Forbes Takes Issue with the Leaf

[hill]

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;

Care to comment here or on Forbes? From what I can tell, most comments seems to disagree with Mr. Woodhill. Baaah . . . what do they know.




.

 

[mywaracfirfoyff]

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;

Care to comment here or on Forbes? From what I can tell, most comments seems to disagree with Mr. Woodhill. Baaah . . . what do they know.




.

Here's Paul Scott's take:
http://evsandenergy.blogspot.com/2011/09/extraordinarily-bad-article.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks!

 

[kmp647]

Oh yeah cng thats what we need

And fracking ..... Perfect we all know how clean and perfect that process is

No possible ground water contamination here!

 

[mywaracfirfoyff]

Oh yeah cng thats what we need

And fracking ..... Perfect we all know how clean and perfect that process is

No possible ground water contamination here!

I think a better critique of a plan which promotes a large scale switch to CNG vehicles is that it pushes us to another painful transition point in the future.
Electric vehicles decouple the fuel source from the vehicle, CNG vehicles do not.

Thanks!

 

[dgpcolorado]

I'd have been astonished if Forbes DIDN'T have that sort of take on electric cars. They are profoundly biased against anything not intended to promote the status quo for the extremely wealthy and encourage conspicuous consumption. Much the same as one finds on the editorial/op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal. They are against anything that even hints of environmentalism and in favor of pure laissez faire capitalism with no regulations or restrictions whatsoever, environment be damned.

Steve Forbes ran for President some years ago, you might want to dig up his positions on things if any this surprises you.

 

[lspooz]

Oh yeah cng thats what we need

And fracking ..... Perfect we all know how clean and perfect that process is

No possible ground water contamination here!

Hey, with fracking you wind up with tapwater that's sometimes (honest to God) flammable! (Look it up)
Whatta revoltin' development!

 

[Boomer23]

hill, thanks for pointing out this amazingly misinformed article. I agree that the fact that Forbes published it is more egregious than finding an author who is willing to spew this nonsense.

It is heartening to find attached so many comments from well informed EV proponents, notably and reliably, Paul Scott, among them. With such a clear response, I hope that Forbes' editors will pay heed and perhaps even host an article with a well researched view about the benefits of EVs as one solution among many to the energy and security problems in the world, but as dgpcolorado notes, I won't hold my breath for that article in Forbes.

EDIT: If you click on the video on the same page, "The Future of Electric Cars", you'll see a much more favorable and unbiased interview with the principal of a battery company which is working to be an OEM for EVs.

 

[Nekota]

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.

 

[Herm]

commenter steveev mentions that he suffers from "natural resource anxiety"

 

[Fabio]

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.

 

[thankyouOB]

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.

very good point Fabio, but your wish is likely to fail as you are asking them to live in a reality- and fact-based world and drop their ideology; not likely from the comments that I read here from the usual suspects.

(oh, and that Forbes article, full of lies, misstatements, and made up facts.)

 

[TomT]

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.

 

[thankyouOB]

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.

agree with that, for sure.
but Paul is a salesman, too.
He should say YMMV.

 

[Fabio]

Reality has a well known liberal bias and shall be ignored at all cost :lol: :lol:

... your wish is likely to fail as you are asking them to live in a reality- and fact-based world and drop their ideology; not likely from the comments that I read here from the usual suspects.

 

[Herm]

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."

Shh Tom, dont spoil our fun, if they get to exaggerate so do we.. driving at 45mph in a 45mph zone is perfectly reasonable and safe.

 

[TomT]

And would never get me where I need to go if I stuck to just those roads... :lol:

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."

Shh Tom, dont spoil our fun, if they get to exaggerate so do we.. driving at 45mph in a 45mph zone is perfectly reasonable and safe.

 

[EVDrive]

Not sure which news outlet has more factual stories, the Onion or Forbes. I would have to lean toward the Onion as a better source of accurate reporting if I had to choose.

Maybe Paul Scott regularly drives around town at 25-45mph to get his stated range. Most of us take the freeway or highway and 90 miles is the best I can do at 55mph. Driving any slower down the open road is not pleasant for me or other drivers.

 

[LKK]

You can cherry pick the worst things that can happen and spin a totally negative story. I think that is what was done here.

There is however, one fact that I agree with, and that is the issue of recharging. I have no doubt in my mind that batteries will continue to improve. They will become cheaper, store more, last longer and recharge faster. I think EVs will eventually take over the role of commuter vehicles, but I don't think EVs can gain the acceptance of the general public for general use until they can be recharged as quickly as ICE cars can be refueled. L3 charging is a step in the right direction, but I don't believe most people are willing to wait 30 minutes to go 100, 200 or even 300 miles. The lack of a fast charging infrastructure further componds this problem and in order for the charging infrastructure to be as available as petro, they either have to charge even faster, say 10 minutes or so, or the number of chargers have to be multiplied accordingly.

The problem is basic physics, you can improve the battery all you want but you still have to shove the requisite number electrons into that battey. I don't know the answer, public EV infrastructure has to be dramatically improved, residential wiring also has to be upgraded to handle faster overnight charging. It's will take time and a lot of money, it can be done but I don't know if the public is up for the challange.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Yes, my only real quibble was the 100-120 mile range, but I think he was including his charge at work.

 

[hodad66]

The article is biased..... :shock: No alternative will fill the needs
of everyone. The author touts natural gas.... well I would have
been driving a CNG vehicle long ago IF there were any infrastructure.
My old house (1948) had gas lines installed GREAT. My "new" house
(1957) doesn't and there are no public filling locations. Hell, there
are more charge stations within 100 miles than CNG filling locations.

Just as in power itself, the answer in America includes "all of the above"
and then some. The issue we must gain control of is the WILL to
make the changes necessary.