Nissan's Andy Palmer on dirty power - "complete bullsh*t"

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.
adric22 said:
But my favorite thing to point out to EV haters, which just riles them up to no end, is that I don't need to justify my purchase to them.
"Riling" them might not be the most prudent course of action when faced with the closed minds that our country's extreme political polarization (as sustained and encouraged by our poisonous media outlets) has created. There is no convincing a Dittohead that there is any redeeming value of an EV, and they are also likely to be strong proponents of their 2nd amendment rights, meaning they may be well-armed. You don't want to become the victim in a "road rage" incident over your choice of cars. :shock:

Words to live by: "Don’t try to win over the haters--you’re not the Jackass Whisperer."

TT
 
ttweed said:
There is no convincing a Dittohead that there is any redeeming value of an EV, and they are also likely to be strong proponents of their 2nd amendment rights, meaning they may be well-armed. You don't want to become the victim in a "road rage" incident over your choice of cars. :shock:

Just thought I might point out that I drive a Leaf, and I'm a strong proponent of my 2nd amendment rights. In fact, I have a Texas Concealed Handgun license and if I'm awake and dressed, I have a firearm on my hip, usually a Glock 19. Despite what the anti-gun people in California think, allowing people to have concealed handgun licenses does not result in road-rage incidents turning into shoot-outs. After all, acquiring a handgun license is much more involved than getting a fishing license. There are extreme background checks. Any offense other than a traffic ticket will pretty much disqualify you. Several hundred-thousand Texans are now licensed and there have been virtually zero incidents other than legitimate self-defense incidents.

The problem with the main populous of conservatives when it comes to "green" vehicles is that it has been crammed down their throats that the only person who would want such a vehicle is because of the environmental benefits. And since many conservatives are less convinced of environmental dangers, obviously they see no need for an EV or hybrid. That is why I've said many, many times that we need to get these manufacturers to stop all of the commercials about the Prius or the Leaf as being directed only towards environmentalists. There are so many other great benefits it is ridiculous to only focus on that one thing.

You want to get conservatives on board? Lets have a Leaf commercial where instead of showing polar bears, we show a secret Al-Quaida meeting. In the meeting, they all look depressed and the leader says "these are troubling times. We are going broke! This is our greatest enemy!" Then he holds up a picture of a Nissan Leaf.

Or, lets have a commercial showing how some worker in a coal mine or a natural gas well, or a nuclear power plant has a job because of the Leaf using more electricity. And how that money stays in our economy instead of going to Arab countries.

Unfortunately, we'll probably never see anything like that.
 
thew said:
For me, I am 100% Solar.. My Leaf is Powerd Only by our L2 EVSE that is tied directly into our PV arrays Battery pack. And there are more like me.. We are truly the Future.. Our systems are producing the electricity needed to charge our EVs.
Before my LEAF I was giving it back to Edison and not getting a dime for my Surplus electricity that I generate at my home.. Now my LEAF has offset that nicely. So No Coal power for MY Leaf ! >)

Solar Power all the Way!
You would think that would be the end of the argument. But I've had friends tell me (with a straight face) that they read it takes more energy to manufacture solar cells than they produce. As a race we really aren't as smart as we think we are and it'll take a generation before old biases really go away.
 
TickTock said:
If you include all energy used for the gasoline production, EV drivers can go further on the energy used to produce a gallon of gasoline than most ICEs can go on that same gallon (assuming you convert that production energy to electricity and give it to us :))
And there is the problem.... As you noted, only 1-1.5 kWh of the energy used to produce a gallon of gasoline is actually in the form of electricity taken off the grid. The remaining 5-6 kWh of energy are in the form of fossil fuels which would need to be converted into electricity in order to power your LEAF. You could convert them at about 35-55% efficiency so, depending upon assumptions, you would end up with 3-5 kWh of electricity at the wall socket when the original grid electricity is included.

At the EPA rated 340 Wh per mile, that gets you 9-15 miles for the energy used (wasted) to refine a gallon of electricity. A large non-hybrid SUV like a Cadillac Escalade gets 14-18 miles on a gallon of gas according EPA estimates.
 
thew: Can you show us your set-up? Pictures of the L2--how is it plugged into battery bank? How many batteries? What kind of batteries? Would like to replicate. Much appreciated.
 
adric22 said:
ttweed said:
There is no convincing a Dittohead that there is any redeeming value of an EV, and they are also likely to be strong proponents of their 2nd amendment rights, meaning they may be well-armed. You don't want to become the victim in a "road rage" incident over your choice of cars. :shock:

Just thought I might point out that I drive a Leaf, and I'm a strong proponent of my 2nd amendment rights. In fact, I have a Texas Concealed Handgun license and if I'm awake and dressed, I have a firearm on my hip, usually a Glock 19. Despite what the anti-gun people in California think, allowing people to have concealed handgun licenses does not result in road-rage incidents turning into shoot-outs. After all, acquiring a handgun license is much more involved than getting a fishing license. There are extreme background checks. Any offense other than a traffic ticket will pretty much disqualify you. Several hundred-thousand Texans are now licensed and there have been virtually zero incidents other than legitimate self-defense incidents. ...

I suppose that is how that worked with Jared Lee Loughner.
 
Its bad news for science when GW got politized by the left.. it will destroy science's standing with 50% of the American voter. The backlash could be horrible if it starts snowing in Texas in July.
 
adric22 said:
thankyouOB said:
I suppose that is how that worked with Jared Lee Loughner.

You suppose wrong.. Jared had no concealed carry permit.

Well.. for a public rampage like his, he would not need one.
Just being able to buy a semiautomatic gun and a generous amount of ammunition will do.

Just imagine for a moment how many people he could have killed WITHOUT having a firearm at his disposal before
being tackled.

The population of a small town (30 000 people) is decimated each year (!!!) by firearms in this country.
Since there is also very poor to non-existent regulation on people with psychological conditions, psychopaths with automatic weapons are also protected by the constitution. Seems like a very sane and sensible article indeed!

Reading the original article in the constitution, it actually doesn't say anything about what kinds of "arms".
So what about tanks or RPGs? Or nukes for that matter.
 
Herm said:
Its bad news for science when GW got politized by the left.. it will destroy science's standing with 50% of the American voter. The backlash could be horrible if it starts snowing in Texas in July.

You actually believe that 50% of the American voter indeed DO listen to scientists??

For example:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to this poll, only 40% "believe" in evolution (which you dont have to, its an established fact and as such does not require belief).
 
Well said Andy!!

for anyone in the Northwest; many places use coal to meet peak time demands. in my area, about 30% of our power comes from coal but coal is only used for about 7 hours a day. but that 7 hours a day uses more than 60% of the daily power demand.

so if you are plugging in at 2 in the afternoon, you are using "dirty coal" power. but here in the middle of the night where we burn thru about 17% of our daily usage in a 12 hour time span we are nearly 100% hydro.

just as there are a MILLION hidden charges associated with burning oil and the energy used to refine gas is one of them, there are also several untouched (or ignored) benefits of using EVs.

sure we have the money thing and i am so glad to hear the economic stability of the US is now #1 where it should be

but EVs demand batteries and we WILL complain (reference a dozen dozen range anxiety threads running thru here daily)

complaints tickle brain cells which tends to create products to meet a VASTLY changing consumer need. even an idiot will know that catering to a crowd of people who can afford a $30,000 car that only fills a niche of a person's transportation needs means that person has money to spend.

which brings us to electricity and the pathetic excuse we have called the national grid (national electrical grid gets my vote for #1 oxymoron) which is actually one hundred different companies with one hundred different sets of rules, guidelines, and policies.

this issue needs to be fixed but this is a utility. its not a realistic market commodity. you pick the area you want to live in, you pick the cell carrier you want to use, etc... so what were your Electrical provider options?? oh ya!! not exactly overwhelmed by choice were we?

but EVs will push the envelop and i dont mean by overtaxing the grid. it will provide balance, the money to increase the grid capacity including green power and more money (read millions of % greater money but then again nothing from nothing...) towards effective charge management, load balancing and charge storage.

V2G options are still pretty far off but definitely a viable solution but battery storage performance increases will start coming much faster as we build the EV demand because EVs are cool. we are providing the seed of demand.

now, most of the people i talk to cannot afford to get a Leaf like me and why?? because they are celebrating a household gas bill that is under $300 thinking they are getting because its not $500 a month like it was in June. the look on their face is heartbreaking at times (and i really feel guilty about how I FEEL inside) when i tell them that my total transportation bill is $100 a month and 3/4ths that cost is from a car that i dont drive as much as i do the Leaf.

another argument is the cost of upgrading our existing electrical grid to prevent a wholesale collapse when all those EVs plug in. one thing they forgot the mention is that the Puget Sound region alone could plug in 2 million EVs every night and still have enough to cover any spike in normal usage.
 
klapauzius said:
Reading the original article in the constitution, it actually doesn't say anything about what kinds of "arms".
So what about tanks or RPGs? Or nukes for that matter.
Mmmmmm. Tanks and RPGs... Me want! (I'll pass on the nukes, though)
 
Herm said:
Its bad news for science when GW got politized by the left..
You're not kidding. It was for this exact reason that I considered myself an AGW "skeptic" for a while, until a respected friend encouraged me to have a closer look at the scientific evidence. Unfortunately, too many people are unwilling to put science ahead of politics.

Keeping our energy dollars at home is definitely a motivating factor in my owning a LEAF. As an evangelical Christian, I believe that the USA should maintain a strong alliance with Israel. That sentiment is not meant to be an endorsement of everything the Israeli government does. Rather, it reflects a long-neglected Biblical imperative to stand by our "elder brothers", the Jewish people, who have been disproportionately persecuted for a long time. I have reminded Christian friends that our foreign policy in the Middle East will remain conflicted as long as we are reliant on those who hate the US and Israel for our energy. I've also pointed out that Israel recognizes the benefits of EVs in reducing its own petroleum dependency. Indeed, our LEAF does receive a fair amount of positive attention in the church parking lot.

Yes, for multiple reasons, a coal-powered LEAF is preferable to a gasoline powered car.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
for anyone in the Northwest; many places use coal to meet peak time demands. in my area, about 30% of our power comes from coal but coal is only used for about 7 hours a day. but that 7 hours a day uses more than 60% of the daily power demand

I'm not from the Northwest and I realize the situation may be different there because of regional factors (like availability of reliable hydro), but are you sure you have this right? I would like to believe this is the way it works, but my understanding is that coal and nuclear power plants do not spin up and down easily (quickly) so they are not used to satisfy peak energy use, but rather provide the base. Whereas oil, and especially natural gas plants are able to cycle up and down very easily so it's those plants that come (and go) online to manage peak situations. I don't have an exact reference handy, but I read this in an issue of IEEE Spectrum magazine about a year ago (I think the theme of the issue was making the grid smarter). Like I said, I would love it if this were true, but I don't think we can say it's the typical case.

DaveinOlyWA said:
now, most of the people i talk to cannot afford to get a Leaf like me and why?? because they are celebrating a household gas bill that is under $300 thinking they are getting because its not $500 a month like it was in June.

Unfortunately I agree with the apparent tendency toward short term memory of the general populace. We seem to be more sensitive to CHANGES in gas prices and not the prices themselves. A couple of years back the price of gas quickly shot up to $4 (or more) a gallon and everyone was outraged. We got the prices back down to under $3 (who knows at what political capital cost) and everyone was happy and out buying their humongous SUVs to drive around the suburbs. Lately the cost SLOWLY climbed to about $3.75 here before falling back down to about $3.25 where it is now. I don't think the slow climb to $3.75 was felt by most people, and now that it's actually FELL, even though it's still above $3, I think people are feeling really good about the price of gas (even though they shouldn't be).

Having said that, for many people I don't think overall transportation cost savings are going to be enough to recoup the investment in a LEAF. Let's face it, it is expensive and it will take MANY miles of driving to break even. Not to say they won't, but if you ask the average family in this economy to put a huge sum of money down now so they can save money in 4-5 years, that's a big ask (it's probably a lot easier in states that offer generous incentives--mine offers none).

For me, the economics are part of the equation, but there are other factors as well:

1) Economical - total cost of ownership reduction due to cheaper fuel costs and simpler drivetrain resulting in fewer maintenance costs
2) Environmental - I do believe that a coal powered BEV is cleaner than a gas vehicle, and probably even a hybrid, considering the full well to wheels life cycle
3) Efficiency - I just don't like using more energy than I need to, even if gasoline is a more practical and convenient fuel (at this time), it's still inefficient and wasteful
4) Wise use of resources - Oil (and coal and natural gas and all other fossil fuels) are a limited resource. Eventually they will run out. And already they are getting harder and harder to get at (just look at the BP oil spill and the effect of hydro-fracking among other examples). By the way, EVs are certainly not immune to this either: in addition to some components of the batteries, the traction motors make use of rare earth magnets that use elements in dwindling supply--fortunately there is work being done in this to reduce or eliminate the need for these materials.
5) Political - I honestly believe that a lot of the issues in the world, and the mideast in particular, at least partly stem from the developed world's addiction to oil and the fact that we export a LOT of money there that winds up in the hands of a relatively few people. Sure there are other problems as well, but trying to keep that region "happy" so the oil doesn't stop flowing doesn't help finding real solutions to those problems.
6) Stability - the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the realization that gas prices are basically at the whim of a market that is out of its mind and is only very weakly related to the actual cost of production or the scarcity of the fuel. There are so many middlemen in the process, each of which is making a ton of money, and this causes the daily fluctuations in gas prices. I for one do not want to be subject to this kind of instability. I do fear that as more money is to be made in electricity that the problem will ultimately shift there (witness Enron and the California power crisis), but for now, get me the hell away from fuel commodities traders!
7) Technological - I work in the technology field, although I'm not usually an early adopter because the cost usually doesn't seem worth it to me, I do desire high tech things, and the LEAF's got plenty! You could look at this argument like this: yes, the car is expensive but you're going to get a lot of bling for that money that may make it worth the extra expense--don't forget this reason, it certainly drives people to want to buy new cell phones every 2 years.
8) Convenience - I admit I didn't think about this when I first ordered the LEAF--it's only developed by reading the experiences of people on this forum, but it sure will be nice to not have to make special trips to the gas station. You can't beat filling up at home and leaving with a full "tank" every morning!
9) Flexibility - Even though today plugged in EVs may be burning coal, that scenario is rapidly changing. Solar panel costs and efficiency are approaching the competitive point (at which time solar will probably explode), huge amounts of wind turbines are coming online, and there is a lot of work in nuclear that will allow FAR more complete "burning" of nuclear fuel (currently only 2% of the uranium in current reactors is burned before it becomes nuclear waste) and do so in a much safer way such that the core won't melt down if the plant loses power, instead the reaction will simply cease if power is not constantly supplied. So in the next 5 years I do expect the grid's makeup to definitely shift from being fossil fuel heavy to sustainable heavy. And guess what, the LEAF will shift right along with it. Gas vehicles on the other hand will still be burning fossil fuels.
10) Beginning of life cycle vs. end of life cycle - For all the technological merits of the ICE over the past 100 years, we are definitely reaching the point of diminishing returns. If you look at some of my other posts on efficiency ratings in terms of MPG rather than GPM, you'll see what I mean. It's getting harder and harder to ring out extra MPG out of engines because the consumption of fuel is already very low. It takes a jump from 50MPG to 100MPG to realize the same benefit in consumption as going from 10MPG to 11MPG. Just like computer microprocessors that for years could count on faster clock speeds to provide extra value each new generation, ultimately ran into a wall and now the benefit is gained from other innovations like multi-core CPUs. The same thing is happening to the ICE. It's pretty much nearing the point where we're going to wring just about everything we can out of that gallon of gas and it's still not good enough! That's why we're seeing an explosion in hybrids now because that's the only path to higher MPG. But why stop there? BEVs on the other hand are pretty much at the beginning of their technological life cycle (despite the fact that the naysayers like to point out that electric cars have been around for 100 years--yeah, but nobody seriously worked on them for 80 of those years!) There is a TON of brainpower being devoted to improving battery technology and there is a lot of room for improvement there. So we're starting from a point that's already better than what gas vehicles are TRYING to achieve, with a relatively immature technology that's got plenty of room for improvement. I'm very confident that in 8 years or 100,000 miles when my LEAF's battery warranty runs out that even if I have to replace the battery pack the next day, that the batteries available at that time will be far cheaper and hold a far larger charge than today. In fact, I'll probably WANT to upgrade by then!

And that's just my list! I'm sure others have other reasons as well. Any one of those things by itself would probably not be enough to sway me to buy a LEAF on its own, but certainly 2 or 3 would. The combination of all of them make it a no brainer!
 
At $300 a month for gas, you would recover the cost for the whole leaf in ~10 years !!!
Makes me wonder, regardless whether its dirty coal powered or not, why people are not lining up
to get one.
 
most of us dont drive that much. i only save about $100 a month but that is being adjusted seasonally. what the Leaf does is eliminates 90% of the short inefficient trips the gas car used to do. ya know the ones to the corner grocery store that gets ya about 21 mpg on your normally 50 mpg Prius?

so besides not burning gas in two cars, the car that does burn gas, burns it more efficiently
 
Per the following article (gasoline takes about 6KWH not 1.5KWH that has been quoted in earlier emails):

In a 2008 report, Argonne National Lab estimated that the efficiency for producing gasoline of an “average” U.S. petroleum refinery is between 84% and 88% (Wang, 2008), and Oak Ridge National Lab reports that the net energy content of oil is approximately 132,000 Btu per gallon (Davis, 2009). It is commonly known that a barrel of crude oil generate approximately 45 gallons of refined product (refer to NAS, 2009, Table 3-4 for a publication stating so). Thus, using an 85% refinery efficiency and the aforementioned conversion factors, it can be estimated that about 21,000 Btu—the equivalent of 6 kWh—of energy are lost per gallon of gasoline refined:

(1-.85)*45/42*132000 ~ 21000 (btus)

The documents referenced herein are publicly available, as follows:

Wang, M. (2008), “Estimation of Energy Efficiencies of U.S. Petroleum Refineries,” Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/pdfs/energy_eff_petroleum_refineries-03-08.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Davis, S., Susan W. Diegel, and Robert G. Boundy (2009), Transportation Energy Data Book, edition 28, National Transportation Research Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, cta.ornl.gov/data/

NAS (2009), Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use, The National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12794&page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
curtegg said:
Per the following article (gasoline takes about 6KWH not 1.5KWH that has been quoted in earlier emails):

In a 2008 report, Argonne National Lab estimated that the efficiency for producing gasoline of an “average” U.S. petroleum refinery is between 84% and 88% (Wang, 2008), and Oak Ridge National Lab reports that the net energy content of oil is approximately 132,000 Btu per gallon (Davis, 2009). It is commonly known that a barrel of crude oil generate approximately 45 gallons of refined product (refer to NAS, 2009, Table 3-4 for a publication stating so). Thus, using an 85% refinery efficiency and the aforementioned conversion factors, it can be estimated that about 21,000 Btu—the equivalent of 6 kWh—of energy are lost per gallon of gasoline refined:

(1-.85)*45/42*132000 ~ 21000 (btus)
This has been discussed repeatedly in other threads but that "6 kWh" has to do with energy losses, not electricity used in gasoline refining. Most of the energy used is likely to be natural gas and waste oil burned for heat and power cogeneration. The amount of electricity used in gasoline refining has been much debated here but is likely only a small part of that estimated 6 kWh of energy used during production. The natural gas used during gasoline refining could be used for electricity production instead, but then one has to factor in generating and transmission losses.

The problem is that people have a tendency to assume that the "6 kWh" must be the electricity used to manufacture a gallon of gasoline. It is not, so far as I'm aware.
 
The same hydro that is running at night is also running during the 7 hours of the day where the demand is greatest, perhaps even at a slightly higher level than it's running at night. So the people plugging in at 2 in the afternoon are using a mix of clean hydro and 'dirty' coal, not coal only. They are probably using some natural gas as well.

It's really hard to run a steam-turbine generator only 7 hours a day, no matter what fossil fuel it's burning, so those coal units will be running at least 12 hours a day, some 24 hours a day, even though they are needed for only 7. It's the only way to have them available when they are needed. Only natural gas or oil fueled combustion turbine generators (big jet engines) can be turned on and begin generating electricity in minutes rather than hours.

DaveinOlyWA said:
for anyone in the Northwest; many places use coal to meet peak time demands. in my area, about 30% of our power comes from coal but coal is only used for about 7 hours a day. but that 7 hours a day uses more than 60% of the daily power demand.

so if you are plugging in at 2 in the afternoon, you are using "dirty coal" power. but here in the middle of the night where we burn thru about 17% of our daily usage in a 12 hour time span we are nearly 100% hydro.
 
No problem - if you qualify for it, why shouldn't you have the license?
adric22 said:
Just thought I might point out that I drive a Leaf, and I'm a strong proponent of my 2nd amendment rights. In fact, I have a Texas Concealed Handgun license

Why?
adric22 said:
and if I'm awake and dressed, I have a firearm on my hip, usually a Glock 19.
 
Back
Top