What's Holding Back Electric Car Sales?

[DaveinOlyWA]

All that would do is just get it off the ground and up to minimum airspeed. It still has to climb and accelerate under its own power... And I'm sure that the typical passenger would love the G load! :lol:

By the way, the new aircraft carriers are going to electromagnetic launchers and retiring steam...

Never say never. Think of a ground-launch system for battery planes that is similar to the steam-powered ones on aircraft carriers.

well that would depend on the duration of the launch. wondering about the feasibility of a launcher that was say a half mile in length? would cost a ton but fuel savings would be astronomical. I guess it would boil down to how fast it could be reloaded. even at 90 second intervals, airports have to struggle to keep up with their flight schedules

 

[TomT]

Actually, planes do not burn that much fuel on the takeoff roll since it is relatively short (30 seconds typically) ... It is the climb to altitude that consumes the Lion's share...

well that would depend on the duration of the launch. wondering about the feasibility of a launcher that was say a half mile in length? would cost a ton but fuel savings would be astronomical. I guess it would boil down to how fast it could be reloaded. even at 90 second intervals, airports have to struggle to keep up with their flight schedules

 

[mbender]

I know what they say... never say never. But there will never be a battery powered airplane. At least a airliner type. Typically on a long range flight...

I think even Elon Musk said it is possible, or not technically impossible, but great leaps in battery tech would be required. I can try to look it up, but I think he was referring to a vertical takeoff, and -- you might be right -- not an airliner type/size of aircraft.

 

[johnrhansen]

Just for fun, let's say an electric 747 would use 20 percent of the energy of a kerosene powered one. I figured that it would take 250MW to charge it for the next trip during a two hour turnaround. Now that would dim the lights! and it would be a huge external power cord!

 

[johnrhansen]

Just for comparison, the 787 has the capability of generating 1MW of power from it's 4 engine driven starter/generators (2 per engine). Now the airplane probably only needs a third of that capacity, but the electrical system alone draws 300KW. Enough to charge 7 or 8 leafs at the same time.
Airplanes are real energy hogs. Everything has to be light. And you can't have light weight and efficiency at the same time.

 

[Wufnu]

Range is the reason. Need 150+ EPA miles. The rest is just noise.

Not so much "range" as "range anxiety." A 150 mile EV would just have people worrying about that 200 mile hypothetical trip they might make. Hybrids and PHEVs are doing well because once people understand that they won't stop dead and strand them (as long as they have gas in them) they like the idea. Given that it takes a lot of effort just to get most people to understand how a PHEV works, getting them to make lifestyle changes for an EV seems pretty daunting...

Maybe we need a new ad campaign, for the Leaf and most other EVs: "The Perfect Second Car"

I think most people could accept 150 mile range if that was worst case and there were plenty of options for recharging. A 150 range vehicle, today, would fit most people and they can just charge at home. However, then winter hits and you can only go 90 miles. That's only 10 miles more than my wife and I commute, "guess we won't be running errands this winter". To make matters worse, the batteries get worse over time. I think 200 miles is a more practical amount (of course, the more the better). That's enough for commuting w/ errands and "who knows", or going to the next large city for shopping, etc. With a good system of quick chargers in place, they wouldn't even have to worry about long drives.

Someday.

 

[forummm]

The leafs are selling like hotcakes here in Seattle.

And Atlanta. They are everywhere (including 2 in my garage). Leaf is Nissan's #1 selling car in Georgia. It's really word-of-mouth driven. The GA tax credit really helps too, but it's only $2500 more than CA (less than 10% of the cost of the car).

Since I got my first one, I've told everyone about how great they are. I expect to be responsible for a handful of sales by the end of the year just from telling people about my experience. One friend bought already and 2 more are actively shopping and 2 more are considering it.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The leafs are selling like hotcakes here in Seattle.

And Atlanta. They are everywhere (including 2 in my garage). Leaf is Nissan's #1 selling car in Georgia. It's really word-of-mouth driven. The GA tax credit really helps too, but it's only $2500 more than CA (less than 10% of the cost of the car).

Since I got my first one, I've told everyone about how great they are. I expect to be responsible for a handful of sales by the end of the year just from telling people about my experience. One friend bought already and 2 more are actively shopping and 2 more are considering it.

Ghosn in a very recent interview stated 3 cities (Atlanta, San Francisco, and Seattle) account for over 80% of LEAF sales.

 

[evnow]

The leafs are selling like hotcakes here in Seattle.

Though, I should note that because of health consciousness hotcakes don't sell all that well in Seattle

 

[donald]

.. the takeoff roll since it is relatively short (30 seconds typically) ...

Totally off topic, but what the heck - Funnily enough, I was always taught how 'planes almost universally take 40 seconds to take off. Less and they are lightly loaded, more and they are heavy. Makes almost no difference between light versus heavy commercial. Count 40 s next time you're in a 'plane! (assuming it isn't a fighter jet you're in that can achieve ballistic acceleration )

Co-incidentally, that's about the same time a desktop computer takes to start up too! :?:

The solution to delivering ground based power for the take off has already been solved - twice. Gliders use a winch line and naval jets use a steam catapult. I'm not saying the practicalities of a two mile long winch launch are exactly straightforward for a 747, but a cat launch would scare the beejezuz out of the older passengers! :lol:

(Personally, I can see a future for nuclear powered airships that use steam for a lifting gas, so they would simply stay airborne indefinitely and never need to attempt a dangerous landing, but the politicos would want to poo-poo that idea I am sure.)

Now, where was that thread ....

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The leafs are selling like hotcakes here in Seattle.

Though, I should note that because of health consciousness hotcakes don't sell all that well in Seattle

well, organic, gluten free, whole wheat ones do ok

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

.. the takeoff roll since it is relatively short (30 seconds typically) ...

Totally off topic, but what the heck - Funnily enough, I was always taught how 'planes almost universally take 40 seconds to take off. Less and they are lightly loaded, more and they are heavy. Makes almost no difference between light versus heavy commercial. Count 40 s next time you're in a 'plane! (assuming it isn't a fighter jet you're in that can achieve ballistic acceleration )

Co-incidentally, that's about the same time a desktop computer takes to start up too! :?:

The solution to delivering ground based power for the take off has already been solved - twice. Gliders use a winch line and naval jets use a steam catapult. I'm not saying the practicalities of a two mile long winch launch are exactly straightforward for a 747, but a cat launch would scare the beejezuz out of the older passengers! :lol:

(Personally, I can see a future for nuclear powered airships that use steam for a lifting gas, so they would simply stay airborne indefinitely and never need to attempt a dangerous landing, but the politicos would want to poo-poo that idea I am sure.)

Now, where was that thread ....

just timed this a few months ago and it was actually only about 22 seconds

 

[johnrhansen]

2 things. Totally off topic. Sorry.

I was born here in Seattle, and I'm here to tell you. I eat hotcakes. It's all these transplants that brought in all their health food hipsterism (I just made up that word)

The takeoff roll takes longer the heavier the airplane gets. First the rotation speed goes up with weight, second it takes longer to get there. The odd counterintuitive thing is that a very heavy airplane takes longer to descend than a lightly loaded one. (more potential energy to dissipate)

 

[dhanson865]

Actually, planes do not burn that much fuel on the takeoff roll since it is relatively short (30 seconds typically) ... It is the climb to altitude that consumes the Lion's share...

well that would depend on the duration of the launch. wondering about the feasibility of a launcher that was say a half mile in length? would cost a ton but fuel savings would be astronomical. I guess it would boil down to how fast it could be reloaded. even at 90 second intervals, airports have to struggle to keep up with their flight schedules

Acording to Wikipedia due to jet engines being highly inefficient at low speeds, Concorde burned two tonnes of fuel (almost 2% of the maximum fuel load) taxiing to the runway.

If other large jets spend 2% of their fuel taxiing around that is significant.

 

[johnrhansen]

The Concorde used straight pipe turbojets. Very efficient at supersonic speeds, in fact it was the most efficient engine ever put on an airplane from what I remember, but that efficiency was negated by the tremendous force required to knock the air out of the way for the rest of the airplane. The Concorde ended up using about the same fuel on a 3 hour flight that a 747 used on a 7 hour flight. The straight jets are horribly inefficient at low speeds, yes. That's why the Concorde had afterburners. Get that airplane up in the air and supersonic as fast as possible. Modern Turbofans are far more efficient at low speeds. Nowhere near 2 percent fuel gets consumed at taxi out. Unless there is a really long line.

 

[Wufnu]

I make parts for the P&W geared turbofan, among others. 10-15% more fuel efficient than current turbofans. It's pretty spectacular. As good as current turbofans are, they're about to get a lot better. GE is also working on an engine with similar fuel efficiency savings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[kikngas]

I think I cut through some of the misunderstanding amongst my friends when I posed this question:

I charged today at a public charge station during a visit to the library. I paid $1.50 and got about 30 miles of range in an hour. Did I get a good deal?

They stared at the ceiling a few seconds and concluded that was a price they'd be glad to pay. About half the price they pay to drive ICE.

Then I pointed out that if I had put the same charge in at home the same amount of electricity would only have cost about half as much from my existing household outlet. And that if I took advantage of off-peak rates from my power company, the cost would only be about half as much again, $.36

They still don't quite BELIEVE it, but I think it eliminates some of the confusion when you relate dollars directly to miles (and simplify away a bit of the uncertainty about exactly how many miles you might get for various reasons).

Keep in mind that this (the 6c/kWh off-peak rate) is an order of magnitude less than they are paying on a daily basis. If someone told you that you are paying 10x too much for cereal or Chinese food, you'd probably be looking for the "catch" in the story as well... But think about it, and you know you can buy a 10 pound bag of rice for about the price of one take-out order, and that a 60 pound bushel of wheat sells for roughly the price of two large boxes of Wheaties (weighing about 3 pounds).

 

[donald]

you'd probably be looking for the "catch" in the story as well...

The catch is that the $10k battery pack lasts 100,000 miles, which is a very similar materials cost versus fuel cost in the ICE, and all that time you can only travel within 40 miles of home else you have to spent your time fiddling with charging.

Now, if it was found that very few people ended up with battery costs then that would boost the 2nd hand market, knowledge of which is needed to consider putting cash into an asset like a car. So the major holdups are a lack of knowledge of the reliability of EVs, which in turn means the future 2nd hand market is an unknown which in turn people don't want to risk putting a ton of cash into something that could be a pup within a few years.

 

[bbrowncods]

you'd probably be looking for the "catch" in the story as well...

The catch is that the $10k battery pack lasts 100,000 miles, which is a very similar materials cost versus fuel cost in the ICE, and all that time you can only travel within 40 miles of home else you have to spent your time fiddling with charging.

Now, if it was found that very few people ended up with battery costs then that would boost the 2nd hand market, knowledge of which is needed to consider putting cash into an asset like a car. So the major holdups are a lack of knowledge of the reliability of EVs, which in turn means the future 2nd hand market is an unknown which in turn people don't want to risk putting a ton of cash into something that could be a pup within a few years.

It's about $6k, but I get your point.

 

[donald]

It's about $6k, but I get your point.

$6k is a 'softener' from Nissan to make you feel you can replace it. The real cost is much higher. Of course, we hope the cost of battery manufacture will drop in the future, but for the moment that's a loss-making offer from Nissan. In fact, Nissan lose money on every Leaf at the moment. It is not a model making any direct profit.