Forbes Takes Issue with the Leaf

[TRONZ]

Paul S. is a LA Westsider. Traffic was pretty steady and slow during the three years we lived up there. If I Lived in Eco and just ran around the relatively flat are of Venice and Santa Monica I could probably get 100(ish) miles being careful. But I live in hills and don't drive like that.

And yes, I read that Forbes piece the day it came out... but mentally circular filed it.

 

[Nekota]

I wish the conservative people on this list who own LEAFs were able to draw a parallel from the lies Forbes (and their cohorts in the right-wing media) spreads on the LEAF (which they know to be false from their daily experience) to the lies they spread on all other subjects (e.g. AWG).

Oh, I forgot, the media is only liberal...

Hill, Good find on Forbes and this one is really weak on arguments and facts so much that most of the readers ding both the author and Forbes for such low ball quality. One fact that struck me was the level 3 charging statement (480V) taking 4 hours to charge when it's only 1/2 hour.

Seems like another link http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4768#p130747 on coal and natural gas having equivalent negative impact on the environment is taken as spreading lies about AWG[sic].
Since you didn't bother to read the link, here is the conclusion

"What this study shows ... is the way people think about natural gas is just wrong, and that from a climate perspective, you have to get off of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible."

 

[LEAFfan]

My only negative comment to Paul Scott's rebuttal was his comment that, "I regularly get 100-120 miles range in my LEAF by driving efficiently. I don’t delay those around me either, I just drive rationally and safely."
I think that sets up an unrealistic expectation in that VERY few people will be able to get that kind of range out of their Leaf under normal driver, traffic, and driving conditions... It is better to under promise and over deliver.

I agree with Paul. I can easily get 100 miles on an 80% charge! I rarely charge to 100%, but that would be over 120 for me. My last trip was about 80 miles and I had 6.2 (would have been 130m.) on the dash when we arrived home. His key words are "by driving efficiently."

 

[tps]

Seems like another link http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4768#p130747 on coal and natural gas having equivalent negative impact on the environment is taken as spreading lies about AWG[sic].
Since you didn't bother to read the link, here is the conclusion

"What this study shows ... is the way people think about natural gas is just wrong, and that from a climate perspective, you have to get off of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible."

The way I see it, coal and natural gas are similar to oil because they take carbon which has been sequestered underground for millions of years (that is, not participating in the biological carbon cycle) and release it into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. A way I see of not upsetting the carbon balance is to capture the equivalent to the resulting carbon dioxide, maybe using algae or some other photosynthetic technique to restore the energy which was liberated during combustion, then bury the algae so the carbon it captured is once again sequestered and maybe in a several million years it will be available as coal, oil, or natural gas, again...

 

[keydiver]

I think that a lot of the problem is that Woodhill is mistaking the comments made by "hypermilers" as comments by an everyday Leaf driver. I'd bet that most MNL members, and early-adopter Leaf owners in general, are probably like me, trying to squeeze out every last mile for the "game" of it. Whenever I have my wife or any friends driving with me in my Prius PHEV I tend to run the A/C cooler and drive a little faster, but when I'm by myself its all about the game. But, that doesn't in any way mean I have range anxiety, or am dissatisfied with the mileage I am getting. Its all about seeking the limits of the car and myself.
Woodhill is quite obviously an uninformed douche, another pawn for a vast group of people who like the statis quo. I'm glad to see that he was given a well-deserved thrashing.

 

[Yodrak]

I don't know what Woodhill's biases and conflicts of interest might be, but Scott's conflict of interest is clear.

I think that Woodhill makes some good points. They are negative, and they may be important to some people, but most of them are not important to me. For example, getting stuck in bad weather, which can significantly shorten the range of both ICE and BE vehicles - a much bigger problem for the BEVs than for the ICEVs. But, I look out side and listen to weather reports in the morning before going to work, so if things are going to be bad the Leaf will be left at home on severe weather ocassions.

In summary, Woodhill doesn't discourage me from getting a Leaf and I don't need Scott's glowing but conflicted opinion to convince me that I'm making a good decision for me by getting a Leaf.

In general, I find it interesting that, to many EV proponenets, people who are not proponents are automatically haters. To my mind, proponents who exagerate the benefits of EVs are just as bad as the true haters who exagerate the disadvantages. And there are disadvantages as well as benefits. Pointing out those disadvantages does not automatically make someone a hater, it makes them a realist.

Each individual who is considering an EV should be aware of and weigh both the benefits and the disadvantages in light of their own situation before deciding if an EV is right for them.

 

[PaulScott]

To those of you who complained about my comment that I regularly get 100-120 miles range, sorry, but that's what I get. And that's what others will get if they drive like I do. I know there are others on this list that equal or exceed my efficiency, so I'm not unique here. I don't feel I'm setting up false expectations, I always tell my customers how I drive to attain those numbers, so they aren't led to believe that driving normally, for them, will get that kind of efficiency. And I always mention that terrain matters. Hills do take more energy.

I also want to thank many members of Plug In America, among others, who wrote some killer responses to Louis Woodhill's horrible op-ed. I'm seeing more and more of these in the media, and I'm pretty sure there is some coordination coming from the oil industry to damp demand for EVs. It's important that we go after them each and every time they write one of these things to let them know we're watching and we'll act fast.

 

[Fabio]

Agreed, and you can bet that Oil & friends have people they pay to put negative comments on EV articles.
All we can do is counter-balance their PR effort with the truth.

I also want to thank many members of Plug In America, among others, who wrote some killer responses to Louis Woodhill's horrible op-ed. I'm seeing more and more of these in the media, and I'm pretty sure there is some coordination coming from the oil industry to damp demand for EVs. It's important that we go after them each and every time they write one of these things to let them know we're watching and we'll act fast.

 

[LEAFfan]

To my mind, proponents who exagerate the benefits of EVs are just as bad as the true haters who exagerate the disadvantages.

I couldn't find ONE exaggeration in Paul's rebuttal so please post what you perceive in your mind to be exaggerations. The only exaggerations and untruths were in Woodhill's post.

 

[Fabio]

It looks like you misunderstood me. My point is that conservative media spread lies on the LEAF just as they do on AGW (as well as a plethora of other topics)
I was making no particular comment on the effects of natural gas or coal on the environment,

I wish the conservative people on this list who own LEAFs were able to draw a parallel from the lies Forbes (and their cohorts in the right-wing media) spreads on the LEAF (which they know to be false from their daily experience) to the lies they spread on all other subjects (e.g. AWG).

Oh, I forgot, the media is only liberal...

Hill, Good find on Forbes and this one is really weak on arguments and facts so much that most of the readers ding both the author and Forbes for such low ball quality. One fact that struck me was the level 3 charging statement (480V) taking 4 hours to charge when it's only 1/2 hour.

Seems like another link http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4768#p130747 on coal and natural gas having equivalent negative impact on the environment is taken as spreading lies about AWG[sic].
Since you didn't bother to read the link, here is the conclusion

"What this study shows ... is the way people think about natural gas is just wrong, and that from a climate perspective, you have to get off of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible."

 

[aqn]

Sheesh - one of the peeps at forbes seems to think we Leaf (or any other Leaf owners for that matter) owners are out of it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2011/09/14/electric-cars-are-an-extraordinarily-bad-idea/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The good Mr. Goodhill may have realized by now that he should haved "used the Google" for that story.

 

[DrRocket]

All media is full of lies. Conservative or liberal doesn't matter. Everyone has an agenda. Those with money will use it to make the writers write their propaganda. Follow the money.

Study everything to get to the truth of the matter. Do not rely solely on the media for anything.

In every news article in which I was very familiar, the media got it wrong or edited out the important parts to consider. So do they get it right when I don't know much about the subject? I doubt it.

The current article sounds like it was funded by the natural gas industry. GM and its dealers will fund others against EVs. And so on. Follow the money, who has something to gain from the article you read?

 

[Yodrak]

It was a general statement, I did not say that Paul Scott (or any other specific individual) exagerated. I did say that he has a conflict of interest, and he does, but that's not the same thing.

To my mind, proponents who exagerate the benefits of EVs are just as bad as the true haters who exagerate the disadvantages.

I couldn't find ONE exaggeration in Paul's rebuttal so please post what you perceive in your mind to be exaggerations. The only exaggerations and untruths were in Woodhill's post.

 

[PaulScott]

It was a general statement, I did not say that Paul Scott (or any other specific individual) exagerated. I did say that he has a conflict of interest, and he does, but that's not the same thing.

Are you suggesting that I lied or exaggerated because I want to sell more cars? Do you know me or understand my motivation for selling the LEAF and solar energy? I worked for free for 8 years trying to stop the OEMs from crushing their cars, trying to get them to build new EVs, and now that I work for Nissan selling their wonderful car, someone who doesn't even know me suggests that I would lie or exaggerate just to make a buck. Incredible!

 

[TonyWilliams]

To those of you who complained about my comment that I regularly get 100-120 miles range, sorry, but that's what I get.

And I get something in the 70-100 mile range on a full charge. That's what I prefer to tell people, based not only on MY experience, but the more likely experience of most LEAF drivers.

Thanks for clarifying your position, and keep up the good work.

 

[Yodrak]

I am suggesting nothing. Read carefully, I meant no more than what I wrote so do not extend or twist my words.

If I thought you were exagerating or lying I would have said so.

It was a general statement, I did not say that Paul Scott (or any other specific individual) exagerated. I did say that he has a conflict of interest, and he does, but that's not the same thing.

Are you suggesting that I lied or exaggerated because I want to sell more cars?

 

[PaulScott]

I am suggesting nothing. Read carefully, I meant no more than what I wrote so do not extend or twist my words.

If I thought you were exagerating or lying I would have said so.

It was a general statement, I did not say that Paul Scott (or any other specific individual) exagerated. I did say that he has a conflict of interest, and he does, but that's not the same thing.

Are you suggesting that I lied or exaggerated because I want to sell more cars?

Then why mention it? Just what is this "conflict of interest" of which you speak?

 

[tps]

now that I work for Nissan selling their wonderful car

I too think it is wonderful. I just wish I could buy one.

 

[Yodrak]

You sell Nissan cars, including Leaf's, for a living - do you not? So you have a vested interest. This doesn't mean that you exagerate or lie to promote your personal wellbeing, but you do have an interest.

Same as people who are paid or sponsored by the oil, or gas, industry have vested interests. It doesn't mean that they exagerate or lie when they espouse a position regarding EVs v ICEVs (although many people here seem to accuse them of it).

Whichever side of a debate a person is on, having a conflict of interest does not mean that the person will exagerate or lie to promote their point of view, but listeners and readers should be aware of the situation to put what is said or written in proper context.

Then why mention it? Just what is this "conflict of interest" of which you speak?

 

[hill]

You sell Nissan cars, including Leaf's, for a living - do you not? So you have a vested interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . snip

actually, you originally DID say, "conflict" ... not vested interest. Maybe that was what you meant originally ... I don't know. If someone has a conflict of interest, it infers a negative connotation . . . when in fact sales people with character (which in my experience with Mr. Scott I have found to be in the utmost range) always want to be truthful and up front, because that's what brings forth repeat business. Our own little business that WE have provides both sales AND service ... and we get repeat clients/customers because of the honesty and integrity that we stand for. NO conflict. And as for "vested" interest? We are vested first in honesty and integrity and character. All else comes second. Perhaps you might be able to understand it better when put THAT way. If one tries to infer anything less, certainly one might understand that it does not reflect the true nature of one's business.