TonyWilliams

2010 Prius has a full roof solar panel as an option. Much bigger / better than the Nissan Leaf version.

jungle

It is comforting to think there is a master plan constructed by those wiser than ourselves that will lead us to a better future. The truth is that we are just buying the cheapest energy available along with the rest of the world.

The so called leaders are far more interested in there own future than that of our country.

Cubdriver

I honestly think the best propulsion technology for surface vehicles for the time being is clean diesel. Clean diesel does not have the heavy smoke, smell, or noise normally associated with diesel cars. It does everything well- vehicle range, cost, torque, weight, infrastructure, etc. although there is a slightly higher cost per unit to make a diesel engine than a gasoline engine. It is not as wide a margin than electric or hybrid. Diesel fuel itself can eventually be swapped without vehicle modification to use biodiesel. Talk about freedom from oil dependency, that is the best solution. It as to be done not to impinge on food production but we already have the technology needed to to manufacture biodiesel in large quantity, all we need is a political incentive to pay for the heavy up-front investment needed to set up the processing facilities. Not so with electric- it is not a technologically mature science due to the low energy-to-weight capacities of lithium-ion batteries. While it is a good long range plan, it is too far from economically feasible now to attract drivers who want a vehicle that is highly similar to what they already have in gasoline. I noticed the purchase price of a leaf is $32k and for that much money I can have a much nicer vehicle in a gasoline car.

FDXLAG

I think the ultimate fuel for any new vehicle is fairy dust. Call your Congressman and tell him that for a tiny upfront investment (maybe 2% of the next stimulus) in my secret fairy dust manufacturing plant we can all be living in Shangri La. All accept those evil foreign oil dudes, we wont invite them in.

Maybe we can have a poll and the winner on the APC alternative fuels poll will garner all future investment money (public and private), this will guarantee a successfull economy with low unemployment.

BTW I like deisel, but dont think the Government should pick winners or loser. Because when they do they drive the price of the winner and the loser through the roof.

Cubdriver

It is a sticky problem, which technology to fund. All green technologies allow oil independence. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. In some cases, industry is taking the initiative to pony up the money needed to get a unique energy infrastructure started, as in Google's plan to install a power grid in waters off New Jersey. They think they will make money on it or they would not bother but I do not think anyone will argue that they are risking more than most companies are willing to risk else those companies would have beat them to it. This is the type of situation where government has to step in and say ok, we'll take the risk because the country needs it and the market is somewhere between totally unwilling and reticent to invest in an infrastructure the country could clearly benefit from in the long run. Free markets are great, but a third player is often needed to ease things along in cases like this. We got lucky having such a far-sighted player as Google in this case and government does not need to do it this time.

I favor the technology of clean diesel because I think it has the best case for return on investment given short term market conditions and the overall best viability as a green energy for surface vehicles short of a breakthrough in battery design. But last time I checked there were all of 3 cars available that use clean diesel (low sulfur diesel) and zero trucks. You might as well buy a Prius or a Leaf if so few options are there. Personally, I am still buying gasoline cars because for the money you just can't beat them. I realize and regret that my money went for a vehicle that offers no change over the same oil dependent scheme that caused problems for us in the past.

TonyWilliams

The electric car is NOW-GEN. It's being built on an assembly line today. You have electrical power in your house. The infrastructure for less than 100 mile travel is already in place NOW. Just plug it in (my new California plate is "PLGS IN" on the blue whale tail plate).

Like I said, it does not replace petroleum based vehicles (jets, long haul trucks, farm tractors, merchant ships, and automobile driving longer that 100 miles). So, I support your diesel idea, but don't look at it is the right answer for a short haul electric car / short haul truck today.

Also, I agree that electric cars should NOT attract Joe Sixpack who wants to drive 101 miles or more daily. All that will do is upset our good friend Joe when he has to walk the last mile everyday. Environmental issues, and the cost to acquire the crude oil beyond merely direct financial cost, I doubt will ever compete with electrical production. Issue beyond cost, political, environmental, and human lives for that crude oil product are difficult to measure, but easy for clean electricity.

To the costs of electric in NOW-GEN; of course this new technology costs more than the maturity of 100 years of petrol burning evolution. How could it not? Like that new technology of the mobile cell phone, personal computer and DARPA-NET, it was expensive at first.

Virtually everybody on the planet has access to the internet in one generation. The cost came down. I was an early adopter to that technology, also. My first Compaq computer was about $3000 in 1980's dollars, with very limited capabilities. Cell phone was $1 minute, and battery lasted about that long. Internet had incredible limitations from today, and was much more expensive to use.

Currently, there are about $12,500 in rebates for me in California for that $32,500 car, plus I got a free at home charger. For $20,000, it's an OK, but limited, little car that's still at a premium over a gas burner you can buy today. So, purely economics wouldn't be the only reason to buy one.

Let's look at the TOTAL cost of my today gen electric car versus your future clean burn diesel car.

I'll guess that your car could be built for a retail price of half my car:

$32,500 electric
$16,250 future diesel

Cost for fuel over an ownership period of 8 years / 100,000 miles:

20 kilowatts to go 100 miles, equals 5 miles per KW, or 0.2 KW per mile. At 3 cents to recharge each KW in Washington with clean hydro power, that's 0.6 cents per mile, or 60 cents for a "fill up", or $600 total for electric over the period. That cost is probably quite stable, also. No third world countries need to be invaded to continue to achieve that cost.

Admittedly, I low balled the cost of electricity. In San Diego, I'll pay 11.5 cents / KW at night, so $2300 total.

Diesel fuel, in today dollars in Washington state is $3.50 (source, etrucker.com) and not likely to be stable over the 8 year period. None of the alternatives, including "clean" diesel, are likely to be cheaper than that, nor widely available today.

At 50mpg (on par with world class Prius hybrid), divided by cost per gallon equals 7 cents per mile, or $7000 total.

So, assuming similar values of the vehicles at the end in percentage to their original cost, and similar insurance cost (the diesel will never be as cheap in maintenance), your car is still cheaper (without subsidies) over my current gen electric car.

If you could make a non-petroleum diesel product that costs on par with today's diesel, I'd say you have a winner. I doubt it will be as low polluting as any electric motor with hydro / wind / surf / solar electrical production. For today, for less than 100 miles, the future is now. The cost for electric car batteries will only get better and cheaper, just like the Darpanet.

Cubdriver

I am all for electric cars and trucks. Who needs liquid fuel if electricity will do. The problem is that only relatively small minority of vehicles can get along with an 80 or 100 mile driving range. If 20% of the small cars and trucks out there can safely assume they are only going 80 miles today, it may be millions of vehicles but it is not a cover-all solution for switching to green energy. I do like it for that minority and I applaud you (hate the phrase but it fits) for trying it. I am sure your Leaf will be a fun car and give a sense of helping keep America's troops off the streets of various third world countries, but I worry about pedestrians a bit with too many electric vehicles coming through.

TonyWilliams

One of the write ups on the Leaf attempting a max range "real world" test (with air conditioning on), driving from Nashville (the future manufacturing plant of the Leaf). He went over 130 miles. Tesla has a car coming out that will go over 200 miles. The range will go up in relatively short order. The Leaf is step 1.

The data Nissan has says that some HUGE number of the drivers go less than 100 miles a day. The majority. The problem is convincing the public of that. Fortunately, they only need to convince about 100,000 a year of 300 million Americans

The car is to be built in Japan now, then Nashville, and England.



I went to the test drive event in San Diego last week, and yes, you can get run over. Nissan is putting "noise makers" in the production car. You can turn it off, but you have to do that every time you "start" the car. You can't hear the noise maker in the car.

DYNASTY HVY

Smaller isn't always safer so what about the crash test results for these new cars ?


Fred

TonyWilliams

Smaller than what? There are smaller cars than the Toyota Prius and Nissan Leaf. They all have to pass crash tests, and they're designed in Japan (not China, India, etc).