Mazda says EVs with large battery packs are worse for the environment than diesel cars

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,405   +4,752
Oh knowledgeable one, would you care to bestow us with the secret knowledge you have acquired that disproves Mazda's claims? Lord knows us bug eating pod dwellers could only dream that a superior being such as yourself could devulge such information.


Ahem, rare earth meatals? Ever heard of them? You know, the rare earth metals used in the construction of electric motors? How about the cobalt and nickle used to make the batteries? Those are not unlimited either.
Ah, oh great and wise one - so we should all throw our hands in the air and just forget EVs just like they did back in the day when oil proved cheaper. Not only that, but let's forget all current battery research into cleaner battery technology, and let's all revert back to pond scum for the sake of evolution. Got it! I bow my head unto thee!
In the short run, EV may be more energy intensive, but in the long run, they are better for the environment so long as we shift energy production from fossil fuel to alternatives.
They already are even now. There have been numerous reputable studies done that EVs break even even when charged by 40% efficient coal plants. I'm not providing any links for this. I've done that many times in my posts to TS. And still I get shat on from those who are all wise and powerful.
 

Nilbud

Posts: 44   +12
Trumplike nonsense from Mazda. The sort of crap people who can't look past the next quarter produce. What'll Mazda say when their next model has a bigger battery?
 

Markoni35

Posts: 1,234   +507
Everyone is forgetting that if all the petrol cars were replaced by EV, there wouldn't be enough electric power to recharge them. So those cars would be completely useless.

Now... do we have a working commercial-level fusion reactor? Nope. So how would we generate all that electricity? By using fission power plants? That's a suicide. Fission-based nuclear power plants would contaminate our world much more than fossil fuels. Albanian mafia is already dumping nuclear waste into oceans, imagine how much would they dump then.

What about incidents and disasters? We don't want another Fukushima, which was the worst nuclear disaster of all times. Even today the "contained" Fukushima is leaking more radioactivity than Chernobyl did during its explosion. With all of their technology and money, Japanese can't contain the Fukushima Daiichi radiation leak. The disaster is still in progress. It's ruining the ocean and air in the region, stretching contamination all the way to the United States.

And that's just one disaster. Imagine how many Fukushimas would happen if we built 10 times more nuclear power plants in the world.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 17,221   +5,979
...[ ]...We don't want another Fukushima, which was the worst nuclear disaster of all times. The media is still hiding the fact that Fukushima is leaking more radioactivity many years after the disaster, than Chernobyl emitted during its explosion. Imagine how many Fukushimas would we have if we built 10 times more nuclear power plants....[ ]...
OK, everyone has conceded that fossil fuels are a finite resource for many decades. However no one seems ready to concede that lithium is also limited.

As an aside, even stars can't fuse beyond iron. Neither is lithium produced in the fusion chain.

Your conclusions ignore the fact the we pride ourselves in the fact, "that we learn from our mistakes".

Actually Chernobyl is still leaking badly, and Russia is accepting design ideas and proposals for a hat or umbrella type affair to cover the damaged reactor.

"Thermonuclear" devices are our deadliest weapons. They way they work is like this; first you set off a massive conventional chemical explosion, which is necessary to generate the temperature and pressure to trigger a fission reaction, which then provides the energy necessary to initiate the fusion reaction.

So, cold fusion is at best a "pipe dream", at least for the foreseeable future.

It may be "irresponsible" as you claim to build "more nukes", but accident possibilities could be at least reduced through "learning from our mistakes", more sound locations, and the use of the much more powerful computers we have at this moment, via machine learning or "AI" if you prefer..

Nobody here seems to be able to grasp the massive "line losses" encountered from transmitting electricity over long distances.

I din't think this is taken into consideration when extolling the "energy efficiency virtues of an "all electric" transit system.

As I was told in an earlier thread, "all these Tesla haters have never built a single car on their own". If I concede that point, would you be willing to concede you're never contributed a single proposal or concept which advanced the cause of "power generation via nuclear fusion".
 
Last edited:

Nilbud

Posts: 44   +12
Everyone is forgetting that if all the petrol cars were replaced by EV, there wouldn't be enough electric power to recharge them. So those cars would be completely useless.

Now... do we have a working commercial-level fusion reactor? Nope. So how would we generate all that electricity? By using fission power plants? That's a suicide. Fission-based nuclear power plants would contaminate our world much more than fossil fuels. Albanian mafia is already dumping nuclear waste into oceans, imagine how much would they dump then.

What about incidents and disasters? We don't want another Fukushima, which was the worst nuclear disaster of all times. Even today the "contained" Fukushima is leaking more radioactivity than Chernobyl did during its explosion. With all of their technology and money, Japanese can't contain the Fukushima Daiichi radiation leak. The disaster is still in progress. It's ruining the ocean and air in the region, stretching contamination all the way to the United States.

And that's just one disaster. Imagine how many Fukushimas would happen if we built 10 times more nuclear power plants in the world.
Why don;t you just check your "facts" instead of writing all that.
 

Yynxs

Posts: 542   +190
Sometimes I wonder ...

Where lithium comes from
Video Downside of Lithium and Cobalt
Top list of Lithium Production by Country Australia, Chile, China, Argentina, and Zimbabwe
Nuclear power from Thorium
Electric Cars: Partisan of Petroleum Industry but does state facts.

This took 10 mins to look up articles and read them to see if they agreed with my views. Please feel free to read others to find the ones that agree with your views, but don't make statements about the how's and why's of power generation or where elements come from without reading something.
 

ShagnWagn

Posts: 1,297   +1,085
The "Skyactive-X" is a cute new term, and I don'y know how it differs from current or past technology, but every diesel is, by its design, "compression ignition"

In fact, the engines in trucks either to have ether injection, or ether has to be sprayed into the air intake to enable starting in cold weather. (You know, the infamous, "starting fluid", with which people use to blow the cylinder heads off their standard gasoline ICEs. (although that might be an old wives tale, since I've never actually seen it happen))

All of this is qualified of course, with old information, since I haven't been a truck mechanic for about 40 years or so..

The difference is it's not a diesel. It's gasoline using compression ignition. Mazda is the first company to figure this out.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,221   +5,979
The difference is it's not a diesel. It's gasoline using compression ignition. Mazda is the first company to figure this out.
Well, they better use four bolt mains on that bad girl.

I would argue that, "it's a diesel that burns gasoline instead of kerosene".

If that weren't the case, why would they be jabbering about, "diesels being better for the environment than EVs? :confused:
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 17,221   +5,979
Ah, oh great and wise one - so we should all throw our hands in the air and just forget EVs just like they did back in the day when oil proved cheaper. Not only that, but let's forget all current battery research into cleaner battery technology, and let's all revert back to pond scum for the sake of evolution. Got it! I bow my head unto thee!

They already are even now. There have been numerous reputable studies done that EVs break even even when charged by 40% efficient coal plants. I'm not providing any links for this. I've done that many times in my posts to TS. And still I get shat on from those who are all wise and powerful.
Dude, that was a bit harsh... :eek:? ? ?
 

ShagnWagn

Posts: 1,297   +1,085
Well, they better use four bolt mains on that bad girl.

I would argue that, "it's a diesel that burns gasoline instead of kerosene".

If that weren't the case, why would they be jabbering about, "diesels being better for the environment than EVs? :confused:

Agreed. I was a bit confused as well, which is why I mentioned the "gasoline diesel" engines. /shrug

I would say they don't need 4 bolt mains because the diesel function only happens at low RPM. When you floor it, the engines switches back to standard gasoline combustion.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,405   +4,752
Dude, that was a bit harsh... :eek:? ? ?
Ah well! You know me. I just could not resist those who have done very little research and post as experts.

Such as: Here's a paper authored by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory that I posted in some ancient TS thread before - http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ei/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf
It was completed using the year 2002 as a baseline. From the paper:
This initial paper estimates the regional percentages of the energy requirements for the U.S. LDV stock that could be supported by the existing infrastructure, based on the 12 modified North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) regions, as of 2002, and taking into account congestion in regional transmission and distribution systems. For the United States as a whole, 84% of U.S. cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) could be supported by the existing infrastructure, although the local percentages vary by region.
Enough electricity and infrastructure, in 2002 already, for 84% of all US cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs. I mean, wtf? But, I digress as technology has ceased to advance - gone backwards, even, and we all have reverted to pond scum. :facepalm:
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,221   +5,979
I would say they don't need 4 bolt mains because the diesel function only happens at low RPM. When you floor it, the engines switches back to standard gasoline combustion.
OK, I couldn't find the specs (at least not real quick), on the original "screamin' Jimmy" tractor engines. But here's the current Pickup truck engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Diesel_V8_engine

Take note that the compression ratio 21.5 : 1:00 :eek: Trust me, that needs four bolt mains. But it also burns kerosene. I don' see not you could possibly even attempt to control detonation, burning gasoline in that beast.

I'm going to concede this is quite an engineering feat. The only thing that springs yo my feeble mind, is variable compression ratio, and that, (again to me), seems somewhere north of improbable .
 

ShagnWagn

Posts: 1,297   +1,085
OK, I couldn't find the specs (at least not real quick), on the original "screamin' Jimmy" tractor engines. But here's the current Pickup truck engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Diesel_V8_engine

Take note that the compression ratio 21.5 : 1:00 :eek: Trust me, that needs four bolt mains. But it also burns kerosene. I don' see not you could possibly even attempt to control detonation, burning gasoline in that beast.

I'm going to concede this is quite an engineering feat. The only thing that springs yo my feeble mind, is variable compression ratio, and that, (again to me), seems somewhere north of improbable .

My first post I pasted a link with information. Here it is again: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27750433/mazda-skyactiv-x-engine-europe-mpg/
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,221   +5,979

Markoni35

Posts: 1,234   +507
Actually Chernobyl is still leaking badly, and Russia is accepting design ideas and proposals for a hat or umbrella type affair to cover the damaged reactor.

Chernobyl may be leaking badly, but not even close to Fukushima. At the moment of explosion, Fukushima was almost an order of magnitude stronger than Chernobyl. And almost 9 years after the explosion, Fukushima is still leaking more radiation than Chernobyl did at the moment of its explosion.

The coverup of Fukushima disaster is actually a lot bigger than that of Chernobyl. Because nowadays we have internet, smartphones, advanced TV, etc. and they are still managing to cover up the horrible consequences. You can find the data if you spend some time searching, but no TV news or other mass media is talking about it. They spend time talking about unimportant thrash, but not about the real thing.

The reason being, nuclear lobby don't want people to know how dangerous things things still are. Someone made that series about Chernobyl (and gave themselves awards) just to shift attention away from Fukushima. But Chernobyl is a little baby compared to Fukushima.

There are also thousands smaller incidents every year, but the media that can partially coverup Fukushima is strong enough to completely coverup smaller incidents. It's a very risky source of power. We should use geothermal and hydro power wherever possible.
 

Yynxs

Posts: 542   +190
The coverup of Fukushima disaster is actually a lot bigger than that of Chernobyl. Because nowadays we have internet, smartphones, advanced TV, etc. and they are still managing to cover up the horrible consequences. You can find the data if you spend some time searching, but no TV news or other mass media is talking about it. They spend time talking about unimportant thrash, but not about the real thing.
To reemphasize this statement, I was hauling some stuff to the dump and some of it was recyclable so I took it there. I wound up talking to a Navy guy working in recycling who was on the USS Ronald Reagan when it went there to help. Among the things he related was the Ronald Reagan using distilled seawater for drinking and cooking and later finding out the distilled water they had made on the ship was radioactive (don't ask me the isotopes), also, the entire crew hauled out to wash the deck, most not in full protection gear, to get rid of fallout and very radioactive sea spray.
I chased down some articles and found the Captain and Admirals were promoted for their actions during the incident. The Captain iterated and reiterated no one was injured and they just sailed through the problem and stayed out of the active plume. At the time I checked though, the Veteran's Administration was not being directed to give care to radiation exposed Navy vets of the incident and there were some odd deaths. None of this is 'national news' even with all the VA overhaul hoopla.
I have separate links to radioactive fish showing up on Alaskan markets, seals dying on the Oregon coast, and others. No national news.
Fukushima did and is poisoning the planet and the food chain. Those of you younger than 50 are eating the sand falling from this djinn and will, most probably, suffer.
It's not 'tech' but it applies to everyone.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,221   +5,979
...[ ]... I wound up talking to a Navy guy working in recycling who was on the USS Ronald Reagan when it went there to help. Among the things he related was the Ronald Reagan using distilled seawater for drinking and cooking and later finding out the distilled water they had made on the ship was radioactive (don't ask me the isotopes), also, the entire crew hauled out to wash the deck, most not in full protection gear, to get rid of fallout and very radioactive sea spray. ...[ ]....

Here I covered that for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission_product

I tend to think it's an entire range of isotopes, not a single element.