Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mazda Says Its Upcoming Gas-Powered Cars Will Emit Less CO2 Than Electric Cars

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence dept.

Transportation 330

cartechboy writes: "One of the arguments for electric cars is that we are reducing greenhouse gases and emitting less CO2 than vehicles with an internal combustion engine. But Mazda says its next-generation SkyActiv engines will be so efficient, they'll emit less CO2 than an electric car. In fact, the automaker goes so far as to say these new engines will be cleaner to run than electric cars. Is it possible? Yes, but it's all about the details. It'll depend on the test cycles for each region. Vehicles are tested differently in Europe than in the U.S., and that variation could make all the difference when it comes to these types of claims. At the end of the day whether future Mazdas with gasoline-powered engines are cleaner than electric cars or not, every little bit in the effort to reduce our carbon emissions per mile is a step in the right direction, right?"

cancel ×

330 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

japs can't innovate for shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46578889)

fuck off

Re:japs can't innovate for shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579617)

You mean as opposed to Murican' innovation?
Go Murica! Hooaah!

Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (4, Interesting)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 5 months ago | (#46578903)

Or do they mean in the "yeah but guess where that electricity comes from, a coal-burning plant" sense?

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (4, Insightful)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 5 months ago | (#46578931)

If that were the case I would point them to the refining process for gasoline.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#46578975)

I don't think it's just refining, mere drilling and pumping requires progressively more energy as we've already consumed all the low-hanging fruit.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579263)

As I recall the shale extraction they are doing in Canada is especially inefficient...

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579281)

We've also become much more efficient at drilling and pumping, so it's not obvious to me that it requires more energy than yesteryear.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (3, Insightful)

beltsbear (2489652) | about 5 months ago | (#46580459)

We are more ABLE to drill and pump but it certainly does not make less CO2 or take less energy. Fracking takes far more resources then just drilling and most of the big easy wells are gone. We now drill in deep water which takes phenomenally more power and work then ground based operations.

co2? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46578979)

And let's not also inspect the electricity generation plants for CO2. Some use Oil, some use coal, some use hydro or wind power, some use nuclear power, and everyone knows nuclear waste produces no CO2.

Re:co2? (-1, Flamebait)

fortfive (1582005) | about 5 months ago | (#46580189)

It is not, however, true that nuclear plants produce no greenhouse gasses. They produce quite a bit of excess water vapor, a greenhouse gas.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (2)

Solandri (704621) | about 5 months ago | (#46579349)

Then you'd also have to include the energy costs for mining and transporting coal used to make electricity. That's why people don't include that part - it's kinda assumed to be similar for both processes and cancels out. (Though to be honest I don't think I've ever seen an energy cost-analysis of coal mining vs petroleum drilling and refining. Coal is substantially cheaper per Joule than gasoline so its mining costs may be a lot lower too.)

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46579471)

Not for me, I get my power from Nuke plants. it's the most environmentally friendly power source out there. IF the government was not filled with retards and allowed the spent fuel to be used in breeder reactors.

Nuke is better than anything else, it's the morons in DC that make it less than perfect.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#46579589)

Your post fills my mind with a recall: Jane Fonda and some mime pointing to his ass saying, "Butt...". The rest is hazy.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579935)

it's the morons in DC that make it less than perfect.

Sadly no.

It's the "morons" controlling maintenance money and operating costs that make it less than perfect. That's why reactors and associated plant fail at far greater rates than predicted

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46580369)

OK Mr. Simpson. Or should I call you Homer?

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#46580421)

What do you mean by breeders? Things like the thorium ideas or the plutonium dead end that would only be viable if uranium was hard to get and there was a thriving market for weapon material?

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#46580405)

That's hard to do since it's going to depend on the mine and how far it has to be transported. Some power stations are sited next to open cut mines with high quality coal, others have to get it from underground some distance away. Since coal is very soft it's cheap to mine - but it may be expensive to dig down to where the coal is. It may be deep or it may be under some hard rock which then means requiring a completely different set of equipment in addition to the coal mining equipment. Energy costs tend to be abstracted away to the current coal price since that makes more difficult to mine coal financially viable.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (5, Insightful)

Todd Palin (1402501) | about 5 months ago | (#46578965)

Interesting notion, but the devil is in the details. In the NE United States most of the electricity is from coal or gas fired plants, but in the NW United States most of the electricity is hydropower. You can argue that the carbon footprint of the NW electricity is very low, but if you consider the carbon cost of building the dams, the carbon goes up. You have to make assumptions about the expected life of a dam so you can pro-rate the carbon cost. The same issues surround calculating the carbon cost of nuclear generated electricity, but you also have to include carbon coats for transporting, storing, and guarding the nuclear waste for a long time, which involves another assumption. There are also a host of carbon issues relating to power transmission infrastructure. There is a lot of steel in those towers, but some of it is a century old. Do you count it in current carbon calculations?

The bottom line is, the assertion that the Mazda has a lower carbon footprint is more of a marketing claim than an engineering calculation. I suspect the assumptions involved have been made with the primary purpose of supporting the claim rather than meeting some test of reasonableness.

If you ask a question from a marketing context, you get a marketing answer.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 5 months ago | (#46579153)

There is a lot of steel in those towers

Of course! It's a modern technique used for carbon sequestration and for which they should be appropriately credited. ;)

(yes, I know that carbon in steel != carbon dioxide, and am choosing to ignore that fact briefly)

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 5 months ago | (#46579473)

Um, that would only be carbon sequestration if most of the carbon in steel came from the atmosphere (via charcoal).

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#46580481)

As an aside, in steelmaking the goal is to get that oxide off the iron ore and make CO2 from the CO you get from the coal. If for some reason no coal was used in power generation or heat production we'd still need coal for steelmaking since it's there for chemical reasons instead of just heating up the iron ore.
So steelmaking produces CO2, but of course a vast amount less than making concrete.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 5 months ago | (#46579245)

Most folks probably assume the calculation favors whichever solution they favor. The problem is we don't really have the complete energy and carbon cycle for any power source, when you include raw material mining and processes, through construction transportation, delivery, efficiency. I'd love to see that study performed by a neutral party.

But if one truly cares about reduction in carbon emissions, and is not beholden to the electric car as the only solution they will consider, then an extremely low carbon emission gas vehicle should be welcomed. I have my doubts, but if they could produce such a vehicle at a cost competitive with existing gas vehicles, they could be mass adapted much quicker than electrics, and even if they emit more CO2 per car (given the total cycle calculation), the total carbon reduction could be far greater in a much shorter timeframe. It might also provide a bridge till electric cars and the needed infrastructure are mass market ready.

Some CO2 reductions are more equal than others (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 5 months ago | (#46579395)

I agree that every movement towards lower carbon emissions are a good think, but some steps have more long-term potential than others. Consider that the average vehicle has a lifetime of 20+ years on the road, and of course assuming relatively cheap replacement/refurbished batteries are available to give electric vehicles a similar lifespan:

I buy a high-efficiency gasoline vehicle today, and as wear and tear and poor tuning take their toll the carbon-mileage will fall, and it'll keep falling as long as the car is rolling.

I buy an electric vehicle, it draws it's power from the grid, so as grid infrastructure moves towards more carbon-neutral generation the carbon-milage will keep improving over the lifetime of the vehicle.

Of course that battery assumption could be flawed. And it may be that the grid stays as horribly carbon-producing as today for the next 20 years. So the question is complicated, but I'm betting the lifetime emissions of an EV are probably lower for the same milage. Then again I'm not about to complain about high-efficiency gasoline cars if they can be made affordable and appealing enough for the masses. The faster we tackle this problem the better, and sitting around waiting for EV technology to become affordable enough for people other than bankers and trust-fund hipsters doesn't help anything.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about 5 months ago | (#46579329)

Interesting notion, but the devil is in the details.

And the details have been largely worked out. Studies [greencarreports.com] have found that even on the dirtiest grid in the US modern electric cars match the emissions of a 34mpg car. Since this worst case scenario so rarely happens (the US grid is much cleaner than just coal, and getting cleaner all the time, and many EV owners install solar panels on their homes), Mazda will essentially have to race against the electric grid in trying to clean up their vehicles.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46579483)

So my honda civic that I regularly get 44mpg out of is better than the Leaf, Tesla, and Volt.
I am so going to rub this in the face of the hipster at starbucks tomorrow morning.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579537)

Only on the dirtiest grid in the US, so it really depends on how your electricity is generated.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#46579547)

So my honda civic that I regularly get 44mpg out of is better than the Leaf, Tesla, and Volt.

It may be "better" at CO2 emissions, but it is worse in other ways. If the electricity used by the Leaf/Tesla/Volt is from fossil fuels, then it is generated from domestic coal or natural gas, creating jobs for Americans. The money you pay for gasoline for your Honda goes to support some odious governments in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, etc.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 5 months ago | (#46579841)

You do realize that the US still produces [latimes.com] a significant amount of oil, right? Like 50% of its needs? And that the US is the larger exporter of refined products? And that imported oil would still be refined here in the US thus "creating jobs for Amerikans".

And I'm sure the people of Russia have similar feelings about the US, as do a lot of other countries.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579677)

Dude, your Starbucks crowd is falling behind. At my Starbucks they moved beyond that trend and walk there now, actually they power walk there with their cool hydrating back packs, they also split time at Panera Bread across the street. That's cool though because I always have room to pull in with my Diesel F350 dully.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 5 months ago | (#46579793)

Wonder about the pollution (not just CO2) from the production (and eventual disposal) of the batteries in EVs.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (2)

lexman098 (1983842) | about 5 months ago | (#46579375)

Well, to go even further let's not forget that buying an electric car fuels more research and development for electric vehicles and machinery in general which could one day supplant the use of gas powered machinery to mine materials and construct dams etc. Electric cars (bought now) might turn out to have a negative carbon footprint if you look enough years into the future (which we can't).

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 5 months ago | (#46579449)

This problem ends after bootstrapping [wikipedia.org] green energy, no? When you can build green plants using green energy, that is.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46580435)

Yes, I've wondered how one calculates guarding nuke waste for, what, 10,000 years? Given minimum wage, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, x 10,000, and if more than one guard, multiply that by say 3 or 4... kind of adds up to a bit. Even without vacation pay, sick pay, overtime, retirement, disability, etc., it still adds up pretty quickly. And that's without cost of living allowances or pay raises.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46578971)

Electricity isn't a fuel, it is a storage mechanism, so of course you have to examine the emissions of whatever converts the fuel to electricity.

Not storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579273)

Its not a storage mechanism. Its a transportation mechanism. Batteries are a storage mechnism for electricity.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

beanpoppa (1305757) | about 5 months ago | (#46580255)

No. Electricity is not a storage mechanism. It's energy. A battery, hydrogen, and, and gasoline are storage mechanisms.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579039)

Electric cars do produce CO2 because of how their electricity is created, the point of electric cars is that they free you up from being dependent on one source of energy, the source of energy can be changed with out having to change your cars. Mazdas engines may be better in the short term, but buying into electric cars now has long term benefits that could out way Mazdas short term benefit, it would be interesting to know if someone can work this out.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

shmlco (594907) | about 5 months ago | (#46579397)

You could also take all of the wonderful high-compression ICE l technology that Mazda is doing and put THAT into a Prius, giving us higher efficiency when in gas mode and still getting the benefits of electric power drive, assist, and regenerative braking in stop-and-go traffic.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46579569)

Why The honda VX with lean burn will still be better than what mazda and toyota are coming up with. Sadly they are Insanely hard to find any honda with the lean burn option in the USA anymore. Some guys are getting successful with flashing the ECM in the 8th gen with the european program that enables lean burn though. Reports of 2006-2007 Civics getting 50mpg highway by just flashing the ECM and setting the Camber front and rear to 0 degrees.

Re: Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 5 months ago | (#46579987)

It goes both ways. You can take regenerative braking and put it into a Mazda. In fact, Mazda has that as an option now on the Mazda3 already.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579061)

Yeah, it took me awhile to figure that out. We have extremely few natural gas and diesel power plants here in British Columbia, and we don't have coal or oil. So is Mazda still going to say they will generate less CO2 than our electric cars here?

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (5, Insightful)

knarfling (735361) | about 5 months ago | (#46579103)

Exactly!! The TFA (I know, I know. Why read the TFA.) calls it the wells-to-wheels carbon profile. And Mazda is comparing only to the "dirtiest" areas.

And those levels would likely be better than the wells-to-wheels carbon profile of an electric car running in a coal-heavy country--Poland, for example.

Not only that, but the engines themselves are not yet designed. They are "projected" be available by 2020.

I realize the air is a bit dirty, but still -- That is a long time to hold your breath.

Re: Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

James Buchanan (3571549) | about 5 months ago | (#46579167)

Its made in a plant, that plant is also connected to a grid, using electricty, same with the batteries. Then you have to charge it to use it,daily, o so. And to use it, you are expending the battery, which is still mostly created by coal. But it is cleaner in the developed countries then the third world,which doesn't regulate the output of the plant.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (4, Insightful)

DittoBox (978894) | about 5 months ago | (#46579191)

Also consider how the materials for the batteries are sourced (emissions/energy cost to mine), where they're sourced (emissions/energy cost to ship), how they're put together (emissions from factory, energy cost), and where the entire vehicle is put together (emissions/energy cost to ship batteries to car factory). Is continuing to use older vehicles less and more impactful to the environment?

People who are totally against innovation in this sector tend to think all of these are worse than continuing to rely on dead dinosaur-based fuels. I think we need to push forward and research all options, including reducing individual demand for vehicular use through public transit, better civic planning, automated vehicles (which increase efficiency in the system greatly) among other options.

I'm a car guy and I desperately do not want to see organic fuels disappear because of over use or damage to the environment. I think converting to more efficient travel methods and shrinking work-to-home distances are ultimately the way to go. Having access to fossil fuels in the future will then be reserved mostly for folks who just want to have fun, like owning horses is today. I don't want to see track days go away, or being able to take apart and put back together an almost entirely mechanical engine. There's a certain mechanical hackery to it.

Cars as appliances need to move on from fossil fuels, cars as projects/things to hack shouldn't. If we continue to treat fossil-fuels as infinite and undamaging we're going to lose cars as toys and projects and things to hack. That's sad.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 5 months ago | (#46579509)

I'd love to see reduction in the need for private transportation, but I don't see it happening (in the US at least) without a complete redesign of cities. Which is to say it won't happen in existing cities until the necessary public transport/last mile tech is well proven in new/really old cities that are designed to be more pedestrian-centered. And probably not even then until private transportation costs go through the roof - which with electric vehicles coming into their own probably won't ever be the case, or at least not soon enough to be worth much for climate change mitigation.

But, don't despair - an electric motor is a mechanical device as well, one with lots of tinkering potential if the stories from the slot-car tracks are to be believed. Of course making thousands of windings on a custom armature by hand is perhaps a bit more tedious than re-boring your engine block and tinkering with the valve timings, but you also don't have any of those horrible transmission, etc. losses. Or that hideous nasty emissions control system futzing with every corner of your drive system. Plus you'll have the fun of always driving at the peak power band, and slapping in a more powerful motor will probably be quite simple, relatively speaking. EVs promise to be *extremely* modular. Not to mention all the fun that could be had replacing some or all of the batteries with alternate power sources (generators? fuel cells? Mr. Fusion?)

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46580497)

Don't worry. The same guys who preach the fake global warming are preaching the fake end of oil. It's obviously limitless...all we have to do is wait millions of years for new organic matter to form into oil.

Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579275)

Probably. Ignoring high efficiency solar cell plants and parabolic stirling solar generators (that have a virtually infinite lifespan), and ignoring Hydro (also long power producing lifespans), hell... just ignore the sun and solar system,... well than, yes, it's pretty good :-/

Ummm.... (2)

drooling-dog (189103) | about 5 months ago | (#46578951)

It's not like CO2 is some unwanted and avoidable by-product of burning hydrocarbons in oxygen. It's the main product of combustion, along with water. So the only real way to reduce CO2 emissions per mile is get more miles per gallon of fuel. Is that what they're promising?

Re:Ummm.... (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 5 months ago | (#46579135)

You know what's better than buying a new car with a low emissions engine?

Not buying a new car. The emissions involved in the manufacture and delivery of a new vehicle are roughly equal to your first 30,000 miles of driving. Fixing your old clunker is far more efficient, both cost and emissions wise.

For even better CO2 reduction and fuel cost savings, don't drive the car you have.

Says the guy who's off for a 2 day business trip via jet plane....

Re:Ummm.... (5, Interesting)

robot256 (1635039) | about 5 months ago | (#46579243)

This MYTH has been debunked [greencarreports.com] :

"A study by M.A. Weiss et al., published in a 2000 report from the MIT Energy Laboratory, On the Road in 2020: A Lifecycle Analysis of New Automotive Technologies, calculated that fully 75 percent of a vehicle’s lifetime carbon emissions come from the fuel it burns, and another 19 percent was due to the extraction and refining of that fuel. The raw materials making up the vehicle added another 4 percent, and just 2 percent of lifetime carbon was due to manufacturing and assembly. In other words, you'll save a lot more energy if you junk your old car and buy a much more efficient new one."

And as everyone in this thread knows, energy == emissions for all practical purposes...

Re:Ummm.... (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about 5 months ago | (#46579345)

Actually, I should have added: Even though fuel economy has increased dramatically since 2000, so has manufacturing energy efficiency. Most new auto plants include vast solar arrays on site for the simple reason that it is cheaper than buying power from the grid, no matter what the emissions.

Re:Ummm.... (1)

Todd Palin (1402501) | about 5 months ago | (#46580121)

WHAT? Are you trying to tell me my 1985 LandCruiser isn't more energy efficient than a new shiny Prius? I've been lording that myth over all my Prius driving friends for years. I hope they don't read Slashdot.

Re:Ummm.... (5, Informative)

twotacocombo (1529393) | about 5 months ago | (#46579175)

So the only real way to reduce CO2 emissions per mile is get more miles per gallon of fuel.

No. My ~40mpg motorcycle pollutes far more than my ~27mpg car. It's all about how well the engine burns the fuel and handles the emissions before they leave the pipe, not necessarily just the volume of it.

Re:Ummm.... (4, Informative)

Rising Ape (1620461) | about 5 months ago | (#46579479)

CO2 emissions are directly proportional to fuel consumption (for a particular fuel). It's the other emissions - CO, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides etc. that can vary dramatically.

Re:Ummm.... (0)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46579513)

My 48mpg motorcycle with a 1300cc engine doesn't. Fuel injected and has a Catalytic converter, granted it's extremely new..... 2003. BMWK1200LT
Not all bikes are made cheaply or designed specifically to make a "look at me" blap blap blap sound that proper fuel and exhaust management would solve.

Re:Ummm.... (1)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 5 months ago | (#46579523)

Sure, your motorcycle almost certainly produces more incompletely oxidized hydrocarbons, soot and NOx, which are linked to nasty things such as smog, asthma and lung cancer. There is, however, no way your motorcycle can produce more CO2 than that car. That would be a hard violation of the laws of physics, specifically the law of conservation of mass [wikipedia.org] . For every atom of carbon entering your engine (or the car's engine), exactly(*) 1 molecule of CO2 exits you exhaust pipe. Your geek card, please.

(*)That is, almost exactly; some of the carbon exits under the form of incompletely oxidized hydrocarbons, but as said, that percentage is higher for your motorcycle, is negligible in this discussion, and most of those incompletely oxidized hydrocarbons are greenhouse gases themselves, and they get eventually converted to CO2 in the environment.

Re:Ummm.... (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about 5 months ago | (#46579563)

CO2 emissions != pollution. CO2 is the final byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion - it is exactly proportional to the amount of fuel consumed, minus the amount of fuel burned incompletely to produce noxious pollutants like carbon monoxide, nitrious oxide, and other various byproducts of varying degrees of nastiness.

So yes, your 40 mpg motorcycle (horrible mileage by the way, a crotch-rocket by any chance? Geo Metros do better than that) may well produce more pollution than even a 15 mpg car. BUT it also emits less CO2. And so it has less effect on global warming, even while it has a potentially greater effect on poisoning the neighborhood with chemicals created by incomplete combustion.

Re:Ummm.... (2)

nolife (233813) | about 5 months ago | (#46579743)

Mythbusters had an episode on this, with all kinds of charts and graphs comparing CO2 and pollution for different cars and bikes in different situations.

Here are some of the results
http://rideapart.com/2011/10/b... [rideapart.com]

Re:Ummm.... (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 5 months ago | (#46579267)

Yes, they seem to be claiming a huge increase in fuel efficiency. I don't see anything about capturing the emissions. You have to wonder how well these cars will perform for say, the SUV.

Re:Ummm.... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#46579787)

You have to wonder how well these cars will perform for say, the SUV.

You mean like the CX-5, which bears the "Skyactive" tag and is touted as being efficient, and likely to get these technologies?

My electric is hydro/nuclear (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 5 months ago | (#46578953)

So where is the CO2 coming from? And the coal plants are still running whether I use an electric car or not, so the net total is still higher with gasoline.

Re: My electric is hydro/nuclear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579117)

Your an idiot.

Re: My electric is hydro/nuclear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46580285)

"You're an idiot"

FTFY, idiot.

Re:My electric is hydro/nuclear (1)

tc3driver (669596) | about 5 months ago | (#46579179)

So where is the CO2 coming from? And the coal plants are still running whether I use an electric car or not, so the net total is still higher with gasoline.

Mostly Livestock, animals, and even humans. In the form of breathing. That is where most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from.

Re:My electric is hydro/nuclear (3, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 5 months ago | (#46579313)

I don't use livestock to power my car. It is a horseless carriage...

Re:My electric is hydro/nuclear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579453)

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1338/

Nonetheless: 1) The vast majority of CO2 emissions in general come from natural sources (like 20x human sources); 2) The vast majority of anthropogenic CO2 emissions come from energy production. Granted, much of the latter is spent in agriculture, but it's still fossil fuel burning which puts most of our CO2 into the atmosphere.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Anthropogenic_greenhouse_gases

Re:My electric is hydro/nuclear (3, Interesting)

tri44id (576891) | about 5 months ago | (#46579187)

In Texas, where we have to take the wind turbines offline at night, but the wind is still blowing, and we have a "deregulated" electricity market, TXU energy will give you electricity for free. http://blog.txu.com/free-energy-charges-at-night [txu.com] Mazda is going to have to buy a lifetime worth of carbon credits, and give me free gas as well, to beat that.

Re: My electric is hydro/nuclear (1)

James Buchanan (3571549) | about 5 months ago | (#46579323)

Right. But better utilization creates less pollution then, we still need power plants, the developed countries are generally colder, they need heating in the cold seasons now and in the future. Global warming means only that the weather changes,along with the seasons. The al,s lied to you, when they blamed the weather on the output of one gas. And patterns are cyclic,we were in the end of a warm period, if the cycle was at the end of a warm period, guess what's has started, and let's hope this period isn't the beginning of the long cycle. Hpoe for a ten year hiatus, not the hundred year overdue cycle, or the start of ythe about due ten thousand year cycle. Its good to be worked about the earth, since we as a people live here, limit pollution,try to make this place the heaven it could be. And that means not rewarding those shanens of terror such as al..

Re:My electric is hydro/nuclear (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#46579805)

From the coal plant your neigbor uses because you paid more than market for your energy, resulting in more people buying "dirty" energy. Also, from the carbon used to manufacture and maintain the plants you get power from.

We need to stop using non-renewables. Period. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46578973)

The important thing is that we stop using non renewable energy. The CO2 problem will take care of itself. And it won't hurt my feelings to see Big Oil implode.

Re:We need to stop using non-renewables. Period. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 5 months ago | (#46579299)

There's an easy fix for that. Use up those non renewable sources now (at least to a level that isn't very economically viable) and you won't have to worry about people using it up later.

Given how much people want to think about the future, it makes me wonder how they manage to get up in the morning. Weeks of planning go into that, amirite?

Re:We need to stop using non-renewables. Period. (1)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 5 months ago | (#46579577)

Weeks of planning go into that, amirite?

... which cannot be said of your slashdot posts.

Fancy that (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46578993)

A car which emits electric cars...

Allow me to call bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579005)

Burning gasoline releases c02. Solar recharging is possible right now.

Mazda is not open (1, Interesting)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 5 months ago | (#46579055)

Mazda abuses copyright to stop 3rd parties from publishing manuals. Can't get a Haynes or Chilton manual for any Mazda newer than about 1995. When I learned this about them, I decided never to own another Mazda.

They aren't the only automaker doing that. I don't know which other ones are pulling that stunt, but I'll certainly check before buying a particular brand.

Re:Mazda is not open (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 5 months ago | (#46579127)

Wow. Thanks for the heads up.

nice .sig! Imaginary Property = tyranny over the mind of man Indeed!

Re:Mazda is not open (5, Informative)

twotacocombo (1529393) | about 5 months ago | (#46579141)

Mazda abuses copyright to stop 3rd parties from publishing manuals. Can't get a Haynes or Chilton manual for any Mazda newer than about 1995.

http://www.haynes.com/products... [haynes.com] 2 seconds on Google.. come on, man.

Re:Mazda is not open (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 5 months ago | (#46579159)

If it bugs you so much, surely you know that most any shop manual published since 1999 is free for the downloading, usually as a .pdf, from the dark corners of the 'net - especially on enthusiast message boards.

Personally, I don't mind paying $99 for the hardcopy version, if it's a car I plan on working on myself.

bi[zwnatch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579071)

Theoqrists - [goat.cx]

Just what we need... more Mazdas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579197)

Where I live, the hipsters too cheap to buy Priuses end up with Mazda 3s or VW Jettas... vehicles that are too underpowered to even get to 65 in a reasonable time, causing traffic jams all over freeways. This is amusing... being too snooty to buy US... and they wonder where the jobs are when they graduate.

Oh, the foreign companies "making" cars are not all producing vehicles. Some import the vehicles sans mirrors, and a "factory" here in the US attaches those... for a Made in USA label (this is how some van makers get around the "chicken tax".) In reality, it just means that jobs that paid a living wage are replaced by minimum wage workers. Great for savings for an offshore corporation, doesn't bode well for people who desire a future other than competing with others for that Starbucks barista job.

Re:Just what we need... more Mazdas (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#46579567)

So buy a Mazda 3 MPS, which has too much power for a FWD to use, so its electronically limited in 1st and 2nd gear.

A lot of Japanese car companies make most of the car in America, because its one of their only regions that are left hand drive.

Hydroelectricity! (2, Insightful)

Valtor (34080) | about 5 months ago | (#46579355)

Here in Québec, with lots of hydroelectricity, I doubt very much that this gasoline engine will emit less CO2 per mile than an all electric vehicle.

Re:Hydroelectricity! (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 5 months ago | (#46579545)

Unless you build more dams, there is only a fixed amount of hydroelectric power available. Its total energy generation capacity is limited by the amount of water behind the dam (which in turn is limited by the amount of rain that falls). In a nutshell, it does not scale with use. Over a year of rainfall, it can only generate x GWh. No more.

Since hydro is the cheapest energy source, every attempt is made to use as much of it as we can every year. Water spilling over the top of the dam is wasted energy.

So when you buy a new EV and charge it with electricity from a hydro area, that reduces the amount of hydro electricity available for others to use. If everyone else in the country uses exactly as much energy as before, you now have a shortfall exactly equal to the amount of electricity the EV used. To fulfill that shortfall, a coal plant somewhere has to burn a little more coal, or a gas plant has to burn a little more gas.

Ideally a nuclear plant would burn a little more uranium fuel, but those are already pretty much run at full capacity so act like hydro does in the energy accounting books. Shortfalls are made up primarily by gas and oil-burning plants. Those are expensive so the power companies don't like to run them. But they're the only ones flexible enough to cover for shortfalls.

So yes, plugging in a new EV to a hydroelectric area increases CO2 emissions. At least until new plants can be built.

Hydrogen (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 5 months ago | (#46579435)

Well, maybe more work could be done to develop hydrogen as a fuel cell vehicle. Then, you would really and truly have a much cleaner solution.

Re:Hydrogen (1)

barfy (256323) | about 5 months ago | (#46579643)

Currently there is not enough platinum in the world to move any significant auto infrastructure to hydrogen fuel cells.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579467)

Mazda admits they haven't been spending nearly as much as they should in their electric car R&D.

Re: In other news... (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 5 months ago | (#46580017)

Why should they? They are the Zoom Zoom car company, aiming for cheap and sporty. You can't make a cheap and sporty electric car, at least not one that can sell decently. (Disclaimer: I own two Mazdas, and the next car will probably be a Mazda.)

Fixed it for you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579489)

Mazda Says Its Upcoming Gas-Powered Cars Will Feed Less Plant Life Than Electric Cars

No! You're Dirty! Brilliant PR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46579581)

As usual what most over look is gas cars once on the road are very hard to reduce (or even just keep the levels the same) emmisions, but with electric cars you can continue to reduce emmisions of the plants that produce the electricity.

Pick and Choose (2)

Oysterville (2944937) | about 5 months ago | (#46579601)

When companies pick and choose their statistics so blatantly and make a claim like this, it really makes me trust the company that much less.

Keep it up (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 5 months ago | (#46579603)

I drive a quad cab long bed pickup alone to work. So you guys keep reducing your CO2 signature. Thanks.

A Thermal Engineer's Perspective: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46580027)

Some fundamental facts:
The energy used by electric cars has to come from somewhere, and outside of France, a lot of that comes from coal and/or natural gas. Converting from chemical to thermal (combustion) to mechanical (turbine) to electrical (generator, typically ~60% efficient); transmission losses, converting from electrical to chemical (battery) back to electrical to mechanical (motor) all have losses, and I don't doubt for a second that they can build an engine, especially with a couple of turbo/inter-coolers, that is more efficient and therefore emits less CO2 than the described above chain.

CO2 is not a pollutant, like carbon monoxide or NOx, it does not interfere/damage plant or animal life and in fact is a key part of the planet's natural chemical processes. Now that the theory of global warming has been debunked by the current global cooling phase, they are trying to pawn "Climate Change" off on us and treat CO2, a natural byproduct of life and a key nutrient for plants, as if it were a toxic pollutant. Why are they doing this? It is the only way to continue to get grants to fund their companies/foundations/lifestyle. Their computer models have been wildly off, the planet is not warming, industry has done exceptionally well at reducing the output of actual pollutants and so they are left with an output that is unavoidable: CO2. Treating CO2 as a pollutant is the last gasp of a huge fraud perpetrated on the planet by "scientists" looking for funding and politicians looking for more power and sheeple educated beyond their intelligence.

From a strict thermodynamics point of view, which very few people understand and none of the climate change alarmists want to discuss, the earth's temperature is regulated by it's radiating temperature to the fourth power which keeps it in a very stable region, but one that does fluctuate with how much radiant energy we get from the sun and other global events to a lesser degree. To have the kind of apocalyptic changes in climate that are being predicted, the emissivity of the planet would have to change commensurate to the temperature increase in absolute Kelvin to the fourth power. Even a massive change in emissivity causes only a small change in temperature.

We know the planet has had previous ice ages and warm ages. No SUVs were around to cause them, they just happened. We also know that humanity does better in warm ages than ice ages. Ice ages bring death, warm ages are moderated by the heat spreading of the atmosphere, netting more livable, arable land and animal habitat. Animals have been going extinct since before recorded time, and in fact, extinction is a key side effect of Evolution. The strong, best suited survive, the weak, poorly able to adapt die out. Time to stop bitching and start adapting.

One last point: China puts out more pollution in a week than the US does in a year. Our dollars would be spent a lot more effectively combating actual pollution coming out of China, if we were actually concerned about doing the most good for the environment...

I want clean air, clean water etc, but the environment is not nearly as fragile as the alarmists think, and as long as the alarmists refuse to actually look at the science and historical evidence, instead making the argument that the debate is settled, they will continue to lose the debate. The debate is clearly not settled in the court of public opinion, and in fact that argument is a logical fallacy: appeal to majority rather than standing on the merits of your case, which they cannot do in any informed debate.

PS: Grammar/spelling Nazis sit and spin, there have been many studies that show that intelligence is inversely proportional to how much value a person places on grammar/spelling, as people with actual intelligence care more about the actual content, and people out of their depth make themselves feel more important criticizing the one thing they can understand, but that which is not really relevant to the discussion. If you want to comment, contribute to the discussion.

Gee... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46580071)

Gee...

So the f ing hippies were right and stupid a holes have been standing in the way of progress the entire time?

Why do cars get all the negative press? (0)

olddoc (152678) | about 5 months ago | (#46580083)

If governments can tell you what car to drive and how much CO2 it can emit, why not tell people what they can eat, how much animal protein, and put a methane tax on cows and pigs? All this concern over cars and driving and global warming but eating meat seems to be worse than driving a Hummer. http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]

Re:Why do cars get all the negative press? (1)

judoguy (534886) | about 5 months ago | (#46580225)

If governments can tell you what car to drive and how much CO2 it can emit, why not tell people what they can eat, how much animal protein, and put a methane tax on cows and pigs? All this concern over cars and driving and global warming but eating meat seems to be worse than driving a Hummer. http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]

Eating meat may the only thing that can save us: https://www.youtube.com/watch [youtube.com] ?... Fight desertification, sequester carbon AND grow good food. The guy in the TED talk points out that this works well in terrible conditions.

John W Campbell clean car test (1)

Drishmung (458368) | about 5 months ago | (#46580137)

As I recall, the sf author John W Campbell proposed a simple test for a 'clean' car. The designers would be locked in a room for an hour with the engine running.

I suspect that an electric car would pass that test easily; I'm less confident in the Mazda vehicle.

totally missing the point (1)

BradMajors (995624) | about 5 months ago | (#46580185)

The reason most people want electric cars has nothing to do with how much CO2 they emit.

Because my solar panels are a source of CO2? (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 5 months ago | (#46580187)

If you have your electric car connected to solar panels (becoming increasingly common as they are cheap as dirt) then any attempt to compare the CO2 as generated by a fossil fueled car is bogus.

Maybe if the power in your hood comes from coal and crude oil then maybe yes. But many people are Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Hydro powered. Plus I suspect that people in areas with plenty of green power are more likely to drive an electric car. People in an oil producing area are more likely to not only drive a normal fossil fueled car but actually a diesel powered pick up truck.

A major point of electric cars (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#46580313)

A major point of electric cars is to shift the pollution somewhere else other than the city streets where people are breathing in the pollution for a lot of vehicles in a tight space. Everything else is gravy.

Re:A major point of electric cars (1)

Krieghund (1550821) | about 5 months ago | (#46580477)

Exactly! That's particularly relevant to people in Los Angeles (where I live). Pollution from millions of cars gets trapped by the mountains and creates smog. But if they were powered by electricity produced by plants hundreds of miles away the pollution could be dispersed more easily.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>