pay 4X as much to charge his car during the day, he won't buy the car in the first place. Not unless he's one of the rare fringe minority that never envisions himself as needing to charge except at night. That was my point in the first place.

And you failed to respond to the most significant point, anyway. Once you get a few million cars charging at night, its no longer an off-peak period. It BECOMES the peak period. Then what do you do?

By Keeir on 2/13/2010 12:29:09 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry Porkpie, converting every single passenger car to electricity will not double our electricity demand.

200,000,000 * 15,000 miles per year per car * 1000 Wh/ 3 Miles = 1 * 10^15 Wh of electricity.

Assumption = Tesla Roadster gets approx 4 miles per kWh from wall. Average light duty car and truck will get 3 miles per kWh from the wall.

Last year the US generated ~ 4 * 10 ^15 Wh of electricity.

It gets better. For each gallon of gasoline distilled, approx 1 kWh of electricity + 4 kWh of NG is consumed. Each gallon of gasoline saved could therefore be saving ~3kWh of electricity production.

The fleet average being replaced is somewhere below 25 miles to the gallon. So we can use that to be conservative.

200,000,000 cars * 15,000 miles pre year per car * 1 gallon/25 miles * 3000 Wh/gallon= 3.6 * 10 ^14 Wh

So we end up with less than a 20% increase. Why?

#1. Who says we should convert the entire transportation industry? Clearly liquid fuels still have a place

#2. Electric drive is far more efficient than traditional ICE. It is better the refine fuel oil #2, burn fuel oil #2 in a CC plant and drive the car using that electricity than it is to distill into gasoline, transport to a gas station and fill up a Prius.

48 billion kWh? BTW? Does each car travel 100 miles a day?!? 24 kWh is enough to push most electric cars 100+ miles. Average demand will likely be much much closer to 20 billion kWh a day or less from 2 million electric cars.

We get it, you don't like electric cars, but at least keep your estimates legitimate

By porkpie on 2/13/2010 3:10:17 PM , Rating: 3
Several errors. Let's start here:

"24 kWh is enough to push most electric cars 100+ miles"

It's enough to drive the LEAF (a subcompact) 100 miles...IF you use the LA-4/FTP-72 driving cycle, which is quite unrealistic, even for city driving. For highway driving, its not even in the ballpark. Your 3kWh/mile figure was closer, but still optimistic under normal conditions.

You've also forgotten that, to put 24 kW-h INTO a battery pack, you need to generate considerably more than that. Line losses, conversion losses, and coulometric charging efficiency all adds up to about a 20% loss, meaning you have to generate a bit more than 28 kW-h to charge a 24 kW-h pack.

"200,000,000 * 15,000 miles per year per car * * 1000 Wh/ 3 Miles "

The US fleet is now 250 million cars. 15,000 miles/yr sounds about right. Working in loss values (as described above) plus a little more realistic driving cycle will give you about 2.5m/kW-k. The new figure becomes 1.5E15 Wh, or 50% higher than your total. That's also just for passenger vehicles. Converting the nation's entire fleet will double that value again, to about 3E15 Wh, which DOES come close to doubling our annual electricity output.

Yes, you're correct that we don't need to convert every vehicle. But the fact remains that even if we do no more than convert 15% of passenger vehicles alone, states like California will be unable to meet the increased demand. An increase of as little as 3% in peak periods can mean the difference between meeting demand, and rolling blackouts.

"We get it, you don't like electric cars"

I said California needs to build more capacity if they want electric vehicles. How on earth did you translate that to I "don't like" EVs? Wishful thinking?

By Keeir on 2/16/2010 5:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
Because you make a habit out of ignoring the data right in front of you on this subject. For an otherwise intelligent person, this is typically a clear signal of bias.

Lets start with production Electric Cars and thier efficieny. You suggest we assume a from the wall efficieny of 2.5 miles/kWh.

The Only Electric Car currently EPA tested is the Telsa Roadster. When measured from the wall , it gets approx 100 miles to 28 kWh of electrical power. This is on the combined cycle. I repeat. A performance Roadster gets 3.57 miles per kWh from the wall.

The Leaf has yet been tested. We know they claim 100 miles on LA04. We know they have a 24 kWh battery pack (roughly). We do not know the SOC range for the Leaf. Making claims about its efficieny is premature. If it is similar to other electric cars, it will likely return 4-5 miles/kWh from the Battery and 3.5-4.5 miles/kWh from the Wall. But thats a big -IF-.

The Closet Gasoline Equivalent, the 2010 Lotus Elise gets only 21/27 MPG. The Telsa Roadster is larger, heavier, and less aerodynamic than the Lotus Elise.

Lets further assume that the average passenger electric car is as efficient as the performance roadster. I base this on the simple comparison of the Lotus Elise at 21/27 MPG seems like a fairly accurate point for most C/D segment sedans favored in the US market currently.

The US passenger fleet roughly breaks down into

135 million Passenger Cars (Avg. of 12,000 miles per Car)
100 million Pickup/SUVs (Avg. of 15,000 per Car)
5 Million Heavy Duty Pickups
6 Million Motorcycles.

So lets return to California for a second.

In 2006, California had 33.2 Million Register Vehicles. If we assume California roughly follows national trends, we can assume California has ~22 Million passenger cars (18.6 rounded up for growth and heavier passenger car bias)

If California could somehow convert 15% of these cars to electric overnight, then we might have an issue.

Thankfully, California is already thinking ahead and installing smart meters. Electric Power at peak times will likely be 4 times higher than non-peak times. Electric Car owners will likely be the sort that doesn't mind setting the timer in thier electric car to charge during off-peak times. Of course, there is likely to be many who don't. I suggest we use the 80/20 rule. 20% of electric car owners will be feel the need to charge at full power during peak times.

So, if magically California replaced 15% of its passenger cars with electric overnight, we would end up with 660,000 cars attempting to charge all at once. If we further assume everyone uses the 220V and 15 Amp maximum for home charing units for the Leaf/E-Mini/Volt (3.3 kW draw), this is around 2,178 MW. In peak times, Californians currently demand 40,000 MW. Realistically speaking, its hard to imagine even this situation coming to pass.. at least not fast enough for people to react. At an adoption rate of 500,000 cars a year, California would still have years to react to people's charging habits.

As to the total generation capacity... well,
22 Million * .15 * 12,000/356 * 1 kWh/3.57 kWh = 31.2 Million kWh per day. Between 1 am and 5 am, California often has 8,000 MW or more of spare capacity. Enough to completely charge all 3.3 Million Electric Cars. In 4 hours of a 24 hour day.

So I guess all the doom and gloom confuses me. The US (policy) has decide to move to either: Gas-Electric Hybrids, B-Segment Class Cars, or Full Electric Cars.

Full Electric Cars will not be for everyone. But Full electric cars are likely be much cheaper to run (than any other alternative). Pollute (based on average US power generation currently) less than a Toyota Prius, on both CO2 and real pollution. Consume less energy per mile than a Toyota Prius. As a special bonus they are likely to be larger than B-segment class cars and are likely be much more fun to drive than the Gas-Electric Hybrids so far offered to us.

We can all stand around and shake our heads because the grid in 2010 couldn't absorb the entire fleet conversion (including pick-ups/etc which don't make sense currently) or realize that the grid in 2050, when even if we started to aggressively promote electrics today we would finally have more than 90% fleet electric, is likely to be very different animal than todays grid. We can also realize that even at ...optomistic... adoption rates, the grid in 2010 can take a bit of the extra shock and electric companys will have years and years and years before millions of cars will be pluging in at once.

California has already taken the first step. Installing smart meters will help ensure people charge thier cars at night. If in the next 5 years, this proves ineffective at focing people to charge thier electric cars overnight, I have every confidence that California will just keep raising peak power prices.

Who knows, mass adoption of EV cars might even be the boon that Nuclear and Hydro companies need to promote thier projects. A smoothed out demand curve for electricity will yield significantly better returns for these two types of uber-clean power. We all might end up with cheaper per kWh power because of mass electric cars, rather than -more- expensive.

By namechamps on 2/12/2010 2:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Have EV owners charge between midnight and 6am.

We have thousands of terrawatt hours of generation that is idled during off peak (mid to 6am) each year.

Enough for tens of million EV with no new powerplants built.

Overnight demand is roughly 20% - 25% of peak on average.

By jimbojimbo on 2/15/2010 2:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the exact same thing. Most people will of course plug in as soon as they get home so their charger should have a timer that can start the charge later in the night if they want instead of right away. That'll reduce the overall load as well as save money from time tiered electricity suppliers.

By muIIet on 2/12/2010 11:48:05 AM , Rating: 2
LOL'z, this car takes like what $3.00 of cost to fully charge it. Hell my gaming rig burns more then that a week.

By namechamps on 2/12/2010 2:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
Plenty of capacity durring off peak hours.

Simply require EV owners to charge off peak.

Or even better allow them the choice. Normal energy rates during peak hours and 50% off during off peak hours.

Most consumers will simply let their car charge overnight to save money.

Too expensive
By corduroygt on 2/12/2010 11:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
for a glorified golf cart

How am I supposed to drive to NY from DC in 20 degree weather in this thing? With a prius, I'd just gas up and go.

RE: Too expensive
By Brovane on 2/12/2010 1:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot. This is really a second car that is optimized for short commutes. It wasn't built to meet everyone's driving needs. I commute a total of 25 miles a day to work. This would be a great car to replace my daily commuter car.

RE: Too expensive
By corduroygt on 2/12/2010 3:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
The extra insurance and payments to get this as a second car over just having a single car would never pay off.
People seem to forget, asking people to buy two cars is environmentally FAR WORSE than buying a single regular car.

RE: Too expensive
By namechamps on 2/12/2010 3:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Most families are 2 (or 3) car families already.

For example me and my wife own a car. We could replace ONE of our TWO cars with this vehicle and substantially reduce emissions & energy use while still having one long range vehicle.

Even if you only replaced all the "second vehicles" in 2 car households that would be tens of millions of vehicles.

For lots of other families who travel beyond the max range so rarely you could have only an EV and use a rental car when needing to travel extended differences.

Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work.

RE: Too expensive
By Keeir on 2/13/2010 12:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
You know... i think the whole "2" car thing will not turn out as people intend. A great number of 2 car households are 2 working member households. In such situations, both cars need to be full cars. Why? Well for many of the people who could use BEV in such a situation should already be able to ride share or use buses etc. Not all, but the difference between doesn't need a car and doesn't need a full car will likely result in a small group.

BEVs will not be considered full cars (in the US) until real-life range is significantlly more than 100 miles or one can grab 10-20 miles of range per minute.

BEVs can work as a communter car (or even cars) in a household/situation where there is an extremely high availibility rate of a full car and driver. If I had a stay at home wife, I could see getting a BEV for myself and letting her have the full gas car. (I could never do it the other way around. A 30-35 mile radius range is just not acceptable)

RE: Too expensive
By jimbojimbo on 2/15/2010 3:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Rent a car for those trips.

By icanhascpu on 2/12/2010 11:37:06 AM , Rating: 5
I must have missed it where it said all green or hybrid cars have to look retarded.

RE: Memo
By jimbojimbo on 2/15/2010 3:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
At least the Tesla Roadster is still pretty cool looking. Chevy really blew it when they veered away from the concept car design. That thing was sweet.

By Chickpea on 2/12/2010 4:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
Why haven't they devised a power plant that uses low level radio-isotopes to generate electricty, or better yet where's my Mr.Fusion.

Would't it be cool to all have the power plant of the Cassini space probe in the trunks of our cars...:)

RE: Mr.Fusion
By Chickpea on 2/12/2010 4:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
I was kidding about running around with plutonium rods in our trunks.

but come on - Mr.Fusion:Also known as the fusion generator, the Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor converted household waste to power the time machine's flux capacitor and time circuits using nuclear fusion.

We have to start somewhere...
By Ytsejamer1 on 2/12/2010 9:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is a good start...yes, this car may not be useful for everyone. But if there's a company offering something and people find out that it IS useful for them, they can buy it.

It may not yet be a perfect solution, but we have to start somewhere. I'm sure back in the day, people thought "Hmmm....this motorized car...not for me, I'll stick with my horse". It takes time.

Hopefully our country can make sure the grid is strong enough to handle an increased demand...but likely, one will cause the other... If we can better our infrastructure to handle it, that will mean jobs for more people!

Nissan LEAF
By gybognarjr on 2/12/2010 12:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
A technology just at the starting point, certainly a commendable effort.
The concept for replacing gasoline engined cars with battery/recharge electric vehicles is grossly inferior and totally false. As an environmentally beneficial vehicle, those who advocate it should go to jail for crime against Nature. Politicians are criminals when they force us to believe, that they got the right answer to a solution, which they don't understand and they have no clue how to solve correctly.
Leave engineers and bright minds to solve problems, without political influence and indoctrination and they will find the right way and the right method.

Nissan LEAF
By gybognarjr on 2/12/2010 12:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
A technology just at the starting point, certainly a commendable effort.
The concept for replacing gasoline engined cars with battery/recharge electric vehicles is grossly inferior and totally false. As an environmentally beneficial vehicle, those who advocate it should go to jail for crime against Nature. Politicians are criminals when they force us to believe, that they got the right answer to a solution, which they don't understand and they have no clue how to solve correctly.
Leave engineers and bright minds to solve problems, without political influence and indoctrination and they will find the right way and the right method.

Atlanta speeders
By Jyncu5 on 2/13/2010 9:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
I had to laugh at this line..

"..can travel at up to 87 mph which should be fast enough for just about every U.S. market save for Atlanta."

Atlanta drivers are nothing short of insane! If you're not doing 80+ through downtown ..mind you, a 55mph zone, you have someone tail-gaiting the hell out of you. Haha

By chunkymonster on 2/16/2010 11:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
While the LEAF is a good start it will need time to mature, it is Nissan's first all electric vehicle, after all.

I give Nissan props for providing the casual daily driver with an nearly emissions free vehicle.

All things considered, I'd rather spend my money on the Tesla Model S!

By chunkymonster on 2/16/2010 11:19:38 AM , Rating: 2
All electric is nice if you want limited range and the additional cost of implementing charging stations, upgrading the electric distribution system, building new generating stations to meet demand, and hate the sound of an internal combustion engine.

All electric is a step in the right direction but, I believe, not the ultimate solution.

I believe that bio-diesel has a greater ability to maintain the existing infrastructure while at the same time minimizing the impact on the consumer. Now if only I could get the politicians and car companies to listen!

not for me
By superPC on 2/12/2010 9:14:04 AM , Rating: 1
Although it's cheap to run (100 miles for just 2$ in city driving style), still for me, 30 minutes to get 80% charge (80 miles) is just too long ( if you have coin based charging station in every parking space, then i would buy this in a heart beat, but until that day comes, normal ICE car for me.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki