SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The company's CEO claims that affordable and reliable vehicles with combustion engines are a priority for US buyers:
Mazda is late to the electrification party. The MX-30 is far from being the roaring success the Japanese automaker had hoped it would be. It was axed from the United States at the end of the 2023 model year due to poor sales. The range-extending version with a rotary engine is only offered in certain markets, and the US is not on the list. In addition, the EZ-6 electric sedan isn't coming here either. However, the situation isn't all that bad.
Why? Because Americans primarily want gas cars. Speaking with Automotive News, Mazda CEO Masahiro Moro said ICE has a long future in America. Even at the end of the decade, traditional gas cars and mild-hybrid models will make up about two-thirds of annual sales. Plug-in hybrids and EVs will represent the remaining third. In other words, most vehicles will still have a gas engine five years from now.
Mazda's head honcho primarily referred to entry-level models, specifically the 3 and CX-30. Moro believes EV growth in the US has slowed down in the last 18 months or so, adding the trend will likely continue in the foreseeable future. That buys the company more time to develop a lithium-ion battery entirely in-house. The goal is to have it ready for 2030 in plug-in hybrids and purely electric cars. Expect a much higher energy density and "very short" charging times. Interestingly, the engineers already have a "very advanced research base for solid-state batteries."
In the meantime, work is underway on a two-rotor gas engine that will serve as a generator.
Related:
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Friday December 13 2024, @03:46AM (11 children)
You can make biodiesel from vegetable oils and you can even modify diesel cars to run directly off of filtered vegetable oil. Gas cars are a little trickier, but I'm sure you could convert various vegetable and animal oil into an acceptable gas substitute.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday December 13 2024, @04:09AM (6 children)
Am aware of biodiesel, but that's not 'synthetic'. And yeah, you could probably crack waste fats much as is done with petroleum, to get something chemically similar to gasoline (itself a mix of long-carbon chains), tho I expect the same treatment would be needed to get rid of the acids. But would fat-gas that cost more net energy than just using oil-gas?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Friday December 13 2024, @04:23AM (4 children)
It probably would be less efficient than oil gas, but it also wouldn't require either digging more oil or replacing a bunch of ICE vehicles that are set up for gas rather than other fuels.
And most of the carbon released would at least come from the supply that's been recently circulated.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Friday December 13 2024, @10:34PM (3 children)
What difference does that really make though? A CO2 emission is a CO2 emission whether it comes from ancient fossils or a recently living crop. I get that the idea is the harvested crops get replanted to absorb CO2 over and over again, but where are we going to grow all these crops given the level of demand for fossil fuels?
"rancid randy has a dialogue with herself[...] Somebody help him!" -- Anonymous Coward.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Saturday December 14 2024, @04:09AM (1 child)
The difference is the stuff in the ground hasn't been in the atmosphere and as such results in increased concentration in the atmosphere, the stuff that you get from plants was recently in the atmosphere, so it's much closer to being neutral. It's just whatever fossil fuels need to be burned to make and distribute the fuel that it increases emissions by.
Honestly, it's not that complicated.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday December 14 2024, @09:28PM
I think it depends what if anything was growing on that patch of land before the crops were planted. At the worst case, if they slash n burn a forest to grow biofuels, it would be difficult to legitimately claim being carbon neutral.
"rancid randy has a dialogue with herself[...] Somebody help him!" -- Anonymous Coward.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 14 2024, @03:19PM
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13 2024, @05:43AM
Hear me out, what if we liposuck the fuck out of all the obese Americans at the poor end of the food chain to extract their lipids which we burn for fuel to power our fucking Peloton video livestreams so we can broadcast our zero fucking carbon workouts and sell fucking lycra leotards like fucking saviors of Western civilization.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Friday December 13 2024, @06:28AM (3 children)
Biodesil is only cheap if you can get the feedstock for free or next to free.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aafcac on Friday December 13 2024, @07:01AM
So? It doesn't need to be cheap, nor should it be. A lot of why we're in this position is unreasonably cheap oil based fuels. If we subsidized that other stuff, we be collectively better positioned. We outright should not be subsidizing oil or coal anything at this point.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13 2024, @11:19AM (1 child)
Waste cooking oil for Biodiesel is now in such demand that the refiners have contracts with restaurants. Most telling is that the waste cooking oil is now being stolen!
https://www.cheektowagabee.com/articles/used-cooking-oil-thefts-continue-in-erie-county/ [cheektowagabee.com]
At least around here, it seems like we're at "peak cooking oil" now, and have reached the max amount of feedstock available from making Buffalo wings and other deep fried food.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday December 13 2024, @10:36PM
"My retirement grease!!!"
"rancid randy has a dialogue with herself[...] Somebody help him!" -- Anonymous Coward.