I was just going through the 7 different mid sized PU trucks available in the EU. Most ONLY have diesel engines. Wonder why? You get more power and less fuel. Most will get you about 37 MPG US. That compares to our very best mid sized truck that will get you 18 MPG. Pretty pathetic. The answer lies in our Congress and lobbyist that do not want us to use less fuel. The energy bills are only smoke screens to fool those ignorant enough to believe in our state and federal legislators.
..."The answer lies in our Congress and lobbyist that do not want us to use less fuel. The energy bills are only smoke screens to fool those ignorant enough to believe in our state and federal legislators. "...
That about sums it up.
From a logic point of view, (clearly not in operation) offering diesel pick up trucks in all the other sizes and permutations are an absolute slam dunk, no brainer. What defies logic and is the ultimate real travesty is why US markets put and/or forced gas engines on the overwhelming majority of them in the first place. While there are powerful segments that wish to punish folks that do want/need pick up trucks, there is a want/need for the segment!!!
Probably for a literal plethora of reasons (politics make for STRANGE bed fellows) , those powerful segments (that advocate less use by the way) and folks do not really follow the operative reality that 38 mpg IS better than 15-18 mpg!!!! (53%-58% better) enough to actually buy 37 mpg pick up trucks. They can blame the auto manufacturers all they want, but when they regulate against diesels, blaming the oems when they do not manufacture diesels is clearly a ruse or smoke screen. (for US markets 2/3 series being the steady exception of course).Strangely enough it is more than apparent that even BIG P/U have been (Euro models obviously) and can EASILY meet the forward looking 2012 35 mpg fuel standards.!!????
The logic believe it or not, extends to the rest of the passenger vehicle fleet.
"The passenger diesel fleet emissions are literally UNMEASURABLE in the real world. "
I would think they are very measurable. You would take the number of diesel cars times the emission rates of each car (both known) to get a total impact.
", but you can NOT stop the effects of NON passenger vehicle fleet related unmitgaged emissions by banning a 2% minority population of mitigated D2 emissions,unmeasurable in the real world."
The real problem here was that EPA went after the low hanging fruit - it was easier to regulate the diesel cars vs. the trains and ships. I think this has been one of your points regarding the lack of diesel cars. I would agree that it was a wrong to put most of the burden on the diesel cars at first and not the trains, diesel generators, construction equipment and ships. If I was in charge, I would have made all the diesel car engines comply with the emission standards over a bit longer period of time. Giving diesel cars another two years would have allowed VW and others the chance to keep selling diesels. The impact would have been minimal from an overall emission standpoint. And the extra 50,000 or so diesel cars, instead of RUG or PUG cars, would have reduced the demand for UG. I would have saved at least 0.001 cents or more when buying UG.
"Your quote conveys no real information. We can of course draw conclusions; that you feel victimized by technology being complex to that is a can do easy.."
Let me see if I have this straight, you said his quote provides NO information but you go on to draw a conclusion based on nothing?
As to the quote providing information, IT DOES. The words within the quote can be viewed as an observation, one that I agree with. Cars have indeed become complex.
"to that is a can do easy.."
I think there is a missing or wrong word in this part of the sentence. Can you clarify?
"The passenger diesel fleet emissions are literally UNMEASURABLE in the real world. "
I would think they are very measurable. You would take the number of diesel cars times the emission rates of each car (both known) to get a total impact.
No offense but indeed you missed the point. LA LA land for example physically MEASURES physically air pollution. They're unable to MEASURE diesel passenger vehicle fleet real world output. Indeed they can PROJECT, but that is a projection NOT a measure.
So if your conception were true, operatively they can limit or decrease the number of the total (gasser) passenger vehicle fleet in say "problem" area's. Ergo limit the "projected" air pollution. Now just the fact that LA LA LAND exists should tell you the success of your projection policy.!?
Absolutely, I listed a RANGE of possible conclusions: from "that you feel victimized by technology being complex; to that is a can do easy.." i..e., yes it is complex, but no big deal?. However, just ask this question to his quote:
"", but you can NOT stop the effects of NON passenger vehicle fleet related unmitgaged emissions by banning a 2% minority population of mitigated D2 emissions,unmeasurable in the real world."
The real problem here was that EPA went after the low hanging fruit - it was easier to regulate the diesel cars vs. the trains and ships. I think this has been one of your points regarding the lack of diesel cars. I would agree that it was a wrong to put most of the burden on the diesel cars at first and not the trains, diesel generators, construction equipment and ships. If I was in charge, I would have made all the diesel car engines comply with the emission standards over a bit longer period of time. Giving diesel cars another two years would have allowed VW and others the chance to keep selling diesels. The impact would have been minimal from an overall emission standpoint. And the extra 50,000 or so diesel cars, instead of RUG or PUG cars, would have reduced the demand for UG. I would have saved at least 0.001 cents or more when buying UG.
EPA Finalizes Tier 3 and Tier 4 Standards for Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engines 15 March 2008
Sorry, I have already STATED the REAL problem. Not only have you not refuted it, but MASSIVE pollution continues unabated and that is by law and regulations. :lemon: In addition, the stage has been/is set for massively higher rates of overall consumption and overall pollution.
Now if you are saying those trucks, ships, airplane trains, fed,state, local, military operations, construction and farm, etc, etc, emissions DO NOT MIX at all with the passenger vehicle fleet emissions, then I would probably agree with you!!??
The low hanging fruit policy thinking is good for WINDOW dressing for those who are easily satisfied by such (empty) assertions. All they really want to do is give you the feeling they are lessening pollution, and the warm fuzzies so you will vote their handlers back into office.
I agree with your assessment, however the system wants us to burn 20-40% MORE structurally NOT less, EVEN as they advocate LESS. But even they realize they can not keep this charade up by NOT offering alternatives (such as diesel). So they craft regulations to keep the costs (of diesel) HIGH. This of course would tend to cause questions about switching, as this thread so amply demonstrates.
Here is the other side of GREATER consumption.Indeed ethanol is the ultimate oxymoronic alternative. It increases the price of foodstuffs overall for everyone. It increases the price of fuel overall. It produces more C02 emissions (etc) and environmental impact by burning app 25% more than RUG to PUG?????? That is with E85 !!!!!!!!! Imagine what that would be with E100 ethanol??????? Given the assumptions and logics employed, INSANE comes to mind: IF results are a reasonble measure of success!!?? Keep in mind this overall insanity has been achieved with only 10% ethanol usually using the winterized oxygenated blend. Now didn't this sound logical enough when the winterized fuel concept was introduced? NOW imagine what will happen when the 10% ethanol blend becomes 7 days a week/365?? How about when E85 %'s are mandated? The stated purpose would of course be less oil dependency?
Just remember the principle, the best way to hide things is in the open.
From a logic point of view, (clearly not in operation) offering diesel pick up trucks in all the other sizes and permutations are an absolute slam dunk, no brainer.
That is absolutely the truth. I would imagine that given a mid sized PU with high MPG diesel engine and all the tax breaks, at least 35% of buyers would opt for the smaller truck getting 30+ MPG. Every time I have bought a new truck since 1988 I have looked at the mid sized first. Every time I bought the full sized PU truck. Because there was no advantages to owning a smaller more cramped vehicle. If I could have used half as much fuel it would have been an easy choice.
The big questions is how much less pollution would we have contributed if a third of all those full sized trucks were smaller diesel trucks. Will a 4 cylinder diesel put out as much pollution as an 8 cylinder diesel. Or even an 8 cylinder gas engine. We know they win the CO2 contest by about 50% less.
There is also a technical D2 power side. Avalon02 wh said it in passing, when he suggested (past post) I should compare the (gasser) Jetta 1.8T ( although a "like model") as different from a Jetta TDI. Again, the issue is hidden in plain sight.
The 2003 Jetta 1.8T has 180 hp/173 # ft of torque.
The2003 Jetta 1.9 TDI has (measly) 90 hp/155# ft of torque.
OK, lets even up the hp and keep the same ratio as the TDI. When I get the TDI to 180 hp, keeping the same hp to torque ratio, now we are talking 310 # ft of torque !!!! This thing is now a BEAST in comparison to the (gasser) 1.8T !!!
(The fact the car would now be TOTALLY out of balance is a whole separate issue.)
It is really too bad a lot of folks are narcotized by that old stand by metric, ZERO to 60 mph; as if we do WOT Zero to 60 mph runs EVERY DAY with IT being done with the most frequency. In contrast I do MANY times more 50-70 mph runs or even 60-90 mph runs than I have EVER done Zero to 60 runs.
... I stopped in a new big truck dealer on Friday. Looked at a mid-sized unit with about an eight liter engine, with no body mounted on the chassis. Had a good look at the particulate trap. Not overly complicated. It had a pyrometer (temp) near the tail, and a valve to allow fuel in for burn off mode. There was some type of simple flame arrester / outlet about two foot aft of the trap. I actually hope that, that guy from Green Diesel Corp's injector is SO efficient that the soot is a non-factor.
..."I actually hope that, that guy from Green Diesel Corp's injector is SO efficient that the soot is a non-factor. "...
The switch from higher sulfur diesel to ULSD has had a HUGE effect. Depending on a number of factors LSD was at 500 ppm. ULSD is at 15 ppm. There are products that are less than 15 ppm approaching ZERO. So the sulfur ppm (soot potential) is GREATLY diminished. So for example a 10,000 mile oem recommended OCI has (with new specifications i.e., VW 507.00 is variable to 30,000 miles.
This is in stark contrast to RUG to PUG @ 30 ppm, with most OCI's STILL @ 3,5, 7.5k MAX. So the soot potential is actually higher for gassers.
... To some extent we have the manufacturers making vehicles to fit the regulations. So, during burn off mode there are no regs on tailpipe output. During burn-off the particulate trap actually has high enough temps to increase NOX; overall I have to assume the short burn-off period is a good trade off for the reduced particulate. The high pressure injectors reduce particulate by helping the burning of fuel where it should be burned. The combustion chamber, and let's not forget the rest of this circular culdron we are in, higher combustion temps also reduce particulate but increase NOX.
I would agree and say for certain, by virtue of the fact/s that all this has been required, approved, and certified!! But it needed to be said (and has) that the oems would not have been able to achieve those same results with a WAY higher (500 ppm) sulfur content D2 vs a lower sulfur content . (15 ppm ( Oct 2006 change over) to ZERO)
Indeed I ran the majority of the current % and mileage on a 2003 TDI on LSD (between 500 to 140 ppm ) and there is no doubt in my mind that on many levels, the engine runs FAR better when it now gets the ULSD that it was DESIGNED to run years ago.
For example, Lubricity questions are now moot. Two normally heretofore important test parameters have been rendered redundant: TBN and SOOT % resistance. This has cleared the way for the oems to reformulate oils VW 507.00 from a VERY conservative 10,000 mile OCI to a NOW conservative 30,000 miles. So for example I run a 25,000 mile OCI (on so called older specification oils) . I guess I am conservative beyond belief!? (non common rail)
Prius owners would probably FREAK at a 7,500 mile OCI let alone a 10,000 miles OCI.? :confuse:
It should be patently obvious which runs cleaner!? These issues get totally lost outside of a diesel specific thread.
"It increases the price of foodstuffs overall for everyone."
I would agree. We can also add in biodiesel. The use of canola and soybean to create biodiesel will also increase the cost of food related items. "In other words, one ADM biodiesel plant will require 130 percent of all U.S. canola production." http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1431
Put another way, that one biodiesel plant will need 625,000 acres for every 50 million gallons of biodiesel produced. Imagine what that does for canola prices!!!!
"It increases the price of fuel overall."
I would disagree with that point. The overall energy balance is slightly positive - 1.3 to 1 or so. The added ethanol probably reduces the overall cost a few cents a gallon. A lot depends on how the blender prices the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance
"It produces more C02 emissions (etc) and environmental impact by burning app 25% more than RUG to PUG?????? That is with E85 !!!!!!!!!"
E85 has some advantages and disadvantages when compared to other fuels. Here are a few advantages from ncga.org:
* Reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 30 percent * Reduces exhaust VOC emissions by 12 percent * Reduces toxic emissions by 30 percent * Reduces particulate matter (PM) emissions by more than 25 percent. (Particulate matter has been found to penetrate deeply into human lungs.)
Is diesel, UG or E85 better, it really depends on your perspective and what you think the important issue is -- type of emission, fuel economy, renewable, security, local jobs.... take your pick.
I will say that it is time to remove the 50 cent subsidy for ethanol. The industry needs to stand on its own. But then that subsidy is rather tiny when compared to the "military" subsidy for diesel and UG.
Well, yes, Rug in Venezuela is .17 cents per gal US vs 3.61 @ my the corner store (I do not live in Venezuela) . Chavez has got at least one thing right. Cheap fuel for the peoples! :shades:
..."These folks disagree with you. They claim a 29% reduction."...
One year does not a longitutinal scientific study make. Indeed no comparisons have been done or even referenced: straight RUG to PUG, E10 RUG to PUG, E85, LSD, ULSD#2, Biodiesel., abated/non abated, altitude/sea level. etc etc. At best the linked assertions are highly suspect.
... If you can get away from OEM, change intervals, and run a seperate bypass oil filter that catches soot down to one micron ( the stock full flow filters can only filter down to 15 microns), 50,000 miles is not uncommon. This is with full synthetic of course.
I am sure the oem's can put it on a NEW machine FAR cheaper than anything available on the open market. Even at 100-200 per system (on the open market) , it was just as expense (or as cheap depending on ones point of view) as the diesel option on the VW Jetta (NB,Golf, etc.) @ the time.
NOTHING about bypass oil filters are new, rocket science, (really) expensive, or technologically DIFFICULT! They in effect "suck up & scrub" the oil. Indeed I have seen VOA's being CLEANED UP, so that "USED" (UOA's) oil is actually CLEANER than out of a new bottle.
This (cheaper) oem standard/option would of course save literally GOBS of natural resources, time, money, etc., etc., on and on.
But of course the logic is more along the lines of why do a 50,000 mile OCI when a 3,000 OCI will DO!!??
Put another way, that one biodiesel plant will need 625,000 acres for every 50 million gallons of biodiesel produced. Imagine what that does for canola prices!!!!
That may be a positive. My wife will not cook with anything but a few drops of olive oil. I think the recycled cooking oil projects for biodiesel are the best start. I would not not advocate any biodiesel mandates as the mess we have with ethanol. If science can overcome the problems associated with growing algae for biodiesel I would applaud them.
"What happened? To sum it up: feedstock prices gone through the roof, fickle financiers, razor-thin capitalization of projects if you can corral a financing package, brutal construction costs, you name it."
It points out the risk involved in any biofuels venture.
Can you give me a bit more. I was looking to see if USA VW diesels had a different OCI from the Canadian models. In other words, do they tell Canadian drivers to change every 20k instead of 30k when the temps get down to 40 below.
I really do not keep up with the technical requirements differences between CN and US. Most folks brains glaze over when you talke imperial gal, liters per 100 km, Km and US gals, not to mention currency flucuations. :shades: However, the most direct mechanism is the OLM systems (remaining oil life monitor system's)
It may take a lot of acres to make the ethanol, but also remember we are trying to free ourselves from the grip of OPEC...so, if food costs rose a little (doesn't Brazil use sugar cane for ethonol?), but we could free ourselves from OPEC, then the "Muslim Premium" for crude would disappear and maybe gas would come down to $2.00 per gallon...that saving would easily offset the increased cost of food, IMO, altho I have not done any real scientific analysis...
Plus we have coal gasification, and we have more coal than the Saudis have oil...and, the saudis cannot eat their oil, they must sell it to someone...
..."Plus we have coal gasification, and we have more coal than the Saudis have oil...and, the saudis cannot eat their oil, they must sell it to someone".. .
Having this literally overwhelmingly enormous natural resource undefoot, in light of the view that continued "reliance, dependence, etc etc, on so called foreign oil has the capability of bringing on the "end times" so to speak is the height of exponential disengenuousness.
On Saturday, the latest issue of Motor Trend appeared in my mailbox. It contains two nifty articles about diesel powered vehicles.
The one toward the front by Angus Mackenzie talks about the Audi A3 with a 1.9L diesel that is already compliant with the EU 2012 emissions requirements. This Audi out MPGed the vaunted Prius in heavy stop and go traffic and beat it in overall economy to boot. The author made an interesting comment toward the end of the article stating "the Prius gets it's best fuel economy when it is not moving" or something to that effect.
The next article on page 142 was a nice write up about the Subaru with 2.0L turbodiesel powerplant. It makes 148 HP and 258 lb-ft of torque. Got near 50 MPG on the highway. Should be here in 2010.
... Keep in mind that a significant part of the recent oil reformulation has been an increase (or change) of the additive that keeps soot in suspension, so that it will not accumulate on engine innards. This change would not be necessary with all engines having an effective one micron bypass filter. I am actually worried that this additive might break up the cake of soot that forms in my centrifuge type filter. The worst damage that soot (think of it as a cinder or abrasive, it is) does is polish off the crosshatch on the cylinder walls and it then sheds oil too quickly and increases ring, piston, and wall, wear. The only other way to get soot out (and used by 95 plus percent of the industry) is frequent oil change.
That is not what the VOA/UOA's are revealing. The blends are being reformulated as the soot % potential is actually lower. Technically one of the real reasons are the active additives are not as new equipment emissions friendly You might wish to check the VOA's and UOA's; both on bobistheoilguy.com and www.tdiclub.com for VW 507.00.
To cut to the chase, I used to run 20,000 miles OCI's with USD. With ULSD, I run 25,000 OCI's! Truly it would be pretty easy to do to 30,000 OCI's ( I guess I am a belt and suspenders sort) . So as you can clearly see, it is really to the benefit of older TDI's.
Now I still run the "older" Delvac 5w40. So for example in times past of running USD (500 ppm), Delvac One 5w40 (M1 designed specifically to meet D2 requirements) was good to go to up to 3% soot and 12 TBN. Fast forward to ULSD, the soot % does not even come close and TBN readings can show many times higher TBN remaining after the same miles. ( I have in the past posted some UOA's from Bobistheoilguy) The only thing to change has been USD to ULSD.
For my .02 cents, I wish they would keep the old formulation. Hopefully it is obvious WHY. But even with the formulation change, this oil is STILL one of the best that M1 offers (if you can use it in your application). I am however speaking of the trend. In addition the D2 trend is toward more miles on a OCI. Many folks have a hard time fathoming this to outright denial.
Trust me, I have nothing to gain with lots to lose IF 25,000 miles OCIs DO NOT work when 3,000 mile OCI's will REALLY do. :sick: They of course DO!
I still do not run the VW507.00, which is backwards compatible with the specifications on my TDI, according to all that I have read and can go to 30,000 miles OCI..
LASTLY when I (others also) did run LSD (140-500 ppm), the fear of course in the TDI community was the SOOT UP of the EGR valve and intake manifold!!!!
Of course if one operates the TDI haplessly, it increases the chances.
The advent of ULSD GREATLY diminishes the SOOTING up potential of the EGR and intake manifold.
... It is possible that I have been reading big tuck info. The large carriers are usually pushing for increased OCI's and one response of the refiners has been the additive I am talking about. The main argument (as I see it) against using synthetic has been the expense of too frequent intervals. In a strong (and long) interval as you want, why not synthetic, for the slight (but measurable) increased MPG ??? There is an almost unmeasurable increase in power, also.
Now that could very well be. You post struck me that while it is best to put as many to ALL of the factors in your favor and more importantly MEASURE them, there are equally as many reasons to do other wise. Hopefully I have stated why I do things so as to give folks deciding what to do, a base line.
This was my statement, taken verbatim from my original post:
"But for a hypothetical example: If every gasoline car in Phoenix was replaced by a diesel car produced in the same year, the air would quickly become almost unbreathable. "
And I stand by that statement. Here's why:
My HYPOTHETICAL example is that "every gasoline car in Phoenix being replaced by a diesel car PRODUCED IN THE SAME YEAR AS THE GASOLINE CAR it would be replacing."
That means there would be 1960s era diesel cars, 1970s era diesel cars, 1980s era diesel cars, 1990s era diesel cars, and modern 2000+ year diesel cars.
All those OLD CARS would have NO particulate filters, no ability to utilize ULSD fuel. Their exhaust would be awful, filthy, and MUCHO GRANDE polluting.
That would, without a doubt, cause the air to become ALMOST unbreathable. Anyone who doubts that has been sniffing too much diesel exhaust.
And guys - I know what I am talking about on this point. I ride a bicycle to work most days, and when a diesel truck passes me, or when I am stuck beside a diesel pickup at a red light, I almost choke on the exhaust fumes. Sometimes I smell the exhaust for half a block or longer. The trucks are leaving a stinky vapor trail along the sidewalk.
I pass one company who leases off-road diesel vehicles and their complex REEKS of diesel exhaust. I sometimes need to cover my nose with my jacket sleeve to get past there without choking.
That's not my imagination.
I'm not at all saying "diesel cars are bad." I'm saying until there a few years to replace all the current "unclean" diesels with clean diesel cars which take care of this nasty exhaust issue, then diesel will have naysayers.
... My perception is that you have the CARB mentality. That is, no regard for particulate traps, no regard for sophisticated injection, no incentive for even better injection and heat management, but plenty more industry strangulation by regulations. Just because CARB and EPA has had some homeruns with ULSD does not mean that they should bring the country to it's knees with a quagmire of different states, that scares off the vehicle manufacturers and forces extremely complicated machinery on the people.
No, in my case that's not true. I know all about modern clean diesel engines and filters, thanks in most part to education I have received from this forum.
I fully expect and know that the CURRENT and FUTURE diesel engines which rate 50-state approval will be very clean. That's why I want for my own driveway a diesel/hybrid sedan.
If I were worried about the safety of the new clean diesels, then I would not want one in my driveway, would I?
It's the older ones that concern me, and the non-retrofitted trucks and school buses.
While I agree that many diesels from the past are not very clean burning. They can use ULSD with some slight modifications to the rubber products. They will be a lot cleaner than with older high sulfur diesel.
Where we really part company is on the CARB regulations that change with the wind. Point in case the recent waffling on EVs. It did leave Tesla in the lurch on funding. I think they were a no go from the start. Especially when the founder was unceremoniously shoved out. I don't think CARB will ever open their arms to diesel cars unless forced by the EPA. CARB along with the goof ball Jerry Brown want to sue the automakers for the amount of CO2 cars expel. What do you think the automakers can do to change that when people don't want to buy the cars that have low CO2 emissions? CARB could cut CO2 by close to 50% just allowing EU5 diesel cars to be sold. I think they are beholden to the oil companies.
The EPA should join with the EU and come up with standards that will not run up the cost of cars more than people can pay. All the latest energy bill and CAFE regulations will accomplish is people driving older dirtier cars as the new ones are getting priced beyond what they are worth.
I am looking for a nice clean pre 1995 Ford Powerstroke diesel PU truck. I am tired of waiting for a mid sized diesel. Gas powered trucks are worthless for all but running to the store. My V6 Ranger barely has enough power to get out of its own way. It cannot keep up with traffic on Interstate 8 hills. That and it barely gets 16 MPG.
I had convinced myself that 2009 (maybe even MY2009 which would be calendar 2008) was going to be the year of the light duty diesel truck. Unfortunately, it looks like that date is pushing back to 2010: link title :sick:
Does anyone have some better news on light-duty diesel?
... Dodge, Damilar, Detroit, were all joined at the golden parachute level until Damilar sold Chrysler several months back. In any event whomever Chrysler is they probably will not fool with the Dodge/Cummins/USA hookup.
"So you are starting to cite evidence how the system really does not want bio diesel to succeed.
Yes, I am making observations about how the market is behaving. The market is made up of people. The vast majority of those people could care less about diesel or biodiesel. It is not so much that they want diesel to fail but that diesel is not even on the radar screen. Any product faces challenges in the marketplace, it really isn't just about diesel.
Diesel use in cars is basically a reapplication. It will take time for the majority to even become aware of the new or reapplication for diesel. There will be resistance, both passive and active (competitors). Not everyone is an innovator or early adopter. Many people land in the late majority, laggard or non-adopter category. It may take some people years or even decades before they give a product a try. And there will also be some that never adopt or use a product or service.
You make a very strong case for ever increasing use of RUG to PUG in the US. Combine that with the ever increasing demand of RUG to PUG world wide.... I have long thought these siren calls for conservation was the narcotic to camoflauge the steady march of ever increasing demand and consumption.
Actually a perfect reason to have gotten into it 5 years ago. It remains a good decision, even as the passenger diesel fleet has dropped from less than 3% to 2 %. The only analogy that I can apply, which most folks probably can not relate, is when I used a brand new 4 lanes each way freeway, 39 years ago. I could literally travel for app 45 min to 1 hour and be the ONLY car in either direction. This lasted for literally months. Fast forward to 2008.
Things are getting better. The per mile driven cost dropped radically, as I have sadly paid off an almost free money note. :lemon: There are still some ongoing operating costs (yearly declining) registration, insurance and maintenance and of course the cost of diesel per mile driven @ the 50-65 mpg rate. Depending on the chosen rate @ 4 per gal; that ranges from .08 cents to .0615 cents per mile driven. :shades: Indeed if D2 demand drops off even further and the laws of supply and demand prevail, future D2 will be even cheaper!! (probably absolutely and for sure relatively) :shades:
Of course the design parameters of 25,000 hours @ 80% loading for a range of between 500,000 and INXS of 1,000,000 miles is "icing on the cake."
"It may take a lot of acres to make the ethanol, but also remember we are trying to free ourselves from the grip of OPEC..."
I don't think we are trying to free ourselves. Not everyone is running out to buy a fuel efficient car. If anything we are using more and more fuel.
"so, if food costs rose a little (doesn't Brazil use sugar cane for ethonol?),"
In case you have not noticed food prices are rising a lot. Part of it is due to ethanol, part is due to higher diesel prices and so on....
" but we could free ourselves from OPEC"
No, at least not for many decades. They are the folks with the big reserves of conventional and heavy oil.
" then the "Muslim Premium"
What do you mean by that? This is not about religion.
"for crude would disappear and maybe gas would come down to $2.00 per gallon..."
$2.00 a gallon gasoline or diesel is history. People need to get over it.
"that saving would easily offset the increased cost of food, IMO, altho I have not done any real scientific analysis...'
You should do an analysis. I think you find out that certain people (rich) would benefit over poor folks who spend a fair amount of their paycheck on food. You really need to read the international news. Food is a BIG issue. Try the oildrum.com -- drumbeat or Google news -- type in food prices...
"Plus we have coal gasification,"
Not really. I takes about 15 million tons of coal a year to get 50,000 barrels/day of fuel. US coal production in 2006 was 1,162.8 million tons. If we wanted 500,000 barrels a day of diesel we would need 150 million tons of coal a year. To get to 5 million barrels a day of diesel we would need 1,500 million tons of coal a year. That is over double our current coal production. Think of the infrastructure needed!!! Not going to happen on that large a scale anytime soon.
"the saudis cannot eat their oil, "
Sure they can. :P In 20 or 30 years they will be using all they produce for their own internal use. Think Demographics......
""The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." Albert Bartlett
Thank you for your continued excellent posts on this subject. That the world and social structures have changed massively, and will continue to change at an even faster rate will take people some time to understand. The shock and speed of it is unprecedented on a global scale and is producing a "deer in the head lights" effect on most of us, myself included.
Yes, I am making observations about how the market is behaving. The market is made up of people. The vast majority of those people could care less about diesel or biodiesel. It is not so much that they want diesel to fail but that diesel is not even on the radar screen. Any product faces challenges in the marketplace, it really isn't just about diesel.
But the market would certainly react to a 30% increase in mileage.
I don't want to resurrect the Hybrid vs. diesel arguement, but consider that you could have easily made your above comment on the market's desire for cars with multiple engines, heavy batteries and quirky styling 5 years ago but now the hybrid is selling in strong numbers with the application spreading into more and more vehicles and manufacturers. And that with a considerable price premium.
The only reason the market continues not to pay much attention to passenger diesel is because there is no ad on tv selling them a large SUV that gets 25-30 mpg. Mpg is king and (as you point out) will remain that way. Diesel offers a 30% improvement in mileage coupled with improved engine life. Unfortunately they are not 50 state legal.
The arguement of whether the market is interested in passenger diesel is academic until there is a reasonable offering. Mercedes BlueTec sells well, VW's diesels command close to their original retail at resale due to the CARB state markets speaking and buying.
That the world and social structures have changed massively, and will continue to change at an even faster rate will take people some time to understand.
I can't resist.
Seriously, what is a 'world and social structure'?
It may not be DIRECTLY about religion, but call it the Muslim Premium, Arab Premium, whatever...the mideast people who seem to be holding us by their oil are the same people who happen to mostly be Muslim, and they do not, on the whole, seem to like us...
Maybe you have noticed that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and a few other oil-rich nations do seem bent on taking down the Great Satan...
It would be difficult to deny that a religious factor exists for them...
You state many of the other sources for fuel may be yaers off are not as productive as our current crude supply...I agree...but isn't that the whole purpose of what we are trying to do with alternative fuels or alternative fuel sources???...we are trying to wean our dependence on foreign oil, and foreign oil is a code word for Mideast oil, which is another code word for radical Islam/Muslim...
"It may not be DIRECTLY about religion, but call it the Muslim Premium, Arab Premium, whatever"
Is it? Are the high diesel prices really about a Muslim Premium or maybe it is a Catholic or Christian premium too. Listed below is where the USA gets most of its imported oil. People can draw their own conclusions. Non-OPEC oil production exceeds OPEC oil production and not all OPEC oil countries are Muslim. OPEC countries trade their oil on the open market. KSA, to name just one country, is very business like in their desire to maximize shareholder wealth just like Exxon/Mobil, Shell and other oil companies.
Canada - In the Canada 2001 Census, 72% of the Canadian population list Roman Catholicism or Protestantism as their religion. The Roman Catholic Church in Canada is by far the country's largest single denomination. Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabian culture mainly revolves around the religion of Islam. Mexico - Mexico has no official religion; however, most people in Mexico report they are Christians (95%), and this is reflected in several aspects of life there Nigeria - The 1963 census indicated that 47 percent of Nigerians were Muslim, 35 percent Christian, and 18 percent members of local indigenous congregations. If accurate, this indicated a sharp increase in the number of Christians (up 13 percent); a slight decline among those professing indigenous beliefs, compared with 20 percent in 1953; and only a modest (4 percent) rise of Muslims. Venezuela - Religions: nominally Roman Catholic 96%, Protestant 2% Angola - Angola is a majority Christian country, with 53% of citizens professing the religion. Most Angolan Christians are Roman Catholic, 38%, or Protestant, 15%. 46.8% of Angolans practice indigenous beliefs. There is also a small Muslim minority. Most of the information came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_present-day_nations_and_states The Venezuela info came from http://atheism.about.com/library/world/KZ/bl_VenezuelaIndex.htm
... It was mostly *our* money that pumped trillions into some of these areas, but what is shocking is that it was US and our Allies that kept many North African countries free.
Comments
http://www.pickuptrucksdirect.co.uk/ford-ranger-road-test.asp
That about sums it up.
From a logic point of view, (clearly not in operation) offering diesel pick up trucks in all the other sizes and permutations are an absolute slam dunk, no brainer. What defies logic and is the ultimate real travesty is why US markets put and/or forced gas engines on the overwhelming majority of them in the first place. While there are powerful segments that wish to punish folks that do want/need pick up trucks, there is a want/need for the segment!!!
Probably for a literal plethora of reasons (politics make for STRANGE bed fellows) , those powerful segments (that advocate less use by the way) and folks do not really follow the operative reality that 38 mpg IS better than 15-18 mpg!!!! (53%-58% better) enough to actually buy 37 mpg pick up trucks. They can blame the auto manufacturers all they want, but when they regulate against diesels, blaming the oems when they do not manufacture diesels is clearly a ruse or smoke screen. (for US markets 2/3 series being the steady exception of course).Strangely enough it is more than apparent that even BIG P/U have been (Euro models obviously) and can EASILY meet the forward looking 2012 35 mpg fuel standards.!!????
The logic believe it or not, extends to the rest of the passenger vehicle fleet.
I would think they are very measurable. You would take the number of diesel cars times the emission rates of each car (both known) to get a total impact.
", but you can NOT stop the effects of NON passenger vehicle fleet related unmitgaged emissions by banning a 2% minority population of mitigated D2 emissions,unmeasurable in the real world."
The real problem here was that EPA went after the low hanging fruit - it was easier to regulate the diesel cars vs. the trains and ships. I think this has been one of your points regarding the lack of diesel cars. I would agree that it was a wrong to put most of the burden on the diesel cars at first and not the trains, diesel generators, construction equipment and ships. If I was in charge, I would have made all the diesel car engines comply with the emission standards over a bit longer period of time. Giving diesel cars another two years would have allowed VW and others the chance to keep selling diesels. The impact would have been minimal from an overall emission standpoint. And the extra 50,000 or so diesel cars, instead of RUG or PUG cars, would have reduced the demand for UG. I would have saved at least 0.001 cents or more when buying UG.
EPA Finalizes Tier 3 and Tier 4 Standards for Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engines 15 March 2008
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/epa-finalizes-t.html
..."Cars in 2008 are complex. That's life."...
"Your quote conveys no real information. We can of course draw conclusions; that you feel victimized by technology being complex to that is a can do easy.."
Let me see if I have this straight, you said his quote provides NO information but you go on to draw a conclusion based on nothing?
As to the quote providing information, IT DOES. The words within the quote can be viewed as an observation, one that I agree with. Cars have indeed become complex.
"to that is a can do easy.."
I think there is a missing or wrong word in this part of the sentence. Can you clarify?
I would think they are very measurable. You would take the number of diesel cars times the emission rates of each car (both known) to get a total impact.
No offense but indeed you missed the point. LA LA land for example physically MEASURES physically air pollution. They're unable to MEASURE diesel passenger vehicle fleet real world output. Indeed they can PROJECT, but that is a projection NOT a measure.
So if your conception were true, operatively they can limit or decrease the number of the total (gasser) passenger vehicle fleet in say "problem" area's. Ergo limit the "projected" air pollution. Now just the fact that LA LA LAND exists should tell you the success of your projection policy.!?
..."Cars in 2008 are complex. That's life."...
SO WHAT?
I hope that is clearer?
The real problem here was that EPA went after the low hanging fruit - it was easier to regulate the diesel cars vs. the trains and ships. I think this has been one of your points regarding the lack of diesel cars. I would agree that it was a wrong to put most of the burden on the diesel cars at first and not the trains, diesel generators, construction equipment and ships. If I was in charge, I would have made all the diesel car engines comply with the emission standards over a bit longer period of time. Giving diesel cars another two years would have allowed VW and others the chance to keep selling diesels. The impact would have been minimal from an overall emission standpoint. And the extra 50,000 or so diesel cars, instead of RUG or PUG cars, would have reduced the demand for UG. I would have saved at least 0.001 cents or more when buying UG.
EPA Finalizes Tier 3 and Tier 4 Standards for Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engines 15 March 2008
Sorry, I have already STATED the REAL problem. Not only have you not refuted it, but MASSIVE pollution continues unabated and that is by law and regulations. :lemon: In addition, the stage has been/is set for massively higher rates of overall consumption and overall pollution.
Now if you are saying those trucks, ships, airplane trains, fed,state, local, military operations, construction and farm, etc, etc, emissions DO NOT MIX at all with the passenger vehicle fleet emissions, then I would probably agree with you!!??
The low hanging fruit policy thinking is good for WINDOW dressing for those who are easily satisfied by such (empty) assertions. All they really want to do is give you the feeling they are lessening pollution, and the warm fuzzies so you will vote their handlers back into office.
I agree with your assessment, however the system wants us to burn 20-40% MORE structurally NOT less, EVEN as they advocate LESS. But even they realize they can not keep this charade up by NOT offering alternatives (such as diesel). So they craft regulations to keep the costs (of diesel) HIGH. This of course would tend to cause questions about switching, as this thread so amply demonstrates.
Here is the other side of GREATER consumption.Indeed ethanol is the ultimate oxymoronic alternative. It increases the price of foodstuffs overall for everyone. It increases the price of fuel overall. It produces more C02 emissions (etc) and environmental impact by burning app 25% more than RUG to PUG?????? That is with E85 !!!!!!!!! Imagine what that would be with E100 ethanol??????? Given the assumptions and logics employed, INSANE comes to mind: IF results are a reasonble measure of success!!?? Keep in mind this overall insanity has been achieved with only 10% ethanol usually using the winterized oxygenated blend. Now didn't this sound logical enough when the winterized fuel concept was introduced? NOW imagine what will happen when the 10% ethanol blend becomes 7 days a week/365?? How about when E85 %'s are mandated? The stated purpose would of course be less oil dependency?
Just remember the principle, the best way to hide things is in the open.
That is absolutely the truth. I would imagine that given a mid sized PU with high MPG diesel engine and all the tax breaks, at least 35% of buyers would opt for the smaller truck getting 30+ MPG. Every time I have bought a new truck since 1988 I have looked at the mid sized first. Every time I bought the full sized PU truck. Because there was no advantages to owning a smaller more cramped vehicle. If I could have used half as much fuel it would have been an easy choice.
The big questions is how much less pollution would we have contributed if a third of all those full sized trucks were smaller diesel trucks. Will a 4 cylinder diesel put out as much pollution as an 8 cylinder diesel. Or even an 8 cylinder gas engine. We know they win the CO2 contest by about 50% less.
The 2003 Jetta 1.8T has 180 hp/173 # ft of torque.
The2003 Jetta 1.9 TDI has (measly) 90 hp/155# ft of torque.
OK, lets even up the hp and keep the same ratio as the TDI. When I get the TDI to 180 hp, keeping the same hp to torque ratio, now we are talking 310 # ft of torque !!!! This thing is now a BEAST in comparison to the (gasser) 1.8T !!!
(The fact the car would now be TOTALLY out of balance is a whole separate issue.)
It is really too bad a lot of folks are narcotized by that old stand by metric, ZERO to 60 mph; as if we do WOT Zero to 60 mph runs EVERY DAY with IT being done with the most frequency. In contrast I do MANY times more 50-70 mph runs or even 60-90 mph runs than I have EVER done Zero to 60 runs.
The switch from higher sulfur diesel to ULSD has had a HUGE effect. Depending on a number of factors LSD was at 500 ppm. ULSD is at 15 ppm. There are products that are less than 15 ppm approaching ZERO. So the sulfur ppm (soot potential) is GREATLY diminished. So for example a 10,000 mile oem recommended OCI has (with new specifications i.e., VW 507.00 is variable to 30,000 miles.
This is in stark contrast to RUG to PUG @ 30 ppm, with most OCI's STILL @ 3,5, 7.5k MAX. So the soot potential is actually higher for gassers.
Indeed I ran the majority of the current % and mileage on a 2003 TDI on LSD (between 500 to 140 ppm ) and there is no doubt in my mind that on many levels, the engine runs FAR better when it now gets the ULSD that it was DESIGNED to run years ago.
For example, Lubricity questions are now moot. Two normally heretofore important test parameters have been rendered redundant: TBN and SOOT % resistance. This has cleared the way for the oems to reformulate oils VW 507.00 from a VERY conservative 10,000 mile OCI to a NOW conservative 30,000 miles. So for example I run a 25,000 mile OCI (on so called older specification oils) . I guess I am conservative beyond belief!?
Prius owners would probably FREAK at a 7,500 mile OCI let alone a 10,000 miles OCI.? :confuse:
It should be patently obvious which runs cleaner!? These issues get totally lost outside of a diesel specific thread.
I would agree. We can also add in biodiesel. The use of canola and soybean to create biodiesel will also increase the cost of food related items.
"In other words, one ADM biodiesel plant will require 130 percent of all U.S. canola production." http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1431
Put another way, that one biodiesel plant will need 625,000 acres for every 50 million gallons of biodiesel produced. Imagine what that does for canola prices!!!!
"It increases the price of fuel overall."
I would disagree with that point. The overall energy balance is slightly positive - 1.3 to 1 or so. The added ethanol probably reduces the overall cost a few cents a gallon. A lot depends on how the blender prices the mix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance
"It produces more C02 emissions (etc) and environmental impact by burning app 25% more than RUG to PUG?????? That is with E85 !!!!!!!!!"
These folks disagree with you. They claim a 29% reduction.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/environment/
E85 has some advantages and disadvantages when compared to other fuels. Here are a few advantages from ncga.org:
* Reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 30 percent
* Reduces exhaust VOC emissions by 12 percent
* Reduces toxic emissions by 30 percent
* Reduces particulate matter (PM) emissions by more than 25 percent. (Particulate matter has been found to penetrate deeply into human lungs.)
The American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago credits ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline with reducing smog-forming emissions by 25 percent since 1990.
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/environment/reducesEmissions.asp
Is diesel, UG or E85 better, it really depends on your perspective and what you think the important issue is -- type of emission, fuel economy, renewable, security, local jobs.... take your pick.
I will say that it is time to remove the 50 cent subsidy for ethanol. The industry needs to stand on its own. But then that subsidy is rather tiny when compared to the "military" subsidy for diesel and UG.
I would disagree with that point. "...
Well, yes, Rug in Venezuela is .17 cents per gal US vs 3.61 @ my the corner store (I do not live in Venezuela)
..."These folks disagree with you. They claim a 29% reduction."...
One year does not a longitutinal scientific study make. Indeed no comparisons have been done or even referenced: straight RUG to PUG, E10 RUG to PUG, E85, LSD, ULSD#2, Biodiesel., abated/non abated, altitude/sea level. etc etc. At best the linked assertions are highly suspect.
I am sure the oem's can put it on a NEW machine FAR cheaper than anything available on the open market. Even at 100-200 per system (on the open market) , it was just as expense (or as cheap depending on ones point of view) as the diesel option on the VW Jetta (NB,Golf, etc.) @ the time.
NOTHING about bypass oil filters are new, rocket science, (really) expensive, or technologically DIFFICULT! They in effect "suck up & scrub" the oil. Indeed I have seen VOA's being CLEANED UP, so that "USED" (UOA's) oil is actually CLEANER than out of a new bottle.
This (cheaper) oem standard/option would of course save literally GOBS of natural resources, time, money, etc., etc., on and on.
But of course the logic is more along the lines of why do a 50,000 mile OCI when a 3,000 OCI will DO!!??
That may be a positive. My wife will not cook with anything but a few drops of olive oil. I think the recycled cooking oil projects for biodiesel are the best start. I would not not advocate any biodiesel mandates as the mess we have with ethanol. If science can overcome the problems associated with growing algae for biodiesel I would applaud them.
I will save the inconvenient truths about Ethanol for those threads
gagrice, "The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol" #429, 27 Mar 2008 8:48 pm
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2214
"What happened? To sum it up: feedstock prices gone through the roof, fickle financiers, razor-thin capitalization of projects if you can corral a financing package, brutal construction costs, you name it."
It points out the risk involved in any biofuels venture.
Can you give me a bit more.
Plus we have coal gasification, and we have more coal than the Saudis have oil...and, the saudis cannot eat their oil, they must sell it to someone...
Having this literally overwhelmingly enormous natural resource undefoot, in light of the view that continued "reliance, dependence, etc etc, on so called foreign oil has the capability of bringing on the "end times" so to speak is the height of exponential disengenuousness.
The one toward the front by Angus Mackenzie talks about the Audi A3 with a 1.9L diesel that is already compliant with the EU 2012 emissions requirements. This Audi out MPGed the vaunted Prius in heavy stop and go traffic and beat it in overall economy to boot. The author made an interesting comment toward the end of the article stating "the Prius gets it's best fuel economy when it is not moving" or something to that effect.
The next article on page 142 was a nice write up about the Subaru with 2.0L turbodiesel powerplant. It makes 148 HP and 258 lb-ft of torque. Got near 50 MPG on the highway. Should be here in 2010.
To cut to the chase, I used to run 20,000 miles OCI's with USD. With ULSD, I run 25,000 OCI's! Truly it would be pretty easy to do to 30,000 OCI's ( I guess I am a belt and suspenders sort) . So as you can clearly see, it is really to the benefit of older TDI's.
Now I still run the "older" Delvac 5w40. So for example in times past of running USD (500 ppm), Delvac One 5w40 (M1 designed specifically to meet D2 requirements) was good to go to up to 3% soot and 12 TBN. Fast forward to ULSD, the soot % does not even come close and TBN readings can show many times higher TBN remaining after the same miles. ( I have in the past posted some UOA's from Bobistheoilguy) The only thing to change has been USD to ULSD.
For my .02 cents, I wish they would keep the old formulation. Hopefully it is obvious WHY. But even with the formulation change, this oil is STILL one of the best that M1 offers (if you can use it in your application). I am however speaking of the trend. In addition the D2 trend is toward more miles on a OCI. Many folks have a hard time fathoming this to outright denial.
Trust me, I have nothing to gain with lots to lose IF 25,000 miles OCIs DO NOT work when 3,000 mile OCI's will REALLY do. :sick: They of course DO!
I still do not run the VW507.00, which is backwards compatible with the specifications on my TDI, according to all that I have read and can go to 30,000 miles OCI..
LASTLY when I (others also) did run LSD (140-500 ppm), the fear of course in the TDI community was the SOOT UP of the EGR valve and intake manifold!!!!
Of course if one operates the TDI haplessly, it increases the chances.
The advent of ULSD GREATLY diminishes the SOOTING up potential of the EGR and intake manifold.
"But for a hypothetical example: If every gasoline car in Phoenix was replaced by a diesel car produced in the same year, the air would quickly become almost unbreathable. "
And I stand by that statement. Here's why:
My HYPOTHETICAL example is that "every gasoline car in Phoenix being replaced by a diesel car PRODUCED IN THE SAME YEAR AS THE GASOLINE CAR it would be replacing."
That means there would be 1960s era diesel cars, 1970s era diesel cars, 1980s era diesel cars, 1990s era diesel cars, and modern 2000+ year diesel cars.
All those OLD CARS would have NO particulate filters, no ability to utilize ULSD fuel. Their exhaust would be awful, filthy, and MUCHO GRANDE polluting.
That would, without a doubt, cause the air to become ALMOST unbreathable. Anyone who doubts that has been sniffing too much diesel exhaust.
And guys - I know what I am talking about on this point. I ride a bicycle to work most days, and when a diesel truck passes me, or when I am stuck beside a diesel pickup at a red light, I almost choke on the exhaust fumes. Sometimes I smell the exhaust for half a block or longer. The trucks are leaving a stinky vapor trail along the sidewalk.
I pass one company who leases off-road diesel vehicles and their complex REEKS of diesel exhaust. I sometimes need to cover my nose with my jacket sleeve to get past there without choking.
That's not my imagination.
I'm not at all saying "diesel cars are bad." I'm saying until there a few years to replace all the current "unclean" diesels with clean diesel cars which take care of this nasty exhaust issue, then diesel will have naysayers.
I fully expect and know that the CURRENT and FUTURE diesel engines which rate 50-state approval will be very clean. That's why I want for my own driveway a diesel/hybrid sedan.
If I were worried about the safety of the new clean diesels, then I would not want one in my driveway, would I?
It's the older ones that concern me, and the non-retrofitted trucks and school buses.
It's the older ones that concern me, and the non-retrofitted trucks and school buses. "...
The good/bad news is the acknowledgement. :shades:
Where we really part company is on the CARB regulations that change with the wind. Point in case the recent waffling on EVs. It did leave Tesla in the lurch on funding. I think they were a no go from the start. Especially when the founder was unceremoniously shoved out. I don't think CARB will ever open their arms to diesel cars unless forced by the EPA. CARB along with the goof ball Jerry Brown want to sue the automakers for the amount of CO2 cars expel. What do you think the automakers can do to change that when people don't want to buy the cars that have low CO2 emissions? CARB could cut CO2 by close to 50% just allowing EU5 diesel cars to be sold. I think they are beholden to the oil companies.
The EPA should join with the EU and come up with standards that will not run up the cost of cars more than people can pay. All the latest energy bill and CAFE regulations will accomplish is people driving older dirtier cars as the new ones are getting priced beyond what they are worth.
I am looking for a nice clean pre 1995 Ford Powerstroke diesel PU truck. I am tired of waiting for a mid sized diesel. Gas powered trucks are worthless for all but running to the store. My V6 Ranger barely has enough power to get out of its own way. It cannot keep up with traffic on Interstate 8 hills. That and it barely gets 16 MPG.
Unfortunately, it looks like that date is pushing back to 2010:
link title :sick:
Does anyone have some better news on light-duty diesel?
The Dodge Dakota has been built with 4-cylinder Detroit Diesel for many years..... why -o- why do they not offer it in USA?
Just a guess - perhaps it would Violate some agreement that Dodge has with Cummins?
Yes, I am making observations about how the market is behaving. The market is made up of people. The vast majority of those people could care less about diesel or biodiesel. It is not so much that they want diesel to fail but that diesel is not even on the radar screen. Any product faces challenges in the marketplace, it really isn't just about diesel.
Diesel use in cars is basically a reapplication. It will take time for the majority to even become aware of the new or reapplication for diesel. There will be resistance, both passive and active (competitors). Not everyone is an innovator or early adopter. Many people land in the late majority, laggard or non-adopter category. It may take some people years or even decades before they give a product a try. And there will also be some that never adopt or use a product or service.
Actually a perfect reason to have gotten into it 5 years ago. It remains a good decision, even as the passenger diesel fleet has dropped from less than 3% to 2 %. The only analogy that I can apply, which most folks probably can not relate, is when I used a brand new 4 lanes each way freeway, 39 years ago. I could literally travel for app 45 min to 1 hour and be the ONLY car in either direction. This lasted for literally months. Fast forward to 2008.
Things are getting better. The per mile driven cost dropped radically, as I have sadly paid off an almost free money note. :lemon: There are still some ongoing operating costs (yearly declining) registration, insurance and maintenance and of course the cost of diesel per mile driven @ the 50-65 mpg rate. Depending on the chosen rate @ 4 per gal; that ranges from .08 cents to .0615 cents per mile driven. :shades: Indeed if D2 demand drops off even further and the laws of supply and demand prevail, future D2 will be even cheaper!! (probably absolutely and for sure relatively) :shades:
Of course the design parameters of 25,000 hours @ 80% loading for a range of between 500,000 and INXS of 1,000,000 miles is "icing on the cake."
I don't think we are trying to free ourselves. Not everyone is running out to buy a fuel efficient car. If anything we are using more and more fuel.
"so, if food costs rose a little (doesn't Brazil use sugar cane for ethonol?),"
In case you have not noticed food prices are rising a lot. Part of it is due to ethanol, part is due to higher diesel prices and so on....
" but we could free ourselves from OPEC"
No, at least not for many decades. They are the folks with the big reserves of conventional and heavy oil.
" then the "Muslim Premium"
What do you mean by that? This is not about religion.
"for crude would disappear and maybe gas would come down to $2.00 per gallon..."
$2.00 a gallon gasoline or diesel is history. People need to get over it.
"that saving would easily offset the increased cost of food, IMO, altho I have not done any real scientific analysis...'
You should do an analysis. I think you find out that certain people (rich) would benefit over poor folks who spend a fair amount of their paycheck on food. You really need to read the international news. Food is a BIG issue. Try the oildrum.com -- drumbeat or Google news -- type in food prices...
"Plus we have coal gasification,"
Not really. I takes about 15 million tons of coal a year to get 50,000 barrels/day of fuel. US coal production in 2006 was 1,162.8 million tons. If we wanted 500,000 barrels a day of diesel we would need 150 million tons of coal a year. To get to 5 million barrels a day of diesel we would need 1,500 million tons of coal a year. That is over double our current coal production. Think of the infrastructure needed!!! Not going to happen on that large a scale anytime soon.
"the saudis cannot eat their oil, "
Sure they can. :P In 20 or 30 years they will be using all they produce for their own internal use. Think Demographics......
""The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." Albert Bartlett
But the market would certainly react to a 30% increase in mileage.
I don't want to resurrect the Hybrid vs. diesel arguement, but consider that you could have easily made your above comment on the market's desire for cars with multiple engines, heavy batteries and quirky styling 5 years ago but now the hybrid is selling in strong numbers with the application spreading into more and more vehicles and manufacturers. And that with a considerable price premium.
The only reason the market continues not to pay much attention to passenger diesel is because there is no ad on tv selling them a large SUV that gets 25-30 mpg.
Mpg is king and (as you point out) will remain that way. Diesel offers a 30% improvement in mileage coupled with improved engine life. Unfortunately they are not 50 state legal.
The arguement of whether the market is interested in passenger diesel is academic until there is a reasonable offering. Mercedes BlueTec sells well, VW's diesels command close to their original retail at resale due to the CARB state markets speaking and buying.
I can't resist.
Seriously, what is a 'world and social structure'?
The world has a structure? Round? :confuse:
Maybe you have noticed that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and a few other oil-rich nations do seem bent on taking down the Great Satan...
It would be difficult to deny that a religious factor exists for them...
You state many of the other sources for fuel may be yaers off are not as productive as our current crude supply...I agree...but isn't that the whole purpose of what we are trying to do with alternative fuels or alternative fuel sources???...we are trying to wean our dependence on foreign oil, and foreign oil is a code word for Mideast oil, which is another code word for radical Islam/Muslim...
Is it? Are the high diesel prices really about a Muslim Premium or maybe it is a Catholic or Christian premium too. Listed below is where the USA gets most of its imported oil. People can draw their own conclusions. Non-OPEC oil production exceeds OPEC oil production and not all OPEC oil countries are Muslim. OPEC countries trade their oil on the open market. KSA, to name just one country, is very business like in their desire to maximize shareholder wealth just like Exxon/Mobil, Shell and other oil companies.
Crude Oil Imports (Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jan-08 Dec-07 YTD 2008 Jan-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,944 1,784 1,944 1,856 1,856
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479 1,675 1,479 1,559 1,559
MEXICO 1,198 1,234 1,198 1,435 1,435
NIGERIA 1,163 1,210 1,163 1,106 1,106
VENEZUELA 1,135 1,246 1,135 955 955
ANGOLA 566 439 566 553 553
Canada - In the Canada 2001 Census, 72% of the Canadian
population list Roman Catholicism or Protestantism as their
religion. The Roman Catholic Church in Canada is by far the
country's largest single denomination.
Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabian culture mainly revolves around the
religion of Islam.
Mexico - Mexico has no official religion; however, most people
in Mexico report they are Christians (95%), and this is
reflected in several aspects of life there
Nigeria - The 1963 census indicated that 47 percent of Nigerians
were Muslim, 35 percent Christian, and 18 percent members of
local indigenous congregations. If accurate, this indicated a
sharp increase in the number of Christians (up 13 percent); a
slight decline among those professing indigenous beliefs,
compared with 20 percent in 1953; and only a modest (4 percent)
rise of Muslims.
Venezuela - Religions: nominally Roman Catholic 96%, Protestant
2%
Angola - Angola is a majority Christian country, with 53% of
citizens professing the religion. Most Angolan Christians are
Roman Catholic, 38%, or Protestant, 15%. 46.8% of Angolans
practice indigenous beliefs. There is also a small Muslim
minority.
Most of the information came from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_present-day_nations_and_states
The Venezuela info came from
http://atheism.about.com/library/world/KZ/bl_VenezuelaIndex.htm
May be your own folk who are playing games. How unusual would that be ?