Photo: goga.si
This past week, Japanese manufacturer Mazda reignited the debate centered around how green electric vehicles really are. Upset by the fact that the lead EV in its lineup, the Demio, is not such a big hit as say the Nissan Leaf or Renault Zoe, Mazda decided to take matters to a whole new level.
Talking about the new technology it will put into the upcoming Spark Controlled Compression Ignition (SPCCI) Skyactiv-X engine, Mazda says it is no longer content with the world “placing the absolute emissions of an EV at zero,” because, after all, the manufacturing of the damn things, combined with the electricity they use to drive, do put some stuff into the air we breath.
In a simpler way, their reasoning is as follows: electric vehicles have no exhaust pipes, because they have no exhaust to evacuate in the first place. But electricity is used to both manufacture and power them, and that electricity is produced by burning some other stuff. As we all know, burning stuff sends nasty things flying about.
There are two ways of taking emissions into account, and they have some semi-official names. When talking about the emissions of a vehicle while in motion, they call it tank-to-wheel. It is the preferred method used by EV makers to evaluate their cars, understandable since the models they make emit zero emissions while on the go. The method is also used for combustion-engine cars.
The larger, more comprehensive view is called well-to-wheel, and is a means of determining emissions by taking into account every-single event in a car’s life, from fuel extraction to manufacturing and shipping. It also includes tank-to-wheel emissions.
In other words, and in a simplistic manner, Mazda, as do others, wants the world to consider the emissions released from the moment a car is being drawn up on a napkin in a coffee shop somewhere to the moment is being crushed at the scrapyard.
Why? Because that way the good old internal combustion engine would be pretty much come equal footing with the electric battery. And there’s some math to back that up too.
In Mazda’s laboratories, estimates have been made that a mid-sized electric car consumes around 20 kilowatt-hours of electricity per 100 km. To get all that power, EVs would have to get electricity from the grid. CO2 emissions produced by generating this amount of power by burning coal is estimated at 200g/km, while those coming from petroleum sources at 156g/km. Way bigger than emissions coming from most ICE units currently in use.
I am not arguing with the numbers put forward by Mazda. But, for instance, they don't take into account the fact that, in most of the countries were EVs are sold, electricity comes from other, cleaner sources as well. A priori, Mazda considers all electricity to be generated by burning fossil fuels, when in fact there’s really no telling how 1 kW or another has been produced.
Secondly, Mazda doesn’t take into account the various types of energy recovery systems EVs use. They don’t take into account range extenders provided in hybrids either.
Most importantly, the only component taken into account for EV emissions by Mazda is CO2. CO2 is the particle that relates directly to the car’s fuel efficiency. The less fuel the engine burns, the less CO2 is released.
But CO2 is comparable to nicotine in cigarettes. Although harmful, it is not the most harmful particle released by burning fuels.
Back in 2005, a group called CNW Marketing Research published a paper comparing lifetime vehicle energy usage for over 300 different car models. Among them, the gas-guzzling Hummer H3 and a Toyota Prius of the same year.
By using a metric called dollars per mile driven, the group concluded that it is cheaper to drive fuel-powered cars than hybrid ones. By word-of-mouth, the comparison slowly turned into statements like “the Hummer H3 has a lower life-cycle energy cost than a Toyota Prius,” then into growing popular belief that EVs are just as bad as say diesels.
The story, in the meanwhile debunked, pretty much started the debate on how to properly measure emissions. That debate is now fueled by Mazda by using the same twisted logic and incomplete scientific proof.
Mazda is not at its first attempt to glorify ICE engines in general and diesel ones in particular. In February, the carmaker released the results of a study commissioned together with Ipsos MORI. After questioning 11,008 people across key European markets, Mazda claims an average of 58 percent of Europe's population still endorse ICE.
What, then, would be the proper way of measuring emissions? Tank-to-wheel? Well-to-wheel? Or perhaps fleet average, based on tank-to-wheel?
The debate would probably go on for ages. In the short and medium term, regardless of what Mazda says or the number of EVs on the streets, emission levels will drop. They will also drop in the long term, but by then another problem would have arisen: tons and tons of depleted batteries few will have any idea what to do with.
But that's another story.
In a simpler way, their reasoning is as follows: electric vehicles have no exhaust pipes, because they have no exhaust to evacuate in the first place. But electricity is used to both manufacture and power them, and that electricity is produced by burning some other stuff. As we all know, burning stuff sends nasty things flying about.
There are two ways of taking emissions into account, and they have some semi-official names. When talking about the emissions of a vehicle while in motion, they call it tank-to-wheel. It is the preferred method used by EV makers to evaluate their cars, understandable since the models they make emit zero emissions while on the go. The method is also used for combustion-engine cars.
The larger, more comprehensive view is called well-to-wheel, and is a means of determining emissions by taking into account every-single event in a car’s life, from fuel extraction to manufacturing and shipping. It also includes tank-to-wheel emissions.
In other words, and in a simplistic manner, Mazda, as do others, wants the world to consider the emissions released from the moment a car is being drawn up on a napkin in a coffee shop somewhere to the moment is being crushed at the scrapyard.
Why? Because that way the good old internal combustion engine would be pretty much come equal footing with the electric battery. And there’s some math to back that up too.
In Mazda’s laboratories, estimates have been made that a mid-sized electric car consumes around 20 kilowatt-hours of electricity per 100 km. To get all that power, EVs would have to get electricity from the grid. CO2 emissions produced by generating this amount of power by burning coal is estimated at 200g/km, while those coming from petroleum sources at 156g/km. Way bigger than emissions coming from most ICE units currently in use.
I am not arguing with the numbers put forward by Mazda. But, for instance, they don't take into account the fact that, in most of the countries were EVs are sold, electricity comes from other, cleaner sources as well. A priori, Mazda considers all electricity to be generated by burning fossil fuels, when in fact there’s really no telling how 1 kW or another has been produced.
Secondly, Mazda doesn’t take into account the various types of energy recovery systems EVs use. They don’t take into account range extenders provided in hybrids either.
Most importantly, the only component taken into account for EV emissions by Mazda is CO2. CO2 is the particle that relates directly to the car’s fuel efficiency. The less fuel the engine burns, the less CO2 is released.
But CO2 is comparable to nicotine in cigarettes. Although harmful, it is not the most harmful particle released by burning fuels.
Back in 2005, a group called CNW Marketing Research published a paper comparing lifetime vehicle energy usage for over 300 different car models. Among them, the gas-guzzling Hummer H3 and a Toyota Prius of the same year.
By using a metric called dollars per mile driven, the group concluded that it is cheaper to drive fuel-powered cars than hybrid ones. By word-of-mouth, the comparison slowly turned into statements like “the Hummer H3 has a lower life-cycle energy cost than a Toyota Prius,” then into growing popular belief that EVs are just as bad as say diesels.
The story, in the meanwhile debunked, pretty much started the debate on how to properly measure emissions. That debate is now fueled by Mazda by using the same twisted logic and incomplete scientific proof.
Mazda is not at its first attempt to glorify ICE engines in general and diesel ones in particular. In February, the carmaker released the results of a study commissioned together with Ipsos MORI. After questioning 11,008 people across key European markets, Mazda claims an average of 58 percent of Europe's population still endorse ICE.
What, then, would be the proper way of measuring emissions? Tank-to-wheel? Well-to-wheel? Or perhaps fleet average, based on tank-to-wheel?
The debate would probably go on for ages. In the short and medium term, regardless of what Mazda says or the number of EVs on the streets, emission levels will drop. They will also drop in the long term, but by then another problem would have arisen: tons and tons of depleted batteries few will have any idea what to do with.
But that's another story.
Google News