U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-02-2012, 07:47 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,425,411 times
Reputation: 7641

Advertisements

Nissan CEO abandons '12 electric vehicle sales target

Quote:
Nissan Motor CEO Carlos Ghosn finally admitted the automaker will not meet its sales target for its all-electric Leaf — in another sign of the broad struggle of the electric vehicle industry.

"The forecast we have given ourselves for the year will not be reached," Ghosn told Bloomberg Television in Mexico City on Thursday.

Despite months of lagging sales, the Japanese automaker has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that it could not double sales in 2012 to 20,000 after selling nearly 10,000 in 2011.
Nissan CEO abandons '12 electric vehicle sales target | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

As Escort Rider says, until the EV conforms to a drivers habits it is doomed to be a niche vehicle.

What I have found hilarious in this thread and in this forum, whenever EV's are discussed the anti-oil crowd comes out of the woodwork proclaiming anyone who disagrees with them their attitude is they must be:

~ a shill for the oil industry

~ too stupid to understand the topic

~ they just don't care for the environment

What is so wrong in admitting that the EV, while it's goals are lofty in it's current form is a dismal failure? When I opened a new thread on hydrogen cars I was amazed in the responses I saw... Hardly any responses that it was and is a good alternative technology, no, the bulk of the responses were defending EV's as the only technology worth pursuing.

Last edited by plwhit; 12-02-2012 at 08:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2012, 07:50 PM
 
3,040 posts, read 2,187,515 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Everyone is ignoring future battery technology. If a battery is developed which can go 300 miles on a 10 minute charge, it's "game over" for gasoline.
True. But that won't happen for a LONG time. The current developments are getting 3 to 4 times the battery life. It will be at least a couple more years before the come to market. And they still don't have the ability to be 'quick' charged.
Thats also if the even make it to production. If a new breakthrough comes along, those efforts will be ditched in favour of the new. Then the waiting game begins again.

Hydrogen fuel-cell will become a viable alternative before we see any new developments IMO.

This might be a step in the right direction
though;

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/129299-silicon-nanotube-lithium-ion-battery-stores-10-times-more-power-lasts-6000-charges

And this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altairnano

On a side note, GM is suppose to release their HydroGen4 vehicle sometime around 2016.

Last edited by Jean71; 12-02-2012 at 08:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,747,361 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Everyone is ignoring future battery technology. If a battery is developed which can go 300 miles on a 10 minute charge, it's "game over" for gasoline.
One can never say never with regard to scientific break-throughs. However, don't you think lots of very smart people, backed by large corporate resources, have been working on battery technology for a while now? Just think of the enormous rewards which would flow to any company able to come up with what you're talking about. This is not an easy matter, you can't repeal the laws of physics, and I don't see 300 miles on a 10 minute charge any time soon. Of course I could be wrong, and I would certainly welcome being wrong in this particular case.

Science has done many things which seem quite miraculous, but it is not capable of waving a magic wand on demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:24 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 9,850,787 times
Reputation: 3955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
While I don't quite share your extreme pessimism about EV's, I do agree about the Big Oil conspiracy. One piece of evidence for my agreement is the substantial tax credit which Congress approved for the individuals who purchase EV's. How could that incentive to jump-start the acceptance of this technology in the marketplace have ever passed the Congress if Big Oil controlled everything?

Because it is *only* a Tax Credit, limited to the first 200,000 cars.

If Congress were sincere, they would have done a Grant.

Costs them the same amount BUT it makes a HUGE difference.

But by doing it as a Credit, it blocks the use of a Grant.

Would already be maxed out were it a Grant.

It is meant to be half-assed.

Not a lot of what comes out of Congress is accidental.

Do you understand who the Biggest Losers of US going off Oil are?

The operators of the Cash Register.

First is . . . The Federal Government (along with States) get HUGE revenues right from the rack at the refinery.

This covers some of that topic >>>

How electric cars could pull the plug on U.S. highway funding | SmartPlanet

Second is . . . The Bankers. Take US off Oil, or even seriously head that way, and the world will follow. So what backs the Dollar, and why was Saddam killed? Oil. Saddam was going to take Iraqi Oil off the US Dollar. Now the Iraqi Oil revenues go through the NY Federal Reserve Bank (which as often noted, but rarely understood is NOT part of the Federal Government).

This is all a game changer for a lot of folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:28 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 9,850,787 times
Reputation: 3955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
One can never say never with regard to scientific break-throughs. However, don't you think lots of very smart people, backed by large corporate resources, have been working on battery technology for a while now? Just think of the enormous rewards which would flow to any company able to come up with what you're talking about. This is not an easy matter, you can't repeal the laws of physics, and I don't see 300 miles on a 10 minute charge any time soon. Of course I could be wrong, and I would certainly welcome being wrong in this particular case.

Science has done many things which seem quite miraculous, but it is not capable of waving a magic wand on demand.
Did some of these designs 15 years ago.

Fluid charge particles.

You pull in the station, drain your charge-depleted tank, refill it with a fresh charge and off you drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:36 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 9,850,787 times
Reputation: 3955
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post

. . . . expensive toys for snobs that like to look down their noses at everyone else.....[/i]
Like Tigger said . . .




That is what we do best!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Log "cabin" west of Bangor
5,677 posts, read 6,778,300 times
Reputation: 10247
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick gar View Post
Ooh, a real charger. Seems the trend with 12V chargers is to adapt to all Pb-PbSO4 designs, limiting the true potential of the flooded lead acid cell. Gotta spend some $$ to get a good home charger that selects AGM/Gel/Flooded, and $$$ to get one with equalizing cycle.
At home I have a charger that can be selected for gel/AGM, it wasn't particularly expensive (less than $40, IIRC).

But the Toyota is an industrial machine using 4 x 6V deep-cycle in series, and using a built-in charger. Changing this would require attempting to retro-fit an aftermarket charger in the space available, or making a change to an external charging station which would require setting aside dedicated space I can't spare and additional wiring, a scenario that the holder of the purse-strings would surely balk at. (We needed some shelves to store stuff, the only way we could get them was by salvaging lumber from a demolition project next door and building them ourselves...the CEO can blow $20G for a new motor for his boat, but we have to [fruitlessly] beg for $200 for new shelving...we were lucky to get the money approved for the new batteries.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick gar View Post
But lead acid is not a good car traction battery, straw man or something.
Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick gar View Post
Awesome for a forklift as the extra weight provides ballast in those tiny vehicles.
Yeah, if you've got 3,700lbs on the front end, you kind of need a little more than that on the back end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2012, 06:03 AM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,195,701 times
Reputation: 3351
Philip, Thanks for the numbers. I'm not so much impressed by the time to charge because I like to get at least 8 hours of sleep per night. But the cost to charge is impressive! 150 miles for $3.40 or 2.25 cents per mile. My truck costs me $.20/mile for fuel and my small car costs me about $.13/mile.
The Tesla is getting the equivlant of 150 miles/gallon.

To all the people that say an EV does not work for them because "they need a car available 24/7, they drive 200 miles per day or they live in an apartment" and therefore EVs will never be successful or Evs are stupid. At this point in the development of EVs, they are expensive, niche products, not meant to serve the need of everyone, all the time. But remember early computers and cell phones? Big, expensive, short range and low battery life. It is the early adoptors and the companies that supply them that funds the R&D to bring innovation to the mainstream. Does anyone still believe that we will be driving gas powered cars as our primary means of personal transportation 30 years from now?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
Let's maybe try Tesla? They should know, right? Even have a Calculator for us . . .

===============

Charging Model S | Tesla Motors

Kind of fun. Here are the numbers it is showing:

If I set the miles at 150 -- my typical 1 way trip --

and the charger at a simple single 240 V, 40 Amp plug --

Time: 4:43 Hours
Cost: $3.40 @ 8 cents per kWh
Energy: 42.5 kWh.

About 5 hours (hmm, not 12. Are you starting to see why I think you sound like a total bs-er?)

---------------------

But let's say I am in a hurry. Not going to sleep 5 hours tonight, only 2 or 3. So I get the High Power Wall Connector -- 240 V, 80 Amps, Twin Charger. Miles still set at 150 . . . and we get . . .

Time: 2:21 Hours
Cost: $3.40 @ 8 cents per kWh
Energy: 42.5 kWh.

A little under 2-1/2 hours.

(starting to think maybe your advice would go over well at GM . . . )

----------------------

So let's wrap this up, and set it at the Max 300 miles Road Trip.

Again 240 V, 80 Amps, High Power Wall Connector, Twin Charger.

Time: 4:43 Hours
Cost: $6.79 @ 8 cents per kWh
Energy: 84.9 kWh.

------------------------

Game Over?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2012, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 16,485,955 times
Reputation: 8778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
One can never say never with regard to scientific break-throughs. However, don't you think lots of very smart people, backed by large corporate resources, have been working on battery technology for a while now? Just think of the enormous rewards which would flow to any company able to come up with what you're talking about. This is not an easy matter, you can't repeal the laws of physics, and I don't see 300 miles on a 10 minute charge any time soon. Of course I could be wrong, and I would certainly welcome being wrong in this particular case.

Science has done many things which seem quite miraculous, but it is not capable of waving a magic wand on demand.
Most large corporations in the US are content to not innovate. Why take a chance and risk anything if you can pay for the government not to allow foriegn competition in?

The problem was seen in the auto industry when there was a market for smaller cars. The US companies sat on their thumbs while VW brought out the Beetle, which sold very well.

The problem was seen with a viable hybrid car. The US companies had nothing while Toyota came out with the Prius. The US President was telling the public a sob story about it being twenty years before a fuel efficient car would be on the US market when the Prius came out. What do you make of that?

American auto companies are not known as innovators. They are followers. We are supposed to have a capitalist system. They should not have been bailed out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2012, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,693 posts, read 33,704,884 times
Reputation: 51924
If the President promises under his plans electricity costs will necessarily skyrocket who in their right mind would buy an electric car?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:55 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top