Nissan unveils new Electric Vehicle Aug 1

[Dolphyn]

This might be interesting:
http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-car/

Some more details are here (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/under-the-hood-with-nissans-electric-car-5991/): 100-mile range, pricing under $33,000 before rebate, initial markets include San Francisco and San Diego.

[KarenRei]

For 2010, that's very ambitious pricing. Fast charging, too. Let's see if they can deliver.

Pack looks to be 20-ish usable kWh, judging from charge time.

[speculawyer]

Pack looks to be 20-ish usable kWh, judging from charge time.
24 KWH is the number I've seen quoted.

[KarenRei]

20 kWh out of 24kwh would be a high but workable 83% DoD. 20kWh would also mean 200Wh/mi, the gold standard for EVs.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

I don't think it's the EV-02 that they are referring to? And the date I've seen is August 2nd -- tomorrow.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/07/27/new-nissan-zeroemission-micro-site-provides-teaser-of-new-ev/
http://www2.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2009/07/nissan-ev1.png

I am also very intrigued.

[earther]

I don't think it's the EV-02 that they are referring to? And the date I've seen is August 2nd -- tomorrow.
http://www2.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/

I couldn't really find much info about the car on that website, which at this stage doesn't seem like anything more than a temporary splash page.
For those interested, after a bit of poking around, I did find a spot to sign up for their mailing list:
http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-car/

[jhm614]

Supposedly it was released today in Japan but I can't find anything on the Japanese site http://www.nissan.co.jp/ (assuming that's the right site)

[speculawyer]

I don't think it's the EV-02 that they are referring to? And the date I've seen is August 2nd -- tomorrow.
Japan is a day ahead . . . so perhaps later today.

[jsnable]

Yep, their Twitter feed says the unveiling is at 8:30pm CST today...

Jay

[DonC]

It's announced. Looks nice. 24 kWh battery pack giving 100 mile range on US LA4, which is the old city cycle. That's probably 50 miles in LA today (driving is way more aggressive, probably close to US06). LED headlights, that's a nice touch.

http://www2.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/FAQ/

[Holz]

http://www2.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/LEAF/gallery.html
http://www2.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/LEAF/specs.html

[KarenRei]

Yeah, I think people are going to be pretty disappointed with the range of the MiEV and the Leaf. They're getting people's hopes up for 100 miles, but it's on slow cycles.

Still, the price looks right.

[javan]

Could someone explain the cycles thing to me (when is 100 miles not 100 miles)? Does this mean slower driving, slower acceleration etc? Thanks for the info. Jim

[DonC]

Yeah, I think people are going to be pretty disappointed with the range of the MiEV and the Leaf. They're getting people's hopes up for 100 miles, but it's on slow cycles.

Still, the price looks right.
It looks like Nissan shopped around for a cycle that would allow them to claim a 100 mile range. Hopefully they'll get more realistic when they sell it in NA. They probably do, however, deserve something of a pass on the announcement given that the Leaf is supposedly a world car, and the US LA4 cycle is probably realistic in most of the world. Just not in the US/Canada.

The kicker on the price is that the suggested price may or may not include a battery. Time will tell.

[earther]

The kicker on the price is that the suggested price may or may not include a battery. Time will tell.

Did they advertise an anticipated price for it? (I didn't see one).
If it's around $30k, it may become a serious competitor for Aptera, since I imagine they'll both be having their major US rollouts about the same time.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/08/01/2010-nissan-leaf-electric-car-in-person-in-depth-and-u-s-b/

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/08/nissan-leaf_hi_008.jpg

100 mile range.

Powered by a unique array of thin, laminated lithium ion cells capable of delivering over 90 kW of power, the Leaf's front-mounted electric motor delivers 80 kW (107 horsepower) and a healthy 280 Nm of torque (208 pound-feet)

Perhaps more important than the Leaf's top speed are its battery's charging characteristics. In this regard, the car's under-floor mounted assembly of 48 lithium ion modules (each laptop-sized module is comprised of four magazine-sized cells) offers a number of charging strategies. To yield a full charge, a 200-volt, single-phase AC charger takes less than eight hours, and topping off the battery from a 100 volt single-phase standard home wall outlet will take somewhere around twice that time, so prospective Leafmakers would do well to get 220 volt hookup like their clothes dryer uses out in their garage.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/08/29-1280.jpg
More impressive is the battery pack's 50 kW DC fast-charge capability, which is capable of accepting an 80% charge in less than 30 minutes, or an extra 50 km (31 miles) worth of range in about 10 minutes. For that, though, you'll need access to a special dedicated (and at around $45,000 – expensive) three-phase charger, which various cities around the globe have begun installing as part of their own greening strategies. The executives we spoke with says they are working with local governments in the States and around the world to help build supporting infrastructure, but they admit the automaker has no plans to financially support the networks themselves, and fast chargers like the one we experienced in Yokohama are clearly cost-prohibitive for private ownership.

Pretty sweet!

[Holz]

The kicker on the price is that the suggested price may or may not include a battery. Time will tell.
Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=153946) indicates that the battery is not part of the price but will be leased.

[earther]

my first reaction about the Leaf is that it's nice to see a major manufacturer committing to build a pure EV; although GM tried it once and abandoned their efforts, the time may be ripe to try again.

My second reaction though is that this car is probably not for me and that I'd rather have an Aptera. Partly because I like the looks of an Aptera (far more unique!), and also partly because I like the idea of supporting an American startup. But primarily it's because the Leaf is too large. I live alone and don't have a family I need to transport around, so the 4-5 passenger capacity of the Leaf is unnecessary. Also, the "fast charging" stations, while it would be great to have as a national infrastructure, are not something I personally have a use for: my daily commute to work is only about 10 miles, and my weekends in which I travel up to the city for recreation is under 30miles. (and shopping errands et al are all under 3mi from my house). Even under weaker batteries than the Leaf or Aptera provide, I don't envision coming close to using a full charge in a day.

At this point, I can only see two aspects of the Leaf over the Aptera which could potentially sway me: (i) Nissan may come to market first, and if it looks like it will beat Aptera significantly (say for example it's fourth quarter 2010 and still no signs of the "average customer" having an Aptera, but Leafs are on the showroom floors) I might be tempted to put my savings toward the Nissan instead of Aptera. (ii) although neither company has announced a firm price yet, it seems like that Aptera's will slowly creep up (as is the case with most pre-production estimates), whereas Nissan's will likely go down (esp if renting the battery pack is an option, which I find attractive, and if they're eligible for us govt rebates). If there ends up being a significant price differential (say, Nissan in mid to upper $20k's, and Aptera in the mid $30k's) I could maybe see myself going with the Leaf, depending on the financing options available.

-Steve

[earther]

Could someone explain the cycles thing to me (when is 100 miles not 100 miles)? Does this mean slower driving, slower acceleration etc? Thanks for the info. Jim

I found this chart (linked off of an autoblog forum post) which shows the LA4 cycle used to calculate the Leaf range. Observe that the majority of the time is spent going under 30mph, which may or may not reflect your real life driving conditions.

http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/images/EMVEM/MOBF13.GIF

[KarenRei]

Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=153946) indicates that the battery is not part of the price but will be leased.

$20-$33k, pre-credit, but without a $10,000 battery pack, means a real-world sale price (if you bought the whole thing right out) of $22.5-$35.5k. Without the credit, $30-$43k. For an EV with probably a ~60-70 mile real-world range.

Not awful, but not as great as it initially sounded.

[Dolphyn]

Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=153946) indicates that the battery is not part of the price but will be leased.Let's hope they don't pull an EV-1 after a few years: "okay, y'all can keep your cars, but we're recalling the battery packs and we won't lease them any more, so you're on your own." :eek:

[speculawyer]

$20-$33k, pre-credit, but without a $10,000 battery pack, means a real-world sale price (if you bought the whole thing right out) of $22.5-$35.5k. Without the credit, $30-$43k. For an EV with probably a ~60-70 mile real-world range.
Hmm. Are you saying it is $30 to $43K batteries not included? (Edit: This was totally wrong.)

If so, EVs are really in for failure again. You can buy a brand new gas car for $15,000. There is no possible way to recoup a $25K price difference ($15K EV premium plus another $10K for the battery) over the lifetime of the the vehicle. $25,000 can buy a lot of gas . . . even if it is $5/gallon. (Edit: This was totally wrong.)

Using the corrected number of $20K w/o batteries still gives an EV premium of $5K

If they can't build an EV without a battery for about the same cost of a full comparable gas car then EVs going to flop hugely again. :(

Seriously now . . . they need to get the cost of the electric motor, controller, and charger combo to be equal to the gas car fuel supply system, ICE, and exhaust system. Because on top of that motor/controller/charger combo, you need to add the very expensive battery.

This point remains but much diminished

My confidence in EVs has really taken a blow today.


Hmm . . . I feel a little better now . . . . but even a $15K premium is still pretty huge. The $7500 tax credit helps a lot but it will not be around forever. And even with the tax credit, it will take a long time to recoup a $7500 premium . . . with a car that provides less functionality (short range, long charge time, etc.)

[jhm614]

$20-$33k, pre-credit, but without a $10,000 battery pack, means a real-world sale price (if you bought the whole thing right out) of $22.5-$35.5k. Without the credit, $30-$43k. For an EV with probably a ~60-70 mile real-world range.

Not awful, but not as great as it initially sounded.

This is very exciting! As long as the range doesn't drop below 60 and the price stays below 30k after the credit, this will be an option for me! I don't like the looks as much as the 2e or the Aptera (somethinga bout the Murano-like hips bug me) but still it's competition in the EV area and that should be great for consumers. Even with the hips, I would buy one if it was the only EV that fit my budget and range.

Does buying the car but leasing the battery makes sense from a "range" stand point? If I buy the car with the plan of keeping it for say, 6 years -- would I benefit from leasing the battery in 2-year increments and get whatever battery improvements are available when I lease the new battery? My first two years, I have a 60 mile range and then I lease the new battery and hopefully pick up the historical 10% per year li-ion improvements. So year 3 and 4, I have a 75 mile range. Then lease a new battery in year 5, hopefully will a 90 mile range for the last two years I own the car?

It's interesting that Aptera and the Nissan could have very similar "total" costs... are the biggest differences between the 2e and the Leaf are range and number of passengers? The 2e has double the range but the Leaf can carry double the number of people? And I guess crash testing might be a difference -- It's optional for the Aptera but they are going to do it but Nissan is required to do it and pass it.

[jhm614]

Hmm. Are you saying it is $30 to $43K batteries not included?


I'm reading Karen's post as 30-43K with batteries including, before any tax credit.
or
22.5 - 35.5 with batteries after the current 7.5 tax credit.
or
20-33K without batteries
or
15.5 -28k without batters after the current 7.5 tax credit.

[speculawyer]

My reactions to the Nissan Leaf:
-Car looks decent. I hope it has a very low Cd.
-Why the grille? Does a pure EV really need that?
-So what is this LA4 mode? If it really cuts things down to 50 miles, that is just way too short . . . that is a Volt without ICE back-up. 70 to 80 miles might be do-able but 50 is just too short.
-Fast charging sounds nice but I don't think there will be any infrastructure to support it . . . so it might just be an extra expense that people get no benefit from.


But my previous post is the real disappointment. I guess I've always been running on the assumption that an EV is about the same price as a gas car with the cost of the battery added onto it (or at least will be so when someone mass produces one).

[evmavin]

My reactions to the Nissan Leaf:
-Car looks decent. I hope it has a very low Cd.
-Why the grille? Does a pure EV really need that?
-So what is this LA4 mode? If it really cuts things down to 50 miles, that is just way too short . . . that is a Volt without ICE back-up. 70 to 80 miles might be do-able but 50 is just too short.
-Fast charging sounds nice but I don't think there will be any infrastructure to support it . . . so it might just be an extra expense that people get no benefit from.


But my previous post is the real disappointment. I guess I've always been running on the assumption that an EV is about the same price as a gas car with the cost of the battery added onto it (or at least will be so when someone mass produces one). But if EVs are the price of a gas car plus $25,000 . . . well, we are going to be well into post-peak oil before they really catch on. But that number just doesn't seem right. You can take an existing gasser and convert to an EV with Thundersky batteries for around $25K. I'd expect that car manufacturer that can get components at cheaper prices and doesn't have to pay for ICE components could build a pure EV for much less than a $25K difference. :-/


You can't do a proper 80 KW AC conversion for $25K with batteries. Good, AC components will run far more then that- primitive dc stuff yes. metric.com Please exclude Azure as that's only good for very light vehicles with very low performance or busses.

[speculawyer]

You can't do a proper 80 KW AC conversion for $25K with batteries. Good, AC components will run far more then that- primitive dc stuff yes. metric.com Please exclude Azure as that's only good for very light vehicles with very low performance or busses.
Meh . . . well evs are screwed then. :mad:

[kerbe]

Here's another site with a link to the youtube vids:

http://www.wideinfoz.com/nissan-leaf-video-nissan-leaf-electric-car-launched-by-nissan/

It looks like a pretty standard Nissan/Renault design...

[DonC]

Could someone explain the cycles thing to me (when is 100 miles not 100 miles)? Does this mean slower driving, slower acceleration etc? Thanks for the info. Jim
You know from experience that you get more or fewer mpg depending on how you drive your car. The various cycles are designed to capture that information by precisely defining how fast you go for what distances using what accelerations. The differences can be major. For example, for a typical car:

1. The US06 cycle (what drivers in LA or Atlanta might see) uses about 390 wh/mile.
2. The EPA Highway cycle uses about 280 wh/mile.
3. the EPA City cycle uses about 220 wh/mile.
4. The old EPA City cycle, LA4, which was derived from driving in LA in the 1960s, uses about 176 wh/mile.

The 100 mile range for the Leaf if based on LA4. If you just look at the relative number of watts used per mile, you see that if you want to go 85 mph on the freeway you're probably looking at a range of 45 miles or so. This is why Nissan is focusing its roll out on cities where there is at least some public charging infrastructure.

But the drive cycles are really helpful because they provide a benchmark against which you can compare various ranges.

[DonC]

Hmm . . . I feel a little better now . . . . but even a $15K premium is still pretty huge. The $7500 tax credit helps a lot but it will not be around forever. And even with the tax credit, it will take a long time to recoup a $7500 premium . . . with a car that provides less functionality (short range, long charge time, etc.)
You need to stop the dollars and cents analysis. Given that a battery to store $.64 cents of electricity costs $12K, it's not likely that any EV is going to pencil out. Any of these cars will make little sense when compared to a Prius, and a Prius will make little sense when compared to a Civic or a Fit.

But the reality is that no one buys a car this way. If they did everyone would drive an econobox and you'd never see a Lexus or a Mercedes.

[DonC]

Meh . . . well evs are screwed then. :mad:
As with any tech there will be early adopters who are willing to pay a premium. But this is why if you're selling an EV it had better be distinctive. No one is going to want to pay a big premium for a car that can't display the tech. Basically people will pay a lot of money to be special, but others have to be able to see that they're special. This is why why the Prius has been successful and the hybrid Camry and Civic haven't been, and why people who have the electric Mini hate the fact that everyone thinks they're driving the regular Mini. it's also the reason why Aptera has an advantage. No one can avoid see just how "special" it is.

[jhm614]

1. The US06 cycle (what drivers in LA or Atlanta might see) uses about 390 wh/mile.
2. The EPA Highway cycle uses about 280 wh/mile.
3. the EPA City cycle uses about 220 wh/mile.
4. The old EPA City cycle, LA4, which was derived from driving in LA in the 1960s, uses about 176 wh/mile.

DonC-

Cool! Do you know what elements make up the US06 cycle?

j.

[KarenRei]

You need to stop the dollars and cents analysis. Given that a battery to store $.64 cents of electricity costs $12K

Huh? 12,000 buys 24kWh of phosphates or spinels present-day (Nissan seems to be expecting an even better buy) or 34 kWh of cobalt. At the US average price, that's $2.40-$3.40. Actually a touch more, as the average is now over $0.10/kWh.

As for economics, people here have already done the calculations thousands of times. Cars like the Prius even moreso -- they only "don't make economic sense" if you only look at a couple years of ownership and/or don't count resale.

[DonC]

Huh? 12,000 buys 24kWh of phosphates or spinels present-day (Nissan seems to be expecting an even better buy) or 34 kWh of cobalt. At the US average price, that's $2.40-$3.40. Actually a touch more, as the average is now over $0.10/kWh.

As for economics, people here have already done the calculations thousands of times. Cars like the Prius even moreso -- they only "don't make economic sense" if you only look at a couple years of ownership and/or don't count resale.
Well to begin with, you can't USE the entire battery, so the part you never use isn't really storing anything, is it? For example, the Chevy Volt uses exactly 8 kWh of it's 16 kWh pack. So it's effectively storing 8 kWh. That pack and its electronics costs about $12K. As for the cost of a kWh, where I live the price of a kWh for an EV is a flat $.08.

But really the exact numbers aren't that important. The point (the forest) would be that a battery is incredibly expensive compared to what it stores. If you want, assume the pack cost $10K and stores $1.50 worth of electricity. It doesn't change the principle, which is that a battery is akin to a $5K wine bottle.

As for the Prius being a good buy based on costs, if people have run the numbers thousands of times and found that PHEVs cost less to drive than standard cars they need new pencils. A Camry SE, which has more standard features than the Prius Camry, costs about $3000 less than the hybrid. and uses a grand total of $334 more gasoline a year. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ That means that without considering the cost of money you're looking at a nine year payback. Add in the cost of money and you're looking at 11 or 12 year payback, at which point the hybrid now has the problem of needing the battery replaced. That's very expensive. Basically with current gas prices a PHEV is never going to pencil out versus a small efficient car with a traditional drive train. EREVs and BEVs will compete even less effectively.

As for resale values, here's a list of the 50 cars with the highest resale value. I'm not seeing the Prius on the list, though I do see a Fusion and a Malibu. As time goes on and the battery becomes problematical then the resale price will of course show that as well.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/car-reviews/2007/12/05/best-cars-2008-the-thrifty-50.html

Basically whether you buy a PHEV or an EREV or a BEV you are going to be paying more per mile than if you made a different purchase decision and bought a similar car with a standard drive train -- gas tanks and engines aren't all that expensive. Get over it. If paying a premium bothers you, compare it to a BMW 7 series sedan and be happy. A Prius will definitely pencil in compared to that vehicle!

[DonC]

DonC-

Cool! Do you know what elements make up the US06 cycle?

j.
High speeds and fast accelerations. You can find a graph of it here but there are probably better and larger graphs around.

http://www.betrmpg.com/PerformanceTests.htm

[KarenRei]

Chevy Volt uses exactly 8 kWh of it's 16 kWh pack. So it's effectively storing 8 kWh. That pack and its electronics costs about $12K. As for the cost of a kWh, where I live the price of a kWh for an EV is a flat $.08.

1) You deliberately picked one of the lowest known DoDs for an EV. In fact, it's not even a BEV that you picked; it's a PHEV, which is a whole different economic picture. Nissan's in the mid 80s. Mitsubishi is at least that high. Same with Th!nk. Tesla is in the 90s. Etc.

2) No, it doesn't cost $12k. After a study came out on the Volt where they made the assumption that the pack would cost $10k, GM was quick to rebut them, remarking that it will cost "thousands less" than that. The going rate for bulk phosphates and spinels is about 50 cents per kilowatt hour, and cobalt/graphite 18650s are about 35 cents per kilowatt hour. And prices are going down. $0.35 is industry standard for 18650s (a little more for the latest gen, a little less for old gen). Th!nk, Mitsubishi, GM, and now Nissan have all made statements indicating pricing of $0.50 or less per watt hour for their cells. And you can pick up Thunderskys for even cheaper without needing that sort of huge bulk -- anybody can.

3) Congratulations, you get power cheaper than average. Now pity those numerous people who have to pay well more than average.

If you want, assume the pack cost $10K and stores $1.50 worth of electricity.

No, that's still a bogus-low number.

It doesn't change the principle, which is that a battery is akin to a $5K wine bottle.

A $5k wine bottle that saves you many hundreds of dollars per year.

As for the Prius being a good buy based on costs, if people have run the numbers thousands of times and found that PHEVs cost less to drive than standard cars they need new pencils.

The Prius isn't a PHEV.

A Camry SE, which has more standard features than the Prius Camry, costs about $3000 less than the hybrid. and uses a grand total of $334 more gasoline a year.

They're about a draw in terms of features; it depends on what features you care about. As for gasoline consumption, the average car does 12,000 miles a year. The mpg comparison is 33 versus 50. Let's assume a long-term gas price of $3 a gallon -- anyone think this is wildly off the mark (if so, I think most of those people will think it's too low). That's $370 in gasoline. The average car is on the road for about 19 years. Yeah, they drive less in the later years, but that corresponds to more driving in the early years. That's $7k. Now, sure, there's a time value to money. But not that much of a time value.

Add in the cost of money and you're looking at 11 or 12 year payback, at which point the hybrid now has the problem of needing the battery replaced.

Oy, do we really have to take this trip down fallacy lane?

1) The rate of battery failures on Priuses has been nearly negilgible, especially in the second-gen Priuses.
2) The battery packs now cost, what, $2.4k new, and ~$800 used with low miles (generally from cars scrapped for other reasons, such as accidents)? Not exactly a budget breaker there.
3) The hybrid puts less stress on other components -- the gas engine runs less, puts out less total power, the brakes are used less, etc.

As for resale values, here's a list of the 50 cars with the highest resale value.

Proof by ghost reference. That's not a list of car resale values. Resale value is reportedly one factor they took into account when making that list. The Prius has made plenty of "best value" lists, but naturally it depends on what people base their list on and how much they weight each factor.

CNN actually did a list of *just* resale values, from Kelly Blue Book. The Toyota Prius was #8:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0811/gallery.kelly_bluebook/8.html

Basically whether you buy a PHEV or an EREV or a BEV you are going to be paying more per mile than if you made a different purchase decision and bought a similar car with a standard drive train -- gas tanks and engines aren't all that expensive. Get over it. If paying a premium bothers you, compare it to a BMW 7 series sedan and be happy. A Prius will definitely pencil in compared to that vehicle!

"Get over it", eh? Better tell that to Consumer Reports, which ranks the Prius #1 in terms of having the best value:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29415400/

"The ranking takes into account the total cost of ownership over five years, and weighs fuel costs, maintenance and repairs, insurance costs, depreciation, financing rates and taxes against the price and reliability of the vehicle."

And no, engines are not "cheap" when you look at maintenance. Ever priced, say, replacing a transmission, for example? About every other gas car will need a new transmission once in its life. ICE vehicles have so many parts to break. One year I went through many hundreds of dollars on belt replacements alone.

[hill]

+1

Our Range Rover (thank God we unloaded it a few thousand miles prior to end of warranty) had to have the tranny replaced. SIX THOUSAND BUCKS is what the dealer charged to the manufacturer. That'd buy a decent pile o batteries
:doublethumbs:

[speculawyer]

As for the Prius being a good buy based on costs, if people have run the numbers thousands of times and found that PHEVs cost less to drive than standard cars they need new pencils. A Camry SE, which has more standard features than the Prius Camry, costs about $3000 less than the hybrid. and uses a grand total of $334 more gasoline a year. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ That means that without considering the cost of money you're looking at a nine year payback. Add in the cost of money and you're looking at 11 or 12 year payback, at which point the hybrid now has the problem of needing the battery replaced. That's very expensive. Basically with current gas prices a PHEV is never going to pencil out versus a small efficient car with a traditional drive train. EREVs and BEVs will compete even less effectively.
Your fixed gas price savings is not true . . . gas prices will continue to rise and due to increased demand world-wide and reduced production capacity, it will rise a good bit faster than inflation. So you can't make that assumption.

In the VERY long term, we will run out of oil and thus EVs will compare favorably to a vehicle for which there is no fuel available. So the trick is trying to figure out exactly when EVs become cost competitive with gassers. And I've concluded that no one knows.

Not that people are not trying . . . but it is really impossible to know. There are so many factors and so many unknowns. New oil discoveries, present oil field production declines, oil market reactions, cost reductions in battery technology, cost reductions in EV drivetrain technology, difficult to quantify maintenance cost reductions of EVs, charging infrastructure development (which allows EVs to have smaller batteries), etc.

I've been thinking that we are very close to the break even point . . . perhaps even past if you assume increasing gas prices in the coming decade. However, apparently I've been making a faulty assumption for a while now . . . I've assumed that you can build an EV drivetrain w/o battery for about the same price as an ICE drivetrain. Apparently, I've been wrong about that. :-/ So EVs will not be cost efficient as fast as I had originally believed. Perhaps if mass production decreases EV drivetrain component costs.

[evmavin]

Your fixed gas price savings is not true . . . gas prices will continue to rise and due to increased demand world-wide and reduced production capacity, it will rise a good bit faster than inflation. So you can't make that assumption.

In the VERY long term, we will run out of oil and thus EVs will compare favorably to a vehicle for which there is no fuel available. So the trick is trying to figure out exactly when EVs become cost competitive with gassers. And I've concluded that no one knows.

Not that people are not trying . . . but it is really impossible to know. There are so many factors and so many unknowns. New oil discoveries, present oil field production declines, oil market reactions, cost reductions in battery technology, cost reductions in EV drivetrain technology, etc.

I've been thinking that we are very close to the break even point . . . perhaps even past if you assume increasing gas prices in the coming decade. However, apparently I've been making a faulty assumption for a while now . . . I've assumed that you can build an EV drivetrain w/o battery for about the same price as an ICE drivetrain. Apparently, I've been wrong about that. :-/ So EVs will not be cost efficient as fast as I had originally believed. Perhaps if mass production decreases EV drivetrain component costs.

It's not as much as they cost more to build as they should be less it's that they are made in very low quantities now.

[A1phaGeek]

I'll keep an eye out. This could be a serious competitor. I like it's styling. I'll believe range when it has been tested.

[speculawyer]

The Leaf seems like the Th!nk City but it seats four and is made by a major car company. Th!nk may be doomed if they can't restart their factories and start getting cars out there . . . I don't think they'll be able to compete with companies that have been mass manufacturing cars for decades.

[mycomya]

The leaf looks like a very serious competitor. It looks great! I'm glad its coming out. Sooner the better! Kudos Nissan. I could see myself driving one quite happily...

[evmavin]

So, unless Toyota thinks there is not a big rush to market for an EV now I would guess they could have a surprise. The Prius was kept secret. I can't imagine Toyota sitting back if the EV market becomes real. I bet the range on this is much lower as it looks heavy so both the Think and the Aptera are indifferent categories as they both have better range. The Think is a far better city car, the Nissan will haul kids, and lots of junk on short trios making it a good family car. Very different vehicles with different appeals and potential markets. I will say that Nissan has delivered what I have been stressing has been the forte of the big auto makers, a true "factory built" EV that has the fit, finish and the quality appearance of a modern vehicle. It does not look pieced together, the interior is very nice and refined like a Prius or other car and it has no indications of a "kit" car or compromise in its build. The Think does a very good job for a small company and people would feel comfortable buying it however cars like the Nissan and others to come are what will change the general perception that EV's are not compromise vehicles in terms of appearance etc.

Aptera really needs to hit the right price point and offer a great looking car with much better range, decent performance, unique appeal and nice interior. This will set the car apart in a desirable way and will appeal to those who want more efficiency, the people who like the unique looks and style and the "driving enthusiasts" who like the handling and looks together. If it becomes too gimmicky and overdone like the interior "appears" to look and it begins to look like it's trying too hard to look advanced. It's like an Escalade, no matter how much bling you put on it it's still a truck. The Aptera does not need to try to hard by adding a "flashy" interior, silly tech names, and other tricks to make it seem more advanced, it already looks advanced so I hope it does not evolve into one of those cars from the 80's like the Mustang where lots of silly bits of bright plastic and bad dash panels were added on, not to mention green alloy wheels on some. The funny thing about the American consumer is that if you produce an ugly product they still buy it. There is a subset of that that will not and buy a nicer product every time, however if the nicer product is produced the subset that bought the ugly product will still purchase the nicer product if the price and features are the same. The Japanese figured this out and it took GM a long time to get better design on their cars. A unique vehicle does not mean it can't appeal to a broader audience as long as it's executed well.

[speculawyer]

The Aptera does not need to try to hard by adding a "flashy" interior, silly tech names, and other tricks to make it seem more advanced, it already looks advanced so I hope it does not evolve into one of those cars from the 80's like the Mustang where lots of silly bits of bright plastic and bad dash panels were added on, not to mention green alloy wheels on some.
Yeah, I really hope they are not spending too much time & effort on the interior. Keep it Simple Stupid. (and cheap!) Aptera buyers are buying more for the fact that it is an EV and how it looks on the outside. As long as the inside is not totally offensive, it really won't matter much.

Since they are hand building the cars and they have to pay for the expensive EV components and battery, trying to cut down on other costs is really important. So keep it simple & cheap.

[evmavin]

Yeah, I really hope they are not spending too much time & effort on the interior. Keep it Simple Stupid. (and cheap!) Aptera buyers are buying more for the fact that it is an EV and how it looks on the outside. As long as the inside is not totally offensive, it really won't matter much.

Since they are hand building the cars and they have to pay for the expensive EV components and battery, trying to cut down on other costs is really important. So keep it simple & cheap.


This forum represents the extreme of Aptera buyers as a generalization, at least the vocal members. I disagree about how the interior and exterior looks, not every Aptera buyer is buying it just because it's a super efficient EV, I know at least three res holders who think it's "cool" looking and that is a primary motivator, and as long as many purchase them then it's better. But don't think the opinions of this forum reflect the majority of those who may buy an Aptera. And here are many people who focus on styling and design, this is the reason for cars that are design targeted to demographic groups like Scion, blue led interior lights, flashy interior options. I some how doubt that the people with the money for an Aptera are in the ipod bling crowd for the most part. They need an simple classy interior without high-tech gimmicks. I hope and think it will be toned down and I don't get what was wrong with the last one as it was very nice, clean and simple. Aptera will be competing in the auto world not the parking lot of Whole Foods, every advantage they have increases the market share and design counts, it does not need to be perfect but it should reflect the buyer demographic and not a youthful designers tastes as a hypothetical.

[jstdadd]

I'm with you, evmavin. I want simple and low-cost. If you can make the interior look like "The Last Starfighter" and keep me below $30 Grand, great. I want my friends who ride in the Aptera to wish they had their own.

If they must put the "computer-infotainment-system" in my Aptera, then I hope they will offer a 10-year warranty on the thing, and I hope the vehicle drives safely without it. I prefer useful gauges to a computer-thingy. My personal belief is that the MTBF on the computer-thingy and its sensors will be about 6 months. The display looks bad in all the pictures I have seen (fighter jets use sunlight readable LED displays because they are the most useful.)

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090121-031.pdf

I used to work at the USAF Pilot Factors program at WPAFB in the mid-80's and much of the glass cockpit in fighters today was prototyped by us back then; the picture in the pdf is about 90% the same as the wooden cockpit mock-up I helped design in 1983. We used Sony 4" displays to prototype the sunlight readable tubes that came into being; today it is sunlight-readable LED displays (we had those way back then, too, just not for video, and not cheap by any means.) The article talks about the "Standby Flight Group (SFG)" of instruments meant to get a pilot home if all the cutesy stuff fails. I want a "Standby Driving Group" if my cutesy displays on the Aptera go to lunch. And a really, really long warranty on all the cutesy stuff. I'll pass on the Heads-Up-Display. I'll take "Feet-On-Throttle-and-Brake" (FOTAB) vs. HOTAS for obvious compatibility and familiarity reasons. Maybe put the regen control on the center console next to the resting spot for my right arm, vs. on the panel.

[danieloneil01]

+1

Our Range Rover (thank God we unloaded it a few thousand miles prior to end of warranty) had to have the tranny replaced. SIX THOUSAND BUCKS is what the dealer charged to the manufacturer. That'd buy a decent pile o batteries
:doublethumbs:


Well a Range Rover is an overpriced pos.

[danieloneil01]

Your fixed gas price savings is not true . . . gas prices will continue to rise and due to increased demand world-wide and reduced production capacity, it will rise a good bit faster than inflation. So you can't make that assumption.

In the VERY long term, we will run out of oil and thus EVs will compare favorably to a vehicle for which there is no fuel available. So the trick is trying to figure out exactly when EVs become cost competitive with gassers. And I've concluded that no one knows.

Not that people are not trying . . . but it is really impossible to know. There are so many factors and so many unknowns. New oil discoveries, present oil field production declines, oil market reactions, cost reductions in battery technology, cost reductions in EV drivetrain technology, difficult to quantify maintenance cost reductions of EVs, charging infrastructure development (which allows EVs to have smaller batteries), etc.

I've been thinking that we are very close to the break even point . . . perhaps even past if you assume increasing gas prices in the coming decade. However, apparently I've been making a faulty assumption for a while now . . . I've assumed that you can build an EV drivetrain w/o battery for about the same price as an ICE drivetrain. Apparently, I've been wrong about that. :-/ So EVs will not be cost efficient as fast as I had originally believed. Perhaps if mass production decreases EV drivetrain component costs.

Gas prices will continue to rise? Sure they'll go up but they'll also go down. Did you think it was going to keep going up last year? Instead they went down because paper trading was the main reason why gas went so high. Not because of demand or shortages. Gas will still be around for our lifetimes. Give me a 2h and I'll trade in my car for one. As long as I don't have to lease the packs and it's under 30k.

[DonC]

In the VERY long term, we will run out of oil and thus EVs will compare favorably to a vehicle for which there is no fuel available. So the trick is trying to figure out exactly when EVs become cost competitive with gassers. And I've concluded that no one knows.

I've been thinking that we are very close to the break even point . . . perhaps even past if you assume increasing gas prices in the coming decade. However, apparently I've been making a faulty assumption for a while now . . . I've assumed that you can build an EV drivetrain w/o battery for about the same price as an ICE drivetrain. Apparently, I've been wrong about that. :-/ So EVs will not be cost efficient as fast as I had originally believed. Perhaps if mass production decreases EV drivetrain component costs.
I doubt we'll ever run out of oil. Rarely do you ever run out of a commodity. What happens is that it just gets so expensive people substitute something else for it. Seven Koonin and Steven Chu think the most likely substitute are biofuels and that only later will EVs make sense.

The economic hurdle for EVs is straightforward. Putting a 24 kWh battery and accompanying electronics in a BEV will cost about $18K. By comparison, putting an engine and gas tank in a car costs about $2K. At $2.50/gallon the difference in costs would power a vehicle that gets 25 mpg 160,000 miles. That's more than the life of the vehicle, and we haven't even looked at the price of the electricity needed to run the EV.

When you do look at the running costs you realize that the efficiency of various BEVs doesn't amount to a hill of beans because the running cost for all BEVs are so low. If the LEAF uses 200 wh/mile and the Aptera uses 100 wh/mile, then over 10,000 miles the LEAF will be using 2000 kWh and the Aptera will be using 1000 kWh. At $.10/kWh that amounts to $100 per year, not exactly a whopping difference. In fact it's completely insignificant.

On the other hand, as evmain has indicated, your concern about the costs of the car sans drive train seems unfounded. The reason why the costs for the EVs are high is that the numbers are so low. In order to build a decent car you need custom parts -- relying on off-the-shelf parts just won't get you a very nice vehicle. (GM found this out when they couldn't use off-the-shelf parts for the Volt and they have a lot of parts to choose from). And when you start ordering custom parts numbers make all the difference. If you order 10,000 units that's one thing; if you order 200,000 that's an altogether different things. In this sense Nissan is doing it the right way by going all in. With production numbers of 250,000 they will should be able to get some pretty good pricing. Add in the government rebate of $7.5K, make some predictions about the price of oil, and viola, you can make an argument that your BEV is a wise purchase decision with a semi-straight face.

But really it doesn't make that much sense and it would probably be better to just admit you want a BEV because you think the tech is cool and you want one so you can impress your friends and neighbors. In this regard the Aptera is really good because it's so completely weird everyone will know you have cool tech but you can deny you're a poser by conveniently pointing out that your car that screams "LOOK AT ME" only looks that way because is has to be "efficient".

[DonC]

Well a Range Rover is an overpriced pos.
I think I'd add "poor handling". It does, however, allow you to pretend that you're on a safari in the Serengeti and provides an alternative to the Hummer as the dumbest vehicle on the road. IMHO

[KarenRei]

When you do look at the running costs you realize that the efficiency of various BEVs doesn't amount to a hill of beans because the running cost for all BEVs are so low. If the LEAF uses 200 wh/mile and the Aptera uses 100 wh/mile, then over 10,000 miles the LEAF will be using 2000 kWh and the Aptera will be using 1000 kWh. At $.10/kWh that amounts to $100 per year, not exactly a whopping difference. In fact it's completely insignificant.

You missed the points of EV efficiency. Just ignoring the environmental and cost benefits, it means a smaller battery pack and weaker drivetrain components get you the same results, which means a lower purchase price. It also means faster charging (in terms of range per minute of charging on a given power socket) . I.e., it means most people have no need to install a higher power socket at home.

[speculawyer]

I doubt we'll ever run out of oil. Rarely do you ever run out of a commodity. What happens is that it just gets so expensive people substitute something else for it.
Oh we will definitely run out of oil some day. Not in our lifetimes. But yeah, the problems will occur long before that as gas prices will shoot up when demand outstrips supply. I don't see biofuels as much more than a supplement.

The economic hurdle for EVs is straightforward. Putting a 24 kWh battery and accompanying electronics in a BEV will cost about $18K. By comparison, putting an engine and gas tank in a car costs about $2K.
I don't think the difference is quite that much . . . if it was I don't think there would be so much interest in EVs by the majors. (Or it won't be that much when they mass produce them.)

When you do look at the running costs you realize that the efficiency of various BEVs doesn't amount to a hill of beans because the running cost for all BEVs are so low. If the LEAF uses 200 wh/mile and the Aptera uses 100 wh/mile, then over 10,000 miles the LEAF will be using 2000 kWh and the Aptera will be using 1000 kWh. At $.10/kWh that amounts to $100 per year, not exactly a whopping difference. In fact it's completely insignificant.
Oh, it is very significant in the fact that being more efficient allows you to get the same range with a smaller battery (and shorter charging time). I agree that the electricity costs are negligible.



But really it doesn't make that much sense and it would probably be better to just admit you want a BEV because you think the tech is cool and you want one so you can impress your friends and neighbors. In this regard the Aptera is really good because it's so completely weird everyone will know you have cool tech but you can deny you're a poser by conveniently pointing out that your car that screams "LOOK AT ME" only looks that way because is has to be "efficient".
I'm not really interested in that so much. If the comparisons to gas cars are really so bad, I'm going to lose interest in EVs for a while. I like them as a way of reducing oil imports. But if they are completely economically nonsensical, I'll probably end up waiting for gas prices to rise more (and hopefully EV components & battery prices to come down).

[speculawyer]

Gas prices will continue to rise? Sure they'll go up but they'll also go down. Did you think it was going to keep going up last year? Instead they went down because paper trading was the main reason why gas went so high. Not because of demand or shortages. Gas will still be around for our lifetimes. Give me a 2h and I'll trade in my car for one. As long as I don't have to lease the packs and it's under 30k.
It was not just paper trading that pushed prices up . . . it was a factor but certainly not the only factor. There is becoming an unsustainable amount of demand relative to the amount of production. When the economy crashed, so did oil demand so oil prices came down . . . hard.

But oil prices have DOUBLED since bottoming out. That was a pretty fast rise. And if the economy recovers, I think we'll see triple digit prices again. But sadly, I think the economy is going to be weak for the foreseeable future. :(

[JimmyDreams]

I doubt we'll ever run out of oil. Rarely do you ever run out of a commodity. What happens is that it just gets so expensive people substitute something else for it. Seven Koonin and Steven Chu think the most likely substitute are biofuels and that only later will EVs make sense.


Well, whether we run out of gas or it gets too expensive, either way, the end result is the same: a substitute must be found.

Biofuels may or may not be the answer. But how 'clean' they will they be? Also, what changes to our gas-structured infastructure will have to be made?

OR, look how clean an EV is. Zero emissions. How much of an infastructure change would we need to put EV's on the road? What...buy everyone an extension cord?

Gas may come and go, but every house uses electricity. The electrical grid is already in place and ain't going anywhere. I think we can control the emissions from electrical generation plants (ignore the clean energy like solar, wind for a sec) EASIER at the source than we can individually thousands of times over with individual vehicles.

For me, EV's are really the best choice all the way around. And like slow computers and tiny harddrives, over time, we'll improve the battery/energy storage to levels that are almost unimaginable today.

Then, and ONLY then, can we start working on hovercars!! :happy0029:

[speculawyer]

How much of an infastructure change would we need to put EV's on the road? What...buy everyone an extension cord?
Only the Aptera can get away with just an extension cord. Any traditional sized car EV requires a 220V outlet so people will need to add those to their garage. That is not a big deal but it is an added hassle/cost.

And like slow computers and tiny harddrives, over time, we'll improve the battery/energy storage to levels that are almost unimaginable today.
It is way too over-optimistic to ever use the computer analogy. Computers move, process, and store information . . . something with no mass. EVs have to deal with the real physical world and move mass around. There will be some advancements in batteries but they will tend to be incremental.

[JimmyDreams]

Only the Aptera can get away with just an extension cord. Any traditional sized car EV requires a 220V outlet so people will need to add those to their garage. That is not a big deal but it is an added hassle/cost. .

"Traditional EV car"? how many of them are out right now? I think the car companies will realize that if you have to upgrade from your standard plug, you'll lose X% of sales. I think you'll see the trend toward tradional plug in as being the standard option.


It is way too over-optimistic to ever use the computer analogy. Computers move, process, and store information . . . something with no mass. EVs have to deal with the real physical world and move mass around. There will be some advancements in batteries but they will tend to be incremental.

I'm thinking of speed vs size. Computers get smaller and more powerful every year. We find ways around the physical limitations. Same thing with batteries (or whatever storage device EV's evolve to). Larger storage with smaller, lightweight batteries = more range/larger vehicles = greater acceptance.

[KarenRei]

"Traditional EV car"? how many of them are out right now? I think the car companies will realize that if you have to upgrade from your standard plug, you'll lose X% of sales. I think you'll see the trend toward tradional plug in as being the standard option.

It's not an issue of connectors; it's an issue of max charging rate. I'm sure almost all of them will support 120V. The problem is that 6 hours of charging on one will add ~8.2kWh into your pack. If your vehicle takes 120Wh/mi, that's ~70 miles. If your vehicle takes 220Wh/mi, that's ~37 miles. And if your vehicle takes 320Wh/mi, that's ~26 miles.

For some people, that may be good enough. But a lot of people won't be comfortable with *never* being able to get a charge faster than that at home, and will thus want higher power sockets. With a 2e, you could get back from a long trip with a nearly dead battery, and after just an hour or two of charging on a 120V, have enough power to run a bunch of errands.

This comes back to the streamlining/weight reduction issue. It's not just about energy savings, or even the environmental benefits. It's also about purchase price (pack size) and charging rate from a given power socket.

[pk-sd]

I like this car. Although not as nice looking as Aptera, I can see two benefits right off the bat…

1) It’s a 5 seater(so that I can sell my other car)

2) Its by a large manufacturer (so I will not have to worry about them going belly-up in 2 years.

Everyday that passes by and Aptera is not on the road its looking more like a dream rather than a realty for me.

Good to see some green choices out there.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

I may have missed it earlier in this thread, but in rereading the ABG post, it says the battery pack is 90kW(h?):

Lithium Ion Becomes a Reality:

Powered by a unique array of thin, laminated lithium ion cells capable of delivering over 90 kW of power, the Leaf's front-mounted electric motor delivers 80 kW (107 horsepower) and a healthy 280 Nm of torque (208 pound-feet)...
...the car's under-floor mounted assembly of 48 lithium ion modules (each laptop-sized module is comprised of four magazine-sized cells) offers a number of charging strategies.

And this on charging:
To yield a full charge, a 200-volt, single-phase AC charger takes less than eight hours, and topping off the battery from a 100 volt single-phase standard home wall outlet will take somewhere around twice that time, so prospective Leafmakers would do well to get 220 volt hookup like their clothes dryer uses out in their garage.

More impressive is the battery pack's 50 kW DC fast-charge capability, which is capable of accepting an 80% charge in less than 30 minutes, or an extra 50 km (31 miles) worth of range in about 10 minutes. For that, though, you'll need access to a special dedicated (and at around $45,000 – expensive) three-phase charger, which various cities around the globe have begun installing as part of their own greening strategies.

Other than the confusing reference to it being both 3-phase and DC, this sounds like a good situation to me.

[motoxo]

Then, and ONLY then, can we start working on hovercars!! :happy0029:

like this?

http://www.samsonmotorworks.com/product_line/hybridaerobike.html

[KarenRei]

Hi,

I may have missed it earlier in this thread, but in rereading the ABG post, it says the battery pack is 90kW(h?):

No, 90kW, not 90kWh. kW is power output. Think of it like horsepower

Other than the confusing reference to it being both 3-phase and DC, this sounds like a good situation to me.

3-phase in, DC out.

[speculawyer]

This comes back to the streamlining/weight reduction issue. It's not just about energy savings, or even the environmental benefits. It's also about purchase price (pack size) and charging rate from a given power socket.
I'd say that is primarily about reduced battery cost and longer range per time charged. The cost of the electricity is really negligible.

[jstdadd]

I'd say that is primarily about reduced battery cost and longer range per time charged. The cost of the electricity is really negligible.

The costs are negligible for a single car, but put 50,000 Aptera 2e vehicles in San Diego and 50,000 Chevy Volts and see which vehicle has a greater impact on the grid and charging infrastructure. And electricity isn't only about cost, but about the pollution caused creating it.

I think the Aptera 2e is going to be the most efficient BEV around for a very long time.

[rayfellow]

The costs are negligible for a single car, but put 50,000 Aptera 2e vehicles in San Diego and 50,000 Chevy Volts and see which vehicle has a greater impact on the grid and charging infrastructure. And electricity isn't only about cost, but about the pollution caused creating it.

I think the Aptera 2e is going to be the most efficient BEV around for a very long time.
The laws of physics do apply. For example, how much HP would it take the Nissan to go 100 mph compared to the Aptera's 23?

[DonC]

The laws of physics do apply. For example, how much HP would it take the Nissan to go 100 mph compared to the Aptera's 23?
The Nissan won't go 100 mph and I doubt the Aptera will either. In fact if you go 50 mph in the Aptera it will probably feel like you're going 100 mph - your face is going to be right on the road.

As for how many watts you'll expend to go a mile at a more reasonable speed like 70 mph, time will tell. Plugging computer generated Cds into equations doesn't reflect reality. When the drive trains and bodies are actually put to the test on the road then we'll know. Until then we're in EESTOR/ZENN territory.

[hill]

No, 90kW, not 90kWh. kW is power output. Think of it like horsepower

3-phase in, DC out.

Isn't the nationwide home electricity usage about 30KWh per day? that would work out to 3 day's worth ... a 10% increase in average daily power use, presuming you ran the Aptera way down each day.

We're running an 11.5KWh daily surplus on our solar (drawn down from the last 3 weeks of high temps/humidity - 15yr old central AC usage) so we should be good to go, with no increased electrical costs.

.

[KarenRei]

Why are we comparing kilowatts with kilowatt hours, again?

To know how much it'll add to your bill, you need to compare how many miles you drive with how many Wh/mi *wall to wheels* it'll consume.

[jstdadd]

2) Its by a large manufacturer (so I will not have to worry about them going belly-up in 2 years.


What did you think was going on with GM in 2006? Did you expect them to actually go into bankruptcy? Because I didn't!

P.S.: I kind of feel like there is a choir in here that we are all preaching to!