backtop

Print 159 comment(s) - last by quiksilvr.. on Apr 6 at 10:04 PM

Nissan Leaf
Final price for the vehicle can run you $25,280 or lower depending on state tax credits, rebates

The Nissan LEAF has been the topic of discussion countless times here on DailyTech. The last time we covered the LEAF, Nissan had announced that the first deliveries of the vehicle would begin in December 2010.

Today, however, Nissan has finally announced pricing for the compact electric vehicle. The LEAF carries an MSRP of $32,780. The $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles will bring that price down to $25,280. Nissan also notes that state government tax credits can bring that price down even more (California offers an additional $5,000 tax rebate, Georgia offers a $5,000 tax credit, and Oregon offers a $1,500 tax credit).

The 220-volt home charger needed to recharge the vehicle will cost you an additional $2,200 including installation. However, "There's a credit for that" -- the federal government will give you a tax credit of up to $2,000 covering the cost and installation of the charger onto your premises.

According to Nissan, the LEAF will be available in SV and SL trim levels. The SV comes standard with such niceties as GPS navigation and smartphone hookups. Paying an additional $940 to step up to the SL trim will get you a spiffy solar panel spoiler, fog lights, and a rearview monitor.

The Nissan LEAF can travel 100 miles on a single charge and features a top speed of 87 mph.

 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 1:27:31 PM , Rating: 5
So, depending on the state, you could get as much as:

$7,500
+$5,000
~$2,000
-------
$14,500 from the government to purchase this vehicle...all paid for out of the wallets of other taxpayers.

It's a particularly ludicrous situation in California, as not only is the state already nearly bankrupt, but since they've refused to build a new power plant there in 30 years, a mass infusion of electric vehicles would trigger another wave of rolling blackouts as they had in 2001.




RE: Government Subsidies...
By therealnickdanger on 3/30/2010 1:36:53 PM , Rating: 5
... but at least they would be green! We all know that being green is better than anything else you can possibly do with your life... ever.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By therealnickdanger on 3/30/2010 1:37:26 PM , Rating: 5
Call them "green outs" in order to stay positive!


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 1:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
I take it you're not in the market? :)


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Anoxanmore on 3/30/2010 2:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
I was in the market, then I realized extreme cold temperatures kind of ruin the battery life and range. : - (


RE: Government Subsidies...
By quiksilvr on 3/30/2010 9:45:03 PM , Rating: 5
Really? Because I've heard exactly the opposite.

Driving at around freezing temperatures (32 degrees Fahrenheit) is ideal for electric engines. The batteries aren't being eaten away by heat, the engine doesn't overheat at higher RPMS.

Now if by extreme you mean NEGATIVE 32 degrees Fahrenheit, then yeah, that would be bad for any car. I would recommend moving.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Anoxanmore on 3/31/2010 9:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
It ranges between 0 - -45 F in winter. (We hit -38 this winter in actual temperature, not wind chill)

If you wish to give me the funds to move, I'll happily move in with you. :)


RE: Government Subsidies...
By quiksilvr on 4/6/2010 10:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Where the hell do you live? The North Pole?


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 11:53:30 AM , Rating: 3
"Driving at around freezing temperatures (32 degrees Fahrenheit) is ideal for electric engines. "

This isn't true at all. It might be fine for the electric motor itself, but it not only reduces the available charge on the battery pack, but it forces you to use a large portion of that charge to heat the vehicle's interior. EV Range is severely curtailed in cold weather conditions.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By therealnickdanger on 3/31/2010 9:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'm totally in the market for an electric car... for under 15K without subsidies. I would buy an EV commuter car in a heartbeat for that price.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By JediJeb on 3/31/2010 1:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
That would be about my price range also.

Make them so that the poor people who can't afford gasoline can actually afford the EV.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Ammohunt on 3/30/2010 1:50:44 PM , Rating: 3
Other than being a Marxist of course.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By fxyefx on 3/30/2010 1:54:03 PM , Rating: 4
I don't understand the appeal of electric vehicles when U.S. electricity generation is still predominantly natural gas and coal burning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_US_electric...


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 1:54:55 PM , Rating: 5
Even with coal and natural gas producing the electricity, EVs generate less pollution per mile than similar ICE vehicles. Large power plants are more efficient, and carry far more pollution-control mechanisms, than a small car.

The only real problems are a) the battery technology isn't here yet, and b) the nation needs more generation capacity to support a fleet of EVs.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Keeir on 3/30/2010 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 4
Sad to say Porkpie, but I recently reviewed the pollution controls for older Coal generation plants (EPA and DOE)...

In West Virgina, a state with high percentage of Coal power and older technology, its better to drive a Normal 25 MPG PZEV gasoline car than an electric (in terms of real pollution. CO2 for the electric is still slightly less).

In California, the Nuclear Power + NG Power, make Electric less than 50% as polluting as that Normal 25 MPG PZEV Car. Especially when you consider the pollution from refining the gasoline as well as the actual operation of the car.

California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and some others are clear winners for electric cars.

West Virgina, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, New York, Wyoming, Maryland, and some others are clear "losers" for electric cars (or nuetral at best)

A.) Battery Technology in terms of Storage/Cost is here. Refill/Cost is not here yet. Serial Hybrids (based on gasoline, diesel, NG, Ethanol, Fuel Cell, etc) solve that issue.... I hope that the 24 kWh Leaf at 32K bodes well for a sub 35K 16 kWh "stripper" Volt (cloth, less gizmos, etc)

B.)The Nation, as a whole, can support millions upon millions of EVs. Even if Nissian, GM, Mitibuishi, Ford, Tesla, etc... all known EV makers produced 100% of currently announced capacity for EVs over the next 10 years and delievered them today, the US could support them. California alone could only support ~3 years.

The tranmission grid, especially in older pre-1960s era areas that haven't been upgraded, will be the biggest challenge facing EV adoption grid-wise. Not overall lack of power.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 2:47:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In West Virgina, a state with high percentage of Coal power and older technology, its better to drive a Normal 25 MPG PZEV gasoline car than an electric (in terms of real pollution.
I'd like to see that study. Pollutants like nitrogen and sulfur compounds should go up substantially...but the real problems with city air are caused by CO and VOCs, and those are going to decline sharply, even if you assume 100% coal-based emissions. And, of course, over time we would expect the ratio of coal in the mix to decline.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Mint on 3/31/2010 12:29:44 AM , Rating: 4
"city air" is the operative word here. A coal plant does not affect the health of millions of people in the way a million gasoline cars do.

Yeah, nuclear would be better, but you're right that coal-powered EV or PHEV is better than the status quo.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Government Subsidies...
By thurston on 3/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Government Subsidies...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/2010 4:42:48 PM , Rating: 1
You know how absurd his blanket statement was if you really thought about it. For example, I drove my car 4 miles today. It's an "ultra low emission vehicle" by the way. How in the hell was that more pollution, per capita, than a coal plant that runs 24/7 ??


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Kurz on 3/30/2010 5:10:47 PM , Rating: 4
There are peak power plants (They ramp up when necessary) and for the most part these cars will recharge at night. Picking up the unused power and actually saving some inefficiencies.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 5:34:50 PM , Rating: 5
You're talking about absurdity then you say this:

quote:
For example, I drove my car 4 miles today. It's an "ultra low emission vehicle" by the way. How in the hell was that more pollution, per capita, than a coal plant that runs 24/7 ??


You really think that coal plant is just there for you huh? If you want to keep it "per capita" then that plant probably had to run for a fraction of a second to generate enough power to push you 4 miles down the road.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 7:08:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
For example, I drove my car 4 miles today. It's an "ultra low emission vehicle" by the way. How in the hell was that more pollution, per capita, than a coal plant that runs 24/7 ??
I honestly don't understand how someone who occasionally has some very intelligent and insightful remarks to offer could possibly ever type up such a colossal blunder as this. It strains credulity. Do two people use your account?

You do understand that utilities operate some plants in load following mode, right? If demand drops, they burn less fuel. If demand drops enough, they shut down the plant entirely.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 10:26:50 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, here you go:

ICE effiency ~ 20%:

courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm

Coal plant efficiency:

33% (current generation plants):
www.uwsp.edu/CNR/wcee/keep/mod1/Unitall/Conservat ionTips.htm

48% or higher (next gen supercritical plants):
www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi =B6V3N-4M93BT3-1

(Add the http back onto the beginning of the links; the DT forum system thinks the post is spam)


RE: Government Subsidies...
By RivuxGamma on 3/30/2010 6:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even with coal and natural gas producing the electricity, EVs generate less pollution per mile than similar ICE vehicles.


I've heard that remark before, though it just involved coal, and did a little research of my own and found that it's complete bunk.

Here are some facts from the EPA:

CO2 from coal combustion in 2007 in Teragrams (millions of metric tons):
total from all sources: 2086.5

CO2 from petroleum combustion for transportation for 2007:
1852.0

carbon content per unit of energy of petroleum vs. coal: .75:1

source: EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloa...

This is not directly from the EPA, but it is based on their numbers: Additional cabon produced switching all transportation from petroleum to coal: 1852/.75 - 1852 = 2469.3 - 1852 = 617.3 = 617,300,000 metric tons of CO2.

So, to sum up: if we convert all cars to electricity, which is primarily produced by coal, and still do the same amount of "work" with the cars, then we are producking 1/3 more CO2, (which is was everyone's concerned about), by completely switching to electricity based vehicles as opposed to petroleum based.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By rangerdavid on 3/30/2010 7:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
No, silly.

You just proved we produce more CO2 from coal burning power plants than from auto traffic. What you -did not- prove is that one is more efficient than the other. You have to know how much -work- is being done with the energy derived from those two sources. Coal plants are producing -far- more energy than is used by our fleet of vehicles, so of course they output more CO2.

Example:

- A coal burning power plant creates 1000 tons of CO2 a year, but can power 1000 electric vehicles for 10,000 miles of driving, each.

- A group of gas burning vehicles create 700 tons of CO2 a year, but there are only 100 gas cars in this group and they also travel 10,000 miles per year, each.

While it appears that the cars contribute less pollution/greenhouse gasses at first (700 vs. 1000 tons of CO2 emitted), because you know how much work is being done in total (lots more cars powered by the power plant, and more efficiently), you can make a rational argument about which is a better technology.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 7:15:55 PM , Rating: 4
You chaps are making this far too complex. The only number you need is this:

"...carbon content per unit of energy of petroleum vs. coal: .75:1"

From that, for a coal-based source to output less CO2 than a petroleum source, it must be 1/0.75 = 33% more efficient. QED.

On the flip side, the entire CO2 question is irrelevant anyway. What we need to be concerned about is actual pollution, not airborne plant food.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By RivuxGamma on 3/30/2010 7:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'd appreciate it if you demonstrated some reading comprehension before calling me names. I know it's the internet and all, but that's no excuse for rudeness.

To make my point more clear: burning petroleum produces 75% of the amount of CO2 that coal does for the same amount of power, (i.e. work). Another way to say that is that coal produces 1/3 more CO2 per unit of energy than does petroleum. Therefore, switching from petroleum (i.e. gasoline) to coal will produce more CO2 because we still need to meet the same energy needs.

The electric car may work if we used more nuclear power or some other source that produced few emissions.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 8:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
"burning petroleum produces 75% of the amount of CO2 that coal does for the same amount of power, (i.e. work)."

No. It produces 75% of the amount of CO2 for a given amount of heat energy. This is from basic chemistry; oil has a higher H:C ratio. It works out to roughly 25:19 tons CO2 per terajoule.

But the crucial point is that heat energy must be converted to work. We do that through heat engines, which are limited by basic Carnot based on their operating temperature. Power plants operate at higher temperatures, and are more efficient. (40% typical, and some break 50%).


RE: Government Subsidies...
By FishTankX on 3/30/2010 9:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
According to this eia report, average thermal efficency for fossil fuel burning power plants is ~32%.
Accounting for transimssion losses, to your door it's roughly 30%.
(Source:http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_...

Highest efficency is for combined cycle natural gas plants, at around 60%.

(Source:http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/gas_tu...

Now, let's look at this in an unbiased, mathematical perspective.

According to fueleconomy.gov, the average intenral combustion engine, is only 15% efficent in converting heat into movement.
(source:http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml)

This is due to engine thermal losses (which reduce the engine to 37% thermal efficency) and idling losses (~17%) combined with drivetrain losses (5%)

If we assume that the electrics still take drivetrain losses (using a single motor, instead of hub motors) then it works something like this.

Power plants = 33% - 3% (transmission losses) -1% (charging losses) - 3% (electric motor losses) - 1.5% (drivetrain losses) = 24.5% heat to drive efficency.

Internal combustion engines, as above stated, are 15%.

Thus, for an equal amount of heat, your average electric is (24/15)60% more efficent than your gasoline engine at converting heat into movement.

Let's take that into perspective with the coal issue. Coal has 33% more carbon than an equivalent amount of petroleum per amount of heat.

So when we plug in ALL of the above numbers, we get (160 (efficency advantage)/130 (carbon penalty) 24% more efficency per unit of carbon emitted into the atmosphere, with your AVERAGE power plant on both the car and the electric, and the AVERAGE generation station. That is my, hopefully unbiased, assessment.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By namechamps on 3/31/2010 4:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
Everything was good until you used coal as the AVERAGE power plant.

Coal is roughly 60% higher than power grid Average.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_...

Coal plant is 2.095 pounds per kWh.
US grid average is 1.341 pounds per kWh.

Thus our current grid (which includes substantial hydro & nuclear) is cleaner which removes the "carbon penalty".


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 4:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
"Thus our current grid (which includes substantial hydro & nuclear) is cleaner which removes the "carbon penalty"."

Did you not even read his post? His calculation (which appears to be a reasonable estimate) eliminated the carbon penalty with all-coal power.

Quite obviously, grid mixes less than 100% coal will do even better.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Keeir on 3/31/2010 8:16:21 PM , Rating: 3
Nice well documented material.

If you truely want to compare 100% Coal type power to Gasoline though

You really ought to include refining/distrabution losses for the gasoline as well.

DOE estimates around 17% of energy of a gallon of gasoline is needed to refine it. Making the average ICE car (per your numbers) more like 12.5% efficient at converting the energy removed from the ground into forward motion.

We can call the extraction of the two materials equal I suppose....


RE: Government Subsidies...
By namechamps on 3/31/2010 5:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
No because you ignore than at EV is far more efficient at converting electrical energy into motive energy than a ICE is converting thermal energy into motive energy.

Average tank to wheel efficiency of an ICE vehicle is 15%.

The Tesla Roadster (I know it is a sample of one but not lot of EV data is available) plug to wheel efficiency is 92%.

Now the 92% isn't the whole story because you need to get power to the house. If coal plant is 35% efficient (thermal to electrical) and powerlines are 92% effecient (8% transmissions losses)

Then it takes
1/0.92/0.92/0.35 = 3.37

It takes roughly 3.4 units of energy (in coal) to produce 1 units of motive energy.

Gasoline Internal Combustion Engine
1/0.15 = 6.67
It takes roughly 6.7 units of energy (in gasoline) to produce 1 unit of motive energy.

Even if coal is 33% dirtier per BTU it requires roughly half the amount to be burned to get same amount of usable energy (wheels turning).

Another way to look at it is:
For Gasoline to be "cleaner" over entire system it would need to be 200% cleaner. If gasoline was 200% cleaner it could overcome the huge system losses in internal combustion engine. It is only 33% cleaner thus overall is produces more pollution and requires more energy.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 6:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
How many times are you going to keep repeating the same flawed figures? ICE's are not 15% efficient, the real figure is between 17-19% TTW for a city driving cycle (which has a large amount of idling losses) and as high as 30% for an all-highway driving cycle.

Further, while your EV figures are reasonably accurate, you're forgetting to add in coulometric charging losses (1-2%) and AC-DC conversion losses (2-4%), which reduces the Tesla to something like 86-89% efficient.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Keeir on 3/31/2010 8:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
which reduces the Tesla to something like 86-89% efficient.


I believe its actually significantly less. Tesla has claimed in the past that the Roadster is 92% efficient from Battery to Wheel. Charging efficieny on a roadster is more like 86% itself. I doubt a roadster is more than 80% efficient plug to weel.

Course, the electric Roadster also gets EPA 28 kWh/100 miles Plug to Wheel (and requires around ~23 kWh at the wheels) on the "EPA combined cycle". A Lotus Elise gets around 23 Miles per Gallon on the same cycle. Premoium Gasohol has roughly 35 kWh Gallon... which means the Gasoline Elise requires ~150 kWh of energy and is roughly 15% efficient (or maybe a bit less).

Since the Tesla Roadster has a faster max acceleration, Wieghs more, and has a slightly larger swept area...


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Spuke on 3/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Government Subsidies...
By namechamps on 3/30/2010 4:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
Even with current powergrid EV are superior than internal combustion.

Internal combustion is utterly off the charts inefficient. Most get 12%-15% efficiencies. Burn gallon of gasoline and get 12% usable energy and 88% waste heat.

EV are 90%-95% efficiency plug to wheel. Even when combined with thermal power plants 35%-40% efficient they produce nearly double the work when compared to Internal Combustion.

It isn't that EV combined with coal or natural gas are "good" it is that internal combustion engines are so off the charts bad that anything ends up being better by comparison.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 5:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It isn't that EV combined with coal or natural gas are "good" it is that internal combustion engines are so off the charts bad that anything ends up being better by comparison.
Are you buying the Leaf or the Volt?


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 5:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody needs to give up their downrating and come here and explain it. ICEs do indeed suck so much that a coal-fired electric car will be more efficient.

I think namechamps just got downrated out of personal bitterness than for being wrong (for this particular post at least).


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 5:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think namechamps just got downrated out of personal bitterness than for being wrong (for this particular post at least).
I honestly don't think he should have been downrated but since the buttons there, people are free to use it.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 6:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Internal combustion is utterly off the charts inefficient. Most get 12%-15% efficiencies. Burn gallon of gasoline and get 12% usable energy and 88% waste heat.
I've corrected you on this before. The average ICE gets closer to 25% efficiency over its entire RPM range.

"EV are 90%-95% efficiency plug to wheel."

This figure is overly optimistic also. Line losses in the US average 7.5%. Coloumetric charging efficiency loses 1-2%, and AC/DC conversion losses another 2-4%. You lose a final percent or so in the efficiency of the electric motor.

EVs are still more efficient overall. But the differential is not nearly as large as you pretend.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By namechamps on 3/31/2010 5:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
Line losses would come before the plug.

Vehicle efficiency is traditionally "tank to wheel"

Chemical Energy in gasoline in tank vs actual energy delivered to wheels.

ICE vehicles get about 15% tank-to-wheel efficiency. While engine may get 20%-25% efficiency that is meaningless. Entire vehicle system is what matters. Tank to wheels is 15% on average.

EV are 90%-95% PLUG-to-wheel efficient (Tesla Roadster is 92% for example).

EV have additional losses (power plant efficiency & transmission efficiency).

Still even accounting for those additional losses EV are roughly twice as efficient as Internal Combustion vehicles.

The added bonus is the "fuel" is cheaper also.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 6:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
"EV are 90%-95% PLUG-to-wheel efficient (Tesla Roadster is 92% for example)."

No. The Tesla is 92% efficient battery -to-wheel:

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/tech_specs....

Big difference.

"ICE vehicles get about 15% tank-to-wheel efficiency."

GM-2005 study puts them at 17% on a city driving cycle (which includes a large loss component from idling). On a highway driving cycle, they score much better.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By knowom on 3/30/2010 4:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree with that sentiment though at least the LEAF looks decently priced and more appealing than the VOLT to me.

It would make a lot more sense for the auto makers to push for vehicles to run on natural gas instead is the real issue that bugs me.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 5:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would make a lot more sense for the auto makers to push for vehicles to run on natural gas instead is the real issue that bugs me.
It doesn't matter because none of you are buying these cars anyways. Which exactly supports others assertions that there is little to no demand for these types of cars.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 5:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
There is quite a bit of demand for natural gas cars. Many cities use them in their public transportation/taxis.

Seattle comes to mind...their taxis are chevy impalas with natural gas engines.

there is also a demand for electrics but not at the price that will support their production right now. They've got minimal mass production and heavy R&D dragging them down. Give it a few years and the subsidy will no longer be necessary.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 6:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
"There is quite a bit of demand for natural gas cars. Many cities use them...."

Do you actually not see the problem with your statement?


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 10:06:22 AM , Rating: 2
No, there is no problem with the statement. "There is quite a bit of demand" is vague enough that I could have said "Many small towns with a population of one use them.." and it would still be logically accurate.

Does every post you make have to include some obnoxious air of superiority?


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Iaiken on 3/30/2010 1:59:55 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, you're looking at it all wrong.

If that individual is buying a leaf, odds are they are already paying more than $14,500 in taxes per year.

So really your statement that they are taking money from OTHER tax payers is not as accurate as you would like to think. Though they REALLY need to do something about their power situation... I suggest a campaign of good old, strong handed hippie-crushing!


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Iaiken on 3/30/2010 2:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
Wait... Since we'd probably have to crush all the people who are going to be buying LEAF's... PROBLEM SOLVED! :D

Gentlemen! To your Hummers! Let the crushing begin! :P


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Keeir on 3/30/2010 2:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
Err..

No.

Don't dance around the issue.

If your bill (taxes) for services rendered (Schooling, Roads, Defense, etc) is 20,000 USD. Then only paying 5,500 USD for it, -IS- taking 14,500 from other tax payers.

(California's power situation is not that bad, they can easily absorb several 100,000 electric cars. Far more than Nissian plans to produce for the world in the next few years)


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 2:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
"California's power situation is not that bad, they can easily absorb several 100,000 electric cars."

California is already forced to export more than 20% of its electricity from out of state. Its current power plants are nearly all 30-40 years old and aging fast, and their grid is nearing interconnect capacity to import more.

A single charge on a Nissan LEAF will consume 24+2=26 KWh...slightly more than an average household uses in an entire day. Even assuming its only charged once every other day, that's more than a 50% increase in usage for every household that purchases one of these..and heavy driving could double that.

In theory, spare capacity exists for a few hundred thousand vehicles...if they're all charged at night. In reality, at least some will charge during the day, and even night time charging will complicate repair and maintenance on California's aging fleet of plants, as they are offlined at night for most tasks.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By namechamps on 3/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Government Subsidies...
By JediJeb on 3/31/2010 2:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that means a person who works third shift should not be allowed to purchase an electric vehicle, since they would be at work and could not charge their vehicle at off peak times.

Also that would not work for the extreme north as with electric heating, there is less of a load drop at night when it is the coldest part of the day.

In essence your plan only allows people who live in the south and work first or second shift to own one of these vehicles.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Keeir on 3/31/2010 8:08:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A single charge on a Nissan LEAF will consume 24+2=26 KWh...slightly more than an average household uses in an entire day.


No

Average charge is closer to 18 kWh (into) + 2 kWh (efficieny loss). Why? Lithium Ion batteries are not designed for 100%. Using typical 15%-85%, suggests a full charge is closer to 18 kWh. I know you know this Porkpie, stop pretending like a full charge is 100% the nominal capacity.

quote:
California is already forced to export more than 20% of its electricity from out of state.


Importing power from out of state can be a valid energy stradegy. Nothing says a state must produce 100% of its own power.

quote:
Even assuming its only charged once every other day, that's more than a 50% increase in usage for every household that purchases one of these..and heavy driving could double that.


The average car like the Leaf in terms of size is driven 12,000 miles a year (DOE estimates 12,000 for passenger and 15,000 for all passenger and light truck). At even your 26 kWh per 100 miles, thats more like 3,500 kWh, an increase of ~30% on average, not "more than 50% best case" (DOE estimates ~11,000 kWh per home per year)

quote:
as they are offlined at night for most tasks.


Point me to the power facility that requires -daily- heavy maintaince. I bet most power companies would -welcome- more nighttime charging. Even NG plants, the easiest on/off plants, have significant costs to go offline/online.

Given that California
A.) Is installing Smart Meters everywhere
B.) Power companies are already outlining 5-6 cents per kWh nighttime charging rate plans (savings of more than 10 cents per kWh!)
C.) Electric Cars are programable fairly simply to only draw significant charge at certain times and mobile apps will allow you to change that from your phone or laptop

I seriously doubt more than 20% of charging will occur during peak... not from someone who would actually -purchase- such a car.

I've said it before, California has the generation capacity. Californian Power Generation companies are likely -wanting- electric cars. Californian Power Transmission companies don't. Electric cars can put significant strain on outdated grid equipment. California has alot of that...

Lastly, keep in mind that California has 12 million + households and is home to large amounts of industry. Even at your ridicolous "50%" number, every 100,000 electric cars raises overall residental power demand by ... 00.4%! wooo.....

Your telling me, that you seriously believe that California can not deal with a ~1-2% (additional) increase in residental power demand over like a 5 year period? Or do you really believe that California is going to soak up more than 300,000 electric automobiles in that time?(BTW this is probably less than what is occuring because of increased TV Size, Power, Usage, Number, etc)


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 2:07:37 PM , Rating: 3
"So really your statement that they are taking money from OTHER tax payers is not as accurate as you would like to think"

When large numbers of people pay $15K less in taxes each, that shortfall is going to be made up by charging the rest of us more. Do you really think government is going to cut spending to match what they lose in EV credits?


RE: Government Subsidies...
By JediJeb on 3/31/2010 2:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree here. The only way it would not be spread around is if those who get the tax break are not given any other benefit from that missing tax revenue. That would mean they would have to be limited in how much they use the roads since they paid less taxes, how much they use public parks and such since those lost some of their tax money and so on and so forth.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 2:24:07 PM , Rating: 5
Sometimes I think the problem in Washington isn't the people in Washington but all of us instead.

So debate the effectiveness of the idea if you want but here is the gist:

We incur some short term pain like extra taxes for the long term goal of: getting off foreign oil, reducing our energy costs, transitioning to a more modern transportation infrastructure, spewing less CO2, encouraging technology investments (ie tomorrows cars won't need a subsidy because they'll rock), etc etc..

Maybe this particular subsidy is or is not the best way to accomplish the goals..it's not my point to join a side of this argument.

My point is this:
Any time a politician proposes we do something that is painful in the short term to make long or very long term progress we all freak the fvkc out.

People from the left will strangle them because they don't like some aspect of it. People on the right will freak because it's more spending. Ultimately nothing gets done that will have an impact more than 2-6 years out because if politicians don't show results withing a single term they get fired.

meh. I'll probably just get modded to oblivion for even mentioning it.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 3:00:52 PM , Rating: 3
You can sugar-coat it all you want but this subsidy is *not* a good solution. If the goal is to spur innovation, then fund research directly. A government "X prize" for the first company to produce a battery pack of a given size, weight, charge capacity, and cost would do far more than subsidizing the production of inferior products that, without heavy subsidies, can't be sold.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
I told you I'm not taking a side nor am I trying to sugar coat anything. Perhaps you should read my post?

I'll meet you in the middle...lets talk about yours.

Your "X prize".. where does that money come from? Tax money? Sounds like more "tax and spend" liberal crap to me.


See what I'm saying? Who cares what the long term gains are?


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 3:05:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We incur some short term pain like extra taxes for the long term goal of
If this were true most of us here could accept it. But, this is almost never true, taxes are raised and kept there. That's the problem with your statement. And it's more than just simple whining and complaining when taxes are raised. That's, literally, money not spent elsewhere like food, clothing, retirement, vacations, kids, cars, homes, charities, and etc. People have less to spend, so they spend less. When people spend less, there are less taxes received (sales, property and etc taxes).

California is the perfect example of what happens when people slow their spending. It hasn't stopped but it has slowed. It's nearly bankrupting the state. So all industries and services suffer the loss too. You might argue, well it's just one thing being raised. Well, it's never one thing. Los Angeles wants to increase water and power rates, the state of CA wants to raise taxes to combat "global warming", CA has already raised sales taxes. Get my drift here?

Most people don't have issue with schools, police, fire, roads or any other service paid by taxes because we ALL directly benefit from those services. They're proven to be effective and there's irrefutable data to back that up. not to mention, we all agree that these services are beneficial. Electric cars has not proven to be of any benefit other than a feel good measure. There's no scientific studies to say, x = y. And most people don't want them cause they keep buying gasoline cars!!!!

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autos...

If the automakers want to make cars like the Leaf, have at it. I don't care. If some small niche of people wants to buy them, have at it. I don't care. But don't try to shove your crap down my throat. I don't force you to subsidize my sports car, another niche market, don't force me to subsidize your electric car.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Shig on 3/30/2010 3:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's offensive how people hate on 'Green' subsidies when the majority of government subsidies go to crude oil and coal, MAKING THEM CHEAPER BY DEFAULT THAN OTHER SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGIES.

2002-2008, Government subsidized 72.5 billion US dollars to Fossil Fuels, as opposed to 29.0 billion US dollars to renewable energy.

Those figures don't even include any dollars spent on the war in Iraq.

How about we subsidize them equally and see what happens. And the original poster gets a 5 rating because he bashes 'Green' tech with absolutely no knowledge of true government subsidy spending.

Joke


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 3:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa, so many errors in such a short post. First of all, your $72B figure comes from the Environmental Law Institute. DOE studies typically come up with values far smaller than that.

Secondly, those values include tax credits and other incentives for energy companies to study or finance carbon sequestration projects that make fossil fuels MORE expensive, not less. They also include billions in what ELI calls "tax gimmicks" which, even if we accept their evaluation, are not specific to the fossil fuel industry, but rather corporate tax cuts in general.

Further, the vast majority of the figure results from changes in the tax code, and are in no way, shape, or form a direct subsidy. For instance, the depletion credit that allows an oil firm to more naturally represent the declining value of an oil field over time, and thus not pay taxes on value they don't actually hold. ELI calls that a subsidy. To the rest of the world, its sheer common sense.

Finally, as for funding the two sources equally, in one case, we have a source that supplies over 90% of world energy. In the other, a source that supplies 1%...and without major technological advances in many areas, can never supply more than a few percent. Funding them equally would be sheer insanity, on that basis alone.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By The0ne on 3/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 6:36:47 PM , Rating: 3
"You do realize that most innovations comes from someone providing the funding to get the R&D off."

You do realize there is a difference between the government funding research and subsidizing the production of actual products, right?

"My 2nd science project was on photovoltaic cells back in the early 80's. Not much has been gain in that amount of time due to lack on interest "

Good god, what nonsense is this? Worldwide solar PV research has been funded to the tune of over a billion per year since the late 1970s, and even more on solar power in general


RE: Government Subsidies...
By The0ne on 3/31/2010 9:49:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I do :) I also realize that IF EV takes off there will be more FUNDING, no doubt. Do you doubt this or any type of tech?

There is no doubt there are funding and subsidizes for solar and other types of renewable. My point, once again lost in your incomprehension, is that funding is really not up to par as with other fields of study. There is a reason why renewable energy sources have not develop as quickly as other fields and there is NO doubt in my mind you know one of the reason(s) why.

And secondly, I have been involved in solar and wind til now from my science project back then...in the INDUSTRY. Where is your credential? Google? You talk a lot of good talk and Google some amazing numbers but you know diddly squat as with most of what we talk about.

And as always, comprehension, go fcking find it dumbass.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 11:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
"There is a reason why renewable energy sources have not develop as quickly as other fields"

The reason is basic physics. Wind and solar are both incredibly diffuse sources. They're also variable, and thus not able to be matched to demand.

The kinetic energy from every ant on the planet is more than enough to power world electric needs. Why don't you see the research field of harnessing "ant energy" taking off? Because collecting and concentrating that energy in a useful form is extraordinarily difficult.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By The0ne on 3/31/2010 12:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
Again, don't disagree with you at all. But if do want a field of study to advance further investment must be there. How can you expect the yield to improve without R&D? How did semiconductor production improve without continued research? Look where we're at now when talks of 1GHz was the limit.

The point is if you want something to prosper and advance there must be financial support. If the product is supported more and more, as in production products (EVs), then more research and more funding will be available and "hopefully" these subsidizes will be minimal or even eliminated completed.

There is absolutely no reason for me to cite any examples as I KNOW you know what I'm talking about. Whether you hate how Green has done, there must be some common sense to try to find and advance new "renewable" energy sources to meet our demands.

I don't advocate any single one source or solution for our energy and Green needs. If you want to try to do you part I think it's ok to recycle cans and be done with it. That is one more than the person NOT doing it. Who the fck is spuke to comment about his stepdaughter life as though his life is any better? That's irony in the most ignorant fashion. It is as though she is wasting her time and life away by how she lives it, while it's ok for him and you to come here and babble with strangers on topics you've Googled.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 1:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
"How did semiconductor production improve without continued research?"

False dilemma. Reseach to the tune of billions per year has been happening for the last 30 years.

Worse, subsidizing production of actual products may actual reduce research into better alternatives, as the focus will now shift to supporting the existing infrastructure of products...products unable to stand on their own without government subsidy.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By The0ne on 3/30/2010 4:03:55 PM , Rating: 1
It is actually a cruel joke. It's get so bad that some politicians will directly fund a company because of self interest. There's a term for this but I'm forgetting :) I have several stories to tell of these subsidies and funding lol. Basically it starts as becoming friends with the politician or government person in charge, then getting whatever you want afterward :) This was done with FCC as well :D

And while I do agree that subsidies are not the best way to go about doing this, leaving it up to the government to spend how they choose has already been shown to be a really bad scenario to be in. This, obviously, applies to other types of research and technology areas.

And yes, CA is not doing well in energy, water and finance. People who don't live here don't know what's been going on in the cities and shouldn't be saying it's ok for companies to produce EVs to their full capacity.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 3:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
All your arguments are about short term pain. Do you really think a sports car will be using gasoline in 100 years?

Why is our government taxing the living crap out of us for some of these things? Why aren't we doing it better?

Why for example do we just keep taxing to pay for roads then tearing up those same roads with tractor trailers hauling goods all over the place? We all know that rail is a far more cost effective method of transportation. Why not suck it up and get some rail infrastructure in place? The costs to taxpayers over the course of many decades would be lower.

What about those schools you mention.. Why on earth are your kids lugging around $100 worth of bound printed paper in their backpacks? Why not go with ebooks and hire another teacher to lower that student ratio?

Politicians are just too chicken to make a tough long term call...because their opponent will rip them to shreds in some negative advertisement next November... "my opponent wants to raise YOUR taxes to buy ebook readers just so..."


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 4:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All your arguments are about short term pain.
LOL! I just gave you an argument on why they're NOT short term and you ignore it because you BELIEVE that this must be done. I don't argue about religious beliefs so our conversation is done.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 4:42:16 PM , Rating: 1
We'll after that little rant I'm glad our conversation is done. I'll hold you to that statement while I slip in the last word..

If you gave an argument on why short term pain for long term gains is actually long term pain then you failed. You did not make your point and in fact you muddled it so bad that I didn't even recognize that you were trying to make one.

Insinuating that someone disagrees with you must be doing so out of "religious beliefs" just illustrates that you are close minded and cannot comprehend that someone might disagree with you for legitimate reasons.

I'm not even sure what it is you think I "believe must be done". Did I say something should be done? If so what is this thing? I don't even know what the thing is so I'm having a hard time believing that I believe.

Meh, anyway. I'm glad you ragequit out of the conversation. :)


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 4:09:23 PM , Rating: 3
"Why on earth are your kids lugging around $100 worth of bound printed paper in their backpacks? Why not go with ebooks and hire another teacher?"

Why can't people do simple math? That $100 in books will last around five years, costing about $20 per student per year. An eBook is going to cost at least twice that -- then you'll have to pay royalties for the electronic form of the books, and deal with the much higher costs from lost, stolen, or broken e-Readers.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 4:31:38 PM , Rating: 3
Congratulations you just argued that printed books are more cost effective than ebooks.

quote:
That $100 in books will last around five years, costing about $20 per student per year.


Now that I think about it you make perfect sense. You'll have to buy one ebook reader for each class that each student takes...I mean they can't actually have more than one book on a single reader right? We'll also have to throw them all in the trash after the year is over...after all there is such thing as a used book but whoever heard of a used e-reader? We'll then have to pay those "royalties" for getting an ebook. Printed books don't have royalties do they? We'll also have to pay the printing costs on top of it! It cost a LOT to print electrons.

phukit...I'm not even going here. You're seriously trying to debate that printed books are more expensive than electronic books.

You're also utterly *missing the point*. Ebooks was brought up just to illustrate a larger concept about long term ideas. If I have to come up with the actual long-term ideas before I'm allowed to say "long term ideas are good" then you'll be waiting a while.

It's better just to nit-pick at the unimportant than actually think I guess.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 4:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's better just to ignore the important than actually think I guess.
Fixed that for you.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 4:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks. The guy in the mirror must have suggested that to you.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 6:51:00 PM , Rating: 3
".after all there is such thing as a used book but whoever heard of a used e-reader? "

Please try to think clearly. It's really not that difficult. Yes, readers can be used multiple years. Their effective lifetime is still going to be less than that of a book, unless you pay five times as much for a ruggedized version that can survive years of rough usage, children's backpacks, lunchroom spills, etc.

And the theft and breakdown rate is going to be far higher as well -- see many 8th graders interested in stealing a science book? Or many hardcover history books with a broken screen or missing keyboard?

" Ebooks was brought up just to illustrate a larger concept about long term ideas. If I have to come up with the actual long-term ideas before I'm allowed to say "long term ideas are good" then you'll be waiting a while."

In other words, you realize the idea was incorrect and the analogy flawed, but you want me to accept your conclusion anyway?

Some long term ideas are good. Rebuilding our entire transportation infrastructure in the hopes that one day we'll have decent battery technology to support it is not one of them. If and when EVs are more practical than ICE's, that's the time to make changes.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 9:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please try to think clearly. It's really not that difficult.

Condescension just makes you look like a childish tool. Your argument is not so strong that you can take a lecturing tone.
quote:
Yes, readers can be used multiple years. Their effective lifetime is still going to be less than that of a book,

Books will be replaced long before they "wear out".
quote:
unless you pay five times as much for a ruggedized version that can survive years of rough usage, children's backpacks, lunchroom spills, etc.


After that whole spiel about "think clearly" and "it's not that difficult" you then post this? It's not an unsolvable problem. Issue them with a tough protective cover for $19.95. Done.

quote:
In other words, you realize the idea was incorrect and the analogy flawed, but you want me to accept your conclusion anyway?


No. Read again.

quote:
Some long term ideas are good.


...and finally back to my point. We rarely get long term ideas proposed because our lawmakers get ripped to shreds every time a long term idea is bundled with any sort of short term inconvenience.

quote:
Rebuilding our entire transportation infrastructure in the hopes that one day we'll have decent battery technology to support it is not one of them. If and when EVs are more practical than ICE's, that's the time to make changes.


As I said in my original post: I'm not taking a stand one way or another on this particular issue. A lot of your posts indicate you don't understand this.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 12:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
"Books will be replaced long before they "wear out"."

Are you pretending to be this obtuse? A book isn't going to be replaced more than once every 5 years. It's replacement lifetime is longer than the effective lifetime of an electronic reader.

" Issue them with a tough protective cover for $19.95. Done."

Any cover thick, strong, and padded enough to protect from all drops, shocks, spills, and other hazards is going to require you to take the reader out to use it. Which rather invalidates the purpose, now doesn't it?

And what about the problems of theft? And failure? Does that protective cover solve those?

Honestly, this is the most asinine comment you've made yet. Every year millions of laptops - many of them far more expensive than a simple reader - are broken or stolen. If people could solve that problem with a "$19.95 cover", don't you think they would?


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 1:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you pretending to be this obtuse?


I told you. Being condescending just makes you look like a child. You've done it to me and everyone else you debate with. Try being civil and letting the readers of our little discussion make judgments about who is being obtuse.

quote:
A book isn't going to be replaced more than once every 5 years. It's replacement lifetime is longer than the effective lifetime of an electronic reader.


I'll agree that may be true today. Digging a bit on this shows that *some* books can even be kept around for 8 years but the reason for this is their excessive cost...which happens to be the exact reason to use eBooks.

School administrators can pickup eBooks for like $5 when the hardbound is $30. If a kid has just five books you're saving enough to cover the cost of the eReader the very first semester. (I think that's overly optimistic but the true numbers will still make it cost effective.)

quote:
Any cover thick, strong, and padded enough to protect from all drops, shocks, spills, and other hazards

Easy man. We don't need to turn this thing into a flight data recorder. It's going to fall off a desk sometimes, not fall into a volcano. Show some common sense.
quote:
is going to require you to take the reader out to use it. Which rather invalidates the purpose, now doesn't it?


Have you even looked at covers available for eReaders? Go on..do a search (we'll wait). You're trying to make this far more complicated than it really is just to support your argument. Nobody is falling for it. Your words..

quote:
unless you pay five times as much for a ruggedized version


el, oh, el. That's really it isn't it? You think eBooks are expensive because you're trying to calculate a $1000+ eReader.

quote:
And what about the problems of theft? And failure? Does that protective cover solve those?


Nope. A certain percentage will indeed be lost, fail, or be damaged.

quote:
Honestly, this is the most asinine comment you've made yet.


Easy child. There you go again.

quote:
Every year millions of laptops - many of them far more expensive than a simple reader - are broken or stolen. If people could solve that problem with a "$19.95 cover", don't you think they would?


Every year millions MORE laptops survive normal wear and tear and are not stolen. You act like it's some kind of epidemic... The moment someone has an eReader a team of ninjas drops from the ceiling and starts throwing cinder blocks and hot coffee at them.

Again you are just blowing this out of proportion to try and bolster your argument. It won't work.

Today's kids have grown up with electronics are more than capable of taking care of an eReader (especially high-school). A decent cover for the thing will help with normal wear and tear. Theft will happen of course but again don't blow it out of proportion.

If this is such a horrible idea why are so many schools considering it? Go use teh intarwebs and search the topic.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 1:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
"School administrators can pickup eBooks for like $5 when the hardbound is $30"

Sorry, you don't know the market. Textbooks are not bestsellers. Fees paid to the author and editor are a much higher percentage compared to per-unit costs of printing and binding, as you have fewer copies to amortize over.

Electronic textbooks are ALREADY being offered, and their cost is exactly 50% of the price of the bound copy..the figure I quoted:

http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/07/29/7-...

Care to try again?

"Every year millions MORE laptops survive normal wear and tear and are not stolen."

Again, you seem to be being intentionally obtuse. The 3-year failure rate on laptops is just over 20%. The per-year theft rate is about 3%, making the 3 year rate nearly 10%. These are for laptops handled by adults .

At schools, with equipment handled by children, both problems will be much worse. Even barring loss from theft or accident, you still have the average lifespan to contend with, which certainly won't be more than 5 years.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 4:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"School administrators can pickup eBooks for like $5 when the hardbound is $30"

Sorry, you don't know the market. Textbooks are not bestsellers. Fees paid to the author and editor are a much higher percentage compared to per-unit costs of printing and binding, as you have fewer copies to amortize over.


You're right. I got that figure ($30 vs $5) from the Cushing Academy in Ashburnham, Mass which is switching books at the school libary (which is mostly NON textbooks)

quote:
Electronic textbooks are ALREADY being offered, and their cost is exactly 50% of the price of the bound copy..the figure I quoted:

http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/07/29/7-...

Care to try again?


Sure. How about I try again by clicking a link at the bottom of the page you just showed me. It leads to a page that says this:

"$64.47 average savings per eTextbook purchased on CourseSmart this month"

Still think it's more cost effective to stick with paper?

So what do they really cost? Here is the ISBN for an algebra book for example: 9780321443625

It's a list price of $122 but you can find them in used+good condition for $90. Lets go with say $100 and your figure of 50% off for the electronic version. In that case you would really need even fewer books purchased to offset the cost of an eReader.

Thanks for proving my point! Really I mean it. I was thinking some $25 savings per eBook but it's actually much higher.

quote:
Again, you seem to be being intentionally obtuse. The 3-year failure rate on laptops is just over 20%. The per-year theft rate is about 3%, making the 3 year rate nearly 10%. These are for laptops handled by adults .


You screwed up the boldface. Here let me fix it for you...

quote:
Again, you seem to be being intentionally obtuse. The 3-year failure rate on laptops is just over 20%. The per-year theft rate is about 3%, making the 3 year rate nearly 10%. These are for laptops handled by adults .


There ya go. You're talking about the wrong thing. We're talking about ebook readers. There are similarities (they break when you drop them and they get stolen) but as a whole they are much more durable devices than laptops. (you'll probably call me obtuse and argue about it though)
quote:
At schools, with equipment handled by children, both problems will be much worse.


I'm not going to really argue against this point but I think you're wrong in arguing for it. Kids steal each others's stuff but why steal an ebook when you already have an ebook? How many drinks do kids spill on their paper schoolbooks now? I think you're exaggerating the problem again but it doesn't matter...more in a sec..

quote:
Even barring loss from theft or accident, you still have the average lifespan to contend with, which certainly won't be more than 5 years.


They haven't been out long enough for us to really know but that's a reasonable assumption for a lot of electronics. Mind you this is a compact one with no moving parts, no hinges, no hard drives etc. The battery doesn't get lit up the way a laptop battery does.

But like I said, a reasonable assumption. It doesn't matter though. Go back and look at those numbers again. At a $50 savings per book (or $64 per your link) you could afford to give out several eReaders to each child and still save money.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 4:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"$64.47 average savings per eTextbook purchased on CourseSmart this month"

Still think it's more cost effective to stick with paper?

So what do they really cost? Here is the ISBN for an algebra book
Good lord, how you do love to shift the goalposts. The figures (and the book you reference) are for college-level textbooks. College-level texts are much more expensive and, they're also not bought in bulk. Public schools purchase cheaper books, and at a substantial bulk discount.

quote:
You're talking about the wrong thing. We're talking about ebook readers. There are similarities (they break when you drop them and they get stolen) but as a whole they are much more durable devices than laptops.
All evidence points to the contary. They're both electronic devices with screens, cpus, and batteries, wrapped in plastic. The Kindle, in fact, seems to have a failure rate higher than your average laptop:

http://www.kindlenewsandreviews.com/kindle-owners-...


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Smilin on 4/1/2010 11:05:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good lord, how you do love to shift the goalposts. The figures (and the book you reference) are for college-level textbooks. College-level texts are much more expensive and, they're also not bought in bulk. Public schools purchase cheaper books, and at a substantial bulk discount.


I'm not sure I consider "intermediate algebra" to be college level but whatever.

No matter how you slice it there is a substantial savings using eBooks. So much so that the readers pay for themselves perhaps several times over.

For new york times best sellers it's about half off a $20 book so it takes about 20-25 books to pay for the device. If the book price goes up so does the overall $$ savings. School books tend to be on the expensive side so you could go as low as 3-4 books if you consider $100+ college books. High school is likely somewhere in the middle.

quote:
All evidence points to the contary. They're both electronic devices with screens, cpus, and batteries, wrapped in plastic. The Kindle, in fact, seems to have a failure rate higher than your average laptop:


I can only offer the anecdote of my own use. I've got a version 1 Kindle and it's been flawless (and survives a 4 year old kid). Such failures as described though do nothing to alter the savings of using eBooks. Those failures are covered under warranty for free.

Porkpie I think we've beat this to death now. I get the feeling you're just enjoying the debate but all factors considered to you really think eBooks are not economical for schools? If not, where do you think things need to be before it makes sense?


RE: Government Subsidies...
By headbox on 3/30/2010 5:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
No, not paid for other tax payers. Only 1/3 of the federal budget comes from individual taxes, but obviously you didn't know that.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 6:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Only 1/3 of the federal budget comes from individual taxes,"

100% of the federal budget comes from individuals. If you own a 401K, pension fund, or stock of any kind, you're paying a full share of corporate income tax, the form of lower profits from taxes corporations. Even if you don't, you're paying a partial share in the form of higher prices for goods and services.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By ebakke on 3/31/2010 1:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed! Finally someone else gets it. I don't see how this is so difficult for people. A corporation is just a group of people. Taxes on the corporation are merely taxes on either the owners, or their customers. (Well, in reality, both.)

People honestly think Wal-Mart just pays taxes based on some magical pile of "Wal-Mart money" that the evil CEOs found somewhere. And that the cost of the Snickers bar is completely independent from Wal-Mart's tax burden. That if Wal-Mart's tax rate went up, the Snickers price wouldn't go up as well.

It's so simple - every penny of the government's income comes from individuals. Some of it is taken from you directly, and some of it is taken from someone you gave money to.


RE: Government Subsidies...
By CharonPDX on 3/30/2010 7:24:26 PM , Rating: 1
Because of course this money COULDN'T have come from the taxpayer who is claiming it...


RE: Government Subsidies...
By Hiawa23 on 3/31/2010 1:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that seems like alot of tax payers dollars & alot of hassle. No thanks, I think I will just stick with my gasoline vehicles. I know it might be alittle too late but I would like for our govt to find ways to bring down the cost of fuel as this is what most of our vehicles uses & most of us aint going out to buy these green vehicles, & in this economy most average people can't afford that. Get fuel costs down, that's what I want to see. You(Our Govt)had decades to figure something out.

These green vehicles are not going to be the answer for most of us.....


Politics
By DrApop on 3/30/2010 3:05:08 PM , Rating: 1
I see the anti-green politicians have successfully skewed the electric vehicle concept.

It is NOT just about being green. it is about beginning to rid ourselves from the oil conglomerates who are sucking the life out of us.

Or if you don't like that one....it is about ridding ourselves from being held hostage to foreign oil. We product the coal. We produce the natural gas.

so let's all get off of the Green-is-bad and it's too liberal bashing. There is more than one reason to go for the hybrid and/or electric vehicle.




RE: Politics
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 3:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
". it is about beginning to rid ourselves from the oil conglomerates who are sucking the life out of us."

Talk about emotional hyperbole substituting for common sense. The average family spends nearly 10 times as much on their car payment, insurance, and maintenance as they do on fuel for that car. And even more than that on their home.

But oil companies are "sucking the life out of us" whereas automakers and home builders are not? Come again?

As for our being "held hostage" to foreign oil, we could eliminate that nearly overnight if we were allowed to pump our domestic sources. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to do that...thanks to those Greens you're glorifying.


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 3:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The average family spends nearly 10 times as much on their car payment, insurance, and maintenance as they do on fuel for that car.


I disagree. My car is paid off. I spend more on fuel than I do insurance and maintenance so "10 times as much" is a crock.


RE: Politics
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 3:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
The average car owner trades in their vehicle at 55,000 miles, or 4.5 years. You're in no manner 'average'.

I won't even go into your glaring error of failing to amortize your original acquisition cost over your ownership of the vehicle.


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 5:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Although glaring it wasn't an error. Rather than amortize over the years of ownership then compare that to a different vehicle and then amortize that one over the years of ownership why don't you just eliminate the same variable from both sides of the equation and be done with it? You seem to have a habit of picking apart the irrelevant.

My car is paid off. The ongoing costs are dominated by the cost of gas. (NOT anything else)

If I owned an electric the car would still be paid off. The ongoing costs would be dominated by non-gas related costs.

You're assuming that because I paid off my car that I've had it for more than 55k miles or 4.5 years. Neither is the case. Nonetheless I'll cede the point: I'm not an "average" consumer...I actually pay for sh1t instead of borrowing.


RE: Politics
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 8:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
"why don't you just eliminate the same variable from both sides of the equation and be done with it? Y"

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? When comparing fuel costs to total vehicle costs, the purchase price isn't an 'irrelevant variable'. It's the primary one. Whether you finance a vehicle or purchase outright, you're still going to spend far more on the car than you do on its fuel.

We can simplify the argument further. The average consumer drives 12K miles/year. That's roughly $1400/yr in fuel costs -- or about 2.5% of the average household budget.

So explain how oil companies are "draining us dry", though the average consumer spends far more to the automaker or the home builder than to the oil company. Most familes spend more on toys for their kids than they do on fuel.


RE: Politics
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/2010 9:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much a slam dunk argument imo. Porkie wins. It's not even rocket science guys, common sense.


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 10:03:28 AM , Rating: 1
If you two use your superpowers to merge you'll have a full brain.


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 10:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

No, I think they dropped while you were here . Don't take my word for it though. Lets use your numbers..
quote:
The average family spends nearly 10 times as much on their car payment, insurance, and maintenance as they do on fuel for that car.

quote:

The average consumer drives 12K miles/year. That's roughly $1400/yr in fuel costs

quote:
The average car owner trades in their vehicle at 55,000 miles, or 4.5 years.


Aight, here we go porkpie.

1400 x 4.5 x 10 = C
Where C is "car payment, insurance, and maintenance"

So to make your argument stand we're talking $63,000 .

Insurance over those 4.5 years would be less than 10k. (teh intarwebs says the average is < 1800/year)

A quick peek over to cars.com tells me I can pickup a Cadillac DTS, 2010 Corvette, or 2010 BMW 528i for just under $50k. Does that sound right to you? Lets answer in your own words:

quote:
You're in no manner 'average'.


RE: Politics
By porkpie on 3/31/2010 12:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
"A quick peek over to cars.com tells me I can pickup a Cadillac DTS, 2010 Corvette, or 2010 BMW 528i for just under $50k."

First of all, the purchase price of a vehicle is only a small part of the equation. Finance charges, insurance, maintenance, parking (some people pay $100+/month just to park ), and other costs add up. In my own case, I pay nearly $4000/year just to insure 3 cars (no accidents, but a teen driver on the policy).

Secondly, the figure I gave was "nearly" 10X. The actual study figure was in the range of 8.5-9.0. That study was also done when gas was around $2. Since gas is a bit higher now, I switched to the fuel-cost per total income basis, which was simpler and more accurate for the point at hand.

Third and most importantly -- why are you ignoring the real point here? You claimed oil companies are "sucking us dry". I've asked you three times to justify this salacious little remark. Three times, you've refused point blank to even address it.

Why?


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 1:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, the purchase price of a vehicle is only a small part of the equation. Finance charges, insurance, maintenance, parking (some people pay $100+/month just to park ), and other costs add up. In my own case, I pay nearly $4000/year just to insure 3 cars (no accidents, but a teen driver on the policy).


Ah, so your numbers didn't add up and now you're changing the story. We'll tack on Parking, teenagers, and three cars per person now huh? Classy. You would have been better off just going with this...

quote:
Secondly, the figure I gave was "nearly" 10X.


Ok fair enough. My argument was that the 10x is wrong. If that's not what you are saying then I'm fine.

quote:
Third and most importantly -- why are you ignoring the real point here? You claimed oil companies are "sucking us dry". I've asked you three times to justify this salacious little remark. Three times, you've refused point blank to even address it.

Why?


Why? How about because I made no such claims. You've allowed yourself to get so caught up in arguing that you don't realize you're arguing with the wrong person. The guy who said that is long gone.

At least you didn't slip in some condescending remark this time. Kudos on that.


RE: Politics
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 4:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I disagree. My car is paid off. I spend more on fuel than I do insurance and maintenance so "10 times as much" is a crock.
My underwear is paid off. Doesn't mean it didn't cost anything.


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 5:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
/facepalm.

Well good for you and congratulations on your successful underwear purchase. What is your point?

Mine was this: The cost of operating a gas powered car will be higher than operating an electric car. A paid off car (in BOTH cases) serves to illustrate operational costs with initial costs removed from the equation (in BOTH cases).


RE: Politics
By WW102 on 3/30/2010 9:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you remove inital cost from the equation? Need to look at total cost of ownership.


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 10:16:16 AM , Rating: 2
Just figure that initial cost and maintenance would be *roughly* the same from car to car. They are not identical for sure but at least today with a subsidy an electric and gas will be "close enough" that you can drop them.


RE: Politics
By Kurz on 3/30/2010 11:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
You have to look at the entire life of owning a vehicle.
First you buy the car. <- Biggest Cost
Then you spend cash on Fuel <- makes up a small portion.
Then you Spend money on maintenance.<-depends on luck of draw.

Yes operating cost is greater for Gas car.
However, if you can get the same car for 10,000 dollars cheaper. It'll take 10+ years before electric comes close to matching the gas car.

(I know I am leaving out maintenance, but that is pretty cheap anyway.)


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 10:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah there are HUGE numbers of variables.. how long do you keep it? What's the battery replacement cost? What's the resale value when you're done with it (huge variable), etc etc.

Trying to have a discussion on the interwebs that included all of these would be akin to being master of ceremonies at the special Olympics opening ceremony. :)

My original point in this fork of the discussion is that I disagree with this statement:

quote:
The average family spends nearly 10 times as much on their car payment, insurance, and maintenance as they do on fuel for that car.


Needless to say I got off track.


RE: Politics
By thurston on 3/30/2010 4:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for our being "held hostage" to foreign oil, we could eliminate that nearly overnight if we were allowed to pump our domestic sources. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to do that...thanks to those Greens you're glorifying.


Why use up all our oil first? It would be much better to use up all the other oil in the world then drill ours.


RE: Politics
By theapparition on 3/31/2010 7:26:50 AM , Rating: 3
Which I believe is the unofficial US policy.

Drain those fvckers dry, and all they'll be left with is sand.


RE: Politics
By clovell on 3/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 3:46:49 PM , Rating: 1
You need to take that shit over to the foxnews forums buddy. Your broken capslock will fit right in over there.


RE: Politics
By clovell on 3/31/2010 10:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, maybe they'd be able to fashion an intelligent counter-arguement instead of b!tching about the use of caps here and there to make a point.

How about you explain how subsidizing $14k of a vehicle purchase price isn't wasting taxpayer dollars when we have much more important issues to deal with. You could as easily put a Kia Rio in every driveway and come out better for it. In case you haven't noticed, we're running trillion dollars deficits year-over-year in a recession - not good business.

You need to either STFU or make a point that pertains to the thread. gg on the reply - you may have managed to take me down a notch, but you didn't touch the arguement. Classy.


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 11:13:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You need to either STFU or make a point that pertains to the thread.

Please see my numerous other posts. Just a wild guess: you don't actually read what others write unless they are responding to your posts. You'll fit right in at fox.
quote:
gg on the reply - you may have managed to take me down a notch,

Thanks but you did that yourself with the ranting whargarble and the capslock.
quote:
but you didn't touch the arguement. Classy.


lol. You're still missing the point. I didn't actually pay any attention to your argument. Go over to foxnews and spew it again...someone there will read it I'm sure.


RE: Politics
By clovell on 3/31/2010 1:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not gonna read through 133 comments before I continue to post in a thread that you haven't contributed anything to.

If you've made points in other threads, then reference them in your post, FFS, instead of expecting me to do a literature search when you feel like crapping on a thread with your 'lolol - go post over at fox news forums - lolol' BS, which is arguably far more ignorant and obnoxious than using caps every now and again.

You still haven't addressed the point.


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 4:39:24 PM , Rating: 1
For my next trick I'm going to grab your forearm and make you smack yourself in the face while repeating "stop hitting yourself clovell, stop hitting yourself..."

quote:
by clovell
You need to either STFU or make a point that pertains to the thread.
quote:
by Smilin
Please see my numerous other posts. Just a wild guess: you don't actually read what others write unless they are responding to your posts.
quote:
by clovell
I'm not gonna read through 133 comments before I continue to post in a thread that you haven't contributed anything to.


God you made that easy.

quote:
If you've made points in other threads, then reference them in your post, FFS, instead of expecting me to do a literature search

So you won't read others but you expect them to read you? Interesting worldview. And... you don't know how to search. Do this: Hit Ctrl-F then type "smilin".

quote:
when you feel like crapping on a thread with your 'lolol - go post over at fox news forums - lolol' BS, which is arguably far more ignorant and obnoxious than using caps every now and again.


Um. I think you need to scroll up. This is the definition of crapping...

quote:
FOOD taken from the MOUTHS of our CHILDREN and THROWN in the TRASH so that SOME HIPSTER can FEEL GOOD about his GEOPOLITICS on OIL DEPENDENCY that doesn't mean JACK SHIT to MALCOLM MIDDLECLASS all while BRAGGING to his friends how he got a GREAT DEAL on the latest ECO-FAD. WOW, what a SACRIFICE he's made for the GREATER GOOD.


See what I mean? I didn't crap on your thread. I put candy sprinkles on it.

quote:
You still haven't addressed the point.


Yeah..still haven't really paid any attention to it either. I find your anger and bitterness amusing though. Does that count?


RE: Politics
By Smilin on 3/31/2010 4:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
Tell you what. I'm gonna be civil and tell you what's up..

When you do a rant (which is what you did) people tune it out. If you tack capslock on it just makes it worse.

I'm betting if you had used your later post ("explain how subsidizing $14k"...etc) as your first post you would have gotten some decent responses instead of a downrate and a minor flame. I may have even responded myself. As it stands though I'm already engaged in other discussions and won't spend the effort on this one.

You're welcome to continue the back and forth with me but at this point I'm just poking you with a stick to get amusement from your reaction.

Perhaps next time..


RE: Politics
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 3:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so let's all get off of the Green-is-bad and it's too liberal bashing. There is more than one reason to go for the hybrid and/or electric vehicle.
You want to be green? Don't buy anything new. This is how my stepdaughter lives and I commend her for living that way although you won't see me doing it. Sure she buys food, plane tickets and such. Things you really can't buy used and occasionally she does buy new things (she's human afterall). As far as I'm concerned, that's green.

If you buy new, you're contributing to pollution and waste on a MUCH larger scale than someone that buys everything used no matter how you label it.

Go Green, Go Used.


RE: Politics
By The0ne on 3/30/2010 4:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You want to be green? Don't buy anything new. This is how my stepdaughter lives and I commend her for living that way although you won't see me doing it


I think this is the exact reason(s) why you and Porkpie don't like "Green." And that's perfectly fine mind you. Yet it's not fine to you and Porkpie when others "try" to be green? Lets be fair here, there is NO absolute Green. All you can do is "try" to be as green as you can. You can't persuade others to join your cause unless they want to. What is wrong with trying to live a Greener life even if it's just recycling.

The problem with people like you and Porkpie is that you're thinking no matter what these Green people do they aren't doing it right. The funniest part about that is that there is no right. There is just a try the best you can, for most of us. And I have no doubt you and Porkpie will have a response to this as well. I could actually guess them response now but I think it'll more enjoyable to see what comes out.

Ultimately, if the two of you don't want to bother and have tons of reasons as not to, I'm 100% sure you can also come up with tons of reasons to not doing anything that might be green/clean. Seriously, think about this for a minute yet.

You don't try to save money on energy, food, gas, clothing, trips, etc.? You are not concern about what your kids does around you, your home, the neighborhood? (assuming of course you teach them the same exact values as you hold). And on a more cynical context, why bother telling your kids to move away from smoggy cities, from inhaling dangerous gaes (unintentionally of course) since they are not a big deal. Whether you like it or not, the two of you are trying to do something that is either the "right" thing to do in your view, the right thing for your kids growing up, and/or because it's the sensible thing to do.

And as I offered to many people before using the same comments as you two, come by and see me and my lawyer and I'll show you what CO2 can do :) Legally. Bring your kids too. You just need to sign the papers really. I promise you, it's legal (according the to judge that approved it) and it's something that happens every so often with people and their cars. If this doesn't convince the two of you, then....well, you guys probably won't survive the test.


RE: Politics
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 5:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think this is the exact reason(s) why you and Porkpie don't like "Green."
Ok.


RE: Politics
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 6:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
"I think this is the exact reason(s) why you and Porkpie don't like "Green.""

The reason I don't like "Green" is that its based on a fallacious world-view that has done far more to harm humanity than help it. At its very roots is the pernicious, misanthropic idea that anything we do to modify nature is inherently evil and destructive, that "nature" is good, and mankind and all his works bad.

"Green" thinking banned DDT, killing millions of people from increased malaria rates. It's kept dirty coal-fired power plants going while shutting down clean nuclear. It's fostered scare tactics and scams (Alar anyone?) that have ruined millions of peoples livelihoods. It's made housing and energy more costly, putting a disproportionate burden on those least able to afford it. It's fought tooth-and-nail the emerging science of genetic engineering -- a field that promises to do more to enhance human health and happiness than anything since the invention of fire. It's had us spend billions of dollars on "cleanups" that might possibly prevent one or two people from getting cancer, while letting a hundred times as many die for the inability to afford a highway guard rail in the proper place. It's kept us from drilling our own oil for fear of a spill-- even in places where natural underground pressure is forcing so much oil out that drilling would indisputably REDUCE spilled oil.

In short, the movement is an anti-science, anti-technology, anti-humanity quasi-religious bag of superstitious beliefs that is a greater danger to humanity than anything else I can think of. Our modern lifestyle, our very existence, depends on our ability to modify our environment to fit our needs. To the "Greens", the very thing that makes us great is something to be despised, and stopped at all cost.


RE: Politics
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 6:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To the "Greens", the very thing that makes us great is something to be despised, and stopped at all cost.
I think that about sums it up for me as well. But you know, Porkpie, what you just said will be ignored or nitpicked and twisted to mean something else entirely.

Why did I come back here again?


RE: Politics
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 8:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
"Why did I come back here again?"

Because hope springs eternal to the human breast?


RE: Politics
By Spuke on 3/31/2010 1:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because hope springs eternal to the human breast?
I am an idiot is more like it. The intelligent don't bother debating life, they just live it. I guess I have this hope that people will act outside themselves for once and consider the guy next to them without judgment. We simply refuse to accept people as they are and I'd like that to change.


RE: Politics
By The0ne on 3/31/2010 9:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
Good points and I don't disagree one bit. So if you're not into Green and obviously you and spuke are well beyond that point, then why bother with the simple things in life that is considered Green?

As for your comparison of shutting down clean nuclear, that's yet again incomprehension and to an extreme, ignorant, view of the situation. As you, spuke and others have already stated at one time or another there is NO development gain without costs for anyone or any company. Nuclear is NOT an exception to the things you have said. You're fooling yourself believing this all to TRY to prove a point against what I've said.

As for your last sentence, it only proves without a doubt that you should come sign my legal contract and I'll show you how EASILY CO2 can kill you :)

Pathetically ignorant. You're so full of hate for renewable you'll make up sht to support your own views regardless of the history and/or scale of the aftermaths.


RE: Politics
By clovell on 3/31/2010 10:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
> As for your last sentence, it only proves without a doubt that you should come sign my legal contract and I'll show you how EASILY CO2 can kill you :)

I got a contract that reads exactly the same as yours, but there's no C in the CO2 part. It shows you the same thing, though.


RE: Politics
By Spuke on 3/31/2010 1:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if you're not into Green and obviously you and spuke are well beyond that point,
This reminds of the discussions about race I used to have when I was younger. Just because I disagree or agree with one person, doesn't automatically mean I disagree or agree with another. I never said I was anti-green. But I most definitely am anti-fad/trend and green is a fad/trend. My problem is with the "I know what's best for you", egotistical elitists that are grabbing this latest trend and running with it. Yet another reason to point your noses down at your fellow man.

My family raised me not to be wasteful. I'm 40 years old and I have been doing this so-called BS "green" for years. But because I don't shout at the top of my lungs about how "green" I am or disagree with those that think or are "green", I am automatically put into a category and berated for it. This is NOT a religion for me. I don't need a "God" to tell me how to live. And I won't act "God-like" and tell YOU what to do with yours.

I only get into these discussions to, hopefully, let people know that we make our choices based on what's best for us and if what's best for us includes the people next door then that's great but if it doesn't then that's great. Choice = freedom. No choice = slave.


no balls
By invidious on 3/30/2010 2:26:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
features a top speed of 87 mph
I was semi-intrigued by the low price until I saw this figure. With a top speed like that, this thing is going to have a hard time going what I consider normal highway speed.

It makes me wonder how the battery life would be affected by driving at 70+ mph speeds, typically higher rate of drain means less efficiency. So you probably wont get that 100 mile trip on one charge if you used the highway for that trip.




RE: no balls
By Spivonious on 3/30/2010 2:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
Judging that nowhere in the U.S. has a higher speed limit than 85mph, I think 87mph is fine.

I think the Leaf is silly, but they're not exactly for road trips.


RE: no balls
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 3:28:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think the Leaf is silly, but they're not exactly for road trips.
The Leaf is not going to be magically efficient until it hits 87 mph. It's going to be a curve and despite what the signs say, people don't drive the speed limit, not even in Camera-zona. What IS the battery range at 70 mph? Real people that drive on real roads at real speeds would like to know.


RE: no balls
By Dorkyman on 3/30/2010 3:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a question of speed limits. If a car has a top of 87, there's a question of whether that's due to a speed limiter or else a lack of horsepower. If a speed limiter, fine; but if the car wheezes at 87, then it will do a crappy job of maintaining even 55 climbing a freeway hill, such as the 405 northbound from Santa Monica to the Valley. Or any of hundreds of other upslopes I can think of.

The very fact that the car would need a generous subsidy from the government means it's not practical; it's only a way for status-cravers to make a statement.


RE: no balls
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/2010 3:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
lol yeah, generous !? You could almost buy a new conventional car with the subsidies for this p.o.s alone.


RE: no balls
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 5:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think in this case it's a speed limiter but yeah I doubt that thing is going to get advertized mileage if you're doing 80 down the highway.

And no, it's not practical..but the automaker sold one so R&D will continue.


RE: no balls
By JediJeb on 3/31/2010 4:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
I definitely don't like the subsidies on this, and probably wouldn't buy one, but to say it isn't practical is a little misleading overall. It is practical for those who live inside the city and drive mostly city streets. Or those who commute in the suburbs without having to travel on the interstates. It is practical for what it is designed for, which is not every type of use. A Corvette isn't practical for hauling horses just as a 18 wheeler isn't practical for delivering mail on backroads.

Some people will find it practical, some won't.


RE: no balls
By Smilin on 4/1/2010 11:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
When I say "isn't practical" I guess I'm really talking about the price.

For city folks it's absolutely awesome but the benefits over similar gas powered cars just don't match the cost.

The subsidies are there to offset this and make it sell. If it didn't sell it wouldn't get made. If it (and others) don't get made then we'll never get off the ICE. We'll hopefully have some technology advancements and some manufacturing scale to bring the cost in line and make this thing work without a subsidy.

I'm not a fan of basically more spending with our current economic state but in the loooong run this should solve a lot of problems for the US in particular.

My nutbag plan:
lower the subsidies on these by say half, then pay for those subsidies with significantly increased fuel taxes. If fuel is expensive the market will demand more efficient vehicles (which may or may not be plug-in electrics). Do not tie the fuel taxes to inflation either...let them naturally fade over time.


But it's still 32k!
By maevinj on 3/30/2010 1:53:20 PM , Rating: 3
I think it's kind of misleading to say that these cars will only be (x) amount after tax credits. they're tax credits you get when you file your taxes the following year. People will still have to finance 32k.




RE: But it's still 32k!
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 3:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yep!!!! Tax credits are NOT cash!!! You still need to be able to afford $32k which works out to $603 a month at 5% with a 5 year term, no money down. There doesn't seem to be any special financing deals so whatever you can get at your bank is it.


RE: But it's still 32k!
By Akrovah on 3/30/2010 4:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
But after you file those taxes you CAN put it all into your vehicle loan, which should go a long way to re-negotiating your monthly.


RE: But it's still 32k!
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 4:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But after you file those taxes you CAN put it all into your vehicle loan, which should go a long way to re-negotiating your monthly.
Yeah, you could refinance the loan and use the tax return to lower the payment. Probably lower it by $100. You'd have paid some interest though so you won't see a one for one here.

PS - You can claim your sales tax and registration on your federal taxes too.


RE: But it's still 32k!
By maevinj on 3/30/2010 10:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
But it's still not money. It's a tax credit. And I'm assuming it's a real tax credit and not tax deduction. Which would make it even less appealing


RE: But it's still 32k!
By Smilin on 3/30/2010 5:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's only misleading if people don't get it. Nobody really falls for that "after mail-in rebate" crap at Best Buy either.


Why are we subsidizing bad tech
By corduroygt on 3/30/2010 1:26:42 PM , Rating: 4
Let's see if this glorified golf cart can find buyers at 32k instead of throwing our tax dollars at it. If EV's are indeed viable, that should be no problem, right?




RE: Why are we subsidizing bad tech
By HotFoot on 3/30/2010 1:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Instead of subsidising end-result products, if society wants to promote advanced technologies, I'd rather see government investment in research. Invest in developing next-gen technologies rather than subsidise uncompetitive products.


No one's interested? I am
By lennylim on 3/30/2010 7:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
Reading through the comment, it appears that no one seems particularly interested in this. I'm interested. I need one car just for commuting 15 miles to work and for short runs around town. About twice a month the freeways are clear enough for me to even reach 70 mph, so 87 mph is not an issue. And I bet I can use the carpool lanes with an all electric car. And the best part? I get to act greener-than-thou to the Prius owners.




RE: No one's interested? I am
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 8:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Would you be interested without the $14K tax credit?


RE: No one's interested? I am
By JediJeb on 3/31/2010 3:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
The other thing to remember is you won't get that money back from the tax credit until you file your taxes, so best to purchase in end of December and file as soon as possible the next year. Otherwise you wait a long time to see that money returned.


We should be ready for when we run out of gas
By krazyderek on 3/31/10, Rating: 0
By Spuke on 3/31/2010 1:27:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I can't wait to see the flame wars when there's a year of gasoline left. Shit is going to hit the fan if we don't plan for it!
Won't happen because we (the US) haven't even started using our own yet. And, just because someone's not reporting to you directly on the progress of energy trends doesn't mean nothings happening.


By porkpie on 3/31/2010 1:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm planning on building my own EV if i can't buy one... don't know why you need a 220v charging station, faster charge times? ...why not a standard 3 prong 120v power plug? And another hour or two of charging?"

Thank you for this stellar example of enviromentalist ignorance and wishful thinking. You plan to build one...but you don't know the first thing about them? At 120v, the LEAF takes sixteen hours to charge. Even with the special 220V charger, it takes 4 hours.

"I can't wait to see the flame wars when there's a year of gasoline left"

You're going to have to wait. Despite the doomsayers, we've enough gasoline from natural petroleum for the next half century at least...and beyond that, we can synthesize as much gasoline as necessary, if we don't have an alternative by then.


By clovell on 3/31/2010 1:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
Peak oil isn't the apocalypse that T. Boone Pickens would have you think it is.

Efficiency is the best reason to transition to EVs for urban use, but we'll still need ICE for a lot of our needs. To get there, we're first going to need the production capacity, which will inevitably involve more nuclear plants.


fail
By vapore0n on 3/30/2010 1:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing says failure like selling a car based on government incentives.

Such a small and limited vehicle should start at 20k with no incentives. I guess technology is not cheap enough yet. Maybe Nissan should have focused on building a fast sports EV car, like the Tesla, but at that 30k price point.




RE: fail
By Ontherightsideofhistory on 3/30/2010 6:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Were that the case, Tesla would have done it at $30K. duh! The Tesla is a "small and limited car" as you put it, but a a much higher price point. 'You' failed...to make a real and logical point.


What About The Battery
By btc909 on 3/30/2010 2:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
So $32,780 includes the battery? No lease cost involved? I keep reading the battery lease cost is $150 a month.




By Ontherightsideofhistory on 3/30/2010 6:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
Battery comes with.


battery
By rvd2008 on 3/30/2010 1:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
$25,280 including battery? I remember there were talks to rent the battery for extra money. Now, I wonder how much Volt will come down. They wanted $40k before credit, but Volt's battery is much smaller, although Volt has gasoline range extender.




Range
By Spuke on 3/30/2010 3:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like the 100 mile range was based on the LA4 test cycle which is basically...

quote:
The LA4 cycle is an urban driving test that runs 7.5 miles and has an average speed of only 19.6 mph. The maximum speed is 56.7 mph on one short stretch but for the most part the driving is at 30 mph or less. The frequent starts and stops are likely to aid the range somewhat through the car's regenerative braking capability, but in real world conditions drivers are more likely to see less than 100 miles of range especially in particularly hot or cold weather conditions.


http://www.greenfuelsforecast.com/ArticleDetails.p...
http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/methods/uddsdds.gif

Comment away.




Subsidies
By topperjtopperj on 3/30/2010 5:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
Like any mass transit and Amtrak, unless it's subsidized, it fails. No one wants to use crummy mass transit when they can drive. This electric car will only sell if you virtually give it away. No subsidy, no buy-ee. It's a failed business model.




$2,200 for Charging Installation?
By DougF on 3/31/2010 1:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
I just had an electrician quote me $650 to upgrade my home to handle charging an electric vehicle. I wonder if Nissan will let me buy the adapter separately? The LEAF website only mentions buying the adapter/upgrade together.




"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki