Follow this blog:
RSS

Nissan Leaf electric car gets a price tag: $33,000

By | March 31, 2010, 1:34 PM PDT

Nissan said on Tuesday that its all-electric Leaf hatchback will be available for order next month for $33,000 before subsidies.

Customers can order the $32,780 vehicle beginning April 20 in the United States. Nissan says it will start shipping the Leaf in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas in the first half of next year, with nationwide availability coming later in the year.

Leases are available for $349 per month.

With consideration to the Leaf’s range of 100 miles, Nissan also suggests consumers purchase a home charging station, such as one made by Aerovironment, which can be installed for about $2,200.

U.S. government incentives are steep for the car: a federal tax credit of $7,500 is available for the car, with another for half the cost of a charging station, up to $2,000.

California, Georgia and Oregon also offer incentives at the state level — $5,000 for California and Georgia and $1,500 for Oregon.

At $25,000 — that’s $33,000 minus the rebates — Nissan has priced the Leaf low enough to be in the middle of the American market and high enough to ensure profitability.

That’s a good thing, because Nissan’s goal is to sell 50,000 Leafs globally in the first year. (The Leaf is slated for global rollout in 2012.)

The rub is how Nissan will handle warranties for the lithium-ion battery packs found in the vehicles, which degrade over time and could shave off tens of miles from its total range after 10 years of use.

It takes about eight hours to charge the Lead with a home 240-volt charger. Plugged into a standard U.S. 120-volt outlet, that increases to 16 to 18 hours.

Right now, the nation’s infrastructure can’t handle charging away from the home in any scaled capacity, but Nissan says it’s working with municipalities and utilities to offer public charging stations.

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
4
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Electric car is subsidized due to inefficiency and exorbitant cost to own
No such thing as zero emission generation unless we are talking about hydroelectric power generation which is limited in location and generation ability relative to consumption. Then there is the loss factor when transmitting electricity. The batteries are toxic, somewhat recyclable which degrading efficiency overtime. Generation of this extra capacity will necessitate more nuclear power plants which entails huge public funds to create with enormous cost overruns and storage costs of very toxic nuclear waste. Refineries are paid for by the private cooperation with some public subsidy with a shorter and less negative environmental impact. So why change? What have we gained? We are merely shifting who removed that dollar form our pockets.

Net effect is when system is up and running, people will pay enormous sums to charge their cars either at home or from a changing station in the field. The price of gas will seem a bargain in comparison. Second the only issue with combustion of petrol is the nitrous gasses which are emitted when staring form cold starts. The catalectic converter resolves this issue. CO2 feeds plat life so there is a net positive effect when driving. Further oil exists all around us since it is naturally produced by the earth in an endless supply. Why not work to make the engines more efficient, cars lighter and stronger and regulate gas so that higher octane is cheaper than lower or use different mixes of gases to achieve larger driving ranges?

If people want to use electric vehicles why not have governments regulate that they must be self regenerating? This would be much more advantageous. Alternative powered cars to gas cars would lead to a competitive environment where by gas prices are no longer inelastic.

Electric cars in this mode form Nissan is inefficient, costly, not environmentally friendly in comparison and thus not the answer to the supposed problem presented to us. In fact the may exasperate them.
Posted by mario@...
1st Apr 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Nissan Leaf electric car gets a price tag: $33,000
No such thing as zero emission generation unless we are
talking about hydroelectric power generation which is limited in
location and generation ability relative to consumption.

True, except that even hydro has environmental impact.

Then there is the loss factor when transmitting electricity.

Then there is the energy factor in extracting oil from the
ground, Barrelling it, shipping it across the ocean and pumping
it across land.

Does it take more energy to move an oil barrel? Or to move
electricity?

The batteries are toxic,
And oil is toxic, it's by products are largely toxic, and the
emissions are toxic.

somewhat recyclable which degrading efficiency overtime.
Meanwhile the Internal combustion engine is relatively high
maintenance and requires a lot of materials and work to
maintain it's function.

Generation of this extra capacity will necessitate more nuclear
power plants which entails huge public funds to create with
enormous cost overruns and storage costs of very toxic nuclear
waste.

Since I live in a country without any nuclear power plants, I
don't see these as an automatic effect of the electric car.

I do agree that they are bad and cost more than it is worth, and
the waste issue is currently sufficient reason not to have them. I
also am not satisfied that they are as safe as some would like to
make out, in an ideal world where there is no error or
negligence they are fine, we do not live in that world.

[i}Refineries are paid for by the private cooperation with some
public subsidy with a shorter and less negative environmental
impact. Than nuclear - yes probably.

Net effect is when system is up and running, people will pay
enormous sums to charge their cars either at home or from a
changing station in the field. The price of gas will seem a
bargain in comparison.


Not on the figures I have seen, the price of gas will seem like
the highway robbery designed to keep the oil barons rich that it
is.

Second the only issue with combustion of petrol is the nitrous
gasses which are emitted when staring form cold starts. The
catalectic converter resolves this issue.


You mean the honeycomb structure which is currently in pieces
rattling around in my exhaust?

No - there are a whole pile of toxic effects from car exhaust,
and a heap more from diesel.

CO2 feeds plat life so there is a net positive effect when
driving.


Cow manure feeds plant life, so pump that into the atmosphere
and see how much better life is!!!

And carbon is a part of life, yeah heard that one too.

I suggest a challenge, We put you in a room with extra CO2, we
turn on a heat lamp and measure the greenhouse effect, whilst
we wind up the CO2 concentration. We can see what happens
first:
? the temperature goes up and you leave for comfort reasons

? the CO2 level reaches the point where you gasp for air, as it
is CO2 that tells your body that you are suffocating, lack of
oxygen on it's own you will not feel

? you realise that your argument is stupid as you will die trying
to prove your point.

This all sounds a bit cruel, but people like you are in fact
asking the whole planet to live through this experiment.
Posted by richardw66
1st Apr 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Electric car is subsidized due to inefficiency and exorbitant cost to own
Perhaps you should inform yourself richardw66.

History
Petroleum has been drilled and used by man for over 4000 years! As asphalt in the construction of the walls and towers of Babylon. Ancient Persian tablets indicate the medicinal and lighting uses of petroleum in the upper levels of their society. It is known that in the 300AD the Chinese were drilling for oil using bits attached to bamboo poles. The oil was burned to evaporate brine and produce salt. The ancient records of China and Japan are said to contain many allusions to the use of natural gas for lighting and heating. By the 8th century the streets of the newly constructed Baghdad were paved with tar, derived from petroleum that became accessible from natural fields in the region. When Marco Polo in 1264 visited the Azerbaijani city of Baku, on the shores of the Caspian Sea, he saw oil being collected from seeps. He wrote that "on the confines toward Geirgine there is a fountain from which oil springs in great abundance, inasmuch as a hundred shiploads might be taken from it at one time." See this link for further edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well#History
Petroleum is used mostly, by volume, for producing fuel oil and gasoline (petrol), both important "primary energy" sources. 84% by volume of the hydrocarbons present in petroleum is converted into energy-rich fuels (petroleum-based fuels), including gasoline, diesel, jet, heating, and other fuel oils, and liquefied petroleum gas.

Toxicity:
Yes petroleum can be toxic if humans or other manilas swallow it in certain quantities, just like eating certain God (god if you prefer) made plants can be poisonous for our consumption, however since it is a naturally produced substance by the earth, nature has leaned to deal with it. There is oil-eating bacteria which biodegrades oil that has escaped to the surface. Plus for oil spills a combination of ?mushrooms and microorganisms, referred to as Remediators are able to clean up most lawn contaminants in about six months. It?s a simple process ? they till up the soil to within a depth of a meter at most, drop in the vigorously growing compost medium, and wait while the magical microorganisms they?ve introduced literally eat up the contaminants (with no harmful by-products).? http://www.makeearthabetterplace.org/gas-eatingmushrooms.htm
Since humans evolved to live with plants we breath what they expel and they breath in the CO2. I never mentioned that someone should pretend to be a plant and live off of CO2. However a movie/concert theatre can have CO2 levels in the range of or over 3 times found in the atmosphere and no one dies from that.


Maintenance:
The modern internal combustion engine in virtually maintained free. Add oil at 6k or 12k or 20k if synthetic and with certain engines, change filter and wolla it runs for over 300,000 km. (Many need to change timing belt and spark plugs.) The engine can then be easily rebuilt or recycled if you like to run again for another 300,000km. A virtually endless life span with no reproduction of new engines required. Most all parts of an engine can be reused or recycled into other engines or other products which in fact they are.
Posted by mario@...
2nd Apr 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Electric car is subsidized due to inefficiency and exorbitant cost to own
If there are people who want to do something because they feel like it or because they believe in it for some particular reason that is fine however they should not need to demonize others to justify their acts or force others to change themselves for their satisfaction. There must be sound and verifiable justification for that and an open public debate must ensue to ensure societies interest are protect and not those of a limited few. Those who preach with very limited understanding of climatology while shunning these types of debates like AL Gore or David Suzuki, suggest there is no sufficient justification for their action other than their own satisfaction and gain.

The experiment that the world is being asked to live through is the notion that we must use eclectic vehicles. They are so inefficient and unpractical that governments can only make them attractive to purchase through the use of public funds cash rebates. How can that be justified when people are unhealthy and unable to afford healthcare, schools are underfunded, there are poor in the streets, many people unemployed and the country has a debt that not even three generations will pay off? Why doesn?t the government allow the free market of consumers make free and undistorted decision at to which product is worth buying? This would force automaker to produce a better product. Subsides will allow the manufacturer to produce a compromised product which will be costly for society to remove off the roads once they are no longer useful.

Again, why not require automakers to produce self regenerating eclectic cars? This would eliminate the need to build more generating power plants of any kind, avoid very costly infrastructure changes to communities which means even high future taxes and blight of caner casing transmission lines.

If we chose to do something it should be because we desire to achieve a certain goal of efficacy or product evolution etc. and note use the false notion that man et al will perish. That fear mongering itself is unfounded and tells us that these people are looking to enrich themselves at the publics expense.
Posted by mario@...
2nd Apr 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!