Nissan Unveils All-Electric LEAF 586
MojoRilla writes "In Japan, Nissan unveiled their all-electric LEAF (press release, and Flash site). Slated to launch in late 2010 in Japan, the US, and Europe, this car will have a 100-mile range, seats 5, has an advanced computer system with remote control by IPhone, and promises to be competitively priced. While this car's range won't work for everyone, it could be a game changer as a commuter car." Recharge time is 8 hours with a 200-volt power source, and "just under 30 minutes with a quick charger" (no further details given) to charge to 80% of capacity.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:2, Insightful)
That will be interesting when your iPhone gets hacked. [slashdot.org]
100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:4, Insightful)
In a slowly-moving traffic, a running A/C will really eat into battery life... Somebody working, say, 40 miles from home — not that unusual — will need the charge to last 80 miles plus whatever extra for the air conditioning... Depending on how hot it is, they may or may not be able to pick kids from school on the way home...
Unless it is really cheap, I don't see, why many people would rush to buy it. "Normal" cars last about 300 miles and can be "recharged" (to 100%) in 3 minutes, instead of 80% in 30...
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:5, Insightful)
The millions of people who have short commutes who live in urban areas would do just fine with a car like this and many people like the idea of not just driving without relying on oil, but also not contributing to their city's level of smog.
I just wish I knew how much this thing costs.
Re:Let's remember a few things for this discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the Outlet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everyone owns a swimming pool.. are you suggesting people should stop making diving boards?
Not everything is about you.
Re:Let's remember a few things for this discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's remember some other things that I think are relevant to the discussion. Or really just one thing: Amdahl's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law [wikipedia.org], which I think is woefully ignored in the green-car world. As an result-oriented environmentalist, this disappoints me immensely.
In short, Amdahl's law says that when you want to improve a system that is made up of lots of different components, you do best to improve the lowest-performing part first. In programming, that means focusing your performance analysis on the parts of the program that are taking the most time before you focus on making the fast parts faster. In terms of automobiles, that means you should replace the most fuel-guzzling part of the fleet before you start thinking about making the thrifty cars thriftier.
Let's do some numbers, for the same number of miles driven, replacing a 12 mpg vehicle with a 15 mpg vehicle saves you as much as replacing a 30 MPG vehicle with a 60 MPG vehicle. Improve that 12 mpg to 18 mpg and now you need to replace a 30 mpg with a 180 MPG car (the EPA calculates the carbon-cost of an electric vehicle using our mix of power source to be roughly 120 mpg) to match the fuel savings.
So if we were really serious about making a dent in oil consumption and CO2, we would be pushing for more fuel-efficient pickup trucks, cargo vans and SUVs instead of this inane (but highly press-friendly!) pursuit of ever-more-efficient small vehicles. The people that drive those vehicles can't or won't replace them with small cars no matter how efficient.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether we value results or whether we value cool technology. As a gadget-nerd, I freely admit that all-electric cars are much sexier than a new pickup truck that gets 16 mpg instead of 12. But the programmer inside me knows that the pickup truck will probably do a lot more good over the lifetime of the vehicle. There are only so many R&D dollars going around and I feel like they aren't being well spent (from the point of view of the environment -- for marketing, the halo effect of the Prius is definitely worth it).
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. I live in an urban area (Seattle). I even take public transit most days. I wouldn't even consider switching my gas car for a car like this.
1)I don't have an outlet in my parking space. Not even the home one, much less at lots near work. Most people in dense urban areas don't.
1a)I don't always park at home even over night. Sometimes I'm at a girlfriend's, sometimes I'm at a hotel in another city. Neither would have an outlet even if I had one in #1.
2)When there's an accident on a bridge, I can take 2 hours to drive home. I wouldn't trust it to keep a charge for that long idling.
3)I want the option of being able to drive farther. I want to be able to drive an hour or two out of the city on a weekend, or take a road trip. This car doesn't have that. So I'll need another car anyway. I don't have room for two in my garage. So add 100-150 a month for a parking spot to the price.
4)I don't always drive to work. Occasionally I drive to work (20 mi), to a concert venue after work (40 mi), then home (30 mi). That's cutting it too close.
5)I'm forgetful. If I forgot for even 1 evening to plug it in I'd be in trouble. That's not acceptable. It needs to be able to go at least a week without plugging in.
Most of these can be solved in time with range, but 100 mi is far too slow. It needs to be at least triple that. I'd prefer 500 mi, so I can take it on a real road trip. The other issue is availability of charging. A car like this needs extensive infrastructure that just doesn't exist. The only viable solution is to make it rechargable on the go- removable batteries or the like.
It's an interesting step, but as is it's useless. Get back to me when they have the infrastructure solved and the range increased.
Math? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets say my commute is 60 miles. You're saying that improving a 30mpg to a 60mpg vehicle, which halves the gas usage, is the same as a 12mpg to a 15mpg, which does nowhere near that kind of improvement?
60/12=5
60/15=4
60/30=2
60/60=1
And then you state:
180/12=12 to 180/18=10
is a greater improvement than
180/30=6 to 180/180=1
What kind of math is this?
The problem, of course, is moving freight around. Rail is insanely more efficient than any other method available. And no, your pickup truck is going to be used for commuting 95% of the time, so over it's lifetime, you will have the worst vehicle for your situation 19 out of every 20 times you use it.
Re:Let's remember a few things for this discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
The metered outlets will be installed by a third party and offered as an amenity. It's just like when internet started in apartments first. You install one EV Charge Parking Spot, and you have ten times as many potential customers driving by it every day.
Again, once there's an inexpensive, safe, reliable EV that goes 100 miles on a single charge, all other problems become trivial to solve.
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:2, Insightful)
Contrary to popular opinion, human beings were able to exist prior to air conditioning.
Re:Doomed. (Score:4, Insightful)
According to their press release, they claim that 70% of their target consumers drive less than 100 miles a day. I know there are many USian cities that would make that unfeasable, but it's important to remember that this car is going to be a slam dunk for a lot of people out there.
Furthermore, once these things start to sell, I can't imagine it'd be too long before the capacity becomes comparable to a regular gas-guzzler.
Re:Let's remember a few things for this discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I'm 50% wrong, and out of the box we can only charge 90 million cars. Or I'm 75% wrong and it's 45 million. Or I'm 90% wrong, and we can only immediately put 22 million EVs on the road.
Can you give up on progress and go back to whittling wooden crucifixes where you don't have access to a computer? Jesus fucking Christ. I've never run into so many absolutely stupid and cynical naysayers. Just give up and die already, and at least leave more oxygen unmolested.
City states (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should I like this better than say... (Score:4, Insightful)
A Tesla Model S
It has a better range, a quicker full charge, a potential 5 minute battery swap, and the "S" is for SEXY.
Re:Let's remember a few things for this discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously... is everyone in America a "can't do" blowhard these days?
An auto manufacturer from Japan just did what American companies said was impossible, and has built a 5 seater EV with a 100 mile range with today's technology.. and the problem will be running some goddamn conduit and 220V?
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:3, Insightful)
A/C isn't just for hot areas either. It is often used along with heat in the winter time to clear windshields. In many cars, the defrost setting turns on the A/C. The inside of a car can get very humid, and the A/C helps to reduce the humidity of the air and keep water from the inside air from condensing when it hits the windows, and then freezing up.
So this car will suck for both hot, cold, and humid areas of the United States. That leaves
Re:Doomed. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, given the choice between saving thousands dollars a year on gasoline and maintenance, or renting a car for the entire week you get for vacation and the few weekends you can get out of town, you'll pick the more expensive option?
You said this car was "doomed" because it doesn't work for anyone, which is complete nonsense. For many people I know, who nearly always travel to their vacation via airplane, and who rarely leave town on the weekends, a cheap electric plus an occasional rental is the most economic option. And most people live in cities, not out in the sticks.
If you regularly leave on the weekends and you can only afford one car, then go with an ICE. If you live in the sticks, get an ICE. Otherwise, if you do the math, this is the way to go.
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, dude, electric cars don't idle.
Second of all, what if you "forget" to put gas in your car? Between the time your car tells you it's necessary, and when you run out, is only like a day anyway. You've probably adjusted. I'm sure you've figured out a way to remember to plug your smartphone in after using it all day. Stop coming up with all these "I'm lazy and can't be bothered" reasons why we should keep polluting the planet at an exponential rate.
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:4, Insightful)
>> 1)I don't have an outlet in my parking space. Not even the home one, much less at lots near work. Most people in dense urban areas don't.
You don't think that would change? BC Transit just added outlets for charging electric bikes at a lot of their light rail stations. If people started driving electric cars then charging stations would materialize (progressive companies would install them at work for example).
>> 1a)I don't always park at home even over night. Sometimes I'm at a girlfriend's, sometimes I'm at a hotel in another city. Neither would have an outlet even if I had one in #1.
Your girlfriend is Amish? Hotels are very likely to start offering a charging service if electric cars were available.
>> 2)When there's an accident on a bridge, I can take 2 hours to drive home. I wouldn't trust it to keep a charge for that long idling.
Umm... Idling? Are you kidding? What exactly do you think will idle on an electric car? Running AC full blast might be a problem (could be alleviated with solar cells, like the prius already has), but the other power drains (minimal lighting, radio) won't drain the batteries significantly.
>> 3)I want the option of being able to drive farther. I want to be able to drive an hour or two out of the city on a weekend, or take a road trip. This car doesn't have that. So I'll need another car anyway. I don't have room for two in my garage. So add 100-150 a month for a parking spot to the price.
If you do a road trip every weekend, then yes I agree an electric car wouldn't work for you. But if you do a road trip only occasionally, then there are many car sharing services (ZipCar) or even better, car sharing co-ops, and also plenty of rental agencies. You don't have to own two cars just because you occasionally want to drive far.
>> 4)I don't always drive to work. Occasionally I drive to work (20 mi), to a concert venue after work (40 mi), then home (30 mi). That's cutting it too close.
Even assuming none of those places had a charging opportunity, the second generation electric cars will be perfect for you, since they will surely add that extra 20 miles of range.
>> 5)I'm forgetful. If I forgot for even 1 evening to plug it in I'd be in trouble. That's not acceptable. It needs to be able to go at least a week without plugging in.
I suppose you'll just have to suck it up and turn your brain on for a change. A minor inconvenience in the big picture I think.
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously have not had to sit in a car on the freeway with the sun beating down on it. The A/C is going to need to run almost nonstop to keep it tolerable.
Consider the fact that, in as little as 30 minutes, a parked car can turn itself into a fucking OVEN. As in, a car can raise itself by 1 degree per minute even if the outside ambient temperature is a mere 70 degrees.
Re:Let's remember a few things for this discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
Electric vehicles are nearly twice as efficient as ICEs converting their energy store into forward motion. Even if electric energy was 50% more expensive than gasoline energy, it would still save you money.
Re:Let's remember a few things for this discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people always worry about optimizing the wrong things?!?!
Seriously... I'm 36 years old and I've never run out of gas. Never. Am I really that much of an anomoly? Even for someone like yourself, it's got to be more rare than having your car break down with a flat tire or a busted hose or a water pump failure or an alternator.
So yes... running out of juice would require that you call AAA and get yourself towed home. It would suck.
But seriously. I think I'd rather worry about optimizing the other 99.9% of the time. My guess is that with the electric car you'd have a net decrease in the number of times you'd need a tow.
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I forget to put gas in the car, a little light comes on when I still have a gallon or so left, and I pull into a conveniently placed refilling station, which in an urban setting is every few miles. Refilling takes 5 minutes. Running out isn't an issue. If you're 40 miles from home and get a warning that you're low on charge, you're fucked. You have no place you can easily and quickly refill- a full charge is 8 hours. Even a partial charge would be an hour or so. The logistics of that just don't work.
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Efficiency (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would someone driving a 12mpg truck want to buy a 120mpg shoebox? Those people are not interested in mileage or they'd already be driving something that got 40mpg.
Re:lithium-ion tech (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:4, Insightful)
"do I have enough fuel? Where can I get more fuel? I will plan my route and time accordingly!" It's really not that hard, Einstein.
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:3, Insightful)
You completely missed the point of his comment. Have you ever had to get somewhere at a specific time, and planned on leaving just early enough only to realise you need to get gas? That is what he is talking about.
Also, thank you for stating the obvious. Everyone understands the drawback of a slow charging electric car. However, for daily commutes in a lot of cities this would suffice. And as the GP stated, most households have more than 1 car, so for the longer trips they still have access to a gasoline fueled vehicle.
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:3, Insightful)
If we all wanted to sweat all the way to work, we'd all be cycling or walking.
I only do that "turn off aircond to save power" thing if my fuel tank gauge shows "below E". And even in that scenario I can probably squeeze out half the max range of a typical battery powered car.
It takes about 2-5kW to run a car airconditioner (from the figures Toyota give for their Prius).
That's a significant amount for a battery powered car (especially one with a pathetic 160km range in "rose tinted scenarios"). Not so much for a petrol powered car.
When batteries store more and become cheaper, I might get myself an EV - it'll make sense then. But as long as EVs with decent performance cost the same as "petrol car + 10 years of fuel" they do not make sense.
Maybe when China also gets into the game the pace might increase. They're going into nuclear energy in a _huge_ way, so electric vehicles would make good sense for them too. I'm sure they are busy buying up the necessary resource rights for making batteries and other necessary goodies (good idea to spend their USD while it's worth more).
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:3, Insightful)
In all those examples, with the exception of the residential retrofit, there would be money to make on the upgrade either directly by charging for the power or indirectly by making the business more appealing.
The US already has a strong power infrastructure. Adding that last 10 feet to meter and dispense is not huge compared to the overhead and underground networks that are already there. The real trick for electric vehicles will be range and standardizing high amperage outlets.
The LEAF is a bit weak on range, I'll give you that, but for many people 100 mi. per charge is enough to get to and from work for 2 or 3 days. They're not targeting the people that live in Bellevue and work in Tacoma, they're targeting the people that live in Bellevue and work in Bellevue. (other regions will have different examples such as Gresham and Hillsboro a bit south of you)
Now for the two vehicle part of this argument. Many households with two people (i.e. married couples, cohabitating boyfriend/girlfriend couples and other domestic partnerships) have more than one vehicle per person. Usually there's a his and hers daily driver plus a joint owned family or utility vehicle such as a SUV, minivan or light truck. This is not the case for most single people that do not have a flexible enough budget to justify owning more than one vehicle.
It may make sense financially to ditch one of the daily driver cars for the electric and use either the other partner's car or the shared vehicle for road trips to out of town concerts. This, of course, depends on several factors that would have to be honestly calculated from real numbers and not pulled out of some slashdotter's ass based on conjecture and a marketing press release. These factors would include (but are certainly not limited to) distance and nature of commute, cost of the electric vehicle with or without a trade in of a prior vehicle and/or possible government subsidies, cost of maintenance in comparison to a traditional IC powered car (electric *should* be a lot cheaper to maintain), cost of the power to charge factoring in possible electric company discounts for using power during off peak hours and etc. Some people will weight their decision in favor of getting an electric vehicle due to a bias for a green image, others will weight their decision (as you appear to already have) against getting an electric for reasons of convenience or practicality.
Nissan is aiming for a targeted group of people that will benefit from this type of vehicle. Those that are in the group that could benefit from having this as a commuter vehicle might find this car to be enormously useful. Just because you're not in this group is no reason to knock the platform as generally useless.
Re:WORTHLESS (Score:2, Insightful)
There are plenty of people in the world who don't travel more then 160 miles on a regular basis. Sticking a gas engine in there would be stupid, as it would add a lot of weight and complexity that isn't needed. And of course lots of families buy two cars already anyway, so why not have one be pure electric one?
Re:Let's remember a few things for this discussion (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, if you want to preserve the battery you'll have to lay off the heater and put on a coat.
Why then, if we are losing convenience of a warm car, not to make the next logical step and simply ride a horse?
Because maintenance of a horse is much more complicated than maintenance of an electric car. To start with, you can leave your electric car alone for a week without it getting damaged. A horse needs regular food and care even when not used. Also, electric cars don't produce horse shit.
Buy a Tahoe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that with an electric, you'll basically be topping it off any time you're at home. It's like leaving every morning with a full tank of gas, so unless you're doing a lot of driving that day, you should rarely get to the point where the "low fuel" light comes on.
Re:Efficiency (Score:4, Insightful)
Now there's the real scam. Why, if one person owns two vehicles do they have to pay insurance for both vehicles? You can only drive one at a time. I had the same deal for a time there when I owned two motorcycles. Oh boy, I think I got a 10% discount for the second motorcycle. The risk to the insurer is the same for two as one. Price it at the higher vehicle and the second should be free. There's no way I can wreck both vehicles at the same time.
Re:funny guy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:100 miles with or without A/C? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, in most places in the US, this is the only option.