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
On your test drives how did the noise level at 75 MPH compare between the Jetta & Prius?
All the politicians see are farm belt votes. That is what our government has become. They are either bought by the lobbyists or pick a position they feel will get them the most votes. Nothing to do with what it good for America and her people.
By contrast biodiesel is made from less invasive crops such as soybeans or rape. Corn takes 5 times as much chemical to produce as soybeans. Biodiesel does not have the mega corporations like ADM pushing it and buying votes in Congress. It is more of a local farm cooperative product. Also not forced on to an unwilling constituency as ethanol is.
PS
One of the few times I agree with Feinstein
The Jetta TDI wagon at 65 mph was significantly quieter with much less noise intrusion from tires, road or engine. Overall, I found the Jetta more pleasant underway than the Prius. When sitting a light, the TDI had more vibration from the engine than I like. I had an Isuzu I-Mark diesel 24 years ago and at idle was much smoother and quieter than the TDI. I presently drive a Jeep Liberty CRD and the engine is smoother than the TDI, but is a bit noisier.
Use of hybrids does NOTHING to change the fuel source. More importantly it does absolutely nothing to shift the logistics.
On the other hand, I really would have NO reality based objection IF unleaded regular could be refined from coal for example, and of course with less upstream resources than say unleaded regular is now refined from a barrel of light sweet crude. Bottom line: My reality based objection is diesel gets app 37% better fuel mileage than unleaded regular. As most folks know, the USA is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. Conservative estimates has over 300 years of coal reserves.
#2 diesel can also be refined from coal as well as natural gas, LNG, and can be grown as Gagrice said from soybeans rapeseed etc, etc, etc.: with of course less upstream resources.
It surely seems better from geopolitical, economic, yada, yada, perspectives to develop and refine and buy energy resources from stable regions (i.e., West Virgina) and from people that actually LIKE us rather than from an unstable region, "unstable" governments and people that are dedicated to the overthrow and happy to see our civilization DIE.
Discussed on other Edmund blogs, I think you might see a shift from corn-based ethanol over time. Switchgrass and sugar can are two notable products that produce more ethanol/unit than corn while not crowding out other domestic corn uses. In the past decade, due to demand and government support, the ADM cartel actually has less of an influence on the ethanol industry due to the tremendous demand and local farmer cooperative making the investment. If you would like to read fairly long report on this, go to a study commissioned by the state of Indiana.
As to the pollution factor, many will argue that the COx gases are balanced by the carbon trapped by the crops. While true at face value, this does not help LA which will always be an energy importer...unless they would like to bulldoze Hollywood to plant switchgrass and corn. :shades:
Thanks gagrice, we may not agree but you at least made me think.
Boilermaker2
BTW Ethanol in its pure form is 100%, 200 proof hooch. In a time before Big Texas Oil interests (long before Saudi interests) guess which vehicle was designed to run on hooch or dino juice? If you were thinking Henry Ford and his Model T you would be correct. There was a time before prohibition and Texas oil where manufactures knew that fuel stations were rair in rural america where, percentage-wise, a lot of us still live. They also knew that a still was fairly easy to construct and juice/fuel/party could be made locally on the farm.
And naysayers claim history doesn't repeat itself...
They also continue to pump crude oil out (in the middle of a suburbian ciy)in a McDonald's parking lot in Fresno/Bakersfield, CA, also!!
Sad fact. I lived there off and on from 1943 to 1958. I saw the demise of one of the finest agricultural communities in America. They "Paved paradise and put in a parking lot".
I'm not familiar with switchgrass. I do know most of our sugar cane land is being split up and sold in 10-20 acre parcels in Hawaii. Much of it being planted with mac nut trees. Sugar cane has it's own downside. Burning of the fields is quite a polluter in itself.
I am just gun shy on the ethanol issue. We tend to jump in with both feet then find we are in a bigger mess than before. MTBE being a prime example.
biodiesel from palm oil in Africa and Indonesia is a prime example. It looks good on the surface. That is until mega corporations get involved and wipe out entire eco systems to plant fuel crops. I am not a bleeding environmentalist. But I think we need to look at the big picture on many of these so-called perfect alternatives.
Though gasoline can be refined from coal as well, just not as cheaply as diesel can.
Yet, with the current prices for a barrel of oil (which allows for a very profitable coal-diesel/gasoline conversion), do we see any US companies trying to open a coal gasification facility? (the facility to convert coal)
Nope!
By their actions, it seems US oil companies have no clue how the free market works... which is why you see BP, Fina, and now Lukoil setting up shop in the US.
:mad:
OBVIOUSLY! Otherwise you'd be far more receptive to ethanol.
Switchgrass is the wild grass that grows along the side of highways and in fields that are left to rest. It is natural, found commonly in the wild, requiring no chemicals whatsoever to grow. It's the stuff animals feed on.
So it is an excellent choice for making ethanol with.
JOHN
The point that I was making was that at the turn of the last century, most, if not all (cannot prove the all) gasoline motors could use ethanol. We moved away from that technology due to the inexpensive (and government encouraged) fossil fuels. Now, because petrol products are expensive (in our eyes) we moving back ethanol with government encouragement.
Fascinating, don't you think?
I made sure that I did not have the radio on during the test drives. Since the test drives were conducted over a period of days, it would be hard to say which one was quieter. They were both nicely hushed at 75 and when I was speaking to my passenger (no salesman came) I spoke at a normal tone and did not have to raise my voice. The Jetta is obviously more fun to drive, but this is a commuter car, not a weekend canyon carver. I strongly recommend the Jetta to anyone in the market for a nice mid sized sedan/wagon. Back seat is tight which was not that important to me, but to others it might be. Take delivery on the Prius next week.
So far my objection is not the alternative fuel per se (i.e., ethanol) but the government sanctioned "burning " of ethanol without any type of pollution device. ZIP NADA. Also it is much more costly. So indeed if the government is saying BEHAVIORALLY that ethanol is non pollutive then lets burn 100% ethanol and don't charge any taxation due to the fact (from the government sanctioned behavior) it is not damaging the public good. Folks have been assassinated for proposing far far far less.
I have in earlier posts mentioned that diesel can be processed from waste streams at app 45 cents gal. As you well know the unleaded regular catalytic converters do NOTHING to abate ethanol emissions.
I beg to differ but I will play along. For a small ethanol plant it takes no less than $80 million. A mega plant takes $.25 billion. And that's just the up-front cost. The technology and plant building you are talking about, to be profitable, is well within if not exceeding this range. In addition, you would have to convince the local population that building a coal plant that will produce fuel in their backyard is a good thing. On its own merits, this would be tough for even me to convince my own parents whom I've never seen either one hug a tree.
Do this in the face of a misinformed (or simply unwilling to learn a complex issue) press, ill-intentioned environmentalist (not all are bad) and naysaying do gooders? Last but not least, it will cost over a million large to just produce the documentation to prove to the State and Federal EPA that you are not causing harm. Depending on local laws, you will also have to go in front of the local zoning board. The permitting and studies alone will take 5years (my guess) before you can even start pouring concrete and then you will have to do test firings after the concrete is poured. I wish you well, my friend.
This Week in Petroleum
Not quite so fast there. That only addresses substituting Switchgrass for corn, which we all know is not a eco friendly crop. It also does not address the pollution caused by manufacturing or when used in the summer months emissions. It does not make it any easier to get the ethanol to the coast before it evaporates. And last but not least, it does not justify adding 10% ethanol and losing up to 10% in gas mileage.
By the way how much Switchgrass is being processed into ethanol in the USA? It does look promising.
I think like biodiesel it has a place. Not a forced blanket policy by the EPA to satisfy the midwest's Senators.
"Ethanol is blended with petrofuels to increase combustion and decrease pollutants. The problem is, most ethanol now in use is made from corn, and the total energy output/input ratio is about 1.2. This means the net energy gain from corn ethanol is about 21 percent. The energy output/input ratio for switchgrass is estimated at 4.4, representing a net energy gain of 334 percent."
http://www.westbioenergy.org/july98/0798_01.htm
Winter causes large losses for all types of vehicles using all types of fuels. Cold causes efficiency drops, as well as less favorable traffic which makes efficiency worse. Warm up times are longer too, even in MILD winters.
I have been using E10 all year long since the 90's. The MPG drop is small. The documents state 3.4%, and my data matches that.
All this false information being spread about ethanol has got to stop. The fear that hybrids have yet another advantage is clearly freaking out the diesel supporters. Remember, a "full" hybrid supporters the ability to use electricity via a plus. That electricity can come from quite a variety of sources.
JOHN
It is you that is advocating the pepetuating the myths about ethanol. Let me put it more clearly since you seem to have missed the point. If I put in unleaded regular fuel with NO ethanol during the same time period, I would not have experienced a 20% LESS fuel mileage.
I know for a fact that is not true. But nonetheless, I would like to see this apparent data you have that proves your wild claim.
I think you are confused with E85.
JOHN
If what you say about ethanol is true. Why are the most liberal of CA politicians so adamantly against ethanol?
The fear that hybrids have yet another advantage is clearly freaking out the diesel supporters.
What has it got to do with hybrids? All gas cars run on it. More Ford and GM vehicles are set up for E85 than any of the Japanese vehicles. It has to do with it being a political boondoggle. If you want to use E10- E85 in your vehicle I say go ahead. I don't like it shoved down my throat when it is known to have adverse affects. You need to face reality. Ethanol is a Midwest scam that is being forced onto the whole country. It has nothing at all to do with hybrid vs diesel. Other than it pushed me toward buying a diesel car and Motor Home.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"The fear that hybrids have yet another advantage is clearly freaking out the diesel supporters. "
It is truly interesting how you accuse "diesel suppoters" of doing something that in fact YOU are doing (freaking out)!.
I am just reporting what is happening to me. I will let the deciding be done by those that need to decide.
On another topic, I was reading car and driver today and saw an article on a nice diesel from BWM. It is mid 20's and scoots to 60 in 7.1 seconds! Great performance and THEY got 27 MPG. I hope they import that puppy here. Not enough diesels to choose from. I was hoping the TDI would be smoother, but further refinement should eliminate that harshness.
1.) E10 in a former life (80's flashback, Carter out, Reagan in, big hair and KISS) was called gasahol
2.) Pure ethanol, when compared to pure gasoline, has less engine per gallon. Period. This cannot be refuted by anyone. HOWEVER, pure ethanol has a much higher octane (somewhere around 110). I think that E85 has somewhere around 104 octane (not looking it up unless I have to :shades: ). Those crazy Swedes developed an engine that harnessed this Octane reality to increase the combustion efficiency. They even got an award this year from Popular Science, Best of What's New Award. What burns me is that GM owns Saab. Wouldn't you like this technology on the SUV's and Truck were a small increase in efficiency would reduce our dependence even less.
3.) Ethanol is not Hydrogen where the combustion process gives us water. In addition, the refinery process also gives us emissions which must be controlled. I wonder if the good Senator was threatened by the possibility of these plants spring up in CA with an environmental twist. Can anyone say NIMBY (not in my back yard)? Maybe she has ties to big oil?
4.) The technology is changing SO fast that the pundits and economists cannot keep up with it. I know this at a personal level. Designer bugs will soon be doing what hazardous chemicals and boilers used to do (actually some of that is already taking place.
5.) If you dig deep enough, you will find a guy at Cornell that says that the production of ethanol is a net energy loser. While close to parity, it is a net energy gain under any of the current methods. In addition, this country needs liquid energy. If it takes coal to fire the furnace to make the ethanol, fine. If it takes coal to extract the fuels from, fine. The point is that Hondas and Ford don't run on coal, so the Cornell argument, while theoretically defensible at one time, falls apart on several merits (in both practicality and current methodologies).
6.) E85 is used instead of E100 because you know that some fool would drink it. That is the main reason. Otherwise, they would have to add a poison or taste inhibitor. Blending it with 15% gas keeps them from being evil alchi killers on 60 minutes.
I could go on but I hope this helps to clear up the mess I made. Like I said earlier, sorry.
Its not quite there yet but it is REAL close...kinda like what you thought about Jeep CRD announcement two years ago
So hears the scenario, our diesel is made from leftover food waste and our gas is made from untilled farm fields which aren't eroding. Sounds like Jules Vern but it may be obtainable.
Cheers,
Boilermaker2
Yes.
But consider that US oil companies don't have to build their refineries in the US...
Build a couple in Canada... or on the US/Mexican border... or in Bermuda (which is far enough from the Caribbean to avoid alot of the hurricanes.)
They could hire lobbyists... grease a few congressmen's palms, etc, etc.
---
My post was originally about coal gasification plants, though; not refineries. Although, if you wanted to make gasoline from the coal, you would need to add a refinery, otherwise you'd only end up with diesel.
When will Abramson be able to get back in business? He could do a good job lobbying for refinery placement.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That is a ridiculous statement.
Hybrid diesels are the next step in efficiency. Diesel and hybrid are not mutually exclusive.
There are some on this forum that have a better handle on this than me and I hope they provide some thought on this.
Who wins? Who looses?
The winners
1. The oil companies. They are going to get there dollar no matter what.
2. The auto makers smart enough to make the move after clean diesel is available
3. The general public and the green with less dependency, less consumption and less pollution.
4. The car buyer with more miles per dollar spent on fuel.
The losers
1. The Saudis. Still making billions, just not as much.
2. The auto makers that did not provide high mileage diesels. My guess is GM and Ford.
Why would an auto manufacturer not provide a diesel?
Any thoughts?
I can use up to B20 (engine has been tested at this level) which is 2X E10 and no reduction in fuel economy.
Do you buy groceries at the store. How do you think they get there.
Heck, how do you think gasolein (this is the correct spelling) get to the gas stations.