Mazda Says Its Next-Generation Gasoline Engine Will Run Cleaner than an Electric Car

[M76]

Cost isn't what I was discussing. Cost is irrelevant when you are on average getting 5%-8% efficiency out of the panels. Some of the best panels on the market max out around 25% and that is in PERFECT conditions..Those conditions almost never happen so you end up with days where you get almost no power at all out of them. So in this example (Made up numbers to make a point) If my car requires 1000 watts to fully charge and I have a 4000 watt solar setup that is only getting 8% efficiency that day..that is only 320 watts of charge I'm getting out of them. That is going to be a bit of a problem if I need to go somewhere far. That is the reality of home quality alternative energy at this stage. You have to massively over build things which may or may not be an option due to the really horrible efficiency. This is why nearly any homesteader runs ALOT of generators.

It's a pointless comparison. Efficiency is not an important metric in the case of solar panels, as we're not going to run out of sunlight for another 5 billion years. It can be 1% efficient if it's cheap enough and abundantly available.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Damn man, 30 seconds on Wikipedia... that's all it would have taken...

Where did this silly myth come from that Ford owns Mazda? Because of cross investment and platform dev?

Ford did own a large controlling interest in Mazda and volvo till the housing market crash around 2007 when Jack Molat (sp?) said "Sell it"

Now there's a CEO worth his weight. He saved Boeing and Ford from nightmares.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

It's a pointless comparison. Efficiency is not an important metric in the case of solar panels, as we're not going to run out of sunlight for another 5 billion years. It can be 1% efficient if it's cheap enough and abundantly available.

I agree that solar has a large future ahead of it. But as it is today it's usefulness is limited to specific conditions.

But until we raise the efficiency if of common carbon material solar cells it's a moot point. There's not enough gallium indium etc to make solar cells for the world's power needs.

 

[DedEmbryonicCe11]

God help you if you live in Seattle in the fall/winter.

I'm not sure why popular culture perpetuates the myth that Seattle is the worst case scenario. Where I live we get more average precipitation per year (39" vs 37") then ~68 inches of snow that sits on the roof for months at a time. Oh and good luck getting the entire block to chop down their 80+ year old oak and walnut trees that shade the roof much of the day.

 

[maddude]

Ford did own a large controlling interest in Mazda and volvo till the housing market crash around 2007 when Jack Molat (sp?) said "Sell it"

Now there's a CEO worth his weight. He saved Boeing and Ford from nightmares.

Ford owned 33.4% of Mazda at their peak, they completely owned Volvo from 1999 to 2010, and their CEO who sold both was Alan Mulally.

Some argue Alan's decision helped in the short term, but that it is hurting Ford now. With the sell-off of Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Austin Martin, Ford has no strong contenders in the mid-rang and high-end luxury market. Those markets have much larger profit margins then Ford's core business. Lincoln is turning around... a bit, but is not at the same level as the brands Ford sold off.

Ford typically tops the chart for US brand American sales, but their market cap, revenue, and income trail GM by a significant amount.

 

[Ryokurin]

Ford did own a large controlling interest in Mazda and volvo till the housing market crash around 2007 when Jack Molat (sp?) said "Sell it"

Now there's a CEO worth his weight. He saved Boeing and Ford from nightmares.

Alan Mulally. And technically "The Way Forward" started before he was named CEO in 2006. This is also why they didn't have to ask the Government for money, they already had bet the company about a year before the crisis started. I'll give him credit for making the right decisions to pull it completely off though.

True, but wouldn't the electric motor's efficiency for low speed acceleration work to it's advantage by giving it better efficiency?

Maybe, but Skyactive-X is kind of a hybrid engine already. It starts off with a spark and at some point changes to compression like a diesel, which they've already said produces a momentary knock, which they'll probably use more insulation and programming to keep from being noticeable (Which is fine for me, Mazda's are already known to be lacking a little on the noise insulation side) They also plan to turn off two cylinders to save additional gas when the car is at highway speeds. They may not want to add the complexity at the moment.

It also could just bet that they haven't had a chance to integrate Toyota's electric technology into their design yet. That is a large reason for their recent alliance, Mazda is only 2% of the world's car market, they really didn't have the resources to go all in on Electric like most of the others.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

You're right about Allan Mulally. I was having a brain fart on his name. (A weakness of mine)

You are also right about the 33% part. But being the single largest holder by far, Ford had considerable power over the board.

Now to the other brands you mentioned they were all on life support. Most were breaking even at best. Ford saw where it's margins were and cut them loose. The mass amounts of money they we're investing in their sister companies could have been spent with greater efficacy.

You don't have to be the biggest player as long as you are more profitable. (iPhone comes to mind)

The current direction is to invest massively in self driving cars. That takes tremendous capital as it becomes a physics, electronics, and computer science one problem and not a traditional engineering and tooling one.

It means they have less capital for new platform and engine design.

I think that could be a long term mistake as staple products are getting long in the tooth (focus, fusion, taurus)

 

[Dekoth-E-]

It's a pointless comparison. Efficiency is not an important metric in the case of solar panels, as we're not going to run out of sunlight for another 5 billion years. It can be 1% efficient if it's cheap enough and abundantly available.

That is just empirically untrue. Space and time are extremely important considerations. It doesn't matter how cheap something is if you don't have the space necessary to fill your needs because it isn't efficient enough. For example right now I could technically switch entirely to solar...BUT I would have to utilize nearly every inch of my land, cut down all my trees, eliminate all my gardens and food production just to do it because of how bad efficiency is. Sorry but that isn't a good solution no matter how you try to justify it. Yes we may get there at some point and I certainly hope we do..the point is we are a LONG way from that point and trying to claim we are anywhere close is either dishonest or uninformed.

 

[travisty]

Cost isn't what I was discussing. Cost is irrelevant when you are on average getting 5%-8% efficiency out of the panels. Some of the best panels on the market max out around 25% and that is in PERFECT conditions..Those conditions almost never happen so you end up with days where you get almost no power at all out of them. So in this example (Made up numbers to make a point) If my car requires 1000 watts to fully charge and I have a 4000 watt solar setup that is only getting 8% efficiency that day..that is only 320 watts of charge I'm getting out of them. That is going to be a bit of a problem if I need to go somewhere far. That is the reality of home quality alternative energy at this stage. You have to massively over build things which may or may not be an option due to the really horrible efficiency. This is why nearly any homesteader runs ALOT of generators.

You have missed the point and are off base. Solar is already at half the price of natural gas production. Even if solar installations need to be larger they're still cheaper than any other fuel. It's also idiotic to talk only about solar as wind is equally important. It's rare that the wind is not blowing when the sun is not shining - either due to clouds or night

 

[M76]

That is just empirically untrue. Space and time are extremely important considerations. It doesn't matter how cheap something is if you don't have the space necessary to fill your needs because it isn't efficient enough. For example right now I could technically switch entirely to solar...BUT I would have to utilize nearly every inch of my land, cut down all my trees, eliminate all my gardens and food production just to do it because of how bad efficiency is. Sorry but that isn't a good solution no matter how you try to justify it. Yes we may get there at some point and I certainly hope we do..the point is we are a LONG way from that point and trying to claim we are anywhere close is either dishonest or uninformed.

You don't have to build a solar farm in your back garden, it's the power companies that need to build more and more powerplants to offset coal. There is no other way around it. Last I checked there is plenty of unused land not serving agriculture or residential or any purpose.Yes you have to deal with the loss of transporting the energy, but you're already doing that with coal as well.

Statements like empirically untrue are meaningless. You have to explain what is untrue about it and offer what you perceive to be the truth then.

We're talking about future development here, not what you can do right now. Of course it's not up to you to switch to solar power for your car right this minute.

 

[focbde]

Ford did own a large controlling interest in Mazda and volvo till the housing market crash around 2007 when Jack Molat (sp?) said "Sell it"

Now there's a CEO worth his weight. He saved Boeing and Ford from nightmares.

You're correct, they had a 33% controlling stake in Mazda, but the relationship between the two was collaborative, and that's definitely not 'totally owned' as the previous poster said. If you look at the cars produced during the 80s and 90s there was a lot of sharing... I'm from New Zealand and during those times there were identical cars such as the Ford Telstar/Mazda 626 and Ford Laser/Mazda 323. They stopped doing identical cars after a while, but even then platform tech was shared, with Mazda going in a different direction and targeting different markets (think EU Ford Focus Mk1 and Mazda 3 from that era).

You say he saved Ford from nightmares, but actually Mazda since then haven't done too badly... could be better, sure, but then Ford themselves haven't exactly had a fantastic run of things throughout...

Ford had a similar stake in Volvo too of course... that didn't turn out too well. Although one benefit was getting Volvo's T5 for the Focus ST and RS...

 

[Mchart]

Both Mazda and Volvo are doing better now that they aren't being hamstrung by Ford. All Ford did was take technologies from both and not invest enough back in. Volvo in particular is doing great now that they've had free reign and lots of investment from their new Chinese owners. The new V90, XC90, XC60, and soon to be released S60/V60 are all really great vehicles for the money.

 

[focbde]

Both Mazda and Volvo are doing better now that they aren't being hamstrung by Ford. All Ford did was take technologies from both and not invest enough back in. Volvo in particular is doing great now that they've had free reign and lots of investment from their new Chinese owners. The new V90, XC90, XC60, and soon to be released S60/V60 are all really great vehicles for the money.

Yep agree - there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when Geely bought Volvo, but in the end they've just left them to do their thing, trusting they know best, and pumped in plenty of capital. Sure, a Chinese company ultimately gets the profits, but the cashflow injection to the Swedish economy cannot be overstated. Similar situation with Jaguar/Land Rover and Tata really.

I had a S90 as a rental car recently... damn it's a beautiful thing.

 

[Nobu]

56% efficiency beats most smaller natural gas fired plants, and comes close to the larger combined cycle coal and natgas plants. And that's before you take into account T&D losses on the grid.

Solar... well, if you discount the real estate and such sure. If you wanted to charge a 100kWh battery every other day (what I am just going to assume is a pretty average use, I didn't look that up), you need (depending on your location) around 15kW DC of solar installed to do that. At 15W/sqft (that is a good average number), that's about 1,000 sqft of solar panels,. or using typical 265W residential panels, about 56 panels give or take. If you have the car port or rooftop to do that, and it's facing in the proper direction, great. But if you don't, 1,000 square feet is sizable chunk of land, and that is ~just~ to keep your car battery charged up - how's a guy in an apartment complex or condo going to swing that? That's before we consider cost (using average residential installation rate - about $60,000), or the environmental aspects of it (those panels only last 20-30 yrs, then what).

I'm not saying solar is bad, I own a solar system myself, but I hate it when people just say "Well solar is perfectly fuel efficient" and discount all other considerations about it.

I'm anticipating the drawback will be it's only available in a 0.8L 3cyl that makes about 56hp. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing - you put that in a hybrid system with a decently sized battery and electric motors and you could still hum down the highway at a good clip, and use this little guy to keep your batteries topped off. But this is Mazda, and I doubt they would do anything that makes that much sense.

Or it only hits that efficiency in sub-zero weather, and you have the heater cranked to max.... in which case most current engines probably get close to that efficiency anyway.

*edit* it's been proven here I can't do math, so take all those numbers with a lot of salt

fwiw, a 25ft × 20ft area is 500sqft, so if your home is longer than 50ft and has a sloped section of roof that is 20ft wide or more, then you have enough roof for a 1000sqft array (2000 if you put it on both sides). A double-wide trailer would fit these qualifications, smaller constructed homes may not. of course, optimal angle, obstructions, etc. are another issue.

 

[Brian_B]

fwiw, a 25ft × 20ft area is 500sqft, so if your home is longer than 50ft and has a sloped section of roof that is 20ft wide or more, then you have enough roof for a 1000sqft array (2000 if you put it on both sides). A double-wide trailer would fit these qualifications, smaller constructed homes may not. of course, optimal angle, obstructions, etc. are another issue.

If you own your home, and your roof has the approptiate facing roof with a compatible slope. Sure, no problem.

Mobile homes usually don’t have capacity to mount anything on the roof. Even though solar panels don’t exactly weigh a lot, wind load is still a consideration.

And if you rent, or live in an apartment, or whatever else... sorry.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

fwiw, a 25ft × 20ft area is 500sqft, so if your home is longer than 50ft and has a sloped section of roof that is 20ft wide or more, then you have enough roof for a 1000sqft array (2000 if you put it on both sides). A double-wide trailer would fit these qualifications, smaller constructed homes may not. of course, optimal angle, obstructions, etc. are another issue.

Non tracking solar installs are the absolute worst when it comes to efficiency. The amount of actual power you would get out of a roof like this even under the best conditions would be depressingly bad. I was super interested in the Tesla roof when I first heard about it. As I have learned more about Solar and been experimenting with my own panels with the goal of becoming 80% off grid within the next 5 years, I know first hand just how utterly atrocious power generation really is.

 

[Nobu]

Non tracking solar installs are the absolute worst when it comes to efficiency. The amount of actual power you would get out of a roof like this even under the best conditions would be depressingly bad. I was super interested in the Tesla roof when I first heard about it. As I have learned more about Solar and been experimenting with my own panels with the goal of becoming 80% off grid within the next 5 years, I know first hand just how utterly atrocious power generation really is.

Could still track from on a roof, though that would add even more weight.

 

[nutzo]

I'm anticipating the drawback will be it's only available in a 0.8L 3cyl that makes about 56hp. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing - you put that in a hybrid system with a decently sized battery and electric motors and you could still hum down the highway at a good clip, and use this little guy to keep your batteries topped off.

I've been waiting for someone to make a good serial plugin hybrid. Basically an electric car with a small, very efficient gas motor that can charge the batteries.

Some of the standard hybrids can now get around 50 miles/gallon, so give me an electric car with a 100 mile range and a 6 gallon gas tank, for a combined range of 400 miles.
Even a 50 mile battery and a 5 gallon gas tank would be passable at 300 miles.

This would eliminate the range problems since filling a 6 gallon gas tank would take less the 2 minutes.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Could still track from on a roof, though that would add even more weight.

Not realistically, at least not at this point in time. That may and probably will at some point in the future, but for now that isn't a realistic possibility.

 

[nutzo]

ICE still has tons of untapped potential. You've got higher compression ratios and boost levels that we could push. You've also got the elimination of the camshaft which is going to happen soon which will also bring a nice efficiency/performance boost.

Unless you're charging your car from your own personal solar panels / hydro-electric more modern and sophisticated ICE designs will prove better for the environment.

I work with someone who drives an electric car and always talks about how much money it saves him.
I just don't see it when I run the numbers. An electric car would actually cost me more to drive than my Hybrid.

Only way an electric car would be cheaper, is if I was able to charge it for free most the time, and drove a much smaller car.

At the current $.28 /kwh, the hybrid is still cheaper than $4.00/gallon gas.

Only way to get cheaper electrical rates to charge the car, would be to install a 2nd meter, and it would take way too many years to recover that cost.

 

[nutzo]

Could still track from on a roof, though that would add even more weight.

All that extra weight on your roof is not good if you are in earthquake country.
During a large earthquake, the extra weight puts more stress on the frame of the house, causing more structural damage.

 

[travisty]

Non tracking solar installs are the absolute worst when it comes to efficiency. The amount of actual power you would get out of a roof like this even under the best conditions would be depressingly bad. I was super interested in the Tesla roof when I first heard about it. As I have learned more about Solar and been experimenting with my own panels with the goal of becoming 80% off grid within the next 5 years, I know first hand just how utterly atrocious power generation really is.

Ive had solar panels on my last 2 houses. one with a full south facing roof and one with southwest and south east facing. in just 5 years prices on panels have come down in price by half and more efficient inverters. 18 panels generate just under what i use (by design). Your idiotic argument sbout efficiency is really baseless

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Ive had solar panels on my last 2 houses. one with a full south facing roof and one with southwest and south east facing. in just 5 years prices on panels have come down in price by half and more efficient inverters. 18 panels generate just under what i use (by design). Your idiotic argument sbout efficiency is really baseless

Not everyone lives in high sun area's..your lack of knowledge on the subject is astounding.

 

[wizzi01]

You're correct, they had a 33% controlling stake in Mazda, but the relationship between the two was collaborative, and that's definitely not 'totally owned' as the previous poster said. If you look at the cars produced during the 80s and 90s there was a lot of sharing... I'm from New Zealand and during those times there were identical cars such as the Ford Telstar/Mazda 626 and Ford Laser/Mazda 323. They stopped doing identical cars after a while, but even then platform tech was shared, with Mazda going in a different direction and targeting different markets (think EU Ford Focus Mk1 and Mazda 3 from that era).

You say he saved Ford from nightmares, but actually Mazda since then haven't done too badly... could be better, sure, but then Ford themselves haven't exactly had a fantastic run of things throughout...

Ford had a similar stake in Volvo too of course... that didn't turn out too well. Although one benefit was getting Volvo's T5 for the Focus ST and RS...

Yep, the plant where they built some Mazdas and Fords in Flat Rock, Mi was called North American Auto Alliance. There was no mention of Mazda or Ford in the name.

 

[travisty]

Not everyone lives in high sun area's..your lack of knowledge on the subject is astounding.

Seeing as I never mentioned sunny areas shows you're grasping at straws

I live in northern Colorado which is a sunny area - not as sunny as southern states though. Solar can work in less sunny areas though, see Germany (worse than all the US save alaska and parts of washington). Then again your lack of knowledge in this area is apparent because you think solar can only work in sunny places.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Seeing as I never mentioned sunny areas shows you're grasping at straws

I live in northern Colorado which is a sunny area - not as sunny as southern states though. Solar can work in less sunny areas though, see Germany. Then again you're lack of knowledge in this area is apparent because you think solar can only work in sunny places.

Oh look..Maps from Solar companies that try to paint a perfect case picture of what someone can expect out of solar panels they want to sell that have absolutely dick all to do with real world performance.

Seriously, just stop. I can show video of homesteaders and people with actual solar setups all day long that show how unreliable home solar actually is.

 

[travisty]

Oh look..Maps from Solar companies that try to paint a perfect case picture of what someone can expect out of solar panels they want to sell that have absolutely dick all to do with real world performance.

Seriously, just stop. I can show video of homesteaders and people with actual solar setups all day long that show how unreliable home solar actually is.

Oh so ignorant. As a solar owner myself I can say it meets my needs. Can you find those who didn't know anything and bought solar? Sure. Can you find videos of people who love them? Sure.

I would ask you to please stop commenting on this thread as you're trying to spread FUD instead of facts.

 

[SamuraiInBlack]

I think the internal combustion engine is proven technology by now :-D

BTW I'd not be surprised if their solution would include freevalve technology as developed by koenigsegg, or at least a derivation of that. No push rods, no timing chain, or belt, but electronically or hydraulically actuated intake and exhaust valves. Which gives completely unrestricted control of valve opening and much quicker opening and closing at that. The increase in efficiency from that just about corresponds with what they're claiming.

Internal combustion engine, yes. This particular attempt at improving it? If it's as new as they're making it out to be, then I'd want to see results first. What works out on paper does not always work out in real world usage.

 

[Mchart]

Oh look..Maps from Solar companies that try to paint a perfect case picture of what someone can expect out of solar panels they want to sell that have absolutely dick all to do with real world performance.

Seriously, just stop. I can show video of homesteaders and people with actual solar setups all day long that show how unreliable home solar actually is.

Running solar for our farm up in northern Wisconsin.. It works for us - But I also have quite a few batteries setup to deal with the down hours.

I think it's great for homes. Cars on the other hand I disagree on. The battery tech just isn't there yet and i'd take ICE any day.

Battery tech is irrelevant for the house as space/weight isn't a concern and the standard lead acid battery will work.

 

[focbde]

Oh look..Maps from Solar companies that try to paint a perfect case picture of what someone can expect out of solar panels they want to sell that have absolutely dick all to do with real world performance.

Seriously, just stop. I can show video of homesteaders and people with actual solar setups all day long that show how unreliable home solar actually is.

Screw maps, I live in Germany and he's spot on - solar panels are EVERYWHERE here, and the simple fact is they wouldn't install them if there was no benefit. My parents have solar panels and end up breaking even with the power company pretty much, as in winter they draw more from the grid, but in summer they actually PROVIDE to the grid and thus get paid for it.

 

[Brian_B]

Screw maps, I live in Germany and he's spot on - solar panels are EVERYWHERE here, and the simple fact is they wouldn't install them if there was no benefit. My parents have solar panels and end up breaking even with the power company pretty much, as in winter they draw more from the grid, but in summer they actually PROVIDE to the grid and thus get paid for it.

That's pretty much the only issue with solar (apart from the fact that the earth spins and we have night) -- you have to put them up EVERYWHERE for them to give you enough power.

I don't think anyone is saying there is no benefit, there certainly is. But it's naive for those who think that taking all the ICE engines off the road, replace them with EVs, and you'll magically just be able to power them all with Solar. When it takes ... a lot... of real estate and solar panels to accomplish that. Keep in mind, that's all going to be electric load that doesn't exist on the grid yet.... so you'd need panels EVERYWHERE and then in a lot more places besides that.

It's not impossible, but it isn't practical for a lot of people either. That's where the efficiency note comes in ... if you have unlimited space to install them, sure the efficiency doesn't matter. But space is always limited, especially when NIMBY starts to come into effect. And sure, you could just install a metric assload of them out in the Sahara/Gobi/Mohave/BFE and have enough panels to cover the load (I think Elon said he could power the entire USA if he only had 100sq miles of panels), but then you have to move that electricity somehow... and that's a whole different problem.

 

[Brian_B]

Just for kicks, and because I can't sleep. If we actually wanted to convert every automobile to EV, and power all those EVs from Solar.

For all the autos in the USA, for the average miles driven per year, I'm coming up with something like ... a lot of solar panels.

Previously I said around 15kW of solar, but that was based on my driving habits. If I base that on average number of miles drive per year (Google says 13,474 miles per registered automobile on average), then it's closer to 2.7 kW, or a good deal smaller. Per car, on average.

But considering there are 268.8 million registered automobiles (again, just going off top Google hit, may or may not be accurate)... you'd need somewhere around 726 GW of panels, which would cover around 1,700 sq miles of panels. That would almost double the amount of generation on the entire US grid right now, and cover an area almost the size of entire state of Delaware.

Now, maybe Delaware isn't good for anything else.. but that's still around 2.7 Billion solar panels, using a typical 265W panel.

And we haven't touched the amount of energy storage needed for all of that driving around - I think it qualifies as around a metric asston of lithium.

Hard to wrap my head around it.

 

[travisty]

People need to understand solar can't be the only source of electricity. The key is solar AND wind with aid from nuclear in dense metropolitain areas (ny, boston, chicago, etc)

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Oh so ignorant. As a solar owner myself I can say it meets my needs. Can you find those who didn't know anything and bought solar? Sure. Can you find videos of people who love them? Sure.

I would ask you to please stop commenting on this thread as you're trying to spread FUD instead of facts.

I'll ask the question directly since you seem to be dodging the original point I made. Are you still connected to the power company? If so why? The point I was making is that efficiency remains a problem at this time. That isn't FUD that is FACT. I own solar as well and it is a Long damn way from eliminating the power company.

Running solar for our farm up in northern Wisconsin.. It works for us - But I also have quite a few batteries setup to deal with the down hours.

I think it's great for homes. Cars on the other hand I disagree on. The battery tech just isn't there yet and i'd take ICE any day.

Battery tech is irrelevant for the house as space/weight isn't a concern and the standard lead acid battery will work.

Farms have far more space than the typical residential area for this type of thing. That is sort of the whole point. I'm AR3 as well and right now I would have to burn up a ton of space to meet my power needs. Batteries are obvious.

Screw maps, I live in Germany and he's spot on - solar panels are EVERYWHERE here, and the simple fact is they wouldn't install them if there was no benefit. My parents have solar panels and end up breaking even with the power company pretty much, as in winter they draw more from the grid, but in summer they actually PROVIDE to the grid and thus get paid for it.

They are still connected to the power company and that is the point. Solar efficiency in real world scenarios is in most cases no where near ready to completely remove someone off the grid. Solar maps are useless, they don't consider things like Trees, hills, line of sight, snow cover, leaves falling, the panels getting dirty and a slew of other variables that make solar as a means to cut off the power company not a realistic option for most people. Again I hope to be there in around 5 years, but unless some pretty large leaps are made in efficiency that is still a good ways down the road.

 

[travisty]

I'll ask the question directly since you seem to be dodging the original point I made. Are you still connected to the power company? If so why? The point I was making is that efficiency remains a problem at this time. That isn't FUD that is FACT. I own solar as well and it is a Long damn way from eliminating the power company.

I am still connected and that's because at this point batteries are still to expensive - their price is dropping as fast as solar so in a few years time I will heavily consider it - as well as adding maybe 2 or 3 more panels. Even with my EV (leaf curently, model 3 shortly) i'll be able to be completely off the grid.

Could I now? Totally.

Then again everyone disconnected is not where I see it going. It will be a distributed energy grid wherein power companies are no longer power providers (with exceptions for wind farms and nuclear for dense metropolitain) and are instead infrustructure maintainers.

Why? With the descreasing cost of solar, wind, and batteries the cost of electricity will be dropping quickly. If in 5 years time if your electricity bill is not dropping hold your elected officials feet to the fire. Solar and wind electricity costs are already in the 2-4 cents/kWh. Add in infrustructure maint. and you should only be paying 5-6 cents. (it's possible, i only pay 7 cents but then again i'm in a home-rule municipality and the power company is a non-profit public/private company so no outragious fees to the rich to keep share holders happy.)

Longmont Colroado's goal is to be 100% renewable by 2030 and i am going to hold my elected officials to that goal - this is totally feasable and every town/city in the US needs to be thinking in the same terms. If you haven't yet, watch the video i posted in the first page of this thread.


PBS Newshour discussing distributed grids with solar - i do wish they would have brought wind into this discussion too

 

[PaulP]

I don't know if Mazda can pull off this new engine or not, but having bought a new CX-5 lately, I can say that the SkyActiv engine is a nice piece of technology. It has a lot of power for a normally aspirated engine and gets very good fuel mileage. Really a nice vehicle overall for the money. And I think they are doing well these days; I see a lot more Mazdas on the road now than I did 5 or 10 years ago.

 

[Master_shake_]

People need to understand solar can't be the only source of electricity. The key is solar AND wind with aid from nuclear in dense metropolitain areas (ny, boston, chicago, etc)

where i live it's a solar wind hydro nuclear natural gas bouillabaisse with high time of use electricity prices and exorbitant service charges.

before this green energy fiasco hydro was way cheaper.

careful what you wish for.

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

I don't know if Mazda can pull off this new engine or not, but having bought a new CX-5 lately, I can say that the SkyActiv engine is a nice piece of technology. It has a lot of power for a normally aspirated engine and gets very good fuel mileage. Really a nice vehicle overall for the money. And I think they are doing well these days; I see a lot more Mazdas on the road now than I did 5 or 10 years ago.

Well design and technology wise they have stepped up bigtime. The facelift of 2014 sure did a huge part for sure. I couldn't have cared less about older gens but the recent ones look and perform nice for a relatively low asking price. I personally love the design of Mazda both exterior and interior, I can look at twice as expensive BMWs that just doesn't look as nice to me (talking purely looks, not build quality or so), for me they simply get the right balance of sportiness and still "casual" look to it, it's really like I would have been the designer myself, a manufacturer that knows what appeals to me. It's simply no other manufacturer that gets both the inside and outside just right for my taste.

There's just 3 things that really needs to be updated bigtime soon and they'd start to quickly climb nearer Honda in popularity if talking the Mazda 3 in particular, offer turbo options even if it would be limited to higher trim levels, just offer it for those who want it. Update the infotainment system, while it looks pretty clean, it starts to feel dated by now and it really needs Android Auto and Apple Car Play support. And finally, it would become much better allrounder if it there was just a wee bit more space in the backseats, even if it's just 3 cm more legroom that would be good for the reviews. Those things would make it the leader of the class, Honda Civic Hatchback is still I'd say the slightly better allrounder as of 2017(+) if you can stomach the looks (as it's a bit of a coin flip for ppl, I've started to like 2017 facelift more and more but I understand there's still ppl criticizing it), but the Mazda certainly has it beat for some buyers, just depends on what you are looking for.

My next car will be Mazda 3 2017 model (hopefully this summer) and then Honda Civic Hatchback in a couple of years most likely unless they go all out crazy spaceship design (might stick to 2017-2018 if so). Currently happy 2007 Civic Hatchback (2nd owner, europe) that has been completely problem-free and I estimate I'll only loose roughly $3000 (Maybe $500 or so paid in servicing) of its value during these 3 years of ownership if exchanging it for a new Mazda 3, not a bad investment in terms of car costs.

Parents are eyeing the CX-5, I'd really want them to get the 2017 facelift but not sure if their budget allows such a new CX-5. Doesn't seem like CX-5 comes with any big weaknesses for a crossover, very wellrounded package. While their 2012 Qashqai has been very dependable car and problem-free, god damn it's boring to drive.

 

[skiddierow]

Well design and technology wise they have stepped up bigtime. The facelift of 2014 sure did a huge part for sure. I couldn't have cared less about older gens but the recent ones look and perform nice for a relatively low asking price. I personally love the design of Mazda both exterior and interior, I can look at twice as expensive BMWs that just doesn't look as nice to me (talking purely looks, not build quality or so), for me they simply get the right balance of sportiness and still "casual" look to it, it's really like I would have been the designer myself, a manufacturer that knows what appeals to me. It's simply no other manufacturer that gets both the inside and outside just right for my taste.

There's just 3 things that really needs to be updated bigtime soon and they'd start to quickly climb nearer Honda in popularity if talking the Mazda 3 in particular, offer turbo options even if it would be limited to higher trim levels, just offer it for those who want it. Update the infotainment system, while it looks pretty clean, it starts to feel dated by now and it really needs Android Auto and Apple Car Play support. And finally, it would become much better allrounder if it there was just a wee bit more space in the backseats, even if it's just 3 cm more legroom that would be good for the reviews. Those things would make it the leader of the class, Honda Civic Hatchback is still I'd say the slightly better allrounder as of 2017(+) if you can stomach the looks (as it's a bit of a coin flip for ppl, I've started to like 2017 facelift more and more but I understand there's still ppl criticizing it), but the Mazda certainly has it beat for some buyers, just depends on what you are looking for.

I just finished shopping cars a month ago, and ended up with the '18 Mazda 3 Hatch.

I liked the Civic Hatch initially, but in person, I realized I only like the new Civic styling on the Coupe, particularly Si.

Mazda was only on the fringe of my shopping list, but after seeing in person and driving it, I was sold.

Got the 3 for a great price, and unlimited drive train warranty included, very happy so far.


Curious to see what they can do with this new engine tech.

If everything goes well with this car, I'll be looking at 3 and CX-5 in 5 years.

 

[Fuzzy Logik]

Fossil fuels are proof god wants us all to drive hummers.