Mazda's 1'st Electric Vehicle - Looks like a CX-5

Let me counter some mis-information on this very digressive thread.

Even if EVs were to rely on pure coal-based electricity, they still pollute less than a fossil-fueled car. As coal (and even Ngas) fade the EVs look cleaner and cleaner.

PV panels do not take a large land mass when compared to strip mining for coal. And they can (and should) be installed on roofs, where they provide shade in the hotter and sunnier parts of the (US and world).

Back to the OP - this does look like a CX30 body. A hybrid is likely -- until battery technology evolves.
 
If they figure out 500mi + range and sensible charging, I might trade out of my GTR early. That would save me tons, even though I get about 29mpg daily commute.
 
Is this now a done deal?

Yes. (Unless the politicians of which ever political power happen to be in charge at any one time move the date back or even forward). We are in the middle of the political morass (and mess) of Brexit together with a possible election as the present party in charge now only have a majority of one MP (Member of Parliament). After all they've only had 3 and a half years by the October deadline for Brexit to sort everything out.(shrug)(rofl2)
 
It is possibly that Mazda will provide two choices for this CX30.
Pure electric or using their rotary as range extender.
 
Being that insurance rates are set by actuarial tables and data collected on claims those kinds of rates say a lot about drivers of Model 3's.
 
Being that insurance rates are set by actuarial tables and data collected on claims those kinds of rates say a lot about drivers of Model 3's.

It also says a lot about real cost of ownership.

I can appreciate the drive and achievements of Elon Musk. He does deserve credit for pushing the industry towards electrics. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the woeful reliability of Teslas, the worst in the industry. Will it get better, sure, but it isn't there now.
Take a look how this loyal Tesla Model X and Tesla Solar customer was treated. Not my idea of a good time.


There's not nearly enough free, unbound hydrogen available for hydrogen to be a viable solution. It's far less efficient than electricity generated from solar panels (or other sources) of electricity. There's already much more electric charging infrastructure than the limited amount of Hydrogen stations in California, plus the hydrogen is very expensive.
 
Last edited:
Any discussion about getting off fossil fuels without talking about nuclear is a waste of time.

In their current forms, renewable can't replace fossil fuels. Until we get to a point where they can, nuclear needs to be considered as an alternative, cleaner source of energy.
 
Last edited:
Like those new Russian missiles that have a nuclear reactor ON them so they can fly indefinitely?
 
Any discussion about getting off fossil fuels without talking about nuclear is a waste of time.

In their current forms, renewable can't replace fossil fuels. Until we get to a point where they can, nuclear needs to be considered as an alternative, cleaner source of energy.

I agree that nuclear is a potentially important contributor to the energy production mix.

Its not sustainable and should not be expanded until the problem of long term high-level nuclear waste storage is successfully addressed. The billions wasted on the now-abandoned Yucca site show the difficulty of solving this in a NIMBY world.
 
I agree that nuclear is a potentially important contributor to the energy production mix.

It*s not sustainable and should not be expanded until the problem of long term high-level nuclear waste storage is successfully addressed. The billions wasted on the now-abandoned Yucca site show the difficulty of solving this in a NIMBY world.

I'm far from a "Greenie", but I think if solar-shingles are evolved well, they can drastically lower the demand on the grid and pay big dividends. Same for solar roof/hood/trunk/etc on EV's.
 
Back