Nissan and Reliant Energy team up to promote EV infrastructure
2010 Nissan Leaf EV - Click above for high-res image gallery
At the U.S. launch of the Nissan LEAF EV tour on Friday, the automaker announced a partnership with Reliant Energy to promote the build out of a suitable infrastructure for the vehicles. The two companies will create plans to promote electric vehicle charging anywhere and everywhere, including home, work and in public places. Given that most electric vehicles that are remotely affordable for the foreseeable future will likely have limited range, the ability to do opportunistic charging wherever the car stops will be critical to consumer adoption. The partners will coordinate with local agencies to ensure that charging networks use common elements and are appropriately located. Nissan will also provide supplies of the LEAF to areas serviced by Reliant starting in late 2010. From Los Angeles, the LEAF will continue to 21 other cities in the U.S. and Canada for the remainder of the tour.
Gallery: 2010 Nissan LEAF
[Source: Nissan]
press release
11.13.2009 , LOS ANGELES
RENAULT-NISSAN ALLIANCE FORGES ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLE AGREEMENT WITH RELIANT ENERGY
Nissan LEAF Zero-Emission Tour kicks off in Los Angeles
The Renault-Nissan Alliance today announced that Nissan and Reliant Energy of Houston, Texas, one of the major competitive electricity providers in the nation, have forged an agreement to advance zero-emission mobility in the United States. The announcement helps pave the way for the 2010 introduction of Nissan LEAF, the industry's first all-electric, zero-emission car designed for the mass market. The company expects to begin sales in late 2010. Reliant is a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NRG), one of the largest electricity generators in the United States.
Nissan President and CEO Carlos Ghosn announced the agreement today at the kickoff of the Nissan LEAF Zero-Emission Tour, at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, marking the first North American appearance of Nissan LEAF.
The vehicle debut was followed by a panel discussion representing the key interests of the environmental, energy and air-quality communities. Participants included Ghosn, Mary D. Nichols, Chairman, California Air Resources Board; David Crane, President & CEO, NRG Energy, of which Reliant is a subsidiary; and Patricia Monahan, Deputy Director, Clean Vehicles Program and Director of the California Office, Union of Concerned Scientists.
"The Renault-Nissan Alliance has committed to becoming a global leader in zero emissions," said Ghosn, who also is chairman and CEO of Renault. "Together, Nissan and Reliant Energy share the vision that electric vehicles offer the best solution to reducing CO2 emissions. The Nissan LEAF is the only all-electric, zero-emission vehicle that will be available to drivers on a mass-market scale and at an affordable price."
As part of the agreement, Nissan and Reliant Energy will develop plans to promote a charging infrastructure for electric cars that encourages home and workplace charging, as well as a public charging infrastructure. The companies will work to coordinate the establishment of policies and help streamline charging infrastructure deployment. Nissan also has agreed to make available a supply of electric vehicles to Reliant and in its areas of operation.
"This agreement with Nissan is another part of our comprehensive effort to speed up the adoption of broad-based electric-powered transportation ecosystem," said David Crane, CEO of NRG.
"We can now see a clear path to having thousands – even hundreds of thousands – of zero-emission vehicles on Texas roads in the next several years," said Jason Few, President of Reliant Energy.
The Los Angeles debut marked the first stop on a nationwide tour of LEAF. The Nissan LEAF Zero-Emission Tour will make stops in 22 cities, in 11 states, the District of Columbia, and Vancouver, Canada, offering the opportunity for interested drivers, media, civic partners, businesses and university students to learn more about Nissan LEAF and the benefits of zero-emission driving. Los Angeles-area stops also include Santa Monica, Glendale and the University of Southern California campus. Details can be found at www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car.
Nissan, along with alliance partner Renault, is the only automaker committed to making all-electric vehicles available to the mass market on a global scale. Through the Nissan LEAF Zero-Emission Tour, Nissan will be showcasing the electric vehicle and battery technology as well as the company's zero-emission mobility objectives. Nissan is also furthering the development of an electric-vehicle infrastructure through agreements with the State of Tennessee, the State of Oregon, Sonoma County, San Diego, Phoenix, Tucson, Washington D.C., Seattle, Raleigh, Vancouver, and Mexico City.
Nissan North America
In North America, Nissan's operations include automotive design, engineering, consumer and corporate financing, sales and marketing, distribution and manufacturing. Nissan is dedicated to improving the environment under the Nissan Green Program 2010, whose key priorities are reducing CO2 emissions, cutting other emissions and increasing recycling. More information on the Nissan LEAF and zero-emission mobility can be found at www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car.
Renault-Nissan Alliance
The Renault-Nissan Alliance has begun zero-emission vehicle initiatives in Kanagawa Prefecture and Yokohama in Japan, as well as in Mexico, Israel, Denmark, Portugal, Monaco, the UK, France, Switzerland, Ireland, China and Hong Kong. The Renault-Nissan Alliance, founded in 1999, sold 6,090,304 vehicles in 2008. The objective of the Alliance is to rank among the world's top three vehicle manufacturers in terms of quality, technology and profitability.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
augustus 12:52PM (11/16/2009)
I thought that only FCV's had infrastructure problems. Yes that is sarcasm.
Anyhow it would be neat to see this work.
Reply
Joeviocoe 2:02PM (11/16/2009)
Compared to what is needed for a hydrogen infrastructure, this is a cakewalk.
This is more a question of standards. Common components. Locations that fit EV drivers best. Etc...
The good thing about it (and what separates it from Hydrogen), is that it can be built in parallel with the sale of EVs. Meaning that it does not NEED to exist in full swing for EVs to be sold at all. The primary place EVs will be charged will be at home. Public charging just make driving an EV more convenient.
Joeviocoe 2:09PM (11/16/2009)
Compared to what is needed for a hydrogen infrastructure, this is a cakewalk.
This is more a question of standards. Common components. Locations that fit EV drivers best. Etc...
The good thing about it (and what separates it from Hydrogen), is that it can be built in parallel with the sale of EVs. Meaning that it does not NEED to exist in full swing for EVs to be sold at all. The primary place EVs will be charged will be at home. Public charging just make driving an EV more convenient.
Dave 2:33PM (11/16/2009)
"The good thing about it (and what separates it from Hydrogen), is that it can be built in parallel with the sale of EVs. Meaning that it does not NEED to exist in full swing for EVs to be sold at all. The primary place EVs will be charged will be at home. Public charging just make driving an EV more convenient."
Actually, for intercity buses and interstate trucks with planned routes, FCVs would also be charged primarily at "home." A natural gas reformer or hydrolisis station at each terminal would be sufficient (and the gov't would need to encourage the truck and bus companies to make the stations available and convenient to the public). After that, the infrastructure could grow from there - in "parallel" with growing FCV sales.
For large GVW vehicles such as trucks and buses that travel long distances on a daily basis, EVs and ER-EVs are pointless.
In other words - EV sales and infrastructure development is more likely to start with small vehicles with small range while FCV sales and infrastructure development is more likely to start with large vehicles with larger range requirements.
Of course, GM/Coskata (among others) may render both EVs and FCVs pointless as their ethanol production process has a smaller carbon footprint and a smaller total ownership/operating cost than either.
Joeviocoe 3:17PM (11/16/2009)
I agreed with you for most of what you said:
1)
"Actually, for intercity buses and interstate trucks with planned routes, FCVs would also be charged primarily at "home." A natural gas reformer or hydrolisis station at each terminal would be sufficient (and the gov't would need to encourage the truck and bus companies to make the stations available and convenient to the public)" -Dave
However, the filling stations that would be convenient for industrial/commercial applications will be inconvenient for consumers. Who wants to drive to a bus terminal to get their fill up. Or truck depot?
2)
"For large GVW vehicles such as trucks and buses that travel long distances on a daily basis, EVs and ER-EVs are pointless.... infrastructure development is more likely to start with large vehicles with larger range requirements" -Dave
Agreed!
3)
"Of course, GM/Coskata (among others) may render both EVs and FCVs pointless as their ethanol production process has a smaller carbon footprint and a smaller total ownership/operating cost than either." -Dave
Since I have yet to see a full serial production, highway capable EV... I think they allowed the Ethanol lobby to fudge the "carbon footprint" numbers. I have debated this backward and forward and have crunched many a number.
I have determined that you can set up the scenario easily to make Ethanol look like a winner by choosing an inefficient model for EV production (and driven on 100% coal). When EV's are made in higher volume, then we can discuss the carbon footprint of production. And because we have already proven (here and elsewhere) that when on the road and charged with an average energy mix (not just coal), EVs will always be cleaner.
Conclusion:
I think biofuels is in the best position to take the commercial/industrial applications you mentioned compared to FCV. From an investment standpoint, it is too expensive to build the FCV infrastructure when biofuel production can utilized with little or no modification to existing diesel fleets.
For light vehicle consumers, BEVs have the lead and will keep it. Cleaner (when using renewable sources) than the cleanest Ethanol. Always more efficient and cheapest to drive. It's that damn initial cost for high density batteries that are the problem. As I have said many times already, for consumers, the range/recharge time anxiety is based on habitual responses and will not hold for much longer. Range extending flex-fuel trailers will solve everyone's road trip problems. http://www.bilmuh.gyte.edu.tr/~gokturk/hybrid/rangeextender.pdf
Doug 11:38PM (11/16/2009)
@Dave
"Actually, for intercity buses and interstate trucks with planned routes, FCVs would also be charged primarily at "home." A natural gas reformer or hydrolisis station at each terminal would be sufficient"
A bus or a truck might be big enough to have it's own on-board natural gas or methanol reformer. Though if you're carrying natural gas, it might make more sense to just burn it directly or use it in a solid oxide fuel cell.
I think efficiency and cost comparisons favor the CNG ICE vehicle over NG to H2 to HFCV.
Dave 11:59AM (11/17/2009)
"However, the filling stations that would be convenient for industrial/commercial applications will be inconvenient for consumers. Who wants to drive to a bus terminal to get their fill up. Or truck depot?"
As I said, the gov't would have to encourage bus and truck companies to make their fueling stations convenient to the public since public stations obviously wouldnt be profitable at first. And the public filling station would not necessarily be at the terminal, but near it or possibly there would be a pipeline from their reformer/hydrolizer to a nearby satellite compressor / filling station.
Most truck and bus companies in my state (RI) are only a few blocks from main roads and population centers - I don't doubt that less densely populated areas will be more of a challenge.
Other fleets (gas, water, and electric utilities, the post office, UPS, FedEx, taxis, etc) would also contribute to the initial infrastructure.
This is not an overnight process. The ICE will still be dominant (including hybrids and RE-EVs running on gasoline, diesel, ethanol, propane, methanol, natural gas, etc.) for many decades.
Ghen 3:22PM (11/16/2009)
Here's hoping that Nissan isn't so skittish in the 2nd and 3rd years of the Leaf. I desperately want one and I only go 30-40 miles a day anyway, so charging stations are worthless for my daily commute.
Reply
David Martin 5:02PM (11/16/2009)
If you look at the numbers there is no way that anything like the present vehicle fleet can be run on ethanol.
Even making the most optimistic assumptions and using algae, cellulose and so on you run out of land and water long before you are able to keep the present fleet going.
Sure, you can use it as an additive, maybe keep the airline fleet going or run some heavy trucks on it, but you can't run hundred's of millions of cars.
Reply