[Rant] Electric cars, in particular Nissan Leaf

[AndyC_772]

The need to drive on rough roads can be addressed, though - there's no technological barrier there, just a need for someone to fit an electric power train to a vehicle with long-travel suspension. I don't doubt for a moment that such vehicles will be developed when the use of electric power becomes more mainstream.

At 75km you're probably OK for distance, though one thing I've not seen much mention of is how a vehicle's range is affected as the batteries wear out.

My regular daily commute is 12 miles each way, which any EV can manage. But I also have customers to visit who are about 40 miles away, and then the issue of battery condition beeomes much more significant. If an EV is advertised as able to do 85 miles on a charge then, theoretically, I can use one to get from home to a customer site and back again. No, problem, right?

But, what if after a couple of years that range has dropped to 75 miles? Now I'll still get there OK, but on the way home I'll find myself sitting on the hard shoulder of the M3 waiting for a tow. The vehicle has become useless to me, I need new batteries already. Its range when new is academic; the really important figure is the guaranteed absolute minimum range that can be achieved, and the warranty on the batteries. If it won't do at least 80 miles on an overnight charge, it's no longer fit for (my) purpose.

I'm not sure whether battery swapping as opposed to charging actually helps this problem or makes it worse. Maybe I could call in for a battery swap somewhere near my customer's site? It seems a shame to do that having only used half the available charge, it's probably doubled my fuel cost for the trip. But if I don't swap at that point, how do I know I'll get home? The batteries I'm using since my last swap might be near the end of their useful life, will only get me 75 miles, and I'm going to spend the afternoon on the hard shoulder of the M3 again.

[resistor]

free_electron, I live in the South Bay as well, and the Leaf (and similar EVs) is a perfect match to my family's driving patterns.  My wife and I both need cars, but my daily drive is a very predictable 12 miles each way from San Jose to Cupertino, easily within the Leaf's range.  It would make a lot of sense for me to drive a Leaf for my daily commute and while she could drive a more traditional hybrid for her longer and less predictable traveling.  And of course any long trips, we'd take the hybrid.

Given the prevalence of two car households in the US, I don't think our usage model is that weird.

[ElectroIrradiator]

(...)  But why just work on merely at the scale of the rounding error but at huge cost?

Because it makes people feel good without actually having to face the difficult issues: Developing useful public transport ("Heretic! Firewood! Torch!" ), changing how we build cities, changing lifestyles.

I am fortunate to live where public transport is an option, which means I rarely have to fire up the gas guzzler when going downtown. But for various reasons this is currently not an option everywhere, forcing people to use a car all the time. Working toward changing *that* would really matter in the grand scheme of things.

[johansen]

Exactly as my analogy: upgrading the $5 DMM's probe with a $60 fluke probe so as to increase accuracy.  Not exactly the best way to improve.

here's an example:
in regards to my comment "i would rather have 10 of these meters than 1 of the well known 40,000 count Fluke equivalents.

You say that because you can't afford a fluke prrrrrrrrr

[elgonzo]

Because it makes people feel good without actually having to face the difficult issues: Developing useful public transport ("Heretic! Firewood! Torch!" ), changing how we build cities, changing lifestyles.

Individual vs. public transport is not just about infrastructure.
The reason why many people prefer to take the car in the city (even if it means sitting in a traffic jam), is because they like the privacy and the relative quietness (or loudness, depending on your musical tastes) in their cars. They always have a seat and never have to transfer. It's part lifestyle, part psychology, part convenience, i guess...

[nctnico]

(...)  But why just work on merely at the scale of the rounding error but at huge cost?

Because it makes people feel good without actually having to face the difficult issues: Developing useful public transport ("Heretic! Firewood! Torch!" ), changing how we build cities, changing lifestyles.

IMHO public transport (especially a subway) is great for crowded cities but as soon as you move further away public transport takes you from a place where you aren't to a place you don't need to be. Even in a crowded country like the NL public transport is a workable solution for a minority of the people.

[elgonzo]

IMHO public transport (especially a subway) is great for crowded cities but as soon as you move further away public transport takes you from a place where you aren't to a place you don't need to be. Even in a crowded country like the NL public transport is a workable solution for a minority of the people.

For me, as a rail fan, public transportation is a journey, not a destination.
But, yeah, i am just BSing myself... 

[free_electron]

free_electron, I live in the South Bay as well, and the Leaf (and similar EVs) is a perfect match to my family's driving patterns.  My wife and I both need cars, but my daily drive is a very predictable 12 miles each way from San Jose to Cupertino, easily within the Leaf's range.  It would make a lot of sense for me to drive a Leaf for my daily commute and while she could drive a more traditional hybrid for her longer and less predictable traveling.  And of course any long trips, we'd take the hybrid.

Given the prevalence of two car households in the US, I don't think our usage model is that weird.

I agree. the Leaf fits your mode of operation well.
In my case  not so. single guy, 1 car, does not want nor has the room for a second car.

If i need to buy a 38K$ leaf ( i want the nice one... ) and throw a second car on top because of its shortcomings the total bill is more than a base model Tesla... A tesla that has 3 times the range of the leaf, can do battery swaps (which the leaf can;t) and can be supercharged in 25 minutes, which the leaf can't either.

Being told to buy that second car or rent one becasue of design deficiencies... that rubbed the wrong way.

I read some articles from the wall street journl , Battery technology (a magazine dealing with batteries and some papers from conventions )
It turns out the battery pack in a 'traditional electric' car is in the 500 to 600$ per kilowatt/hour cost ..
Take the leafs 24KWh battery pack and you have 12000 to 14000 $ in batteries. Since the leaf is essentially a Nissan versa , which costs 14K) it adds to 28K$ which is the base price of the leaf.

Now, the Tesla battery is in the 200 to 300$ per kilowatt/hour cost... Tesla claims it is actually less than what the industry thinks it is. Tesla says their battery is less then 1/4 of the total cost of the car (COST, not sales price) so that 85Kwh battery pack is in the 15K to 20K$ range ... but has more than TRIPLE the energy than the leafs.

So this raises the question.
Why on earth do the traditional car makers keep mucking about with obviously obsolete battery technology.

- it is 3 times more expensive
- it can't be swapped
- there is no supercharging it

The traditional car makers are just not 'in' to it. they just make 'an' electric car. they are not out to make 'the best electric car' , nor ais their intention to make 'the best car' . it is just another product. Their design mode is : here is the profit we want, here is the allowed budget , slap it together and flog it. While the bunch of yahoo's at tesla set out to make 'the best'. The 'drive' just isn't there with the traditional carmakers. They have grown lazy and complacent.

a german test burea ( and germans anre knwon for their 'grundlichkeit' ) did an ecotest on a bunch of cars. Eco-diesels, electrics , the whoe shebang. Who wins ? tesla. with a score of 98 out of a possible 100... Second best: the Renault zoe with a score of 92 points..
Have you seen the zoe ? it's an overgrown golf cart, with no luxury whatsoever and a deplorable 70 mile range in winter and 95 mile in summer. Is that really the best automakers can do ? It is a disaster. The tesla has 23% less power consumption....

http://www.adac.de/sp/presse/meldungen/test/sonstige_tests/eco_test_renault_zoe_tesla_model_s.aspx

http://www.renault.com/en/vehicules/aujourd-hui/renault-vehicules-electriques/pages/zoe.aspx

[Rufus]

Now, the Tesla battery is in the 200 to 300$ per kilowatt cost... Tesla claims it is actually less than what the industry thinks iti is. Tesla says their battery is less then 1/4 of the total cost of the car (COST, not sale s price) so that 85Kw battery pack is in the 15K to 20K$ range ... but has more than TRIPLE the energy than the leafs.

So this raises the question.
Why on earth do the traditional car makers keep mucking about with obviously obsolete battery technology.

- it is 3 times more expensive
- it can't be swapped
- there is no supercharging it

The other question it raises would be is Tesla full of shit?

[IanB]

Take the leafs 24Kw battery pack...
...so that 85Kw battery pack...

Just for clarity, do you mean kW or kWh with these numbers?

[Rick Law]

IMHO public transport (especially a subway) is great for crowded cities but as soon as you move further away public transport takes you from a place where you aren't to a place you don't need to be. Even in a crowded country like the NL public transport is a workable solution for a minority of the people.

For me, as a rail fan, public transportation is a journey, not a destination.
But, yeah, i am just BSing myself... 

If you use a train instead of flying on a jet, you are increasing global warming.

911 was a sad day for the USA.  I spend most of the day worry about a relative in NYC.  But it was one of those "solar eclipse moments" for atmospheric science.  Shortly after the attack, all US flights were grounded for three days.  In that contrail-free three days, average temperature in the USA increased 1.1F to 1.8F (1.8F = 1C).  This is a scientific fact reported by most major scientific journal such as Scientific Americans and Nature magazine.

[EDIT:  Some magazine reports 1.1C, some reports 1.1F.  I am not sure which one is correct, but either one is at least an order of magnitude higher than the CO2 warming/year.]

The effect was immediate and the match perfect.  No jets, and and the temperature increased was measured immediately.

So, we saw that if we have Contrail in the USA alone, we held down temperature by 1C.  Western Europe is 400million-ish people vs US’ 300ish million.  So it stands to reason that if W. Europe switch over from train to jet, we will hold down temperature there by 1C or there about.

If global warming from CO2 is indeed the concern, why is there no research to repeat, to confirm (or not), and to further study the effects.  If confirmed, we can continue on say making ConTrail more persistent?  Say, making commercial flight jet engines more ConTrail friendly?  You can practically look at jets like trimpots: too hot?  Send up two fleets of 747 equipped with “extra-contrail” equipments (and loaded with water so it generates contrail even at drier/higher altitudes...)

Nope!  No follow-up research but instead mere arguments.  Arguments of "you measured wrong" (hard to believe all US weather stations made the same mistake) or "Nope! the weather just happens to follow our jet's presence/absence for that exact 3 days."

That any follow-up research in contrail is entirely absent tells me neither CO2 nor the warming is the real worry, -- OR --, the ones pushing the current solution are too dumb to join the dots, -- OR --, they have other motives.  If these folks have other motives or are so dumb with something so immediately obvious, why would I trust whatever they promote?

Am I making it up?  Here are some references:

Wiki: September 11, 2001 climate impact study
The grounding of planes for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided a rare opportunity for scientists to study the effects of contrails on climate forcing. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 °C (1.8 °F) higher than immediately before; however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

Quote of Nature magazine from GreenMedInfo: "The Phenomenon: A 1.8 Degree Celsius Increase In Temperature in North America"
The study found "...an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures) for the period 11-14 September 2001."
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings

You can find info all over the place searching for "ConTrail" together with "911".

[IanB]

In that contrail-free three days, average temperature in the USA increased 1.1F to 1.8F (1.8F = 1C).  This is a scientific fact reported by most major scientific journal such as Scientific Americans and Nature magazine.

...

Am I making it up?  Here are some references:

Wiki: September 11, 2001 climate impact study
The grounding of planes for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided a rare opportunity for scientists to study the effects of contrails on climate forcing. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 °C (1.8 °F) higher than immediately before; however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

Quote of Nature magazine from GreenMedInfo: "The Phenomenon: A 1.8 Degree Celsius Increase In Temperature in North America"
The study found "...an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures) for the period 11-14 September 2001."
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings

You understand your references do not support your statement, right? They do not say the average temperature increased by 1°C.

The fact that a temperature increase was not measured would be why people are "ignoring" this effect--there is no effect to look at.

[Rick Law]

In that contrail-free three days, average temperature in the USA increased 1.1F to 1.8F (1.8F = 1C).  This is a scientific fact reported by most major scientific journal such as Scientific Americans and Nature magazine.

...

Am I making it up?  Here are some references:

Wiki: September 11, 2001 climate impact study
The grounding of planes for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided a rare opportunity for scientists to study the effects of contrails on climate forcing. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 °C (1.8 °F) higher than immediately before; however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

Quote of Nature magazine from GreenMedInfo: "The Phenomenon: A 1.8 Degree Celsius Increase In Temperature in North America"
The study found "...an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures) for the period 11-14 September 2001."
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings

You understand your references do not support your statement, right? They do not say the average temperature increased by 1°C.

The fact that a temperature increase was not measured would be why people are "ignoring" this effect--there is no effect to look at.

Which statement does it NOT support?  All of them support my statement about 1C/F increase during that 3 days.  (I edited, because there is some reports 1.1C-1.8C, some report 1.1F-1.8F, but C or F doesn't matter, this number is "an anomalous increase" to use Nature Magazine's words.

I am saying: if temperature is such a worry, and no one looks into such huge change "that happens to match the absence of our jets", they are too dumb to propose any worthy solution or they have other motives.

[IanB]

Which statement does it NOT support?  All of them support my statement about 1C/F increase during that 3 days.  (I edited, because there is some reports 1.1C-1.8C, some report 1.1F-1.8F, but C or F doesn't matter, this number is "an anomalous increase" to use Nature Magazine's words.

Please review and carefully understand the meaning of the following phrases:

local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures)

average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures)

They do not mean what you think they mean.

[free_electron]

Take the leafs 24Kw battery pack...
...so that 85Kw battery pack...

Just for clarity, do you mean kW or kWh with these numbers?

KWh. i'll fix that

[free_electron]

The other question it raises would be is Tesla full of shit?

I don't think so as it trumps all other cars, electric or not, in any test they throw at it.

Part of the cost of the battery is the form factor. The traditional car makers all insist on having a custom made brick shape to build the pack. This requires custom tooling, custom assembly lines etc. Tesla went with a well known form factor. So they did away with all the overhead. it already existed. They altered the chemistry a bit (which has no impact on assembly line ) and squirt an intumescent around the cells.
So they profit form economy of scale.

And this is only the individual cells. The pack itself is another cost.The traditional car makers have to find a way to cram it in the engine compartment. Tesla's is a very simply pancake box. the cells go in vertically. I think the cost of assembly is much lower on the tesla pack than the custom odd shaped pack for the other makers.

I don't know, part of this is speculation on my end. There is a lot of unknowns. Fact is Tesla has proven it can be done, but it has to be done from scratch.
So far all other makers are still in the 'convert a conventional car' phase. and that has been tried for 20 years and proven it just doesn't work quite right. So why keep on kicking the same stone ?

[Rick Law]

Which statement does it NOT support?  All of them support my statement about 1C/F increase during that 3 days.  (I edited, because there is some reports 1.1C-1.8C, some report 1.1F-1.8F, but C or F doesn't matter, this number is "an anomalous increase" to use Nature Magazine's words.

Please review and carefully understand the meaning of the following phrases:

local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures)

average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures)

They do not mean what you think they mean.

My main points are:
1. There was a huge increase absence jet contrail
2. It matches the exact pattern of presence/absence of jet
3. There was no followup research but mere arguments.
4. Someone who fails to look into such large delta with such immediate impact is either too dumb to lead or has other motives.

All these articles support the first 2 statement.  At least Wiki reports the "difference idea" about it is a coincidence or actual impact.  The magnitude difference is mere arithmetic.    That there is an absence of followup research is self evident.  (No citations of any followup research from any of these articles.)  PBS-NOVA had a show on it, but it was based on opinion (argument) and not actual research.

The worry is fractional-degree increase/year.  The 3 days in question is a full degree (F or C).   Any one who propose dealing with the rounding error first before looking at effects that is an order of magnitude greater should be suspected.  It doesn't pass the "smell test".

Thus statement number 4.  My conclusion based on 1, 2, and 3.

EDIT - Sorry..corrected a couple of grammatical errors.  "is" to "was" types.

[IanB]

The 3 days in question is a full degree (F or C).

No. There was no such increase.

What is being reported is the range between cyclic maximum and minimum temperatures day to night. It says nothing at all about whether average temperatures went up, went down, or stayed the same.

It's like the amplitude of a wave. It's entirely possible for the amplitude of a wave to increase but for the average level to go down. The two measurements are independent of each other.

[Rick Law]

Please review and carefully understand the meaning of the following phrases:

local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures)

average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures)

They do not mean what you think they mean.

I know understand what it means.  That is why it is important.  I figure everyone else do, so at first I was not replying to that as it seems too argumentive (argumentative?) ... but I suppose I should.

The only warming is caused by the Sun.  A planet of pure carbon dioxide will be frozen absence the sun.  The worry is not the carbon dioxide itself warms, but the sun warming more.

My take is, the difference of night and day highlights the impact of how Contrail affects the sun's warming of the earth.  The worry of carbon dioxide is how it affects the sun warming.  Exactly the point is question.  If you take the eco-community reports at face value, carbon dioxide increases temperature by fractional degree/year.  This three days in question is about a full degree (or almost two if it is 1.8C instead of 1.8F).

Hand the difference be in average temperature, something with an order of magnitude difference would still be a something one should look at.  A number that big is not something a careful researcher should ignore

[nctnico]

The other question it raises would be is Tesla full of shit?

I don't think so as it trumps all other cars, electric or not, in any test they throw at it.

IMHO not really. Range is still a problem even for Tesla. The review in the NYT from last winter made that painfully clear. The biggest mistake EV makers make is to have a range indicator in their cars. The graphs provided by Tesla clearly showed the range the computer showed was way too optimistic during the NYT test drive. If they put a charge indicator in their cars drivers can learn for themselves how far they can go on whats left of the charge. Just like it works in a petrol powered car.

Part of the cost of the battery is the form factor. The traditional car makers all insist on having a custom made brick shape to build the pack. This requires custom tooling, custom assembly lines etc. Tesla went with a well known form factor. So they did away with all the overhead. it already existed. They altered the chemistry a bit (which has no impact on assembly line ) and squirt an intumescent around the cells.
So they profit form economy of scale.

And this is only the individual cells. The pack itself is another cost.The traditional car makers have to find a way to cram it in the engine compartment. Tesla's is a very simply pancake box. the cells go in vertically. I think the cost of assembly is much lower on the tesla pack than the custom odd shaped pack for the other makers.

That is not quite true. Both the Leaf and the Volt have the batteries underneath the car. Although Chevrolet and Nissan stayed closer to the conventional car shape they did adapt the chassis to make a place for the batteries underneath the car (Nissan even more than Chevrolet).

@IanB: IMHO the effect Rick is pointing at is that the absence of contrails has an effect on the temperature extremes. If you look at the pictures on the Wiki page about contrails you can see the contrails are easely visible from space and can cover a significant surface. Clouds work as an insulating blanket keeping the earth cool during the day and warm during the night. Absence of the contrails (artificial clouds) could have an effect on the temperature extremes but that doesn't mean they have any effect on global warming/cooling.

[IanB]

@IanB: IMHO the effect Rick is pointing at is that the absence of contrails has an effect on the temperature extremes. If you look at the pictures on the Wiki page about contrails you can see the contrails are easely visible from space and can cover a significant surface. Clouds work as an insulating blanket keeping the earth cool during the day and warm during the night. Absence of the contrails (artificial clouds) could have an effect on the temperature extremes but that doesn't mean they have any effect on global warming/cooling.

I understand. But Rick said "average temperatures went up by 1 degree during those three days". That is simply not true.

If Rick had said "temperature fluctuations between day and night went up by 1 degree and maybe that points to something worth exploring" then we would not even be having a debate.

In all things technical, precision is everything.

[Phaedrus]

Disappointing that even EEs (or wannabe EEs) can be scientifically illiterate too.

[Rick Law]

@IanB: IMHO the effect Rick is pointing at is that the absence of contrails has an effect on the temperature extremes. If you look at the pictures on the Wiki page about contrails you can see the contrails are easely visible from space and can cover a significant surface. Clouds work as an insulating blanket keeping the earth cool during the day and warm during the night. Absence of the contrails (artificial clouds) could have an effect on the temperature extremes but that doesn't mean they have any effect on global warming/cooling.

I understand. But Rick said "average temperatures went up by 1 degree during those three days". That is simply not true.

If Rick had said "temperature fluctuations between day and night went up by 1 degree and maybe that points to something worth exploring" then we would not even be having a debate.

In all things technical, precision is everything.

In all things technical, precision may be everything, but in reality, one cannot even determine if Schrodinger's cat is alive or not.

If it makes you happy, I will word it this way: "the average of the day-max/night-min changes by 1.8F averaged over the three days in question."  That however is a distinction without a substantive difference.  Since the day max is reached by the sun's warming, therefore, one can assume that the difference is with the sun's warming - unless there is such a coincidence in weather.

I am not even arguing that ConTrail induced cooling is real or not.  I am however saying: when the group proposing a solution ignore a huge number with exact day/geographic match, they are either too dumb to propose a viable solution or they have other motives.

This is my last reply in this thread.  I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss a side issue.  So, should you want to put in the last word, I will ignore it with no disrespect.

[Phaedrus]

Last word is mine!

It is a typical tactic of climate change deniers to point out an aspect of climate science, say "This has a cooling effect!", claim that scientists are ignoring it, and move on to another topic before they can be called out on it.

The fact is that in almost all of these cases, scientists are investigating these phenomena. It just doesn't make for sensationalist headlines because in almost all cases the effects are shown to either be negligible, or in support of anthropogenic global warming.

In regards to albedo and clouds, read this summary:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm

[tom66]

I don't even think climate change is relevant.

Whether or not the climate is warming (it most likely is) we cannot go on using oil which is becoming more political and even harder to find.

We also cannot use biofuels because, in my opinion, it is morally wrong to take something which is usable as a food product and which is restricted by supply, and use it for fuel. It will only cause food prices to rise which will hit the most needy hard.

We must use an alternative fuel or power source.

Hydrogen looks neat... until you do the math. Car companies love to trump hydrogen fuel cells as the future saviour from all this mess. Truth is, at the current prices of platinum (a necessary part of a fuel cell) a decent size fuel cell would cost on the order of $50,000 to $250,000. This will only increase as demand for hydrogen cars increases. Those prices make electric cars seem like a bargain.  Also, hydrogen is currently produced from hydrocarbons... which currently comes from crude oil. Doesn't really help.

Electric cars are a good solution in many respects because they are fuel agnostic. They can run on solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, coal even gasoline, all depending on what is burnt at the power station. So, even if we do find hydrogen to be a good solution, it makes more sense to keep it agnostic and burn the fuel at the power station and turn it into electricity for the cars to charge or run from. It's far more efficient to burn fuel in a large, efficiently designed, expensive engine than a low-cost consumer car engine.

What I'm wondering is how long till we see dodgems like prototypes - electric wires above a road and a grounding strip along the surface... If battery technology fails to keep up with needs, it might be the only solution, as crazy as the idea seems.