New Nissan Leaf from €20,990

stimpson

Regarding efficiency vs an ICE, Gas-fired power plants can achieve 50% conversion efficiency while coal and oil plants achieve around 30–49%. The bulk of the energy used by an EV today come from these sources. Add to that power line losses and losses due to rectification to DC and that's how effluent your EV actually is. It seems cheaper because of the massive duty on petrol and diesel.

Thorium is a pipe dream for the next 30 years and renewables are only going to provide a fraction of the power in the foreseeable future.

As an aside, I passed a Leaf on the Motorway this evening and slowed down to see what speed it was doing. An indicated 90kph.

galwaytt

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're joking ? :eek:



I'll gladly pay 2.0L CC style road tax to run an e.v, still much cheaper than paying for petrol/diesel.



They'll be getting a good chunk form property tax and water chargers more people have homes than cars.

And I guarantee it won't be long before we pay for waste water too like the Germans.

The Government can think of a million more taxes.

I guarantee you won't happily pay 2.0 tax id/when it comes to pass at €750 p a....

The tax take they receive from Motor and fuels cannot be replaced with other taxes: this is billions you're talking about.

As for waste water charges: won't happen outside urban areas: the State don't provide that service.
A lot goes for tap water too: the local group scheme to me has been deemed unfit for consumption......by cattle !! Which is why I have a well. Nothing to tax there either.

All of which still belies one simple thing. The State will not allow a low tax regime to propogate - it's simply not in their interest.

It doesn't matter what we dress it up as: motor, fuel etc

Ded_Zebra

stimpson wrote: »

Regarding efficiency vs an ICE, Gas-fired power plants can achieve 50% conversion efficiency while coal and oil plants achieve around 30–49%. The bulk of the energy used by an EV today come from these sources. Add to that power line losses and losses due to rectification to DC and that's how effluent your EV actually is. It seems cheaper because of the massive duty on petrol and diesel.

Yes but a petrol or diesel engine in a car is 16-26% efficient so the EV is much better.

Don'f forget lads that power stations have to be kept burning at night when demand is low wasting tonnes of fuel, and the ESB themselves even stated ev charging at night can dramatically increase efficiency by actually using that otherwise wasted fuel.

Matt Simis

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I think you've missed my point completely. A petrol car uses (or wastes if you prefer) far more energy to go the same distance as an EV. If your petrol car could convert it's stored energy (petrol) with the same efficiency as an EV does with its stored energy (battery), you would be putting less petrol in. I'm no expert, so this is just a rough guesstimate, but in my Nissan Micra example, if it was as efficient as an EV you would need a fuel tank 5 times smaller to do the same amount of mileage.

Ded_Zebra wrote: »

Yes but a petrol or diesel engine in a car is 16-26% efficient so the EV is much better.

Guys, come on now! Not only is this a null value argument, its not even landing on the side you think it is. Forget percentages and efficiency, talk actual static energy values in a standardised value benchmark.
Lets imagine we have abundant, cheap, non-renewable fuel (by "imagine", I mean accept Fracking and/or bio fuels, a reality). When dealing with efficiency its easy to paint a misleading image depicting a high "value" of Lithium (EV power source) vs Petrol. This is like comparing the calorific content of a grape to a barn full of oranges. No one cares if the grape holds 99zigots of power per mm2 and opening the barn looses 80% of the "stored" energy.. the scales are so different its a pointless but conveniently misleading comparison.


Specific Energy per KG:

Lithium Cell: 250watt/hour
Petrol: 13,000watt/Hour
Usable Petrol Energy in current tech cars: approx 1700watt/hour


To use the bizarre comparison above, if Lithium had the energy density of petrol, a Leaf wouldnt need a staggering 300kg (75kw/h) of batteries to achieve its (sub-ICE) performance level, it would need just 5.7Kg before losses or around 100kg assuming standard ICE "loss", ignoring the fact some of that loss is used as beneficial heating and its not a tangible loss as its simply the nature of the beast.


Or, for an editorial on the same problem/issue with even more depressing (and presumably more accurate) figures than mine:

APS Physics wrote: »

Stored energy in fuel is considerable: gasoline is the champion at 47.5 MJ/kg and 34.6 MJ/liter; the gasoline in a fully fueled car has the same energy content as a thousand sticks of dynamite. A lithium-ion battery pack has about 0.3 MJ/kg and about 0.4 MJ/liter (Chevy VOLT). Gasoline thus has about 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery. This difference in energy density is partially mitigated by the very high efficiency of an electric motor in converting energy stored in the battery to making the car move: it is typically 60-80 percent efficient. The efficiency of an internal combustion engine in converting the energy stored in gasoline to making the car move is typically 15 percent (EPA 2012). With the ratio about 5, a battery with an energy storage density 1/5 of that of gasoline would have the same range as a gasoline-powered car. We are not even close to this at present.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm


There isnt a specific issue with Electric motors themselves (aside from the generally low performance for their weight, its just about crept into the realm of acceptable) but their powersource, Lithium based tech is just not at the ballpark compared to mineral (and BioTech engineered) fuel sources. Something entirely different and vastly better is needed and the last 10years of carbon nanotubes and other wonder techs are no closer today than then.

galwaytt

galwaytt wrote: »

I guarantee you won't happily pay 2.0 tax id/when it comes to pass at €750 p a....

The tax take they receive from Motor and fuels cannot be replaced with other taxes: this is billions you're talking about.

As for waste water charges: won't happen outside urban areas: the State don't provide that service.
A lot goes for tap water too: the local group scheme to me has been deemed unfit for consumption......by cattle !! Which is why I have a well. Nothing to tax there either.

All of which still belies one simple thing. The State will not allow a low tax regime to propogate - it's simply not in their interest.

It doesn't matter what we dress it up as: motor, fuel etc

The tax on a 2.0 L cc tax system is 710 euro,s . That's what it costs on the crv.

We can guess what will happen in the future and add another 10 pages to this thread.

Do you think the property tax and water charges won't give billions to the Government ?

If they want to invent new taxes they will.

Ded_Zebra

I don't think you understand exactly what I mean so I'll try to explain it.

14-26% of the energy in the fuel energy that you put into the tank of your car is used to turn the wheels. Here is a link.

A power plant (oil fired) is 30-49% efficient, an electric motor is 80-90% efficient. See here and here
This means that an EV is 24-44.1% efficient (of the energy in the burned fuel).
There are some additional losses for the EV in terms of transmission of the power but that is quite insignificant.

Matt Simis

Ded_Zebra wrote: »

I don't think you understand exactly what I mean so I'll try to explain it.

14-26% of the energy in the fuel energy that you put into the tank of your car is used to turn the wheels. Here is a link.

A power plant (oil fired) is 30-49% efficient, an electric motor is 80-90% efficient. See here and here
This means that an EV is 24-44.1% efficient (of the energy in the burned fuel).
There are some additional losses for the EV in terms of transmission of the power but that is quite insignificant.

No I do understand how you get the numbers, but I'm pointing out how irrelevant the actual final number actually is.

EVs could be 100% efficient in their power delivery, but it wouldnt make any difference when their competitor is using a storage mechanism 100's of times more dense. And they likely will never be even close to 100% efficient at the local point and not a hope in hell when including the power plant and power delivery distribution and remote storage losses. Get your home BER assessed and you will find Electric Storage heaters, while 100% efficient locally, get kinda reamed on the total assessment due to significant distribution losses (and this is international energy assessment practice).

Ignoring that aspect, to compare to Petrol (or NG, LPG, Ethanol, Diesel, BioDiesel)? Well to use a Family Guy reference, its a dwarf among midgets argument.. in a world of not-midgets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILkkpMEzlZY

Making a pro-EV case on efficiency is just foolishness. Its a nice little perk that should come up in passing, but that's it. Aside from a slightly suspect and not in the real world eco-friendly/green PR angle, I cannot think of any reason we should care how efficient (80%) an EV motor is.

lomb

Anyone who pays 20k for an electric car which has the range that varies with which way the wind blows needs their head examined. Talking about saving money makes no sense at all. I did the maths on a 2000 polo type car having a total cost of 2.5k on 12k miles with no limit on mobility. It is much more environmentally friendly to use something already in existence than to waste energy and resources building new. It would probably take 10+years for the co2 generated to be paid back if ever compared to the used polo. The electric cars have heat pumps, energy management aps, fancy screens , internet charge locations etc when all that is needed is a simple fuel quantity gauge for fossil cars .

Ded_Zebra

Matt Simis wrote: »

No I do understand how you get the numbers, but Im pointing out how irrelevant the actual final number actually is.

EVs could be 100% efficient in their power delivery, but it wouldnt make any difference when their competitor is using a storage mechanism 100's of times more dense. And they likely will never be even close to 100% efficient at the local point and not a hope in hell when including the power plant and power delivery distribution and remote storage losses.


Making a pro-EV case on efficiency is just foolishness. Its a nice little perk that should come up in passing, but thats it.

OK well I clearly won't change your mind. I understand and agree that there is an energy storage issue. However I still feel that they would suit a lot of people who are currently driving post 2008 diesels low miles to try to save money and we all know the problems with that. An EV I think would also be good for an "enthusiast" who could run a Leaf instead of a new astra and spend the savings on a 740i :D That's what I would do if I owned some money and had one of those job things you hear so much about :pac:

galwaytt

Ded_Zebra wrote: »

OK well I clearly won't change your mind. I understand and agree that there is an energy storage issue. However I still feel that they would suit a lot of people who are currently driving post 2008 diesels low miles to try to save money and we all know the problems with that. An EV I think would also be good for an "enthusiast" who could run a Leaf instead of a new astra and spend the savings on a 740i :D That's what I would do if I owned some money and had one of those job things you hear so much about :pac:

I too would would buy an EV.....but I'd use the "change" to buy a Ducati.....

Ded_Zebra

galwaytt wrote: »

I too would would buy an EV.....but I'd use the "change" to buy a Ducati.....

Whatever your poison is I suppose :D

lomb

lomb wrote: »

Anyone who pays 20k for an electric car which has the range that varies with which way the wind blows needs their head examined. Talking about saving money makes no sense at all. I did the maths on a 2000 polo type car having a total cost of 2.5k on 12k miles with no limit on mobility. It is much more environmentally friendly to use something already in existence than to waste energy and resources building new. It would probably take 10+years for the co2 generated to be paid back if ever compared to the used polo. The electric cars have heat pumps, energy management aps, fancy screens , internet charge locations etc when all that is needed is a simple fuel quantity gauge for fossil cars .

We've had this conversation before !

People want new cars, not everyone wants to drive around in a 13 year old Polo,

If there was an ev for the same cost as a 13 year polo what would your argument be then ? the battery ? the battery can live on for many years after it's no longer of use.

Every car is bad somewhat for the environment, The older car uses a greater amount of fossil fuels and emits harmful emissions while the ev emissions are usually not emitted in town, compared to ice. The ev can greatly increase efficiency of power stations by charging at night using the otherwise wasted fuel.

Anyway if buying new or 2nd hand car that at a price = the ev then it makes more sense to buy the ev if it works for you, if it doesn't don't buy it, it's as simple as that.

You will save money over the equivalent ice car.

You wouldn't be buying an e.v to save money but rather reduce your fuel costs, which are significant for a lot of people.

Another way of looking at it by using my example,

My previous commute was 60 Euro's a week, EV worst case 15 Euro's. The ev

So if I had the choice of spending 27 k on a well kitted out Leaf or 32 k on a Golf, I would choose the Leaf because my running costs would be far lower.

If I had 15k to spend i'd buy a Leaf from the U.K rather than buy a 2nd hand diesel with probably 50,000 + miles on the clock. Sure enough it would be fun bringing it home.

lomb

But the whole point of your thread is that you think the Ev will save money which it wont in the grand scheme of things. The thing is that they are no good except as a second car. How many people can afford 20+k for a second car? Most second cars are in fact 00 polos/yaris/fiesta etc type cars!

Max Power1

lomb wrote: »

But the whole point of your thread is that you think the Ev will save money which it wont in the grand scheme of things. The thing is that they are no good except as a second car. How many people can afford 20+k for a second car? Most second cars are in fact 00 polos/yaris/fiesta etc type cars!

Most people would struggle to find that cash for a first car tbh let alone a second!!

"Second cars in the family" usually are small cars that are cheap to run and maintain and also not costly to buy.

EVs @20-25k are not a viable second car tbh.

lomb

lomb wrote: »

But the whole point of your thread is that you think the Ev will save money which it wont in the grand scheme of things. The thing is that they are no good except as a second car. How many people can afford 20+k for a second car? Most second cars are in fact 00 polos/yaris/fiesta etc type cars!

No actually the whole point I created the thread was to inform people of the different options/trims of the Leaf. And the new prices.

There are lots of 2 car households and not all of them do just daily school runs. There are lots of 2 car households where both people commute.

There are many people who drive to Luas stops who can charge and do up to 120 miles a day and more. I don't think many people commute more than that.

The ev would meed 95% of their yearly driving needs and the fast chargers the rest. Soon every single motorway in Ireland will have fast charge points.

An e.v won't suit many people then don't buy one, but ev's are suitable for most of the population.

Ev's are not selling well because an ice car does what they want it may cost them much more to fuel but they can afford it, those who spend up to 30 a week in petrol/diesel can mostly afford it and
are not interested in an ev because the ice does what they want just fine.

It takes time for people to accept new technology, the Prius didn't sell well in the beginning though in Ireland people are still convinced diesel is best to drive to the school and back.

When more people buy ev's and share their experiences with others then they will buy them, eventually. new technology is never embraced over night.

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Most people would struggle to find that cash for a first car tbh let alone a second!!

"Second cars in the family" usually are small cars that are cheap to run and maintain and also not costly to buy.

EVs @20-25k are not a viable second car tbh.

That's only because there are no ev's old enough yet.

Who said anyone should go out and buy a new e.v ? I didn't.

In the beginning of this thread I didn't ask anyone to buy a new one, but for those in the market for a new one an e.v may very well meet their needs.

Max Power1

Deleted User wrote: »

That's only because there are no ev's old enough yet.

Who said anyone should go out and buy a new e.v ? I didn't.

In the beginning of this thread I didn't ask anyone to buy a new one, but for those in the market for a new one an e.v may very well meet their needs.

So you reckon a five year old leaf (and more importantly 5 year old battery) is a better prospect?

We all know what happens to batteries after years of usage. Look at all utilization of battery tech in the homeplace, laptops, ipod, smartphone etc. After a few months the battery has less range.

When you consider the range of the leaf to be <120km at the best of times, what will it be after 5 years? 50km? Less?

I would love to buy an EV as a second cheap car for commuting to work and back and town driving. Really I would. I see they have their uses. But until the technology becomes more available (read: cheaper and more widely used) I am afraid I (like many others) will remain outside the fence.

Max Power1

as a point of reference, the cheapest used leaf on carzone is still 19k

http://www.carzone.ie/search/Nissan/Leaf/100---El/34013604581770920/advert?channel=CARS

antodeco

What I want to do is convert an old mini to EV. Small and light, so ideal. Anyone know anywhere I can get an EV conversion done?

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

as a point of reference, the cheapest used leaf on carzone is still 19k

http://www.carzone.ie/search/Nissan/Leaf/100---El/34013604581770920/advert?channel=CARS

I wouldn't get one in Ireland, they can sell them for 15 k in the U.K we're always ripped off here.

They can't get rid of 2011's fast enough. Great for the 2nd hand buyer.

antodeco

antodeco wrote: »

What I want to do is convert an old mini to EV. Small and light, so ideal. Anyone know anywhere I can get an EV conversion done?

Wouldn't be worth the hassle because you's won't get automotive grade batteries in a hurry, the best you can hope for is A123 LiFeP04, while great for high discharge rates for acceleration and life, they are bigger and bulkier than the automotive grade batteries.

It can be done though is you want a 30 mile range car.

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

So you reckon a five year old leaf (and more importantly 5 year old battery) is a better prospect?

We all know what happens to batteries after years of usage. Look at all utilization of battery tech in the homeplace, laptops, ipod, smartphone etc. After a few months the battery has less range.

When you consider the range of the leaf to be <120km at the best of times, what will it be after 5 years? 50km? Less?

I would love to buy an EV as a second cheap car for commuting to work and back and town driving. Really I would. I see they have their uses. But until the technology becomes more available (read: cheaper and more widely used) I am afraid I (like many others) will remain outside the fence.

Yes it's true, we don't know yet the lifespan so it is wise to be cautious.

But it is wrong to compare electronic device batteries to that of automotive grade batteries because the BMS or battery monitoring system is far more advanced and does not allow full cycling of the battery cells.

And automotive batteries are not the same as those in most electronic gadgets.

Your Ipad ,cell phone will charge to 4.2V per cell and down to as low as 2.7 volts which greatly reduce the life of the battery.

The Leaf will not do this. But there are still things you can do to maximise the life such as using the charge to 80% and not run down below 30% when you do not need the range but it's no problem to use all the battery when you need to.

This applies also to your Ipad laptop etc, cell phone etc.

Most Lithium batteries seem to drop to 70% and stay there for a very long time the first few years usually show the greatest capacity loss then they settle at 70%.

But in the cast of the Zoe, you rent the battery and you are guaranteed not to loose more than 30% capacity, ev batteries are deemed useless at 70% capacity or less. But they still won't install a new battery in the Zoe only a battery that is 70% or greater, currently anyway.

I'm off to bed night all.

stimpson

Deleted User wrote: »

That's only because there are no ev's old enough yet.

Who said anyone should go out and buy a new e.v ? I didn't.

In the beginning of this thread I didn't ask anyone to buy a new one, but for those in the market for a new one an e.v may very well meet their needs.

And the fact that nobody is buying them new means there won't be any to buy second hand.

stimpson

stimpson wrote: »

And the fact that nobody is buying them new means there won't be any to buy second hand.

As I said time will change that, or a Government budget that favours EV like diesel was favoured over petrol.

It takes time for people to embrace new technology and people are naturally cautious because they have had laptop batteries die after 3 years etc. They think a battery is a battery. And the fact for now an ice car does just fine a job for most people, and they can mainly afford to run them, so where is the incentive for people to change when they couldn't care less what gets them where they want to go, be it ice or ev. They are used to ice and that's all they know. I think range is also on the back of peoples minds of course, but if they see people they know with electric cars and it works for them they will think twice.

right I'm definitely off to bed now.

creedp

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Petrol/Diesel comes from Oil

Electricity can come from Oil, Solar, Wind, Gas, Nuclear, Wave and I'm sure others as well.

I highlighted the NB word above. Bottom line is that in Ireland the majority of electricity is currently and for the foreseeable future will be generated from fossil fuels. I also find it strange that the Govt removed any grants available to install electric powered heating in houses and actually penalises people for installing heat pumps because electricity is considered a dirty source of fuel in terms of CO emissions. Why then should the Govt incentivise people to drive EVs? As I said before no problem with people driving EVs .. I would if it suited my needs which it currently doesn't (and if I could afford one!).

However, my point still remains why should the EV owner expect that the taxpayer should subsidise EV drivers when these cars are already cheaper to run for those that the characteristics of EV cars suit their needs? I have 4 kids so should I expect the Govt to subsidise MPVs because that class of vehicles suit my needs?

Bottom line if EVs are a viable proposition for a sufficient number of people then there would be no need for the Govt to subsidise them any further especially as they are already significantly subsidised by being allowed to use electricity which is not being subjected to penal duties levied on fosil fueled cars. Why should EV owners expect to be treated differently to owners of other types of vehicles when the Govt considers car owners in general to be a cash cow to be milked every way possible?

stimpson

If 5k, free charger and free electricity doesn't do it I don't know what will. I'd say range is front and centre of people's minds.

There are charge points where I work and there is one Leaf. And several hundred real cars.

spank_inferno

stimpson wrote: »

If 5k, free charger and free electricity doesn't do it I don't know what will. I'd say range is front and centre of people's minds.

A thing that bugs me.

Most people including those that work could never afford the 30k for an EV car.

Yet their tax goes to subsidise those wealthy enough to have 30-grand to spend on their new electrical car.

talk about a wealth transfer from the poor to the well off.


The government should focus monies on.... you know.... governing.
Leave those wealthy enough to purchase these cars to do so by themselves.

wotswattage

spank_inferno wrote: »

A thing that bugs me.

Most people including those that work could never afford the 30k for an EV car.

Yet their tax goes to subsidise those wealthy enough to have 30-grand to spend on their new electrical car.

talk about a wealth transfer from the poor to the well off.


The government should focus monies on.... you know.... governing.
Leave those wealthy enough to purchase these cars to do so by themselves.

But an EV car costs €21,000 (from thead title)

76,000 new cars were sold in Ireland last year, and I'm sure a large proportion of them were in the €20k+ range. So thousands of people can afford one!! On one hand you're complaining about subsidizing the cost, and then putting up the un-subsidized cost...

Anyhew my take on ev's:

Even if a comparable i.c. car cost less than a Leaf, the weekly costs of fueling a Leaf would be much less. IIRC from either an ESB or Nissan ad on television a woman compared spending €70 on petrol to €8 on electricity to cover the same ground.

If I were looking at buying a new car in the Focus/Astra/Golf bracket (which i'm not) I'd certainly look at a leaf. It would suit the vast majority of my travel needs, be more interesting than comparable diesel alternatives and cost less to run. Now I'd still ideally keep a second car as a backup for the maybe once every 2 months I'd out-range the Leaf. I'm talking a €1200 10+ year old car for such use.


Back to the phone life analogy, lets all go back to 1998 and 2 or 3 week phone batteries. If a company suddenly offered a modern day smartphone with all the bells and whistles (but with the catch that it had to be charged every day), I'm sure people would be highly skeptical at first saying they'd rather depend on their 2 or 3 week batteries. Then some would sit down and think how many times a year they wouldn't be able to charge the phone every day -rarely if ever!! I mean most of us sleep on beds with wall sockets in the same room to charge the phone...

Now I'm sure some people still need range (or phone battery) on a regular basis, but the huge majority of Irish motorists wouldn't use up the full range of a Nissan Leaf in one day.

creedp

wotswattage wrote: »

Back to the phone life analogy, lets all go back to 1998 and 2 or 3 week phone batteries. If a company suddenly offered a modern day smartphone with all the bells and whistles (but with the catch that it had to be charged every day), I'm sure people would be highly skeptical at first saying they'd rather depend on their 2 or 3 week batteries. Then some would sit down and think how many times a year they wouldn't be able to charge the phone every day -rarely if ever!! I mean most of us sleep on beds with wall sockets in the same room to charge the phone...

Now I'm sure some people still need range (or phone battery) on a regular basis, but the huge majority of Irish motorists wouldn't use up the full range of a Nissan Leaf in one day.

The Q here though is would you expect the Govt to subsidise the early adoptor of these new smartphone or just allow people to migrate to the new phone when they decide the benefits of that move outweight its extra costs?