there are oil derricks in a few Mickey Dee's parking lots in some CA locations!!!
On our trip to TX in 2006 we saw new pumps being put on old wells all across the pan handle. I imagine with the price as high as it is every old well will be put into service. Many only produce a few barrels a day. Thousands were capped in the 1990s.
As far as diesel, I am convinced the algae to diesel will be a big industry in the southern locations that get a lot of sun. It looks to be about 5 years ahead of ethanol from waste. The big question, can they produce diesel from algae for less than we are now paying? Before corn ethanol changed the whole farming dynamic, the soybean to biodiesel producers were at about $1.90 per gallon. When we stopped planting soybeans and put all our cropland into corn that ran up the cost of feedstock.
Yes the areas not normally thought of as farm land with much (fresh/salt) water and sun are the most likely locations. (up to 15,000 gals of oil per acre)
The D2 from algae growing scenarios that shows promise are the ones from existing processes that would other wise go to or be treated as waste. One would be D2 from Algae from municipal sewer plants.It would be a hard argument to say it would be subtracting food from the (human) food chain. Another would be oil processed at the landfills (Bekeley Coop started this way processing 30-40k gals per year) Methane from Landfills. etc, etc.
Indeed we can thank the environmental interests for these fiasco's. MTBE- thanks. Ethanol in how it is implemented (not ethanol per se) -thanks. No nuclear-thanks, no new refineries going on two generations-thanks.
From a regulatory point of view their input can be a tad like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline (no petro pun intended here) as the extinguishing agent. When it causes massively more problems, they then utter the Steve Urkel response "did I do that?" or disavow ANY KNOWLEDGE.
"The essential points are being missed, that biodiesel can be had from many different ongoing processes and to be researched new and innovative ways -renewable if you will. "
I don't disagree with you or miss the point that there are many potential processes that can make biodiesel. The key word is potential. Most of the processes are not economic, cannot be scaled up or the technology is not there yet. The canola or soybean to biodiesel is just an intermediate step. What is good about doing that is it gives the entire country time to adapt to using biodiesel. It has not been that long since ASTM D 6751 came out. It takes time to get the fuel distribution industry and customers up to speed on a large scale. What is the expression, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Long term, 50 years from now, I think that 90% of the diesel powered vehicles will be using biodiesel created from algae.
It takes time to get the fuel distribution industry and customers up to speed on a large scale. What is the expression, Rome wasn't built in a day.
I 100% agree. That is why I would just as soon that Uncle Sam would butt out of the Alternative fuel process. All they manage to do is build non sustainable systems of corporate welfare. Let those that are in the business come up with alternatives that are competitive with the current price of oil. Oil will go up as supply diminishes. The US government with their corn for ethanol have probably set back the ethanol from biomass by 20 years. Who wants to dump money into a new process when they are competing against the Feds. Go with the flow of lobby money. That is the easy way.
While I am glad you agree with me, going from less than 3% diesel to 2% diesel (due to government interferences) is really not a good start. The goal/utility of multiple sources, if you haven't learned the lessons from the so called " dependency" on oil are the multiple streams aspect of bio diesel & the "fuel" logistical chain overall. The danger and opportunity: why would anyone in their right mind invest in biodiesel, when a big oil company can overnight swallow or over power a biodiesel market. On the other hand oil is not currently thought of as, as "multiple" streamed as bio diesel can be. Apparently neither is ethanol. So I see more of a multiple fuel type longer term scenario i.e., 30% RUG to PUG, 20% diesel, 20% ethanol, 20% bio diesel, 10% TBD "OTHER.. nat gas,plug in, solar.... etc" What it will ultimately be at any snap shot in future time will be interesting to say the least. Needless to say the current way and attempts by the government to favor one over the other is steeped in difficulty.
"Long term, 50 years from now, I think that 90% of the diesel powered vehicles will be using biodiesel created from algae. "
While it would be targets I would support, this would be at best a moving target and subject to a lot of caveats. First off the process has not been invented that will give 100 of the "desired fuel" for our discussion Rug to PUG and D2. Diesel right now is a natural result of RUG to PUG production. Creating a bio diesel (alternative) will be daunting. Next if the markets will agree that 90% diesel products is a good goal, the ultimate judge will be what diesel products will hit the market that are DESIGNED to run on bio diesel. So given a 12% population of SUV's growth pattern over 30 years (.0033% per year (start at 2%) @ 50 years the population will be at BEST 16% of the passenger vehicle fleet. So as you can see it is a multi faceted.
The thing is, in most parts of the country, Regular unleaded gasoline is hard to come by, if not impossible, and instead, the motorist is allowed to buy E10 (gasoline containing 10% ethanol by volume). Assuming that the DOE figures are correct, one gallon of E10 will contain only 111,550 BTUs, a considerable drop from the nominal 128,000-130,000 BTU number I usually see for diesel.
... UPS, (Google News) just ordered a couple hundred Diesel hybrids. Forty percent economy and NINETY percent overall less emissions. All we need (for the small vehicles) is a little less regs and some incentives. That Sprinter engine (although I don't know what engine will be in the hybrid) is not anywhere near being large, but it must make the truck regs ???
I have never driven a diesel hybrid, but from what I read this would be an ideal combination for UPS trucks which are/have been and are mostly diesel anyway. My perception of a lot of UPS (probably Fed Ex also) is a lot of the fleet's driving is stop and go, to stop and shut off and go a couple feet to a block or two and stop and shut off again.
quote from [elias] in miles per dollar, a corolla/civic gives the same value as a TDI: About 10 miles per dollar. My 21 mpg gasser goes about 5 miles per dollar.
Gee - your math must be different from mine.... using my real-world $0.05 per mile, my math says I am getting 20 miles-per-dollar. ($1 dividedBy 0.05$/mile = 20miles) Looks like my TDI has TWICE what your math gives you.
Your 5 miles-per-dollar gasser looks pretty SICK compared to my TDI real-world-numbers. (only 1/4 as efficent , fuel-cost-wise)
BTW: You should always "normalize" your cost to be "per-mile" and not "dollars-per-mile" which is not a very 'mathamatical' unit to work with.
The best would be electric to get the vehicle to roll, then the diesel engine coming on at "X"{ speed. Stopping of course woud send a regen charge to the battery array to store up for the next launch. So for example if (per your example) 40% of hourly operation or per miles were operated on electric rather than diesel, you would get 40% fuel mileage savings.
I would think that the practical applications of the theories and advantage/s will be put to the economic test. But even that they are willing to alpha or beta test them would indicate the projections at the bare minimum are promising. On the incentive side it would be interesting to find out if they are getting HUGE IRS private ruling tax credits and write offs.
These PHEVs have been tested in the EU for several years. We may get them this year. If they come in the family van size it would be a great vehicle. My Sprinter RV was about 8,000 lbs and got 21-25 MPG the year I owned it. I wish my Sequoia was as good as the Sprinter.
A hybrid version of the popular Mercedes Sprinter van is set to go into production this year (2008). Like other hybrids the Sprinter van starts on electric power and stays running on batteries at low speeds.
The Sprinter hybrid technology uses a 70kW motor mounted between the transmission and the clutch. When the diesel engine is running the motor acts as an alternator, recharging the all important battery whenever the driver brakes.
When running on battery power alone the vehicle has a range of about 20 miles and the 14kW battery pack can be recharged from mains overnight. The lithium ion battery pack weighs in at around 160kg.
As for other hybrids, when running on electrical power, there is no fuel consumed, no emissions and the vehicle is near silent. The diesel engine comes into operation at higher speeds when both the diesel engine and electric motors work together.
I would agree, but the real end goal is to increase the cost per mile driven. To that end, incentives would in the short term (that it is offered) would DECREASE the cost per mile driven.
This is (might be) totally off topic, but have you actually followed the tax incentives for the Prius? Basically if you can afford a Prius, the laws are written in such a way that the effect of those tax incentives are neutralized (I am NOT a CPA, and this is NOT to be construed as a certified opinion: but I did consult a CPA on the issue) If you can't afford the Prius, then the effects are still neutralized but not as much. Yes a family can go broke saving all this money (mpg).
This may roil some folks, but governments make more (per mile driven) than oil companies (by some estimates .10 cents vs .50 cents or 5x more),: in as much as it is those very same governments who are BBQing the oil companies for making TOO MUCH MONEY!!! Make no mistake, governments want to increase "their FAIR SHARE" :sick: :lemon: Like this is lost on anybody!!???? :lemon:
It is more than apparent for example that is one thing they have against cars like the TDI is that they truly get higher mileage than the 2012 35 mpg standards with out the higher costs like the Prius/Civic Hybrid. So if they are going to allow any significant increase to the % population, they have mandated an increase in price of entry. Since diesel passenger cars are in the EXTREME minority (2%) (and by choice unfortunately) that segment can be discriminated against with almost absolute impunity. Who knows , Congress may next blame the 2% of passenger diesel owners for the current price and fuel crisis!? :lemon: The real benefit is it increases the cost of EVERYTHING, since D2 is the linchpin of the economy.
The NEW standards will be "discounted" (as was the current 27 mpg standards). Really what % of cars actually do get the 27 mpg standard!? By which standards EPA old? EPA NEW? EPA real world? Real world? Standard deviation? Which standard deviation? Winter? Summer? Spring Fall? Average? CA state vehicles? 49 state vehicles? 50 state? Oxygenated fuel? normal fuel?
Indeed the DEFACTO standard is 22 mpg. Even the Corvette Z06 BEATS this defacto standard (22 mpg). Under the new discount standard it is at PAR !!!??? Indeed if I drive 65 mph it beats the 27 mpg standard!!????? So given the same "discount rate"(18.52%), with no future legislation will actually be 28.525 mpg (35* .185=) So even a so called gas guzzling sports car is in accordance with the new "35 mpg 2012 mileage standards"
Corner store prices D2 4.99/49= $.1018 per mile driven
PUG 4.25/27= $.1574 per mile driven
UK diesel price 9.56 per gal/49 mpg= $.195102 per mile driven
... The incentives I am talking about are a lowering of the bungled NOx standards in exchange for increasingly lighter overall footprint vehicles. Of course Europe has less problem in this area because of the eight and nine dollar a gallon fuel. Please keep in mind that an average consumer over there can at least expect to be able to buy something that can get close to fifty MPG.
The largely hidden in plain sight secret was documented by the Harvard study I posted about bio diesel have LESS of those emissions than even PLUG in ELECTRICAL CARS !!!!!!!!!!
Almost NONE of the gasser drivers "GET IT" The regulators "GET IT", which is probably why they are trying to neutralize its potential effects!!???
Burning more fuel to get more emissions and higher cost, while complaining that we all burn too much fuel, is entirely within the above described (now) policy. It is just convoluted enough to confuse most folks. :shades: :lemon: Less cost less emissions less fuel consumption is structurally dialed out of the cards. Indeed these cards are not even in the deck to be dealt.
... So let's review. What have the NOx standards done for us? Up to a point they have made the air clearer in some areas. Passed a point: more GHG, less MPG, increased maintenance, EGR, on the horizon a staggering potential infrastructure for urea, and a disgusting USA market for excellent MPG cars. BTW, I am for particulate traps, especially those that also reduce NOx. Incentive PLEASE. Oh yeah, the regs ARE part of the present economic problem.
Yes, unfortunately you have hit one nail square on the head! :lemon: :shades: To much of NADA for real high prices and costs. Or as the spinners would put it, ya got a LOT! (of nada) . Its a start!? Rome wasn't built in a day...... :lemon:
Truck drivers and fishermen are about to go on extended actions in the EU in order to ask local and EU governments to take initiatives to make diesel fuel prices lower. Demonstrations and partial blockade of roads and ports have been made today in UK, France and Spain.
hey there bpeebs. i don't think i made any arithmetic errors for my TDI miles per dollar calculation, and that instead your calculation is based on a tautology: you are predefining the value to your .05/mile, rather than calculating it. Either with my correct math or your incorrect math, the gasser at 5 miles per dollar is weak compared to a TDI in cost per mile, but strong when it becomes very handy to have 400 hp&ft-lbs on tap. Also my current TDI is 942 miles from having warranty expire, so I'm trying to get an extra few months out of it. And I just got new tires for the gasser, so it feels like driving a new car Not that i've ever had a major warranty claim for any of our 5 TDIs so far, aside maybe from a recurring water leak on a New Beetle TDI, took dealer a few tries, many hours to find/fix it.
It would seem in contrast, the per mile driven (vs miles per dollar) has a tad more utility, but both can be used. Per mile driven gets to the heart of the chase in that one (normally) buys cars to do work, work being transportation measured in miles and associated costs.
Getting back to the "per mile driven" metric, yesterday was fuel day. Took on:
"Congress established Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, which are used to facilitate technology transfer of patented inventions from national laboratories to industry and the marketplace. EPA’s partners on the project are Eaton Corp., UPS, International Truck and Engine Corp., U.S. Army – National Automotive Center, and Morgan-Olson. Major technical support was provided by FEV Engine Technology Inc. and Southwest Research Institute."
"... UPS trucks which are/have been and are mostly diesel anyway." ============================================================ Most of the approx. 90,000 UPS trucks have been powered by Ford 300 gasoline engines, not diesel.
This falls into the same error bucket as stating that most bus fleets in the US are diesel powered - most are CNG - some are diesel, or diesel hybrids.
So in the context of which the comment was made you do not think it would be a good match?. The numbers would disagree with you even more.
Indeed it would be interesting to see how many/% of UPS trucks are powered by Ford 300 gasoline engines. If they are the majority, it only increases the already huge savings from diesel alone!!
All of the UPS trucks that hit neighborhoods and businesses that I have seen here in the west are diesel. OLD ones at that.
Most of the approx. 90,000 UPS trucks have been powered by Ford 300 gasoline engines, not diesel.
Not likely... maybe 15 years ago..
Even if it were true, all of the over-the-road transport (whether semi or train) is via diesel engines...
The Ford 300 I-6 engine is notoriously fuel-inefficient... That's why most package companies have switched to diesel vehicles (witness the success of the Sprinter).
Of course, diesel going for a 20% premium vs. the previous 20% discount to regular has hit package companies especially hard..
Most of the approx. 90,000 UPS trucks have been powered by Ford 300 gasoline engines, not diesel.
I can see why they are switching to less expensive ways to fuel their truck. Would you be so kind to link where that kind of info is found. This is about all I can find from UPS website.
From using electric vehicles in New York City during the 1930s, as well as operating the world's largest fleet of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, UPS has long practiced environmentally-conscious innovations.
If most of their trucks are gas they are losing about 40% efficiency. They are approaching 2000 trucks that are PHEV (diesel), CNG, LNG, Propane & EV. That is a little dent in a big fleet.
I finally found Hypnosis reference material (and understand better now why it is so difficult for Hypno to link any data to support his assertions).
From a previous conversation that ironically included a call to prove the assertions made by Hypno (Post # 2700).... "Just quoting from some manifesto a list of unsubstantiated assertions is hardly enough. Please provide plausible rationalizations for those assertions.” That one should be obvious to anyone who travels, reads, or associates with a broad range of people. I can not blame those who think they can escape it from trying to do so. My sample is based on hundreds of international students from more than a 100 countries as well as the US who I have seen and spoken with in one way or another for decades. Talk to the “global” young to see what the future holds – it is a very troublesome picture that does not see the “private” automobile as much of a part of it except as a very unlikely hydrogen model, and then in configurations we would not recognize, or find agreeable
I just read an article in the financial section this morning that said even though oil prices had eased a little in the last few days, gas prices have continued to rise. Why you ask? Well this time they blamed it on the concern that demand in the U.S. might go down!!
"I just read an article in the financial section this morning that said even though oil prices had eased a little in the last few days, gas prices have continued to rise. Why you ask? Well this time they blamed it on the concern that demand in the U.S. might go down!! "
Indeed a lot of what is happening really makes/confirms the case I have been making. Specifically I predicted the price of RUG to PUG would go MUCH higher with LESS demand !!! (with even less than 1% mileage decrease: expressed in yearly averages FROM 12,000 to 15,000 TO 11,880 to 14,850 miles"
What has gone almost totally unacknowledged is the car population which uses PUG is (almost exponentially) larger than the CAR passenger diesel fleet that uses D2. As you can see the PUG cost per mile driven is highest; 40% higher than RUG, 41% higher than D2.
Here are (record by the way) corner store prices
RUG $4.09
/ 39 mpg= $.1048717 per mile driven
PUG $4.39
/ 25 mpg =$.1756 per mile driven
D2 $5.09
/ 49 mpg $.1038775 per mile driven
Lets use Elias's concept expression as basis to further the discussion. If the average drivers yearly mileage is between 12,000 and 15,000 miles for the average driver; the ( lower cost) difference of PUG ($4.39 ) (between higher cost per mile driven) can propell a (higher cost) D2 $5.09) product 8,285.42 miles to 10,356.81 more miles than PUG.
Now the thing I have not seen on the internet is the population of PUG requiring vehicles and/or the average or range of MPG. I use 22/25 mph as 1 defacto US average 2. knowledge of a Z06 mpg.
king, i think i see what you are sayin. your math certainly matches mine in the comparison of D2 to 87-octane. one note is that all those premium-tuned cars really will run fine on 87 octane too, but their mpg % drop on 87-octane is likely more than the cost % savings per gallon, so overall it pays for those folks to keep using premium - except in cold winter when it just doesn't matter! also if we consider base-corvette mpg rather than Z06 -> it's nearly 30 mpg highway! Now that's a smart car!
one note is that all those premium-tuned cars really will run fine on 87 octane too, but their mpg % drop on 87-octane is likely more than the cost % savings per gallon,...
Ummm, I'm thinking engines like the VW/Audi 2.0T (a turbocharged engine with an astounding 10.5:1 mechanical compression ratio before the blower even spools up) are candidates for mechanical problems if regular is run frequently.
...so overall it pays for those folks to keep using premium - except in cold winter when it just doesn't matter!
I rather doubt that cold weather will obviate the high AKI need for high compression engines that carry a manufacturers "requirement" or "recommendation" for premium fuel. Why? Well, while it is true that the intake charge is cooler, sometimes way cooler, it is also true that that cold air is much more dense, and as such, combustion temperatures, especially in water cooled engines. vary by extremely small amounts, if at all.
Amazing to me you are still stuck there. When you eliminate context, avoid subject, and conflate unrelated statements you support my demonstration on many occasions of the spin, ignoring the obvious, posters denying previous statements, engaging in outright false statements, Off World Algebra, and other fairly entertaining exercises.
After reviewing your and Gagrice's other non motorist posts it now makes a lot more sense as to why you would hold the views you do and engage in these particular tactics.
As other poster have pointed out; pump prices do not follow spot oil prices (or average oil prices) as other elements of the demand stream affect the amount of crude available for auto fuels. Add to this that the goniffs will rip whatever they can via the economic axiom relating to supply and demand "Prices are sticky in an upward position."
When we had our MB Sprinter into the dealer near San Antonio, he told us they had delivered over 1000 Sprinter diesels to UPS and FedEx. That was Spring of 2006. That is a small percentage of the 88k delivery vehicles that UPS has. It is a start. The more diesels they have the less fossil fuel that will be used. Nothing else comes close to the mileage of the Sprinter diesel. I imagine their diesel hybrid is a good one. Though it would not interest me. I want simple for long term usage.
the new Land cruiser 4.5 D-4D vs GL420 CDI, Range Rover V8 D and Audi Q7 V8 TDI
I let you check the performance charts, but it seems the Q7 pretty much dusts all the others. FE wise, it is a tie with about 20 mpg test average. (I think equivalent gassers would yield 16 mpg)
I think the Q7 is 314 hp, MB 300 hp , RR 272 hp and Toy is 286 hp
the MB comes first thanks to its very good suspension comfort , internal accomodation and off road abilities
the RR comes second thanks to its silky V8, its good equipment level and its good off road abilities
Ummm, I'm thinking engines like the VW/Audi 2.0T (a turbocharged engine with an astounding 10.5:1 mechanical compression ratio before the blower even spools up) are candidates for mechanical problems if regular is run frequently.
VW states quite clearly that the 2.0T does not require premium. Using regular gas should have no effect on mileage, only on top performance figures.
Besides, at higher altitudes you need less octane so using premium in Denver gets really silly.
Performance is performance, regardless of whether you're talking about power output at WOT or tooling down the interstate with the CC set at 70. Either way, the higher the quality of the fuel, the further the engine control system can have the ignition timing advanced, and the better the "Performance".
The flip side is that if you're using low grade fuel, engines like the 2.0T will constantly be on the edge of incipient detonation causing the ignition system to keep the spark timing retarded to such an extent that the peak pressure point in the combustion chamber will occur too late for maximum mechanical advantage. The net result of this is less power and less fuel economy.
With regard to altitude, ummm, do you understand how turbochargers work? The Denver area is only a mile or so high, and the turbocharger on the 2.0T is way MORE than capable of developing a full complement of boost (granted with a bit more spool up time) at that modest altitude. To take it a step further, any 2.0T climbing Independence Pass at full boil while running with the crap fuel they sell in the mountains is going to be way off power compared to that same engine when fueled with a good 93 AKI fuel.
I let you check the performance charts, but it seems the Q7 pretty much dusts all the others.
That is exactly the SUVs I DO NOT want to choose from. I want smaller diesel engines. The GLK220 CDI should get close to 35 MPG on the highway. Sadly all we get over here is performance and little gain in MPG. I would want the 3.0L D-4D Toyota Land Cruiser. As heavy as it is they claim 30 MPG combined. If all I could expect is 20 MPG I would just keep my 15 MPG Sequoia. They left out the BMW diesels. They seem to get better mileage than the others.
I have a question. While driving last year on vacation through New Mexico and Colorado we were using the 86 octane sold in our GMC hybrid PU truck. We got no lower than 19 MPG and one tank was 22 MPG. As soon as we got back to CA and the crap gas sold here the mileage dropped right back down to 16 MPG. Our diesel MB Cruiser did not seem to vary across country with different brands of diesel. I also remember years ago driving cross country in our 1978 Honda Accord. The best tank of the trip was while in the mountains of Colorado. I just thought it might be downhill more than compensated for the uphill pulls.
It has been a bit since I posted the RUG to D2 comparison. Included is the PUG to D2. PUG is used by a number of turbo gassers and luxury makes. The info is based on the May 30, 08, AAA numbers. The formula is (D2-RUG)/RUG converted to a percent. The percent represents the additional cost of D2 over RUG or PUG.
My one comment is that it is interesting how close PUG is to D2 in Alaska. They are/where using a lot of diesel to run electric generators after Juneau had their problem. Apparently they were able to import/produce enough diesel without too much trouble.
State RUG/D2 PUG/D2 Alaska 13.3% 1.3% Alabama 21.7% 10.6% Arkansas 22.9% 9.5% Arizona 25.1% 13.4% California 22.7% 13.4% Colorado 20.3% 7.6% Connecticut 18.0% 6.0% District of Columbia 20.1% 9.5% Delaware 22.7% 10.6% Florida 20.7% 9.4% Georgia 21.1% 7.9% Hawaii 21.7% 13.0% Iowa 21.2% 9.8% Idaho 21.9% 12.4% Illinois 16.7% 5.2% Indiana 20.8% 9.2% Kansas 22.4% 14.7% Kentucky 18.7% 5.9% Louisiana 21.1% 8.5% Massachusetts 23.7% 10.8% Maryland 22.0% 11.9% Maine 22.2% 10.2% Michigan 18.9% 7.9% Minnesota 21.3% 13.7% Missouri 22.1% 10.9% Mississippi 21.3% 10.1% Montana 19.3% 9.1% North Carolina 20.6% 8.9% North Dakota 18.5% 10.6% Nebraska 19.7% 13.9% New Hampshire 22.8% 9.4% New Jersey 24.1% 11.6% New Mexico 22.2% 10.0% Nevada 22.7% 12.3% New York 23.0% 12.6% Ohio 19.7% 8.0% Oklahoma 20.3% 10.2% Oregon 19.5% 11.6% Pennsylvania 25.0% 13.6% Rhode Island 23.2% 12.1% South Carolina 22.2% 9.6% South Dakota 19.3% 7.7% Tennessee 21.7% 9.7% Texas 21.9% 11.2% Utah 22.4% 11.2% Virginia 20.9% 11.0% Vermont 25.4% 11.7% Washington 20.5% 10.8% Wisconsin 19.3% 9.8% West Virginia 20.3% 9.5% Wyoming 21.3% 9.2%
Comments
On our trip to TX in 2006 we saw new pumps being put on old wells all across the pan handle. I imagine with the price as high as it is every old well will be put into service. Many only produce a few barrels a day. Thousands were capped in the 1990s.
As far as diesel, I am convinced the algae to diesel will be a big industry in the southern locations that get a lot of sun. It looks to be about 5 years ahead of ethanol from waste. The big question, can they produce diesel from algae for less than we are now paying? Before corn ethanol changed the whole farming dynamic, the soybean to biodiesel producers were at about $1.90 per gallon. When we stopped planting soybeans and put all our cropland into corn that ran up the cost of feedstock.
The D2 from algae growing scenarios that shows promise are the ones from existing processes that would other wise go to or be treated as waste. One would be D2 from Algae from municipal sewer plants.It would be a hard argument to say it would be subtracting food from the (human) food chain.
Indeed we can thank the environmental interests for these fiasco's. MTBE- thanks. Ethanol in how it is implemented (not ethanol per se) -thanks. No nuclear-thanks, no new refineries going on two generations-thanks.
From a regulatory point of view their input can be a tad like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline (no petro pun intended here) as the extinguishing agent. When it causes massively more problems, they then utter the Steve Urkel response "did I do that?" or disavow ANY KNOWLEDGE.
http://kellie.de/cast.htm
I don't disagree with you or miss the point that there are many potential processes that can make biodiesel. The key word is potential. Most of the processes are not economic, cannot be scaled up or the technology is not there yet. The canola or soybean to biodiesel is just an intermediate step. What is good about doing that is it gives the entire country time to adapt to using biodiesel. It has not been that long since ASTM D 6751 came out. It takes time to get the fuel distribution industry and customers up to speed on a large scale. What is the expression, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Long term, 50 years from now, I think that 90% of the diesel powered vehicles will be using biodiesel created from algae.
I 100% agree. That is why I would just as soon that Uncle Sam would butt out of the Alternative fuel process. All they manage to do is build non sustainable systems of corporate welfare. Let those that are in the business come up with alternatives that are competitive with the current price of oil. Oil will go up as supply diminishes. The US government with their corn for ethanol have probably set back the ethanol from biomass by 20 years. Who wants to dump money into a new process when they are competing against the Feds. Go with the flow of lobby money. That is the easy way.
"Long term, 50 years from now, I think that 90% of the diesel powered vehicles will be using biodiesel created from algae. "
While it would be targets I would support, this would be at best a moving target and subject to a lot of caveats. First off the process has not been invented that will give 100 of the "desired fuel" for our discussion Rug to PUG and D2. Diesel right now is a natural result of RUG to PUG production. Creating a bio diesel (alternative) will be daunting. Next if the markets will agree that 90% diesel products is a good goal, the ultimate judge will be what diesel products will hit the market that are DESIGNED to run on bio diesel. So given a 12% population of SUV's growth pattern over 30 years (.0033% per year (start at 2%) @ 50 years the population will be at BEST 16% of the passenger vehicle fleet. So as you can see it is a multi faceted.
Per the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Regular unleaded has 115,000 BTUs per gallon, they also say that Diesel has 130,500.
Further more, the DOE says that Regular unleaded has 115,500 BTUs per gallon:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhts_survey/2001/tablefiles/c0464(2005).pdf
I'm thinking that 124,000 is wildly optimistic.
The thing is, in most parts of the country, Regular unleaded gasoline is hard to come by, if not impossible, and instead, the motorist is allowed to buy E10 (gasoline containing 10% ethanol by volume). Assuming that the DOE figures are correct, one gallon of E10 will contain only 111,550 BTUs, a considerable drop from the nominal 128,000-130,000 BTU number I usually see for diesel.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Gee - your math must be different from mine.... using my real-world $0.05 per mile, my math says I am getting 20 miles-per-dollar. ($1 dividedBy 0.05$/mile = 20miles) Looks like my TDI has TWICE what your math gives you.
Your 5 miles-per-dollar gasser looks pretty SICK compared to my TDI real-world-numbers. (only 1/4 as efficent , fuel-cost-wise)
BTW: You should always "normalize" your cost to be "per-mile" and not "dollars-per-mile" which is not a very 'mathamatical' unit to work with.
I would think that the practical applications of the theories and advantage/s will be put to the economic test. But even that they are willing to alpha or beta test them would indicate the projections at the bare minimum are promising. On the incentive side it would be interesting to find out if they are getting HUGE IRS private ruling tax credits and write offs.
A hybrid version of the popular Mercedes Sprinter van is set to go into production this year (2008). Like other hybrids the Sprinter van starts on electric power and stays running on batteries at low speeds.
The Sprinter hybrid technology uses a 70kW motor mounted between the transmission and the clutch. When the diesel engine is running the motor acts as an alternator, recharging the all important battery whenever the driver brakes.
When running on battery power alone the vehicle has a range of about 20 miles and the 14kW battery pack can be recharged from mains overnight. The lithium ion battery pack weighs in at around 160kg.
As for other hybrids, when running on electrical power, there is no fuel consumed, no emissions and the vehicle is near silent. The diesel engine comes into operation at higher speeds when both the diesel engine and electric motors work together.
This is (might be) totally off topic, but have you actually followed the tax incentives for the Prius? Basically if you can afford a Prius, the laws are written in such a way that the effect of those tax incentives are neutralized (I am NOT a CPA, and this is NOT to be construed as a certified opinion: but I did consult a CPA on the issue) If you can't afford the Prius, then the effects are still neutralized but not as much. Yes a family can go broke saving all this money (mpg).
This may roil some folks, but governments make more (per mile driven) than oil companies (by some estimates .10 cents vs .50 cents or 5x more),: in as much as it is those very same governments who are BBQing the oil companies for making TOO MUCH MONEY!!! Make no mistake, governments want to increase "their FAIR SHARE" :sick: :lemon:
It is more than apparent for example that is one thing they have against cars like the TDI is that they truly get higher mileage than the 2012 35 mpg standards with out the higher costs like the Prius/Civic Hybrid. So if they are going to allow any significant increase to the % population, they have mandated an increase in price of entry. Since diesel passenger cars are in the EXTREME minority (2%) (and by choice unfortunately) that segment can be discriminated against with almost absolute impunity. Who knows , Congress may next blame the 2% of passenger diesel owners for the current price and fuel crisis!? :lemon: The real benefit is it increases the cost of EVERYTHING, since D2 is the linchpin of the economy.
The NEW standards will be "discounted" (as was the current 27 mpg standards). Really what % of cars actually do get the 27 mpg standard!? By which standards EPA old? EPA NEW? EPA real world? Real world? Standard deviation? Which standard deviation? Winter? Summer? Spring Fall? Average? CA state vehicles? 49 state vehicles? 50 state? Oxygenated fuel? normal fuel?
Indeed the DEFACTO standard is 22 mpg. Even the Corvette Z06 BEATS this defacto standard (22 mpg). Under the new discount standard it is at PAR !!!??? Indeed if I drive 65 mph it beats the 27 mpg standard!!????? So given the same "discount rate"(18.52%), with no future legislation will actually be 28.525 mpg (35* .185=) So even a so called gas guzzling sports car is in accordance with the new "35 mpg 2012 mileage standards"
Corner store prices D2 4.99/49= $.1018 per mile driven
PUG 4.25/27= $.1574 per mile driven
UK diesel price 9.56 per gal/49 mpg= $.195102 per mile driven
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuel/
Almost NONE of the gasser drivers "GET IT" The regulators "GET IT", which is probably why they are trying to neutralize its potential effects!!???
Burning more fuel to get more emissions and higher cost, while complaining that we all burn too much fuel, is entirely within the above described (now) policy. It is just convoluted enough to confuse most folks. :shades: :lemon: Less cost less emissions less fuel consumption is structurally dialed out of the cards. Indeed these cards are not even in the deck to be dealt.
In NOx, VOC, Carbon monoxide, and PM, the EV beats B100.
See this page:
link title
That is a 2001 study.
Do you have a link to the Harvard study, which I assume is newer?
RUG/PUG @$4.05/$4.25/22 mph= $.18409/$.19318 per mile driven.
So if everybody's eyes are totally glazed over:
we are not paying too much less than what folks in Europe are paying per mile driven.
So in effect their CHEAP $9.56 per gal = our DEFACTO @ $4.05/$4.25 per gal.
Regards,
Jose
Either with my correct math or your incorrect math, the gasser at 5 miles per dollar is weak compared to a TDI in cost per mile, but strong when it becomes very handy to have 400 hp&ft-lbs on tap.
Also my current TDI is 942 miles from having warranty expire, so I'm trying to get an extra few months out of it. And I just got new tires for the gasser, so it feels like driving a new car
Not that i've ever had a major warranty claim for any of our 5 TDIs so far, aside maybe from a recurring water leak on a New Beetle TDI, took dealer a few tries, many hours to find/fix it.
Getting back to the "per mile driven" metric, yesterday was fuel day. Took on:
RUG $4.05/38 mpg=$.1065789
PUG $4.25/25 mpg=$.17
D2 $4.99/49 mpg=.1018367
============================================================
Most of the approx. 90,000 UPS trucks have been powered by Ford 300 gasoline engines, not diesel.
This falls into the same error bucket as stating that most bus fleets in the US are diesel powered - most are CNG - some are diesel, or diesel hybrids.
Off World Algebra sure to follow!
Indeed it would be interesting to see how many/% of UPS trucks are powered by Ford 300 gasoline engines. If they are the majority, it only increases the already huge savings from diesel alone!!
All of the UPS trucks that hit neighborhoods and businesses that I have seen here in the west are diesel. OLD ones at that.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/14/ups-places-largest-ever-order-for-fleet-- - of-green-trucks/
Not likely... maybe 15 years ago..
Even if it were true, all of the over-the-road transport (whether semi or train) is via diesel engines...
The Ford 300 I-6 engine is notoriously fuel-inefficient... That's why most package companies have switched to diesel vehicles (witness the success of the Sprinter).
Of course, diesel going for a 20% premium vs. the previous 20% discount to regular has hit package companies especially hard..
regards,
kyfdx
visiting host
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I can see why they are switching to less expensive ways to fuel their truck. Would you be so kind to link where that kind of info is found. This is about all I can find from UPS website.
From using electric vehicles in New York City during the 1930s, as well as operating the world's largest fleet of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, UPS has long practiced environmentally-conscious innovations.
If most of their trucks are gas they are losing about 40% efficiency. They are approaching 2000 trucks that are PHEV (diesel), CNG, LNG, Propane & EV. That is a little dent in a big fleet.
Hypnosis44 should have linked this.
From a previous conversation that ironically included a call to prove the assertions made by Hypno (Post # 2700)....
"Just quoting from some manifesto a list of unsubstantiated assertions is hardly enough. Please provide plausible rationalizations for those assertions.”
That one should be obvious to anyone who travels, reads, or associates with a broad range of people. I can not blame those who think they can escape it from trying to do so. My sample is based on hundreds of international students from more than a 100 countries as well as the US who I have seen and spoken with in one way or another for decades. Talk to the “global” young to see what the future holds – it is a very troublesome picture that does not see the “private” automobile as much of a part of it except as a very unlikely hydrogen model, and then in configurations we would not recognize, or find agreeable
You just can't win! :mad:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Indeed a lot of what is happening really makes/confirms the case I have been making. Specifically I predicted the price of RUG to PUG would go MUCH higher with LESS demand !!! (with even less than 1% mileage decrease: expressed in yearly averages FROM 12,000 to 15,000 TO 11,880 to 14,850 miles"
What has gone almost totally unacknowledged is the car population which uses PUG is (almost exponentially) larger than the CAR passenger diesel fleet that uses D2. As you can see the PUG cost per mile driven is highest; 40% higher than RUG, 41% higher than D2.
Here are (record by the way) corner store prices
RUG $4.09
/ 39 mpg= $.1048717 per mile driven
PUG $4.39
/ 25 mpg =$.1756 per mile driven
D2 $5.09
/ 49 mpg $.1038775 per mile driven
Lets use Elias's concept expression as basis to further the discussion. If the average drivers yearly mileage is between 12,000 and 15,000 miles for the average driver; the ( lower cost) difference of PUG ($4.39 ) (between higher cost per mile driven) can propell a (higher cost) D2 $5.09) product 8,285.42 miles to 10,356.81 more miles than PUG.
Now the thing I have not seen on the internet is the population of PUG requiring vehicles and/or the average or range of MPG. I use 22/25 mph as 1 defacto US average 2. knowledge of a Z06 mpg.
in the comparison of D2 to 87-octane.
one note is that all those premium-tuned cars really will run fine on 87 octane too, but their mpg % drop on 87-octane is likely more than the cost % savings per gallon, so overall it pays for those folks to keep using premium - except in cold winter when it just doesn't matter!
also if we consider base-corvette mpg rather than Z06 -> it's nearly 30 mpg highway! Now that's a smart car!
Ummm, I'm thinking engines like the VW/Audi 2.0T (a turbocharged engine with an astounding 10.5:1 mechanical compression ratio before the blower even spools up) are candidates for mechanical problems if regular is run frequently.
...so overall it pays for those folks to keep using premium - except in cold winter when it just doesn't matter!
I rather doubt that cold weather will obviate the high AKI need for high compression engines that carry a manufacturers "requirement" or "recommendation" for premium fuel. Why? Well, while it is true that the intake charge is cooler, sometimes way cooler, it is also true that that cold air is much more dense, and as such, combustion temperatures, especially in water cooled engines. vary by extremely small amounts, if at all.
Best Regards,
Shipo
After reviewing your and Gagrice's other non motorist posts it now makes a lot more sense as to why you would hold the views you do and engage in these particular tactics.
Try 2006
============================================================
"Even if it were true, all of the over-the-road transport (whether semi or train) is via diesel engines...
Which has what to do with the UPS delivery fleet which was under discussion?
==========================================================
the new Land cruiser 4.5 D-4D vs GL420 CDI, Range Rover V8 D and Audi Q7 V8 TDI
I let you check the performance charts, but it seems the Q7 pretty much dusts all the others. FE wise, it is a tie with about 20 mpg test average. (I think equivalent gassers would yield 16 mpg)
I think the Q7 is 314 hp, MB 300 hp , RR 272 hp and Toy is 286 hp
the MB comes first thanks to its very good suspension comfort , internal accomodation and off road abilities
the RR comes second thanks to its silky V8, its good equipment level and its good off road abilities
More pictures in the "Bildergalerie"
VW states quite clearly that the 2.0T does not require premium. Using regular gas should have no effect on mileage, only on top performance figures.
Besides, at higher altitudes you need less octane so using premium in Denver gets really silly.
Performance is performance, regardless of whether you're talking about power output at WOT or tooling down the interstate with the CC set at 70. Either way, the higher the quality of the fuel, the further the engine control system can have the ignition timing advanced, and the better the "Performance".
The flip side is that if you're using low grade fuel, engines like the 2.0T will constantly be on the edge of incipient detonation causing the ignition system to keep the spark timing retarded to such an extent that the peak pressure point in the combustion chamber will occur too late for maximum mechanical advantage. The net result of this is less power and less fuel economy.
With regard to altitude, ummm, do you understand how turbochargers work? The Denver area is only a mile or so high, and the turbocharger on the 2.0T is way MORE than capable of developing a full complement of boost (granted with a bit more spool up time) at that modest altitude. To take it a step further, any 2.0T climbing Independence Pass at full boil while running with the crap fuel they sell in the mountains is going to be way off power compared to that same engine when fueled with a good 93 AKI fuel.
Best Regards,
Shipo
That is exactly the SUVs I DO NOT want to choose from. I want smaller diesel engines. The GLK220 CDI should get close to 35 MPG on the highway. Sadly all we get over here is performance and little gain in MPG. I would want the 3.0L D-4D Toyota Land Cruiser. As heavy as it is they claim 30 MPG combined. If all I could expect is 20 MPG I would just keep my 15 MPG Sequoia. They left out the BMW diesels. They seem to get better mileage than the others.
My one comment is that it is interesting how close PUG is to D2 in Alaska. They are/where using a lot of diesel to run electric generators after Juneau had their problem. Apparently they were able to import/produce enough diesel without too much trouble.
State RUG/D2 PUG/D2
Alaska 13.3% 1.3%
Alabama 21.7% 10.6%
Arkansas 22.9% 9.5%
Arizona 25.1% 13.4%
California 22.7% 13.4%
Colorado 20.3% 7.6%
Connecticut 18.0% 6.0%
District of Columbia 20.1% 9.5%
Delaware 22.7% 10.6%
Florida 20.7% 9.4%
Georgia 21.1% 7.9%
Hawaii 21.7% 13.0%
Iowa 21.2% 9.8%
Idaho 21.9% 12.4%
Illinois 16.7% 5.2%
Indiana 20.8% 9.2%
Kansas 22.4% 14.7%
Kentucky 18.7% 5.9%
Louisiana 21.1% 8.5%
Massachusetts 23.7% 10.8%
Maryland 22.0% 11.9%
Maine 22.2% 10.2%
Michigan 18.9% 7.9%
Minnesota 21.3% 13.7%
Missouri 22.1% 10.9%
Mississippi 21.3% 10.1%
Montana 19.3% 9.1%
North Carolina 20.6% 8.9%
North Dakota 18.5% 10.6%
Nebraska 19.7% 13.9%
New Hampshire 22.8% 9.4%
New Jersey 24.1% 11.6%
New Mexico 22.2% 10.0%
Nevada 22.7% 12.3%
New York 23.0% 12.6%
Ohio 19.7% 8.0%
Oklahoma 20.3% 10.2%
Oregon 19.5% 11.6%
Pennsylvania 25.0% 13.6%
Rhode Island 23.2% 12.1%
South Carolina 22.2% 9.6%
South Dakota 19.3% 7.7%
Tennessee 21.7% 9.7%
Texas 21.9% 11.2%
Utah 22.4% 11.2%
Virginia 20.9% 11.0%
Vermont 25.4% 11.7%
Washington 20.5% 10.8%
Wisconsin 19.3% 9.8%
West Virginia 20.3% 9.5%
Wyoming 21.3% 9.2%
You provide some evidence, we get to take your opinions more seriously. Pretty straightforward.