The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

I just test drove a Nissan Leaf

I'd love to hear a review.

 

[Balta1701]

I have a discussion section to run in about 20 minutes, that's why I don't have a review done yet. Will get there.

[Balta1701]

There's a photo-annotated version up on the Facebook.

I guess disseminating a Facebook review is adequate return for the privileged of test-driving a Nissan Leaf this morning. In case you didn't know, the Leaf is the new all-electric vehicle from Nissan, capable of going ~100 miles on a full charge.

 

 

 

The Leaf is going to be assembled on a Nissan manufacturing line near Nashville, so in addition to the big national auto shows, the local shows in TN are getting first looks also.

 

 

 

I'm going to forego writing about the basics of the car, you can look up for yourself why 100 miles is a useful range, and just focus on the things I found particularly interesting.

 

 

 

Vehicle itself...well, it drove like most other small cars. I drive a civic, so that's my comparison. Handling was similar, turning was similar, quite nimble. In terms of size I'd say it's comparable to the Yaris or the Fit, or probably to a Focus

 

for those Ford drivers. I wasn't exactly interested in racing it up to 100 mph, but it held its own compared to the power in my Civic. There's a very steep hill just outside the lot, and it took it with no problem & didn't panic.

 

Leaf hooked up to a 440V (1/2 hour) charger

 

We only got to drive around a few blocks at a time, but there was a lot of opportunity to learn about the software, which, aside from the fact that it's a functioning electric car, was the coolest part.

 

 

 

The first software item I didn't know about was that the car has a functioning "eco mode". The impression I've gotten is that Americans love having much more power than they need for acceleration in their cars; if you kick a Leaf into eco mode, it actually takes the power back and increases the battery regeneration from breaking and coasting. I did test out eco mode, it was noticeably more controlled. I always find myself struggling, particularly at lights, to avoid pushing up the RPM in my car so much that I burn too much gas, and I coast a lot when I see a red light ahead, so this mode really appealed to me. Fits my driving style well. Probably wouldn't turn this on for highway driving, but for city driving it'd probably pump my mileage up by 20% or better, based on its mileage counter.

 

The gear-shifter, or wahtever you want to call it.

 

There is an electric version of a tachometer to give you an idea of how hard you're pushing the electric motor, which I also felt useful for watching the battery on acceleration. I was worried I wouldn't get to see that.

 

Interior console

 

The interactive/wireless parts of this thing were the coolest feature I didn't know about. They've got it set up to occasionally get data from whatever wireless system you're hooked up to, in order to update their road map. The key thing with that; it also updates locations on newly installed 440 volt chargers, which can fully recharge the battery in about 30 minutes. Knowing where those are would be quite a boon.

 

 

 

Second, you can teach the car to do a lot of really useful stuff from your cell phone. The top item was that you could schedule it, either in advance or from a smartphone, to turn on the heater/AC while it is still plugged in to an outlet. Thus, you can cool the car down or heat it up without burning off anything from the battery. In particular, if one lived near Chicago, you could flip the heater on automatically an hour before you started driving, and you wouldn't need to sit there idling waiting for the car to warm up while you scrape off the windows. I really loved that part.

 

 

 

I'm still not sure whether I'd go for this or the Volt, but hey, I drove a damn electric car today!

[mr_genius]

I just test drove a Nissan Leaf

 

Balta, Nissan is anti-union. you better not buy one.

[Balta1701]

Balta, Nissan is anti-union. you better not buy one.

Aren't all businesses anti-union?

 

The problem isn't anti-union businesses, it's when the government decides to help make sure there's nothing left of unions.

[BigSqwert]

I'm wondering if NSS72 wrote this article for Scientific American.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm wondering if NSS72 wrote this article for Scientific American.

Heh. No, but I could have. I favor an oil tax over a gas tax for multiple reasons, and I think more can be done that doesn't involve new taxes... but its a pretty solid article. This is just such an obviously good use of capital, far more so than a lot of the B.S. we're spending so much on right now like the wars in the Middle East, oil subsidies, road construction, keeping Bush tax cuts for the rich, etc.

 

[Balta1701]

Heh. No, but I could have. I favor an oil tax over a gas tax for multiple reasons, and I think more can be done that doesn't involve new taxes... but its a pretty solid article. This is just such an obviously good use of capital, far more so than a lot of the B.S. we're spending so much on right now like the wars in the Middle East, oil subsidies, road construction, keeping Bush tax cuts for the rich, etc.

Total thread derailment ahead.

 

We're still trillions behind on infrasctructure investment in this country, including roads. The Stimulus was a pittance, on the order of 1% of what we need. We need investment in other things as well...but "Not investing in roads" is not an option. Poor road quality is a damper on economic investment in many communities. Edit: and also drives massive increases in CO2 emissions (the longer you sit stuck in traffic, the more fuel you waste)

[NorthSideSox72]

Total thread derailment ahead.

 

We're still trillions behind on infrasctructure investment in this country, including roads. The Stimulus was a pittance, on the order of 1% of what we need. We need investment in other things as well...but "Not investing in roads" is not an option. Poor road quality is a damper on economic investment in many communities. Edit: and also drives massive increases in CO2 emissions (the longer you sit stuck in traffic, the more fuel you waste)

Not sure about you, but pretty much every project I saw that had the ObamaCo emblem on it for Stim work on roads, was things like resurfacing, water main replacement, etc. Not that tese things aren't useful, but they really aren't going to have much effect on economic development. If you wanted the road construction money to be used that way, it should have gone to projects built to minimize congestion, etc.

 

[StrangeSox]

Our extant infrastructure is on the verge of crumbling and collapse. It's not so much that new expansion and new roads will drive economic expansion, it's that if we don't fix what we have right now, it'll have serious consequences down the road when we can't move anything anywhere.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure about you, but pretty much every project I saw that had the ObamaCo emblem on it for Stim work on roads, was things like resurfacing, water main replacement, etc. Not that tese things aren't useful, but they really aren't going to have much effect on economic development. If you wanted the road construction money to be used that way, it should have gone to projects built to minimize congestion, etc.

Furthermore, the more you do this, the more you feed the beast. The biggest reason we are so far behind on infrastructure work is that the people who have funded various projects over the years to build more roads, aren't building the long term maintenance into their math. They think they can build new roads, and worry about maintenance later. Its just really poor thinking, and we need to get away from it, including letting some roads deteriorate over time and consolidating our spending.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Furthermore, the more you do this, the more you feed the beast. The biggest reason we are so far behind on infrastructure work is that the people who have funded various projects over the years to build more roads, aren't building the long term maintenance into their math. They think they can build new roads, and worry about maintenance later. Its just really poor thinking, and we need to get away from it, including letting some roads deteriorate over time and consolidating our spending.

I can't for the life of me find the details of how it works now, but in the Obama budget/infrastructure plan, there is a clause rewarding communities that use federal funds to fix existing roads and penalizes ones that construct new ones without money for upkeep.

[NorthSideSox72]

I can't for the life of me find the details of how it works now, but in the Obama budget/infrastructure plan, there is a clause rewarding communities that use federal funds to fix existing roads and penalizes ones that construct new ones without money for upkeep.

And if done by itself, that directive will be counterproductive, because that will mean most of the work is the exact B.S. stuff I was referring to. You need to define maintenance money AND delineate the high value targets for impact of the work.

 

[Balta1701]

During the continuing resolution vote yesterday, the Democrats put up another clearly partisan but admittedly fun amendment that would remove oil production subsidies.

 

The Republicans voted unanimously against it. All but 12 Democrats voted for it.

 

I gotta say, a unanimous vote of one side in favor of oil subidies? That's solid political hardball.

[NorthSideSox72]

During the continuing resolution vote yesterday, the Democrats put up another clearly partisan but admittedly fun amendment that would remove oil production subsidies.

 

The Republicans voted unanimously against it. All but 12 Democrats voted for it.

 

I gotta say, a unanimous vote of one side in favor of oil subidies? That's solid political hardball.

So much for the supposedly independent GOP'ers who are going after sacred cows. The tea party may have its roots in Libertarianism, and some of its followers may truly believe in that sort of way... but the ones who got elected (aside from maybe Rand Paul) are politically no different than the rest of the GOP in their continuing effort to run further to the absurd.

[StrangeSox]

Forbes making an awesome argument for "Drill Baby Drill!" (not really)

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50417.html

[BigSqwert]

Pretty fascinating story about a city to be in South Korea in Gizmodo.

 

As far as playing God (or SimCity) goes, New Songdo is the most ambitious instant city since Brasília appeared fifty years ago. Brasília, of course, was an instant disaster: grandiose, monstrously overscale, and immediately encircled by slums. New Songdo has to be much better, because there's a lot more riding on it than whether Gale can repay his loans. It has been hailed since conception as the experimental prototype community of tomorrow. A green city, it was LEED certified from the get—go, designed to emit a third of the green house gases of a typical metropolis its size. It's supposed to be a "smart city" studded with chips talking to one another, running the place by remote control. Its architects borrowed blueprints from Paris, Sydney, Venice, and London, sketching what might become the prettiest square mile in Korea. (Nearby Seoul is a forest of colossally ugly apartment blocks.)

[Y2HH]

During the continuing resolution vote yesterday, the Democrats put up another clearly partisan but admittedly fun amendment that would remove oil production subsidies.

 

The Republicans voted unanimously against it. All but 12 Democrats voted for it.

 

I gotta say, a unanimous vote of one side in favor of oil subidies? That's solid political hardball.

 

First, this is a stupid amendment pitch by the Democrats, and it was a pure political "news" play for some headlines, and they should know better. This is what I call a "waste of the peoples money" amendment, since it 1) had no chance in passing and they know it and 2) would send the world into recession if it passed.

 

Removing those oil subsidies would probably crash our economy, and destroy all the work Obama and Co. have done to get us out of the recession. I bet it would result in instant 8$ per gallon gas and a hysteria over oil prices worldwide, thus crushing the economy under a wave of skyrocketing prices on anything and everything because of outrageous delivery costs, etc.

 

Edit: While I agree these big oil subsidies do need to go away, this needs to be done in a slow phased approach, it cannot be something that goes away all at once, or even quickly.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Removing those oil subsidies would probably crash our economy, and destroy all the work Obama and Co. have done to get us out of the recession. I bet it would result in instant 8$ per gallon gas and a hysteria over oil prices worldwide, thus crushing the economy under a wave of skyrocketing prices on anything and everything because of outrageous delivery costs, etc.

WTF?

 

Not a chance in Hades.

 

Oil is a multi-trillion dollar revenue industry. The investment levels each year are in the trillions of dollars. Those extra few tens of billions of dollars make for nice dividend payments, but in the long run, they don't impact the companies at all.

[StrangeSox]

If we don't continue to redistribute the wealth to our corporate masters, we'll be punished.

[Y2HH]

WTF?

 

Not a chance in Hades.

 

Oil is a multi-trillion dollar revenue industry. The investment levels each year are in the trillions of dollars. Those extra few tens of billions of dollars make for nice dividend payments, but in the long run, they don't impact the companies at all.

 

Point is they wouldn't cut dividends, they'd pass it onto the consumers. To think otherwise is crazy. Keep in mind the rest of the world doesn't have these "tiny subsidies" as you call them and they pay 5$ a liter for gas...while we pay 3.50$ per gallon, which is quite a bit more than a liter. Those subsidies are a big part as to why gasoline is much cheaper here.

 

All I do know is that when Lybia has problems, which supply 2% of the worlds oil, none of which comes here, oil prices rocket, and excuses are made as to why, in a repeating fashion, everytime something happens there, only to come crashing back down months later when everyone realizes it didn't affect anything. I'm betting that cuttingthese subsidies would have a similarly stupid effect here.

 

If not, who cares...it's surprising to me they've never been cut then.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Point is they wouldn't cut dividends, they'd pass it onto the consumers. To think otherwise is crazy. Keep in mind the rest of the world doesn't have these "tiny subsidies" as you call them and they pay 5$ a liter for gas...while we pay 3.50$ per gallon, which is quite a bit more than a liter. Those subsidies are a big part as to why gasoline is much cheaper here.

 

All I do know is that when Lybia has problems, which supply 2% of the worlds oil, none of which comes here, oil prices rocket, and excuses are made as to why, in a repeating fashion, everytime something happens there, only to come crashing back down months later when everyone realizes it didn't affect anything. I'm betting that cuttingthese subsidies would have a similarly stupid effect here.

 

If not, who cares...it's surprising to me they've never been cut then.

No, Petrol is $5 a liter in other countries because they tax it at a gigantic rate so as to take cars off the roads, not because of subsidies. Subsidies are a small fraction of sales. The taxes they collect are the difference.

[StrangeSox]

Oil prices are rocketing due to reasonable fears of widespread unrest across the mideast in countries like Saudi Arabia.

 

You're not really making a good case for corporations here, though. Give them tax breaks or they'll f*** you over, hard!

[Y2HH]

Oil prices are rocketing due to reasonable fears of widespread unrest across the mideast in countries like Saudi Arabia.

 

You're not really making a good case for corporations here, though. Give them tax breaks or they'll f*** you over, hard!

 

Well that's true enough. But that seems to be the way of things these days. Tax them or cut breaks they receive and they merely pass the costs to the consumers. That's become the problem in taking such things away that they've grown used to having, and in part, this is how they retain these freebies, because the government knows they'll make the people pay, an the people, in turn, may blame the government.

[Balta1701]

Well that's true enough. But that seems to be the way of things these days. Tax them or cut breaks they receive and they merely pass the costs to the consumers. That's become the problem in taking such things away that they've grown used to having, and in part, this is how they retain these freebies, because the government knows they'll make the people pay, an the people, in turn, may blame the government.

Of course, if basic economics is valid...then cutting tax breaks should lead to some increase in costs, but it should be much smaller than what the tax break costs because competition should force the price down to a minimum profitable level above production costs. Of course, if the energy companies operate as an illegal monopoly, then you're 100% right.