Technology Review: Blogs: Potential Energy: Mazda's Hybrid-Free Strategy

Potential Energy

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Blog Topics

Mazda's Hybrid-Free Strategy

Mazda admits that it lacks the cash required to field its own hybrid technology.

By Peter Fairley

Mazda's Tribute SUV uses Ford technology

Mazda R&D chief Seita Kanai confirmed last week that his company has no plans to commercialize its own hybrid technology, according to a report last week in Automobile Magazine. The Japanese automaker markets a hybrid version of its Tribute, a small SUV, which Automobile Magazine describes as a Ford-engineered system closely resembling the Ford Escape Hybrid. Kanai says that Mazda will instead achieve mandated fuel economy savings by improving engines and transmissions, and by redesigning vehicles to reduce their weight.

But Kanai also admitted that Mazda simply couldn't afford to field a hybrid. And he acknowledged that the resulting technology gap represented a worrisome problem for the company with many buyers enamored of hybrids. Here's how Kanai put it, according to Automotive News:

"We're in real trouble," Kanai said of the rapidly falling hybrid prices. "It's a threat. We don't have the resources to get involved in that kind of competition."

The company could be even further behind if one is to believe plans by automakers such as Nissan and Ford to aggressively push into fully battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs). Nissan is considering selling its first battery EV in the U.S starting next year--two years faster than it had previously planned, according to another report today from Automotive News.

Quoting Mark Perry, Nissan's U.S.-based product planning and strategy director, the report says that the rollout of Nissan's EV will track the rollout of charging infrastructure, city-by-city. Presumably a thumbs up from the Department of Energy on Nissan's request for loans to build an EV battery plant in Tennessee could also affect the automaker's appetite for taking a bet on EVs in the U.S.

Tags: Nissan, electric vehicles, ford, ev, hybrid vehicles, mazda

Comments

Close Comments

Electricity in the long run

Yes, the entry cost is high in the short run. But electricity will win in the long run because its cheaper. Only the cost of batteries is in the way. Here is the basic physics and economics. The specific fuel efficiency of the automotive engine is .3 kg /kwh or .41 l/kwh (Wikipedia). At $1/liter that's 41 cents a kwh for fuel. I pay about 8.5 cents per kwh for electricity. 8.5 cents is less than 41 cents. As the cost of fossil fuel rises the case for electricity gets better. I urge you to do your own calculation. Get the specific fuel consumption from your local technical school with a dynamometer and use the prices for fuel and electricity that you pay. The rest is grade three math. Then help your friends understand the underline forces for change.

Rate this comment:

(Reply)

georgeheintz...
03/31/2009
Posts:2

Avg Rating:

Re: Electricity in the long run

Sure electricity costs 8.1 cents /kwh until you hit one of three levels which I do regularly here in California and the cost becomes 25.6 cents/kwh (we're still paying for the Enron debacle). Secondly, batteries are very expensive when you take a deep accounting that includes ecological ramifications. Currently, Sudbury Ontario bears the brunt of the nickel mining eco problems with thousands of acidified lakes and massive air pollution. When one considers these two drawbacks, hybrids using lead/nickel batteries don't really make sense. Personally, I'm holding out for better designed engines and hydrogen fuel cell technology--until then I'll continue to drive my 89 Toyota Pickup.

Rate this comment:

(Reply)

markduran
03/31/2009
Posts:2

Avg Rating:

Increased demand means increased cost

I won't argue with your estimates above, but if you increase demand for power drawn at an electrical outlet, you'll see a considerable increase in price for that energy. I believe that approximately 1/3 of our energy consumption is for transportation, so that would result in a 50% increase in demand for utility derived energy.

Such an increase in demand will not be met with a linear increase in price; it may be significantly more that 13 cents/kWh. Further, this price will also apply to your non-transportation use of power since it now competes with the same. All of that said, I still think it makes more sense to use battery powered electric drives; I just want to keep the cost estimates in perspective.

Rate this comment:

(Reply)

kstauff
03/31/2009
Posts:114

Avg Rating:

Load leveling/peaking affects the economics

EVs don't necessarily cause a price increase due to demand. If EVs are charged during off-peak hours, the increased night demand might allow utilities to replace some inefficient peaker generators with more efficient baseload generators. Capital cost/kWh is lower if the generator can be used a greater percentage of time. [We supposedly already have enough excess night generating capacity for a large number of EVs.] In California there is a special EV tarrif at about $.05/kWh during the night and something like $.25 during the day.

Daytime charging stations are a problem-- they could dramatically increase costs by increasing peak demand instead of increasing off-peak demand. It would be important to have time of day metering on a charger, e.g. maybe .50/kWh peak (closer to actual cost), and .15/kWh other times (e.g. morning). I've never seen this mentioned-- and don't know if any chargers do this.

When calculating EV fuel expense, don't forget battery life-- that's been omitted in the articles on the Tesla with a 500 cycle life of it's Li-Co battery. At current battery prices, the Tesla is as expensive as European gasoline.

Rate this comment:

(Reply)

carlhage
03/31/2009
Posts:27

Avg Rating: