Is Nissan's Leaf EV marketing strategy over the top?

[wtmusic]

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Much easier to achieve efficiencies...

....at one big plant than at a hundred thousand tailpipes.

[wtmusic]

2. ,

:toast:

[IDemo]

3. No, but two things I would like to see changed in EV discussions

are the terms "zero emissions" and "miles-per-gallon". Even though it is commonly understood that EV's result in much lower greenhouse gas outputs per mile than internal combustion vehicles, the powerplant/EV system as a whole won't be zero emissions for a very long time to come. And miles-per-gallon (or "equivalent miles per gallon" - MPGe) relies on a familiar sounding measure simply to make it somewhat understandable to the non-technically minded. I would prefer "miles per kilowatt-hour" or "kilometers per megajoule".

[kristopher]

4. It is just a matter of where the discussion is focused.

The goal is moving away from petroleum. That goal has two elements related to use of MPG style data as it provides an accurate measure of: reduced dependence on petroleum for the individual and the amount of price volatility built into the individual's future transportation budget. If gas spikes to $6 a gallon it is unlikely to have much of an effect on what is paid for electricity so this use of MPG tells me that I might (for example) meet 60-80% of my transportation needs for X dollars no matter what hurricanes do to Gulf coast oil production and refining or how much demand from China and India drives up the costs.

When consumer attention turns to comparing the Tesla PEV to the Nissan PHEV or the Chevrolet PHEV, then consumers will adopt the consumption metrics that are more relevant to their needs.

[IDemo]

5. Yes, I can see that it makes the comparison easier for most

and that is what the Dept of Transportation currently uses, rather than kilometers per megajoule as Tesla prefers.

[madokie]

6. What a choice

The emissions from the coal plant to recharge the batteries for that one hundred miles of driving will be but a smidgen of what it would be if it was an ICE propelling that auto. I think they should use the word low instead of no.

[kristopher]

7. That's part of the legalese required in policy-making

It is normal in environmental policy to divide the polluters into "sources". There is a basic division in sources: point source and non-point source. It is pretty self explanatory but if I'm a "point source" of pollution I can be identified as the point of origin for the pollutant. That allows the policy-maker to draft regulations that make the polluter responsible for their wastes.

Since the ICE of automobiles is an identifiable source of pollution it has been regulated with things like requirements for unleaded gasoline, required technologies (antivent gas tanks) and generalized standards such as mpg minimums.

The idea behind "zero emissions" is that the auto itself is required to meet a generalized standard. If it is "low emissions" that would enable interpretations of the standard that might not result in the intended result. In this case the goal is total elimination of petroleum as a fuel for transportation.

The problem of what to do with coal is separate in the sense of establishing such regulations. For them and the electric sector in general, we attack the problem at their points of origin. It isn't the electricity per se that the auto uses, it is the manner of production of the electricity.

It does confuse the lay debate since the distinction disappears when the common-sensical standard of total emissions is applied.

[roody]

8. I will be powering mine from my solar array.