Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options

What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?

16061636566473

Comments

  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I'm thinking the mandate should be more like 10% in 2013 and growing 10% per year until we reach the 100% threshold. :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    The legislators have to creat laws: from which the rules and regulations will flow that will let biodiesel products BE competitive with gas products, IF they really believe their own hype. (this might be a Mount Everest issue, itself)

    Logistically, (up to B-100) it is a much easier and so called (I even gag when I say this) more "environmentally friendly" procedure to develop and implement in many instances it is just adding volume. Most policies and procedures are in place.

    On the other hand, the US nexus to the middle east is really one HUGE consequence of our domestic NIMBY dreams and schemes. How anyone of the NIMBY'ers can deny this is sheer and absolute lunancy.

    One small example, there is not ONE single commerically available passenger car engine that is certified to run on 100 per cent bio diesel, aka B-100.

    There exists a whole sub industry "between the cracks" as it were for the winks and nods of regulatory innuendos where B-100 can be run and has been for years.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well at least it would be the truth--not all this marketing jive.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    I think given the competitive forces in the marketplaces, natural gas processes to fertilizer are probably a HIGHLY competitive alternative.

    On the natural gas to passenger car diesel fuel's issue ,I would love to compare and contrast up to B-100, ULSD (conventional diesel) GTL, etc.

    I have read in passing that Shell has mixed in some percentage of GTL (gas to liquids) diesel into its' ULSD product mix (hope I am saying this correctly ) Shell

    It emits 10 to 15% less polutants off an already LOW ULSD product.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited July 2011
    It sounds like we could pretty much replace Middle East oil just with Alberta oil sand/shale stuff if we wanted to. Nasty business, but if we don't buy it, the Chinese will.

    "The province's estimated 170 billion barrels of proven oil reserves now ranks it third in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Venezuela."

    Canada Has Plenty of Oil, but Does the U.S. Want It? (WSJ)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    And (Mikey) they actually like us!! At least they do not wish to plot our extermination !!! Yet, ... we throw billions if not trillions of dollars at folks who would love nothing more than to party hearty on our graves ?

    It amazes me that we continue to show Canada almost utter disdain.

    What,... 17/19 terrorists of the 9/11 tragedy were from Saudi Arabia or shall I say the ones we publically say we know of ?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited July 2011
    We do take our neighbors for granted a lot. Be a real pain to have a Pakistani/Indian kind of relationship instead of what we enjoy now. What Canada couldn't supply, Mexico could.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Bah, numbers look good but reality doesn't. Oil shale is very hard to extract, and the oil usually found in it (it's not really 'shale' at all) has less energy per ton. Oil shale has been a hard sell for many years now. Some skeptics claim that the energy content of oil shale is 1/3 that of cow manure and about equal to a potato----but I dunno, can't verify THAT.

    Also don't know if the Canadian deposits are in marlstone like in the U.S Rockies, or in some other type of rock that might be easier.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    I am really amazed there is almost no discussion of a real potential game changer and that is the GTL (natural Gas To Liquids), both the technology AND the discovery of absolutely HUGE natural gas finds. Domestic (on shore/land finds that are conservatively estimated at 100-400 years supply.

    Perhaps the envirocons are plotting the next poisoning or vilification campaigns.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well there might be some vestiges of the notion that America should go back to being one of the British and or French colonies ;)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yeah but those are paper stats---this stuff is not easy to recover, and then one needs a new or partially new infrastructure to handle it. Also, land-based hydraulic fracturing is very controversial.

    Moreover, it's not a golden age coming up--at best, and this is good---natural gas is breathing room while we solve the ever more ominous stats about climate change. Last year saw a record-breaking amount of greenhouse gases ejected into the atmosphere.

    If we should push over a 2 degree Celsius overall global temperature rise, we are probably screwed.

    By the way, many climate change activists do support natural gas as a cleaner alternative to oil, but not as a longterm solution to anything. It's still producing greenhouse gases.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    I would say that is absolutely true, they are paper stats. We were supposed to run out of oil app 50-75 years ago (paper stats). For some reason/s not only has that not happened yet, it seems that other countries are getting on the increased oil use bandwagon. For the the armaggedon bru ha ha, precious few folks are "off the grid", or have switch to alternative fuels. Indeed the very same governments that sound the alarm/s make it both legislatively, to rules and regulations and economically impossible to switch.

    Indeed, CA has MANDATED natural gas to be used in all new power plants and are pushing coal fired plants to converted to ...natual gas. The problem with that is, no one in their right minds will build a power plant in CA !!!! Why? Ask those very same envirocons who annoint natural gas as the "interim solution"? The interim solution to what? What is THEIR terminal solution? They have NONE, ZERO, NADA !! The subject of nuclear power is now considered a bit like devil worship or cursing in church. Yet, I am sure CA continues to be the biggest users of fozzilized fuels, even as they decry its use.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That is why research into viable sources of energy like Algae are so important. The current alternatives are purely corporate welfare with little significance toward lowering GHG. The only viable alternatives have to be able to produce power for our homes and our cars 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. And it would help if it does not require coal power to achieve the goals. Like all the coal powered corn stills making ethanol.

    I also like GTL for our vehicles. Running diesel produced from natural gas seems so much more efficient than taking up your entire trunk to haul a potentially dangerous CNG/LNG tank around. I don't have any idea what the cost per gallon is on diesel produced from natural gas. Probably close to what we are paying now.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I don't recall any credible scientists predicting oil shortages in 1950, but anyway, the problem isn't merely peak oil. The problem is global warming and the potential catastrophic events. Knowing human nature as we do, I agree with you 100%, that the world governments (with some exceptions) are being recklessly irresponsible in this respect, probably because they know that projection of their power requires energy.

    We all, being, like Mongo, "only pawn in game of life" (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKRma7PDW10)

    can only act in a "ground up" kind of way, by using *less* of it, by being mindful consumers of "stuff".

    But going off grid, or growing my own biodiesel, these things are beyond my means and my available time.

    I can only "slow things down" but my little world requires oil for survival at the moment.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    Indeed the OMISSION of solar supported public transportation is really the most telling.

    With all this capital, brain, innovative, creative, constructive firepower why did no one implement partial to TOTAL solar panel support of public works projects like BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) etc.etc. ?
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    The DPF and the urea/DEF catalyst are performing two different tasks; one would not be used in place of the other.

    The Diesel Particulate Filter is just for soot particulates, and they've been around in many forms since the 90s. Diesel cars, trucks, and buses have near-universal use of DPFs since 2007. The difference between active and passive regeneration can affect fuel economy, but both still have an effect.

    The urea catalyst (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) is for converting NOx, not particulates. It eliminates the need for EGR, and that's where the primary fuel savings comes from.

    kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    I don't want to be the bearer of this news, but back then (1950's), stuff like that was classified. Some of it was: burn before reading.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well then of course it was probably wrong if it had "top secret" on it. Cold War paranoia and all that.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    Then you really agree with what I am saying. In addition, those assesssments are interwoven into the fabric of national policies:right wrong, good or bad, useful or ...not.

    It is where the various endeavors and disciplines gives you the stuff that Hollywood uses to make... scary movies. Nice entertainment, but remember its just a money making (they hope) movie.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Climate change is real however. It is not an "opinion". People need to be alarmed. Not unduly so, but enough to motivate them, especially at the top.

    The scared people are the oil companies I think, because policies to arrest climate change imply, by definition, that no one is paying the true cost of energy.

    If we required everyone to pay the true cost of energy, and if corporations were not allowed to pass the costs on, (in other words, they had to pay for what they damaged in making their profits--not US) then their profits would be (estimated) 2/3rds of what they are now.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    That is a pie in the sky dream !! Poor folks for example already pay the price for the LACK of energy????? Or, are the homeless folks the urban version of that described utopia?

    All of a suddent sacrificing virgins (of cultures and civilizations of old, some current also) seems like a common sense and practical procedure. ;)

    You can see this in a very easy to enforce procedure/regulation etc.

    Essentially it is this concept. No new construction, unless it is locally sustainable. ALL current non sustainable constructed projects will become sustainable by a date certain. If not, it will be torn down at the owners costs. You have just created complete and utter chaos with this utterly simple idea.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    That is why research into viable sources of energy like Algae are so important.

    Didn't people say the same thing 20 years ago about biodiesel? Or do you expect all the research and funding for demonstration plants to be privately funded?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    It is very hard to create a market for bio diesel or even a specific source of bio diesel (from algae for example) if the legislative to the entire enforcement chain bars engines that can burn up to 100% bio diesel (B-100).

    In the case of algae, the real question is where does it NOT grow!!?? Most folks will ponder what this means. :surprise: :sick:
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Didn't people say the same thing 20 years ago about biodiesel?

    The key word is VIABLE. We wasted $millions on both wind and solar 40 years ago. It is still not viable in the real world. It is all political smoke and mirrors. The viable research and development of biodiesel from algae will more than likely come from the private sector. I don't think our R&D money is very well spent when you look at the results. Maybe at one time. Now all it does is subsidize corporate bosses and over paid professors.

    I am a firm believer in American ingenuity. Hopefully it has not been destroyed by government red tape, taxes and regulations. A lot of the dot.com money ended up as early retirement for some very bright minds. Easier to just kick back and enjoy the money than fight with the government.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    MSG #3163 ties into your response: on the wind and solar aspect. Indeed 40/50 years into it and STILL not viable to support a local public transportation scheme (I used BART as an example. SD I am sure has ITS' local public transportation examples)?

    Those very same envirocons that say we have to go to wind and solar are actually part (if not parcel) of the efforts to BLOCK solar panels (farms if you will) in the Mojave Desert !! For folks not familar with the CA/NV Mojave Desert, suffice to say it gets LOADS of sun.Indeed absolute to total abundance comes to mind. It even is the home to Death Valley. So if you can't put solar panels in a sun DRENCHED desert, where it literally is in massive sun the huge majority of the time, what about foggy places like... Germany or England can be good to better?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Just checking - no public funding or subsidy for algae. Got it. :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    That (checking) meaning what?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Algae to oil got cut off in 1996 because of cheap oil.

    Then in 1996, the price of oil bottomed out at roughly $20 a barrel. The estimated cost of algae oil at the time was about $80 a barrel.

    With those price factors and other budget pressures, DOE stopped funding the Aquatic Species Program. Algae strains were sent to the University of Hawaii for safekeeping and the NREL team summarized nearly 20 years of research in the program's Close Out Report.

    Algae Comes Back into the Race

    Fast forward 10 years and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) is passed by Congress. The 2007 law required that the U.S. produce and use 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. EISA capped the use of starch based ethanol at 15 billion gallons and called for the remainder to be made up by 'advanced biofuels' basically anything else.

    Because of its past research, NREL was ahead of the curve. In 2006 an NREL research team began seeking new funding for algae research. 'We started another aquatic species program but it is really quite different from the first,' said NREL Principal Group Manager Al Darzins.


    It is back on the budget. Kind of hard to tell how much. Nothing like what is wasted on Wind, Solar & ethanol would be my guess.

    http://www.oilgae.com/club/users/Natalia/blogs/915
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    A little more research shows that the Feds have known about oil from algae since the 1940s. They did not get interested in researching oil from algae until the 1970s oil embargo. From the 1970s until the shut off funding the Feds spent $25 million on research. Most of the research was to produce hydrogen from algae. Why the obsession with hydrogen? Since 1998 it looks like the NREL has spent most of the time analyzing what they already knew. With endless Life cycle analysis and what ifs. The money spent is unknown as it is a DOE/DOD venture. If the Feds had analyzed corn ethanol to this extent no sane person would have allowed it to happen. My guess is the people that control the Congress of this USA are not interested in alternatives that would actually make any difference in our importation of oil. Keep it on the back burner until we really have a World wide oil shortage. Which could be another 100 years or more. Ethanol is fine as it does not cut into oil profits. And it makes the Mega Ag people rich.

    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/algal_biofuels_roadmap.pdf
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Hard to beat the economics of drilling a whole in the ground and having an energy source come out.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    In theory the answer is absolutely positively.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    Here is a readers digest discussion of why solar and wind are at such a disadvantage highest cost, lowest range and higher costs to find solutions link title

    This affects electrical plug in power also.

    Think 245 mile range with a $109,000 cost, when a 700 mile range will do @ a cost of $18,000 dollars.

    If you project that to bio diesel the bio diesel production from algae actually is NNN neutral and actually oxygen is a by product.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited July 2011
    Americans have this well-established habit of thinking that technology will always pull the rabbit out of the hat, but this was historically only possible in a fundamentally bankrupt-destined level of constant growth. The "ingenuity" was to switch from one level of unsustainable growth to a new type of unsustainable growth.

    I think we need a "Manhattan Project" level of total national commitment to break this chain of pathological growth and come up with a *real* rabbit.

    Until then, we need all the breathing space that viable energy sources existing now can afford us.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    I really think the advocates of plug in electrical cars are really fooling themselves by not acknowledging that coal fired, natural gas fired, nuclear and hydro generation are really the sources. All of which would not exist if envirocons had their way. They are depending on yet to be marketed technologically difficult and wildly costly battery range improvements (as measured in miles range). Indeed the lack of a totally solar supported local transportation is a major knock.

    Given the almost uphill battle of (Prius type) hybrids to gain less than 2% with a decade or more full court press. At the same time we suppress diesel which is a viable portal to bio diesel. Bio diesel is scale able: from locally manufacturable all the way to NIMBY.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited July 2011
    I think you have a misconception of the goals of the mainstream environmental movement (the creator of the Whole Earth Catalog is a nuclear energy champion for gawd's sake) ....BUT...let's not go there aside from resolving it by saying that "intermediate" forms of energy are by no means off the table in the scientifically-schooled environmentalist's view of the future.

    Just because you don't want a nuclear power plant in your backyard doesn't mean you're fundamentally opposed to it. That's really not quite fair---would any of us pass this test?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Just because you don't want a nuclear power plant in your backyard doesn't mean you're fundamentally opposed to it. That's really not quite fair---would any of us pass this test?


    The Nuclear power plants at San Onofre just a stone's throw, a long one, from where I live has been producing clean power since 1968. I would like to see them expand the capacity by replacing the now decommissioned reactor. The two remaining reactors put out a total 2200 MWs all the time. Don't get me wrong I think Solar on the home or business is a good thing. I just don't see it as viable for a utility that is required to provide around the clock power. All wind and solar mandates have done is make my electric bills higher.

    http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratin- gStation/default.htm?goto=songs
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    yeah but the nuke plant was there before you were. You still didn't pass the NIMBY test :P
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited July 2011
    Actually no, they started building San Onefre shortly after I graduated HS. I took a tour of the facility while it was under construction before it was turned up. I thought it was quite exciting. And still consider Nuclear next to geothermal the best sources of electric power. In fact I had NO feelings of fear about it back in the 1960s. I may not want one within a mile or so now, knowing what I know about sloppy regulations.

    PS
    I moved to Los Angeles when I was 6 month old in 1943. After a 4 years in Portland Oregon we moved back to CA and down to San Diego in 1957.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    The only nuclear plant I'd be willing to consider for my "back yard" would be one fueled with Thorium-232. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited July 2011
    I took a tour of Sequoia while TVA was building that nuke plant in Chattanooga.

    Then I moved far away. :P
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    So what kind of power plant would you like in your area? You do not want to be near a nuclear, hydro, wind, coal or diesel plant. Solar would only run a few hours a day in the winter, after you shoveled the snow off.

    My room in Prudhoe was less than a football field from 4 big diesel generators. After a while you did not notice them running. I don't think I suffered as much lung damage from them as I did growing up in Los Angeles.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited July 2011
    When most of those others fail, it just kills locally - people working around the turbines or steam pipes. Dams can fail with widespread damage but the other technologies can be mitigated to a large extent. I'd substitute as much natural gas for coal as I could.

    And I still think that we've only scratched the surface with conservation efforts.

    Doubt that I could handle a diesel power plant with the fumes emitted. ;)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I never noticed the exhaust, only the noise. They did run on number one diesel as that is all they brought up to Prudhoe. The only stink was the sewer treatment plant at certain times. Plus when the trash burners were going full blast. Otherwise the air was pretty easy on my lungs. I did not have the shortness of breath that being in Los Angeles or San Bernardino caused. The worst was visiting my aunt and uncle in Pasadena.
  • beentheretoobeentheretoo Member Posts: 1
    I moved from Los Osos just before the Diablo Canyon facility came online. The year was 1979 and the plant wasn't producing power yet.

    I drive diesel. The shame is so many sources of biodiesel are ignored, wasted or misused. Most everything organic that we toss out or aside can produce biodiesel fuel. Ie, human solid waste should produce engery, not pollute our waters. Get government out of the way and AMERICANS will get the job done.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited July 2011
    Get government out of the way and AMERICANS will get the job done.

    That is a fact. Sadly the Feds have got their nose into EVERY aspect of our lives. They have people believing that big government is the only solution to the energy problems. Getting big government out of the way is a real challenge. I don't see that getting resolved soon enough.

    Welcome to the forum. We need more diesel/biodiesel fans here.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Indeed they control most to all sewer waste treatment plants and/or have "franchisor to franchisee relationships !!! Sort of like McDonald's or Mc S---'s. It is not they lack the science to grow bio diesel at the sewer treatment plants, nor shall I dare say the "RAW MATERIALS".
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    On a Jetta TDI (09 if that matters) posted 43.1 mpg on the MDF (multiple display function) screen and posted EXACTLY 43 mpg by pen and ink calculations. Fuel.gov lists 39.8 mpg for 32 vehicles. Jetta turbo gassers posts 27 mpg. TDI fuel mileage is app 59.3% better !! ??
  • rey7rey7 Member Posts: 2
    I've considered switching to diesel... turning in my leased 2010 Civic LX-S auto next year for a DSG 2012 VW Golf TDI. However, I'm nervous about lease residuals on diesels. And, I'm not seeing much of a financial case for it, given that diesel is 15% more expensive than 87 octane gas, the car is about 20% more expensive than a gas Golf, and there's no more tax incentive on them.

    If the government tax-incented diesel purchases more heavily - compared to hybrid or EV incentives - it would help lower the vehicle cost. As for the fuel cost, we need federal, state, and cities to tax diesel at lower rates. This would help lower the cost of owning a diesel and may also help our CPI since it would lower freight costs.

    IMO, of course...
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    While diesel in your area may be 15% more than Regular in your area (they're the same cost here in New Hampshire), your fuel costs will be rather less expensive (by as much as 20%) for any given distance driven.
  • colin_lcolin_l Member Posts: 591
    Diesel here costs the same as premium unleaded (91) most of the time. It's rarely cheaper, but sometimes is up to 20 cents more during price spikes. The cost of the fuel isn't the problem for me.

    It's the cost and selection of cars using diesel. I was just in France and I would imagine their laws and taxes favor diesel because they were everywhere.. over 50%, easily.

    We should be able to foster an environment where more than just 4 German brands offers diesel cars. (3 of them being luxury and very expensive, 1 of them being... well, perhaps not overly reliable.)

    I want more choices for a diesel, plain and simple.
This discussion has been closed.