NYT says EV not worth it. Leaf = Versa

[GRA]

Honestly, i am not sure why GRA even posts here. He told us he doesnt have a Leaf.

I think he's just got a different perspective. I think he is pro-EV, just his needs exceed that of the LEAF's. It certainly doesn't hurt to have that perspective as ultimately we feedback like that will improve the offerings. Yes, he's argumentative, but he's entitled to share his point of view.

Having said that, I do have the same question. For someone whose current needs are not met by the current LEAF, he does spend a lot of time discussing it!

Since Nissan obviously monitors this forum, I want to make sure that my opinions are heard. Of course, I also go in for more direct contact, via email and/or ftf; the more avenues I can communicate to the powers that be, the more likely that I'll be heard. If anyone thinks that I only do this for the Leaf, you should review my posts in the Coda sub-forum and on the MyCodasedan forum, in particular the thread "Upgrades I'd like to see". I am brand neutral, I just want someone to make a BEV that meets my major requirements; the more it meets the better. I am more interested in the Coda currently not because I think it's a nicer, more refined car than a Leaf, which it isn't, but because the big battery version may just have enough range for me. The Leaf wins hands down on body style and most features, although the Coda's 6.6 kW charger and manual 3 knob HVAC controls are a plus for me.

Right now I'm about where a Motor Trend editor was in his comments on the Leaf in their 2012 Car of the year competition. He wrote that with a 2nd generation and a handling package, he could see buying one. Give me one with enough range and some handling improvements, and so could I.

 

[GRA]

Well to take these in order, your option 'a' exactly describes my car usage, a single-car household that uses a car for frequent out of town trips (and not at all in town, which makes me non-mainstream). As to the rest of that paragraph, I've never argued that a BEV for commuting and urban use doesn't make sense for many multi-car families, only that these same families remain unconvinced that it's worth it to them.

These families may be unconvinced due to the lack of familiarity with EV, rather than doing a cost analysis and seeing that they could at least break even and decrease their use of fossil fuels, which has many, many benefits to them over the longer term.

Certainly possible, but to assume that's always the case is as erroneous as assuming that it's never the case. And many of them just don't care about reducing fossil fuel use, GHGs, or energy security, at least not enough to make a change.

You sound like a good candidate for a Prius. What car do you currently drive?

Well, off-topic, but a 2003 Subaru Forester 2.5XS 5-spd. I bought it for snow use (like my previous Subaru wagon, which the Forester replaced after my '88 Subie was stolen). I'm extremely outdoorsy, and while I have no brand loyalty to Subaru (or any other manufacturer) they do know their target demographic quite well, and have come closest to meeting all my requirements the last two times I bought a car.

If I were buying a car now I'd prefer another wagon although a hatch like the Prius would do, but since I started Scuba diving 5 years ago I've been taking more trips to Monterey than the mountains, so I'd probably skip AWD now. But I wouldn't buy a Prius, as the performance, ride and handling is far too limp for my taste. Volkswagen is introducing a Jetta hybrid this fall which has the driving qualities the Prius lacks and will probably be rated at 45 mpg combined, so that might be an option. Or a Jetta TDI Sportwagen, although Volkswagen has rarely risen above 'average' in CR's reliability ratings for the last decade, and I normally won't buy a car that isn't rated 'better than average' or 'much better than average', as I intend to keep it until it dies. But it would take me a decade or more to come out ahead financially compared to keeping my Forester (which does everything I need it to do), so I'd prefer to skip the intermediate stage of an HEV or even a PHEV and wait for a BEV that works for me. A very large and sustained rise in gas prices, or a change in my personal driving routine (like a need to start commuting by car again) might alter my calculations.

 

[GRA]

To repeat one of my favorite Robert A. Heinlein quotes:

What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine reevelation, forget what "the stars foretell", avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history". what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

That is a very good quote. Here are some of the facts:

Leaf has no tailpipe emissions, so not contributing to smog and resulting health problems if powered on renewable energy
Leaf doesn't contribute to oil dependency, which:
--supports terrorist regimes
--worsens our balance of payments
--leads to huge military expenditures to guarantee our continued access to oil
--has involved us in a war which has cost many thousands of lives (over a hundred thousand for the Iraqis)
Leaf doesn't contribute to global warming if run on renewable power (except for manufacture, construction and maintenance of renewable power plants)

Taking these facts into account, it is to the benefit of all of us to move to EV as quickly as possible. The fact is that these costs are externalized, so while an individual does not pay these costs directly, our country bears the full cost. A carbon tax that took account of these externalities would level the playing field.

I agree completely, indeed I originally started selling AE systems (PV/Wind/Hydro) back in the early '90s partly because of Desert Storm. I want a BEV for all the reasons you mention, and more. But if it just doesn't work for me, all I'd have would be very expensive shade for my parking pad, one which generated a lot of CO2 to be produced.

 

[GRA]

....snip

if you really believe that features such as the ability to recharge at home is such a major convenience, ask yourself this: If you had two BEVs selling for the same price, one a Leaf as is, another exactly the same except that it could only recharge it at these places (i.e. not at home), which would be more likely to sell? Obviously, the 40% of the population that doesn't have access to an outlet at home would opt for the latter choice, but I'm talking about the other 60% of the population.

I would take the one that could recharge at home. I have other cars if I need to go outside the range, and prefer to be in the comfort of my garage when refueling than a station subject to the vicissitudes of weather, staffing and patrons.

And if you are in option a as you state the Leaf obviously isn't for you - but ignoring the many huge differences between a Leaf and a Versa is not necessary for you to conclude this, and rather strange behavior. I don't go around telling Volvo C70 buyers that their car is nothing more than a Focus, even though that's closer than the Leaf is to a Versa, because it's patently absurd and I gain nothing from trying to sow FUD into the minds of drivers of a car which is of no interest to me.

Since I've never claimed that a Versa is as nice as a Leaf, only that it has advantages on its side of the ledger as well as disadvantages, we have no disagreement.

 

[Train]

no matter how well stated (and verbose) his observations about his own lifestyle and needs are, I dont need someone who drives and ICE and doesnt want a Leaf to tell me all the things I already know about an ICE. I own one, and have owned them for years.

Then go to another thread.

 

[thankyouOB]

no matter how well stated (and verbose) his observations about his own lifestyle and needs are, I dont need someone who drives and ICE and doesnt want a Leaf to tell me all the things I already know about an ICE. I own one, and have owned them for years.

Then go to another thread.

I think I started this thread, and it has been hijacked.

(by the way, do you just follow me around or do you work at being annoying)?

 

[GRA]

you answered my question and defined yourself as a troll.
to quote our agreed upon definition of a troll: you are "disrupting normal on-topic discussion"
with your particular concerns and off-topic issues.

Buy yourself a Leaf and come back, or acquire knowledge about EV driving and come back. Or supply us with some original and pertinent facts about ICE driving that we all dont already know after years and years of ICE driving.
you cant. you wont.
so just go away.

Interesting. I posted how both the intentions of and hoped for responses from my posts differ from a troll, and you see this as confirming me as one. We clearly parse English very differently. I guess this is no surprise, as I also use apostrophes when spelling don't, can't and won't, and capitalize the beginning word of sentences.

As to 'disrupting normal on-topic conversation', well, if by expressing a viewpoint differing from the prevailing (but by no means universal) meme here is disruptive, I'll happily plead guilty. If MNL is a forum where only the viewpoint of 'true believers' is allowed, then it would differ in no substantial way from conversations between Limbaugh's dittoheads; only the dogma is different.

As to whether I'm on or off-topic, my initial response to this thread was to aver that the NYT article stated no more than the economic facts as the author and the typical car buyer see them rather than a 'bash' by a biased author (which some aver must be based on some ulterior and no doubt anti-EV motive). If the typical consumer didn't see things this way, current U.S. BEV monthly sales wouldn't be <1,000 while ICE sales are > 1,000,000 -- the ratio would be the opposite. When questioned on this, I provided my reasons for thinking so.

I'll be the first to admit that topic drift occurs, but in my case it's been due to trying to answer questions that have been raised in the course of the conversation. To skip ahead a bit and respond to another of your posts, I'm accused of being verbose. Guilty. I try to answer other people's questions in detail, because I'm a detail-oriented person and that's how I want MY questions answered - I want to see their rationales, so I show mine.

Let's see, acquire knowledge of EV driving. Does living with and driving a Think Citibee for a week in the '90s count? How about test driving every BEV I can get my hands on (haven't managed an 'i' yet), and (once the infrastructure is in place), renting them for a weekend to see how they meet my needs? And of course, there's my reading of every source I can get my hands on (including forums like this one, obviously) re EVs, their economy, infrastructure, production, sales etc.

As to whether my information re ICEs is original and pertinent, it's rarely original, but since it's often left out of discussions where only the advantages of EVs over ICEs are mentioned, I think such information is pertinent. Sticking your finger on one side of the scale is not conducive to making objective decisions.

As to my going away, as long as I feel like I can find valuable information here, contribute to the discussion or pass on information that others might find valuable, I'll stick around. If you find my posts valueless, why on earth are you wasting your time reading them? Anyone who feels as you do can just ignore them. This is a voluntary activity, no one except maybe company reps is getting paid to read or post here. I spent most of the weekend helping a friend move and finishing my taxes; reading and posting on various forums for a couple of hours was relaxation.

 

[GRA]

If I understand correctly, GRA:

- has a range need much larger than what the current version of Leaf offers
- thinks the whole concept of public charging which could take anywhere between 1/2 hr to 3 hrs is silly
- not needing gas or the money one can save on gas is not worth the trouble.

That's fine. There are many Americans whose needs the current Leaf does not fit, and there are many where Leaf fits their needs and lifestyle. In the former category there are very many who love and get high on gas fumes and paying $60 a week to the oil men is too intoxicating for them to let that go. Fair enough. This forum is not for them.

An honest analysis will bring out the fact that a Leaf-equivalent ICE car (not the Versa, not the Cruze) will be no more than $3k to $5k price differential(with Fed rebate of course). And the ROI starts from year 2 or 3, not 10 or 15 as that irresponsible NYT reporter says.

I disagree with the section I've bolded; that is not a position I hold. There are many cases where 0.5-3 hour public charging works. My belief is that 1/2 hour charging will be almost completely acceptable to the mass market once BEV ranges increase to 300 miles or more (~4 hours of driving). With the Leaf's current range, it's definitely not acceptable for efficient or convenient travel for more than 1 QC en route; as range increases, 1/2 hour QCs will become more reasonable -- I see 2 hours of driving range as the main breakpoint.

L2 charging works fine at destinations, just not en route (although 6.6 kW charging is a lot better than 3.3, if L2 is all you've got). And while either L2 or L3 may be acceptable, we'd all prefer to be able to recharge in 5 minutes or less if that was technically feasible.

 

[mkjayakumar]

GRA: question for you.

If Costco provides a gallon of gas for $0.20 less than all others in the neighborhood, people are willing to wait for 10-15 minutes for their turn to fill gas. If Costco, as an experiment offers gas for $0.50/gallon, how long do you think the queue will be and how many hours would people be willing to wait for a fill ?

And remember they would have to wait in their cars, and not that they can hang out inside Costco doing shopping at that time.

 

[GRA]

GRA: question for you.

If Costco provides a gallon of gas for $0.20 less than all others in the neighborhood, people are willing to wait for 10-15 minutes for their turn to fill gas. If Costco, as an experiment offers gas for $0.50/gallon, how long do you think the queue will be and how many hours would people be willing to wait for a fill ?

And remember they would have to wait in their cars, and not that they can hang out inside Costco doing shopping at that time.

Obviously the answer depends on both general economic conditions as well as the specific circumstances of the individual. Although not exactly a direct comparison as prices then were due to perceived scarcity, judging by what I saw and experienced during the oil shocks of the '70s the answer could be anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours. We didn't have sites such as gasbuddy.com then, so word took longer to spread, which changes the calc. I regularly see people waiting up to 15 minutes for a low-priced Arco station near the Oakland Coliseum, while the much-higher priced Shell (or is it Chevron? I forget) across the street is almost empty. The difference is typically $.10-.15/gal, but has been a lot more.

Maybe I'm lucky, but my lowest price local gas (Arco) is 1 mile from me, and the price difference today from the Valero a block from my Apt. is $0.08/gallon. It would make no sense to make a dedicated trip to the Arco station just for gas, but I always get gas during the course of a car errand or trip (the Arco station is right on one of my main routes in/out of town). There's a Costco in town a bit further away (right off the Interstate in a different direction), but I'm not a member and don't know if they sell gas. I never have to wait more than a couple of minutes to get gas at the Arco station and can usually drive right up to the pump, so there's no reason for me to go elsewhere.

To get to what I think is your point, if QCs were substantially cheaper people might be willing to wait longer, but at the moment they're anywhere from slightly less to much more than an equivalent amount of gas. The price will have to come down substantially before anyone who'd need to use them on a regular basis would be willing to switch from gas/diesel, even assuming that a BEV met their range needs otherwise.

 

[DaveEV]

If Costco, as an experiment offers gas for $0.50/gallon, how long do you think the queue will be and how many hours would people be willing to wait for a fill ?

Didn't a bunch of people in the UK wait voluntarily to pay a premium for fuel just recently - and wait much longer than 15-20 minutes - just so that they could ensure that they would not run out for some perceived possible shortage in supplies?

It does go to show you - a 15-20 minute QC is completely acceptable - as long as it's slightly cheaper than the equivalent price of gas and people see some value in it.

 

[SteveInSeattle]

Compare the Carbon Footprint of EV's including electric generation with the carbon footprint of ICE's including the energy involved in drilling, pumping, transporting and refining the oil and then transporting it to gas stations. Now you have a comparison, and you would be nuts to see EV's an not "green" enough!

 

[GRA]

Compare the Carbon Footprint of EV's including electric generation with the carbon footprint of ICE's including the energy involved in drilling, pumping, transporting and refining the oil and then transporting it to gas stations. Now you have a comparison, and you would be nuts to see EV's an not "green" enough!

I'm not sure if this was in reply to something I posted or not. Was it?

 

[DaveEV]

Compare the Carbon Footprint of EV's including electric generation with the carbon footprint of ICE's including the energy involved in drilling, pumping, transporting and refining the oil and then transporting it to gas stations. Now you have a comparison, and you would be nuts to see EV's an not "green" enough!

This thread covers that topic in detail: How Green Are Electric Cars? Depends on Where You Plug In

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

There was a gas promotion in the Seattle area a while back where gas waz sold for like a buck a gallon and the line caused traffic jams and was **** downby the cops but some waitdd over two hours to save $30 on a gas fill. Limit was like 10 gallons

 

[mkjayakumar]

GRA's point is valid in that the combination of 1/3rd of the range with the waiting time of over 3 times to fill up over an ICE car, even using a QC, makes it impractical to do long trips for many. That does not have tobe stated many times over, as it is well understood.

He overlooks the fact that the current version of Leaf is meant more as a commute/errand car with occasional long distance trips, provided there is enough time and QCs on the way. I am sure there are millions who fit that profile.

 

[thankyouOB]

As to my going away, as long as I feel like I can find valuable information here, contribute to the discussion or pass on information that others might find valuable, I'll stick around. If you find my posts valueless, why on earth are you wasting your time reading them? Anyone who feels as you do can just ignore them. This is a voluntary activity, no one except maybe company reps is getting paid to read or post here. I spent most of the weekend helping a friend move and finishing my taxes; reading and posting on various forums for a couple of hours was relaxation.

you are the MNL version of the cuckoo bird.
and yes, you are disruptive and self-obsessed. It is not for us to go away when someone shows up out of nowhere and hijacks the thread. you post over and over again without waiting for a reply, then return to post more.
It is particularly sad that you have no perspective or internal editor, as you seem to have a few worthwhile things buried in the endless spew.

 

[lpickup]

{...snipped...}

I don't think we need to resort to name calling here.
I for one think that Guy's statements are valid for him and provide a meaningful discussion. I may not agree with all of his conclusions (I completely agree with his recent post about how many QC's is practical for a typical driver though!), but that doesn't make him disruptive.

I suppose it is nice to see MNL as a haven for everyone that has the exact same opinions on everything, but the reality is that everyone has different opinions. I find Guy's posts to be at least well thought out and reasoned, unlike the typical naysayers that post one inflammatory comment on a news article comment board, without backing it up, and then go away when you provide a factual rebuttal.

I don't think Guy needs me or anyone else to stand here and defend him, and I wasn't going to, but at the point you resorted to name calling, I couldn't help but step in. Even IF you think that his posts are disruptive, in my opinion name calling is at least as objectionable.

 

[DaveEV]

Even IF you think that his posts are disruptive, in my opinion name calling is at least as objectionable.

+1 - let's be nice, people! Too easy to get carried away on teh intarwebs.

 

[thankyouOB]

thanks for the input. really.
I aim to be accurate and not just use invective. that would be calling names.
cuckoo bird, disruptive, self-obsessed? it seems appropriate for the kind of and frequency of the posts without any intermittent commentary from others, as well as the length and redundancy.
name calling?
i dont see it that way.

as I said, he has some good things to say but they are lost in the faucet of words without any apparent internal regulator.