This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Taking a Nissan Leaf Out for a Spin
After five years of waiting, I finally got to drive the dream car of the future, the 2011 all-electric Nissan Leaf at the San Francisco auto show. Pulling a few strings with CEO Carlos Ghosn landed me a VIP test drive. It was one of the most surreal driving experiences that I have ever enjoyed, a lot like going on a new ride at Disneyland on opening day.
In the ultimate bit of cheek, Nissan set up a driving course defined by orange cones inside a 43,000 square foot ball room. Five cars zipped around the track like large remote controlled toys. The point was to show you that yes, this emission free vehicle can operate safely indoors. There is no tail pipe.
This is not souped up golf cart. After comfortably sliding my 6’4” frame behind the wheel, I asked the rep to pack the car so I could give it a real test. Three farm boys from Tennessee, real heifers, dutifully piled in. It made no difference; The car took off like a Porsche.
The Leaf has a 100 mile range, can be recharged at home in eight hours, or at a public parking lot in 30 minutes. A GPS system constantly displays your remaining range on a real time map, as well as the locations of the nearest charging stations. If you run out of juice on the freeway, Nissan offers free roadside service with an immediate recharge. With a 600 pound lithium ion battery lining the bottom of the chassis, it has tremendous stability, and corners like it is on rails. The battery comes with an eight year warranty and a ten year life.
My local utility was there cheering from the sidelines. PG&E is offering a special Plug-in-Vehicle rate of only 3 cent per kilowatt hour rate from 12:00 am to 7:00 am, compared to the standard top tier rate of 40 cents per hour, a 92% discount. That means the leaf’s 100 mile drip will cost me 72 cents. This is the same as buying all the gasoline I want at 15 cents per gallon! In other words, the fuel is basically free.
When I asked the chief engineer about maintenance costs, I got a blank stare. Then he answered in a deadpan fashion, “there is no maintenance”. During the first 100,000, the only expenses will be for brake pads and tires, as the 107 horsepower electric induction engine only has five moving parts.
You can get all of this for $33,000, which after a federal subsidy of $7,500 and a California state subsidy of $5,000, nets out to $20,500. Giveaway price, free fuel, free maintenance. Hmmmmm.
The car will only be sold initially in eight states, and I will be one of the first to get one in California. The entire US production run of 25,000, or 50,000 globally, has been sold out for next year, so you will have to wait until 2012 to get one. Nissan plans to ramp production in Tennessee up to 250,000 by the end of 2012, or 500,000 globally. Carlos Ghosn thinks electric cars will account for 10% of the global car market by 2020, or some 5 million units.
There are broader implications for the stock market with all of this. When Nissan Motors (NSANY), General Motors (GM), and others launch their advertising campaigns next year, I think there will be a media frenzy. Take a look at the share price of Ford Motors, and you know the industry has the wind in its sales, and an electric car boom could build it to hurricane force.
Think about what will happen next. What will these cars cost when the price of oil doubles, which I expect in the next five years? They should go through the roof. The production ramp up will, at the same time, cause economies of scale to kick in and costs to plummet. So Nissan will be working the income statement from both sides. That is what Ghosn is betting the company on.
Bottom line: For your longer term portfolios, buy Nissan shares on dips, and cash in on the hype.
To see the data, charts, and graphs that support this research piece, as well as more iconoclastic and out-of-consensus analysis, please visit me at www.madhedgefundtrader.com . There, you will find the conventional wisdom mercilessly flailed and tortured daily, and my last two years of research reports available for free. You can also listen to me on Hedge Fund Radio by clicking on “This Week on Hedge Fund Radio” in the upper right corner of my home page.
- advertisements -
"Three farm boys from Tennessee, real heifers":
This could be a clever joke to see if we're paying attention or city-boy ignorance. I would love you to walk up to a farm boy from Tennessee and call him a heifer. Now that would be funny!
Nothing like another bubble in making madhedgefundtrader?
Like RonnieHonduras says we increasingly don't know the real value of things. This means that crazy bubbles will be much common since speculation due to low level of information will be widespread.
I have come to the conclusion that madhedgefundtrader is just a disinformation agent. Having read many of his articles, I've come to the conclusion he's the Jim Cramer of Zerohedge. His name dropping knows no bounds, and his tips totally misinformed.
Electric cars are bullshit, There may be a niche market for electric scooters, and the odd local run-about. But I was using state of the art Lead-Acid electric vehicles 20 years ago. Even then they had to constantly replace duff cells. One duff cell, and the vehicle was shot.
Anyone who has owned a laptop computer will know that batteries only have a decent capacity for about a year, by three years they are down to about 30% storage capacity if you are lucky. That's with fancy charging circuits, being kept at ideal temperatures. Then there's this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizFsY0yjss
The future of motorised transport is with small lightweight vehicles with efficient high compression / ignition engines. I really don't understand why Tyler gives this guy space.
I don't either; he's really a flaky hack.
Of all the things the US government and its states subsidize, this is one of the smarter ideas. The main thing is to encourage the manufacturers to build in the US. Electrics will gradually become a big part of the auto industry and the last thing the US needs is for that to be yet one more catalyst for manufacturing to shift abroad.
And the pro-oilers shouldn't kid themselves, oil and its uses are definitely strongly subsidized in the US. Why do you think gasoline costs half as much as in any other developed country? Why do you think the US uses so much more oil per unit of GDP than any other developed country?
"Why do you think gasoline costs half as much as in any other developed country?"
Because those countries heavily tax gasoline and diesel to subsidize their trains and buses. Fuel taxes in Europe are ten times higher than in the US.
Personally, I'm pretty excited by this article and Nissan's introduction of the Leaf. It's not perfect, I'm sure, but seems to me to be a pretty clear indicator of where we are inevitably headed. 100k miles with no scheduled maintenance except for brake pads and tires? That alone practically sells me!
What did surprise me, however, was the large number of negative comments. I really REALLY respect the general level of intelligence and analytic ability of ZH participants but, in this case, I have to admit that I was taken aback. Can you guys not see that we are inevitably moving toward alternate energy transport and that this is a pretty impressive early step? I kept thinking to myself as I was reading all of your comments "if these guys could go back in time, twenty years from now, and read their comments I'll bet they'd feel pretty stupid". I agree with 'karateman's analogy about horse&buggy drivers poo-pooing the early adopters of automobiles. Compared with the first handfull of autos that were available these Nissan Leafs are imcomparably more practical and useful. And, given the exponential increase in technological development, they (and other manufacturer's products) will be nearly perfect within the next few years. Quite a few people complained that 'after 8 years you will lose xx% of battery life..blah blah..' how many of you are keeping your current gas guzzlers for 8 years? Most people that I know are trading in their leased luxury cars every 3 or 4 years at most.
I say, Good On You Nissan! and thanks Madhedgefundtrader for posting this. OK, Junk On!
I hit the horse and buggy thing before Karateman did ... and while I'm not poo-pooing the Leaf, my comments were clear that we're not in an either/or scenario here and I think electric will be an addition to the diesel/gas/hybrid/(natural gas, if the Civic hangs in) menu, not something that overtakes everything else, at least not in the wholesale manner that digital photography crushed film.
I agree, we need a spectrum of solutions. The leaf would be perfect for someone like myself as I don't drive 100 miles in a week let alone a day. Need to take a long trip once in awhile? Get a rental. Need 2 cars in your household? Have one gas, one electric. While so many on here are poo-pooing the nissan leaf, I think it is a very important first step. Think this isn't viable? Most of the EV-1 test customers would disagree.
didn't mean to dismiss you on the horse*buggy comment flacorps, just remembered Karateman's comment when I was writing.
I agree with you (see my comments about this being a good early step, moving to alternate energy transport, etc) that electric will be a part of the next solution and certainly this particular car won't be the end-all-be-all. Would I buy one of these? Hell no, I have transport needs that go FAR beyond 100 miles. But, I'm just saying that I think it's a pretty damn impressive early step and a pretty clear harbinger of where we'll be in the (fairly near-term) future.
What a crock. No maintenance for 100k miles? Want to make a bet on that? Run out on the expressway and Nissan will come recharge you? What part of California do you live in--it certainly isn't going to happen in LA during the rush hour. Plenty of grid capacity for an electric car fleet?--Not anywhere I know of. etc.
Let me know how that phenominal power grid works for you and your new wondermobile.
My Electric Car would be one of these with an electric engine:
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_Cougar_Mastiff_Front-T...
Towing a BIG ASS trailer with batteries in it.
That way when those batteries let go, I just cut the hitch and keep rolling to a stop a safe distance away!
Leaf.
Energy efficiency is always doomed to fail.
1. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jevons_paradox
In economics, the Jevons paradox, sometimes called the Jevons effect, is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1] In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[2]
The issue has recently been reexamined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from energy efficiency. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which increases demand for the resource, potentially counteracting any savings from increased efficiency. Additionally, increased efficiency accelerates economic growth, further increasing the demand for resources. The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, causing overall resource use to increase.
The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation is futile, as increased efficiency may actually increase fuel use. Nevertheless, increased efficiency can improve material living standards. Further, fuel use will decline if increased efficiency is coupled with a green tax that keeps the cost of use the same (or higher).[3] As the Jevons paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, policies that impose conservation standards and increase costs do not display the Jevons paradox.
2. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-energy-efficiency-does-not...
Why Energy Efficiency Does not Decrease Energy Consumption
By Harry Saunders
I recently co-authored an article for the Journal of Physics ("Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective" by Jeff Tsao, Harry Saunders, Randy Creighton, Mike Coltrin, Jerry Simmon, August 19, 2010) analyzing the increase in energy consumption that will likely result from new (and more efficient) solid-state lighting (SSL) technologies. The article triggered a round of commentaries and responses that have confused the debate over energy efficiency. What follows is my attempt to clarify the issue, and does not necessarily represent the views of my co-authors.
More Efficient Lighting Will Increase, Not Decrease, Energy Consumption
Our Journal of Physics article drew on 300 years of evidence to shows that, as lighting becomes more energy efficient, and thus cheaper, we use ever-more of it. The result, we note, is that "over the last three centuries, and even now, the world spends about 0.72% of its GDP on light. This was the case in the UK in 1700 (UK 1700), is the case in the undeveloped world not on grid electricity in modern times, and is the case for the developed world in modern times using the most advanced lighting technologies."
The implications of this research are important for those who care about global warming. In recent years, more efficient light bulbs have been widely viewed as an important step to reducing energy consumption and thus greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have produced analyses that assume energy efficiency technologies will provide a substantial part of the remedy for climate change by reducing global energy consumption approximately 30 percent -- a reduction nearly sufficient to offset projected economic growth-driven energy consumption increases.
Many have come to believe that new, highly-efficient, solid-state lighting -- generally LED technology, like that used on the displays of stereo consoles, microwaves, and digital clocks -- will result in reduced energy consumption. We find the opposite is true, concluding "that there is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous efficacies and lower cost of light."
The good news is that increased light consumption has historically been tied to higher productivity and quality of life. The bad news is that energy efficient lighting should not be relied upon as means of reducing aggregate energy consumption, and therefore emissions. We thus write: "These conclusions suggest a subtle but important shift in how one views the baseline consequence of the increased energy efficiency associated with SSL. The consequence is not a simple 'engineering' decrease in energy consumption with consumption of light fixed, but rather an increase in human productivity and quality of life due to an increase in consumption of light." This phenomenon has come to be known as the energy "rebound" effect.
The Empirical Evidence for Rebound
The findings of our SSL research inspired The Economist magazine to write a commentary about the study that was mostly correct but made a couple of errors, which we responded to in a letter. In our response, we clarified that energy prices would need to increase 12 percent, not three-fold, in order to reduce the consumption of electricity for lighting, which, to its credit, The Economist posted on its web site and published in its letters section.
Evans Mills of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory wrote on the Climate Progress blog that The Economist had "inverted" our findings. However, The Economist did not "invert" our findings, it had simply overstated an implication of them.
Efficiency advocates sometimes dismiss rebound by only looking at "direct" energy consumption -- that is, consumption by households and for private transportation. Examples of rebound in this part of the energy economy would be driving your Prius more because gasoline costs you very little, or turning up the thermostat in your efficient home. But these "direct-use" rebounds are small in comparison to "indirect-use" rebounds in energy consumption. Globally, some two-thirds of all energy is consumed indirectly-- in the energy used to produce goods and services. A residential washing machine may be energy efficient in terms of function, but in terms of production, the metal body alone requires energy to mine, smelt, stamp, coat, assemble and transport it to a dealer showroom and eventually a residential home. The energy embedded in your washing machine, or just about any product or service you consume, is very large. And remember that any money you save on your energy bills through efficient appliances or the like is re-spent on other goods and services, which each take energy to produce, all while more productive use of our money (e.g. in spending, savings and production) spurs a more robust economy, demanding even more energy.
As our recent SSL research suggests, there is strong empirical evidence that even in the "direct" part of the economy, the rebound effect can sometimes be so substantial as to eliminate essentially all energy reduction gains. But in my new research (which relies on a detailed, theoretically rigorous econometric analysis of real data), the rebound effect found in the larger "indirect" part of the economy is even more significant -- and more worrisome.
Varying degrees of rebound occur because the phenomenon works in several ways. Increasingly efficient technologies effectively lower the cost of energy, as well as the products and services in which it is embedded. This results in firms consuming more energy relative to other production inputs and producing more output profitably. Firms and individuals benefit from cheaper and more abundant products and services, causing them to find many more uses for these (and the energy they contain). A more efficient steel plant, for example, produces cheaper steel that, in turn, allows firms and individuals to afford to find more uses for the same material.
While some find the notion that increased energy efficiency increases energy consumption to be counter-intuitive, the economic theory is remarkably commonsensical. Mills claims that the idea that the rebound effect "has been postulated in theory but never shown empirically to be significant" is not the case. After many years, rebound theory has advanced to the point that it is now a reliable foundation for empirical study and the empirical evidence firmly suggests rebound exists. And remember that the "rebound effect" for other factors of production is expected, even welcomed; economists have long expected labor productivity improvements to drive even greater economic activity, for example, thus increasing demand for labor and creating new employment opportunities in the economy as a whole, even as efficient production may eliminate a handful of jobs at one factory.
The Implications of Rebound
There are significant potential implications of high levels of rebound. One is that greater energy efficiency may be a net positive in increasing economic productivity and growth but should not be relied upon as a way to reduce energy consumption and thus greenhouse gas emissions. Particularly in a world where many billions lack sufficient access to modern energy services, efficient technologies such as solid-state lighting may be central to uplifting human dignity and improving quality of life through much of the world. One might even argue that energy efficiency is still important from a climate perspective, because when efficiency leads to greater economic growth, societies will be better able and more willing to invest in more expensive but cleaner energy sources. But in this way energy efficiency is no different from other strategies for increasing economic growth. What should be reconsidered is the assumption that energy efficiency results in a direct, net decrease in aggregate energy consumption when there is a growing body of research suggesting the opposite.
Dr. Harry Saunders has a B.S. in Physics from the University of Alberta, an M.S. in Resources Planning from the University of Calgary, and a Ph.D. in Engineering-Economic Systems from Stanford University. Saunders coined the "Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate" in 1992 to describe macro-economic theories of energy rebound, and has published widely on energy economics, evolutionary biology, and legal theory.
I'm done being all Sciency.
If the LED lighting can be supported by a solar panel and a rechargeable battery (like those now-ubiquitous $2 walkway lights), what does it matter if energy consumption goes up in that manner--it's off the grid!
You are absolutely right. How much energy is around us everyday, going uncaptured for use?
What miniscule fraction of the Sun's enegy makes it to Earth, then radiates back out into space at night? More than any planet could ever consume.
EROEI
If you read and comprehended the post you would have understood the answer to your question.
I'd love to see comparative EROEI ratings for all kinds of goods.
The Leaf compared to say a 1982 Toyota Pickup.
The Energy invested in making the Toyota in 82 is ammortized across 28 years + the energy it used in 28 years.
The Energy invested in making the new Leaf is all current and has no ammortization.
Lessee... Hmmm. I wonder if it is more energy efficient to keep running old stuff.
I think the answer is obvious.
1. What about 2 hour traffic jams in the city (gerbil wheel recharge ? )
2. Long trips
3. When oil ultimately crashes
4. Government Subsidies run dry ?
5. Competition from everyone
6. Excise Taxes on Electric Vehicles
7. Do you think the Gov't won't tax electricity like they do gasoline ?
---------------------------
I'll hold off on NSANY for just a bit ....K ?
Did you actually have lunch with Carlos Ghosn?
No, just an underling, who comitted suicide shortly thereafter just like everyone who works under Ghosn.
After reading these comments I can only imagine what it would be like watching the horse and buggy guys debate the early adopters of the automobile.
The move from horse to auto came with increased independence, especially for those in the cities. They could move about the country without having to pay for the care and keeping of a live animal. The cities welcomed the auto because it took care of the problem of the massive amounts of manure generated by all of the horses daily.
As far as I see it, the electric car (in its current incarnation) reduces independence and keeps its owners on a short leash. Or electric cord, I suppose.
The "Debate" started because early gas automobiles were bursting into flames and roasting people.
Once the engineering and lawyer technology matured enough, gas powered cars bursting into flames became less common and better "handled".
My argument is similiar in that respect, not based on some superstition of batteries.
If you are implying I am a ludite, then you are incorrect. I have pimped more batteries than I care to remember.
Hey,
Check out what happens when a little tiny cell phone battery goes off the reservation...
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/kb2o/205.jpg
Now think about how your ass would look when a battery 100,000 times the power blows up right underneath it.
Yeah... Buy a leaf.
Wasn't it just a few years ago that they had a HUGE lion laptop battery recall? Sony, Dell, Etc? Laptops were popping?
I bet you money someone can already wire that sucker up to pop on command. It would be a hell of a lot easier than a gas powered vehicle.
Maybe even hack it via it's wireless air pressure sensors and remap the voltage ramps in that sucker. As soon as you give her WOT it pops...
Goodnight.
Please don't put your child in one of these contraptions.
Leaf:
4 wheeled mobile Superfund Site.
Just get in a collison and have that battery leak...
The Hazmat Deconamination Truck will show up.
They will deploy a pool.
You will stand in the pool.
They will spray you with foam.
You may go to the hospital to recieve IV chelation to remove heavy metals.
You will get a big big bill from the Muni folks for Hazmat Response.
You will LOVE your Leaf.
Maybe all the owners of them will have to keep them for eternity because nobody can dispose of them due to new enviro regs.
I'd rather walk.
Get a used 250CC Dual Sport Motorcycle for 2000$. Gets 85+ MPG. Goes as far as you care to ride it, just keep putting gas in it.
Goes off road, cheap to insure, cheap to repair and with a rack you can haul all kinds of crap and even go mule logging with it.
Last time I looked at the periodic table lithium was among the lightest of elements, not a heavy metal. Did they move it?
When handled improperly, some rechargeable batteries can experience thermal runaway, resulting in overheating. Sealed cells will sometimes explode. Especially prone to thermal runaway are lithium-ion batteries. Reports of exploding cellphones occasionally appear in newspapers. In 2006, laptop batteries from Apple, HP, Toshiba, Lenovo, Dell and other notebook manufacturers were recalled because of fire and explosions.[6] [7] [8] The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation recently established regulations regarding the carrying of certain types of batteries on airplanes because of their instability in certain situations. This action was partially inspired by a fire on a UPS airplane.[9]
Lion Batteries can have all sorts of nasty metals in them, and they are not all the same.
Vandium, Chromium, Cadmium, etc can all be found in varying amounts in lion batteries... Not trace amounts either.
Being bathed in Lithium is not going to be fun even if that is all you get... I mean its really no worse or better than being covered with gasoline.
The gas tank isn't right underneath the people tank though..
Think about it:
You get hit bad, you are knocked out, thermal runaway occurs due to damage to the systems... G'Nite.
Check out what is in the battery.
It's a Lion battery true... But Lithium is not alone in there...
Do some research.
Madhedgefunder, lets take a road trip from Cleveland OH to Montgomery Village MD.
When should I expect you to arrive? Will I be serving dinner or lunch?
And the price of oil won't rise if electric vehicles take up significant market share. The price of oil is more likely to fall under that scenario.
If these things really do take off, invest in tow trucks.
LOL. thanks for the laugh.
Making some rough assumptions (~$0.12/kWh, $3/gal, 14gal tank capacity, 15,000mi/yr, 25MPG, $16,000 for gas-powered alternative 4-door compact sedan, 5 year useful life, 10% financing charges, the loss in utility/range of the Leaf offsets the maintenance costs of the gas equivalent, etc), you'd have to see between an additional state subsidy > $4,000 and gas prices above $5/gal for this to be positive for someone already in the market for a new vehicle. Naturally as $/kWh increases, so does subsidy/gas price break-even point.
Leaving judgement out of it, just seeing what it looks like back-of-the-napkin.
Will Nissan offer an armored version for Brazil, Mexico, Israel, South Africa, Persia, Pakistan, South Texas, etc?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/world/americas/04brazil.html
I got a guy in El Paso that will up-armor any vehicle you care to drive in to his shop.
He mostly does SUVs and big sedans. But if you wanna go 10 mph in a 5000lb exploding electric target err... Car I'm sure he would do it.
So, assuming I trade in my SUV for one of these, taking the family to the Grand Canyon for vacation will only take 11 weeks.
I sincerely hope you and all your friends buy as many of these vehicles as you can.
Only a 2-3 % drop in demand for gasoline will work to keep me driving my 450 mile range gas guzzling, paid for SUV for years to come at lower costs than I have today.
Thanks in advance!
It's a Flintstone mobile! Small, not a great range and a hefty price tag. Why should I be getting a woody over this? Buehler? Buehler? Niche "electric roller skate" at best.... Yeah, this is going to be THE ANSWER as the global economy crashes around us....
These vehicles are meant for commuters who travel less than 50 miles a day.
The way our society is moving more and more folks are not commuting long distances, and many are working at home.
I see this trend going WAY up, and with the cost of petro based fuels, less and less air travel, and more teleconferences rather than 100,000 miles a year in the air.
I drive 12 miles round trip, and I still will not own one of these.
MHFT got the meme, but not the memo.
The electric grid is in no shape to handle electric cars in any numbers. It will cost billions to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the load. Also, that 'free' electricity at night would become the peak load and the most expensive time to charge. Electric cars are dirtier than gasoline and diesel because they're coal powered for the most part. Only when electric generation is mostly nuclear will electric cars be more environmentally friendly than the ICE cars.
Time to load up on coal stocks?
Last time I checked coal is a major input for US electric plants - and coal ain't free.
Heck - buy some railroad stocks too - coal moves on large unit trains.
Nat Rothschild already front-ran you into Phelps Dodge.
If we get EMP'd - gas pumps won't work - we all screwed no matter what you drive - watch out for that solar flare coming to a neighborhood near you...
There have been some requirements put in for gas stations to have backup power to operate the pumps. If the credit card terminals are down, those will have to be cash buyers. Assuming no power at all, it should be possible to snake a tube down the fill pipes and hand-crank gas into jerry cans, presumably this gas will be for emergency personnel and those with a documented need only.
Right about then Mel Gibson shows up in a supercharged Falcon XC Interceptor.
Additional questions I pondered as I washed my dishes: What about people who use curbside parking? Will municipalities install electricity meters in place of parking meters? Who would absorb that cost?
Why is the battery life measured in miles instead of hours? I couldn't think of any other electronic device that measures its battery life in a non-time way, although I've only had one cup of coffee this morning. When the next hurricane hits and people are stuck on the roads evacuating and moving 5 miles every hour, will their 100 miles promise still apply? At least with gasoline I can keep some extra supply on hand or bring some with me to refill on the road.
What happens to people when they lose power for days during a hurricane or winter storm?
Do the cars have air conditioning? What will be the average cost to insure? After ten years, will you even be able to replace the battery or are they planning on just pushing you to buying another model?
Why are they even bothering with a subsidy? Sure, it's bringing the cost down to $20k or so (before taxes, title, registration, I'm sure), but that's still not the same as buying a used Honda. If you are looking for a handout in order to purchase a $33k car, should you be buying it in the first place?
A normal commute won't require intraday charging. Battery life is measured in miles because the efficiency of an AC electric motor is fairly linear. You can go 70 miles in an hour drawing lots of amps, or you can go 70 miles in 2 hours drawing roughly 1/2 as much juice.
Unless you have a generator/solar backup any long-term power outage would make the Leaf inoperable.
Subsidies are necessary as the demand for a $35k electric economy car would not warrant its production.
That's my take
Electric vehicles work like gasoline equivalents. Go at 70 MPH, and air resistance reduces efficiency enormously. At a very steady 35 MPH the vehicle will have a good range. Stop start, accelerating that mass of batteries gobbles up power (even with regenerative braking). I know, because I worked for an electric utility that spent millions developing battery vehicles. Oh. BTW, a heavy foot also make range plummet, so everyone has to drive like a granny to get the stated range. Battery vehicles are dead before they start (except perhaps scooters and bikes.)