Thursday, June 27, 2013

Electric Cars for Saint Lucia

22 comments:

mark laporte said...

WHAT A FIRST !!!
CONGRATULATIONS ST LUCIA!!!!

Anonymous said...

As the crow flies, we have just about 27 miles to traverse from Cap to the peninsula. An electric car can do that. The 1.5 minute battery change model is already underway. Simply switch in 1.5 minutes and you're on your way.

However, it is the recurring price of electricity that's the killer. Mercifully, the maintenance knowledge and expertise may not present a steep learning curve.

mark laporte said...

yeah but as mentioned and implied within the article,a logical next step wuld be the research and developmentlocally of a solar energy industry.
:)hey we may be able to import some from the Sahara in Africa if we invest in purchasing a part of that desert:) just joking of course but who knows? there may be something there!

Anonymous said...

It is a waste to buy one of these cars for the following reasons:
A) you have to plug it into an outlet that is connected to a fossil burning electricity generating plant, so you still burning oil.
B) the cost to replace these battery pack on these cars are almost the price of the care.









Anonymous said...

Only fools or persons who have extra $$$ in access will be interested to buy a car like this.
What is the cost of the Car, the Batteries?
Environment friendly??when the electricity to charge the batterie come from fuel plants.
Why it can not succied in Europe/USA/Asia where all the technologie is developed?
ITS THE PRICE !!!!
At moment nothing can beat the normal fuel engine.

Its like in medicine products, the 3.world should test the products...

Anonymous said...

pure ignorance from the two only negative comments...pure ignorance...how is purchasing a non-fuel mode of transportation foolish? One less vehicle to FILL on the road...yes it uses the same fuel to generate electricity...but there is zero emissions..its cost effective in the long term...and if used properly pocket friendly when it comes to the way you move about the island...stop this and open your damn mind smh

Anonymous said...

I do not know that we have a smog problem. Do we have smog problem like Beijing? Like California? So what's all this talk about fuel emissions?

Anonymous said...

Above commentator...its cutting down the individuals carbon footprint...dont be a smartass..lessening the carbon monoxide contributor to only one source is better than having thousands contributing...

Anonymous said...

@6.54am
Try to get the price of the car.
Try to get the price of the batterie.
When you have this, double the cost of batterie by a lifespan of 20 years on the car.(the batterie last hopefully 10 years).
Now you can divide this cost by 20 and you have the cost of the car per year.(20 years is a normal life of a car).
???are you still convinced about the economic of a electric car?
Its an engineering experiment,thats all.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
pure ignorance from the two only negative comments...pure ignorance...how is purchasing a non-fuel mode of transportation foolish? One less vehicle to FILL on the road...yes it uses the same fuel to generate electricity...but there is zero emissions..its cost effective in the long term...and if used properly pocket friendly when it comes to the way you move about the island...stop this and open your damn mind smh

June 28, 2013 at 6:54 AM
How can there be zero emissions when you have to charge the battery from an outlet, the power company will be producing the emissions. This is not ignorance just do a search on the web to replace a battery pack for one of these cars, and you will hear of all the horrors involved with owning one. Not to mention the life use of the battery. Bad choice.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Above commentator...its cutting down the individuals carbon footprint...dont be a smartass..lessening the carbon monoxide contributor to only one source is better than having thousands contributing...

June 28, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Yes you are lessening the carbon print from your car but increasing the carbon print from the power station to charge your battery every night.

Anonymous said...

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/21/nissan-leaf-battery-program/

Nissan launching $100 per month Leaf battery replacement program in 2014
By Daniel Cooper posted Jun 21st, 2013 at 10:43 AM


http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136894-will-high-mileage-nissan-leafs-need-costly-battery-replacements-soon

To replace the battery cost $15,000 US more than half the price of the car.







Anonymous said...

I don't get it! How come, Third World Countries aren't are not the highest energy users per capita, and correspondingly the highest environmental polluters per capita, yet the First World expects us to make the most sacrifices to reverse the world trend of increasing energy pollution?

Next, we have a Bible Belt of states in the US where ignorance is bliss, where White racist idiots and ignoramuses fall over each other pontificating their holy BS at every turn, that climate change is not real. Yet, they still want the Third World to bear the brunt of the sacrifices to be made?

Now, more than ever before, attention is turning to parts of the world where the coast are likely be submerged in bad weather, and where property there is now at risk. Some areas are even being considered for human abandonment to create water-holding areas like our Trou Garniere area was around the old Conway area.

Even housing construction is being given a make-over for at risk areas on the coast of the US since two strange hurricanes caused unusual havoc to the New York subway system, the coast of New Jersey and Far Rockaway area in New York.

Saint Lucians do not even have the luxury of having water in their taps every day, far less energy to ride around combustion-engine driven vehicles.

Our main electrical provider does not even talk conservation, or a planned decision to retrofit our electric turbines to use cheaper fuels, or a 110-watt supply to enable households to use cheaper priced household utensils.

Alternative energy use is still relegated to the back burners by our very many so-called leaders.

After all, alternative energy development and its tangible benefits are not such as to coincide neatly with our normal five-year election cycles.

Therefore, it gets short thrift.

Anonymous said...

You should all be delighted with this. Yes it's expensive now, but NO POLLUTION. I am v proud of st Lucia and I the future technology will make this widely available.

If a country can feed itself, clothe itself and move about freely, then it is a civilised country and will not be at the mercy of international whims. Great news!

Anonymous said...

You should all be delighted with this. Yes it's expensive now, but NO POLLUTION. I am v proud of st Lucia and I the future technology will make this widely available.

If a country can feed itself, clothe itself and move about freely, then it is a civilised country and will not be at the mercy of international whims. Great news!

June 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM



Are you crazy, no pollution , how are you going to charge that battery every night? You have to plug into an out let. The power company has to increase production for this to happen and therefore you have pollution. You are at the mercy of Nissan, see above on the cost to race a battery pack.

Anonymous said...

All the auto companies recognize that the greatest technical barrier is cheap and easily rechargeable battery technology. That's still on the drawing board.

Continuous improvement is what dominating the hybrid models we have now; a technological break-through is what's desired. Some companies are experimenting with several different but competing models and configurations -- all at once -- in search of the 'holy grail'.

Anonymous said...

For the scenario where energy from the electric power utility company will be used for charging these batteries, it would have been very useful if the Ministry of Energy had furnished some efficiency related data on these vehicles for the purpose of making an educated comparison, for example, the effective energy efficiency of the vehicles, the efficiency of the charging system, the average number of KWHr consumed per mile or No. of miles obtained per KWHr, the KWHr consumed per mile on a level road, such as the entrance to Vieux Fort Town or Nelson Mandela Drive etc.

Further, for this initiative to be truly worthwhile in yielding the necessary benefits of low carbon emission etc being espoused by the dealer and Ministry of Energy, one would assume that that the Charging Stations would have to be equipped with charging infrastructure using electricity derived from renewable resources. In this light, the agent for these vehicles or the Ministry of Energy should have indicated the`battery charging cost which would yield 1 KWHr at the battery output terminals, the charging cost that would provide for the travel of a specific distance, say 1 mile or 10 miles, whichever is more appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Hey! You think them fellas are up to doing all his number-crunching? A full-fledged energy department in government perhaps would take up this task. But who is around to cover that during energy week or something like that? Do we still have that?

Anonymous said...

Yes Sir/ Madam;
I'm sincerely hoping that they're up to this task, considering that the Government has already granted concessions for the importation of two such vehicles by way of Government waiver of Import Duty and Excise Tax.

According to article in the Voice Newspaper of 27 June 2013, "Minister for Sustainable Development, Energy, Science and Technology, Senator Dr Jimmy Fletcher, yesterday marked the start of the energy concessions to alternatively fueled vehicles"

Further, in this same article, it was asserted that:

1.0 The electric vehicle costs less than half as much to run as a fuel efficient 31 mpg car running on petrol.

3. Over five years, an owner of the electric car traveling the Vieux Fort....can save approx. $40,000.00 in fuel and maintenance costs as compared to... a 31 mpg car.

I've been made to understand that Dr Fletcher is a trained scientist. Surely, he could not have committed his government to this initiative without first availing himself to some sort of authentic relevant data. So permit me to guess; they have that data somewhere. He wouldn't put the cart before the horse; would he?

On the question matter relating to the number of miles per KWHr for the said vehicle; surely,the Agent should have had this available and have it published (in the Voice article)in much the same way that we all can view the mpg data for the typical vehicle in their respective brochures.

It's imperative that the relevant Authority/Agency provides such information for public dissemination; just roll back a bit on the "Comment Stream" to view how some of our more enthusiastic compatriots were so quick to label those who raised concerns or queries as displaying ignorance. This can be avoided if more serious and relevant information is procured, for the purpose of public debate and for feedback to a (listening) Government.

Finally, I trust that the Agent for the said vehicles and the Ministry of Energy have already taken into account the full effect of Lucelec's fuel efficiency at the Generator Terminals at 19.57 KWHr (units) per gallon and their system losses at 9.6%, according to their 2012 Annual Report, for inclusion in their determination.

Anonymous said...

TO the above commentator, yes it was ignorance..the definition of said is; the lack of knowledge...some contributors displayed that...quick to judge..and not await further information to then make a analysis.

Anonymous said...

To the Commentator above;
Yes, I get your point and it's very well made, I must say. I am not disputing this, at all.

However, I'd maintain that the article could help been more useful had the Agent for those vehicles and the Ministry of Energy been more facilitating by providing more information.

RoseMarry said...

learned many thing from this blog if you need any kind of used Cars