Nissan : EV batteries must deliver 300 km (186 m) to compete

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

evnow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
11,480
Location
Seattle, WA
Will the next gen Leaf be developed to compete with Tesla Gen 3 or a Toyota fuel cell vehicle ?

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140507/OEM05/140509845/nissans-next-evs-more-mainstream-better-battery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Palmer declined to offer a target range. But EV batteries must deliver up to 300 kilometers, or 186 miles, for the cars to present an everyday alternative to the hydrogen fuel cell cars that rivals are developing, he said.

Strangely, it would appear that Nissan thinks more about their home country rivals than the one thousands of miles away.

Do they really take Toyota/Honda's talk about fuel cell vehicles seriously ?

The Infiniti EV may have a greater range than the Leaf because its sedan packaging can accommodate a bigger battery.

Ofcourse they may think of Infiniti taking on Tesla with an even longer range ...
 
Of course they take fuel cell development seriously - the rest of the world sees things that many on this forum have been slow to accept. ;)
 
And they see it from a very different perspective than you do...

AndyH said:
Of course they take fuel cell development seriously - the rest of the world sees things that many on this forum have been slow to accept. ;)
 
So, why doesn't Elon Musk see much credibility in "fool cells" (as he calls them)?

I don't think it's a satisfying response simply to dismiss his view as a competitive attack; Musk is not, IMHO, someone who would roundly criticize a technology without serious and substantial reasoning behind it.
 
Musk is not making fuel cell vehicles, why should he back the technology?


When Bob Lutz asked Musk about the LEAF, Musk said that he kinda liked it.




timhebb said:
So, why doesn't Elon Musk see much credibility in "fool cells" (as he calls them)?

I don't think it's a satisfying response simply to dismiss his view as a competitive attack; Musk is not, IMHO, someone who would roundly criticize a technology without serious and substantial reasoning behind it.
 
Lasareath said:
When Bob Lutz asked Musk about the LEAF, Musk said that he kinda liked it.
This is what he had to say in an interview:

“What Nissan’s doing with the Leaf is sincere. I think Nissan ought to be applauded for its efforts, and GM also for the Volt. That’s not saying those are great products, they’re not great products, but just because the products are not great doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be applauded for those efforts, because they just need to iterate and iterate to make a better electric car. It’s a step in the right direction, and they need to keep going in that direction.”

About the i3 he said:

“My initial impression of the i3 is it looks a bit funny and the range is not high enough. It seems to have been made intentionally weird, as opposed to letting the form follow function. Form should not be artificially weird.”

I'd actually have some interest in a PHEV with at least 50 miles of electric only range and a Hydrogen FC for the extender...
 
If evs can get to 200+ miles, given how much cheaper stations are, it would be hard to make a credible fuel cell argument for passenger cars. A 30 minute refill is acceptable on road trips and for many the commuter refills happen at night, so already not a burden.

Hydrogen will win only if the ev tech doesn't advance in next 5 years.

They could be a market for trucks though, as batteries are some distance from being useful for 18 wheelers at any reasonable distance
 
AndyH said:
Of course they take fuel cell development seriously - the rest of the world sees things that many on this forum have been slow to accept. ;)

The reason I don't take it seriously here is well known.

OEMs have used the hydrogen as a way to postpone ZEV compliance. They did it successfully a decade back - they have tried with less success recently.

Then there are all the other questions
- Efficiency is low compared to BEV since there are more conversions
- We'd again be dependent on fueling stations, instead of peacefully charging at home
- Infrastructure is orders of magnitude more expensive

I see no effort on the part of Toyota to actually attack and solve any of the problems compared to say Tesla or even Nissan w.r.t. BEV issues.

So, why should anyone take FSC seriously ? They simply lack credibility.
 
Here you go TomT, I recorded a Video for you from my TV. This clip is from the "Revenge of the Electric Car" movie

http://www.ubuygas.com/elon_says_he_likes_the_leaf.MOV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





TomT said:
Lasareath said:
When Bob Lutz asked Musk about the LEAF, Musk said that he kinda liked it.
This is what he had to say in an interview:

“What Nissan’s doing with the Leaf is sincere. I think Nissan ought to be applauded for its efforts, and GM also for the Volt. That’s not saying those are great products, they’re not great products, but just because the products are not great doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be applauded for those efforts, because they just need to iterate and iterate to make a better electric car. It’s a step in the right direction, and they need to keep going in that direction.”

About the i3 he said:

“My initial impression of the i3 is it looks a bit funny and the range is not high enough. It seems to have been made intentionally weird, as opposed to letting the form follow function. Form should not be artificially weird.”

I'd actually have some interest in a PHEV with at least 50 miles of electric only range and a Hydrogen FC for the extender...
 
evnow said:
AndyH said:
Of course they take fuel cell development seriously - the rest of the world sees things that many on this forum have been slow to accept. ;)

The reason I don't take it seriously here is well known.

OEMs have used the hydrogen as a way to postpone ZEV compliance. They did it successfully a decade back - they have tried with less success recently.

Then there are all the other questions
- Efficiency is low compared to BEV since there are more conversions
- We'd again be dependent on fueling stations, instead of peacefully charging at home
- Infrastructure is orders of magnitude more expensive

I see no effort on the part of Toyota to actually attack and solve any of the problems compared to say Tesla or even Nissan w.r.t. BEV issues.

So, why should anyone take FSC seriously ? They simply lack credibility.
evnow, with respect, what you're demonstrating is an example of 'old generals always planning to fight the last war'. Please do look around - we're living on a changed world. Hydrogen IS being used to store renewable power and hydrogen IS being used to support and speed the move to electrified transportation. Home H2 refueling has been going on in the US for years. Infrastructure is 'orders of magnitude' more expensive? Compared to what? A single EVSE to a 'gas station' or the entire electrical grid VS. a similarly capable hydrogen 'grid'?

The facts remain that in today's world (not 1998) we cannot build enough batteries to make a dent in transportation, the vast majority of Americans cannot afford to buy a BEV, and current BEVs cannot meet the transportation needs of most people unless they have a 2nd car. Additionally, projections are clear that we aren't currently able to bring battery prices down enough fast enough to change any of these facts. Fuel cells, on the other hand, CAN meet range and climate control of all drivers, and they are coming down in price on a trajectory similar to PV panels.

CARB is helpful in the US but the first FCEVs weren't delivered in the US and certainly not in CARB states - they were delivered in South Korea, Norway, Austria, and Italy. This isn't about CARB or compliance cars - it's about the global move to renewable energy, 400 ppm atmospheric CO2, and the global economy's entry into the decline of fossil fuels.
 
Both are "unavailable" but I've seen the movie and the interview to which you are referring... The quotes I am referring to are from a different interview...

Lasareath said:
Here you go TomT, I recorded a Video for you from my TV. This clip is from the "Revenge of the Electric Car" movie
 
Available now: http://www.ubuygas.com/elon_says_he_likes_the_leaf.MOV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


TomT said:
Both are "unavailable" but I've seen the movie... The quotes I am referring to are from a different interview...

Lasareath said:
Here you go TomT, I recorded a Video for you from my TV. This clip is from the "Revenge of the Electric Car" movie
 
AndyH said:
evnow, with respect, what you're demonstrating is an example of 'old generals always planning to fight the last war'. Please do look around - we're living on a changed world. Hydrogen IS being used to store renewable power and hydrogen IS being used to support and speed the move to electrified transportation. Home H2 refueling has been going on in the US for years. Infrastructure is 'orders of magnitude' more expensive? Compared to what? A single EVSE to a 'gas station' or the entire electrical grid VS. a similarly capable hydrogen 'grid'?
We have electricity available in the home of 300 million people - so a handful of people who may be making H2 at home is not that significant in terms of mass infrastructure.

We have a massive electrical infrastructure in place - yes it is aging and needs upgrades. But there is zero H2 infrastructure. It is like comparing our aging road infrastructure to monorail on elevated tracks.

The facts remain that in today's world (not 1998) we cannot build enough batteries to make a dent in transportation...

We also can't make enough renewable electricity to power all of our needs. So do we want to back inefficient transportation ?
 
evnow said:
AndyH said:
evnow, with respect, what you're demonstrating is an example of 'old generals always planning to fight the last war'. Please do look around - we're living on a changed world. Hydrogen IS being used to store renewable power and hydrogen IS being used to support and speed the move to electrified transportation. Home H2 refueling has been going on in the US for years. Infrastructure is 'orders of magnitude' more expensive? Compared to what? A single EVSE to a 'gas station' or the entire electrical grid VS. a similarly capable hydrogen 'grid'?
We have electricity available in the home of 300 million people - so a handful of people who may be making H2 at home is not that significant in terms of mass infrastructure.

We have a massive electrical infrastructure in place - yes it is aging and needs upgrades. But there is zero H2 infrastructure. It is like comparing our aging road infrastructure to monorail on elevated tracks.

The facts remain that in today's world (not 1998) we cannot build enough batteries to make a dent in transportation...

We also can't make enough renewable electricity to power all of our needs. So do we want to back inefficient transportation ?
You're welcome to your views but you might want to double-check the status of the H2 infrastructure (hint: there is one).

I think it's too funny that you use a renewable energy strawman to again suggest FCEV/FCHV won't work because of 'efficiency'. Have you really looked at the efficiency of the US power grid? What you're doing with efficiency is the same thing the natural gas industry is doing when they declare CNG vehicles are 'clean' - they're just pulling the bounds in until it fits their message.

Have you looked at the 'efficiency' of an ICE with your narrow bounds or the well to wheels numbers?

BEVs cannot provide a 100% solution today. If our cities get smarter and bring in better mass transit, the current crop of BEV city vehicles will be all but useless. The vehicles we need to get off the road are the ICE - and FCEVs are both an efficiency improvement and a carbon improvement.

Finally, I'll bet you already know that those silly automakers are putting FCEVs into the ZEV category becuase THEY ARE ZEVs, right?
 
AndyH said:
If our cities get smarter and bring in better mass transit, the current crop of BEV city vehicles will be all but useless.
North American urban/suburban areas generally aren't dense enough for mass transit to really take over. Densification will change that to some extent, but cars aren't going away anytime soon. BEVs and PHEVs, I think, will continue to be tremendously useful.

With the cost of 200+ mile BEVs on a downward trajectory, I just don't see a strong need for H2 in passenger cars. I have no problem with H2 being an option, however, and letting consumers decide, as I agree that H2 is generally preferable to gasoline/diesel.

For consumers, it seems clear that infrastructure and "fuel" costs will favor BEVs over H2 for the foreseeable future. With a BEV, I can "refuel" anywhere I can get permission to use an electrical outlet, and the cost is low.

Of course, H2's trump card is fast refueling, an essential selling point to some fraction of consumers. The only way BEVs could reasonably match that would be via battery swapping, or by having such capacious batteries (hundreds of kWh) that very long trips could be undertaken on a single charge.

All of that said, if I'm a government and have X dollars to spend on transportation infrastructure, I'll allocate it to EV fast-charging before H2, any day. I agree that, going forward, BEVs will need to have plenty of range to win out when choices like this are made.
 
abasile said:
With the cost of 200+ mile BEVs on a downward trajectory, I just don't see a strong need for H2 in passenger cars. I have no problem with H2 being an option, however, and letting consumers decide, as I agree that H2 is generally preferable to gasoline/diesel.
Agreed. Fuel Cell cars are a day late and a dollar short. By the time they are available for a reasonable price and there are a significant number of places to fuel them, BEV will have won the day already. Could end up being a niche vehicle though.
 
A fuel cell could make for an interesting PHEV though...

Stoaty said:
Fuel Cell cars are a day late and a dollar short. By the time they are available for a reasonable price and there are a significant number of places to fuel them, BEV will have won the day already. Could end up being a niche vehicle though.
 
Back
Top