Nissan IM concept for those dreaming about Tesla
 

:thumbsdown:
:ban:
:superghey:
:koolaidwall:
:yawn::yawn::yawn::yawn::yawn:

https://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/...onal-auto-show

For you guys that think Tezla is the second coming. Nissan has an AWD sports sedan EV concept.

Tezla seems to be the new YouTube pronunciation. Lol.

With Ghosn’s ouster, there are a lot of opportunities ahead of Nissan. They need a captain who can cut the cable on the horrible Renault strategic partnership and move forward. I din’t know the history if that deal, and suspect that it was a last ditch effort to avoid some sort of catastrophe at the time (because, really, why would you if you didn’t have a gun to your head). But other than make Nissan an extremely unattractive takeover target, I don’t believe that it has done them any favours.

As for electrics, good on Nissan for jumping in (and in a big way according to that article). I don’t think that Tesla will be much of a force once mainstream makes start digging into this market. The Porsche Taycan will take a lot of wind out of the new Roadster sales. Volvo is gunning for all electric, and their record for SUV’s is recognized. Audi E-tron in sedan and SUV flavours will also make an impact.

I’m actually surprised at how quickly this is all evolving. And a bit scared. The infrastructure issues haven’t gone away...

K.

By 2030, there will be no gasoline cars sold in Europe. So everyone is getting their chit together now.

Funny Tesla has a cost per kw advantage on everyone else by quite a bit of margin as they make their own battery. They have the infrastructure to sustain their own charging network. Everyone has been saying the big boys will start making their own EV cars, but not many have been able to. Guess what, there are only 8 200+ miles EV car at the moment and I am sure the margins are suspect at best. How are the regular car companies going to overcome the cost advantage? The luxury car company can use their brand to sell cars, but at what point are the sales going to stop when customers realize they don't have a charging network to use. I can drive a Tesla across country with stops along the highway, can't do it in a Leaf/Bolt/Jag/Hyundai without a detour to find a station. Heck, there might be spots they wont be able to do it at all. Also they currently take 2x longer to charge!

Nissan Leaf+
Chevy Bolt
Jaguar I-Pace
Kia/Hyundai Kona twins
Teslas (3)

You can see how dismal the sales numbers are for any EV cars not named Tesla.

https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

Volvo and Jags combine to sell less than a $90K Model X in one month, the people who rave about them apparently don't buy them. It's like reading on the internet about manual station wagons or any manual cars, no one cares about it at this point.

Outside of California, New York, and a fer isolated areas in between, you would still really have a hard time finding a convenient charge point for any PIEV. The network is expanding, but EV sales and charging station construction is a “chicken and egg” thing.

Companies not named “Tesla” also need to make money. Not sure why Elon doesn’t, but thus far the marke seems to put up with it. Not forever, though.

80% of the US population lives in urban area. I am not saying it is for everyone, but is it not okay to build a car that will benefit majority of the people?

Tesla spent a lot of money building their own charging network where everyone else have to rely on someone else to build them one. Is the network not a competitive advantage? How many years is it going to take to get another one going? Do you think it will be built overnight?

They made money for two quarters straight and a lot of cash are used for investing. I am not sure why it matters? Also it's not your money, I am not sure why you would care.

https://www.marketwatch.com/investin...ials/cash-flow

I drive cross country a lot with my motorhome. Mostly on Interstate 70 , 80 and 90/94. I tell you this. You can't drive a EV across the country. As there is NO charging stations within 200 miles of one another on the interstates. The charging stations are in the bigger cities and towns. You get out in the midwest. Have fun walking.

And I just read an article about EV's and the weather. This last cold spell killed the batteries in them. When the temps get down to zero. They lose their charge quickly. The mileage goes from 200 to less then 100. Depending on how cold it gets. When the temps dropped to -10F and less. Forget about driving. On the flip side. The batteries don't like temps over 100F either. Higher the temp, less mileage per charge. Part of the problem is in those two temps. The HVAC has to work harder to keep you happy. But at the same time drains the battery that much faster.

There are no chargers for every other EV car except Tesla, they can do it because they spent the money to build a network. With the exception of North Dakota, I think Tesla has a station within 200 miles of every interstate travel. You can see the latest map.

https://www.tesla.com/findus?v=2&sea...charger&zoom=6

Car will certain lose range in cold winter, but 100 miles is still a lot for normal folks. One of my EV car does 50 miles, it makes it to and from work everyday.

Oh Crap!!! :facepalm:

Can't you just borrow a can of electrons and keep going?
Or maybe stop at WalMart and buy all the 9V transistor batteries off the display?
:stirthepot:

No question that real world results don't emulate what the brochure says. This isn't entirely restricted to electric vehicles, though. Still, that's a lot easier to deal with if your ICE engined car doesn't get quite the advertised mileage. You just stop for gas a mile or two earlier.

And yes, cossie1600, it IS my money as a matter of fact. Anyone living in a country, state or province which has subsidized Tesla shareholders or purchasers through government handouts and incentives, has a right to be concerned. Especially when (not if) Tesla fails and some vulture capital company picks up what's left of my generous tax donation to Elon at pennies on the dollar.

FURTHERMORE, the rest of us still pay road taxes on gas whereas electric owners currently pay none at all. We get the privilege of paying higher utility bills or taxes because infrastructure needs to be intensified to handle charging demand (not yet, but that will come as EV penetration increases), including everything from distribution lines to transformers to generation, even though we don't contribute to the extra demand. None of this is cheap. And it also comes at an environmental cost that isn't factored into the "green EV" argument.

Tesla repaid the loan from the feds with interest a few years back. The EV federal tax credit are easily offset by the sales tax you have to pay. My sales tax bill cost more than a used Z. I don't know who is getting a free ride here?

Since EV cars mostly being charged at night, they lead to no real increase in grid utilization. If anything, they are maximizing inefficiency of the grid. I am not sure where you are seeing new powerplants being built, there must be a huge boom in Canada? If you want to talk about cost, what about all the subsidy we throw at the oil company? Let's not forget about the warming of the climate, which leads to bigger and strong storms? Heck, the polar bears are out of places to live. Do you want to kill them all too or do you prefer them to suck on your exhaust pipe and just suffocate? You want cheap oil from frecking, sure, but be sure to deal with the earthquakes too.

It's been proven time and time again the overall greenhouse emission from EV cars are lower than a gas car. Just because you are inconsiderate or you don't like it, you don't have to talk down at it.

They already have it

https://mondrian.mashable.com/upload....amazonaws.com

https://mondrian.mashable.com/upload....amazonaws.com

I retired from power generation. Was a senior CRO at a power plant, that had direct contact with the grid operator. We are losing more generation then what is being replaced. Wind and solar is not the answer. One 2,200 MW nuke plant takes up about 150 acres. To have a solar farm that produces 2,200 MW would take up about 5 square miles. Land that you can't use for nothing else. If it was cloudy, raining, or snowing. You would have about zero output. Wind farms would take up about 10 square miles of land. They work best with a speed of about 22 mph. At 26 mph, they shut down and lock into position so that they don't turn. They blow apart just over 30 mph. Less then 22 mph, less output. You can't count on the wind to blow steady all the time. You have land between the windmills to use. But cattle don't like being around them, plus bird kill from the blades. In the next 10 years. Most of coal fired and about 1/4 of the nuke plants will be retired. There is very little construction scheduled for new power plants. It takes about 5 years to get the permits in place for a natural gas plant. Nuke plant takes 20 years and 10 billion dollars for permits. By 2030 Brownouts and blackouts will be the normal.

Wind and solar plants get fed subsidies. Take away the subsidies and you won't see any wind and solar plants. They all operate at a loss.

There is 2 peak periods of electric usage during the day. Morning from 5:30 am to 9:30~10am. And evening. 4:30 to 9:30pm. Those 2 periods are peak generation, and peak prices per KW. After midnight, from 1am to 5am is the less generation, and cheapest KW.

How much do you know about magnetic reversal? The earth is entering one now. Our magnetic shield is getting weaker. A nice solar flare will put us back to horse and buggy overnight. Add to this is the sun is in a solar minimum. No sunspots. Which weakens the magnetic shield of the earth that much more. Got e-mails all the time from the grid operators about the suns conditions. They had to pay attention to the sun and solar flares so that they could take preemptive action to prevent grid down.

Climate changes all the time. It's not warming like they want you to believe. Follow the sunspots like the grid operators do. The sun rules the weather. Not CO2. CO2 levels are between 400 to 500 ppm now. In the past, it has been high as 2,000 ppm with the dino's. Extinction level is 200 ppm. We are not to far away from that now. In 2007, there was just over 5,000 polar bears. Now, there is over 30,000 polar bears. There is more ice in the arctic now then in the past 30 years. The global warmers only use data back to 1970. They refuse to use data back to the 1800's.

How much do you know about magnetic reversal? The earth is entering one now. Our magnetic shield is getting weaker. A nice solar flare will put us back to horse and buggy overnight. Add to this is the sun is in a solar minimum. No sunspots. Which weakens the magnetic shield of the earth that much more.

Green initiatives are pushed through all the time by idiots that just want to make a "statement" (Thanks, Al Gore!! :rolleyes:). Of course, most of the green initiatives that get pushed through are long term losing propositions. They generally cost 10x or more the cost of traditional energy sources and the ROI time frame is at best 5x as long as that traditional energy source that cost 1/10 to begin with. Stupid people make stupid decisions :ugh2: :ugh2:

This is what they send out when they run out of charge. LOL
Stupid people.


https://insideevs.com/meet-real-powe...-charge-truck/

I am not against nuclear plants, but you seem to ignore the fact that there are risks with nuclear powerplants. I don't know much about them, but I do read history books and I recall seeing the devastation caused by the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

With clean energy being a requirement in states like California, Hawaii and many others. Solar and wind farm are not going to go away. If anything, there are more incentives to get as many in as possible. Powerplants are not cheap to build, why build them when you can maximize your existing infrastructure?

I am not a scientist, but most scientist already said the effects of greenhouse gases. I trust them. Plus common sense tells me that all the gas going into the atmosphere is probably not good.

Guys, he’s drank the Kool-aid. No amount of logic or common sense is going to get him to see sense.

Yup I believe in science

Junk science. If you believe in the lies of Al Gore. EVERY prediction of weather change that he and others have said. NEVER came true. :rofl2: All they want to do is to take money from you, and increase their power over you. There's more polar bears today then back in 2007. New York City isn't under water. The polar ice caps are thicker then ever. There is no North West Passage. It's still snowing.

I believe in climate change based on real science. Not this narrative they are pushing. Slowly more scientist coming out against on what Al gore and others have said.

This winter alone. Record breaking cold and snow. Ski resorts shut down because of too much snow. :icon14: Tahoe got close to 50ft for the season. We are in a Grand Solar Minimum. The sun has shut down. Very little sunspot activity. Happens very 400 years, plus we are also in the low point of Solar Cycle 24. Which happens every 11 years. This is causing our jet streams to be in the wrong places. Causing major weather shifts in some places.

I believe in math. And common sense.

There are lots of other chargers around. Not all Superchargers (cost CDN$40K each), and most of them you have to pay for hydro at, unlike Tesla chargers. Tesla had to invest in the network because of the chicken-and-egg issue with EV’s, and range anxiety.

50 miles range? I get that on the track with my ICE. :-)

Yeah, no. You’re spouting Muskovite BS. The incentives for the Gigawatt battery factory will never be repaid and don’t have to be.

For now, for the <5% who operate EV’s there is little impact on the grid. Or on climate.

False. If you drive an EV in West Virginia, or Eastern Europe, or China, you drive a coal powered car. My V8 pickuo pollutes less.

I don’t understand your comment about taxes you paid. Because it make no sense. If yu buy a $100,000 car, you pay taxes on it. Congratulations. But if you buy a $100,000 Tesla in my province, until recently when a new government finally saw sense, you paid $93K for it and I paid the $7,000 difference (you are welcome, sort of). And you paid tax on $93,000 whereas I bought a pickup that I need for the farm and paid tax on the whole amount.

Over 33% of the dollars I pump into my fuel tank every week is tax, which pays for roads (and incentives to EV owners). Electricity, on the other hand, is taxed here at 7%. And electric power rates are heavily subsidized (by general government coffers = tax revenue) in order to avoid mass rebellion. So again, I am subsidizing electric vehicles.

Nuclear makes up more than 60% if our energy supply, water 25%, natural gas 10%, and “renewables” (solar, wind and biomass) about 5%. But wholesale prices of power are $0.045/KWh. Renewables are being paid between $0.75 and $0.90 to generate KWh. You want us to increase that generation capacity???

Sorry. Math and logic. Go pour another glass of that purple drink!

Price per KW generated.
Nuke is at the bottom of the scale. It's the cheapest.

Hydro power. But it has it's drawn backs too. During the day, they product power. Some of the small hydro plants will pump water back up during the night to refill the lake. Bet you didn't know that. You can't count on hydro during a drought either.

Natural gas fired combine cycle power plants are next. I retired from one. A 700MW plant costs about 700 million and 2 years to build.

Coal fire next. At one time. Coal was cheaper then natural gas until Obombo declared war on coal. First Energy shut down 2 plants near me. Duke Energy sold their Ohio based plants to Dynegy. (I was in that sell) So that they didn't have to take responsible to shut down the 11 coal plants. It's in Dynegy's pocket now to retire them. A couple of them already been retired.





Renewables (solar and wind) are the most expensive to produce power. MW for MW they can't complete. Take away the tax rebates. And they would close their doors. Wind mills are labor intensive to maintain. Solar doesn't produce when it's raining, snowing and cloudy. Wind only produces power within a narrow band of wind speeds. Too little or too much, forget it. No power.

The big thing about building new power plants is the NIMBY groups. They don't want anything in their back yard. Then they bitch about the high prices that they have to pay, :shakes head:

In terms of powerplant cost, you are absolutely right. Clean energy is the most expensive, that's not a debate. Why are states switching to it anyway? Because some people actually care about the future and there are consequences of not doing something to curb our emission. You might not believe in it, but majority of professional scientists do. Surely some of them must know something.

From a consumer perspective, most solar can pay itself off before the end of its life. It's just a matter if you are willing to take a major hit up front to pay for something that can take 5-20 years to pay off. Obviously where you live will vary your ROI, but people should be encouraged to get it if they can afford it and the ROI makes sense. You might say it doesn't help anyone but the homeowners, but they can actually lower the demand on the grid during peak hours and help soften the load during peak hours. You must know something about the spike.

Track sessions are 20-30 minutes long. Even at 30 minutes at an average of 60mph, you really only need enough fuel for 30 miles. In the Z, you won't even get there because fuel starvation will kick in long before the end of the 30 minutes. I am sure you are good enough to figure that out since your math is so good.

Now you are moving from the Department of Energy loan program to the tax incentives where Nevada gave Tesla. You do know the difference between a tax incentive to build a plant vs. a loan right? Didn't Scott Walker give Foxconn $3m in incentives to build in Wisconsin too? I guess you are right, the plan is failing horribly, the gigafactory factory is just a mirage. The people in Sparks Nevada are giving away their home due to the failure. https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2018/...is/1619609002/

Maybe it is time for a Bombardier type bailout, can we get JT to help out?

The tax incentives were implemented to help speed up the adoption of zero emission vehicle (you can say less emission or whatever you want to call it).
You might not like it, but you pay for it sooner or later through the damages caused by the change in storm intensity. I worked as an actuary, storm intensity due to climate change was part of the rate adjustment we factored in.

You can say you are being taxed unfairly, but I can argue the same because I have to pay for gas/oil subsidy unwillingly either. How do we settle the score on that?

Unlike you, I have both EV and gas cars. I am not badmouthing gas cars because I hate them, I just think we are at a point where people seriously have to consider changing their habits if it is possible. If you are in a fortunate situation where you can make a choice to help, maybe sacrifice a little for others. I am not religious, but I believe in karma. Maybe karma is coming back to allow me to get a Ferrari this or next year and gave me a chance to put a deposit on a roadster.

Polar ice caps are growing exponentially, polar bears are thriving better than ever, science is rebutted with cartoon mockery... :icon14: Is it election time already?! :icon17:

Linking increases in storm intensity directly to vehicle emissions is reckless and misguided. This type of negligent thinking is a big part of the problem.

Sue the EPA ad NOAA then. It took two seconds to search for them

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/fuelforthestorm/

:icon14:

Your suggestion to sue is stupid, as well as representative of the ridiculously litigious attitude in our society these days :shakes head:

I trust the EPA just as much as I trust the FDA and Big Pharma. Don't think for one second they don't have agendas they are pushing.

And those studies you linked are missing tangible evidence that greenhouse gases are responsible for increasing storm intensity. There are a lot of variables at play with regard to climate change. Humans always like to think they are big and important. But the fact is the sun influences weather on earth FAR more than humans currently do.

Now obviously emissions are on the rise pretty significantly based on technological progress and human population growth on earth. And that is certainly a good reason to start looking into alternative energy sources. But we also need to look at our current sources and see what changes we can make to help mitigate the impact. Short-sighted energy alternatives presented in a fear-mongering atmosphere are a waste of time and resources.

I think I am quite clear about the difference between a loan and a grant. I never mentioned loans. "Government handouts and incentives" was the term I used, and the Nevada deal was a doozie. Your knee-jerk response is just wanting to defend the indefensible. And you can have JT and his tom-foolery if you want him, 'cuz we don't. ;-)

The tax incentives were there as a government gift to manufacturers of EV's, who didn't therefore have to produce a competitive product. It was far easier to lobby politicians and charm them into thinking it would look "green" on their CV, than to do the work to get the cost of the car and the technology down. Or to convince consumers to pay the extra cost and "take one for the team" as it were.

I'm not against electrics. But I think that Fuel Cell will be the way of the future and for governments to force the market's hand like this is not appropriate.

Believe it or not, the planet has little to fear from farting cattle or the internal combustion engine. It's the human infestation that causes all of the manageable changes - be it to the environment, climate, or biosphere. There are lots of other variables, but those mankind cannot do anything about. It's doubtful that the earth can sustain the current 7.5billion population, let along the projected 8.5+ in only 11 years from now. But short of a good war or global epidemic (neither of which are likely, or likely to leave an inhabitable planet), I don't have an answer.

I probably have a few dozen more trips around the sun than most of you, and figure I've earned the right to live my remaining years without being overly concerned about things I cannot fix. I've done my bit - I did not procreate. When my wife and I go, we're the end of our line, and we won't have added another human or two to burden already stretched resources.

How did this get from a thread about a Nissan EV concept to a philosophical argument about the state of the globe and pseudo-science, anyway???

Anyway, for those "dreaming about Tesla", I'd suggest the very real Porsche Taycan which will probably take the wind out of the new Tesla sales - sports car and SUV variants at reasonable (for Porsche) prices, with the performance, cachet, and quality that the brand implies.

No fixes are going to happen overnight, all we can do is minimize our output if possible.
This applies the same with natural resources, food and many other things.

We will trade you Trump for JT, we will add Ivanka and Jared.

Nissan received state incentives to move to TN, the state incentive is nothing new. Every state tries to lure business with incentives. You should call all these big companies welfare users.

The tax credit was used to encourage sale of zero or super low emission vehicle. You are right it helped launch the product, the government did it to encourage zero to low emission vehicle. Given 8% of new cars sold in CA have a plug now, I would say the incentive did its job to encourage more sales. CA sold 2 million cars last year, I think all of Canada sold that much.

Toyota Mirai is doing great, selling about 300 copies a month. Leases are $400 per month with zero down. You can get a free hydrogen card too.

on that we are in agreement.

No deal!

:tiphat:

Well, that deal could be worse. I mean he could have been offering Hillary.

We add a player to be named later? Our first round draft pick mike pence? We will eat some salary too

We will even tAke the cocaine guy from Ontario

Go on... You've got my interest. LOL

We will get you all the socialists running for president, plus AOC and Omar. We want nothing back in return. :tup: