Reservations Halted for Nissan’s LEAF Electric Car

[Original image from Nissan Leaf website]

With 20,000 reservations in hand, (and with the Autumnal equinox only hours old) Nissan issued a notice Thursday that reservations for their much-anticipated fully electric car, the “Leaf,” had dropped out of reach. Nissan won’t be accepting any more sign-ups for awhile.

The news arrived via E-mail from Nissan USA:

We have completed the first phase of reservations. In order to provide the best level of customer service and premium ownership experience to the first Nissan LEAF drivers, we will not be accepting new reservations until the next phase begins. A subsequent phase of reservations will begin next year, after current reservations and orders have been processed.

This doesn’t mean that 20K Americans have ponied-up anything close to the announced MSRP for the basic model (SV) of $37,720 — just that they had paid a $99 refundable fee. (That MSRP doesn’t include rebates and tax incentives that should bring the net price down to a more modest $25,280, according to Nissan.)

DOE grant recipient

I’ve devoted a lot of column inches (pixels?) covering the Leaf, starting with an August 2009 DOE $2.4 billion grant for Electric Vehicles (EVs) design and production. Part of that money is being used to install 12,000 public EV charging stations as a pilot program in EV infrastructure.

The Dash

Leaf dashboard

In January 2010, when the Leaf visited Phoenix on a multi-city tour, I went to see the new EV and wrote about the “first look” at the 100-mile/charge vehicle. Later, I test drove the Leaf and described the ride at OnEarth magazine.

Ultimately, the Leaf’s success as an environmentally friendly alternative to gas-powered engines depends on the source of the electricity it uses. If you can generate all its fuel from your own rooftop PV array, or windmill, that’s a clear winner. Otherwise, the equation quickly gets more complex. Whatever the grid is serving in your area is what feeds the Leaf’s battery.

If you live in a state with a Renewable Energy Standard (RES), a portion your local utility’s electricity comes from renewable sources (RESs vary by state. Check the North Carolina Solar Center website, DSIRE, to see if your state has a RES and what it mandates).

If most of your electricity comes from a coal-fired generating plant, trading in a fuel-efficient newer model small car for a Leaf will likely be a net-loss, environmentally speaking. In Phoenix, most of our electricity comes from a nuclear power plant which is not just a low-carbon emitter, but is (I believe) the only nuclear power plant in the country that uses only treated waste water for cooling, which means it has a low water footprint as well. Strictly from a climate perspective, a Leaf seems to be a good idea here.

Of course, nuclear power comes with myriad environmental (and financial and security) debating points, all of which are beyond the scope of this article. The point, however, stands: focusing solely on what powers the vehicle, regardless of how that power is generated, may make us feel good — but it avoids the fundamental realities of how our choices increase or decrease climate change.

Still, EVs like the Nissan Leaf are an important milestone on the path to a sustainable energy future. We just have to keep on going if we are to arrive at our intended destination.

DOE Loans for Clean (maybe), Renewable (or not) Energy

From the Department of Energy, some good news and some bad news for renewable energy advocates.

First, the good news: The DOE released a list today of the dozen projects currently participating in the Department’s energy loan programs. The loans and guarantees total more $19 billion and will “create or save” 50,000 jobs, according to DOE figures. So, what could be bad about that? Nothing, unless you look carefully at the details. (Not that the DOE is trying to mislead anyone — it’s a matter of definitions.)

The Devil is in the Definitions

The Arizona state legislature recently tried to pass a bill that would have defined nuclear power as a “renewable” source of energy, despite federal regulations to the contrary. (I’ve written about the details elsewhere.) No such purposeful dis-information is contained in the information coming from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s office. It’s just that Chu, like his boss, defines “clean energy” very narrowly — referring only to sources that emit little or no-CO2.

Shippingport Atomic Power Station

This definition excludes the 2,200 tons of radioactive waste produced annually by the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants. A half century after the first commercial nuclear power plant went on-line (the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania), there is still no long-term solution for what to do with this dangerous waste.

Still, even the enthusiastically pro-nuclear Secretary of Energy doesn’t claim nuclear is “renewable” since it runs on a fuel supply (uranium) that has to be mined and is finite.

Of the dozen loan recipients, nine are clearly renewable. One (Ford) is a combo — the loan goes “to transform factories…to produce more fuel efficient models,” according to the DOE (pdf file). The increased efficiency comes from a variety of changes, including adding electric vehicles (which can be “renewable” depending on the energy source) and design changes that allow more complete energy capture from combustion — which is a good thing, but doesn’t make it “renewable.”

In addition to the two nuclear power plants (operated by Southern Nuclear), one other project is clearly not renewable — or clean: the construction of a plant in Louisiana to produce activated carbon), used to remove mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Reducing mercury pollution is clearly a good thing. The coal industry also needs this technology because new, lower mercury emission standards are going into effect. But, is a project “clean” if it allows coal-fired power plants to continue emitting CO2? The DOE’s definition of “clean energy” is not just narrowly defined, it’s also a moving target.

Follow the Money

The DOE’s $19 billion dollar energy pie can be sliced in different ways. Here’s what that pie looks like based on the opening sentence of the DOE press release on the dozen projects: “The U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program paves the way for federal support of clean energy projects…”

Chart 1 shows all monies as “Clean Energy” because it assumes DOE’s definition.

CHART 1

Chart 2 divides the DOE money based on renewable vs. non-renewable energy project.

CHART 2

[Note: As of Sunday (March 7), the DOE was unable to say how the $5.9 billion loan to Ford was divided between renewable and non-renewable projects. For that reason, Ford is not included in Chart 2.]

Substituting “renewable” for the ambiguous term “clean” gives a much different picture. Loan guarantees for renewable projects account for just over a third of DOE dollars. It’s instructive to look at a similar chart, with one difference — illustrating how funding for renewable energy stacks up against funding for nuclear power in this DOE program.

Chart 3 divides the DOE money based on renewable vs. nuclear power projects.

CHART 3

The non-renewable portfolio is almost entirely devoted to building twin nuclear power plants in Georgia, operated by Southern Nuclear. Removing the single other project in this category (the facility to produce activated carbon in Louisiana) has no effect on the whole number percentages of the renewable and non-renewable categories in Chart 2.

The point of this exercise is to underscore the importance of precision in discussing energy policy issues. In this debate, the words “clean” and “renewable” are often applied to the word “energy” as if they were synonymous. They aren’t.

Whether or not nuclear power should play a major role in our energy future is an enormously important question — but it’s not addressed here. In the DOE’s loan guarantee program, one form of energy is dominant: nuclear power.

Advocates of nuclear power will be happy with this arrangement. Renewable energy supporters, not so much.


Announced Projects in the DOE’s Loan Programs

  1. Solyndra, Inc. was awarded a $535 million loan guarantee (pdf) to manufacture innovative cylindrical solar photovoltaic panels that provide clean, renewable energy.

    Solyndra solar panel tubes


  2. Nordic Windpower USA has been offered a conditional commitment for $16 million (pdf) to support the expansion of its assembly plant in Pocatello, Idaho to produce its one megawatt wind turbine.

  3. Beacon Power, an energy storage company, has been offered a conditional commitment of $43 million (pdf) to support the construction of its 20 megawatt flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York that will help ensure the reliable delivery of renewable energy to the electricity grid.

  4. Red River Environmental Products has been offered a conditional commitment for $245 million (pdf) to build an activated carbon (AC) manufacturing facility near Coushatta, Red River Parish, Louisiana.

  5. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (operated by Southern Nuclear) has been offered conditional commitments for a total of $8.33 billion in loan guarantees (pdf) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke, Georgia.

    Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant


  6. BrightSource Energy, Inc. has been offered conditional commitments for more than $1.37 billion in loan guarantees (pdf) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to support the construction and start-up of three utility-scale concentrated solar power plants.

  7. First Wind - Kahuku Wind Power has received a conditional commitment for $117 million to install twelve 2.5 MW wind turbine generators along with a battery energy storage system for electricity load stability.

    Wind turbines


  8. Sage Electrochromics has received a conditional commitment for $72 million to support the financing of the construction and operation of a 250,000 square foot, high volume manufacturing facility to produce SageGlass®, an energy-saving switchable window technology for commercial and residential use.

  9. Ford Motor Company has closed on a $5.9 billion loan (pdf) to transform factories across Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio to produce more fuel efficient models.

  10. Nissan has closed on a $1.4 billion loan (pdf) to produce electric cars and battery packs at its manufacturing complex in Smyrna, Tennessee. The loan will aid in the construction of a new battery plant and modifications to the existing assembly facility.

    Nissan Leaf, EV


  11. Tesla Motors has been offered a $465 million loan (pdf) to finance a manufacturing facility for the Tesla Model S sedan and to support a facility to manufacture battery packs and electric drive trains.

  12. Fisker Automotive has been offered a $528.7 million conditional loan (pdf) for the development of two lines of plug-in hybrids that will save hundreds of millions of gallons of gasoline and offset millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

[Source: DOE press release via email, 5 March 2010]


Study| Electric Cars Show “Great Promise” in Fight Against Global Warming

Kyocera's employee parking lot, San Diego. The solar panels on the roofs generates power to charge plug-in cars during the work day. Photo by Envision Solar.


A new study by Environment America finds that electric vehicles (EVs) could do a lot to fight global warming and clean up the urban smog that contributes to respiratory and heart problems. But, the report concludes, changes in public policy are needed to make the switch from internal combustion to all electric vehicles on a mass scale.

Environment America is a national coalition of environmental groups in 25 states.

To download the full report, click on the graphic at the bottom of this page.

Executive Summary

America’s current fleet of gasoline-powered cars and trucks leaves us dependent on oil, contributes to air pollution problems that threaten our health, and produces large amounts of global warming pollution. “Plug-in” cars are emerging as an effective way to lower global warming emissions, oil use, and smog. A “plug-in” car is one that can be recharged from the electric grid. Some plug-in cars run on electricity alone, while others are paired with small gasoline engines to create plug-in hybrids. Many plug-in hybrids can get over 100 miles per gallon, while plug-in electric vehicles consume no gasoline at all.

As automakers race to become the first to introduce a mass production plug-in vehicle to American consumers, citizens and decision-makers are grappling to understand the implications of switching to a vehicle fleet fueled primarily by electricity for our environment, for consumers, and for the nation as a whole.

Plug-in vehicles show great promise for addressing the nation’s environmental and energy challenges. But it will take strong public policy action to help plug-in vehicles make the leap from promising technology to everyday reality for Americans.

Plug-in cars can make a major contribution to America’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution.

Public charging station, San Francisco. Photo by Siena Kaplan.

• More than 40 recent studies show that plug-in cars produce lower carbon dioxide than traditional gasoline-powered cars. One study by the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) found that a car fueled by unused capacity in the current electric system would emit 27 percent less global warming pollution than a car fueled by gasoline.

• Studies also found that plug-in cars reduce global warming emissions even when electricity comes primarily from coal, because plug-in cars use energy more efficiently than conventional cars. The PNNL study found that plug-in cars would produce lower global warming emissions than conventional cars in almost every area of the country, using the current electric system.

• America can reduce emissions even further by making its electricity supply cleaner. A study by the Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council found that a plug-in hybrid with a 20 mile electric range running on completely clean electricity would emit less than half the global warming emissions of a plug-in hybrid running on electricity from coal-fired power plants.

Switching to plug-in cars will improve our air quality for most Americans.

• Replacing gasoline with electricity will reduce the smog found in our cities and other densely populated areas dramatically. The PNNL study found that powering cars on electricity instead of gasoline would reduce smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 93 percent and 31 percent, respectively.

• A study by the Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council found that if current emissions standards for power plants are enforced, converting 40 percent of U.S. cars to plug-in hybrids by 2030 would decrease smog for 61 percent of Americans, and increase it for 1 percent of Americans. Soot would decrease for 82 percent of the population, and increase for 3 percent of the population.

• Powering cars on clean electricity such as wind and solar power, either directly or via the electric grid, would eliminate smog in cities and highways with no increased power plant pollution.

Switching to plug-in cars will reduce oil consumption

• If three-fourths of the cars, pick-up trucks, SUVs and vans in the United States were powered by electricity, oil use would be reduced by the equivalent of 52 percent of U.S. oil imports.

Plug-in cars have many benefits and are quickly becoming practical for an increasing number of drivers

• Plug-in hybrids that have been converted from conventional hybrids already exist that achieve 100 miles per gallon or more.

Tesla Roadster

• Electric cars that can go over 200 miles on one charge are being sold in the United States today.

• Most plug-in cars can charge in a normal wall outlet found in many home garages, and rapid chargers have been developed that can fill a 100-mile battery in 10-15 minutes.

• Fueling plug-in cars costs two to five cents per mile, or the equivalent of $0.50 to $1.25 a gallon of gasoline.

• Fuel savings over a ten year period, compared with fuel costs for a conventional car, combined with a federal incentive, can reduce the lifetime cost of a plug-in car as much as $17,000.

• Electric cars are much simpler to maintain than conventional cars, with one moving part compared with the hundreds of moving parts required for an internal combustion engine. Electric cars have no oil changes, and require far fewer repairs.

• Plug-in hybrids are more expensive than conventional vehicles, but will become cheaper over time as battery technology improves and mass production is achieved.

America’s electric system has the capacity to fuel most of our cars today, and plug-in cars could make our grid more reliable and cleaner

• America’s electric system could fuel 73 percent of U.S. cars, pickup-up trucks, SUVs and vans without building another power plant, by charging vehicles at night.

Easy on the grid

• One million plug-in cars charging simultaneously would only use about 0.16 percent of America’s current electric capacity.

• Plug-in cars could help stabilize the electric grid and provide emergency backup power – reducing the cost of electricity for all consumers.

• If half our cars were plug-in hybrids whose batteries were available to utilities, wind power in the U.S. would double by 2050 through market forces alone, according to a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This is because parked plug-in cars would provide electric storage capacity that could displace the backup generation capacity utilities would otherwise need to purchase to provide power when the wind isn’t blowing, lowering wind power’s cost.

There are still barriers to the widespread adoption of plug-in cars, but public policies can help to overcome those barriers.

• Despite rapid advances in battery technology over the past decade, automakers and battery developers still have strides to make in arriving at battery designs that deliver the range and affordability American consumers are looking for. Continued funding for research and development of advanced batteries can help.

• The cost of plug-in car prices will be high until they are mass produced. Consumer incentives for plug-in cars and government and fleet purchases can help spur the market for plug-ins, enabling them to achieve mass production more quickly.

• Plug-ins have the potential to deliver many economic benefits – from reducing the cost of electricity to curbing global warming pollution. State and federal governments should adopt policies – ranging from investments in “smart grid” technology to a cap on global warming pollution – that would unlock these benefits, and ensure that purchasers of plug-in vehicles are compensated for the benefits their choice delivers to society.

• The lack of public charging infrastructure – while not a deal-breaker for plug-in vehicle owners who can charge their cars at home – could limit the willingness of some consumers to buy or use plug-in vehicles. Local, state and federal governments should jump-start the creation of charging infrastructure by installing chargers at publicly owned facilities, developing procedures for the installation of chargers on city streets, and encouraging private development of charging infrastructure.

Governments should ensure that the electricity fueling plug-ins is increasingly clean and renewable.

The Sun's "green screen" test drive of the Nissan Leaf, before the real one.

• States and the federal government should enforce a low-carbon fuel standard, requiring that transportation fuels be 10 percent less carbon-intensive by 2020. When calculating global warming emissions, full lifecycle emissions such as indirect land use impacts should be included. This would encourage a switch to electricity as a fuel.

• States and the federal government should require that at least 25 percent of our electricity comes from clean and renewable sources like wind and solar by 2025.

• The federal government and states should strictly enforce current power plant emissions regulations, and fill any gaps in regulation, so that our air quality will continue to improve regardless of the amount of electricity produced.

• The nation should adopt a cap on global warming pollution that reduces emissions to 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Click on image to download full report.