I understand your point; good PR is worth a lot, however do you really want the competition to know what you’re up to? The most foolish thing a prospector can is to yell “GOLD” when he makes a find. You keep the new close to the vest until you get your share. This is just speculation on my part, but anyone putting a lot of time, money and effort into the development of something as important as an alternative fuel/source of energy would want to stay out of the lime light until it is ready or very close to ready for market.
I see the point that they would definitely want to keep the specifics under wrap.
But a generalized advertising campaign declaring that "Exxon/Mobil is working every day on preparing the world for the day when the oil is gone" or "is making strides in clean alternative fuel research" or something to that effect would go a long way in reducing some of the extreme anti-oil-company bias that most of the world has.
It would also get the true greenies interested in what the companies are doing and would allow them to see them as less an Evil Empire.
I didn’t even know Exxon Mobile was doing that because I don’t listen to or watch commercials, advertising, etc.
I’m marketing people’s biggest nightmare. I have been desensitized or developed the ability to ignore all advertising and the mute button is greatest invention of all times. Advertising / Marketing to me is 99% BS 1% truth.
I guess if you advertised that you were doing great things in developing new, cleaner fuels you might attract the positive attention of some. Certainly better PR than a spill.
I think that the oil companies are doing far more than you know about. BP is one of the largest suppliers of Solar Cells. ARCO that they purchased a few years ago was in on the ground floor of solar R&D. Exxon-Mobil-BP-Texaco have large holdings in biomass ethanol feed stocks for when it becomes viable. The oil companies have never been flag wavers on what they are doing until BP became a player. Exxon has the largest GTL project in Qatar. That will provide a lot of ULSD for our future needs. If you think that fossil fuel usage will go down significantly in even our children's lifetime, you need more research. One BP executive told me that they plan to be in Prudhoe Bay at least until 2050 without ANWR ever being developed. ANWR would stretch out the field at least another 35 years.
I think one or more oil companies are invested in battery technology.
The more they do in that area, the happier I will be. It's the only smart thing for them to do - protect themselves against their inevitable and eventual obsolescence.
And since the Compass and Patriot share their platform with the Dodge Caliber, Chrysler could have a serious jump on the new CAFE regs if that 2.0 was used here.
With the popularity of the "green movement" they would be broadcasting it across the airwaves if they were doing it in a substantial way, to appease the Green Crowd.
And I'm sure that they ARE working on it to a degree. But they are oilmen, and oilmen are not going to happily spend a lot of money on things other than selling more oil.
They certainly should be. I just wish they were.
Five points I would make here :
1. I cannot believe that anything an oil company does - ever - will appease the Green crowd, (whatever "appease" means in this context and why should anyone even feel the need to do so ?).
2. With 34 years in big oil behind me I long ago learned that the rule is "Keep your head below the parapet". Whatever you announce will likely get you a flaming from one quarter or another. The Greens will never be happy with big oil because they need to have the Devil Incarnate to rant against.
3. Does anyone really believe that the oil majors are NOT working on ways to extend the profitable life of their corporations beyond traditional oil-based products ?
4. Gasoline and Diesel fuel are just the most visible products from the oil companies. They are not the major profit earners. The companies are far more diverse than that. One-trick ponies they are not.
5. Crude Oil pricing is not controlled by ExxonMobil, or BP, or Shell or........ You can thank the commodity traders in New York, London, Tokyo etc for that. They are the guys making money out of trading a product they will never see and producing precisely nothing; other than profit.
Stop hacking away at the imagined bad guys in oil and get back onto discussing diesel cars - please.
It looks like biodiesel needs a bit more work before it becomes mainstream.
"...they found that the actual percentage of biofuel ranged from as little as 10 percent to as much as 74 percent. " (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080227155026.htm)
Not getting the mix right in a cold climate where I live would be a disaster. They really need to sort this out. Maybe if the industry can get past the mom and pop stage.
I am not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling about diesel/biodiesel. There appear to be some advantages but just as many negatives. :lemon:
Massachusetts 22.7% Maryland 19.2% Maine 19.9% Michigan 23.0% Minnesota 19.9% Missouri 19.5% Mississippi 14.1% Montana 16.6% North Carolina 14.0% North Dakota 16.9% Nebraska 14.4% New Hampshire 21.8% New Jersey 23.3% New Mexico 16.0% Nevada 14.4% New York 19.1% Ohio 22.0% Oklahoma 14.5% Oregon 9.8% Pennsylvania 22.5% Rhode Island 22.4% Vermont 20.1%
Trust the Northeast to be the highest in diesel costs! Right now Diesel is about $3.45-$3.60 per gallon. RUG is $3.05 at the no brand name places. Charging a 25 cent per gallon premium over Premium fuel won't help sell diesels in this area.
Trust the Northeast to be the highest in diesel costs! Right now Diesel is about $3.45-$3.60 per gallon. RUG is $3.05 at the no brand name places. Charging a 25 cent per gallon premium over Premium fuel won't help sell diesels in this area.
$.25 still isn't a big deal when we are approaching $4/gallon. That's compensated by the fact that some diesels are promising 50-100% better economy over equivalent gasoline and slightly better than the average hybrid car.
The reason diesel is getting higher in the consumer market is it has to compete with heating fuel (northeast), the entire truck/rail/agriculture/industrial/military usage. If we had to choose only one fuel to produce in this country, it would have to be fuel oil. There is a reason that all these industries don't use gasoline: it is horribly inefficient in high-torque applications like trucks and trains and tanks.
Diesel used to be cheaper than regular accross the country. Problems that caused this to invert in the first place: 1) Afghanistan and Iraq. Most naval ships, tanks, helicopters, trucks used by the military use some form of fuel oil. That means more of what is produced in our refineries is being sent overseas. 2) Refinery problems. Hurricane Katrina meant that less fuel was being refined, so an even greater percentage of production has to power other industries.
Refineries have the ability to switch production from gas to diesel. The only reason the pump out so much gas for consumers is that we consume so much of it. Over time, if gasoline consumption went down and diesel consumption went up, they would just refine less gasoline and the prices would invert again.
So its a gamble which one you think will go up most over time, but the likelihood is that prices are just plain going to keep going up. I totally agree with alltorque, that investor trading is ruining our economy. Foreign investors are determining how much we pay for heating oil. Its sickening really.
$.25 still isn't a big deal when we are approaching $4/gallon. That's compensated by the fact that some diesels are promising 50-100% better economy over equivalent gasoline and slightly better than the average hybrid car.
Ah but it's 50-60 cents above RUG and about 30 cents over PUG. I've also driven diesels overseas so i know how good their fuel economy can be but unless the diesel is getting significantly better fuel economy it's not worth it to most people and yes home heating oil is really up there this year as well. Myself i'd like to switch over to Propane gas for the home but it's just too expensive at this time. Propane cars suck on hilly roads. I've been in Propane powered taxi's overseas in Asia and they can't make it up steep hills. Diesel is just sooooo expensive that unless it comes down or offers huge increases in economy it will fail at least up here where you see 20% hybrids. I like diesel and prefer it, but all the companies that are announcing diesel except VW and Honda are bringing out massive diesel engines like BMW which will get the same as a gas model. What's the point?!?! As an option ok, but BMW doesn't get it, most people want great fuel economy with a lot of low end grunt. Too bad we won't get very many fuel efficient choices in the US.
..."Refineries have the ability to switch production from gas to diesel. The only reason the pump out so much gas for consumers is that we consume so much of it. Over time, if gasoline consumption went down and diesel consumption went up, they would just refine less gasoline and the prices would invert again."...
Using EIA.gov statistics #2 diesel = 9.83 gals@ app 23.4% of a 42 gal barrel of oil is a natural consequence of processing RUG to PUG. RUG to PUG @19.3 gals is app 46%.
So if the implication is close to 100% RUG to PUG of a barrel of oil is the goal, THAT is NOT is what is happening.
Using EIA.gov statistics #2 diesel = 9.83 gals app 23.4% of a 42 gal barrel of oil is a natural consequence of processing RUG to PUG. RUG to PUG 19.3 gals is app 46%.
So if the implication is close to 100% RUG to PUG of a barrel of oil is the goal, THAT is NOT is what is happening.
No offense, but I'm not sure what your point is from that. If you, like many others believe that refining is just taking what naturally occurs out of a barrel of oil, that is not true. And diesel is not just a by-product of converting RUG-PUG. That is certainly not what I was implying.
My implication was that petroleum procucts are interchangeable in how they burn. You can combine/shorten hydrocarbon chains from spirits to tar into whatever you want. Theoretically, we could convert 100% of anything coming out of a barrel of oil and turn it into kerosene if the demand for it at the pump was high enough. So whatever we crave drives refining in that direction.
Industry craves 90+% diesel, and consumers crave 90+% gasoline. So we get the short end on diesel production. As of now, diesel is really just a side item at fill-up stations. Its expensive because there is high demand and low supply at the pumps. Switch it so that more refining goes towards diesel, and have plenty of supply for the pumps, and demand goes down. As does cost.
Like wise, no offense, but what you are saying is a mischaracterization and at worse a misunderstanding of the refining process. Indeed diesel is not a byproduct but a natural consequence, specfically when app 46% (19.3 gals) of RUG to PUG is producted, 23% or 9.83 gals of #2 is produced. Indeed it would be a HUGE technological break through to be able to refine 100% of (anything) specifically diesel or RUG to PUG. Technologically it is not a current reality.
Indeed if this is problematic EIA.gov, and www.chevron.com are excellent web sites to bone up on the actual processes. Indeed the link you cite refers to the Chevron web sites.
I love when people give me references to 'bone up' on because they are soooo knowledgeable and they end up reinforcing my point.
EIA.gov site confirms:
Refiners and fuel blending facilities may reprocess previously refined or blended products, for example to meet a fuel specification or standard. Gasoline and distillate fuels represent the largest share of U.S. refinery and blender production. In 2006, U.S. refiners and blenders produced a record 6.561 billion barrels of refined products.
Let me break it down for you: oil refineries recombine hydrocarbon lengths to form whatever we, the consumer, demand. Since we demand gasoline, they either break or make carbon into gasoline in vast quantities. Whatever statistics you have on what the current output IS is consumer driven. It is NOT mandatory that way. They have the technology to get higher percentage diesel-like blends if they wanted to from a barrel of oil.
..."I love when people give me references to 'bone up' on because they are soooo knowledgeable and they end up reinforcing my point."...
If your point is it can be scaled to 100%( RUG to PUG) or 100% diesel (for that matter) you are (still) wrong. Indeed you are demonstrating that your point is a mischaracterization. As to being so knowledgeable, I am not making that claim, as it seems you may be. Do they and can they optimize the product mix? Absolutely.
Do they and can they optimize the product mix? Absolutely.
everything from spirits to tar which by that I meant Everything from Naptha to Residuals in the same sentence as 100% of that could be refined into whatever we want. Well guess what: IT IS! I specifically left out LPG, because I hadn't seen it done. That's not to say it can't be. But we need butane for other purposes, so we don't.
The literature supports my claim that: All liquid distillates of a barrel of oil are currently capable of being refined into automotive fuels and they are interchangeable with one-another.
I never claimed it was practical. We will always need some butane, and gasoline for small motors, etc. But worldwide, refineries pump out 40% gasoline and 40% fuel-oil. It is only our infrastructure that locks us into our current production/pricing. We have the ability to shift away from gasoline to diesel if diesel is the greener fuel, which it is.
I also said "IF" we needed to select only one fuel to use as a nation, it would have to be fuel oil. Not that that will ever happen. Americans just need to get over their stigma of diesel powered cars.
So since you don't really have any evidence that I've said anything wrong, and I mean hard literature or data, please refrain from being condescending before we both get kicked off the forum. Much appreciated.
Let's move on. The only one being condescending is you.
Indeed your stated examples now agree with what I have been saying. The EIA.gov chart shows the fractional components, which you cite a few examples. Current technology is estimated to be able to yield to a max of 50% (RUG to PUG, which is a far cry from 100%)
EIA again: As noted above and in the section on demand, U.S. demand is centered on light products, such as gasoline... refiners in the United States more closly match the mix of products demand by using downstream processing to move from the natural yield of products from simple distillation to the U.S. demand slate. After simple distillation alone, the output from a crude oil like Arab Light would be about 20 percent of lightest, gasoline-like products, and about 50 percent of the heaviest, the residuum. After further processing in the most sophisticated refinery, however, the finished product output is about 60 percent gasoline, and 5 percent residuum.
We currently produce 60% gasoline from certain barrels of oil by refining 70% of the natural distillates. What about the other 30%? They are likely the other useful automotive fuels (LPG, diesel, kero).
EIA again: Refiners and fuel blending facilities may reprocess previously refined or blended products, for example to meet a fuel specification or standard. Gasoline and distillate fuels represent the largest share of U.S. refinery and blender production.
I have already made the point/s at least twice. Only I cite credible sources to back it up.
New point: everyone who is still here, go buy a diesel car. Tell you mother to buy a diesel car. Prices will spike temporarily, but as soon as 30-50% of all oil refined and 30-50% of all fuel sold at the pumps is diesel, the price will drop down to close to that of gasoline, or even lower. The more 'regular' diesel use becomes, the less inflation it will have, as the technology exists to meet our demands. That's my prediction anyway. Like I said, its a gamble.
In the meantime, you can laugh at hybrid fans, because they don't get as good efficiency as you.
And kick Bob Lutz in the nutz, because ethanol is a horrible alternative.
"That's compensated by the fact that some diesels are promising 50-100% better economy over equivalent gasoline and slightly better than the average hybrid car."
Can you give an example of a 08 or 09 diesel that is 50 -100% better? One with all the new emission equipment.
The 08 MB E320 gets 26 overall while the E350 gets 19 overall. That according to the MS calculator is about a 37% increase in MPG.
Given the discussion I have had with him in the last few posts, it is pretty evident he is prone to broad brush hyperbole. .
On a practical level, 2003 VW Jetta gasser (both PUG/RUG 1.8T/2.0) of 25-29 mpg vs Jetta TDI of 48-52 is app 48% to 44% respectively. Now if I use single figures like 29 mpg- RUG/PUG vs 50 mpg- diesel ,= 42%.
As an aside, despite 50 mpg, the US version TDI was in effect "dumbed down" to achieve 2 mpg LESS. (thanks to AlLTorque for the revelation) Specifically (oxymoronically) 1. smaller injectors 2. one less manual shift speed came on the US market version. 3. resultant lower gearing Again I would have liked bigger injectors, 1 more gear (6 speeds vs 5 speeds) and better spaced gearing, for structurally app 2 mpg better.
My take is they are choking up on the diesel requirements and specifications to realistically cut down the gap on the EPA mpg declarations. The effects will slow the growth of the diesel passenger passenger vehicle fleet. In addition the 2004-2006 Prius' took a lot of heat for advertising 60 city/50 highway when it was closer to mid 40's.
"New point: everyone who is still here, go buy a diesel car. Tell you mother to buy a diesel car. Prices will spike temporarily, but as soon as 30-50% of all oil refined and 30-50% of all fuel sold at the pumps is diesel, the price will drop down to close to that of gasoline, or even lower. The more 'regular' diesel use becomes, the less inflation it will have, as the technology exists to meet our demands. That's my prediction anyway. Like I said, its a gamble. "
I think the prices will stay high. I just looked at a graph of diesel share of new car registrations for Western Europe. The number of diesel car registrations is now about 52-53%. It has been rising since 1990. That information would suggest that Europe still has an oversupply of gasoline vs. diesel. Their refineries have had issues supplying enough diesel in the past. The extra UG they produce will come to the USA. That will keep UG prices down. Diesel on the other hand will stay higher in price due to the demand in Europe. I don't see these problem sorting itself out for a few more years. If diesel demand in the USA goes up so will prices. I know the farmers here are cranking up their plantings of corn, soybean and wheat. That will add additional demand for diesel. And then there are all those :P RVs using up the diesel.
From what I can tell refineries cannot just change from UG to diesel or back again very quickly. They can change a few percent here and there but wholesale changes require major changes to the process. There is also a lot of different types of crude oil out there. Trying to produce ULSD with all the different types of oil must be challenging. http://energyintel.com/DocumentDetail.asp?document_id=200017
The VW TDI does seem like a safe bet when it comes to saving money even with the higher prices. It will be interesting to see how the new Honda and Subaru diesels stack up.
Actually so am I. Really the diesel has the capability (hidden advantage) to radically increase the average age of the passenger vehicle fleet. (7-8.5 years old) This of course is both good/bad news. The minimun goal I have for the TDI (currently at 103,000 miles) is 500,000 miles. Fuel mileage has never been better (average) Obviously time and mileage will tell. The scenario in which I would add another diesel would be to replace a currently owned gasser that has 150,000 miles and is going on 15 years old.
As for ruking, given the discussion I have had with him/her in the last few posts, it is pretty evident he/she is prone to making crap up.
..."Refineries in the U.S. can only produce about 20 gallons of gasoline from every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil that is refined."
Show me where this quote came from. Verbatim. Where does it say 'can only?' I don't think that's what it says or means. It says 'does' in the link. I'm not disagreeing with what they say, that we do get only a certain amount of distillate. But I've pretty much proven that distillates can be theoretically refined to yield as-near-as-it-makes-no-difference 100% useable product of one type.
I'd hate to question your integrity, but you lost all credibility when you made up maximum numbers. You either greatly misunderstand what they are trying to say there, or you changed a quote from a reliable government source. The latter is worse than being wrong.
Can you give an example of a 08 or 09 diesel that is 50 -100% better? One with all the new emission equipment.
Well when I said 'some' and 'promising', I had only future cars in mind, but I can think of one example that'll probably hit the lots in '08 as an '09 model.
2009 Q7 3.0 TDI. promising (don't know, its not here yet) 24-25 US mpg average. 2007 Audi Q7 3.6 14/19. Though in terms of torque and likely price should be comparing the Q7 4.2 V8 12/17. Its +50%. Not a broad brush hyperbole.
And there are more cars promising better than 50% improvement the further you look into the future. I can neither confirm nor deny those claims, since they are not here. I like how people add extra criteria to your claims and then hold you to them. Like "it has to be an '08 or '09."
From what I can tell refineries cannot just change from UG to diesel or back again very quickly. They can change a few percent here and there but wholesale changes require major changes to the process. There is also a lot of different types of crude oil out there. Trying to produce ULSD with all the different types of oil must be challenging.
I agree, it is not practical. Go back and you'll notice it was ruking that suggested 100% product sway. I would never suggest the country actually go that route, but as an extreme example I thought it fitting to use as a theoretically possibility. As it turns out I was far closer to being right than he/she was, and that was not even a point I was interested in making.
What is practical.... maybe a few % one way or the other. Totally agree with you there. I think its only a matter of time before some of those % go towards consumer diesel though.
If diesel demand in the USA goes up so will prices. I know the farmers here are cranking up their plantings of corn, soybean and wheat. That will add additional demand for diesel. And then there are all those RVs using up the diesel.
I actually said something very similar to this to explain what is happening to diesel prices right now. Thats how we got in this mess of a convo actually. Again, I agree. Won't be sorted out for a few years. I agree its a gamble and it might not pay off, with diesel coming lower than gas. Only time will tell.
Seriously, question everything, I don't mind. Scrutiny leads to the truth. Just don't be misinformed just because its coming from high-talkers.
hey there large marge mclarge. nuff respeck. onto the subject line, i am a fiend for diesel but i'll probably be moving back to gassers within a year or two if the prices don't get back to "normal", with diesel fuel the same price as premium-unleaded or less. i bet there are a lot more diesel-owners burning home-heating-oil or offroad diesel lately, and that will increase as the diesel/gas price-delta increases.
"And there are more cars promising better than 50% improvement the further you look into the future. I can neither confirm nor deny those claims, since they are not here. I like how people add extra criteria to your claims and then hold you to them. Like "it has to be an '08 or '09." "
No, I was not holding you to any criteria. I was just curious to see if you had any examples for this year or next. 2010, 2011, or 2020 works for me.
It is also safe to say that the regular gasoline powered engines will increase their efficiency as time goes on. Ford has their eco-boost for example. Diesels may retain their 20 to 40% advantage over gasoline engines in the next few years but I don't see them going to 50%. But then that is just my guess.
"Just don't be misinformed just because its coming from high-talkers."
I am not sure what you mean by high-talkers. My sense is that it was not a compliment. The high-talkers you are referring to actually provide a lot of interesting and stimulating information. We all read different material, have different experiences and have a varied educational background. It is not surprising that we can have different opinions or our facts do not agree. As you can see I do not post as much as some. That must make me a low-talker.
Not sure how many of you are watching the diesel prices over at AAA's fuelgauge report. New York just went over $4 a gallon for diesel ($4.032). I thought for sure Calif., Conn., or Hawaii would have been the first state to reach $4 this go-around. :surprise: A year ago it was about $2.88 in NY. I wonder, do the truckers just avoid the state completely?
We have about a 70 cent difference here in ND between diesel and WE10RUG (winterized 10% ethanol - 'my mileage stinks when I use it gasoline'). I should not complain, the stuff works at 40 below. NJ and Penn. seem to have even a bigger spread in prices.
I am kind of waiting for the general news media to make a big deal about the $4 a gallon, or maybe they already have.
..."Show me where this quote came from. Verbatim. Where does it say 'can only?' I don't think that's what it says or means. It says 'does' in the link. I'm not disagreeing with what they say, that we do get only a certain amount of distillate. But I've pretty much proven that distillates can be theoretically refined to yield as-near-as-it-makes-no-difference 100% useable product of one type"...
The EIA.gov link was and is posted. VERBATIM. Funny how you demand the EIA.com link and YOU do not provide the EIA link where you "PROVE" the upwards of 60%-100% conversion. If you can not or will not look at the very link you have "demanded", you have issues totally unrelated to me or what I am saying. It is becoming evident why you didnt post the EIA.com link. Indeed if you need to tilt windmills take it up with EIA.GOV. Yes, you have proven that you can make stuff up! You just hate not being able to explain the 60 to 100% you were inferring. You really don't need to be a sore head about it.
Actually diesel was over $4. per gal (US) in CN (conversion from sales in liters@ CN$) in Q4 of 07. At the time diesel was more along the price of $ 2.95-3.20 in three states I was traveling at the time. Due to the range of the TDI, it was possible to shop and fill in the cheapest of 3 states and one foreign country. Q108 seems to be app $ 4.44 per gal (US). Last I filled was @ 3.84 per gal.
Today's corner store prices:$3.49 RUG/$3.69 PUG/ $3.95 D2:
Using the Jetta 1.8T (26 mpg) / 2.0 (26 mpg) / TDI (48 mpg) (like models) per mile driven .142 cents/.13442 cents/ .08229 cents.
We run a Honda Civic for a plain jane daily commute 54 miles per day R/T @ 38-42 mpg vs TDI of 48-52 mpg. In truth, the Civic seems tailor made for this commute given the mpg results (knew this before, as it was a major reason for acquisition) , with no fuel miser efforts.
This is not disrespectful people, I am genuinely concerned. I can help you, ruking. You just have to listen carefully. You are clearly in denial. I know this because:
1) you have a really hard time admitting you are wrong. And when it starts to become apparent that you were wrong: 2) you start to panick and make more mistakes, thus becoming more wrong as you continue. You do this by: 3) accusing others of your own faults 4) twisting the truth to cover up the fact that you were wrong
Examples: 1) You changed this quote in your link:
One barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil, when refined, yields approximately 19.6 gallons of finished motor gasoline
to: ..."Refineries in the U.S. can only produce about 20 gallons of gasoline from every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil that is refined."
Paraphrased in your own words, you said it was a verbatim quote, which you know was not. You actaully changed the meaning of the sentence. The only hard data you had, and you fudged it.
2) you accused me of making up statistics. This is something that only you did. You should have just stopped because I have the link. It was just a really long article and I didn't think anyone would read through it. under Downstream Processing.
3) you really should not have accused me of changing quotes, because only you did that. And I have the other one I referenced here. Again, only because I didn't think anyone would read it. under Record Output in 2006
The more you attack me the more wrong you will be. I wouldn't bother, personally. Then again, this is for your own good. I doubt you'll be able to see it now (denial is funny that way) but some day, we can only hope....
I am not sure what you mean by high-talkers. My sense is that it was not a compliment. The high-talkers you are referring to actually provide a lot of interesting and stimulating information. We all read different material, have different experiences and have a varied educational background. It is not surprising that we can have different opinions or our facts do not agree. As you can see I do not post as much as some. That must make me a low-talker.
I respect opinions too. If you go back 2 or 3 pages, you can clearly see that I got assaulted for having an opinion in this forum, and I was forced to back it up with facts and to point out the holes in a certain poster's *cough* knowledge *cough* that I was wrong. Once again, I didn't come looking for an argument. I can hold my own in one though. Even though I probably only have 1/2 as much time to make it back and see what other untruths have been told at my expense.
I know very well there is a huge difference between being intelligent and sounding it in forums. Facts matter, language irregardless. If you are a low talker that respects facts then I have more respect for you. I'd rather be a low talker as well.
"No. BOTH are direct quotes from EIA.com. Both were cut and pasted and linked for anyone who cares to read it. Evidently you do not .
You really have issues that do not relate to me at all !! They really all are about YOURSELF. Indeed I have helped you.
You are also attributing quotes to me, that I did NOT say.
..."The more you attack me the more wrong you will be. I wouldn't bother, personally. Then again, this is for your own good. I doubt you'll be able to see it now (denial is funny that way) but some day, we can only hope....
..."I am not sure what you mean by high-talkers. My sense is that it was not a compliment. The high-talkers you are referring to actually provide a lot of interesting and stimulating information. We all read different material, have different experiences and have a varied educational background. It is not surprising that we can have different opinions or our facts do not agree. As you can see I do not post as much as some. That must make me a low-talker.
I respect opinions too. If you go back 2 or 3 pages, you can clearly see that I got assaulted for having an opinion in this forum, and I was forced to back it up with facts and to point out the holes in a certain poster's *cough* knowledge *cough* that I was wrong. Once again, I didn't come looking for an argument. I can hold my own in one though. Even though I probably only have 1/2 as much time to make it back and see what other untruths have been told at my expense.
I know very well there is a huge difference between being intelligent and sounding it in forums. Facts matter, language irregardless. If you are a low talker that respects facts then I have more respect for you. I'd rather be a low talker as well."...
You ought to go back and consider what I said more carefully. About the denial? Did I not predict that when one in denial gets proven wrong they panick? I actually feel really bad that your behavior is humorous to me, because I really do care. Hang in there buddy!
Your argument failed to prove I was wrong, but did try very hard, and it was a good effort. Thats worth something. Lets just agree to disagree.
You can't expect to attack my alias personally and end it with 'lets move on'. Doesn't work that way. You're not getting the last word in on psychology. Certainly not after that freakout. Wow.
The only reason you are freaking out is because you can't accept that others might think less of your fake online alias. Well in truth they probably think less of mine for being so policially incorrect, whether I am right or not. So your ego is safe for now.
I do have issues though. I don't really fit in with the Carspace crowd. But you are wrong yet again, it is because my alias has no ego. i.e. BigMcLargeHuge doesn't really care if it is popular.
And you need to stop being so self-centered. I was responding in part to avalon02wh. They asked me a question, and off-topic or not, they deserved an answer.
I'd be happy to get back on topic as soon as you can stop attacking my alias personally. You started saying I was wrong on post #5027. I respectfully requested you not sound so condescending. And on a post that had nothing to do with you, you replied with "from what I've experienced from him, he's prone to... blah blah..." Gossip? Seriously? Sorry, but I don't feel I deserve the crap you've been giving me in this forum. But I'm okay with it, because you need to sound intelligent in front of your friends to feed your ego. I gotcha
You are still wrong! But that is a forgone conclusion.
Panic? Freakout? WOW! Oh yes, hysterical! This entertainment is better than TV ! Too bad you take that attitude after not not citing your sources. I cited mine and you still mischaracterized. them. You can take all the credit for proving yourself incorrect! You fixate on two EIA.GOV quotes and attribute them to me and diatribe on about how I got THAT wrong? I know you have to appear cool to feed YOUR ego.
But I agree, we agree to disagree!
Who is attacking your alias? What is your alias? Are you trying to fake being paranoid? But as you would probably agree, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean someone is not out to get them!? Perhaps yes it is your self centeredness that is getting in the way? Gotcha
Its really not funny anymore. I'm starting to get really worried. I already told you that you had a chance of saving face by not attacking BigMcLargeHuge anymore. Anything back-talk from you to me at this point is just going to make you look stupid. Quit now while you're only slightly behind.
Reason is, I have you pegged. I was hoping you'd come to terms with your denial, and stop re-focusing your faults on BigMcLargeHuge, but really I predicted your response.
I said "you're still wrong, my issue is that BigMcLargeHuge has no ego". You actually hadn't said that yet, but I knew you couldn't resist trying to flip it back on me. So I actually said you were wrong about something before you even did it, and hit it right on the head. Because, you see, egocentrical people are most offended by the truth. Guaranteed. I am actually 1 post AHEAD of you now. I already know what your reaction is going to be.
Because of egos, you aren't allowed to call a dumb person dumb, or a crazy person crazy, or a selfish person selfish. Because they'll get offended, and its not politically correct to offend people. Its a strange society we live in. I don't quite understand it. You should be able to just tell people things about themselves in order to help cure them of thier vices. Thats my issue. Brutally honest.
The fact that you're freaking out when I say you're wrong, leads me to believe I'm on to something. Likewise with your denial, your ego, your self-centeredness. I'm not offended by those things because I know they are not true about my alias. And an alias is a second identity. BigMcLargeHuge is my alias, because its not a person. Therefore I don't take anything personally. Its really wierd how some people do on these forums.
Seriously, the only way you're ever going to be able to calm down is to stop being on the offensive. It boils your blood, but you have to remember that its just a forum, that ruking1 doesn't really exist, that its not a real person, its your alias and it doesn't matter. Your entire self should not be represented online.
Anyone else still out there? It would be a shame if this long diesel thread had to die a terrible death because of one panick attack.
enough with the long posts which talk about personalities and armchair psychoanalysis, instead of diesels fading from the news?
$4.05 for diesel locally, with 87 octane available for under $3.
After 250k miles or so driving diesel VWs, I doubt I'll buy another diesel vehicle any year soon. I'd look at hybrid gassers to maximize fuel economy instead. Even if the gas vs diesel price gap shrinks this summer, it's likely to go back to 30% next winter.
I don't think they'll flop, because look what cars they are coming on. Acura, BMW, Mercedes, Audi.
Luxury segment. Cars that you could feasibly live without, but you still want them anyway.
It might allow some to drive sporty, say in a BMW 335d, and not have to feel guilty about being environmentally unfriendly. They are certainly the way to go for large SUVs, full-size autos. I hate the fact that they even offer 7-series BMWs and Audi A8s without diesels. Those are real gas-guzzlers. They need to be made into fuel- sippers.
They'll never fully replace gasoline, but they will exist in this country. For all the 50-80K luxury vehicles weighing in at 4-5K pounds, its a better option, and its likely to catch on.
Returning to the regularly scheduled program "Diesels in the News".
quote-In his speech at the National Press Club, Jacoby said he believes Volkswagen is well positioned to take advantage of an anticipated increase in demand for cars with diesel engines. He cited a J.D. Power study predicting the diesel car market will increase from 3 percent to 7 percent of the U.S. passenger vehicle market by 2012 as consumers look for better fuel economy and reduced emissions and automakers look to comply with laws mandating more fuel-efficient fleets.
"Diesel is back," said Jacoby, who noted Volkswagen's traditional strength in the diesel car market. "We see clean diesel at a tipping point."-end
..."I already told you that you had a chance of saving face by not attacking BigMcLargeHuge anymore. Anything back-talk from you to me at this point is just going to make you look stupid."...
The only one "attacking your alias" whatever that means is YOU.
Actually you are light years ahead in this ..."look stupid"... department. I hope this isn't what you mean about characteristics of your alias? . I take it your quote means you are almost paranoid about having the last word. So after your last word:
Are you finished with your tantrum yet? If you want to move on, move on and stop editing your post after publishing it to get more insults in.
From moparbad's article:
Technology costs will come down over time, though, points out VW's Price. "The costs of all technologies come down with acceptance," he said.
If a diesel hybrid is a hit in Europe, and VW were to ramp up production, that could bring down the per-unit costs, he said. And that could open the door to selling such a car in the United States.
By that time, U.S. consumers should be familiar with VW's - and other companies' - new diesels, said Price.
It appears Price is theorizing that the purchase price of a diesel car will come down the more they sell.
I see nothing in any of the information out there that suggests that a barrel of crude can be made into all diesel, which I think is where this started.
A barrel of oil yields these refined products (percent of barrel):
47% gasoline for use in automobiles 23% heating oil and diesel fuel 18% other products, which includes petrochemical feedstock—products derived from petroleum principally for the manufacturing of chemicals, synthetic rubber and plastics 10% jet fuel 4% propane 3% asphalt (Percentages equal more than 100 because of an approximately 5% processing gain from refining.) http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp#gallons_per_barrel
Crude oil is separated into fractions by fractional distillation. The fractions at the top of the fractionating column have lower boiling points than the fractions at the bottom. The heavy bottom fractions are often cracked into lighter, more useful products. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refineries
The last one is from WIkipedia, talking about the refining process. Fractional distillation seperates the parts of the crude oil by boiling point, that cannot be re-worked by chemistry.
It really depends on the crude oil. While working in Prudhoe Bay one of the fields was producing crude that was so light and sweet it was being used right out of the well in the diesel engines. All oil is not created equal. That makes the whole argument futile.
Just a tidbit of information. The crude from Iran is so heavy and laden with sulfur that it brings a much lower price. Just like one of the fields in the Arctic has oil so high in H2S that all the piping is stainless steel. You have to have an H2S detector when you enter the field. It is much too complex for this thread to sort out.
I would still buy a diesel vehicle with the higher price of fuel. I think it will help the market. There will not be the gouging by dealers to sell the diesel cars. Unless diesel becomes 30% higher it is a better option.
Indeed that is true. However the majority of ( US market imported) oil comes from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venuezula, Mexico, etc. So what of those products?
I was once in a refinery in Poland and an operator told me that he can make almost any gas to diesel ratio. Like from 10:1 to 1:10. He also said that any modern refinery can do that. When people buy more diesel in winter then they make more diesel. Simple.
Comments
Are you saying that the oil companies should stop making RUG and only make diesel?
The most foolish thing a prospector can is to yell “GOLD” when he makes a find. You keep the new close to the vest until you get your share.
This is just speculation on my part, but anyone putting a lot of time, money and effort into the development of something as important as an alternative fuel/source of energy would want to stay out of the lime light until it is ready or very close to ready for market.
But a generalized advertising campaign declaring that "Exxon/Mobil is working every day on preparing the world for the day when the oil is gone" or "is making strides in clean alternative fuel research" or something to that effect would go a long way in reducing some of the extreme anti-oil-company bias that most of the world has.
It would also get the true greenies interested in what the companies are doing and would allow them to see them as less an Evil Empire.
I’m marketing people’s biggest nightmare. I have been desensitized or developed the ability to ignore all advertising and the mute button is greatest invention of all times. Advertising / Marketing to me is 99% BS 1% truth.
I guess if you advertised that you were doing great things in developing new, cleaner fuels you might attract the positive attention of some. Certainly better PR than a spill.
I think one or more oil companies are invested in battery technology.
And since the Compass and Patriot share their platform with the Dodge Caliber, Chrysler could have a serious jump on the new CAFE regs if that 2.0 was used here.
kcram - Pickups Host
And I'm sure that they ARE working on it to a degree. But they are oilmen, and oilmen are not going to happily spend a lot of money on things other than selling more oil.
They certainly should be. I just wish they were.
Five points I would make here :
1. I cannot believe that anything an oil company does - ever - will appease the Green crowd, (whatever "appease" means in this context and why should anyone even feel the need to do so ?).
2. With 34 years in big oil behind me I long ago learned that the rule is "Keep your head below the parapet". Whatever you announce will likely get you a flaming from one quarter or another. The Greens will never be happy with big oil because they need to have the Devil Incarnate to rant against.
3. Does anyone really believe that the oil majors are NOT working on ways to extend the profitable life of their corporations beyond traditional oil-based products ?
4. Gasoline and Diesel fuel are just the most visible products from the oil companies. They are not the major profit earners. The companies are far more diverse than that. One-trick ponies they are not.
5. Crude Oil pricing is not controlled by ExxonMobil, or BP, or Shell or........ You can thank the commodity traders in New York, London, Tokyo etc for that. They are the guys making money out of trading a product they will never see and producing precisely nothing; other than profit.
Stop hacking away at the imagined bad guys in oil and get back onto discussing diesel cars - please.
End of rant. Thank you for bearing with me.
Alaska 9.4% Alabama 14.9% Arkansas 15.3% Arizona 18.6% California 11.2% Colorado 17.1% Connecticut 17.7% Dist. Columbia 16.9% Delaware 20.9% Florida 14.0% Georgia 15.3% Hawaii 10.1% Iowa 17.2% Idaho 16.8% Illinois 21.4% Indiana 19.7% Kansas 17.3% Kentucky 13.8% Louisiana 15.5% Massachusetts 22.7% Maryland 19.2% Maine 19.9% Michigan 23.0% Minnesota 19.9% Missouri 19.5% Mississippi 14.1% Montana 16.6% North Carolina 14.0% North Dakota 16.9% Nebraska 14.4% New Hampshire 21.8% New Jersey 23.3% New Mexico 16.0% Nevada 14.4% New York 19.1% Ohio 22.0% Oklahoma 14.5% Oregon 9.8% Pennsylvania 22.5% Rhode Island 22.4% South Carolina 15.6% South Dakota 13.4% Tennessee 14.8% Texas 16.9% Utah 17.6% Virginia 16.0% Vermont 20.1% Washington 11.5% Wisconsin 21.5% West Virginia 16.9% Wyoming 18.0% National Average 17.1% (Based on a snapshot of AAA www.fuelgaugereport.com prices) :shades:
"...they found that the actual percentage of biofuel ranged from as little as 10 percent to as much as 74 percent. " (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080227155026.htm)
Not getting the mix right in a cold climate where I live would be a disaster. They really need to sort this out. Maybe if the industry can get past the mom and pop stage.
I am not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling about diesel/biodiesel. There appear to be some advantages but just as many negatives. :lemon:
Trust the Northeast to be the highest in diesel costs! Right now Diesel is about $3.45-$3.60 per gallon. RUG is $3.05 at the no brand name places.
Charging a 25 cent per gallon premium over Premium fuel won't help sell diesels in this area.
Charging a 25 cent per gallon premium over Premium fuel won't help sell diesels in this area.
$.25 still isn't a big deal when we are approaching $4/gallon. That's compensated by the fact that some diesels are promising 50-100% better economy over equivalent gasoline and slightly better than the average hybrid car.
The reason diesel is getting higher in the consumer market is it has to compete with heating fuel (northeast), the entire truck/rail/agriculture/industrial/military usage. If we had to choose only one fuel to produce in this country, it would have to be fuel oil. There is a reason that all these industries don't use gasoline: it is horribly inefficient in high-torque applications like trucks and trains and tanks.
Diesel used to be cheaper than regular accross the country. Problems that caused this to invert in the first place:
1) Afghanistan and Iraq. Most naval ships, tanks, helicopters, trucks used by the military use some form of fuel oil. That means more of what is produced in our refineries is being sent overseas.
2) Refinery problems. Hurricane Katrina meant that less fuel was being refined, so an even greater percentage of production has to power other industries.
Refineries have the ability to switch production from gas to diesel. The only reason the pump out so much gas for consumers is that we consume so much of it. Over time, if gasoline consumption went down and diesel consumption went up, they would just refine less gasoline and the prices would invert again.
So its a gamble which one you think will go up most over time, but the likelihood is that prices are just plain going to keep going up. I totally agree with alltorque, that investor trading is ruining our economy. Foreign investors are determining how much we pay for heating oil. Its sickening really.
Ah but it's 50-60 cents above RUG and about 30 cents over PUG.
I've also driven diesels overseas so i know how good their fuel economy can be but unless the diesel is getting significantly better fuel economy it's not worth it to most people and yes home heating oil is really up there this year as well. Myself i'd like to switch over to Propane gas for the home but it's just too expensive at this time.
Propane cars suck on hilly roads. I've been in Propane powered taxi's overseas in Asia and they can't make it up steep hills.
Diesel is just sooooo expensive that unless it comes down or offers huge increases in economy it will fail at least up here where you see 20% hybrids.
I like diesel and prefer it, but all the companies that are announcing diesel except VW and Honda are bringing out massive diesel engines like BMW which will get the same as a gas model. What's the point?!?!
As an option ok, but BMW doesn't get it, most people want great fuel economy with a lot of low end grunt.
Too bad we won't get very many fuel efficient choices in the US.
http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/crude_products.aspx
Using EIA.gov statistics #2 diesel = 9.83 gals@ app 23.4% of a 42 gal barrel of oil is a natural consequence of processing RUG to PUG. RUG to PUG @19.3 gals is app 46%.
So if the implication is close to 100% RUG to PUG of a barrel of oil is the goal, THAT is NOT is what is happening.
So if the implication is close to 100% RUG to PUG of a barrel of oil is the goal, THAT is NOT is what is happening.
No offense, but I'm not sure what your point is from that. If you, like many others believe that refining is just taking what naturally occurs out of a barrel of oil, that is not true. And diesel is not just a by-product of converting RUG-PUG. That is certainly not what I was implying.
Oil Refining
My implication was that petroleum procucts are interchangeable in how they burn. You can combine/shorten hydrocarbon chains from spirits to tar into whatever you want. Theoretically, we could convert 100% of anything coming out of a barrel of oil and turn it into kerosene if the demand for it at the pump was high enough. So whatever we crave drives refining in that direction.
Industry craves 90+% diesel, and consumers crave 90+% gasoline. So we get the short end on diesel production. As of now, diesel is really just a side item at fill-up stations. Its expensive because there is high demand and low supply at the pumps. Switch it so that more refining goes towards diesel, and have plenty of supply for the pumps, and demand goes down. As does cost.
Indeed if this is problematic EIA.gov, and www.chevron.com are excellent web sites to bone up on the actual processes. Indeed the link you cite refers to the
Chevron web sites.
EIA.gov site confirms:
Refiners and fuel blending facilities may reprocess previously refined or blended products, for example to meet a fuel specification or standard. Gasoline and distillate fuels represent the largest share of U.S. refinery and blender production. In 2006, U.S. refiners and blenders produced a record 6.561 billion barrels of refined products.
Let me break it down for you:
oil refineries recombine hydrocarbon lengths to form whatever we, the consumer, demand. Since we demand gasoline, they either break or make carbon into gasoline in vast quantities. Whatever statistics you have on what the current output IS is consumer driven. It is NOT mandatory that way. They have the technology to get higher percentage diesel-like blends if they wanted to from a barrel of oil.
If your point is it can be scaled to 100%( RUG to PUG) or 100% diesel (for that matter) you are (still) wrong. Indeed you are demonstrating that your point is a mischaracterization. As to being so knowledgeable, I am not making that claim, as it seems you may be. Do they and can they optimize the product mix? Absolutely.
everything from spirits to tar which by that I meant Everything from Naptha to Residuals in the same sentence as 100% of that could be refined into whatever we want. Well guess what: IT IS! I specifically left out LPG, because I hadn't seen it done. That's not to say it can't be. But we need butane for other purposes, so we don't.
The literature supports my claim that:
All liquid distillates of a barrel of oil are currently capable of being refined into automotive fuels and they are interchangeable with one-another.
I never claimed it was practical. We will always need some butane, and gasoline for small motors, etc. But worldwide, refineries pump out 40% gasoline and 40% fuel-oil. It is only our infrastructure that locks us into our current production/pricing. We have the ability to shift away from gasoline to diesel if diesel is the greener fuel, which it is.
I also said "IF" we needed to select only one fuel to use as a nation, it would have to be fuel oil. Not that that will ever happen. Americans just need to get over their stigma of diesel powered cars.
So since you don't really have any evidence that I've said anything wrong, and I mean hard literature or data, please refrain from being condescending before we both get kicked off the forum. Much appreciated.
Indeed your stated examples now agree with what I have been saying. The EIA.gov chart shows the fractional components, which you cite a few examples. Current technology is estimated to be able to yield to a max of 50% (RUG to PUG, which is a far cry from 100%)
I have already made the point/s at least twice.
As noted above and in the section on demand, U.S. demand is centered on light products, such as gasoline... refiners in the United States more closly match the mix of products demand by using downstream processing to move from the natural yield of products from simple distillation to the U.S. demand slate. After simple distillation alone, the output from a crude oil like Arab Light would be about 20 percent of lightest, gasoline-like products, and about 50 percent of the heaviest, the residuum. After further processing in the most sophisticated refinery, however, the finished product output is about 60 percent gasoline, and 5 percent residuum.
We currently produce 60% gasoline from certain barrels of oil by refining 70% of the natural distillates.
What about the other 30%? They are likely the other useful automotive fuels (LPG, diesel, kero).
EIA again:
Refiners and fuel blending facilities may reprocess previously refined or blended products, for example to meet a fuel specification or standard. Gasoline and distillate fuels represent the largest share of U.S. refinery and blender production.
I have already made the point/s at least twice. Only I cite credible sources to back it up.
New point: everyone who is still here, go buy a diesel car. Tell you mother to buy a diesel car. Prices will spike temporarily, but as soon as 30-50% of all oil refined and 30-50% of all fuel sold at the pumps is diesel, the price will drop down to close to that of gasoline, or even lower. The more 'regular' diesel use becomes, the less inflation it will have, as the technology exists to meet our demands. That's my prediction anyway. Like I said, its a gamble.
In the meantime, you can laugh at hybrid fans, because they don't get as good efficiency as you.
And kick Bob Lutz in the nutz, because ethanol is a horrible alternative.
Last updated: October 12, 2006
23% heating oil and diesel fuel
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp#gallons_per_barrel
..."Refineries in the U.S. can only produce about 20 gallons of gasoline from every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil that is refined."...
You might want to update the EIA.gov folks.
At least you are now being clear it is not 100%.
Let's move on.
Can you give an example of a 08 or 09 diesel that is 50 -100% better? One with all the new emission equipment.
The 08 MB E320 gets 26 overall while the E350 gets 19 overall. That according to the MS calculator is about a 37% increase in MPG.
On a practical level, 2003 VW Jetta gasser (both PUG/RUG 1.8T/2.0) of 25-29 mpg vs Jetta TDI of 48-52 is app 48% to 44% respectively. Now if I use single figures like 29 mpg- RUG/PUG vs 50 mpg- diesel ,= 42%.
As an aside, despite 50 mpg, the US version TDI was in effect "dumbed down" to achieve 2 mpg LESS. (thanks to AlLTorque for the revelation) Specifically (oxymoronically) 1. smaller injectors 2. one less manual shift speed came on the US market version. 3. resultant lower gearing Again I would have liked bigger injectors, 1 more gear (6 speeds vs 5 speeds) and better spaced gearing, for structurally app 2 mpg better.
My take is they are choking up on the diesel requirements and specifications to realistically cut down the gap on the EPA mpg declarations. The effects will slow the growth of the diesel passenger passenger vehicle fleet. In addition the 2004-2006 Prius' took a lot of heat for advertising 60 city/50 highway when it was closer to mid 40's.
I think the prices will stay high. I just looked at a graph of diesel share of new car registrations for Western Europe. The number of diesel car registrations is now about 52-53%. It has been rising since 1990. That information would suggest that Europe still has an oversupply of gasoline vs. diesel. Their refineries have had issues supplying enough diesel in the past. The extra UG they produce will come to the USA. That will keep UG prices down. Diesel on the other hand will stay higher in price due to the demand in Europe. I don't see these problem sorting itself out for a few more years. If diesel demand in the USA goes up so will prices. I know the farmers here are cranking up their plantings of corn, soybean and wheat. That will add additional demand for diesel. And then there are all those :P RVs using up the diesel.
From what I can tell refineries cannot just change from UG to diesel or back again very quickly. They can change a few percent here and there but wholesale changes require major changes to the process. There is also a lot of different types of crude oil out there. Trying to produce ULSD with all the different types of oil must be challenging.
http://energyintel.com/DocumentDetail.asp?document_id=200017
As for ruking, given the discussion I have had with him/her in the last few posts, it is pretty evident he/she is prone to making crap up.
..."Refineries in the U.S. can only produce about 20 gallons of gasoline from every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil that is refined."
Show me where this quote came from. Verbatim. Where does it say 'can only?' I don't think that's what it says or means. It says 'does' in the link. I'm not disagreeing with what they say, that we do get only a certain amount of distillate. But I've pretty much proven that distillates can be theoretically refined to yield as-near-as-it-makes-no-difference 100% useable product of one type.
I'd hate to question your integrity, but you lost all credibility when you made up maximum numbers. You either greatly misunderstand what they are trying to say there, or you changed a quote from a reliable government source. The latter is worse than being wrong.
Can you give an example of a 08 or 09 diesel that is 50 -100% better? One with all the new emission equipment.
Well when I said 'some' and 'promising', I had only future cars in mind, but I can think of one example that'll probably hit the lots in '08 as an '09 model.
2009 Q7 3.0 TDI. promising (don't know, its not here yet) 24-25 US mpg average. 2007 Audi Q7 3.6 14/19. Though in terms of torque and likely price should be comparing the Q7 4.2 V8 12/17. Its +50%. Not a broad brush hyperbole.
And there are more cars promising better than 50% improvement the further you look into the future. I can neither confirm nor deny those claims, since they are not here. I like how people add extra criteria to your claims and then hold you to them. Like "it has to be an '08 or '09."
From what I can tell refineries cannot just change from UG to diesel or back again very quickly. They can change a few percent here and there but wholesale changes require major changes to the process. There is also a lot of different types of crude oil out there. Trying to produce ULSD with all the different types of oil must be challenging.
I agree, it is not practical. Go back and you'll notice it was ruking that suggested 100% product sway. I would never suggest the country actually go that route, but as an extreme example I thought it fitting to use as a theoretically possibility. As it turns out I was far closer to being right than he/she was, and that was not even a point I was interested in making.
What is practical.... maybe a few % one way or the other. Totally agree with you there. I think its only a matter of time before some of those % go towards consumer diesel though.
If diesel demand in the USA goes up so will prices. I know the farmers here are cranking up their plantings of corn, soybean and wheat. That will add additional demand for diesel. And then there are all those RVs using up the diesel.
I actually said something very similar to this to explain what is happening to diesel prices right now. Thats how we got in this mess of a convo actually. Again, I agree. Won't be sorted out for a few years. I agree its a gamble and it might not pay off, with diesel coming lower than gas. Only time will tell.
Seriously, question everything, I don't mind. Scrutiny leads to the truth. Just don't be misinformed just because its coming from high-talkers.
onto the subject line, i am a fiend for diesel but i'll probably be moving back to gassers within a year or two if the prices don't get back to "normal", with diesel fuel the same price as premium-unleaded or less.
i bet there are a lot more diesel-owners burning home-heating-oil or offroad diesel lately, and that will increase as the diesel/gas price-delta increases.
No, I was not holding you to any criteria. I was just curious to see if you had any examples for this year or next. 2010, 2011, or 2020 works for me.
It is also safe to say that the regular gasoline powered engines will increase their efficiency as time goes on. Ford has their eco-boost for example. Diesels may retain their 20 to 40% advantage over gasoline engines in the next few years but I don't see them going to 50%. But then that is just my guess.
"Just don't be misinformed just because its coming from high-talkers."
I am not sure what you mean by high-talkers. My sense is that it was not a compliment. The high-talkers you are referring to actually provide a lot of interesting and stimulating information. We all read different material, have different experiences and have a varied educational background. It is not surprising that we can have different opinions or our facts do not agree. As you can see I do not post as much as some. That must make me a low-talker.
We have about a 70 cent difference here in ND between diesel and WE10RUG (winterized 10% ethanol - 'my mileage stinks when I use it gasoline'). I should not complain, the stuff works at 40 below. NJ and Penn. seem to have even a bigger spread in prices.
I am kind of waiting for the general news media to make a big deal about the $4 a gallon, or maybe they already have.
Are we having fun yet?
The EIA.gov link was and is posted. VERBATIM. Funny how you demand the EIA.com link and YOU do not provide the EIA link where you "PROVE" the upwards of 60%-100% conversion. If you can not or will not look at the very link you have "demanded", you have issues totally unrelated to me or what I am saying. It is becoming evident why you didnt post the EIA.com link. Indeed if you need to tilt windmills take it up with EIA.GOV. Yes, you have proven that you can make stuff up! You just hate not being able to explain the 60 to 100% you were inferring. You really don't need to be a sore head about it.
Let's move on.
Using the Jetta 1.8T (26 mpg) / 2.0 (26 mpg) / TDI (48 mpg) (like models) per mile driven .142 cents/.13442 cents/ .08229 cents.
We run a Honda Civic for a plain jane daily commute 54 miles per day R/T @ 38-42 mpg vs TDI of 48-52 mpg. In truth, the Civic seems tailor made for this commute given the mpg results (knew this before, as it was a major reason for acquisition) , with no fuel miser efforts.
1) you have a really hard time admitting you are wrong. And when it starts to become apparent that you were wrong:
2) you start to panick and make more mistakes, thus becoming more wrong as you continue. You do this by:
3) accusing others of your own faults
4) twisting the truth to cover up the fact that you were wrong
Examples:
1) You changed this quote in your link:
One barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil, when refined, yields approximately 19.6 gallons of finished motor gasoline
to:
..."Refineries in the U.S. can only produce about 20 gallons of gasoline from every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil that is refined."
Paraphrased in your own words, you said it was a verbatim quote, which you know was not. You actaully changed the meaning of the sentence. The only hard data you had, and you fudged it.
2) you accused me of making up statistics. This is something that only you did. You should have just stopped because I have the link. It was just a really long article and I didn't think anyone would read through it.
under Downstream Processing.
3) you really should not have accused me of changing quotes, because only you did that. And I have the other one I referenced here. Again, only because I didn't think anyone would read it.
under Record Output in 2006
The more you attack me the more wrong you will be. I wouldn't bother, personally. Then again, this is for your own good. I doubt you'll be able to see it now (denial is funny that way) but some day, we can only hope....
I am not sure what you mean by high-talkers. My sense is that it was not a compliment. The high-talkers you are referring to actually provide a lot of interesting and stimulating information. We all read different material, have different experiences and have a varied educational background. It is not surprising that we can have different opinions or our facts do not agree. As you can see I do not post as much as some. That must make me a low-talker.
I respect opinions too. If you go back 2 or 3 pages, you can clearly see that I got assaulted for having an opinion in this forum, and I was forced to back it up with facts and to point out the holes in a certain poster's *cough* knowledge *cough* that I was wrong. Once again, I didn't come looking for an argument. I can hold my own in one though. Even though I probably only have 1/2 as much time to make it back and see what other untruths have been told at my expense.
I know very well there is a huge difference between being intelligent and sounding it in forums. Facts matter, language irregardless. If you are a low talker that respects facts then I have more respect for you. I'd rather be a low talker as well.
The one having the extreme problem/s is you.
"No. BOTH are direct quotes from EIA.com. Both were cut and pasted and linked for anyone who cares to read it. Evidently you do not .
You really have issues that do not relate to me at all !! They really all are about YOURSELF. Indeed I have helped you.
You are also attributing quotes to me, that I did NOT say.
..."The more you attack me the more wrong you will be. I wouldn't bother, personally. Then again, this is for your own good. I doubt you'll be able to see it now (denial is funny that way) but some day, we can only hope....
..."I am not sure what you mean by high-talkers. My sense is that it was not a compliment. The high-talkers you are referring to actually provide a lot of interesting and stimulating information. We all read different material, have different experiences and have a varied educational background. It is not surprising that we can have different opinions or our facts do not agree. As you can see I do not post as much as some. That must make me a low-talker.
I respect opinions too. If you go back 2 or 3 pages, you can clearly see that I got assaulted for having an opinion in this forum, and I was forced to back it up with facts and to point out the holes in a certain poster's *cough* knowledge *cough* that I was wrong. Once again, I didn't come looking for an argument. I can hold my own in one though. Even though I probably only have 1/2 as much time to make it back and see what other untruths have been told at my expense.
I know very well there is a huge difference between being intelligent and sounding it in forums. Facts matter, language irregardless. If you are a low talker that respects facts then I have more respect for you. I'd rather be a low talker as well."...
Let's do an endless loop in your diatribes.
Your argument failed to prove I was wrong, but did try very hard, and it was a good effort. Thats worth something. Lets just agree to disagree.
You can't expect to attack my alias personally and end it with 'lets move on'. Doesn't work that way. You're not getting the last word in on psychology. Certainly not after that freakout. Wow.
The only reason you are freaking out is because you can't accept that others might think less of your fake online alias. Well in truth they probably think less of mine for being so policially incorrect, whether I am right or not. So your ego is safe for now.
I do have issues though. I don't really fit in with the Carspace crowd. But you are wrong yet again, it is because my alias has no ego. i.e. BigMcLargeHuge doesn't really care if it is popular.
And you need to stop being so self-centered. I was responding in part to avalon02wh. They asked me a question, and off-topic or not, they deserved an answer.
I'd be happy to get back on topic as soon as you can stop attacking my alias personally. You started saying I was wrong on post #5027. I respectfully requested you not sound so condescending. And on a post that had nothing to do with you, you replied with "from what I've experienced from him, he's prone to... blah blah..." Gossip? Seriously? Sorry, but I don't feel I deserve the crap you've been giving me in this forum. But I'm okay with it, because you need to sound intelligent in front of your friends to feed your ego. I gotcha
Panic? Freakout? WOW! Oh yes, hysterical! This entertainment is better than TV ! Too bad you take that attitude after not not citing your sources. I cited mine and you still mischaracterized. them. You can take all the credit for proving yourself incorrect! You fixate on two EIA.GOV quotes and attribute them to me and diatribe on about how I got THAT wrong? I know you have to appear cool to feed YOUR ego.
But I agree, we agree to disagree!
Who is attacking your alias? What is your alias? Are you trying to fake being paranoid? But as you would probably agree, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean someone is not out to get them!?
Reason is, I have you pegged. I was hoping you'd come to terms with your denial, and stop re-focusing your faults on BigMcLargeHuge, but really I predicted your response.
I said "you're still wrong, my issue is that BigMcLargeHuge has no ego". You actually hadn't said that yet, but I knew you couldn't resist trying to flip it back on me. So I actually said you were wrong about something before you even did it, and hit it right on the head. Because, you see, egocentrical people are most offended by the truth. Guaranteed. I am actually 1 post AHEAD of you now. I already know what your reaction is going to be.
Because of egos, you aren't allowed to call a dumb person dumb, or a crazy person crazy, or a selfish person selfish. Because they'll get offended, and its not politically correct to offend people. Its a strange society we live in. I don't quite understand it. You should be able to just tell people things about themselves in order to help cure them of thier vices. Thats my issue. Brutally honest.
The fact that you're freaking out when I say you're wrong, leads me to believe I'm on to something. Likewise with your denial, your ego, your self-centeredness. I'm not offended by those things because I know they are not true about my alias. And an alias is a second identity. BigMcLargeHuge is my alias, because its not a person. Therefore I don't take anything personally. Its really wierd how some people do on these forums.
Seriously, the only way you're ever going to be able to calm down is to stop being on the offensive. It boils your blood, but you have to remember that its just a forum, that ruking1 doesn't really exist, that its not a real person, its your alias and it doesn't matter. Your entire self should not be represented online.
Anyone else still out there? It would be a shame if this long diesel thread had to die a terrible death because of one panick attack.
$4.05 for diesel locally, with 87 octane available for under $3.
After 250k miles or so driving diesel VWs, I doubt I'll buy another diesel vehicle any year soon. I'd look at hybrid gassers to maximize fuel economy instead. Even if the gas vs diesel price gap shrinks this summer, it's likely to go back to 30% next winter.
It's not looking good for diesel cars in USA!
Luxury segment. Cars that you could feasibly live without, but you still want them anyway.
It might allow some to drive sporty, say in a BMW 335d, and not have to feel guilty about being environmentally unfriendly. They are certainly the way to go for large SUVs, full-size autos. I hate the fact that they even offer 7-series BMWs and Audi A8s without diesels. Those are real gas-guzzlers. They need to be made into fuel- sippers.
They'll never fully replace gasoline, but they will exist in this country. For all the 50-80K luxury vehicles weighing in at 4-5K pounds, its a better option, and its likely to catch on.
quote-In his speech at the National Press Club, Jacoby said he believes Volkswagen is well positioned to take advantage of an anticipated increase in demand for cars with diesel engines. He cited a J.D. Power study predicting the diesel car market will increase from 3 percent to 7 percent of the U.S. passenger vehicle market by 2012 as consumers look for better fuel economy and reduced emissions and automakers look to comply with laws mandating more fuel-efficient fleets.
"Diesel is back," said Jacoby, who noted Volkswagen's traditional strength in the diesel car market. "We see clean diesel at a tipping point."-end
Volkswagen US chief outlines plans, sees opportunities in diesel
$4 Dollar gasoline will arrive shortly.
The only one "attacking your alias" whatever that means is YOU.
Actually you are light years ahead in this ..."look stupid"... department. I hope this isn't what you mean about characteristics of your alias? . I take it your quote means you are almost paranoid about having the last word. So after your last word:
Let's get back on the topic: Diesel in the News.
VW's new diesel-powered hybrid gets great mileage - better than Toyota's top-selling hybrid. Its price-tag is another story.
Are you finished with your tantrum yet? If you want to move on, move on and stop editing your post after publishing it to get more insults in.
From moparbad's article:
Technology costs will come down over time, though, points out VW's Price. "The costs of all technologies come down with acceptance," he said.
If a diesel hybrid is a hit in Europe, and VW were to ramp up production, that could bring down the per-unit costs, he said. And that could open the door to selling such a car in the United States.
By that time, U.S. consumers should be familiar with VW's - and other companies' - new diesels, said Price.
It appears Price is theorizing that the purchase price of a diesel car will come down the more they sell.
These are cut and paste's from the EIA sites:
One barrel of crude oil, when refined, produces about 20 gallons of finished motor gasoline, and 7 gallons of diesel, as well as other petroleum products. Most of the petroleum products are used to produce energy.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html#Howused
A barrel of oil yields these refined products (percent of barrel):
47% gasoline for use in automobiles
23% heating oil and diesel fuel
18% other products, which includes petrochemical feedstock—products derived from petroleum principally for the manufacturing of chemicals, synthetic rubber and plastics
10% jet fuel
4% propane
3% asphalt
(Percentages equal more than 100 because of an approximately 5% processing gain from refining.)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp#gallons_per_barrel
Crude oil is separated into fractions by fractional distillation. The fractions at the top of the fractionating column have lower boiling points than the fractions at the bottom. The heavy bottom fractions are often cracked into lighter, more useful products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refineries
The last one is from WIkipedia, talking about the refining process. Fractional distillation seperates the parts of the crude oil by boiling point, that cannot be re-worked by chemistry.
Just a tidbit of information. The crude from Iran is so heavy and laden with sulfur that it brings a much lower price. Just like one of the fields in the Arctic has oil so high in H2S that all the piping is stainless steel. You have to have an H2S detector when you enter the field. It is much too complex for this thread to sort out.
I would still buy a diesel vehicle with the higher price of fuel. I think it will help the market. There will not be the gouging by dealers to sell the diesel cars. Unless diesel becomes 30% higher it is a better option.