Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Earth

Mazda Says Its Upcoming Gas-Powered Cars Will Emit Less CO2 Than Electric Cars 330

Posted by Soulskill
from the extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by kruach aum (1934852) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @06:57PM (#46578903)

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

    • by Moheeheeko (1682914) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:00PM (#46578931)
      If that were the case I would point them to the refining process for gasoline.
      • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:04PM (#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.
      • by Solandri (704621)
        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.)
        • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:57PM (#46579471) Homepage

          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.

          • by dbIII (701233)
            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?
            • by Jesrad (716567) on Wednesday March 26, 2014 @03:49AM (#46581969) Journal

              Breeding means generating more nuclear fuel from stuff that is not fissile material in the first place. For example, in a classic nuclear fuel rod only a few percents of the uranium is of the 235 isotope variety, which is fissile (= radioactive, potentially dangerous and useable as nuclear fuel), the rest is the 238 isotope and is not fissile... but is intead "fertile", because once it gobbles up a passing neutron (= beta radiation), it quickly transmutes into the 239 isotope of plutonium - and this kind of plutonium, in turn, is fissile.

              And, fortunately, you can have it so that while the 235 uranium "burns" it produces the right neutrons for the 238 to turn into 239, or "breed" into plutonium. Or breed the fertile 232 thorium into fissile 233 uranium, too. That's the principle of a breeder reactor. And you may use your fresh new fuel to breed yet some more fuel, too, so that potentially, all the uranium and all the thorium in the world may be converted into nuclear fuel - that's called "supergeneration", because then you are not even limited by the tiny amount of starting fissile material anymore.

              For every amount of starting fuel you can have various ratios of breeding happening. In fast breeder reactors you can have three or four times more breeding than consuming, so that every unit of fuel spent generates, on the side, three or four units of additional fuel from fertile material. In molten salt thorium reactors this ratio is projected to be 1-on-1 to limit the risks of nuclear proliferation (= using the breeding process to make a lot more fissile material, in order to make weapons).

          • by rtb61 (674572) on Wednesday March 26, 2014 @06:43AM (#46582499) Homepage

            Well no, technically by far the best generator of electricity is sewerage digester methane plants. The sewerage must be broken and this produces a lot of methane (basically natural gas) in the process, this can break down naturally but in the interim it is a very bad green house gas. So by capturing that methane and burning it, it reduces the green house impact of it. Now if your digester is an anaerobic base you can pump the carbon dioxide back into the system, the heat will benefit growth and a proportion of the carbon dioxide will be captured. So you have eliminated a problem and as a bonus generated energy. All that is need now is very large scale sewerage digester, optimum bioengineering organisms to ensure maximum production of methane and all methane produced is captured and destroyed to produce energy. The waste produced should be high pressure steam sterilised (waste heat from plant) and sold as fertiliser. Waste water should be run through aerobic beds and any residual production of methane should be captured and used with residual water used in controlled irrigation, say an orchard with below ground piping. See, much, much better than nuclear. It is always better to think outside of the box and try to solve more than one problem at a time, especially you should avoid solutions than create other problems.

        • by dbIII (701233)
          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 ten
        • Well, it takes 6kWh of electricity just to refine a gallon of gasoline. At 300Wh/mile, you can run an electric car 20 miles just on the refinery overhead of a gallon of gasoline.
          • by Solandri (704621) on Wednesday March 26, 2014 @01:42AM (#46581609)
            Yes, I've heard the 6 kWh figure too. Assuming it's true, I suspect it's the cost to refine a volume of crude oil which yields a gallon of gasoline. So the 6 kWh would actually need to be amortized over the other petroleum products too, not just the gasoline. The EIA says a barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil yields about 19 gallons of gasoline [eia.gov]. So if I'm right, only 2.7 kWh is attributable to the gasoline. (This isn't strictly correct because I believe 42 gallons of crude oil yields more than 42 gallons of product - such are the pitfalls of working in volume instead of mass.)

            The 300 Wh is also the electrical energy stored in the battery (the Tesla S has an 85 kWh battery rated at 300 miles, so that works out to 283 Wh/mile). If you're going to factor in production costs of gasoline, you also need to factor in production costs of electricity. Charging the battery is about 75% efficient. Transmission to the home is about 98% efficient. And coal plants are about 45% efficient. So to produce the 300 Wh/mile the EV uses, the power company actually has to burn 300/(.75*.98*.45) = 907 Wh/mile. Factor in coal mining and transport costs and you're probably up around 1 kW/mile.

            So the energy cost to refine gasoline is probably more likely enough to drive the EV only 2-3 miles.
            • by thegarbz (1787294)

              To give an example from the refinery I work at we process we process a barrel of oil using about 8kWh of electrical power (yes I said 9 above in another post but, rounding error). The barrel yield for how we're set up is about 15 gallons of gasoline per barrel and 19 gallons of diesel (yes that's more than 1 barrel in total, but that's how upgrading refineries work, we get more out in volume than we put in).

              Total energy cost is higher as we also use a considerable quantity of natural gas to fire heaters, bu

      • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

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

        No citizen, all things Gasoline are perfect.

        And ummm, Mazda assumes that the only reason to use an electric car is CO2 reduction?

        I want to go electric so that we can quit sending our money to people that hate us, and to use the remaining oil as lubrication, not burn it up.

    • by Todd Palin (1402501) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:03PM (#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.

      • 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)

        • by dbIII (701233)
          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.
      • 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 ca
        • 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

      • by robot256 (1635039)

        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.

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          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.

          • by robot256 (1635039)
            Only if you live in West Virginia and you know they don't have solar panels on their house. But you can rub it in the face of any Prius driver you want. I don't understand how they can be so smug when all they're doing is using a *little less* gas by driving an underpowered, overcomplicated contraption--if they REALLY wanted to help the environment they would be driving electric. That's why I went straight to a Leaf--even better for the environment, AND I get plenty of torque and perfectly smooth acceler
        • Wonder about the pollution (not just CO2) from the production (and eventual disposal) of the batteries in EVs.

          • by swb (14022)

            Î(TM) would like to see the lifecycle energy consumption of a gasoline, diesel, hybrid and electric vehicle, including the raw material extraction and refining. I would exclude the fuel source extraction and refining energy consumption but maybe you shouldn't, but I'm principally wondering if the energy savings, especially with a hybrid, isn't lost by the battery and eletrical drive components which are dependent on mining in remote locations and/or intensive refining.

            There used to be a site that clai

          • by robot256 (1635039)

            This has been studied [greencarcongress.com] extensively [ucla.edu] as well [prnewswire.com]. While specific chemistries have their own pollution issues, most EV batteries are made in Japan, Korea and the U.S., with relatively strong pollution controls. There is general agreement that the manufacturing impact is relatively small compared to the operating costs of both electric and gasoline cars.

            It's easy to be skeptical of electric vehicles until you realize just how bad even the best gasoline cars are. All those tailpipe emissions are making you and th

      • 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).
      • by jelwell (2152)

        But smog in unpopulated locations (plants) is much easier to live with than smog in the cities.
        Joseph Elwell.

    • by knarfling (735361) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:18PM (#46579103) Journal
      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.

    • by DittoBox (978894) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:27PM (#46579191) Homepage

      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.

      • by Immerman (2627577)

        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

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        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.

        There is no need to abandon ICEs to achieve carbon neutrality. The answer is biofuels. We already know how to make 1:1 replacements for both diesel and gasoline out of any organic material. But our government is literally complicit in oil company conspiracies to prevent us from having them. Making biodiesel in a carbon-neutral (actually carbon-negative) way depends on being permitted to use BLM lands, which you can do for coal or oil but just try getting green energy permits. Butanol is a 1:1 replacement fo

  • by drooling-dog (189103) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:03PM (#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?

    • 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.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by robot256 (1635039) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:31PM (#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...

        • by robot256 (1635039)
          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.
        • 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.
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            It depends on how much you drive, obviously.

            If I drive my 20 MPG (peak around 30 on the freeway) A8 for a couple of hours once a week I'm going to produce less emissions than someone who drives a non-plugin Prius to and from work five days a week.

            As always, the commuter lifestyle is the biggest problem with cars.

        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          The one thing that might have been missed is that the numbers are probably based on IC engine vehicles. The numbers may be very different for EVs as the construction of a battery/electric drive train is very different than an IC drive train. For example, t takes a lot more energy to build a ton of batteries than it takes to build a gas tank.

      • by dbIII (701233)
        Such studies tend to ignore things like a lot of steel being made from scrap instead it all coming from freshly mined ore.
        There's a crossover point and it's going to depend on a lot of variables.
    • Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by twotacocombo (1529393) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:26PM (#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.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rising Ape (1620461) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:58PM (#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.

      • by OneAhead (1495535)

        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, al

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          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.

          You forgot both CO and soot. Your geek card, please.

      • by Immerman (2627577)

        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 em

      • by nolife (233813)

        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]

    • 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.
      • by AK Marc (707885)

        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?

        • Yeah, I guess so, that looks like a small SUV. Just checked the specs, gas mileage doesn't look super impressive.
          • by AK Marc (707885)
            24 City/ 30 hwy for the 2.5 gasoline, with 2.2 Diesel and 2.0 gasoline available. That's pretty good for an SUV. About mid-pack for the hybrid SUVs. And it's not a hybrid.

            "The EPA rated the CX-5's gas mileage as the best in its class, averaging 26mpg city and 35mpg highway, which Mazda claims is the best mileage of any non-hybrid SUV." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
  • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tri44id (576891)
      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.
      • by dbIII (701233)

        where we have to take the wind turbines offline at night

        Actually makes sense because they are quick to get back online when you need them. It takes many hours to get a unit of a coal fired power station going from a cold start.

      • They could use the excess nighttime electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Normally, making hydrogen for fuel cells is expensive in terms of electrical use, but if you're not using it anyway...
      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        It might not be such a great deal [vaultelectricity.com];

        The attention grabbing headline is “TXU offers free nighttime electricity”. But the fine print will reveal that they are doing this by increasing daytime rates to 50% higher than rates offered by many of their competitors.

        Much of the "free" night time energy is being paid for by higher daytime charges.

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      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.
  • Hydroelectricity! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Valtor (34080) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:44PM (#46579355) Homepage

    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.

    • by Solandri (704621)
      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 energ
  • 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.
    • by barfy (256323)

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

  • by Oysterville (2944937) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:16PM (#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.
  • 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.

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

  • 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 nor
    • by iamacat (583406)

      If you have your electric car and all the factories and mines involved in its manufacturing connected to solar panels, then any attempt to compare the CO2 as generated by a fossil fueled car is bogus.

      If not, a small and efficient gasoline car made from materials that require minimum energy and other pollution to manufacture will most probably be more environmentally friendly overall than a leading electric car. Especially after figuring in pollution other than CO2 and the fact that only a minority of owners

      • Plus the reduction of concentrated pollution in a city center. The other apples and oranges problem is that often an electric car is a second car. The electric car is used primarily for commuting while the gas car is the weekend road trip car. To me this is too much of trying to fit the data to match a desired conclusion. One could then make an argument that by having a second "commuting" car that the pollution has actually gone up some more. On the other hand, how do you go about putting a reduction of noi
  • 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.
    • Yes, moving the energy production outside of the car is the key point with shifting to electric cars. This way if a more efficient or less polluting energy source is used, all electric cars benefit from its deployment. If a new more efficient dinosaur engine is made, only new buyers benefit -- it does nothing about existing vehicles.

  • by SJ (13711) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @10:39PM (#46580803)

    Get two hermetically sealed rooms. One with this new Mazda, and one with an all-electric car. Both cars are on roller ramps. Just to be fair, the Mazda can have it's air-intake piped in from outside.

    Then grab the CEO of Mazda and give him this choice of 'driving' 20 miles in either the Mazda or the electric car.

    Simple... Effective.

  • ...are not correlated like Mazda is claiming. Stoichiometry dictates how much CO2 a 100% efficient engine will emit by burning gasoline.
  • Awesome! Efficient gas powered cars. Another constructive argument to continue fracking.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

Working...