It is only the beginning.
If they can make the things affordable, gonzo, I’m all for it. The market and all that jazz. Contrary to your belief, I’m good with whatever eventually wins the race to replace our current system. If it’s battery powered all electric vehicles, I think that would be way cool and I look forward to the day I can drive one and get the performance and capabilities I expect from a personal vehicle.
-XT
Level 3 DC fast charge can get a Leaf of a Ford Focus EV up to 80% in 20 minutes. Tesla’s batteries are not so advanced; they basically went with hooking up laptops as that form factor has already been commoditized. Their expertise was in how to package them well.
Saint Cad, the Versa only puts out 107 pound feet of torque. The Leaf puts out 207. The Sentra SE-R (which I had used for my calculations) 175. But even comparing it to that much less peppy vehicle your calculations still have it basically as an out of pocket wash in the amount of time most people own their new cars - 5 years. Yes the electricity costs something - a bit less than $200/yr. And so do the oil changes, transmission fluid changes, extra brake pad changes, etc., that the ICE needs … and more than $200/yr I suspect.
So, assuming that both cars meet your needs, for the same cost over the 5 years of ownership (and assuming the same depreciation) I can avoid the hassle of oil changes, the hassle of stopping off at gas stations, have a much peppier car, and both stick it to the oil producers and decrease GHGs … intangibles, but make me feel good.
Meanwhile I drive about 10K a year. Most days about 30 in my commute but some days up to 80 if I’ve got a lot of errands and places to go. I’ve got another car in the family for road trips. There are lots of people like me. Ther only thing holding me up is that mu 8 year old Honda Civic hybrid is running strong and I can’t justify getting rid of it quite yet.
For me, I do around 35K kilometres per year. I couldn’t live with a vehicle that had a range of less than 100km at any given point in time - so on this basis alone, given the current state of technology an AEV would be out for me.
Hybrids ARE a solution, but I am still very distrustful of them, and often times feel that the fuel economy while true, is as much marketing hype and we are not getting the full and accurate picture of lifetime worth. Can I point to any one fact that “proves” this - no.
Another area where I am wary of Hybrids is in mountainous regions. My home used to be in a volcanic basin. We would have significant climbs to drive out of the place - I am not sure about the “worth” of a battery life and worth in such climbs when the extra weight is taken into account. (of course the descent is a great way to charge it though)
What’s your weather like?
Seriously. When the EPA tested the Leaf in real world scenarios the only times it didn’t have a range of 100 km or greater was heavy stop and go traffic with an outside temp of 86 F (30 C) with AC blasting the whole time taking 7 hours 50 minutes for the commute. Winter stop and go (14 F) with heater going got just the 100 km mark, in a 4 hours 8 minute commute. (From xtismes’s wiki link) Yeah, running the AC for nearly 8 hours will sap the battery some.
Now mind you I’ve had some disaster weather long commute days … I am in the Chicago area … but nearly 8 hours commuting in nearly 90 degree weather to travel 47 miles? I’m not going to plan around that possibility.
So unless those are your circumstances, it has the reliable 100 km range you need, even in Winter heavy stop and go. And your payback period would be shorter given the extra miles you drive.
This is worth repeating (especially after the quite lengthy go-around about nuclear energy here recently).
I am ALL for cool new tech and if it provides distinct advantages all the better. Make a magical solar plant that provides all the world’s energy needs and makes nuclear and oil and coal go poof and I will be cheering like crazy.
Just not holding my breath is all. At the end of the day these things need to be economical and reliable and not dramatically change how people go about life. Perhaps people need to learn a new dynamic but with 6 billion people on the planet and most of them poor asking them to pay more for something that does not work as well is not likely to gain acceptance.
The typical day here is in the low to mid thirties, with a lot of sun. Aircon running when you are driving is a must.
It is normal to have a one hour or so commute to go 25km in the evening rush hour.
My 100km would be at the END of my journey (not the beginning). I don’t want to be in the situation where I reach home after work, and we decide to go out for dinner but it’s a case of “oh wait - gotta let the car recharge first”
About three times a year I take a 600km trip (one way) and another 3-5 times a year its a 400km trip (one way) for a holiday - fully loaded with 6 pax + luggage (hint - the car is a whole lot bigger than a leaf).
Until I started my current job, it was quite normal for me to cover 200+ km on a busy day - then still drive out for dinner or the like. I wouldn’t like to have to plan my day around making sure I had enough “juice” in the batteries, that would just be inviting headaches.
HOWEVER - this thread is not about me convincing you why I am not comfortable with an all electric. The only thing that would satisfy me of that right now would be to have the vehicle for at least a week and experience it for myself.
More to my point, I would imagine that there is a very significant portion of the population just like me - any monetary savings that might eventually come about would need to be a lot to balance what I feel are going to be the disadvantages and the uncertainty.
On the other hand, my ex landlord would be a prime candidate for EV - she only took the car out to the shops, she didn’t even do 10,000km a year. If she exceeded 50km in a single day I would be surprised. She would be the right person.
The problem with the current crop of vehicles especially those with quick charge capability is a lack of support infrastructure.
I can drive a gasoline or diesel vehicle until the energy reserve is exhausted and quickly “recharge” in 15 or minutes at locations all along my route.
If there were such locations for electric vehicles supporting their quick charge capability the usefulness, range, and practicality of the electric vehicle would be near on par.
I think electric cars have a long way to go and the manufacturers need to agree on some standards before they will appeal to the general public. Every brand of gasoline car accepts the same standard nozzle. People are not going to invest in the installation of specialized charging equipment in their home, only to have to replace it in 3 to 7 years should they by a model from a different manufacturer.
Hbns - Level 2 rapid charging units are fully compatible between manufacturers. Every brand of vehicle accepts the same electric nozzles.
The infrastructure sufficient to charge EVs in a manner that supports their use in normal commuting use (including driving over 4 hours with the heat blasting to go 30 miles each way with no chance to top off charge in between) is widely distributed and very convenient for most new car purchasers. The infrastructure for distance travel of several hundreds of miles a day is not and there and even widely distributed Level 3 quick DC charge (20 minutes recharge) can’t compete with gas or diesel for utility in that niche.
I have no interest in selling bengangmo, but the bar (s)he initially set, reliably providing 100 km of range (62 miles) is met by the Leaf. It is only under the most extreme circumstance that its range might not be up to that task. And with a few public chargers and a quick top off here and there, even going out to dinner and a show after a full day commuting is realistic without anxiety.
Which is the niche market in new car purchasers? The families with one car that need it to travel over that with some degree of frequency and/or that have no place to charge a car at home - or those who are replacing a second family vehicle, whose typical needs for that vehicle are within an EV’s range, who will use their other vehicle for the occasional outside that range purpose, and who have a place they can charge overnight?
Well two thirds of American households have two or more vehicles. In fact the largest group is those who have three or more. One of those vehicles in each of those households is going to be replaced in the next few years. No an EV won’t replace the pick-up truck one … but if one is used to commute most of the time and people keep seeing gas over $4/gallon then a sizable number of those new car purchases may be EVs.
That would be the niche market of people who are too wealthy or mathematical challenged to understand they can buy a Chevy Cruze Eco for $20,000 less or (for those who hate the poor), ANOTHER Chevy Cruze Eco to be given away free as a replacement for their gas guzzling wreck of a car.
It’s not the car. It’s stylish and probably fun to drive. It’s just grossly overpriced for what it does which makes it irrelevant for it’s intended purpose.
The Leaf goes for $25, 280, a bit more for the higher end package. You can buy Chevy Cruze Eco for under $6K?! Wow. Who knew?
No, if you bothered to read the posts and follow the math, I am not talking about the Volt, which is NOT actually an EV, not really. The question is about EVs and the current achetype is the Leaf.
The Leaf got International Car of the Year btw…just thought I’d put that in, FWIW.
-XT
Another EV entry - Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV now scheduled for January 2012 release priced just over $20K after tax credit.
Kinda cute, good enough for a dedicated commuter toy, but not quite up to the standards of the Leaf.
Why does it look swollen?
Perhaps, even though it’s Japanese, it’s got European styling? 
Either that, or it’s pregnant I suppose. Perhaps it will give birth to a bouncing baby hybrid…
-XT
The Leaf costs $32,780. You suffer from the same math affliction as that of many politicians. the $7,500 difference is a temporary gift from China which will cost taxpayers more down the road. What an incredible misappropriation of tax funds. The ROI is extremely limited. For that money we could retrofit 30 to 40 homes with CFL bulbs. Or sponsor the cost of re-timing traffic lights so cars aren’t sitting idle wasting fuel. Or adding high voltage DC transmission lines out west to connect solar thermal plants to where it’s needed.
This is not early adaption of new technology. It’s old technology. It has yet to catch up to where it needs to be. We don’t use it because it doesn’t meet our dollar/value needs.
Yeah yeah. You don’t like the fact that emerging new technologies (heck these are emerging new industries) get subsidized for a limited time … unless it is a technology that you approve of. (Now algal biodiesel - that should get support.) Your political approval or not of these subsidies, those for natural gas vehicles, wind, solar, nuclear, whatever, is immaterial. Whether or not hybrids should have had a similar tax credit is also immaterial. The credits exist and the issue is whether people will buy the cars at the current out of pocket expenses. If you want to imagine no tax credit then also imagine monetizing the GHG emission and the detriment of increased energy dependence on MENA oil. I choose to accept that the latter is not monetized and that the credit is extant.
(Anyway, as nice and as good of a deal as the Chevy Cruze Eco is, may they sell many of them, you won’t be buying it for for even $32,780 - $20,000 = 12,780. You may want to look into a dyscalculia diagnosis for yourself my friend. It’s a $19,000 car, and more for the upscale options. It has a nice enough 123 pound feet of torque but not in the Leaf’s 207 range. Fact is the out of pocket cost up front is about $6K more for the Leaf. And doing the quick rough calculation, the Cruze Eco gets a very impressive 28city/42highway, so figure 35 combined, so at $4/gallon, that $6K comes to about 52,500 miles to recoup the premium, or just over 4 years of ownership at 12K miles a year. Sooner if you add in the decreased maintenance costs. Within the five years of typical car ownership.)
Will EV’s be able to compete without that tax credit? Well that is tea leaf reading. The cost of batteries will come down as they get commoditized, probably from the current estimated $450/kWh to $250/kWh, and gas prices? Many experts believe that $4/gallon will be seen as a bargain in a few years. For each manufacturer after 200K are sold the credit phases out and they will need to succeed or fail on their own. I’m betting succeed, not in replacing gasoline cars, but in taking over a sizable segment of sales.
It’s 100 year old technology. They were not popular then for the same reasons now. Liquid fueled engines perform much better for the money.
I’ve never advocated the subsidy of diesel cars. They’re already competitive without them. The fuel economy they produce would drastically reduce co2 and dependency on foreign oil. It wouldn’t cost the tax payer a penny.
It’s completely relevant to the purpose of the expenditure. If it’s to reduce greenhouse gases then the money, like all tax money, should be maximized toward it’s intended use. The money wasted on the tax credit could have gone toward battery research which would make the car useful l in the future.
And wind power goes back to the first century AD. Concentrated solar power goes back, at least so the story goes, to Archimedes using a collection of mirrors to focus the sun on the sails of attacking Roman ships during the siege of Syracruse in 213 BC. Neither currently produces power quite as well as coal does for the money. Yet few would argue that modern wind and solar power are not emerging industries.
But fine. Having established that the current model for a mass market EV, the Nissan Leaf, is competitive with cars similarly sized, appointed, and powered, in total out of pocket to the consumer cost over the usual five years of new car ownership, (and therefore a very attractive option to any family buying a new car whose need for that vehicle, often just one of two or three in a household, is met with a reliable 70 mile range, especially to anyone who wants to hedge against gas price spikes over the next five years) let’s move on to discuss why establishing an EV industry is in our society’s best interest and how to best invest in accomplishing that goal.
Of course that’s where those non-monetized factors come in. Not necessarily in rank order:
Greenhouse gas emissions. I hope I don’t have to truck out the cites yet again and you will recall that even with the current United States coal heavy power generation mix EVs produce significantly less GHGs than do ICEs per mile travelled. And as those oldest, least efficient, coal plants are retired and the US generating mix becomes more lower carbon predominant (renewables, natural gas, nuclear, whatever), and as we move into more difficult to get oil, like shale (which has 50% greater well to wheel GHG emissions than does conventional oil) this relative reduction in GHG emissions of EVs to ICE will become even more dramatic.
Decreased reliance on foreign energy sources. It is, for many reasons, a poor idea to continue to have as great of a reliance on foreign oil as we do. Such reliance has cost us much and leaves our economy at the mercy of unstable political events in other parts of the world. It exports a sizable fraction of our economy to other parts of the world. OTOH electricity production is mostly domestic and by having both our electricity power generation diversified into multiple baskets and our transportation sector powered by a variety of means, not restricted to EVs, we protect ourselves and our economy from interruptions in any single sector. Unlike our economy being so reliant on oil today, to the degree that gas price spikes to over $4/gallon threaten to collapse a recovery.
Preparation for a period of rapidly increasing gas prices. Which of course follows from that above. Again, many experts expect that in a few years $4/gallon will seem like a bargain. Demand across the world in going up and will go up more as the world economy continues to improve. Much of that demand will be fairly inelastic yet supply right now is not so elastic. It is unclear how much extra OPEC can bring on and it is clear that there is very little that non-OPEC can. Future oil will be harder to get. A variety of non-oil transportation options need to be available before then, in use, or else when that period occurs economic collapse will follow. Hence a need for drop-in synthetic substitutes and cost-effective biofuels and for EVs both.
So then the question becomes how to get there. Do you support research exclusively or develop the market demand to achieve the economies of scale and to encourage the investment exclusively, or both in some balance? The governments of the world have all decided on both with the United States being the most research support focused I think. Yes, lots of money is being spent on basic battery research and there are great hopes for metal air batteries that will smash that $250/kWh barrier. That is not an either or choice.
I am thinking it will have to be a hydrogen economy and not pure electric (i.e. batteries).
Long-haul trucks and airplanes and ships and locomotives will not work well with batteries. The number they would need would be prohibitive in weight and space to give them anything like the range/power they require.
As such I think a hydrogen fuel source is the only thing that will work for them (assuming gasoline is pretty much out of the picture).
Of course hydrogen requires electricity to make so how we generate that electricity still matters.
I just doubt battery run cars can be the answer in the long term.