How Nissan and Honda's $60 billion merger talks collapsed.
-
Nissan could have been better positioned for EV but they didn't bother actually doing anything with the Leaf for a decade.
Kinda like how they could have been a high performance brand with the GTR if they bothered to actually do any more development on it for the past decade.
-
The leaf was an objectively terrible Eevee that probably set the industry back a few years.
Autocorrect changed it to Eevee and I think it works.
-
And Honda was working on hydrogen nearly 30 years ago now
Unless they have a fusion reactor they're not telling us about, so that they can electrolyze water hydrogen is never going to be a viable power source. Currently all hydrogen is acquired through fracking, which makes the entire exercise somewhat pointless.
-
Why do you need a fusion reactor for electrolysis?
-
Disagree, they are exactly the type of EV we should be building: inexpensive, enough range for around town, pretty dependable. The first couple model years had crappy range, but the later ones were fine.
What Nissan needed was to expand the EV product line. Ideas:
- make the Leaf cheaper - 150 mile range, look into cheaper chemistries; should be the cheapest EV on the road; prize prioritize reliability and cost
- make a sports car that you want to drive - this is your flagship - prioritize speed and style
- make something in between the two (fast, but also practical) - what most people will get; compete directly with Model 3
Don't compete on range at all, that's R&D you don't want to deal with. Just make great cars for urban and suburban use.
-
Honda has made both the "e" in 2020 and "e:Ny1" in 2023, both seem like decent BEVs.
-
I think hydrogen has a future, but more for long haul trucking than personal cars. The general idea is to generate a ton of solar power during the day and use the excess to produce hydrogen, and then use the hydrogen to fuel heavy equipment, trucks, and cover for low solar production days.
This solves many of the issues with hydrogen:
- no need to transport hydrogen, just use it locally
- wasting energy for production is fine because it would be wasted anyway
- only used in heavy equipment, so no need to sell the public on it
-
That way though you would have to haul around the electrolyzing equipment with you which seems redundant and it's pretty heavy. I'm not sure that would necessarily work.
Also in that scenario you would have to keep the water on board so that you could electrolyze it again. That adds even more weight. A molecule of water weighs 18 times more than a single hydrogen atom so every single time you run this process your vehicle suddenly gets massively heavier.
-
Range anxiety is not an illegitimate concern though. Sure I probably don't need that capacity more than maybe once every year but what about when I do need it?
How am I supposed to be able to drive halfway across the country to see my family every Christmas if my car only has 150 miles of range and it takes 4 hours to fully recharge. That's going to turn a 3-hour road trip into 10 hours if we have to stop and wait for it to recharge. My problem with the leaf was that it had hardly any range at all so that problem was massively exacerbated.
It's great in a multi-car household where the other car is something with a bit more range but as you're only vehicle you better hope that no family emergency have a crop up.
-
Because otherwise you're spending more energy converting water into a hydrogen then you get back from turning hydrogen into water.
You still do with Fusion power but at that point you have so much energy it doesn't matter how inefficient it is. Seriously even using nuclear power it doesn't work out as economically viable. It's really a wasteful and inefficient process.
-
They weren't dependable is the problem. There were a lot of problems with early deterioration of the battery, supposedly from not having very good temperature control on the battery pack.
-
Range anxiety is not an illegitimate concern though.
Hence why I focused on vehicle classes more common as a second car. We have two cars, and one never goes further than 100 miles in a given day.
That's the niche EVs should focus on, especially while battery tech makes >400 mile range impractical. I think Nissan (or any car company) could do quite well focusing on the second car market.
-
Sure, and battery deterioration is largely only a problem if you don't have much range to begin with. They put larger batteries in after a year or two, which largely solved the problem for the intended use case: around town car.
But that's also why I mentioned reliability and price should be the focus. They're not going to be leading R&D on better battery range, so they might as well focus on a niche.
-
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying good trucks would use the fuel, not generate it. They'd stop at warehouses and hubs and whatnot to refuel using "waste" energy from the warehouse or hub.
The whole point is that trucks largely take routine routes, so it's fine if availability is limited because they can plan trips around refueling points. Also, they're massive, so there are plenty of options for storing the hydrogen since space isn't really an issue.
-
Except the chevy volt is cheaper and has a longer range. Nissan has also done nothing with battery tech or chemistry. That's all been being advanced by Samsung, toyota and panasonic. There's nothing the leaf has to offer on a technology front, and there's no reason to buy one today. Even a decade ago it was a poor choice for 95% of the US market.
-
Exactly. The whole point was to help farmers, but it was broad enough that car manufacturers could include SUVs under the rule.
We should've just allowed an exemption for models sold exclusively to farmers if that was a concern. Or just, don't do it.
-
https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/nexo
Hyundai has one only available in CA.
-
Right, which is why I said they should've focused on price and reliability. They're not going to lead on battery tech, so they should experiment with things like sodium ion batteries, which are much cheaper, have less fire risk, and they don't need the range anyway for a commuter/around town car.
Find a niche and fill it.
-
I do worry about Nissan's future when they seem to be about this close to operating with zero profits.
-
There are a lot of other personal uses for vans and pickups and other heavier duty vehicles in rural areas which require more power to haul things beyond farmers. Moving large amounts of wood and cleared brush, having off road capabilities that include lots of torque, and other stuff that has nothing to do with highway driving are common outside of cities.
The exemptions should be handled in a way that discourages owning such a vehicle for personal use in an urban setting without being tied to a business. Hell, that could involve who the vehicles are being advertised/targeted to for in addition to literal vehicle types.
The problem was not changing up when it became apparent that the outcome was discouraging high mileage small cars for commuting. Overthinking the how to discourage laerger trucks misses the point that car companies leaned into large vehicles and advertise to convince the population that they needed larger vehicles. They could have been barred from advertising large vehicles.
