ELECTRIC VEHICLES: Nissan’s all-electric Leaf + installed charging station to cost under $30,000‎ with tax credits

Image via

Nissan is bringing an all-electric vehicle—known as the Leaf—to mass market for a reasonable price. The actual price varies according to federal tax credits and any state tax credits available. The manufacturer’s suggested retail price is around $33,000. Furthermore, the Nissan Leaf will come in two versions the SV and the SL. From Autoblog Green:

Starting with the base (SV) trim, buyers can expect an abundance of standard features. The SV comes with all of the expected features of a modern car plus an advanced navigation system with Internet / smart phone connectivity which allows the vehicle to be remotely pre-heated and pre-cooled. The advanced navigation system also allows the owner to control car charging features. In addition, the SV comes equipped with Bluetooth connectivity, push button start, satellite radio, stability control, six airbags and a buyer-reassuring three-year roadside assistance plan.

Stepping up to the SL trim, at a price premium of only $940 (MSRP), Nissan adds a few more touches including fog lights, automatic headlights, a rear-view monitor and a solar panel spoiler. The spoiler will not charge the vehicle’s main batteries, but it can be used to trickle charge an accessory battery.

The Nissan Leaf will have a range of about 100 miles per charge, which is based on the LA4 test cycle. According to the EPA, the “‘LA4′ or ‘the city test’ . . . represents city driving conditions.” Darryl Siry via Wired.com criticizes the use of the LA4 test cycle:

Nissan overpromised on the realistic range by consistently quoting a number tied to the most optimistic benchmark, the LA4 cycle. Drivers who stick to stop-and-go traffic on city streets in temperate climates may indeed consistently see 100 miles of range, but most drivers will see significantly less in a mix of city and highway driving. Driving in California, the country’s top market for electric vehicles, involves a lot of time on highways where the 65 mph speed limit is rarely observed. The LA4 cycle Nissan quotes mostly stay below 30 mph with one two-minute “sprint” at 55 mph every 22-minute cycle.

Undoubtedly, the actual driving range of your Leaf will vary according to a number of conditions, so adequate recharging infrastructure will be crucial to offset range anxiety. More on range anxiety via GM-Volt.com:

In 2007 Aerovironment installed a fast charging station in Tokyo to support a group of 93 mile range EVs that made up a test fleet operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Co.

They found that drivers very rarely ventured far from the charging station, and when the EVs were returned to the base all were generally at greater than 50% state of charge (SOC).

When a second further charging station was added, drivers were noted to immediately expand their driving radius. Furthermore when EVs were returned to the base all were at <50% state of charge.

The drivers actually rarely used the distant charger, they just felt more comfortable having it around.

This alteration in behavior objectively demonstrates the reality of range anxiety.

“They mostly didn’t use the second charger,” said Kristen Helsel director-EV solutions at Aerovironment. “They mostly used the first charger. The availability of the second charger made them comfortable to drive (farther).”

This study indicates that a highly developed charging infrastructure will be needed for EVs to achieve widespread penetration. Aerovironment believes consumers will need more than a million public charging stations to support 1 million EVs, Obama’s goal for the US by 2015.

To offset range anxiety, Nissan is working to get quick charging stations established throughout the United States. For example, Nissan is collaborating with eTec and San Diego Gas & Electric to get these quick-charging stations established in California. Furthermore, Nissan will offer roadside assistance, but “AAA could [also] provide roadside electric vehicle charging.” Battery swapping has been implemented in other markets to offset the problem of range. Unfortunately, some believe that battery swapping technology isn’t feasible in the United States. To extend the Leaf’s range, the option of a sizable solar roof to help recharge the battery seems prudent (see the Prius hacks at Solar Electrical Vehicles), but it’s not an option. However, the Leaf will have some solar recharging capacity via a solar panel spoiler. According to Autoblog Green, the “spoiler will not charge the vehicle’s main batteries, but it can be used to trickle charge an accessory battery.” Also, the Leaf will recapture energy via regenerative braking technology, but the “combination of the Leaf’s regenerative braking system and lithium ion battery pack delivers [the] driving range of about [100 miles] — a distance, according to Nissan, that satisfies ‘the regular driving needs of around 70% of the world’s driving public.’”

Before, I wondered if Nissan was going to share its infrastructure with other electric vehicle companies like Tesla and whether the home recharging stations will be universal or specifically tailored for Nissan’s electric vehicles. However, Japanese automakers want to make its EV recharging protocol and technology—or CHAdeMo—the global standard, and “Nissan plans to use CHAdeMo as its fast-charging technology in the United States.” The promotion of one type of EV recharging protocol seems prudent to me, so now I wonder if American electric vehicle manufacturers and other stakeholders will sign onto CHAdeMo. However, “Daimler, Nissan and Renault confirmed . . . a wide-ranging partnership that includes joint development of vehicles — from small cars to light commercial vehicles to possibly luxury vehicles — and technology sharing on engines, batteries and electric cars.” More from Nissan:

Including the $7,500 federal tax credit for which the Nissan LEAF will be fully eligible, the consumer’s after-tax net value of the vehicle will be $25,280. The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price *(MSRP) for the 2011 all-electric, zero-emission Nissan LEAF is $32,780, which includes three years of roadside assistance. Additionally, there is an array of state and local incentives that may further defray the costs and increase the benefits of owning and charging a Nissan LEAF – such as a $5,000 statewide tax rebate in California; a $5,000 tax credit in Georgia; a $1,500 tax credit in Oregon; and carpool-lane access in some states, including California.

.       .       .

The vehicle at the standard SV trim level is well-equipped with a variety of standard features, including an advanced navigation system and Internet/smart phone connectivity to the vehicle, including pre-heat/pre-cool and charging control. Nissan LEAF is equipped with energy-efficient LED headlights and makes extensive use of recycled and recyclable materials, such as seat fabric, instrument panel materials, and front- and rear-bumper fascias. Other standard amenities include Bluetooth connectivity; Intelligent-key with push button start; Sirius/XM satellite radio capabilities and roadside assistance. Safety features include vehicle dynamic control (stability control), traction control and six airbags. The SL trim level, available for an additional $940 (MSRP), adds features including rearview monitor, solar panel spoiler, fog lights, and automatic headlights.

.       .       .

In tandem with the purchase process, Nissan will offer personal charging docks, which operate on a 220-volt supply, as well as their installation. Nissan is providing these home-charging stations, which will be built and installed by AeroVironment, as part of a one-stop-shop process that includes a home assessment.

Nissan claims the Leaf is a zero-emissions vehicle, but what’s zero emissions? From The Energy Collective:

The biggest battle in the EPA’ s new rule was over how to treat electric cars. While the industry likes to use the term ‘zero emissions vehicle’, a plug-in car requires electricity from the grid. Several estimates I’ve seen put the amount of energy used in the range of 3 miles per kWH. If you’re connected to the hydroelectric-powered clean grid up in Washington, your plug-in would be six times less carbon intensive than a gas powered vehicle. But if you operate that same car in coal-dependent North Dakota, then your ‘zero emissions vehicle’ would actually be 20% more emissions intensive than if it used gasoline. Of course you can offset this electricity use by supporting wind farms in North Dakota, but the vehicle itself is far from ‘zero emissions’.

Some questions and answers on the Nissan Leaf via the Leaf’s official website where you can ask questions and get answers:

Q: What kind of battery will be in the Nissan LEAF?
A: Nissan LEAF uses a unique laminated Lithium-Ion battery with a capacity of 24kWh.

.       .       .

Q: What is the acceleration and top speed of this car?
A: The LEAF handles and accelerates like a V6 car and has a top speed of up to 90mph.

.       .       .

Q: How far can you drive on a single charge?
A: The LEAF will have a range of 100 miles per charge under average, everyday driving conditions.

.       .       .

Q: About what would the 100 mile range reduce to if carrying 4 people at 200 pounds each?
A: Load and driving style have an impact, as they do in any car. Range is based on LA4 test cycle ratings.

.       .       .

Q: What do I do if I want to go farther than 100 miles in one trip?
A: The Nissan LEAF’s nav system will be able to show you charging locations along your route where service is available.

.       .       .

Q: Is battery swapping technology being considered?
A: All technologies are being considered to best fit our customers’ needs. That said, at launch, the Nissan LEAF will not be equipped with a battery swapping system.

.       .       .

Q: How does driving in cold weather affect the performance and battery life?
A: Your driving habits and patterns and accessory use (including heat and a/c) all play a role in driving range.

.       .       .

Q: What is the estimated time for full charging with 110v, 220v and fast charge stations?
A: Starting from a depleted battery, 16-18 hours at 110V, 8 hours at 220V (depending on amperage), 26 minutes to 80% at a quick-charge station.

.       .       .

Q: When plugging the car in, will it be possible that the car is “smart” enough to pull electricity during non peak hours?
A: You can program the car to charge whenever you like. Most people will charge overnight at off-peak times like their cell phone.

.       .       .

Q: Has anyone considered solar panels on the vehicle for recharging the battery?
A: The Nissan LEAF will have an available small solar panel on the rear spoiler to help charge the 12V accessory battery.

.       .       .

Q: Will it be equipped with a 4-wheel disc break or drum?
A: Braking will be regenerative to help maintain battery charge and optimize driving range. It will be 4-wheel disc.

.       .       .

Q: Can the Nissan LEAF tow a small boat or garden trailer?
A: At this point, we don’t recommend towing. Longer-term, we hope to provide options for specific needs like yours.

.       .       .

Q: How much torque does the Nissan LEAF have?
A: The exact specs of the Nissan LEAF are still under development. It does, however, have 100% torque available at 0 RPM!

.       .       .

Q: Is it true that the Nissan LEAF has no fluids like coolant, transmission, steering, brake…?
A: Most fluids associated with engines are eliminated, (motor oil, transmission fluid, etc). It will have brake fluid and washer fluid, though.

.       .       .

Q: Will the car’s body be made of recyclable material?
A: The Nissan LEAF is partially made from recycled material and is designed to be almost fully recyclable at the end of its life. We hope that appropriate third-party recycling facilities will soon be common.

.       .       .

Q: It’s great to cut down on vehicle emissions, but shouldn’t I worry about the power plant used to generate the electricity too?
A: Even in its dirtiest form, the electrical grid is much cleaner than burning gas. And the grid will get cleaner over time, unlike gas.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

CLIMATE CHANGE: Reporters aren’t testing the claims of climate change skeptics

I believe in the concepts of democracy, free speech, and the free exchange of ideas, but although I believe that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, I don’t believe folks are entitled to their own facts. Nonetheless, the media propagates confusion in the debate of climate change by giving too much credibility to the claims of climate change skeptics.

Supposedly, we’re an advanced civilization, but we fail to understand the issues and illustrate the issues clearly (although we often fail to understand the issues willfully). Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide is a factor in why the Earth doesn’t freeze. Furthermore, it’s ridiculous to believe that there are no consequences of burning fossil fuels, pumping pollution into the atmosphere, or pumping so much additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There are environmental and corresponding health impacts when we pollute aquatic environments, and burning coal is directly connected to (1) mercury deposition, which causes, inter alia, mercury in seafood; (2) nitrogen deposition, which causes, inter alia, eutrophication; and (3) sulfur deposition, which causes, inter alia, acid rain. Consequently, why are global warming and climate change so controversial? More from the Boulder Daily Camera:

Maxwell Boykoff, an assistant professor of environmental studies, was one of four CU researchers who presented their work over the weekend at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego.

Boykoff — who has tracked climate-change coverage by 50 newspapers in 20 countries since 2004 — cites several concerns in the media coverage, including a tendency to give too much ink to skeptics who have extreme views but little evidence to support their arguments.

Reporters often lump all skeptics together in their coverage, he said, instead of testing the veracity of individual claims and putting those arguments in context.

“This has been detrimental both in terms of dismissing legitimate critiques of climate science or policy, as well as amplifying extreme and tenuous claims,” he said.

Playing up the skeptical viewpoint also creates conflict and drama, attributes that may make news stories more interesting but which ultimately impede public understanding of the science behind climate change, according to Boykoff.


Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

EDUCATION: In addition to science, Texas Board of Education attempts to rewrite history

I’m not a conservative or republican since I believe their political views and remedies to some of our most pressing problems are deficient or inadequate. That said, I don’t believe their ideas necessarily lack utility, but I do believe they limit themselves—it’s what makes them conservative.

Stephen Colbert put it best: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” Consequently, I feel that in implementing policy (take healthcare reform and any environmental issue for example), conservatives don’t have much to offer from their toolbox to repair or solve any of the diverse problems plaguing our society, so they employ the same unimaginative and predictable ideas.  As a result, their ideas often don’t correspond with reality. Perhaps it’s why only 6% of scientists identify their political party affiliation as Republican. As a result, if you can’t beat reality or objectivity, then attempt to change it. It’s what the Texas Board of Education is attempted to do. From the New York Times:

The Texas Board of Education, notorious for its past efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools, has now moved to revise the social studies curriculum to portray conservative ideas and movements in a more positive light and emphasize the role of Christianity in the nation’s founding.

It was a disturbing intervention by the board’s Republican majority into educational decisions best left to the teachers and scholars who have toiled for almost a year to produce the new curriculum standards.

.       .       .

Some of the changes sound merely foolish, like replacing the word “capitalism” with the words “free-enterprise system.” One board member explained that the term capitalism has negative connotations, as in “capitalist pig.” Others are very worrisome, like questioning the doctrine of “separation between church and state” and dropping Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase, from a list of figures whose writings inspired political revolutions from the 1700s on.

From a practical standpoint, the board has inserted so many conservative figures, groups and concepts that must henceforth be studied that an already-long list of requirements may become unmanageable in the classroom time available.

Educators outside of the Lone Star State worry that Texas buys such a large number of textbooks that its requirements influence what publishers include in books that are marketed nationally. That should diminish as digital publishing makes it easier to alter textbooks from state to state. But even that is no comfort to the students in Texas. They deserve to have a curriculum chosen for its educational value, not politics or ideology.

Historians aren’t happy with the Board’s changes. From the Washington Post (emphasis added):

Historians criticized proposed revisions to the Texas social studies curriculum Tuesday, saying that many of the changes are historically inaccurate and that they would affect textbooks and classrooms far beyond the state’s borders.

.       .       .

Discussions ranged from whether President Ronald Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln’s (yes).

Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that “the later release of the Venona Papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.”

.       .       .

Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say that the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Thomas Jefferson, were quite secular.

Some textbook authors expressed discomfort with the state board’s changes, and it is unclear how readily historians will go along with some of the proposals.

Apparently, the Texas State Board of Education is relying on the Internet to “look up information on historical figures that they didn’t know much about.” More on the issue via the Dallas Morning News:

Hispanic lawmakers and academic experts blasted the Texas State Board of Education for minimizing the contributions of minorities as it attempts to rewrite guidelines for the teaching of history and social studies.

.       .       .

[B]oard members, at their most recent meeting on the curriculum standards, relied on information culled from the Internet while ignoring historians as they drafted amendments to the guidelines, which are supposed to be finalized in May.

.       .       .

Republican Don McLeroy, the backbone of the conservative voting bloc, acknowledged fellow board members used Internet search engines to look up information on historical figures that they didn’t know much about. But he said members didn’t rely on the searches in the formal curriculum rewriting process.

Image by Clay Bennett found here

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

POLITICS: The perplexing undecided voter

Image via “The Daily Show” on October 7, 2008.

Yesterday, I came across two descriptions of undecided voters from the United States presidential election of 2008 that I had tagged as favorites. These are entertaining descriptions of undecided voters from David Sedaris and the “Family Guy.” As a result, I decided to share them and conserve them on The Conservation Report. First, Sedaris (emphasis added):

Then you’ll see this man or woman— someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. “Well, Charlie,” they say, “I’ve gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can’t seem to make up my mind!” Some insist that there’s very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they’re with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.

I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?

And from the “Family Guy”:

To quote the aforementioned “Family Guy” episode:

Brian Griffin: Lois, undecided voters are the biggest idiots on the planet. Try giving short, simple answers.

Tricia Takanawa [to audience member]: Sir, your question, please?

Principal Shepherd: Mrs. Griffin, what do you plan to do about crime in our city?

Lois Griffin: A lot. [the audience applauds, Brian signals for her to go with it] Because… that’s what Jesus wants. [the audience applauds louder, Brian signals for more] 9/11 was bad. [audience cheers and applauds loudly]

Man: I agree with that!

Lois Griffin: God, I can’t believe how easy this is.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER story as told by Sufjan Stevens

Only Sufjan Stevens can write a song about an esoteric subject like the supposed rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker, which “decide[d] to come back even if only for a glimpse.”

More via NPR:

Independent radio producers Dan Collison and Elizabeth Meister were curious about how Stevens writes his songs, which, much like their own work, are filled with stories of places and people. So, they introduced Stevens to the Arkansas town of Brinkley.

Brinkley is a small farming town not far from where the ivory-billed woodpecker recently was rediscovered. News that the bird is not extinct has brought a ray of hope to the residents of Brinkley.

Producers Collison and Meister spoke with people in the town, then shared the interviews with Stevens. He wrote a song about the ivory-bill, known as the “lord god” or “great god” bird because of its breathtaking appearance. Together, they offer a portrait of Brinkley in word and song.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook