Our Nissan Leaf review

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by tooter

Yeah... it's godawful FUGLY. And I'd be ashamed to drive a government subsidized "EBT" welfare car.

With a puny range of only 100 miles on its best day only means that real world range is going to be less. Vehicles like this one offer their unwitting owners a brand new experience.

It's called "range anxiety".

as well.

[kimona]

Originally Posted by tooter

Vehicles like this one offer their unwitting owners a brand new experience.

It's called "range anxiety".

Agreed!

[Hershey]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

If Obama would allow drilling on federal land to return to previous levels, the U.S. would become energy independent even sooner, and this point would become moot.

Not for that . Makes landscapes fugly and more polluting than the battery issues stated here on hybrids and electric cars .

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by Hershey

Not for that . Makes landscapes fugly and more polluting than the battery issues stated here on hybrids and electric cars .

Whether what it does to the landscape is worth the trade off is a personal feeling each person has. I'd be surprised if anyone tried to study it.

The studies are all over the map, so to speak, re conclusions re the effects of fracking. Whatever the truth is, fracking isn't going away.

Given your location, I can understand why you would have stronger feelings than some as you have the opportunity to physically see it. The US will become energy independent anyway, it would just happen sooner if Obama would allow those leases to be renewed. I can't say for certain that I wouldn't feel the way you do if I lived in the same area, but I don't think I would. Once the US becomes energy independent, there will be no political or other justification...in any way, shape, or form that would rightfully allow for those military dollars to be spent, as you mention, protecting oil interests. Whether that stops once we truly reach energy independence will be interesting to see. Even if you are right re the pollution and thus Obama not making the point moot by opening up federal lands for drilling...and he stays wedded to his current view, the point point will become moot anyway once the US is truly energy independent just from production on non (federal) government owned land.

Once we are truly energy independent (with or without Obama's help) the point that oil interests get, arguably justifiably, protection for overseas oil interests, so how is that different from government hybrid/electric incentives (let's say I agree that it currently isn't any different) would be removed as a valid point in the argument because there would be no more potential reasonable and ethical justification for that protection to continue.

[Hershey]

We have well water . No fracking wanted . Over time gas prices would go up and would be exported like that of Saudi Arabia and other oil rich countries . They're already making preparations for exportation . This has deeply divided communities . For each their own .

[tooter]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

I saw more Leafs in Vermont (Nissans, not peeping at the leaves on trees ) than I've seen in the SF Bay Area in California or in Texas, or even other small (in square miles of land) states.

I see more Teslas than Leafs!

[cali yaris]

^ no kidding, it's true!

[cali yaris]

If Obama would allow drilling on federal land to return to previous levels, the U.S. would become energy independent even sooner, and this point would become moot.

During his administration, our country has become 30% LESS dependent on oil. Way better track record than his predecessor.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by tooter

I see more Teslas than Leafs!

Very interesting (and enlightening), given that both of you live in Southern California. I don't think I've seen a Tesla on the road anywhere except in the SF Bay Area.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by cali yaris

During his administration, our country has become 30% LESS dependent on oil. Way better track record than his predecessor.

That is largely because of increased production on NON U.S. government controlled land due to advancements in technology re extracting the oil, neither of which has advanced because of substantive action from Obama.

[dj92]

I won't buy such a car unless I can go on longer trips with it, by that, I mean 200...500km per charge AND recharging the battery in less than an hour.
Obviously, this is a matter of improving energy weight and density.
LiFepo4s are an interesting thing, they're still far too expensive for me and their major advantage over li-ion is only the achievable lifetime, but I consider using them to build an EV myself (maybe from a 2CV).
I ride about 10...15 miles per day, but once to twice a month it's 2*50 miles and sometimes even more.
For the daily driving, almost every EV would be enough, but for the longer trips I would have to get at least an IQ or something like that.
We got our hopes up here that a real multiple-use license plate would be established where you would have to pay both insurance and tax for one (logically the more expensive one) car and be able to have another one without additional costs.
It is in fact available now, but it's expensive (about 150$), and you have to pay the full tax rate for each car.
Just the insurance (without having one you must not use your car at all!) might give some rebate.
So I will stay with my Yaris, but the next one might be a Prius.
It's not that compact, but I like the amount of technology built in there :)

EDIT:
I rather consider building somtehing like a PEEL P50 because for vehicles with a <=50ccm engine that run less than 45km/h (in reality it's almost always about 50km/h (31MPH), which is still legal and the maximum velocity on urban roads here) you just need a rather cheap insurance (just done a calculation, about 35,6€ from now until 28.2.2014 for such a car).
Sadly, studying takes almost all the time I have and even if it's not a >45km/h car, it's a hassle to get it street legal.

[Kal-El]

No Tesla's anywhere near my area. Seems like they're only in CA. Their are a number of Leaf's here.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

No Tesla's anywhere near my area. Seems like they're only in CA. Their are a number of Leaf's here.

I don't think we'll see them in Texas in the near future. Musk is tussling with the State of Texas re wanting to do sales direct from the manufacturer. I like most of the laws here that might effect me, and I don't like Musk, but in this case I think (philosophically, not legally) that Musk is right and the state is wrong. Current law = result of too much 'squeaky wheel'/jawboning from dealers.

[bronsin]

Mush needs to build an electric car that has a 200 mile range and costs $15,000.

Preferably $10,000/

Love what SpaceX is doing though!

Whens the next launch?

[tooter]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

Very interesting (and enlightening), given that both of you live in Southern California. I don't think I've seen a Tesla on the road anywhere except in the SF Bay Area.

They're actually quite popular here in SoCal. One of my neighbors even has two of them, a big sedan and the little sports coupe.

Greg

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by bronsin

Mush needs to build an electric car that has a 200 mile range and costs $15,000.

Preferably $10,000/

Love what SpaceX is doing though!

Whens the next launch?

I agree.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by tooter

They're actually quite popular here in SoCal. One of my neighbors even has two of them, a big sedan and the little sports coupe.

Greg

Are those his only vehicles (he could leave one charging while using the other one and then park it fully charged), or does he also have a more traditionally powered vehicle? Just curious.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Not to start a debate and move away from the thread discussion (sorry Thirty-Nine) but I need to respond.

The American tax-payer pays $0 in subsidies to oil companies. In fact, Americans benefit massively from the $80,000,000 oil/gas companies pay to the government every day. And they've invested over $1.6 trillion into the US economy in projects since 2000.

Perhaps your other argument is that they get tax breaks similar to other businesses? Again, that's not the tax payer paying them anything. That's just less money the government confiscates from their earnings. It also means lower prices at the pump. If the government dramatically raised their taxes, it would hurt all of us at the pump.

By us "subsidizing" the oil companies, do you mean us purchasing gasoline? LOL! That's not subsidizing, that's us buying a product that we want and need from a company that does a lot of work to produce and deliver it to us. If you prefer, you can either stay trapped in your home or buy an electric car and "subsidize" the electric companies instead while limiting your range and freedom.

There's a big difference to what is given when you buy a Leaf or Volt. That is the government literally giving you money in the form of a tax credit for buying a product that they hand picked (picking winners and losers in a "free" market). The government has no place selecting only certain products in the market place forcing ALL Americans to pay for them even if we don't support the product directly.

Bravo . I couldn't have said it better myself. Also, IIRC, the average household income of a Volt owner is between 171k and 172k. As of 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 93.08% of U.S. households have a household income of $169,999 or less....the subsidy isn't going to be a financial 'make or break' re buying the car (at least in some states )

Utility companies (in the opinion of quite a few, at least in California) don't generate an aura of good feeling or sense of community, but many Californians still have no qualms about likely helping their bottom lines re increased revenue from electric car charging . Post 2007, one of the utilities in Southern California applied for a rate change and had no qualms stating that the only reason they were doing so was because of a pension shortfall . A few years ago there was a HUGE 'explosion' in San Mateo County, California (just south of the San Francisco County line) that destroyed many houses. PG & E (Pacific Gas and Electric) wanted the taxpayers (rather than the shareholders) to shoulder a huge portion the burden of the costs emanating from that accident!