Mazda Skyactiv-X To Add Plug-In Variant In 2021, Makes Asinine Claim On Efficiency

2 months ago by Mark Kane 99

Step by step we are discovering the electrification approach of Mazda (the slowest OEM to adopt plug-in technology), as the company has announced its new Skyactiv-X engines and a partnership with Toyota on electric vehicles.

Mazda Koeru

For 2019, the Japanese company is expected of offer:

  • more hybrids and,
  • an all-electric model (with and without range-extender) using tech borrowed from Toyota

In 2019, Mazda will also introduce its new compression ignition petrol engine Skyactiv-X (Spark Controlled Compression Ignition), which according to manufacturer claims have lower ‘well-to-wheel’ emissions than electric vehicles.

Of course, we don’t believe that at all, as just a 30% efficiency gain promised, while BEVs are much more than 30% efficient over today’s petrol cars….without even seeing how Mazda arrived at this number, we know fuzzy-math when we see it.

Curiously, Mazda plans on introducing a plug-in hybrid version of Skyactiv-X powertrain in 2021 – which is of course makes no sense if electrification doesn’t lower emissions.  Catch-22 there Mazda?

“Mazda pledged that its next generation of petrol-engine vehicles will be cleaner than electric cars due to the use of efficiency-boosting compression ignition technology – and it’ll boost that promise in 2021, when a plug-in hybrid (PHEV) drivetrain will join the range.”

“Mazda said they’ll produce lower carbon dioxide emissions than electric powertrains from a ‘well-to-wheel’ perspective – which accounts for the whole life cycle of a vehicle and the fuel needed to power it.”

source: Autocar

Tags: ,

99 responses to "Mazda Skyactiv-X To Add Plug-In Variant In 2021, Makes Asinine Claim On Efficiency"

  1. Ryan says:

    Given the Mazda CEO’s comments about EVs, I can guarantee that that plugin hybrid will be available in California only, just like the Honda Clarity. They’re only doing it because they’re being forced to.

    1. L'amata says:

      These guys are out rite Liars Worst than Politicians by far..As far as I’m concerned I won’t even look at a Mazda ,they can stick all Their Mazdas Up Where the sun doesn’t shine.

      1. SJC says:

        “..BEVs are much more than 30% efficient..”

        Take some natural gas to run this car, then take that natural gas to make electricity to charge a BEV…now you start to get it.

        1. Asak says:

          EV efficiency already takes that sort of thing into account. The ICE is actually really terrible in terms of efficiency. It is forced to run outside its prime efficiency a significant amount of the time, unlike a power plant. Power plant generators are also much larger which can also help with efficiency.

          A lot of people simply don’t understand just how crap the ICE really is.

          1. Prsnep says:

            EV efficiency doesn’t take that sort of thing into account. Efficiency of the power plant has no bearing on mpge rating.

            1. Mint says:

              He isn’t talking about mpge. He’s talking about overall efficiency, and his points are correct.

              All studies yielding high emissions from EVs assume additional electricity generation is as dirty as past generation. That simply isn’t rooted in reality.

              1. pjwood1 says:

                Not to mention you are still cleaner using the old data.

                People can step away from places like Inside EV’s and find other car-sites making broad assumptions about mythic 100% coal-burning bastions of the US. But come here, and without any all-renewables pretense, you get much closer to truth.

    2. mx says:

      2021 is 4 years from now. There will be no demand for weak plugin hybrids by that time. By that time the will be doing 200 miles of EV range.

      Mazda heading for bankruptcy.

      1. DJ says:

        In a full sized SUV? What, are they going to carry around 120kW worth of batteries?

        Until they can make batteries light enough and cheap enough that it makes sense to put them in larger vehicles there will definitely be a market for PHEVs and/or ICEs.

        Not everyone is going to be ok with driving an econobox despite many of us wanting them to be 😀

    3. JayTee says:

      They should lose money voluntarily.

  2. Pete says:

    Wont be selling those in Australia making those claims, it’s false advertising!

  3. Gouldness says:

    New headline: Struggling-to-stay-relevant automaker makes an attempt; fails.

    1. JayTee says:

      Mazda is actually growing and making a lot of money.

      1. Unplugged says:

        Mazda needs to move to the new century. They are mired in the mud of ICE, and can’t seem to innovate and realize that EVs will soon (in automotive time) retire gas cars.

        1. trackdaze says:

          Hang on. aren’t mazda the only ones currentlt meeting their cafe obligations without buying credits?

          The skyactives run supercapicitors for stop start and some other finctions.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            You are mixing the CAFE requirement and ZEV credits together.

            There is NO CAFE credits to buy.. It is a fine per car if you don’t meet it.

            ZEV on the other hand is something you can meet by trading credits.

            Mazda is small enough that it isn’t subject to ZEV requirements yet.

  4. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    Math is certainly fuzzy, but contemporary 2 kWh hybrids are already reaching lower lifetime GHG emissions than overweight 100 kWh environment trashers when you account for mining and manufacturing emissions.

    1. floydboy says:

      Trashers huh?

    2. Paul Stoller says:

      That doesn’t hold when account all of the energy used in refining and transport of petroleum.

    3. Nick says:

      You fail to support your argument with data.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Green house gas emission data for Nick:
        http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=38640&id=38936&id=38485&#tab2
        Car #1: 190 g/mile. 19 tonnes per 100k miles.
        Car #2: 205 g/mile. 20.5 tonnes per 100k miles.
        Car #3: 184 g/mile. 18.4 tonnes per 100k miles.
        Numbers include BOTH tailpipe AND upstream emissions and assume US average grid electricity.
        Additional mining and manufacturing emissions for car #1: something around 15-20 tonnes, according to report of all recent peer reviewed studies on the subject, done by respected environmental institute.
        http://www.ivl.se/english/startpage/top-menu/pressroom/press-releases/press-releases—arkiv/2017-06-21-new-report-highlights-climate-footprint-of-electric-car-battery-production.html

        Math questions to kids in 5th grade. Which car emits less after 100,000 miles? After 200,000 miles?

        Advanced challenge question: How many miles cars will need to make to reach break-even emissions and is it possible at all?

        1. stimpy says:

          Where is your math showing the environmental cost of mining the oil to make gasoline?

          1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

            And the burning of Diesel to transport the crude across the ocean.

            Does it account for the environmental impact impact of the Deep Horizon or any crude leaks of the OPEC Gooo?

            1. JayTee says:

              Do you know that petroleum is a natural substance that flows from the oceans floors constantly?

              1. Unplugged says:

                This website is under a troll attack!! Ignore the trolls.

          2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            You can ask exactly the same question about fossil fuel based electricity production that changes at turtle pace. Or children labor in hell on Earth called Congo cobalt mines.
            What is the point of grasping straw-man arguments? Either you mine, transport and burn fossil fuel in one place or in another, the end result are still GHG emissions.

            If you want green transportation, look at hundreds of millions e-bikes in China. They serve fine for commuters without 100 kWh monster batteries and do not get any subsidies. On the contrary, they are harassed and pushed away from some districts, as people who use them belong to lower disadvantaged classes and are not some wealthy greenwashers.

            1. Rob Stark says:

              So says the OPEC fellator.

              Oil based electricity is almost non-existent where 100 kWh battery packs are recharged.

              Almost all areas where 100 kWh battery packs are recharged coal based electricity is falling fast. In the US from over 50% to under 30% in less than 10 years.

              And the areas where 100 kWh batteries are growing the fastest is where renewable generated electricity either dominate or are growing the fastest.

              1. pjwood1 says:

                To follow Rob, we’re seeing huge coal declines from big U.S. Generators. Tennessee Valley Authority down to 24% coal:

                I was looking at SC, the other day. Their coal use fell off a cliff, in 2015, from 28TWh, down to 21-22.

                Environmentalist preach “electrification” for a reason. Coal has always been just another target among electric fuels. Oil isn’t so used to competition. Not very Capitalist. Now that its substitution is at hand, it is doing everything it can to fake-news its survival. Dozens of oil-based banana republics dot the earth, and they want mileage from “cobalt”.

                1. JayTee says:

                  US coal use is actually way up this year.

                  1. Unplugged says:

                    The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that coal will be up 8% in 2017.

                    I guess coal lovers feel this is “way up.”

                    1. Mark.ca says:

                      When you have negative growth for years and years an 8% up half year is “way up” i guess.

                    2. Mikael says:

                      Mostly everyone feels that is way up. Coal should be gone by now already, or bare minimum be shutting down at a fast rate.

                      Even standing still or a slow decline would be a big win for coal. Going up? Massive win for coal.

                    3. pjwood1 says:

                      Mikael, U.S. (federal) CO2 policy has never moved the needle. The Clean Power Plan’s goal was only a 200-300 million ton reduction, by 2030 (fed register&RIA). That’s on ’12’s 2,000 mn ton rate, of CO2 from electricity. Popular concern for global warming has completely failed, as far as federal mandates go. That’s why the same market forces that made natural gas cheaper, will reverse as LNG exports ramp up and coal use freely rises by increments of 8%. Environmentalism is one of the places where the U.S. gets furthest from democracy. The powerful want their emissions for free, and the populists are taught to believe they can’t afford otherwise.

            2. Get Real says:

              zzzz is nothing more then a ineffective paid shill for the fossil fuel economy.

              He lamely and repeatedly reposts the same whining and discredited Koch-Heads millions of dollars funded anti-EV (and anti-anything clean tech) propaganda here like his false claims about cobalt.

              InsideEvs and many other sites has already thoroughly debunked his red-herring arguments as shown here:
              http://insideevs.com/koch-brothers-attack-electric-cars/

              and here:

              Like all anti-EV trolls, EVERYTHING zzzzz posts here is FUD and attempted manipulation.

              Fortunately he is a loser and no good at it!

              1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                Get Real:
                Tesla religious zealots are no different from Flat Earth Society or all other kinds of science deniers they love to talk about. When presented with facts and numbers that they can’t dispute in reasonable way, they just go hysterical.

                Face it, your beloved Tesla way to “save the world” with monster batteries is yet another way to outsource pollution further from your noses and trash environment in new innovative and disruptive way. The end result is the same or just worse.

            3. pjwood1 says:

              Now, you’re talking about E-bikes. Before, you were comparing touring cars to Prius, which is like an F150 against a commercial dump truck.

              “190gr/mile” wasn’t a fueleconomy.gov stat, yet your used it.

              IVL, under “CURRENT RESEARCH” has NONE for water and air. Only goals, and the sweeping statements that sometimes indicate a dummy website. Not sure who’s “respect” supports them.

              In sum, despite cited studies within a link to the detailed report showing lower kg CO2 / KWh levels, the study surmises the equivalent of 22 tons of CO2, per 100KWh Tesla battery (using its “200”kg CO2/KWh).

              I could stop, right here, and say Tesla doesn’t use “U.S. average grid electricity”, but will go on to EIA 2016 data showing 30% coal, 34% natural gas. That’s about 875 pounds/MWh. So, your study says mining, or up to 50 MWh of electricity are required to make ONE 100KWh battery. At 30KWh/day, for the average U.S. dwelling, that’s about 4.5 **years** worth of electricity.

              How much more are we supposed to endure? I’m tapping out, and calling BS

              Even your own “190” plug, yields about the same result (~21 tons CO2).

              1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                pjwood1:
                “Now, you’re talking about E-bikes. Before, you were comparing touring cars to Prius, which is like an F150 against a commercial dump truck.”

                How many times you people need to be explained that you don’t need F-150 just to get your fat … to the office and back? E-bike performs this function equally well for many millions, that is the whole point. Just put your actions where your mouth is before talking about environment you don’t give … about.

                ” “190gr/mile” wasn’t a fueleconomy.gov stat, yet your used it. ”

                It is there unless you wear black fanboy glasses and want to ignore facts. Go to the link I provided, “Energy & Environment” tab, select “Tailpipe & upstream GHG” under “Show:”, it will show “Calculate Emissions” link. Follow it and you will see 190 g/miles.
                http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?zipCode=44444&year=2017&vehicleId=38640&action=bt3

                “IVL, under “CURRENT RESEARCH” has NONE for water and air. Only goals, and the sweeping statements that sometimes indicate a dummy website. Not sure who’s “respect” supports them.”

                Sure, attack something unrelated instead of peer reviewed studies they quote. This “dummy website” is 10 year old. You can get employed by some climate change denying interest group, they value such distraction skills.

                “In sum, despite cited studies within a link to the detailed report showing lower kg CO2 / KWh levels, the study surmises the equivalent of 22 tons of CO2, per 100KWh Tesla battery (using its “200”kg CO2/KWh).”

                They cite all the relevant studies. You can cherry pick worst or best, that is why I agree that the math is “fuzzy”. But if you read and make reasonable averages and estimates on all of them, they are what they are, and it is no surprise when you know price tag of the products. You can hate the science for not twisting facts your way all the way you want, but it is not going to change.

                “I could stop, right here, and say Tesla doesn’t use “U.S. average grid electricity”

                Sure, Tesla is expanding in places in China and India too to “save the world”. These grids are much worse than US and will take decades to change in meaningful way. But you can always assume that your gated community only generates 100% clean PV power, because everything else is outsourced, so you must be green :/

                ” but will go on to EIA 2016 data showing 30% coal, 34% natural gas. That’s about 875 pounds/MWh. So, your study says mining, or up to 50 MWh of electricity are required to make ONE 100KWh battery. At 30KWh/day, for the average U.S. dwelling, that’s about 4.5 **years** worth of electricity.”

                There is mining and there is manufacturing. Few of it is in the US, except end product assembly. Gigafactory is not going to produce cathode powder in Nevada either, too expensive.

                “How much more are we supposed to endure? I’m tapping out, and calling BS”

                You may also call Newton laws BS because they prevent overweight cars from making sense. Whatever.

                1. pjwood1 says:

                  Thanks for the link, about where you got to 190 gr / mi, on the 100D.

                  For everyone’s context, Fueleconomy.gov shows the ‘Average Vehicle’ emits 430 grams of CO2 per mile. This assumes:

                  – 19.6lbs CO2/gallon, at tailpipe
                  – 1.25X multiplier for upstream emissions
                  – 26mpg “Average Vehicle” efficiency
                  http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/calculations-information.shtml

                  The Tesla 100D has a 4 second 0-60, the luxury ride that comes with higher weight, and smoother handling that comes with a longer wheelbase car whose weight is down low and between the axles. For these, and many more reasons, a Camry and Ioniq hybrid simply don’t compare. (the F150 vs. Commercial truck I was suggesting)

                  Also, A Tesla is more like the Chevy Caprice of electric efficiency, and all the glory of torque and power that comes with the old hulky V8. No fanboy’ism needed. Model 3 is almost 33% more efficient. Yet, against 430grams of CO2 / mile, the clunky Tesla maintains a score of 190. If you bought a car, chasing the specs of the 100D, you’d do much worse than “Average Vehicle” efficiency, etc.

          3. Mark.ca says:

            “Where is your math showing the environmental cost of mining the oil to make gasoline?”
            When trolling you are allowed to cherry pick data points so zzzzzzzzz is right. He did nothing wrong. You go Z….seriously, just go!

          4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Where is your math showing the environmental cost of mining the oil to make gasoline?”

            More to the point, where are zzzzzzz’s figures showing the large amount of energy used, and the pollution emitted, for every gallon of gasoline produced at an oil refinery?

            Oddly enough, when Big Oil shills like zzzzzzzz compare gasmobiles to BEVs, they omit all that. You’d almost think his objective was anything but a fair or honest comparison… 🙄

        2. Mint says:

          “assume US average grid electricity.”

          The new electricity generation we’re building (and have been building over the last 5 years) to power the next 10 million EVs (and the rest of society) looks nothing like US average grid.

    4. mx says:

      EV’s are, of course, cleaner than any plugin solution, as it directly Subtracts the fuel needed to refine gas at the refinery, and needs none of the gas infrastructure.

  5. ffbj says:

    Twilight of the ICE. The last of the light is fading.

    1. L'amata says:

      From your Lips to God’s Ears ..Lets be done with The “CLUNKER” Technology Era…As all “ICE” cars are Dirty 0ld Polluting CLUNKERS..

    2. JayTee says:

      Somebody told me that 7 years ago.

      1. ffbj says:

        They were just trying to wax poetic, that was just the late afternoon.
        It’s inevitable that ice will fall. They are just junk compared to evs, in many ways.

  6. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    I figured Mazda would be last, then I thought, what about Subaru???

    1. Ryan says:

      What Mazda, Subaru, and Honda have in common is that they are all engine manufacturers. A significant part of their business outside of their auto sales is in building combustion engines themselves. In Subaru and Honda’s case it’s for sale to any number of third parties for use in all sorts of equipment. A huge part of their engineering culture is built around the history making engines and _then_ finding uses for them. They’ll only go kicking and screaming into the sunset of obsolescence.

      1. JayTee says:

        I think another thing they have in common is profitability.

        1. pjwood1 says:

          Poor products tend to have good margins. Been true on EBAY, too.

        2. ffbj says:

          ..and lots of inventory sitting on lots that no one wants, at the prices that are being asked. Twilight for the legacy car companies too, and they are freaking out.

        3. Ryan says:

          Kodak was a pretty damn profitable company too. Until they weren’t. At all.

      2. Wineboy! says:

        Have you noticed the quality of lithium powered lawn tools lately? They will be the first place the engine manufacturers will feel the pain when we don’t need to pull stupid ice lawn mowers or 2 stroke weed whackers anymore?

  7. kbm3 says:

    I actually feel sorry for Mazda. They have apparently made a tremendous breakthrough (aka the Holy Grail in combustion technology) just as ICEs are entering their twilight.

  8. SeniorG says:

    ICEs (incl. standard HEVs) are still forecast to make up 40-50% of new car sales in 2040. If Mazda can get that efficiency out of a gas engine while also bringing full EVs to the market, then I think from a fleet standpoint they’d be one of the best in terms of emissions and fuel economy (excluding EV-only OEMS, of course). Anyway, I look forward to seeing if they can pull it off.

    1. arne-nl says:

      Some countries have already announced a total ban on ICE vehicles in 2040. Expect other to follow. But it is just a forecast, right?

      1. arne-nl says:

        “on ICE vehicles ” –> “on the sale of ICE vehicles”

    2. Asak says:

      I highly doubt more than 10% of cars being sold in 2040 will be ICE. EV tech is developing too fast. In more than two decades the ICE will be a useless relic.

  9. kbm3 says:

    I loved that video!

  10. philip d says:

    They better plan on doubling the thermal efficiency then from around 40% today to 80% if they want to beat EVs well to wheels. Good luck with that.

    Fueleconomy.gov show that a new long range EV like the Bolt produces about 150 g/CO2 per mile on the average US grid including upstream emissions (well-to-wheels).

    Mazda’s most efficient 4 door Mazda 3 2.0L is rated at 283 g/CO2 per mile including upstream emissions.

    And even if they could pull it off they would need to assume that EV drivetrains wont get more efficient over the next 5 years.

    1. Bill Howland says:

      Well, I love my BOLT ev, but you’ve just picked one of the most efficient EV’s there is. It uses about 70% of the electricity my ELR does while under electric mode (cold winter driving excepted – when all ev’s fare poorly compared to ICE’s), and the ELR is a marvel of efficiency.

      Seeing as water is the most efficacious GreenHouseGas, someone better drain the Atlantic and Pacific oceans before they have to worry about the ‘trace’ gas CO2. There is no where near enough of it – and for those who disagree – how about a campaign to stop chopping down the RAINFOREST so that companies can make more ‘green’ ethanol?

      I mean the RF only makes oxygen – who needs that?.

      Seeing as plants are in general STARVING for CO2 (they have to be otherwise hot-houses wouldn’t need to pump the stuff in to make the plants grow right), I’m looking forward to the time when there is much more CO2. More CO2 to more plants means a lot more OXYGEN – something the planet really needs, seeing it is currently in a lull.

      I know that for the past 30 years even little kids have had the polemic drilled into their heads, but there are worse things to worry about.

      1. Get Real says:

        I hate to interrupt your basically Breitbart propaganda Bill, but here are the facts:

        https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

        https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

        In any case, I would hate to hear your views on the “Unite the Right” violence from this weekend as I suspect it would also mirror what Breitbart told you.

        1. Rightofthepeople says:

          Just an FYI, the Neo-Nazi types are not politically right. Nazi’s are socialists, so politically they have much more in common with Bernie Sanders. Why the media continues the false narrative of calling them right wing or alt-right or whatever they want to call them is beyond me.
          The vast vast vast vast majority of conservatives (of which I am one) want nothing to do with Neo-Nazis, KKK, skinheads, or any other white supremacist groups. I think we can all agree those people are living in the past and they need to simply fade away.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Claiming that Nazis (and neo-Nazis) can’t possibly be militant right-wing fascists because the word “Nazi” originally meant a German worker’s party, is even more clueless than claiming the U.S. Republican Party can’t possibly be trying to suppress equal rights for minorities because back in Lincoln’s day, the Radical Republicans championed the cause of ending slavery!

            It’s terrible when people start believing their own lies.

            1. Rightofthepeople says:

              Pu-Pu, you’re posts are normally quite logical, but this one seems filled with more emotion than anything else.

              First, Nazi’s are socialists. In the 1930s and now, they are socialists. They advocate for and need a powerful, central government in order to achieve their desire of a racially pure state. Are they militant? You bet they are. But right wing? Show me some evidence of any Nazi groups that advocate for conservative policies like smaller government, balanced budgets, and second amendment rights for all. Nazi’s like guns, but only for themselves, the racially pure. So they want one group of society to have guns and the rest of society to rely on them for protection, sound familiar? Conservatives believe in freedom for all citizens, including the right to bear arms.

              The one thing that might link Nazi’s to conservatives is border security. This is what the media latches onto to push their false narrative that Nazis are right wing, but it’s a lie. Conservatives want a secure border to protect this country and we want to enforce the laws regarding immigration. We want to crack down on the massive amounts of illegal immigration that have occurred over the last 3 decades, BUT we do not want to stop LEGAL immigration. I have some neighbors of Indian decent (they are actually from the UK) and it took them over 10 years to come here legally. They voted for Trump specifically for this reason, because it ticks them off that they followed the rules and came here the right way and the Democrat party seems content to simply allow any and all people to come here illegally with no consequence. Again, for conservatives, this is about following the rule of law and national security. Nazis on the other hand want a tight border to keep out all people who do not meet their racial purity requirements. So we both want a secure border, but for totally different reasons. Just like Nazis and Bernie Sanders both want a powerful central government, but for totally different reasons.

              Your claim that the modern Republican party is trying to suppress the rights of minorities is not only wrong, it’s sickening to me. Again, show me some evidence. And don’t give me this BS argument that requiring an ID to vote suppresses the rights of minorities. We require ID for everything in this country, and voting is one of our most precious rights, so we should protect it by making sure when someone votes they are who they say they are. We also make it extremely easy to get an ID in order to vote. Bottom line, if getting an ID is too much trouble then getting to the poles to vote is also too much trouble.

              You are too intelligent to simply listen to the media and repeat what they want you to. Do your own research and discover the facts. Conservatives do not want to suppress minorities, in fact we want to provide the greatest possible level of opportunity for all Americans of all races. You and I can disagree on politics, but we don’t disagree on racial equality so please don’t suggest otherwise.

              Next time I’m in KC on business I’m happy to buy you a beer and we can discuss. I would really like to meet you.

      2. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “Seeing as water is the most efficacious GreenHouseGas, someone better drain the Atlantic and Pacific oceans before they have to worry about the ‘trace’ gas CO2”

        @Bill, I seriously thought you are better than this… But I guess I was wrong.

        water vapor trapping of the heat is real but it isn’t constant nor is it ever lasting. It is considered as “temporary” because water vapor constantly changes and amount of overall vapor in the system at a given temperature is relatively constant over the time on average.

        CO2 is a different case. Yes, plants will love it. That was never the problem. What is the problem here is the fact that current climate that human and all the supporting eco system depends on a relatively slow or “mild changes”. We and everything around us adapt slowly. Currently we are pumping huge amount of CO2 that was long stored in the ground into our environment which causes a fairly rapid change to our eco system that we and living things around us can’t adapt to fast enough. When that happens, it will threaten our existence or at least “healthy existence”.

        Will climate change on its own? Absolutely. But we are accelerating the change by pumping huge amount of CO2 that are long stored underground at a huge rate (in addition to the huge loss of forest and grass lands that have interrupted our current balanced above ground carbon cycle).

        That is the problem here.

        Cherry picking a single fact here or there doesn’t explain or support the overall “wrong” reasoning on climate change.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Yeah this is the problem with these forums.

          People cannot discuss things in a level-headed manner.

          But it doesn’t matter in the final analysis since the earth is cooling over time.

          What gets me is there is polution all around, and no-one here cares about it except me.

          Ask yourself, why is AUTISM the big deal it is, going from around 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50.
          No one cares except me.

          Ecosystems seem to be having great problems, namely a lot fewer wildlife, (birds and bees – that kind of thing, CCR etc), as well as greatly decreased Pacific Ocean populations.

          But no one cares since you guys aparently think food comes from COSTCO.

          Breitbart died of a Heart Attack btw. I can’t consult him.

          If you are going to demonstrate how brilliant you are or how superior you are to others, you should have a track record to back up your ‘rep’.

          And, of course, all the war-mongering going on – where in the 21st century alone the US has destroyed several countries. Currently Trump is aiding that paragon of virtue – Saudi Arabia, in destroying Yemen (they want the oil).

          Anyone want to live in Libya, Iraq, Ukraine, or Syria? How about Afghanistan? – Oh, I get it – that is where our current ‘opioid epidemic’ comes from. But most Americans are so insouciant that they don’t care, or even bother to investigate anything.

          I reiterate: There are worse things to worry about than CO2 – a building block of Life. By the way, calling it “CARBON” is a poor characterization. It is really “OXYGEN” since that’s what you get after plants process it.

          I know – I know, Oxygen is bad because it burns up GEMINI astronauts.

          1. Asak says:

            It’s not worth “discussing” with someone who is just posting garbage. It’s like trying to argue with someone who claims the sky is orange–there’s just no point. No legitimate climate scientist believes the Earth is cooling.

            1. ffbj says:

              Yeah, with the polar ice caps melting, great hunks of ice sheets detaching from Antarctica, sea levels rising and the Earth is cooling?

              If you simply ignore all the mountains of evidence then, whine about no substantive debate, how can take anyone take you seriously?

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Bill Howland said:

            “Ask yourself, why is AUTISM the big deal it is, going from around 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50.
            No one cares except me.”

            Because it’s now recognized and diagnosed that much more frequently than it was decades ago, that’s why.

            But what you said there sounds like it was culled from an anti-vaxxar conspiracy rant, which given your love of conspiracy theories, wouldn’t be surprising… merely depressing that someone who has as much technical knowledge as you could believe such obvious bilgewater.

            Well, there is a difference between knowledge and understanding, as your posts frequently demonstrate.

            1. ffbj says:

              Yes, and thanks to other idiocies, like not vaccinating you kids, which leads to outbreaks, which haven’t occurred in decades.

              I understand that Bill is deeply concerned about the environment as a whole and it’s degradation, but intermixed in that is other stuff that is, pretty off the wall.

          3. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “Ask yourself, why is AUTISM the big deal it is, going from around 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50.
            No one cares except me.”

            Plenty of people care. But that doesn’t mean we should rely on rumors and conspiracy theories.

            Major part of autism discovery is due to the recent better understanding in diagnosis. Autism is a wider spread in spectrum as well which is now more fully understood.

            There are other “potential” causes that we don’t understand either. For example, people are getting married later in life and having children far later in life. That late child birthing is directly correlated with higher birth defects and lower rate of birth. Combined with far more chemical used in our lives, all of them “can” contribute to the rate. But just blaming the rate on a single event without proof is just a conspiracy theory.

            “Ecosystems seem to be having great problems, namely a lot fewer wildlife, ”

            You can thank all the industrialization, human colonization of the planet and combined with 7 Billions of people draining resources.

            “(birds and bees – that kind of thing, CCR etc),”

            Hone Bees that we are used to aren’t even “Local”. They are introduced by European settlers to increase the production of fruit and veggies. The native American bees are the larger Bumble Bees. All Bee population are affected by chemical usage.

            ” as well as greatly decreased Pacific Ocean populations.”

            That is due to pollution, over fishing to sustain 7 Billion people’s diet and climate change that impacts the global food chain.

            And you can thank Trump and its EPA chief $%$@$ Scott Pruitt for it too..

            1. Bill Howland says:

              Noted. I’ve documented my views many times and it always falls on deaf ears. So there is no point.

              No offense, but I’ve learned little, if anything from you, so knock yourself down a peg ok? I only care what people I can respect think.

              If someone said “I’m disapoointed in you” it would only matter if I respected that person in the first place.

              Your statements on the other hand, are only salving conjecture with no basis in fact.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Seeing as water is the most efficacious GreenHouseGas, someone better drain the Atlantic and Pacific oceans before they have to worry about the ‘trace’ gas CO2.”

        Well, there’s another for my “Quotes” archive! I wish I had archived Bill’s tinfoil-hat rant about “chemtrails” and one or two other conspiracy theories he’s expounded on in the past. As it is, I’ll have to wait until he posts a couple more “gems” like this before I can put together “The Top Five Quotes from Bill Howland”. 😀

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Your main purpose here is key clicks. – you serve no other function.

          I’ve already documented that statement was from Nasa and IPCC Scientists.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            “…
            · Bill Howland · 4 years ago

            @Benjamin Nead

            I suppose after mentioning it, sooner or later I’m going to have to do it, so here’s a list of 13 Climatologists and/or IPCC Lead Authors:

            Prof Dr. Nir Shaviv – University of Tel Aviv “Three to Ten times CO2 in the past as currently”.

            Prof Dr. Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, Winnipeg, “Most important Greenhouse Gas is Water, 95%”.

            Prof Dr. Ian Clark, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa “Co2 lags temperature changes by 800 years, Co2 never drove climate change in the past”.

            Prof Dr. John Christy, IPCC Lead Author, Given award for developing new method for measuring temperatures in the atmosphere; “Water is the most important Greenhouse Gas”.

            Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action. Bet money against England’s pretigious Met office and Won cash, several times. “No changes in climate due to Co2 in the past 1000 years”.

            Prof Dr Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London, “London was much warmer in the middle age warm period, confirmed by Chaucer, than now”.

            Prof Dr. Paul Rieter, IPCC and Pasteur Institute, Paris : ” Malaria not a tropical disese, biggest outbreak reaching Arcangelsk at the Arctic Circle killed 600,000 in the early 20th century”. Also, ‘2500 of the world’s top scientists are bogus once you look at bibliographies, since the climatology scientific field is small. Plus if you disagree with the conclusions, it dosesn’t matter since they won’t take your name off the list”.

            Prof Dr. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & MIT ” Whenever you hear that all scientists agree and therefore you should too, in Science that is Pure Propganda”. “The one thing you Shouldn’t say, is ‘this may not be a problem’.” (!!!)

            Patrick Moore, Cofounder of Greenpeace, AGW nonsense is killing Africa, preventing life saving development.

            Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satelite Team Leader, NASA ” If it can be indicated that a catastrophe is near, then all kinds of money will flow to your research project”.

            Prof Dr. Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Services, University of Virginia, “Anyone who goes around saying AGW is responsible for the 20th century warming, hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.” , and, “Tens of thousands of jobs depend on AGW now, its a BIG BUSINESS”

            Nigel Calder, Ex Editor, “New Scientist”, “AGW is a religion”, and “the whole thing stinks”, and “its a Looney Idea”.

            Dr. Frederick Singer, Ex-Director US National Weather Service, “Computer Models of increased AGW are disproved by the temperature evidence”.

            Prof Dr. Syun-ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Resource Centre; “Co2 greatly increased between 1940 and 1975, temperature went way down”, and “Arctic Ice Extent is seasonal and will cause no problems”.

            This is a pretty good cross section of people, many with impeccable credentials (such as John Christy, the very TOP of his field). who stated the “Inconvenient Truths”
            .

            ·

            1. Bill Howland says:

              Just a closing thought:

              Notice how none of the creeps ever challenges any of the statements of bonafide experts, nor pick apart their conclusions – for one thing – it would be too much actual work for them.

              But they just throw mud on me, the messenger.

              I’m in good company, for as Mark Twain said in a serious moment:

              “Never argue with Stupid People. They will bring you DOWN to their level.”

  11. Joe black says:

    Lets say that 5 years from now 50% of electricity comes from wind, solar and hydroelectric source in the usa. And the cars that are ev driving around may have 0 carbon footprint. How would this revolutionary/genius mazda combustion engine compare then. Where is the logic of cleaner than evs when they are powered by dead dinosaurs. Burning coal, refining oils and in the process addi g tons of co2.Germany is at 75% renewable today. Where will usa be in 5 years

    1. Bill Howland says:

      Hey, I’m on my 5th EV, get more than 100% of my electricity from the Sun, and even I don’t get 50% of my energy from renewables.

      Not much is going to happen in the states within the next five years, although looks like the greatest increase will be in Wind Power – a long, under exploited resource. But 50%? Maybe by 2100.

      1. Asak says:

        California will be 50% renewable for energy production before 2030. By 2040 we’ll be close to 100%. Even accounting for other energy uses (gas for cooking and heating), things look much better than what you’re trying to present.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Yeah, insider magazine POWER disagrees with you. But hell they can be wrong. They support CO2 sequestration, so even the best can have issues.

  12. Jason says:

    Shameful that Mazda just put this BS out there, plain for anyone with half a brain to see. I hope for their sake that someone fires whoever pulled this stunt, preferably before Mazda’s upcoming bankruptcy (just because I’d like to see it happen).

    If before reading this article there might have been a 0.000001% chance of me ever buying a Mazda again, now there is no chance at all. Very Honda-esque of them to finally wake up and at least design a California compliance car to avoid penalties and slow down their path to certain bankruptcy.

    1. JayTee says:

      But they do make really good and affordable cars.

      Before subsidy.

      1. Jason says:

        Sure, for now.

        And that’s if you’re ok with needlessly burning oil to drive around and screwing over your children, royally. I personally am NOT.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Shameful that Mazda just put this BS out there, plain for anyone with half a brain to see.”

      Yes, it’s just embarrassing when some auto maker claims to have a development which will significantly improve the energy efficiency of gasmobile engines. The ICEngine is a mature technology, and significant improvements at this late date are simply not possible in the types of engines made to go in mass produced cars.

      I am reminded of Mazda’s claim, a few decades ago, that the Wankel engine it was putting into its cars would improve fuel efficiency by about 30%.

      Ummmm… not so much. In fact, Mazda’s Wankel engine proved to be, more or less, just as inefficient as ordinary piston engines found in other cars of the era.

  13. Dave86 says:

    It takes 5 to 7 KWH of electricity to refine one gallon of gasoline. Mazda needs to figure that into their claims.

    Depending on the EV, 5 to 7 KWH of electricity is good for 15 to 30 miles. I’d vote for just putting the electrity into an EV.

    Never the less, kudos to Mazda for solving the HCCI equation. A little late…

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “It takes 5 to 7 KWH of electricity to refine one gallon of gasoline”

      That myth has long been debunked. It was never true.

      It is more 2-3 kWh at most in terms of energy equivalent.

      5-7kWh is more in the realm of total amount of equivalent energy (not actual electricity) lost during the refinery that generates all the distilled products which includes 1 gallon of gasoline. Typically, gasoline is only 20-40% of that total distills so not the entire “loss” should be attributed to gasoline alone.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “It takes 5 to 7 KWH of electricity to refine one gallon of gasoline.”

      No, that’s a widespread myth.

      It takes energy, mostly in the form of heat generated by burning unprofitable petroleum fractions and waste gases, in the amount of about 4.5-6 kWh per gallon of gas… or perhaps even more, possibly up to as much as 12 kWh, depending on which of the wildly different estimates you want to cite.

      One thing is certain: Big Oil doesn’t want us to know how much energy is wasted or how much pollution is generated in the process, since they usually don’t report those figures, and even when they do, environmental watchdogs counting incidents of venting burning gases from refineries report that the Big Oil companies are under-reporting the actual numbers, sometimes by a lot.

      Lots of energy wasted and lots of pollution generated in refining gasoline and diesel, yes. But most of that energy isn’t provided in the form of electricity.

  14. Bill Howland says:

    If mazda is Fibbing its not much of a fib.

    Some Toyotas are already 38% efficient – truly a marvel for a portable, variable speed, variable load engine (stationary ICE’s – GE’s 6000 hp unit for instance – running 24/7 gets 51% under full loading).

    My problem with MAZDA is that on their run-of-the-mill engines don’t seem to be that reliable, and when the engines self-destruct they essentially don’t honor their warranty on them (one friend was told an ‘inspection’ of the blown 2 year old engine would only be done for $1200 – to see if the damage was done by ‘improper driving’ – when he had done all the listed oil and filter changes at the listed maintenance intervals).

  15. Mazda is a great engineering company, and honest one too. Many of the negative to Mazda comments, appear as uneducated liberal dribble. The math makes great sense, if one understands generation systems, electric cars, ICE, and economics. I only say this because of my education, and successful work experience in all those areas.

    1. Bill Howland says:

      Don’t worry, they don’t. Reality is not of supreme importance anywhere, its perception, and what the majority view that matters.

      This is why, where I live, only 40% of the high-school students graduate. And what they spend could give every student a private school education.

      Praise Be New York State grants – I get to support this ‘uneducation’ with my income taxes.

      But this is taking the old Prussian school model to too extreme a degree.

      It will be ‘fun’ to think of what happens when the money runs out, as is currently happening in places such as Illinois.

      Sorry to say, the US is losing its ‘First World’ status. We seem to be skipping a tier on the way down, since current job prospects for young people seem to mirror places like INDIA had 50 years ago back when they were a 3rd world country.

    2. Jason says:

      38% efficiency versus 90% for electric. Please enlighten us as to how that gap is bridged with this wonderful new gas engine. And then please explain how your flawed calculation evolves over time, once the grid becomes more and more renewable and the battery factories solar powered.

      1. Prsnep says:

        90% times the efficiency of the power plant. The biggest loss in energy happens in the thermal power plant so it’d be unreasonable to exclude that.

    3. Asak says:

      Yeah, also a healthy dose of arrogance mixed in with your work experience.

  16. Nix says:

    Mazda’s challenge for their new HCCI engine will be returning real-world results.

    The challenge is that the engine runs in two different modes. The efficient mode is when it runs as a compression engine like a diesel engine. The problem is that this is only possible “when the car is cruising at a consistent speed on the highway or during low-load situations around town”.

    All the rest of the time, the engine switches back into a not-so economical mode using spark plugs (but in an engine that is optimized for compression and not spark ignition).

    So when you are driving in the first mode you get great MPG. All the rest of the time you get not so special MPG.

    Since driving style, engine load, road conditions, etc can drop you out of compression mode, real world results will plummet quickly for folks who can’t keep their engine in compression mode.

    Similar to how many Turbo drivers complain they don’t get the rated MPG, or original Prius plug-in drivers complained the gasser ran too much, HCCI owners who drive aggressively are going to be unhappy.

    Sadly, drivers missing the EPA test course numbers by a wide margin will blame it on “damn greenies forcing car companies to build crap”. Followed by the mandatory rant about Al Gore.

    1. JayTee says:

      I bet they use that new invention called a “computer”.

      1. ffbj says:

        Nah, computers don’t take that long to figure stuff out. Nix is right, when there is real world testing, etc..
        I saw an article which gave 15% more rated efficiency, which works out to about to about 24% overall. 15% of 20%, added to abysmal efficiency of the ice.

        With ev’s around 90% it’s really just a last gasp for the ice, and when that’s coming out?
        2019.

  17. Martin T. says:

    Mazda plays on the conservative side and always with surprises. One never knows in this game as the last person to build an EV factory will use the latest technology and be the most efficient $.
    or
    May loose the game entirely.
    By being to late to the dinner table with product.
    Time will tell with companies like Mazda and Subaru.

  18. Bill Howland says:

    Interestingly, Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann has been trying to Sue Climatologists into Silence. Except that hasn’t quite worked with Dr. Tim Ball:

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

    While the discredited “Hockey Stick” has already been removed from later IPCC documents, Now Mann is enduring Contempt of Court – for refusing to show supposedly corroborating data.

    The answer is obvious as to why he is hiding. Like Cockroaches, they can’t stand the ‘sunshine’ of a court proceding which HE initiated!!!!

    “Sunshine is the best disinfectant” !!!!

Leave a Reply