By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I don't see the US flooding huge areas of the desert to produce algae for biodiesel. At least not until we are in dire straights on diminishing fossil fuel sources.
But when the time comes when fuel is short, I expect that we will support just about anything to try and hang onto the American lifestyle. That would include flooding a desert or drilling in ANWR.
I would actually support drilling in ANWR now if all of the lease proceeds would be directed toward renewable energy research or even infrastructure.
Flooding the desert to produce algae for fuel has a whole lot of bigger issues than drilling in ANWR. Flooding the desert is an unknown where ANWR is a viable safe source of energy.
I think we will have developed oil off all our coasts before we try many alternatives.
It will be interesting as things get tighter on the energy front. I don't think we are close yet. If we were the government would start implementing ways to conserve, such as diesel cars. As long as the oil is flowing and the taxes are coming in Congress will do nothing to rock that boat.
Status quo is a win/win for Congress. They get lobby money to stay in power and the tax money to spend.
Not sure where the concept of 'flooding deserts' came from for algae production. The science is based on using vat-like containers feeding carbon dioxide rich salt water. It would make most sense to position them near existing power stations to use the run-off waste water from the power station.
On flooding the desert. That was put forth by the University of New Hampshire I believe. It was a model to produce enough biodiesel with algae to replace all fossil fuel. I think they were referring to the area around the Salton Sea. I think the smaller scale production that you referenced would be more practical.
http://www.calpine.com/index.asp
Native American rights activists and environmentalists gathered at Calpine headquarters in San Jose today to dissuade the energy company from its decades long plan to develop a power plant on a sacred area near mount Shasta.
The Pit River Nation and environmental groups took their battle to the 9th circuit court of appeal and won a decision from a three judge panel last year, which reversed leases, Calpine had to the land. Medicine Lake is in an area known as the Glass Mountain Geothermal Reserve, one of the largest untapped geothermal reserves in the state.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/30/18354239.php
I have also heard/read that EVERY building/structure has the capability to generate up to 2x the energy of that said building structure(passive solar energy) with NO increase in footprint. But another company that declared bankruptcy to reload for machine gun fire vs bolt action action has the most to lose and gain. Currently getting permits in the dozens of municipalities in the area is at best a hit and miss crap shoot proposition, with those very same municipalities being the major obstacles to getting those permits. There is literally NO standardization. Incidently B/E is currently SWAGGED at 10 years.
You would think wind generators would be considered great clean sources of energy. Companies spend millions getting them online and some crackpot group comes up with a reason to shut them down. Altamont Pass is one good example. Now they are trying to block new wind farms in the Mojave and Nantucket. I don't believe some environmentalists will be happy until we are all back living in caves chewing on peyote cacti.
The example closest to us is the always changing regulations to block the use of diesel and subsequently biodiesel in our cars and small PU trucks.
While conservation is a good thing, it just goes against the grain to do your best and then get slapped with a fee for doing so well.
Some examples: PER MILE DRIVEN
Euro Jetta 50 mpg/6/7 per gal =
.12-.14 cents
Z06 Corvette 25 mph/3.60 per gal=
.144 cents
USA Jetta 50 mpg/3.05 per gal #2 diesel=
.061 cents per gal.
USA Jetta 30 mpg/3.37 per gal ULR=
.108 cents
Apparantly, not only is Ford not considering selling the diesel version of the Ranger here, it is thinking of killing it altogether.
So if you really are going to get a Honda diesel next year, it will apparently be the same 140hp/250lb.ft 2.2 CDTI 4-cylinder which is available here in Europe since January 2004. It´s a powerful, smooth-running and quick responding engine. I really liked it when I rented a CRV diesel during my summer holiday in Italy last year.
And talking about VCM in this context should be a hoax.
Being pretty useless with smaller engines anyways, it absolutely makes no sense with a diesel. Variable Cylinder Management was designed to eliminate so called "pumping losses" that occur when driving at low loads with the throttle valve almost closed. As you may know, diesel engines don´t have any throttle valve...
Honda Accord Diesel
Sounds good to me.
From this linked article:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/01/autos/diesels/
this....
Neither Ford nor GM has any plans to try again with diesel passenger cars or SUVs for their home market. It wouldn't be cost-effective for them, a Ford spokesman said, because Ford cars available in Europe as diesels aren't sold here. And the market is too small for them to develop U.S.-only diesels.
This is in an article describing BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai planning on bringing 50-state legal, high mpg diesel engines to US market for passenger cars and big SUVs.
I guess that Ford and GM think that the reliability will just keep selling their 11-14 mpg SUVs? :confuse:
It's not ready yet according to all the pages I can find, so there are no available specs yet.
On Friday I mailed a letter to both GM and Ford to explain why I was not a happy consumer due there flat out refusal to develop a US diesel market and push of ethanol as an alternative fuel source. And because of the ethanol thing that food prices are going up, etc. etc.
If and when I get a response I’ll post it.
This just makes no sense when they can leverage their existing expertise, they use a business division model to justify non-implementation.
Good for you for being pro-active with them and registering a complaint. I think the only thing that will change their position is if Dodge or Toyota put a diesel in their 1/2 ton trucks. That would be a real threat to their profitable truck business and would coincidentally be a great application of diesel technology.
Diesel engines work in a completely different way and are generally operated under air surplus (absence of throttle valves). No matter if it´s a 6, 8, 10, 12-cylinder - they don´t have to suffer from pumping losses and related effects at light load driving.
link title
The body of the letter is posted below.
BTW, I would encourage everyone who feels strongly on this issue to write GM and Ford and express your views. I mailed the same letter to both so you don’t have to get too creative. We spend hours a day pounding the keyboard venting to each other, so send a letter to the people that need to hear it.
Several of us have also written our Congress Person and in some cases received the usual form letter of yada, yada, BS, BS.
About two years ago I wrote Ford and GM inquiring about diesel passenger cars and light trucks for the US market. Both stated at the time that they had no intention of bringing diesels to the domestic market and I can assume that both Ford and GM will continue to withhold these high mileage cars from US consumers for unknown reasons.
Almost all of the vehicles Ford and GM produce have a diesel counterpart in the rest of the world so providing the US market with these vehicles is reinventing the wheel. The Ford Ranger with the diesel sold in Europe and the UK gets rave reviews from all that own or drive them. At 35-38 mpg for the diesel version as opposed to my <20 mpg for the 4L gas version, clean diesel is by far the better choice
The domestic auto makers have not chosen the fuel efficient diesel, but a quick and cheap compliance of the CAFÉ standards by touting ethanol as the alternative fuel with some very negative results. And while I will not blame the auto industry entirely for the push to ethanol, you didn’t step away.
Diesel is 35% more efficient than gasoline and E85 is 25% less efficient than gasoline, i.e. a car that gets 20mpg on gasoline only gets 15mpg on E85 but can get 27mpg on diesel or bio-diesel. A 17mpg difference is a lot of fuel and a lot of money over the course of a year. Now add to the increased fuel cost due to lower mpg and the fact that the push for ethanol has raised the price of food in the grocery stores and I get hit twice in the pocket book. I’m not a happy consumer right now because of the path the domestic auto makers have chosen. You could have done a lot better.
Considering the marketing decisions the Captains at Ford and GM have made in recent years, it’s not surprising to see why domestic sales are so appalling.
You can offer us high mileage diesels or you can offer us cars that cause us to pay more at the grocery store. Ethanol was not your best choice as a marketing tool; it was and is, in fact, a disaster.
Our Mfgs. continue to make the wrong decisions every time. They will eventually figure it out but it will be far to late for them. I wish them good luck.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Having owned more Fords than any other make, I have to say this is just one more reason why I have lost any sympathy for Ford's plight. They have incompetent management that will ultimately bring the company down. Perhaps they will rise up from the ashes when the board of directors finally wakes up and fires the whole lot of them, for they have demonstrated than nothing short of a total disaster will make them act decisively.
Not that GM is much better in that respect. Their sorry ads about how fuel-efficient Tahoes are proved it beyond any doubt.
I have never owned a Honda before. When they bring Accord diesel (and hopefully the wagon version one day), that may change.
Right now though I drive an Accord and I have to tell you I have been very impressed with Honda's attention to detail.
If they nail the diesel as well as they nail the I4 and v6 engines it will be very difficult to justify buying anything else.
But as I learned they will keep the displacement due to the innovative (but very complicated) casting procedure for the all aluminum block. Bore and/or stroke obviously are not as easy to vary as on conventional blocks.
Rework measures concentrate on modifications of the combustion chamber, turbocharger, EGR and ECU. Most important part is of course the two-chamber NOx catalyst. This catalyst is said to produce ammonia from a certain quantity of exhaust in first chamber, which converts NOx into normal nitrogen and water in second chamber. Works similar to Volkswagen´s NOx-reservoir catalyst, but apparently still requires EGR.
Apart from increased fuel efficiency and lower emissions all those measures might also result in more power and torque, but there are no tangible specs available yet.
If they keep up working on their V6 diesel at the same speed as on the 2.2, I wouldn´t expect this engine on your roads before 2012.
I know, Honda engineers love to make things complicated, but in this case they wouldn´t be able to justify their extravagance. The benefits VCM could give to a diesel are marginal, the disadvantages are worse.
When talking about multiple or variable displacement they probably are refering to the turbocharger and not the engine. Electronically controlled variable displacement and airflow turbochargers meanwhile are state of the art with every advanced turbocharged engine, no matter if diesel or gasoline.