Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn: Only Viable Solution Is Electrification

1 year ago by Steven Loveday 104

Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn

Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn

At the opening breakfast of the ongoing New York Auto Show, Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn once again explained and supported his forward stance on electric vehicles.

Nissan LEAF and e-NV200 in France

Nissan LEAF and e-NV200 in France

Ghosn believes there are some factors that are making it difficult for EVs, but he says, “I still think it’s just a temporary slow down.”

One factor, according to Ghosn, is an agreement made in Paris last year at the climate change conference (COP21). The agreement focuses on limiting global temperature change.

UN explanation of the agreement:

The goal of limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century was first agreed to in Copenhagen and then by all countries at the Cancun Climate Conference in 2010. It recognizes that climate change is already occurring, but that if we act now, we can avoid the worst impacts of a changing climate.

The COP22 is coming up in November in Morocco, and since transportation still makes up 17 percent of global CO2 emissions, Ghosn believes:

“There is no way – no way – we’re going to reach anything around two degrees without the substantial reduction in CO2 from the transportation system. And the only obvious, known technology which allows that is electrification.”

Ghosn maintains that three things can boost EV purchases:

  • More government incentives (to buyers and automakers)
  • Reduced cost
  • Reality of climate change to the masses

“Governments, in order to encourage the industry, they’re going to have to finally build the infrastructure. Obviously, there is already a lot of incentives in China, Norway, France, Japan and in the United States for electric cars, but it’s going to get much bigger. That’s why all the carmakers are coming with electric cars. And if they don’t come with electric cars, they’re coming with another technology, which is hydrogen fuel cells, which is basically also an electric car. So, if you want to see the results you’ve got to understand how much we’re going to have to reduce the cost of the electric car. Governments, in order to encourage the industry to move in this direction, they’re going to have to finally build the infrastructure. The main problem of electric cars is people complaining that there is no infrastructure.”

“Today, nobody asks question about how much range you have in a car you buy, because there are gasoline stations all over the place. But if you go to a country where there is no gasoline station, well, you’re going to be very, very careful when buying a car. We have the exact same situation today with electric cars. So, development of the infrastructure, reducing the cost, and waiting until the emissions restrictions come to the table, and you’re gonna see the size of the effort that we’re going to have to do. For me, the only viable, existing technology that allows that is electrification and, particularly, electric cars. Fuel cells are another option, but if you think we have a problem with infrastructure of electric cars, imagine the hydrogen stations.”

See the related interview with Carlos Ghosn below:

Source: Autoblog

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

104 responses to "Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn: Only Viable Solution Is Electrification"

  1. Carlos says “For me, the only viable, existing technology that allows that is electrification and, particularly, electric cars. Fuel cells are another option, but if you think we have a problem with infrastructure of electric cars, imagine the hydrogen stations.”, with the most important part being what someone should finally start to undestand, down the road at Toyota: “but if you think we have a problem with infrastructure of electric cars, imagine the hydrogen stations.”

    H2 stations today are maybe 5% to 10% as effective in supporting FCV’s, as DC QC’s are at supporting BEV’s! Plus fueling with H2 at home does not even have a pitchman going for it yet!

    1. scott franco says:

      Did you know that %26 percent of statistics are simply made up?

      1. TomArt says:

        I heard it was 31%…

        1. RexxSee says:

          Exactly 31.8%

      2. Nick says:

        “The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you don’t know if they are genuine.” — Abraham Lincoln

      3. Foo says:

        Well yours is clearly made-up (the percent sign gives it away).

    2. Anderlan says:

      That last line:

      “Fuel cells are another option, but if you think we have a problem with infrastructure of electric cars, imagine the hydrogen stations”

      is perfect. It doesn’t 110% reject the bad idea, and it makes the listener do the thinking themselves.

      1. Anderlan says:

        Let me try it with something else:

        “Coal, oil, and gas energy is an option, but if you think we have a problem with windmills killing birds, imagine coal ash ponds, methane leaks, fracking vapors, and climate change killing them.”

        1. Anderlan says:

          You’d think I’d’ve learned something from Marc Antony’s speech when I read it so long ago and that I’d be using this method all the time!

        2. Priusmaniac says:

          Nice saying.

          But when $ are involved, some people are even against solar panels, so go figure:
          http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-no-solar-20140810-story.html

      2. BraveLilToaster says:

        And we all know that civilians are great at thinking. Just look at antivaxxers and climate change deniers.

  2. SparkEV says:

    All this rhetoric to tie EV to climate change could have negative effect. Most people don’t see climate change as high priority issue. Earth had far higher temperatures in the past, far higher CO2, yet life thrived. It’s the rate of change in temperature and difference from current status quo, but people generally don’t care about stuff that may (or may not) happen after 50 years. Then they also won’t care about EV.

    Indeed, people automatically assume I pay arm and leg to drive my under-powered golf cart to “save the planet”, and they are surprised by my stance on global warming and my little SparkEV kicking their car’s butt both in acceleration and pricing.

    1. Assaf says:

      “Most people” does not equal “Most Americans”. Outside of the US, there is a pretty overwhelming consensus that this is very important. Otherwise that Paris agreement involving all nations on Earth, wouldn’t have been signed.

      It is no coincidence that the US has fallen over a single year – 2014 to 2015 – from nearly 40% of the global EV market, to a little over 20%. And if early 2016 is any indication, we will fall below 20% this year.

      If idiotic American politicians and media, who manipulate and set the agenda for much of the apathetic public, are oblivious to this – then the world will move on ahead with the US bringing up the rear.

      Fortunately we’ve had someone smart and responsible enough in the White House over the past 7 years, to get lots of stuff going at the ground level, including substantial Federal support to EVs, even as the other idiot politicians and media continued to throw snowballs at each other. So the US is not as far behind as they would have had us be.

      1. SparkEV says:

        I doubt others outside of US see climate change as much an issue. If they thought so, they’d be doing so much more to curb it. EV adoption is one metric, among others. US is not the lead, but it certainly ranks near the top.

        As for EV adoption at countries like Norway, it’s hard to tell if the people are doing for climate change or not. Tesla is pretty compelling car, even without fear of climate change. Heck, even SparkEV is smoother than any gas car. But take away the incentives, and I doubt they’d do so well.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Assaf said:

        “Outside of the US, there is a pretty overwhelming consensus that this is very important. Otherwise that Paris agreement involving all nations on Earth, wouldn’t have been signed.”

        They get an “A” for lip service, and an “F” for actually doing something about it.

        Meanwhile, in the USA, altho far too many people are still in denial about climate change (including the majority of leading GOP politicians), the federal government has mandated significant, aggressive increases in gasmobile fuel efficiency over the next few years. That’s going to do much more to reduce global air pollution than all the hand-wringing at that Paris conference.

        Mandating higher fuel efficiency in gasmobiles also has the side benefit of making them more expensive, which will help EVs compete against them.

        Oh, and another thing, Assaf: The EU countries lag far behind the USA in offering tax rebates for EV buyers. There are significant rebates on both the federal and State level here.

        “It is no coincidence that the US has fallen over a single year – 2014 to 2015 – from nearly 40% of the global EV market, to a little over 20%.”

        Ummm… it most certainly is a coincidence that the rest of the world finally started catching up with the U.S. in offering tax-and-fee incentives favoring purchase of EVs over gasmobiles, in the same year (last year) that there was a significant drop in the trend of year-on-year increasing plug-in EV sales in the USA; a drop caused by would-be buyers anticipating much more compelling offerings this year or next.

    2. scott franco says:

      Denyer!

      1. Aaron says:

        *denier

        Even if climate change is a hoax (I personally don’t believe it is a hoax), doesn’t it make sense to improve the environment? Healthier air means fewer airway ailments, saving us $$$.

        Think about it this way: Would you rather sit in your garage with your gas-powered car running or your EV with it running? Our atmosphere is a thin sheath around the Earth. Let’s keep it as clean as we can.

        1. SparkEV says:

          Even if CO2 levels are 100 times what they are now, that picture would look the same. CO2 is colorless, odorless gas.

          I absolutely believe that climate is changing, as has been since the very beginning (whatever that is), and CO2 levels are rising with respect to recent past, much of it due to man-made sources, and that CO2 increase is partly (or mostly) responsible for global warming.

          But I absolutely deny that we are facing disaster via CO2 induced climate change. It’s the part that I don’t believe that disaster is coming, a unsubstantiated claim, that makes me a “denier”, even though I am in complete agreement with science.

          1. dRanger says:

            While it is true that CO2 levels were higher at some points in the past, it is also true that not all life thrived in those times. We can start with the fact that there were no iceccaps, so ocean levels were over 200′ higher. Goodbye Florida and hello ocean front property in southern Missouri. Then we have the marine extinctions due to ocean acidification. We haven’t even started to discuss what will happen to agriculture. Sure, some life will thrive (poison ivy is doing great!) but that doesn’t mean human civilization or even human life will be one of the winners.

            1. SparkEV says:

              Actually, agriculture does quite well with more CO2. Locally, there will be problems as climate change does not impact equally. But globally, plants will grow much better with higher CO2 concentration, especially when humans migrate from badly impacted areas to more favorable areas.

            2. ffbj says:

              Right. Point being when the world was so much hotter humans were not even around.

              1. SparkEV says:

                I don’t believe humans are some magical creatures that need more coddling than other mammals that lived through hotter climate. If anything, it’s the other animals that we should worry about with rapid climate change. Again, I’m talking about rate of change, not the absolute temp/CO2 levels.

            3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              The alarmist hysteria over a piffling couple of degrees of global warming only serves to cause people to ignore the realities of climate change, after they realize the alarmism is just that: alarmism. Ditto for the alarmism over rising seas; anyone can see that what the alarmists are running around like Chicken Littles crying about is just not happening, period. Miami, Florida isn’t underwater; nor are any islands in the Pacific except, so far as I know, only one or two extremely tiny ones… and that may be due more to subsidence than seas rising at the rate of 1-2 milllimeters per year… which they’ve been doing since the mid-1800s, so that’s definitely nothing new.

              What really is alarming is the die-off of coral reefs worldwide, and other results of acidification of the seas. We humans can readily adapt to warmer and colder climates; that’s one of the reasons our species has been so successful spreading around the world. Two degrees is an amount of warming the average person won’t even notice!

              And I’m glad that TomArt mentioned migration. Migration has always been a part of human history; it’s absurd to suggest that this will stop merely because people started drawing lines on maps, to divide territory into countries. If agriculture needs to shift to more northerly latitudes, then it will shift.

              One thing that really irks me is that everyone talks about global warming as if it’s all bad. Nobody mentions, for example, the fact that warming in Siberia will open huge tracts of land* for agriculture, settlement, and mineral exploitation. Like most changes, global warming has both good and bad aspects.

              Let’s remember that climate change, whether entirely natural or (as at present) partially man-made, is an ongoing part of our world, and has contributed to human evolution. Let’s quit acting like it’s somehow out of the ordinary, or something we can’t deal with. Humans have lived through several ice ages, with swings in average global temperature of 10+ degrees. A piffling two degrees is hardly anything to worry about!

              *Yes, that’s a Monty Python reference 😉

              1. Nate says:

                After saying all that, you haven’t convinced me of anything. It seems like instead of facts you prefer to use your favorite adjectives on the topic to minimize everything you can, and add in some name calling.

                Let’s see where you mention any actual numbers..
                Pushmi-Pullyu says:
                “seas rising at the rate of 1-2 milllimeters per year… which they’ve been doing since the mid-1800s”

                1-2mm per year is an average of 1.5mm. Within that time period, do you think it is linear? Do you think it will stay linear? NASA measured 3.41 mm average since 1993. More than double.

                Pushmi-Pullyu says:
                “Two degrees is an amount of warming the average person won’t even notice!”

                Funny you use not units! Are you saying the average human can’t detect a 2 degree difference in temperature, or the effects that 2 degrees has on the ecosystems they are familiar with such as the coral reefs you mention? Please explain, with units of measurement next time.

              2. Nate says:

                I had to laugh you actually said this.

                Pushmi-Pullyu says:
                “Migration has always been a part of human history; it’s absurd to suggest that this will stop merely because people started drawing lines on maps, to divide territory into countries.”

                Where did anyone say it would completly stop? You made that part up, so now you are exaggerating both sides of the argument. I guess name calling wasn’t working well enough to discredit others.

                There is a difference between stopping altogether and severely hindering. Hence, immigration policy is a debated daily. DoD and the Department of Homeland Security are smart enough to think about the implications disruption could have on fragile states, even if others aren’t.

              3. Michael says:

                “Miami, Florida isn’t underwater.”

                Actually, it and many other Florida cities are already affected by rising see levels.

                Vanity Fair isn’t my first choice for definitive climate science, but they had a great artcle on this.

                http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/miami-beach-global-warming

                Florida mayors have been doing everything in their power to protect their communities, despite the obstructionist policies of Gov. Rick Scott.

                “South Florida’s mayors face reality of rising seas and climate change.” (Mar 24)
                http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fred-grimm/article68092452.html

              4. Priusmaniac says:

                I fully don’t agree. Global warming is a major threat. Look no further than Venus and its 450°C to be convinced. Yes the Earth started with a CO2 atmosphere but that was more than 3 billion years ago when the Sun output was weaker than the full power it is at now. Moreover the stromatollites that started transforming the CO2 in O2 were much more resistant to hot temperatures than we are now. Some can even thrive in very hot water. In contrast humans get a lot of difficulties living above 50°C and under high humidity even above 45°C.

                So in fact, you try to convince yourself that the experiment we are running by massively burning fossil fuel will somehow have bening and manageable effects when in reality we just don’t know the exact final outcome.
                Actually one very grim possible scenario is this one:
                As the carbon dioxide levels keeps rising, the methane clathrates on the ocean floors start to escape to the atmosphere. Unfortunately, once that happens we are not in control anymore. The massive amounts of methane boost the global warming far above the level of plus 6 or 8°C that we will have created by burning fossil fuels and bring it up to a 20°C increase. At that level we talk of average temperature of 35°C instead of 15°C. Apart from the detail that all ice will be gone and for sure New-York, Amsterdam, London , Florida and anything bellow 62 m of altitude will long be under water, the temperature at the equator will not be 30°C anymore but 50°C. Since the equator is also very humid you will be above the 45°C high humidity condition mentioned before. So people simply die along with their cattle and everything else in the forest. You get an equatorial dead zone. Even if they survive, the plants will break down as well and food will be lacking. Further on, all that heat drastically increase the atmosphere water content which on its turn increase global warming even more towards global cooking. As a result the equatorial death zone spread both north and South and only two polar zones remain livable. But since the polar nights will still be there, those zones are small spots between the death equator zone and the daylight deprived polar regions. So that’s quiet a challenge to survive indeed.
                That scenario is extreme but is not less valid than any other since, once again, we simply don’t know the final outcome of the experiment we are presently running.

              5. RexxSee says:

                Unstoppable machines makes all the difference. They gave us a tremendous power that we don’t care to control, and they’re continuously feeding on fossil fuels.

                Human instincts are still driving us all like 500 000 years ago, while our technology is exponentially evolving…

          2. Assaf says:

            @SparkEV, You cannot claim with a straight face “I am in complete agreement with science”, and then turn around and call the scientists’ forecast of the effects “unsubstantiated claims”.

            But I guess you’re on a (T)roll… please proceed.

            1. SparkEV says:

              Climate Scientist forecast on social-political and economics is the same as economist forecast on climate science: total bunk. Climate science is clear. Geo politics is not. If one goes by past history of disasters, humans will adapt. Saying disaster will strike and talking about extinction is Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt on humanity.

              Now the people going around believing and spreading non-science “unsubstantiated claims” of disaster as if they’re going to occur overnight are the ones on a (T)roll.

              1. RexxSee says:

                What do you make of Asimov’s psycho science? Computing empowers us (the neoliberal leaders) with sophisticated algorythms to approach such forecasts.

                1. RexxSee says:

                  Sorry : “psycho HISTORY”

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Assaf
              March 24, 2016 at 3:05 pm

              @SparkEV, You cannot claim with a straight face “I am in complete agreement with science”, and then turn around and call the scientists’ forecast of the effects “unsubstantiated claims”.

              Heck, even the IPCC — as much as it’s overly influenced by climate change alarmists — has been forced to backtrack and admit its claims of a “tipping point” of climate change, simply don’t reflect reality.

              There’s a big difference between accepting the overwhelming evidence for a slight amount of global warming, and buying into all the “Chicken Little” cries from those with a vested interest in promoting climate change alarmism; those with a hidden agenda to boost their political influence and/or their careers.

              1. Nick says:

                Yea!

                What is it with all this “reality” and “science” stuff anyways?!

              2. Priusmaniac says:

                It is exactly the other way arround climate sceptics are the ones that have vested interest.

                1. RexxSee says:

                  +1000 … for 1000 more money moving around fossil fuels Giga-corporates interests than clean Earth small groups advocates.

                  Blatant contradiction I see with pushmy

          3. BraveLilToaster says:

            CO2 levels 100x higher? That means we’d be going from 0.039% CO2 to 3.9%.

            I’m pretty sure *that* would look more like the atmosphere of Venus, where all the water has evaporated and surface temperatures of the planet would be more like 150 C. And that would make this picture look *dramatically* different. More clouds and no blue oceans underneath.

            1. SparkEV says:

              Venus is 95% CO2. Comparing that to Earth is nonsense. All too often, CO2 is called “Carbon”, invoking image of black coal. Point I was making is that CO2 is colorless gas, and as such, it would not change the picture.

              Now if you talk about secondary effects, that’s different. I suspect there will be more clouds, which will act as solar reflectors as well as more “greening” of the planet until levels go down.

            2. Ambulator says:

              One hundred times the carbon dioxide would be between six and seven doublings. At three kelvins per doubling that would be around a 20K increase in temperature, although eventually I would expect a little more.

              That would be bad enough, but the oceans would probably turn anoxic and start emitting hydrogen sulfide; thus killing us all.

              1. ffbj says:

                Yes, though we would all probably be dead long before that.

        2. JeffD says:

          I agree that we should do what we can to take care of the environment. As for worrying about whether climate change is man-made or not is irrelevant because we are going to have to deal with what ever climate we get whether we caused it or not.

    3. TomArt says:

      Ah, a perfect summary of the right-wing FUD here in the USA!

      It is not a question of whether life will survive climate change on Earth – of course it will!

      The question is one of individual lives, regional cultures and global security.

      With elevated temperatures of less than 1 degree comes heavier rain, heavier snows, stronger storms, longer droughts, hotter highs, colder lows, and, most devastatingly, rising ocean levels. We’ve seen that here in the US in the last few years – from deadly tornadoes in January to storm surge flooding in downtown NYC!

      The rising ocean levels, even of only a few inches to a foot, is enough for storm surges and high tides and tsunamis to be able to reach hundreds of yards, if not miles, further inland. We are talking about coastal communities (Outer Banks), even entire countries (Maldives), to be unlivable within our lifetime.

      Half of the world’s population – over 3.5 billion people – live within 97 miles of an ocean coastline. When you consider rivers pouring into the oceans, the amount of flooding caused further inland by rising ocean levels pushing up river levels will increasingly require the migration of most of those 3.5 billion people worldwide by 2050.

      Where are they going to go? Talk about geopolitical instability!

      Between increased damage $$ and increased deaths from more powerful storms and heavier precipitation, to the lo$$ of coastal habitat for people and animals, and to the challenge of growing food for everyone with shifting climates, there is VERY good reason why the likes of DoD and Homeland Security are taking climate change absolutely seriously. They have been studying it for years, running climate simulations and geopolitical upheaval scenarios, domestically and abroad, to try to anticipate and plan for the very real and realistic disasters that await us, and that have already happened over the last several years.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Anytime someone believes that disaster is coming “any day now” and that we should repent our ways, that’s pretty much superstition. Climate change alarmism is left wing FUD, a form of superstition.

        While there’s no question the CO2 levels are high relative to recent past, that doesn’t mean disaster is coming. To put it in perspective, last time CO2 was as high as today (or even much higher), large creatures without technology survived and thrived. To say that humans will face disasters is statistically insignificant and not worth worrying about.

        Yes, there could be disaster from geo politics (if you vote for idiots like Trump), but to attribute that to global warming in 50 to 100 years is completely wrong.

        As for CO2, it’s just temporary. Once humans figure out better (cheaper) form of energy, which fusion seem hold promise at this time, there will be no need for fossil fuel. Remember, oil’s been in use for only last 100 years or so, and unlikely to be permanent. It seems fusion will be within 5 to 10 years.

        When cheaper source of energy is found, most likely distributed as electricity, EV are inevitable. Then, whichever country / company skilled in EV will thrive while the rest will whither away. Horse and buggy vs Model T history will repeat.

        1. Brian says:

          Did you actually read Tom’s post? He very clearly stated that life with go on. But he also correctly points out that a rapid change in climate will cause global instability. Massive amounts of people migrating around the globe is very different from saying that humans will wither and die out.

          1. SparkEV says:

            Yes I did. And I pointed out that attributing that to climate change is wrong.

      2. SparkEV says:

        As for coastal land, there will be more coastal land appearing (formerly 2 ft higher). They will also take precautions; there are countries in the world that are under sea level that have thrived. History says 2 ft of sea level rise will not result in disaster.

        Even if the land cannot be used, it’s not like it will be underwater overnight. It will take decades. People will simply move gradually.

        As for population, if you put the entire world’s population in land to achieve population density of Hong Kong or Singapore, they’d fit into area of CA + Texas. There is no lack of land, but there is huge waste of land and resources. Global warming will not cause disaster; rather, there will be better utilization of what we have. Estimate is asymptote of 10 billion people by 2100. Considering that over half the food in US is thrown away as well as “organic farming” wasting land, that population will easily survive with better resource utilization.

        1. quartzav says:

          Not necessarily, this is assuming only sea level rise is the only consequence. The so called “100-year storm” or “storm of the century” and resultant flooding that will occur every few years are the main killers that humans are not going to be prepared for.
          In addition, ignoring the island nations’ right to exist are also a prototypical selfish behavior that many American exhibits…

          1. SparkEV says:

            People don’t die from these weather. People die from economic reasons. These storms give plenty of warning and time if they have the means to move. Question shouldn’t be about the climate, but about their economics.

            As for island nations, they are sunk whatever we do. First is geopolitical that will take time. Second is the momentum in the earth’s system, such as heat stored in the oceans. It’s as if there was huge geologic even that sunk their islands; unfortunate, but it’s too late and they must move on.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        TomArt said:

        “Ah, a perfect summary of the right-wing FUD here in the USA!”

        Ah yes, just dismiss anything you disagree with as “FUD” and then you won’t actually have to consider what we’re saying before responding.

        “With elevated temperatures of less than 1 degree comes… stronger storms, longer droughts… We’ve seen that here in the US in the last few years – from deadly tornadoes in January to storm surge flooding in downtown NYC!”

        Nope, what we’ve seen is simply more news coverage of extreme weather. Before the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, you didn’t see reporters doing idiotic things like standing outside in a raincoat during a hurricane and trying to outshout the wind. Also, try convincing a surivior of the Dust Bowl years that we have “longer droughts” these days. Ha!

        “The rising ocean levels, even of only a few inches to a foot, is enough for storm surges and high tides and tsunamis to be able to reach hundreds of yards, if not miles, further inland.”

        A couple of reality checks:

        1. A rise in ocean level of a few inches does not, repeat not, enable tsunamis to travel miles further inland!

        2. At a rise of 1.5 mm per year, it will take 200 years for the oceans to rise 1 foot… in the unlikely event that the trend which has been ongoing since about 1850 continues unabated.

        Perfectly ordinary replacement of buildings as they age then get torn down and rebuilt, will occur faster than the very slowly advancing seas. Those who own property on the very edge of the oceans may be unhappy to see their property being eroded or inundated, but those who own properties just a few yards inland will enjoy their new-found wealth.

        It’s typical of climate change alarmists to talk about the “costs” of natural changes to the land as if somehow once you build a city on a spot, natural processes such as erosion, subsidences, delta-building at river mouths, and rivers changing courses, should all magically stop just because somebody built a structure there.

        We don’t have to pay nature for all the benefits it provides; it’s rather absurd to talk about the costs associated with naturally occurring changes in the landscape as if somehow they were avoidable expenses! One goes hand in hand with the other; the good with the bad.

        “We are talking about coastal communities (Outer Banks), even entire countries (Maldives), to be unlivable within our lifetime.”

        Funny that nobody in 1900 or 1950 was making alarmist claims about rising seas, and yet the oceans were rising about as fast back then. Venice has been sinking for centuries, due to an ongoing widespread subsidence, yet nobody has been going around shrieking about it or demanding that somehow we should do something about it to make it stop.

        People are capable of adapting to change. Seems the alarmists want us to forget that.

        “Half of the world’s population – over 3.5 billion people – live within 97 miles of an ocean coastline.”

        The real problem you’re talking about here is overpopulation. And that’s what we should be talking about; that’s the real problem for which we urgently need to find solutions. Increasing overpopulation, and rapidly increasing resource depletion caused by increasing overpopulation, are the real problems which we are increasingly having to deal with. Unfortunately, “Climate change” is increasingly invoked to mask those very real problems, and your post is an excellent example of that.

        There’s definitely some denial of the real problems here. And that denial isn’t by those who you label as “climate deniers”; the denial is yours.

      4. JeffD says:

        Chances are that more people will die from stressing out about climate change than actually from climate change.

    4. pvwowk says:

      I want to point this quote out…

      “Earth had far higher temperatures in the past, far higher CO2, yet life thrived.”

      This is partially true. However, there are many many knowns with this mindset.

      First, what are the feedback cycles? There is a lot of evidence now of carbon being expelled from permafrost. Also, what will happen if Greenland melts?

      Second, You are probably referring to around 55-60 million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Sure, they lived, but the earth was much different back then. Continents were in different locations. The earth is much different now.

      Third, We don’t know how much carbon in the biosphere was in the atmosphere 55-60 million years ago. We don’t know how much carbon we can put into the air before feedbacks start taking it out faster than we can put it in. Likely, until earth looks like Venus. Also, the carbon might be in the form of methane today rather than CO2 55-60 million years ago.

      Four, this is the scary one. Scientists are not sure why Venus is so hot and earth is so cool. There is nothing stopping earth from becoming like Venus with enough greenhouse gases. If we opened all of the natural gas wells and vented them into the atmosphere, there is a good chance that earth may become as hot as Venus. Feedback effects could be strong enough to cause earth to become Venus.

      Basically, it’s more dire than most people can mention. There is a good chance that climate change COULD be the great filter.

      1. SparkEV says:

        First, Greenland had melted in the past. Nothing much happened. Yes, humans were not around, but there were creatures without technology that survived fine.

        Second, you’re assuming continent locations matter for humans with technology to survive. They don’t.

        Third, we know the CO2 levels have been 20 times higher than what it is now. One could argue we don’t know the feedback cycle, but if the earth is so fragile, it wouldn’t have lasted as much as it has now.

        Four, to compare Earth’s tiny CO2 level to Venus is complete, utter FUD. Better comparison is to compare Earth to farmer’s green house where CO2 is artificially pumped in to grow more crops.

        Climate change is almost a non-issue. There’s good chance we’ll look back on history of this period and have a good laugh; how could people suffer such mass hysteria?

        However, that assumes humans survive through geo-politics. Appeasing Godwin, second coming of Hitler like figure will surely doom us all, global warming or not.

        1. BraveLilToaster says:

          Sorry dude, but I’m afraid you’re wrong about how “we don’t know what happened.”

          I can’t remember the exact time period, but this has indeed all happened before. We have archaeological evidence that there have been massive, natural coal fires in Siberia that burned for several hundred years. These things are extremely difficult to extinguish and can indeed last that long. And yes, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere did rise as a result, and yes, there was indeed a mass extinction as a result too. And you’re going to tell me that we’ll just carry on?

          What was the effect on America the last time the midwest suffered a widespread drought? The dustbowl of the 1930s was a disaster for the nation, both in food security and in economic terms. Nevermind the fact that dinosaurs didn’t have to worry about having a passport to migrate from one drought-ravaged corner of the planet to another with better crops. Try to imagine how well Canada would cope with 50 million starving Americans at that border. We just settled 15,000 Syrian refugees, and everyone thought that was a big deal.

          1. SparkEV says:

            The level of CO2 is roughly that of 1 million years ago. It was much higher before, as high as 20 times that of today. To suggest extinction based on today’s level is just nonsense. However, the rate of change is of concern, though far less so since I don’t expect current level to continue (Mr. Fusion, here we come!)

            All these talk of today’s weather pattern to attribute to climate change is wrong. For example, California had 100 years drought in last millennia long before any man-made CO2 “hocky-stick”. There’s also been recent decrease in hurricanes (not increase as alarmist have you believe) with more CO2. So what? To say that local shorter term weather pattern is due to climate change is nonsense. But look at the long term trend, and it is clear that climate is changing.

            That doesn’t mean there will be disasters occurring overnight as many climate change alarmists will have you believe. People starving around the world is not due to lack of food, it’s due to lack of distribution (and theft by cleptocracies). There are countries that rely entirely on imported food (eg, Singapre), yet they thrive. To talk about disaster in absence of economics and technology is complete nonsense.

            1. ffbj says:

              A few years ago you were probably arguing that there not any such thing as global warming. Then amended that to say, there is global warming but humans are not the cause. Now today there is global warming and humans are causing it but we can live with it.

              It’s not climate change directly, but the consequences of it: mass starvation, continuing wars as scarce fertile land resources diminish. Technology will help though, for instance without the ‘green evolution,’ there would probably already be worldwide mass starvation,simply because the planet is unable to support the population that derive sustenance therefrom.

              Yes, the U.S. wastes a lot of food and consumes too much of it. This is not true of underdeveloped countries, where famines are quite usual and getting worse. Desertification of once fertile areas is increasing across the world.

              Of course everyone is entitled to their views, as it has been shown that people will refuse to believe what they don’t want to believe even if they shown incontrovertible evidence that they beliefs are wrong.

            2. pjwood1 says:

              The “hockey stick” related to temperature. CO2 is more like an “L”, on its back.
              http://robertscribbler.com/tag/400-ppm-co2/

              I am not so confident about the “we’ve been here before” language, when “before” was 800,000 years ago.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        pvwowk said:

        “Scientists are not sure why Venus is so hot and earth is so cool.”

        Seriously? The fact that Venus is some 25.72 million miles closer to the Sun, coupled with the extreme greenhouse effect of a very thick atmosphere largely composed of CO2, might have something to do with it…

        And the Earth is not “so cool”, as you mis-characterize our “Goldilocks planet”. There is some degree of greenhouse effect; as I recall, it’s some 33° C above what the temperature would be if based on the Sun’s insolation unaffected by any other factors.

        So the next time someone mentions greenhouse gasses, your response should be “Thank goodness for them!” Imagine if the average global temperature was 33° C colder. Talk about a deep freeze! That would be serious climate change… not the piffling two degrees Fahrenheit of warming we’ve had over the last couple of centuries or so.

    5. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      While I may agree that battery cars should not be tied to global warming as neither do they help so much, nor it’s good for publicity, this “global warming is not important” reasoning is flawed.

      “Earth had far higher temperatures in the past”. Yes indeed geologists would reason exactly this way, especially those making their living in oil exploration. And who cares if few pesky mammal species would die or not due to temperature fluctuations. Bacteria will survive for sure, and the Earth geology will be intact for millions of years.

  3. David Murray says:

    Then why is Nissan dragging their feet? They only have one EV on the market and at this point it isn’t even a leading EV anymore. Well, I guess it might be now that it has the battery upgrade, but in a few months it won’t be leading again. I’m surprised Nissan hasn’t come out with any other EV or PHEV.

    1. Takeshi says:

      I share your frustration with Nissan’s lack of recent progress – and I say that as a happy LEAF owner, not a critic.

      But I think the answer to your question is that they are waiting for the next battery inflection point (cost) just around the corner, allowing them to release a 250km+ range vehicle for the same price as current gen tech. They’re realizing that 80 miles of range will only lure so many people, and electric SUVs and trucks require something better.

      Tesla and GM are showing us how soon this inflection will come. Then we can expect Nissan to “suddenly” have all these EVs up their sleeve.

      1. RexxSee says:

        I begin to think Ghosn talks from both side of his mouth.

        1. Brian says:

          Or Nissan at least. I just got an email trying to sell me a GT-R as the “future of motoring”. I’m only on their list because I own a Leaf – the email even admitted that. I hardly thing that a high-performance ICE sports car is the future of motoring.

          1. BraveLilToaster says:

            You’re right. Nissan should just start selling nothing but EVs tomorrow afternoon, based on a single model of car that makes up less than 1% of their total current sales.

            That’s not crazy at all.

          2. Jeff Songster says:

            Note that Mr. Ghosn pointed out that he only sold 2500 or so of his supercar. It is a show piece. Nissan and Renault are both among the best prepared for the future as they now offer several electrics including minivans. The sooner they get somewhat more range options into them the better… but they are clearly committed fully to at minimum being ready for the coming transition to minimal or zero emissions cars.

    2. Assaf says:

      +1. Took the words out of my keyboard. I like Ghosn’s talk, but the walk has become a bit shaky as of late.

      Let me add a bit: Leaf and in particular the Smyrna plant, seem to have chronic manufacturing volume/quality problems. If Ghosn is the super-CEO he’s made out to be, he should show it by resolving them once and for all, within the coming months.

      Also, keeping Gen 2 under such heavy wraps, given those production mishaps, does not inspire confidence. With both the Bold and the Model 3 dominating the airwaves, they have zero to gain from this radio silence.

      And yes, the eNV-200 needs that 30-kWh battery, and start production at another plant besides Barcelona. And a larger sedan sibling to the Leaf, and/or a subcompact sibling, would be nice too.

      1. Assaf says:

        Haha ‘the Bold’. I wonder if Mary Barra will be willing to change the name 🙂

    3. Alex says:

      Ghosn is also CEO of Renault, and they are leading with 320.000 EVs sold globally!
      http://blog.alliance-renault-nissan.com/
      So in Europe they offer Zoe, Leaf, e-NV200, Twizy and in the past the Fluence. In Japan the Leaf and e-NV200.
      Some new EVs are also planned, a key car for Japan, a cheap EV for China, Nissan Juke with range extender (I think globally), Nissan Versa for Japan.
      If the rumors come true I assume Renault-Nissan can be EV No 1 seller from 2010-2020, is that so bad?

      1. Assaf says:

        You are right that Renault is also under his leadership, and the Zoe sure is cool. But over the last 2 years, just like Nissan has had little EV action beyond the Leaf, same goes for Renault and the Zoe.

        They are not bringing nearly as many new exciting plug-in models into the market as some other companies do (see BYD or even VW), and surely not as fast as they could have done, given their immense head start on everyone else, and their strong pro-EV talk.

    4. arne-nl says:

      They also have the e-NV200

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Not for the US yet…

    5. Thanh Lim says:

      Just admit it folks. We want Carlos to have the same gutspa as Elon in terms of pushing electric cars.

      We don’t see the big build out that Tesla is doing versus what Nissan is doing.

      I suspect people here are right though. Nissan is going for the mass market and tbh, their battery tech is not there yet. If they can get a 200+ mile electric car, it will get us much closer. 400 miles, and tbh, there’s literally no excuse to have an ICE as your main car.

      Imagine a day when a 400 mile electric car will cost almost exactly the same as a gas car. Buying that electric car would win out almost every time.

      TBH, it’s pretty enjoyable not needing to go to the gas station at all these days and charging at work.

      These days, it’s about $1.10/hr for me to charge my Leaf. Not too bad for L2 charging.

      1. ffbj says:

        Love the Marvin the Martian icon.

    6. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      David Murray said:

      “…in a few months it won’t be leading again”

      I think you’re counting the Leaf out rather soon. No other BEV has sold 60,000 cars internationally in a single year, and Nissan will surely raise the range of the Leaf to match the Bolt within a year or two.

      Nissan is committed to selling as many Leafs as the international market will bear. They have proven this by building additional auto assembly plants for the Leaf in Tennessee and the UK. GM, quite simply, is not committed to selling BEVs in large numbers. They’re not even building their own EV powertrains for the Bolt; they have farmed that out to LG Chem & LG Electronics.

  4. Steven says:

    Yes, why is Nissan leading up the rear in third generation BEVs? That 30kWh Leaf is a way of saying ummmmmmm…… Even if a 200 mile Leaf is “coming” next year or the year after, it will be charge limited to 50kW and thus be crippled out of the gate.

    1. Alex says:

      In fifth pdf sheet you can see next generation could charge with 100 kW.
      https://newsroom.nissan-global.com/collections/advanced-technology-tour
      And entry levels will be cheaper than Model 3. Supercharger network is nice, but if a government is serious about charging network like in Japan. With nearly 10000 DC chargers all over a country SC network is obsolet.

  5. Speculawyer says:

    Take that, Toyota!

    And Nissan . . . you need to upgrade your EV offering . . . it is becoming obsolete.

    1. Assaf says:

      “Obsolete” is a bit harsh. Save that for the MiEV or the FFE 🙂

      Seriously, we’re nearing the original end of our lease on a 2014 Leaf. In the US market there’s nothing better and middle-class-affordable out there to replace it with, except for a 30kWh Leaf.

      I think we’ll extend by a year to summer 2017, but even then I’m not sure there’ll be anything nationally available across the US, that’s better than the 30kWh Leaf.

      1. Saabluster says:

        I suppose my FFE is just as obsolete as your Leaf;) There are better alternatives now IMO than the longer range Leaf. A used Mercedes B Class. It has about 115 miles range with the range package. It is better handling, far safer, more amenities, more room, faster, more refined. It is an absolute gem that does not get the attention it deserves. Mine is arriving tomorrow and will be replacing our FFE. A little over 2,000 miles and fully loaded for about $28,000.

        1. Assaf says:

          Congratulations on the nice catch! Sounds to me though, like your used Mercedes is, at best, roughly equivalent to a new 2016 Leaf SV/SL.

          I’m sure it has better bells and whistles than any Leaf, but regarding the EV basics:
          – Does it have quick-charge? It’s standard with the 30-kWh Leafs.
          – Do you have any official (i.e., EPA) reference on the 115-mile claim? Seems like the base model has 87 miles EPA. In range matters, EPA’s the only reliable authority. To my understanding, the charge package adds 3.5kWh battery capacity, which likely adds 12%-15% to the range, bringing it to ~100 miles rather than 115. Unless they’ve seriously bumped up that package’s capacity.

          As to FFE vs. a 2014 Leaf… our Leaf has 10% more range, it has quick-charge, it probably has more up-to-date regen and driving options, and it has ridiculously larger cargo space – which with a 5-person family we do need.

          So yes, I’m as frustrated as anyone with Nissan not stepping up their game quickly and broadly enough, but the Leaf is by no means obsolete.

  6. Alan says:

    Once the e-NV200 has the new 60kWh battery, things should get more interesting for bigger families & commercial van sectors

  7. Eco says:

    Fuel cells don’t necessarily need H2 stations.

    Hydrocarbons (methanol, ethanol, propane, CNG, LPG, LNG, butanol, gasoline, diesel, kerosene, jet fuel) all contain H2 and can be considered ‘Carbon Hydrides’. SOFC’s can use hydrocarbons directly at about twice the efficiency of ICE’s and virtually no toxic emissions (NOx, Soot). PEM FC’s require a ‘reformer’ to extract the H2 from hydrocarbons.

    Metals are also excellent energy carriers e.g. when iron rusts (oxidizes in H2O) H2 is released. Aluminum contains more energy per pound than gasoline and several companies are commercializing ‘Hydrogen On Demand’ from aluminum and other metals.
    Another type of fuel cell doesn’t use H2 i.e. metal-air fuel cells. Consider a common alkaline battery, Zinc is the fuel and Manganese Dioxide provides the oxygen. Now imagine the zinc is replaceable (mechanical recharge) and the oxygen is obtained from the air. Voila, you have a zinc-air fuel cell. http://www.phinergy.com is commercializing an Aluminum-air fuel cell and have already demonstrated an electric car driving 1,000 miles (1,600 km) on 110 pounds (50 kg) of aluminum! Phinergy has partnered with ALCOA to regenerate the Aluminum from the Aluminum-Oxide byproduct using clean, inexpensive hydroelectricity. Nothing is consumed, the Aluminum (and oxygen) are infinitely recyclable!

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Aluminum-air fuel cells (or “batteries”) might well be the “fuel of the future”. If that was what FCEV makers such as Toyota, Honda and Hyundai were working on, then I’d be an enthusiastic supporter.

      But they’re not. They are unfortunately pursuing the dead-end technology of the “hydrogen highway”.

      And I’m not at all sure that FCEVs using an onboard reformer are practical. The reformer takes up space and is expensive; it also reduces the overall energy efficiency of the vehicle significantly. It’s bad enough that a hydrogen-fueled fuel cell wastes 50% of the energy present in the hydrogen; wasting even more energy with yet another step in transforming the energy source from one form to another, with a reformer, makes it that much worse.

  8. ModernMarvelFan says:

    Talk is cheap… and lots of that cheap talks have been coming from Nissan lately.

    Time to show us the goods! With Bolt and Model 3 both coming at us with full speed, Nissan better come out with something great. Else it will just be another “has been” again like its ICE models…

    1. Brian says:

      Agreed. Talk is cheap. But I strongly suggest that the continuing concepts like the IDS are those goods you are asking for. And Nissan has the most to lose by announcing an affordable 200-mile BEV too soon. So I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I fully expect them to 1) announce the next-gen Leaf before the first Bolt is delivered and 2) deliver the first next-gen Leaf before the first Tesla Model III is delivered.

      Time will tell, of course, but I’d put some money of those predictions.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “Nissan has the most to lose by announcing an affordable 200-mile BEV too soon.”

        Really? With the Model 3 and Bolt news leading the headlines, you think the announcement of LEAF 2.0 would make a difference?

        I guess it might be for the few die hard Nissa/LEAF fans out there. How many are there?

        1. Brian says:

          No, it’s not for fear of losing the die hard Leaf fans. It’s for fear of losing the uninitiated. After all, most die hard Leaf fans have been driving a Leaf for years by now.

          I believe that Nissan believes that announcing the Leaf 2.0 would make a difference and therefore they are holding their cards close to their chest.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            Some of the die hard fans already leased a new 2016 LEAF again with super discount.

            The question is that those people who are looking at BEV today, how many of them are willing to hold off just because the announcement of the LEAF 2.0? Nissan is already selling the current LEAF by super discounting it anyway due to Tesla Model 3 and Bolt announcement… I am not sure if it is going to lose any more customer for sure at this point.

            1. Brian says:

              Point taken. And the bottom line is, neither of us have direct insight into Nissan’s corporate “mind”. At least I don’t. So we’re both just speculating.

              Your opinion seems to be that Nissan is all talk, and is well behind GM/Tesla in development of an affordable 200-mile BEV. That’s my understanding from what you’ve said.

              My opinion is that Nissan is working feverishly, holding their cards close to their chest, and will likely beat Tesla (although not GM) to market.

              Again, of the three, Nissan is the only one with a widely available, affordable BEV for sale today. And thus the only one to truly Osborne themselves with a premature announcement.

              1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                “My opinion is that Nissan is working feverishly, holding their cards close to their chest, and will likely beat Tesla (although not GM) to market.”

                That is the problem… Where were they back in 2012? That is when they should have worked on Gen II LEAF!!!!

                GM started working on Gen II Volt the moment Gen I Volt is released!

                Sure, we can make excuses that Nissan had to “finish” or “fix” its early LEAF so it didn’t have the time to work on it. I call that all BS. If you are truly a leader in EV as Nissan often claims itself, then why didn’t you work on it long before the current LEAF is already sold by discounting. We all knew that Tesla had long announced the plan with Model 3 way back in the 2012/2013. Where were Nissan then?

                “Again, of the three, Nissan is the only one with a widely available, affordable BEV for sale today. And thus the only one to truly Osborne themselves with a premature announcement.”

                You can look at it this way, or you can say that Nissan is the ONLY one that is willing to offer a “half baked” product to a worldwide customer. GM admits that 80ish BEV isn’t good enough so it designed a “compliance BEV” so did Ford…. Tesla admits that Model S is too expensive for common people and you need 200 miles. Somehow only Nissan feel that a crappy 80ish miles car is good enough for the world.

                As far as the sales go, that is because we don’t have a choice! Now the choices are coming, LEAF aren’t selling so hot. The fact of the matter is that we are going Nissan way too much credit. It is time to step up or shut up.

                As far as its protection of so called existing inventory goes, even Nissan isn’t stocking its own dealers with tons of inventory knowing that it won’t sell much without heavy discount. So it got NO REASONS left to hide anything. It hides it because it knows that it isn’t price competitive and it is trying to strip the cost out without making it into a crap box and trying to avoid another “half baked” launch again..

                Either way people that are interested are already waiting regardless you announce LEAF 2.0 or not. Those people who are on the fence of buying EVs are already holding off due to low gas price or better products in the future. There are no Osborne effect left on an “outdated” product…

                It is like saying Sony is holding off its LED TV announcement while it is still selling CRTs when Panasonic/Samsung/LG/Sharp/Toshiba all showing off their version of the LED TV…

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  ModernMarvelFan said:

                  “Where were they back in 2012? That is when they should have worked on Gen II LEAF!!!!”

                  Well, they were apparently working to improve the battery pack, so it wasn’t so sensitive to heat.

                  And they were busy spending lots of money to build new auto assembly plants and battery factories in Tennessee and the UK, so they could make more Leafs to sell on the international market, and with less of a loss (or maybe even a slight profit) in the U.S. and Europe.

                  Now, I don’t think much of how Nissan continues to refuse to put an active thermal management system into their battery packs. But let’s give credit where it’s due: Nissan was the first auto maker to offer a truly mass produced BEV, and unlike other traditional auto makers, they have ramped up production of their plug-in EV to meet demand on the international market — not just in Japan or just in the U.S. or just in Europe.

        2. Alex says:

          Nissan sold nearly 9000 Leaf in first two months this year. Especially Japan is important, UK or Rest of world where no Bolt will arrive. Europe gets Bolt later in 2017. So showing Leaf second generation would be just stupid. Model 3 reservers are
          anyway a different target group, price will start with 35$ and go up to 55$, perhaps even more.

      2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        It is open “secret” that IDS is second generation Leaf. Ghosn already said that he doesn’t officially confirms it just because he needs to sell current model Leaf, unlike GM or Tesla. Tesla didn’t even shown a Model 3 prototype yet. It is likely that Leaf will be in full production just a bit later than Bolt, and much earlier than Model 3.

        1. Paul says:

          I think it is wise to show everybody the Leaf II and calling it IDS.

          Sales of EVs have a different behaviour as of ICE-cars. They look more like those of computers or smart phones. You’ve never met someone who told you he/she was holding off the acquisition of an X because it was at the end of its cycle and the next, Y, would be so much better? It didn’t work that way with ICE-cars, but looking honestly at ourselves here in the comments of insideevs we can observe that we behave the smartphone way with EVs.

          I think Nissan is just reading insideevs as well 😉

  9. CDAVIS says:

    Mr.Carlos Ghosn,

    How is it that traditional car makers such as Nissan plan to compete in the EV space while totaling ignoring the critical topic of Supercharger Network?

  10. Mike says:

    I have an idea for solving the infrastructure problem. The next time Exxon, BP or one of the other major oil companies gets busted for a clean air/water violation make part of the settlement be the installation of fast chargers at some or all of their gas stations.

    1. CDAVIS says:

      Mike, Exxon & BP own very few of the gas stations that are branded Exxon/BP.

      Likely what will happen is that at some point the government will step in and bailout the traditional car makers by making a national supercharger network a governments works project. But that will happen several years down the road only after the upstart automakers that have build their own supercharger networks (such as Tesla and in a few years Apple) have seriously eaten into the traditional car maker’s market share.

      1. Brian says:

        It was my understanding that Exxon and BP stations were franchises which, in turn, are beholden to what their parent company tells them to do. Basically Exxon or BP could tell the station owner that they could either install a QC, or they cannot use the Exxon/BP name.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Nope. In fact, gas stations are not compelled to buy their gasoline from the supplier whose name is on their sign. An Exxon gas station will buy gas from whichever supplier is the cheapest… whether that’s Shell, Citgo, BP, or Exxon, or some other company.

          And EV chargers are a very poor fit to gas stations. It’s really a different business model. No gas station owner is going to want a car occupying valuable space in its parking lot for half an hour to an hour. Nor are EV drivers going to want to hang around in a convenience store for half an hour or more.

          1. Paul says:

            The idea that you are only 3 minutes at a gas station, while charging makes you wait half an hour to an hour is nonsense.

            You cannot always immediately pump gas, because somebody is in front of you (= 3 minutes), then indeed the pumping of your gas takes 3 minutes, there are 2 people in front of you at the pay desk (2 minutes), you have a pee (3 minutes). Total for getting gas: 10 minutes.

            My Soul EV charges full (83%) from empty in 25 minutes, but it is rarely completely empty. While traveling longer distances I mostly charge during 15 to 20 minutes. Now that EVs are still rare, I NEVER have a car in front of me for which I have to wait, while traveling in France. There is no pay desk. And I pee while the car is charging.

            So in my personal life the difference between getting diesel for my former car and charging my EV for long distance driving is the difference between 10 minutes and 15/20 minutes. That is another story then what most people tell you.

            And if you take a coffee as well or do some muscle stretching, which I often do now as well as before, the difference in time spent at a gas station or charger is zero.

            And I say explicitely “long distance driving”, because during your daily routine of work and kids you never need to charge (0 minutes), while my former diesel had to go to the gas station even in during my daily routine (leave out the pee, therefore 7 minutes). In my daily routine, in which my EV charges at night, I have won more minutes then I have lost during long distance driving.

            Let’s stop talking endlessly about “loosing time”. I’m winning time!

  11. jmac says:

    In 2014, Renault-Nissan-Autovaz sold 8,470,610 vehicles. At present there’s just not enough demand for electric cars to entirely abandon the traditional ICE product line that makes up 95% of Nissan’s sales.

    That said, if Ghosn were to make more compelling electric cars, the company would not doubt sell more. A good start for Nissan would be designing a true 200 mile car to compete with GM and Tesla.

    Ghosn obviously sees the inevitability of electric cars, but is Carlos the one who will lead us into green pastures ? Or, will it be someone else ?

  12. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    On the subject of EVs and climate change:

    We should certainly be grateful for anyone switching from a gasmobile to an EV, but EVs are never going to go mainstream merely because some people are worried about climate change. So long as most people who drive cars are driving gasmobiles, there’s not going to be much social pressure against driving them.

    Of course, we can hope that governments will react to climate change by imposing carbon taxes on sales of gasoline/diesel and/or sales of vehicles which burn gas/diesel. But I haven’t seen much movement in that direction, despite the fact that now most or all governments agree it’s a serious problem.

    The EV revolution will progress best by making EVs more compelling, with longer ranges, faster charge times, and lower prices; prices competitive with comparably-equipped gasmobiles. That is, using the carrot rather than the stick.

    Using the “stick” of high taxes on gasmobiles might be effective, but it will produce compliance only unwillingly. I’d much rather see EV sales grow naturally, due to people actually liking them, actually preferring EVs to gasmobiles. If people feel forced into buying an EV, then they’ll resent EVs, creating a backlash against the EV revolution.

    1. Nick says:

      I think education is far more important.

      It is amazing that the oil industry has been able to get otherwise intelligent people to buy into climate denialism.

      How can we ever hope to counteract their influence?

  13. Mark says:

    I like his comment on ICE range and lack of petrol stations.

    When we start seeing petrol stations closing down due to reduction in demand, the transition to EVs will be a matter of several years. With help from plug-in hybrids that may happen sooner than people currently assume.

    1. Paul says:

      Oh how I would love hearing those people wine about there being so few gas stations and their fear of getting stuck.