NIssan electric to get 367 mpg; Ford electric Probe prototype: 357 mpg. Wow!

[JohnWxy]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2009-05-06-nissan-electric-car-volt_N.htm

Nissan says it could beat General Motors' highly publicized Chevrolet Volt to market, selling an electric car as soon as fall 2010 with an eye-popping fuel-economy rating equivalent to 367 miles per gallon and a range of 100 miles on a charge.

The electric car does not use petroleum fuel directly. The mpg equivalent is calculated using a federal formula that takes into account the fuel an electric utility would use to charge the car.

Ford said Wednesday that it will begin producing a battery-power version of the next-generation Focus compact sedan at a converted Michigan truck factory in 2011. An early prototype gets 357 mpg, using the federal math.

~~

Nissan says its small electric will be priced about the same as a conventional midsize sedan.


(more)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I put 357 mpg in for the Camry in the Break-Even spreadsheet and $3.00 for gas and got a payback of 5 yrs. that's looking much more sellable._JW

http://www.geocities.com/jwalkerxy/Hybrid_MPG.xls

[Turbineguy]

1. Nice trojan at that link

I would think that formula would be based on electricity produced by nuclear, solar, wind and hydro as well. A gallon of gasoline would contain enough energy for about 80 horsepower if perfectly efficient (and cars are between 15 and 25%).

Still, it's a major improvement.

[JohnWxy]

4. I need to add the cost of charging for year. about $200 for plug-ins.

this is major improvement especially considering the time frame!

[BeFree]

2. Put up solar arrays and the mileage...

...will be rated on how many hours of sun you can cram into a battery.

Lets see, the sun costs $0. So 0 x 1,000 = costs of energy once the solar panels are up. Maybe $2,000? 100,000 miles on $2,000 worth of infrastructure. Do the math.

Government's problem? How to collect revenue. Solve that problem and we will have electric cars powered buy the sun forever more.

[predfan]

5. Solar carports, exactly. Canopies create shade, keeping cars cooler during the day,

charging those batteries at work when possible.

[JohnWxy]

10. check link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x195356

[county worker]

3. What's it going to cost to operate it?

It doesn't run on gas so who gives a shit how many MPG it gets?

[JohnWxy]

6. this same battery could be put in a Volt type set-up with a small ICE and then it would be feasible

also for those who drive longer distances.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. The Equivalent MPG gives you an idea of its efficiency, including the generation cost

People have a tendency to say, "Yeah, but the electricity is being generated by a coal plant." That's why the EPA/DoE developed these formulae.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b77f421eda441edc41220ad7a3fa1a4a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=10:3.0.1.4.29&idno=10

[bigscott]

7. 100 miles per charge?

would barely get me to work in the morning - I would have to charge the car while at work and PRAY I don't have to leave early for the 95 mile drive home!!

we need better battery technology

Peace

[tinrobot]

8. A 95 mile commute is rare...

This car isn't for you unless you move closer.

For 90% of Americans, however, it would suffice.

[JohnWxy]

9. Most people drive a good deal less than that a day, however.

[Taitertots]

11. Good job with the resource wasting

Even if you did get an electric car you still wouldn't offset the damage your wasteful lifestyle causes.


We need people to stop living like consumption bots instead of new batteries.

[MercutioATC]

13. You tell him!

I'm sure he lives 95 miles from work for the sole purpose of "wasting" resources.

We need people to stop being judgmental assholes.

[Taitertots]

14. We need people to start being judgmental

I'm sure he lives there because he doesn't care about the environmental devastation his lifestyle causes. Therefore he is deserving of judgment. Wanton waste needs to be called out. If he is just going to live as a consumption bot without regard to the effects of his lifestyle, then he deserves to be called out.

[MercutioATC]

15. Maybe he has good reasons for living so far from his job.

I live 22.5 miles from my job. I could afford to live within walking distance if I chose, but I live where I do because I like the community. It has low taxes, great schools, and fantastic city services. Judge me.

Maybe it's the only job he can find. Maybe he can't afford to move closer. Maybe his family has roots where they live and doesn't want to move. Maybe there are medical issues that require him to live where he does.

Maybe not.

The point is that you judged before asking...and that's wrong.

[kristopher]

16. That is one point of view

Another is that shame is a powerful social force for motivating people to adhere to social norms. I read taitertots' post as objecting to the way we evaluate the effects of resource consumption. The current social norm is that it is purely an economic evaluation; if I can afford to consume resources then there is nothing wrong with doing so. Taitertot wants to add a new dimension to that evaluation where a person also has to add some form of social cost/reward into the mix.

For that to be effective, the initial assumption would be that such deviation from the norm (180 miles just to work and back is more than 6X the total average daily miles driven of most people) is negative; not neutral, not positive. The person making the evaluation of whether or not to drive that much would then have to weigh the negative social costs into the list of factors you cite that probably go into making the decision.

Essentially, you object to resource consumption being viewed negatively.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. "Essentially, you object to resource consumption being viewed negatively."

That's far too simplistic.

I don't think anyone wants to spend 3 hours a day commuting. That's a negative right there.

Some times, people feel forced to do things they would rather not do, due to circumstances they feel are beyond their control.

I've known people who have faced such long commutes. They tend to do something about them, as soon as they feel they are able. (i.e. they get a job closer to home or they move closer to work.)

[kristopher]

18. Your reply is "simplistic"

In that you have totally failed to address the relevant argument in my post and instead, basically regurgitated what Merc wrote. You are relegating the entire portfolio of concerns for the decision-maker to the realm of economic impact.
No one is saying the economic factors aren't or shouldn't be relevant; on the other hand you ARE saying that social pressure should NOT be relevant. That is, in fact, "object(ing) to resource use being viewed negatively". Apparently you fail to grasp that statement in the context of the argument where "being viewed negatively" is referring to a social norm.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Let's try this again

Please, don't tell me what I think. It's clear you don't know.

You've blithely made the assumption that "resource consumption" was not a consideration.

[kristopher]

20. I've assumed nothing

However, the argument made by taitertot is one advocating societal pressure based on resource consumption that deviates significantly from the norm. The post I made explains that the way such societal pressure works requires that the default judgement by one's peers is negative.
As an example: if you buy a hooker, your decision making would probably involve a social component that would be missing when you decide whether or not to buy an inefficient luxury vehicle. Both decisions would involve an economic evaluation but the "shame" associated with the hooker would almost certainly not exist with the luxury car. You may have excellent emotional and practical reasons for buying the hooker, but those would have to be weighed against a guaranteed social cost should the public be aware of your actions.
Taitertot is advocating and practicing such social pressure.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Go back and read the thread

Taitertots: Even if you did get an electric car you still wouldn't offset the damage your wasteful lifestyle causes.
What does Taitertots know about bigscott's lifestyle (other than he has a long commute?) Nothing.

MercutioATC: We need people to stop being judgmental assholes.
(I agree.)

Taitertots: I'm sure he lives there because he doesn't care about the environmental devastation his lifestyle causes. …
(Like you) Taitertots apparently just knows things.

MercutioATC: The point is that you judged before asking...and that's wrong.
(I agree.)

kristopher: Essentially, you object to resource consumption being viewed negatively.
No, MercutioATC objected to prejudice.



You know, I have this visceral reaction when I see someone sitting in an idling Hummer. Hell, I have a similar reaction when I see someone driving a Hummer.

I do view "resource consumption" negatively. On the other hand, I don't see any justification here to jump down bigscott's throat, let alone MercutioATC's.

[kristopher]

22. As usual you are totallly off target

Previously I wrote: "That is one view. Another is that shame is a powerful social force for motivating people to adhere to social norms. I read taitertots' post as objecting to the way we evaluate the effects of resource consumption. The current social norm is that it is purely an economic evaluation; if I can afford to consume resources then there is nothing wrong with doing so. Taitertot wants to add a new dimension to that evaluation where a person also has to add some form of social cost/reward into the mix.

For that to be effective, the initial assumption would be that such deviation from the norm (180 miles just to work and back is more than 6X the total average daily miles driven of most people) is negative; not neutral, not positive. The person making the evaluation of whether or not to drive that much would then have to weigh the negative social costs into the list of factors you cite that probably go into making the decision.

Essentially, you object to resource consumption being viewed negatively."

I also wrote: "No one is saying the economic factors aren't or shouldn't be relevant; on the other hand you ARE saying that social pressure should NOT be relevant. That is, in fact, "object(ing) to resource use being viewed negatively". Apparently you fail to grasp that statement in the context of the argument where "being viewed negatively" is referring to a social norm."

Yet you still wrote: "You know, I have this visceral reaction when I see someone sitting in an idling Hummer. Hell, I have a similar reaction when I see someone driving a Hummer. I do view "resource consumption" negatively. On the other hand, I don't see any justification here to jump down bigscott's throat, let alone MercutioATC's."

Now, do you really think that your response actually addresses the argument above? You are clearly still failing to grasp exactly how "shame" works or (more likely in my view) you simply don't want to acknowledge the argument because you've yet again started barking up the wrong tree.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Shame does work at times

It's not at all clear to me that it's appropriate in this case.

Except… I think you should feel ashamed of your conduct. I believe you owe MercutioATC an apology.

But that's just because I view antisocial behavior negatively.

[kristopher]

24. And I think you are a jerk who simply can't admit he's wrong.

[Taitertots]

27. We should jump down their throats about it

What reasonable excuse could there be for driving an extra 190 miles everyday?


If you really do view resource wasting negatively I would think you would vocalize it. Instead of searching the possibility of a convoluted reason for the waste.

[kristopher]

28. Do you understand the difference between moral incentives and

social incentives?

Moral incentives affect people by causing them to avoid doing something they consider to be wrong. I might think stealing is wrong, yet do it out of economic necessity.
Social incentives affect people by causing them to avoid doing something because the don't want to be seen doing it. I might not think stealing is wrong, but I don't do it because other people will think bad of me if I do.

Do you really think it is possible to shift our values enough to create a climate of condemnation about 'excessive' resource consumption?

[Taitertots]

29. Do you really think we have much choice?

It has to be clear that our excessive resource consumption is doing damage that can't be fixed. We need legislation also, but that is going to be hard to get without larger social consciousness.

[kristopher]

31. 'Shaming' requires a social foundation...

that doesn't currently exist here. I doubt it can be deliberately created, instead, I think the underlying social consciousness is a product of extreme social upset or it gains ground through an established pathway, such as religion. For example, after a famine, several generations will look at wasted food as a 'sin'.

In any case, I think the moral incentive has to be more widely in place than now before the social pressure has any chance of being effective.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

30. I live less than 3 miles from work. I could go weeks on a single charge.

Clearly all-electric cars are gonna work better for some of us than others. Eventually people will rethink the mega-commute thing.

[Nederland]

36. No, you need to move closer to work (nt)

[NNadir]

26. Who told you that electrons come in 'gallons?'

Never mind.

I really don't want to know.

There is NOT ONE car CULTist on this website who thinks that electricity comes from something other than a wall socket.

[excess_3]

32. don't agree .. there is at least one person , that would be me

I know exactly wher electricity comes from

[JohnWxy]

33. I assumed interested parties would read the post.. Bad assumption.

"The electric car does not use petroleum fuel directly. The mpg equivalent is calculated using a federal formula that takes into account the fuel an electric utility would use to charge the car."


I guess sometimes I'm guilty of expecting too much of ...some people. My bad, for truncation in subject line.

[excess_3]

34. in the US, electricity does not come from oil

( OK, maybe one percent does, not sure about Hawaii)

electricity comes from,

coal, nuke, natural gas, Hydro, wind

........................................

the electric car cuts the middle east dictators
completely out of the deal

[IDemo]

35. A note on MPGe (Miles Per Gallon equivalent)

The miles per gallon figure used to measure the efficiency of normal internal combustion vehicles takes into account two things,
although it can be assumed that one is unchanging: the energy content of a gallon of gas, and the efficiency of a vehicle in using
that energy. Miles per Gallon equivalent is no different, except that the "gallon" in the equation merely represents an amount of
electric energy equal to 124,262 Btu's or 131 MegaJoules (that'll make someone happy).

It is an awkward measure, but it helps those who can relate better to MPG numbers than to scientific units. A better way, in my opinion,
would be the use of kilometers per MegaJoule (km/MJ), which is what Tesla Motors uses. MPGe is a "tank-to-wheel" measure, meaning
it doesn't take into account which fuel was used to generate the electricity or losses incurred in transmission and battery charging.

A "well-to-wheel" analysis of virtually any modern electric vehicle, regardless of power source, will show that it is both more energy efficient
and carbon friendly than a similar vehicle powered by gasoline or diesel.