Slashdot Mirror
Mazda Says Its Upcoming Gas-Powered Cars Will Emit Less CO2 Than Electric Cars
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?"
Some fundamental facts:
The energy used by electric cars has to come from somewhere, and outside of France, a lot of that comes from coal and/or natural gas. Converting from chemical to thermal (combustion) to mechanical (turbine) to electrical (generator, typically ~60% efficient); transmission losses, converting from electrical to chemical (battery) back to electrical to mechanical (motor) all have losses, and I don't doubt for a second that they can build an engine, especially with a couple of turbo/inter-coolers, that is more efficient and therefore emits less CO2 than the described above chain.
CO2 is not a pollutant, like carbon monoxide or NOx, it does not interfere/damage plant or animal life and in fact is a key part of the planet's natural chemical processes. Now that the theory of global warming has been debunked by the current global cooling phase, they are trying to pawn "Climate Change" off on us and treat CO2, a natural byproduct of life and a key nutrient for plants, as if it were a toxic pollutant. Why are they doing this? It is the only way to continue to get grants to fund their companies/foundations/lifestyle. Their computer models have been wildly off, the planet is not warming, industry has done exceptionally well at reducing the output of actual pollutants and so they are left with an output that is unavoidable: CO2. Treating CO2 as a pollutant is the last gasp of a huge fraud perpetrated on the planet by "scientists" looking for funding and politicians looking for more power and sheeple educated beyond their intelligence.
From a strict thermodynamics point of view, which very few people understand and none of the climate change alarmists want to discuss, the earth's temperature is regulated by it's radiating temperature to the fourth power which keeps it in a very stable region, but one that does fluctuate with how much radiant energy we get from the sun and other global events to a lesser degree. To have the kind of apocalyptic changes in climate that are being predicted, the emissivity of the planet would have to change commensurate to the temperature increase in absolute Kelvin to the fourth power. Even a massive change in emissivity causes only a small change in temperature.
We know the planet has had previous ice ages and warm ages. No SUVs were around to cause them, they just happened. We also know that humanity does better in warm ages than ice ages. Ice ages bring death, warm ages are moderated by the heat spreading of the atmosphere, netting more livable, arable land and animal habitat. Animals have been going extinct since before recorded time, and in fact, extinction is a key side effect of Evolution. The strong, best suited survive, the weak, poorly able to adapt die out. Time to stop bitching and start adapting.
One last point: China puts out more pollution in a week than the US does in a year. Our dollars would be spent a lot more effectively combating actual pollution coming out of China, if we were actually concerned about doing the most good for the environment...
I want clean air, clean water etc, but the environment is not nearly as fragile as the alarmists think, and as long as the alarmists refuse to actually look at the science and historical evidence, instead making the argument that the debate is settled, they will continue to lose the debate. The debate is clearly not settled in the court of public opinion, and in fact that argument is a logical fallacy: appeal to majority rather than standing on the merits of your case, which they cannot do in any informed debate.
PS: Grammar/spelling Nazis sit and spin, there have been many studies that show that intelligence is inversely proportional to how much value a person places on grammar/spelling, as people with actual intelligence care more about the actual content, and people out of their depth make themselves feel more important criticizing the one thing they can understand, but that which is not really relevant to the discussion. If you want to comment, contribute to the discussion.