• fb_1559222512 avatar Xiaolong Posted: 4/29/2013 4:52pm PDT

    There are plenty of other Nissan models there. The factory is designed to build multiple models at the same time.

  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 4/29/2013 11:54pm PDT

    I also noticed that the Leaf seems to be the odd duck on an assembly line that mainly cranks out ICE powered vehicles.

    DOE awarded an $1.6 billion loan to Nissan to build advanced electric vehicles and advanced batteries. I wonder if at the end of the day that was effectively just a cheap loan to build gasoline powered cars.

  • RichK avatar RichK Posted: 4/30/2013 10:26am PDT

    The AVTM loans were not just for electric cars. DoE put aside $25 billion during the Bush administration to assist manufacturers in investments in advanced technology implemented to improve fuel economy. Manufacturers then applied for the loans; some were granted/some denied.

    For example, Ford received $5.9 billion for a variety of projects. Two of the largest were:
    1. Ford ceased manufacturing of Expedition in a Michigan plant and developed the plant into a very flexible Focus/C-Max plant including HEV's, PHEV's, and BEV's.
    2. Ford switched from production of Explorer to Escape in Louisville.

    So in #2 the ATVM loans did not require BEV, PHEV or HEV production.

  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 4/30/2013 1:35pm PDT

    Regarding the Leaf's battery: the technology is a joke compared to the industry's benchmark: the Model S battery that has at least double the energy density of the Leaf's. And then there is the premature ageing in hot climates thing.

    Back in 2009 the Roadster already had much better energy density than the Leaf.

  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 5/1/2013 2:15pm PDT

    There may be a more accurate method to estimate the Model S battery weight.

    The Roadster's battery pack weighed in at 450KG and contained 6,831 cells of almost identical weight (though lower energy density) as the cells that make up the Model S battery pack. Since the Model S battery pack contains ~9% more cells it's reasonable to expect a similar increase in overall weight which would bring the weight of the Model S battery pack at ~500KG and energy density at 170 Wh/KG versus the Leaf's energy density of ~80Wh/KG. By this method my initial hunch that the Model S battery that has at least double the energy density of the Leaf's would be right after all.

  • fb_1559222512 avatar Xiaolong Posted: 4/30/2013 4:09pm PDT

    @Chris O.

    I don't know what the Nissan's 300KG battery is included, but I doubt that is cell only weight. I also don't know where your number of the 600KG of the Tesla battery weight is from. Tesla S is a heavy car, almost 4,700 lbs. With many Alumium body parts and it should be near the 2,500 lbs mark without the engine/transmssion comparing to other aluminum chassis sedans out there. But until we can open the pack up to verify that, we have to say that is a guess.

    Anyway. my 20% is from the battery chemistry. Typical the type of the battery used in the Tesla S which is Lithium Cobalt Oxide. It typically has about 20% higher energy density than the LMO battery used in the Leaf. 160Wh/Kg vs. 120Wh/Kg. Okay more like 25% (120/160).

  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 4/30/2013 2:49pm PDT

    @ Xiaolong Li

    Where do you get the 20% higher energy content number? How much "larger"?

    The Leaf's 24KWh battery is usually pegged at ~300KG which works out as ~12.5 KG/KWh

    Model S battery weight is somewhat murky, but cell weight is know: the 3.1Ah/3,7V cells weigh 46 grams each. It takes ~7400 of these cells to build a 85KWh battery so that's ~340KG. BMS is build into the cells but extra weight must be added for wiring, cooling and packaging. Let's put the whole thing at 600KG. That's ~7KG/KWh at the pack level versus the Leaf's 12.5 KG. Okay within my assumptions that's not quite double the energy density but it's pretty close and part of the weight could be assigned to the car since the pack casing adds to its structural rigidity.

  • There are more comments in this thread
  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 4/30/2013 11:48am PDT

    I wonder why people keep pointing that out to me...Obviously the fact that the ATVM program had a broader scope than just EVs doesn't warrant spending funds that were awarded for EV and battery production facilities on the sort of ICE vehicles that wouldn't even have qualified for a loan.
    Yet that appears to be effectively the case since Nissan apparently over estimated demand for its EVs but lo, all sorts of ICE products were conveniently ready to pick up the slack.

    I wonder what the investment in production capacity for 200K/year batterypacks really entails. It's hard to imagine that Nissan really went ahead with doing that sort of investment in obsolete battery tech even after it was clear that Leaf sales didn't really take off.

  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 4/30/2013 1:37pm PDT

    (sorry misplaced,retry)

    Regarding the Leaf's battery: the technology is a joke compared to the industry's benchmark: the Model S battery that has at least double the energy density of the Leaf's. And then there is the premature ageing in hot climates thing.

    Back in 2009 the Roadster already had much better energy density than the Leaf.

  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 4/30/2013 1:20pm PDT

    @ John Voelcker, thanks for the clarification but this remains rather murky. The way I see it the $1.6 billion was awarded for battery production but also for the production of 150K EVs/year. Those will never materialise with Nissan's current battery tech so the capacity within the plant that was financed with that money for EV production is now put to "good" use by ICE vehicles, which of course is not what the AVTM loan was intended for.

  • john_v avatar John Posted: 4/30/2013 12:46pm PDT

    @Chris: Also curious how you come to characterize the Nissan Leaf's battery technology as "obsolete," since at the moment, it powers the highest-production plug-in car on the planet.

    That may well change, of course, but do you feel that the AESC cells were obsolete in 2009? Or not til 2011? Or just now? I'm a bit perplexed.

  • There are more comments in this thread
  • john_v avatar John Posted: 4/30/2013 4:18am PDT

    @Chris: I can't provide details of language from the loan documents, but I'm fairly sure there are provisos in the agreement that specify funds must be used solely for costs of adding capacity for Leaf + future plug-in models.

    And the bulk of the funds actually went for construction of the adjacent lithium-ion cell fabrication plant, which obviously doesn't do any good for gasoline cars.

    Worth noting that two-thirds of the money that's been loaned out to date ($5.9 billion) went to Ford, largely for expansion of its EcoBoost engine capacity and rollout. That is definitely your gasoline case!


  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 4/30/2013 5:21am PDT

    Still...$1.6 billion is a lot to spend on a car and a battery that was already fully developed and in production elsewhere. It's more than Tesla spent on Model S, its battery, production facilities for both the car and the battery, setting up a dealership network and so on. Seems rather disproportional to say the least.

    You can't even say Nissan needed to spend more because of a larger production run, because Model S handily outsells the Leaf. Seems the redundant production capacity (about 80%) was filled up by run of the mill (non "EcoBoost") ICE products which no doubt benefit from a certain "synergy".

    Goes to show that the taxpayer doesn't necessarily get a better deal when the money is spent on opportunistically operating big boys.

  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 4/30/2013 9:50am PDT

    Energy security is a crucial concern for governments. Going to war for it doesn't always pay off as the Iraq war shows the failure of which was the background of the ATVM loan program.

    Another strategy is funding research but that often doesn't give the proper motivation to actually come up with products if suppliers aren't that interested in change. Buyer subsidies are smarter because they are entirely product oriented; its the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of R&D. Of course if the right ideas exist to get at that pot of gold but finance issues are in the way of ever reaching it: that's where loan programs come in.

    That means venturing some tax dollars but in the energy game the potential pay off is huge.

  • john_v avatar John Posted: 4/30/2013 6:53am PDT

    @Chris: You may find this, which I was asked to contribute to another publication, to be of interest:


    It argues that the challenge for governments funding startups under the ATVM program is that some of the companies will inevitably fail. That's fine for VCs, but taxpayer funds are not necessarily the same.

    And assuming Tesla pays back its loans on time, for every Tesla, there will be at least some Fiskers, and under other programs, A123s, Solyndras, etc. Is this a proper role of government? Discuss.

  • Chris O avatar Chris O Posted: 4/30/2013 6:28am PDT

    @ John Voelcker: Clearly Nissan might have a hard time explaining how it outspent Tesla by a factor 10 or more on production capacity for a car/battery that never had the looks or the stats to suggest it would take the market by storm.

    But it's no biggie really, it's just a loan and no doubt it will be paid back in full, on time and with interest

    That said it's a shame that of all the $25 billion that was once appropriated under the ATVM Loan Program only the 2% that went to Tesla really proved productive in the sense that it led to a product that could really affect the future of motoring and wouldn't have come about anyway because other (CARB)mandates.

  • There are more comments in this thread
  • Brian_Henderson avatar Brian_Henderson Posted: 4/29/2013 12:14pm PDT

    Good reason for all the noise in the video…

    "60,000 of the all-electric cars {sold} since the Leaf was introduced in late 2010, about half of those in the United States".

  • fb_1470388190 avatar David Posted: 4/29/2013 12:06pm PDT