Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Will ethanol E85 catch on in the US? Will we Live Green and Go Yellow?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It should come as no surprise that perhaps the single largest consumers of oil are our cars and trucks. And, make no mistake, the "addicted to oil" comments did suggest the single largest component of the Advanced Energy Initiative would be expenditures for hydrogen fuel cells for our cars and additional spending on high-tech batteries for hybrid vehicles and research and development of additional ways to make ethanol (and other renewable fuels) from agricultural waste and even switch grass.
All of these suggestions are certainly strategic and valuable in the long-run; but, they virtually ignore technologies already available that could provide almost immediate fuel and financial savings. Yet, instead of discussing solutions that are almost immediately available today, here comes the inevitable follow-on – the "selling" – from some of our representatives in Congress.
Electronic and regular mail campaigns like the following from Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (representing Ohio's second district) are in full swing. According to the Congresswoman:
“The rising cost of gasoline, the desire for energy security, and an interest in a cleaner environment are enabling ethanol to emerge as a leading candidate to replace gasoline as the fuel of choice for motorists.
U.S. consumption of ethanol last year reached 4 billion gallons, which is double the amount sold in the year 2000. In an effort to maintain this tremendous pace of growth, The Energy Policy Act, signed on August 8, 2005, establishes minimum requirements for the amount of renewable fuel that must be included in gasoline.
Today, ethanol is used mostly as a gasoline additive. You will often find that the gasoline you purchase is ten percent ethanol in an effort to cut pollution, boost octane, and extend gasoline supplies. But its use is beginning to expand. A new blend of fuel, known as E85, combines 85% ethanol with 15% gasoline.
Some retailers around the country are pricing E85 at nearly $1.00 less per gallon than gasoline. E85 can only be used in designated Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV). More than 6 million of these FFV vehicles are on the road today. The major car manufacturers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Daimler Chrysler, are producing them in greater abundance. Ford has produced 1.5 million already, and will make 250,000 FFV's this year. General Motors claims a similar number on the road, and has launched a national advertising campaign to market their FFV fleet. Daimler Chrysler is expanding production, as well. . . .
The first retail location in Cincinnati is slated to open this month. But as the price of gasoline rises and demand for ethanol grows, more and more stations will offer E85. Bipartisan legislation before Congress will provide further incentives for stations to offer the new fuel.
E85 presents a positive opportunity for our economy and for the American farmer. New and expanding markets that create additional demand for corn and other crops will invigorate farm production. That would mean more money pumped into our American economy and less money going to OPEC.
For security and economic reasons, our nation needs to develop a fuel system that can become independent of OPEC. The cost of gasoline continues to increase and so does the burden that it places on family budgets. Ethanol will soon provide both price relief and the opportunity to buy American with every trip to the pump. It will also enable us to reduce our dependence to an increasingly dangerous region of the world."
It is difficult to find nits to pick with the Congresswoman's newsletter – on face value, at least. The addition of a retail E85 "gas station" in Cincinnati will bring the total number of so-called Flex Fuel stations in Ohio to approximately 10. Also true is bipartisan legislation will provide "incentives" for retail fueling stations to offer E85 – but perhaps a more precise turn of a phrase would have been Congress will provide further mandates for stations to offer the new fuel.
It is not like the Energy Policy Act of 2005 puts forth "suggestions” – retail stations will be selling ethanol "gas" and you will be putting it into your tank.
The Act mandates it – it is the law.
Also largely accurate is the statement "some retailers around the country are pricing E85 at nearly $1.00 less per gallon than gasoline." But, the reason that some retailers are charging less for E85 than for E10 (what we generally consider "conventional gasoline") is that E85 is subsidized – by your tax dollars. The subsidy is in the form of a tax credit of 51¢ per gallon. No wonder "some" retailers have been able to price E85 less than gasoline. Yet, it is not difficult to imagine what will happen to the price once it is no longer subsidized: it will go up.
According to reports compiled by Minnesota Public Radio:
"Ethanol and petroleum interests have waged a bitter campaign against each other for years. It's King Corn versus Big Oil. One sore spot is government subsidies for ethanol. John Hofland is Minnesota Communications Manager for Flint Hills Resources, which owns the Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount.
‘The concern is, what role is the subsidy playing in artificially dropping the price," says Hofland. "We just prefer competitive and marketplace reasons for a certain price being what it is.'"
It should come as no surprise that all fuel prices are subject to the laws of supply and demand. Eventually, when the ethanol subsidies fade, the market will determine the consumer’s cost at the pump.
Even with subsidies, ethanol has some recent history of being as susceptible to shortages and price fluctuations as gasoline. For instance, during the October, 2005, post-Katrina fuel shortages, the price of a gallon of ethanol rose to reach parity with gasoline – and remember that included a government subsidy of over 50¢ per gallon. By March of 2006, due to rules requiring gasoline reformulation, demand for ethanol again had increased and the price pressure that followed drove ethanol’s price over 10¢ per gallon higher than gasoline – again, this figure includes the subsidy’s benefit.
Pt 1 end
Simply put, this means an SUV that gets 13 MPG on gasoline will achieve only 10 MPG on ethanol. Comparing a gallon of “gasoline” (90% gasoline 10% ethanol – i.e., E10) at $3.00, to a similarly priced gallon of “ethanol” (85% ethanol 15% gasoline – i.e., E85), it is clear that it will take about $3.90 worth of E85 to travel the same distance as you can with $3.00 worth of E10. Of course, without the subsidy it would take some $4.40+ worth of E85 to travel the same distance as with $3.00 worth of E10 – almost a 50% cost penalty for using ethanol.
But, on the plus side, automakers generally do not charge any more for Flex Fuel Vehicles than for traditional gasoline only vehicles. It is, however, uncertain if this pricing policy will continue in the face of almost a certain increase in demand for FFV’s due to the Energy Policy act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 may have the unintended consequence of changing not only the formulation and raising the cost of fuel but also raising the cost of the vehicles that use it.
Not only are our elected representatives touting ethanol, rosy predictions and promises abound from nearly every media outlet. The claims reported suggest that ethanol will greatly extend finite fossil fuel supplies, cut dependence on foreign oil sources, reduce gas price fluctuations, clean up the air, essentially help prevent Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth,” and the giddiest of ethanol’s proponents even suggest corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) numbers will actually improve. This latter claim is especially misleading considering the fact that ethanol actually reduces a vehicle’s miles per gallon by nearly a third.
The CAFE claim, however, is based on a technicality – only the petroleum component of the fuel is used to measure average fuel economy, and with E85, only 15% of the fuel is actually made up of “gasoline.”
Several studies, including one from the Department of Energy, conclude, for example, that E85 reduces CO2 by only about 4% – perhaps indicating our use of E85 has a very slim chance, if any, of meaningfully impacting global warming. Other studies from Berkley and the Washington, DC based Diesel Technology Forum indicate a relatively small reduction in greenhouse gasses can be attributed to the use of ethanol (especially when compared with other available fuels.)
Moreover, even seemingly ethanol-sympathetic views from the editors of magazines like Popular Mechanics (PM) (April, 2006) conclude the outlook for E85 is merely, “Hopeful–to a point.”
Popular Mechanics continues:
“According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 95 ethanol refineries produced more than 4.3 billion gal. of ethanol in 2005. An additional 40 new or expanded refineries slated to come on line in the next 18 months will increase that to 6.3 billion gal. That sounds like a lot – and it is – but it represents just over 3 percent of our annual consumption of more than 200 billion gal. of gasoline and diesel.
One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal. of petroleum products, American farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71 percent of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland, to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence–unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports.
Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter.” – “Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels,” Popular Mechanics, April 2006
Perhaps both the President and Congress view the current E85 outlook as more of a “case for” rather than a “case against.” Perhaps they view the current information as ambiguous but still worth pursuing despite the economic and ecological information that suggests that E85 is an expensive but somewhat beneficial solution.
The President’s State of the Union Speech and newsletters like the one from Congresswoman Schmidt do, at least, indicate recognition of our energy problem. Moreover, the suggestions that we pursue new and renewable energy sources and seek to stretch our supplies of fossil fuels are laudable and necessary steps.
However, thus far, our government is, apparently, ignoring or at least de-emphasizing currently available, mature, and immediately adoptable lower-cost, immediate benefit technologies.
For example, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality, as quoted in the February 20, 2006, issue of Business Week:
“The U.S. could save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day – roughly the amount it imports from Saudi Arabia – if a third of U.S. vehicles ran on diesel.”
Although, Oge did not differentiate between petroleum based diesel and biodiesel, in this remark, current diesel engine technology “sees” biodiesel and petroleum based clean diesel as equivalent fuels. This means that a diesel engine performs the same on either kind of diesel – of course the strategic draw for biodiesel is that, like ethanol, it is renewable.
Furthermore, Popular Mechanics, again in the April, 2006, issue says the outlook for biodiesel is:
“Good. Biodiesel has a viable future as a major fuel for transportation. According to the National Biodiesel Board, production of biodiesel in 2004 was about 25 million gal., tripling to more than 75 million gal. in 2005.
Like E85, biodiesel began with farm co-ops and local entrepreneurs. High fuel prices affect farmers, too, and here was an opportunity to make money from otherwise fallow farmland. Country singer Willie Nelson, in partnership with several Dallas businessmen, has lent his name to Bio-Willie, a brand of B20 [biodiesel] marketed mainly to long-haul truck drivers in California, Texas, the South and the Midwest.”
Pt 2 end
Often, information pertaining to more realistic and immediately adoptable approaches to our energy problems is buried within our cable and network newscasts and off the front pages of the leading print media. For example, the May 29, 2006, issue of the New York Times had an article that referred to diesel as “A 'Savior' In U.S. Energy Crisis.”
In the article, reporter Matthew Wald offers up:
“[with diesel] there are more miles per gallon – 20 percent to 40 percent more [than gasoline].”
The improvement in mileage with diesel is due to the energy content of diesel versus gasoline. Diesel has over 10% more energy per drop than gasoline. Moreover, diesel engines get more out of every drop of diesel because they compress the diesel/air mixture much more than a gasoline engine.
Simply put, diesel fuel contains more energy and diesel engines are more effective and efficient at getting that energy out.
Diesel, for these two reasons, addresses our needs to stretch our supplies of petroleum based fuels, at least for the near to mid-term. Furthermore, another factor in diesel’s favor is there are several sources for diesel that have nothing to do with “oil.” Diesel can be derived not only from oil, but also from coal and biomass, e.g., soybeans and spent cooking oil, both renewable sources.
Somewhat in contradiction to the President’s State of the Union speech, the EPA’s Margo Oge, in the Times article, says since improvements to meet diesel tailpipe emission standards are close. . .efficiency gains were ''more real for our society than looking at a fuel cell,'' which, many experts believe is many years into the future. Of course, too, we can compare the approach taken in Europe with respect to diesel to our own.
The United States and Europe are taking very different approaches to the use of clean diesel technology to improve fuel economy in passenger cars and light-duty trucks, according to a report released by the Washington, DC based Diesel Technology Forum (DTF). According to Allen Schaeffer, DTF’s executive director:
"We can learn a great deal here in the US from the European experience with clean automotive diesels, and this report profiles the experiences and policies that have led to these successes."
The contrast in diesel usage between the U.S. and Europe is stark. In Europe one of every three new cars sold today is powered by clean diesel technology and in the premium and luxury categories, over 70 percent are clean diesels. But in the US – light-duty diesels account for only about 0.26 percent of all new cars sold, with only slightly higher figures in the light-duty truck markets.
DTF’s Schaeffer continues:
"What we've found is that the Europeans are able to reap the rewards of clean diesel technology – efficiency and environmental benefits – while the US has mostly regulatory roadblocks. It's completely understandable why clean diesel technology has such a high acceptance in Europe – the engines provide more power, are more fuel efficient, are more durable, are extremely responsive with low-end torque, and have 30-60 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions."
The case, today, favors diesel over ethanol both from a cost perspective and from the perspective that using ethanol won't matter much, because the possibility of any significant reduction in the total amount of oil used if we substitute fuel derived from corn is tiny, single-digit tiny.
Further, as several studies, including “The Great Alternative Fuel Rally” sponsored by Popular Mechanics have shown, the number of gallons required to drive an economy car equipped with a gasoline engine from New York to California would be about 90 - 100 gallons. If the average price of gasoline was $3.00 the cost would be about $300.00. To drive the same distance with a similar FFV using E85 would cost about $450.00. The main reason is that E85 "gasoline" will not "go as far" as conventional "gasoline.” Moreover, without subsidies, ethanol is likely to be more expensive than gasoline for some time to come.
At this point, the only way to make E85 attractive is to subsidize it with taxpayer’s money. Some taxpayers feel we should not subsidize E85. That is, it should be viable without spending our tax dollars – period. If it is not, focus on other alternatives, such as clean diesel, until E85 becomes viable economically and environmentally.
Unlike E85:
Clean Diesel offers a viable alternative now
Clean Diesel is a mature technology
Clean Diesel cars are powerful, efficient and clean.
A diesel fueled car compared to a virtually identical gasoline fueled car will
Achieve better acceleration
Retain identical top speed capabilities
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Achieve an MPG increase between 20 – 40%
Use a fuel that typically costs less than premium grade gasoline.
Currently, in Europe, according to auto manufacturer’s on-line price guides, a gasoline powered car costs about $1,000 more than the same car if equipped with a comparable diesel powerplant. We need this alternative, now.
The question for our representatives is why not actively pursue the widespread adoption of a fuel source that is proven, already here – for about a century – and one that could have an immediate positive outcome for America and her “addiction” to oil?
Write your elected representative and express your wishes.
Better still, vote with your dollars the next time you are in the market for a new vehicle.
Yes it is and that is my biggest gripe. I am not as upset about the corn subsidies, heck we have paid tobacco farmers huge subsidies for years. It is forcing all the states to oxygenate their gas with ethanol. This is a huge burden to states that do not have a still and a crop that can be made readily into ethanol. Even if CA were to build processing facilities the cost to get corn to CA is very high. If it is a viable alternative it will stand on its own. If not if will fail and we look for other alternatives.
I put it on a level of saying goats milk is better for us than cows milk. So as of May 1st we all have to drink a mixture of goats milk with cows milk. And the government will pick up the difference in cost.
Welcome to the thread and thanks for the additional input.
Very well stated. I did write my Senators and Congressman. Only one Senator Ted Stevens responded. It was somewhat of a form letter saying they are looking at different fuel alternatives. I guess it has a lot to do with which lobbyist contributes the most to the old campaign war chest.
I agree with your assessment, Diesel offers an immediate 25% reduction in fossil fuel usage for any given size vehicle. All E85 does is make the oil companies rich and the mega farmers rich and our fuel costs go up. You still need diesel to run the tractors and equipment associated with farming. You need natural gas or coal for fertilizer and processing.
The only problem with diesel right now is that no European or USA auto company can make an engine that is legal here in the United States. Jeep and VW have killed off their now orphan diesels. How many years must we wait for technology to catch up...five...ten...fiveteen? Europe has used diesels because of the tremendous price difference between diesel and gasoline fuels, mostly that diesel prices had a very small tax while gasoline is taxed to the hilt. Of course Europe does not have the large amounts of distances to cover and their auto needs are totally different from ours. There may be some similarities but the auto business is a lot different.
Europe puts the tiny diesel autos on their roads where we would not even allow such tiny cars on the road just from a safety perspective alone. Europe is Europe and the USA is the USA. Biodiesel also has many problems right now in obtaining the current raw materials used to make Biodiesel. Biodiesel uses soybeans a lot and the Biodiesel plant managers are scrambling to locate a readily available supply of soybeans right now. If corn is in short supply then soybeans are in even shorter supply. In addition, Canola oil is being used for biodiesel manufacturing in Washington state and will be available as long as Indonesia supplies what we need.
Fri, June 16, 2006
By DANIELA SIMUNAC, FREE PRESS REPORTER
AYLMER -- An $87-million ethanol plant will soon sprout here, near a doomed tobacco plant, helping to churn out an environmentally friendly fuel.
The Ontario government is dishing out $32.5 million to help with construction costs of three new ethanol plants, including one here and others in Hensall and Cornwall.
The new plants, which will turn corn into fuel, are expected to create 400 permanent jobs, Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky said in Aylmer yesterday.
"This is good news for rural economies, it is good news for farmers, it is good news for the environment," she said.
The new facilities will boost to five the number of ethanol plants in Ontario. Others are already operating in Chatham and Collingwood.
For Aylmer, whose Imperial Tobacco factory is expected to close in about a year, yesterday's announcement was a welcome shot in the arm.
"It gives the community something to get excited about," said Tom Cox, chairperson of the Integrated Grain Processors Co-operative, which will operate the Aylmer plant.
"We've had a great reception in Aylmer, largely because the community has lost Imperial Tobacco," he said.
Construction of the plant is expected to begin later this year and to take 14 months.
Gerry Vanderwist, a grain farmer who was at yesterday's announcement, welcomed the new investment, saying profits can't help but trickle down to corn producers in the area.
Some corn producers, angry about cheaper U.S. imports flooding the market, have complained in the past about ethanol producers, including a Chatham plant, using too much U.S. corn and not enough of the Ontario crop.
While Ontario ethanol plants aren't required to buy Ontario corn, Dombrowsky said she doesn't foresee a problem because two of the five successful applicants for provincial grants are industry co-operatives.
"I would expect that they are going to look for ways to include members of their community when purchasing their feedstock."
By 2007, all gasoline sold in Ontario will be required to contain an average of five per cent ethanol.
Added to gas, ethanol helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in cleaner air and reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
Ethanol has become a growth industry in North America.
Besides the Ontario plants, 97 are operating in the U.S. and another 33 are under construction there.
The co-operative behind the Aylmer venture is made up of farmers, grain elevators, community members and local businesses looking for ways to make up for losses in the agriculture industry.
PLANT BY THE NUMBERS
Cost: $87 million
Corn: Will use 15 million bushels to produce about 150 million litres of ethanol a year
Jobs: Will create about 150 construction jobs and 35-40 jobs at the finished plant
The main problem for diesel (of any type) is that Americans don't want cars that use it. You could drop 100 million diesel cars into US dealerships today, and virtually all of them would rust on the lot. We prefer gas cars, so we buy them, and we don't buy diesel.
Technology only becomes useful if people actually want to use it. And if you follow the lead from abroad, you may just have to increase gas taxes so that diesel fuel becomes cheaper than gas and it acquires a pricing advantage here that it currently doesn't have.
No one here has yet to provide a plan about how you would get consumers to increase their purchase of diesel cars. If you really think that the federal government is willing to slap a $1 per gallon tax on gas, or provide similar subsidies to diesel so that diesel gains a cost advantage, then I'd like to know how that is, as I don't see who in Washington would be turning that into law anytime soon.
Your statement, unfortunately (for all of us) is probably true. The reason is the huge lack of emphasis on "how much better it could be" if we but knew what a diesel car could do for us -- both selfishly and selflessly.
I just discovered this thread, but I have be arguing or at least presenting the thought that adoption of technologies, among other things, is a trickle down effect. Were our Lux cars offered in diesel form, the near lux and so on down the line cars would follow.
A poster on the LPS board made some mention about how if we adopted diesels the performance from 0-60 mph would suffer, seriously suffer. The facts from the manufacturer's web sites belies this notion.
Here we go:
Audi, in the US, for example, markets ONLY two versions of the A6 -- 1 V6 and 1 V8 both with gasoline engines, both requiring, in fact, premium grade gasoline.
The A6, outside of the US is offered with many engines - 4's, 6's 8's [soon even a V10, which will be a US offering too] in gasoline and of course in diesel versions (although as of TODAY, the A6 with the 4.2 V8 TDI is not offered, there is no under-hood space constraint one would imagine to offering this powerplant.)
Apples to apples, then, the top o' the line A6 V6 gasoline engine is called a 3.2 and the top model V6 TDI is called a 3.0 (and there is a 2.7TDI too, and so on down the line in both gas and diesel variants.)
Audi publishes 0-100KPH times (~0-62MPH) of:
o 3.2 V6 = 0-100 kph in 7.1 seconds (gasoline)
o 3.0 V6 = 0-100 kph in 7.0 seconds (diesel)
The fuel economy advantage of the TDI over the gasoline version is ~20% and the MSRP advantage of the TDI over the gasoline version is (converted to $, approximately) about $1,000.
Were the same $ and MPG numbers to translate to the US versions of the A6, this would mean some VERY impressive gains could be had for the American Audi owner.
Generally, a quicker car (the 3.0TDI has weapons grade torque) for the stop light drag race we call urban driving.
Generally, a more durable car (the diesel should go much further before a major overhaul.)
Generally, no impact at all in top end or freeway cruising.
Generally, fewer dollars per fill up, considering that often diesel is at least slightly less per gallon than premium gasoline.
Generally, over 20% effective dollars less per tankful based on the mileage improvements the diesel offers coupled with the slightly lower cost per gallon.
And: a lower MSRP (unless Audi wanted to capitalize on the benefits, above, of the diesel version and jack up the price due to probable market demand once the "truth" -- you can't handle the truth -- got out.)
The information you have presented is correct if you compare one of the smaller displacement TDI's to the A6 3.2 gasoline version we have here in the US.
For, the equivalent A6 V6 TDI is NOT slower it is slightly quicker and more economical at the same time!
Your facts, then, are correct but the comparison was skewed -- not intentionally, I am certain -- by what can only have been a comparison of a lesser TDI to the 3.2 gas version.
Despite this slight correction -- this is GREAT news.
Add to this, two unspoken data points: #1 The Audi A6 3.0 TDI can run "fine as wine" on Bio-Willy (B20) which is, considered a "renewable" fuel; #2 The Audi A6 3.0 running on such "clean diesel" (here now or coming soon to a pump near you in 2006, by law) lowers greenhouse gas emissions by up to 60% over traditional gasoline powered versions.
Oh yea -- the car is actually smoother AND quieter too with the diesel and the 6 speed tiptronic, than the gas version.
Hmm. . .no mileage penaltly, no performance penalty, lower acquisition cost, longer life span, decreased pollution, actually a mileage benefit (CAFE) that GM would kill to have, and a quicker to accelerate vehicle.
These things would sell like hotcakes, especially if you extrapolate and interpolate and cogitate and masticate on this -- wonder what it would be like were we to take this mature, proven technology and put it in 1/3 of all cars sold commencing in 2008?
Well, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality, as quoted in the February 20, 2006, issue of Business Week:
“The U.S. could save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day – roughly the amount it imports from Saudi Arabia – if a third of U.S. vehicles ran on diesel.”
Sign me up.
P.S. The Audi 4.2 TDI, powering an A8L was driven from London to Wales and back on a single tankful of diesel on the normal traffic congested streets/roads between the two places -- the mileage demonstrated by this experiment using a completely stock A8L exceeded 40MPG.
The 3.0TDI in the A6 driven with a similar touch, SHOULD exceed this -- meaning that the advantage of the diesel over the gasoline version would be OVER 40%.
Put that in your CAFE pipe and smoke it (no pun intended.)
What only Mercury emissions? what about Lexus or MB or Toyota or any other make? Why pick on Mercury?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You are probably wasting your time with facts. There are folks here that are still living in the 1980s with smelly diesel fuel and poorly designed diesel engines. They have obviously never driven a modern diesel. The tax issue is a non issue as some states CA for example taxes diesel at a higher rate than gasoline. That is the only reason for diesel to be more expensive that gas. It costs less to refine and you get more BTUs for each dollar spent.
A couple other issues involve the car makers that are selling diesel cars here. VW & MB have taken some hits here on service and reliability. I can guarantee if Honda brings their award winning diesel engine to our shores it will sell better than their hybrids. Diesel cars are a win, win for the country and the consumer. The ignorant and those with blinders on will have to learn the hard way. After owning the Passat TDI I would NEVER buy a new gas car again. Nothing the Japanese offer in this country compares to that car or the MB E320 CDI.
E85 is just a step back to a time when alcohol vehicles were a big flop in the 1980s. I guess it is no big deal with FFVs gas will be around long after we are all gone. If ethanol cannot compete price wise with $70 oil, how will they fare when it drops back to $30 per barrel.
Wasn't this the date, since I cannot remember the specifics that many of the NON US mfgrs were waiting for to allow them to bring their clean diesel cars to our shores? And, wasn't part of the CA tax on diesel specifically because diesel (until June 1) was seriously dirtier than the new forumlations (something like 500 times dirtier, if not a billion!?!)
I have been trying to parse through the dense information that is out there and it does seem that E85 including the half-buck or so per gallon incentive did rise to cost more or at least as much (within 10 cents plus or minus) of diesel -- IN the great state of CA. And, if all this carefully written and sometimes I almost think deliberately obfuscated information is correct, the price of E85 is more than diesel in CA if one excludes the incentive?
The net is, as I said above and as we are apparently in disappointed and violent agreement with.
But, in part, it is no wonder, other than some of us here and on other somewhat non-mainstream media, the stories abound about E85 but are buried about the advantages of the normal run of the mill diesels that come from Audi, BMW and Mercedes, to name three.
It's simple -- consumers decide where to spend their money, and if you can't give them a good reason to spend it with you, then they won't. You have decades of stigma against diesel, and you will need to overcome that, and win hearts and minds. Without a strategy to do that, you're just getting high-and-mighty about something that is going to whither on the vine.
This is NOT all bad.
It is the virtual ignoring and dropping the ball with respect to disseminating information that is troublesome.
Overcoming decades of stigma may be possible -- but only with information put out by:
1. Our Government and picked up on by the media
2. Groups such as the TDF
3. The manufacturers themselves
4. Fuel companies (big oil and alternative oil, that is).
We may not be able to overcome the stigma -- I bet we can.
We won't know until or unless we attempt to get some info out that discusses not only hybrids, ethanol (FFV's) and fuel cells, but also brings diesel into the light.
Coal was, for a time, so dirty, so unpopular, so unlikely to have much of an economic future -- now, it is coming back even in 'appalachia' (the Ohio Valley) as new approaches to using this fuel have been brought to the fore.
There are other examples, I'll grant, where the dead could not be revived; in diesel's favor and against E85 right now we do have economics which can be used to create a powerful motive to reconsider decades of stigma.
Just a thought.
Bill Ford, where are you?
If I see one more Green or Yellow commercial with your face in it and no new, sexy diesel passenger cars, I think I'll hurl. :surprise:
But in any case, you could already theoretically achieve some gains by simply converting the US heavy truck fleet to biodiesel...but there isn't much biodiesel for sale, either. If the goal is to reduce dependency on oil usage, why not focus on at least taking the segment where diesel already is the preferred alternative, and go from there?
Expecting to give diesel religion to the masses in the US strikes me as wholly unrealistic. (Europe is an entirely different story.) The automakers have no reason to invest heavily in promoting a product that consumers don't want, and the feds will never increase gas taxes to influence consumer behavior, when they figure that the only behavior they'll motivate is to get their constituents to vote against them.
I will have to disagree with you on the diesel. People as a whole are going to mind their pocket books first. Diesel offers a cost per mile that is less than regular gas. If it were not for government policies in place that stifled the diesel movement you would have seen a large section of cars running on diesel. There is a pent up demand for the cars and many people out there would strongly consider one if it were available in a line they want.
Scuttlebutt has it that there might be some more moderately priced diesels coming in the 2008 MY. Lets see what they do, I suspect that they will go pretty fast.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That cost per mile advantage has always been there, and US consumers have largely not found it compelling. And the lack of a pump price advantage makes it harder for the typical consumer to see any advantage.
I'd say that the two things that might help to give diesel that push that it needs are (a) diesel cars are much, much better than they were even just a few years ago and (b) these products will definitely be developed, regardless of the lack of US demand, because there is enough push for it in Europe and elsewhere to ensure that the R&D commitment is there.
The main disadvantage is that the automakers would need to make a substantial financial and infrastructure commitment to change the minds of American consumers, which probably doesn't make much sense for them when they have other products that they need to promote to make money. (A couple of them might in order to capture a niche, but the mainstream would largely steer clear.) There's not much reason for Toyota, Ford, GM, Honda, etc. to throw a lot of weight behind this when there are more profitable and less risky alternatives available to them.
The other problem is distribution. Most gas stations in the US aren't selling diesel, which makes diesel more of a risk and less convenient for the consumer. It needs to be worth the while of the fuel station operators to offer it, which leaves you with a chicken-and-egg problem -- consumers don't have diesel cars, and don't want diesel if it's harder to find...yet service stations don't want to provide it if customers don't need it, which means it gets carried in relatively few places.
This all goes back to why I believe that government intervention is the only way that you'd ever spur signficant demand. You would need laws/ taxes that create a pump price advantage for the fuel, force automakers to offer diesel products in the US market at competitive prices, and require gas station operators to sell it, and I can't see any of that happening. Without that, I can't see how diesel demand would ever prove to be more than a tiny niche demanded by a few very committed devotees and some fencesitters who will drop off if gas prices decline.
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that the cost per mile variable is the only thing driving the demand and/or supply, it isn't. Diesels have pretty much been regulated out of the marketplace. Eliminate those artificial barriers to the marketplace and diesel usage will grow greatly.
these products will definitely be developed, regardless of the lack of US demand,
There is a demand for them in the U.S., its just that there are artificial barriers that keep them from being sold in great numbers.
The other problem is distribution. Most gas stations in the US aren't selling diesel, which makes diesel more of a risk and less convenient for the consumer.
Diesel is very easy to find, yes not every gas station has it but its plentiful and very easy to find. There is no risk in owning a diesel powered car when it comes to finding fuel, if there were our roads would be littered with out of gas semi's and buses.
This all goes back to why I believe that government intervention is the only way that you'd ever spur signficant demand.
No, government intervention is the reason so few diesels are out there. Eliminate that government intervention and you will see a great increase in the use of diesel powered cars. Adding even more government intervention to correct something that government intervention already created is just going to make a bigger mess.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
As I talk to folks more and more on the subject they seem to think the cost of building an E85 infrastructure would be higher than diesel.
Speaking only of Ohio, there are just now 10 stations statewide selling E85. There must be 10 stations selling both "normal" gas and diesel between here (Blue Ash Ohio, just slightly north of Cincinnati) and Interstate 71 (a couple of miles at most.)
I have been to the Audi driving school in Austria 4 times since the late 1990's -- last time was in 2003.
My last visit, we drove Audi A4 2.5TDI vehicles. Other than "massive" torque from a dead stop, there was nothing that would indicate the car was powered by anything other than a traditional internal combustion engine. Heck, it almost felt like an S4 at rest it had so much torque.
40 Americans, after two and half days of driving these cars (in the dead of a January Winter in Seefeld, Austria) were literally clammoring to "take these cars" back home with us.
Of course, at that time, and until just two weeks ago, our fuel in the US was too dirty. This is shortly to be behind us and a "flood" of Mercedes cars will soon be made available, as will Audi and VW vehicles. If we can have at least one name brand Japanese car hit the streets with a diesel AND put 1/2 the energy into "re-introducing" diesel to the US consumer as we have in touting Green and Yellow, the products will trickle down and out and infiltrate the rank and file automobiles for sale in the US.
Word of mouth, eventually, will come into play and while I seriously doubt diesel will be THE solution, I think in the near term is is a whole bunch more economically prudent (for the consumer) than even subsidized E85.
My biggest beef is with our politicians who seemingly did do things to stimulate diesel, E85 and hybrids (and even fuel cells, etc etc). Then apparently all we hear about are the things that aren't quite financially ready for Prime Time.
The Addicted to Oil Speech was notable and quotable -- eh? Sure, for the thousands of people and reporters who were sent scurrying to their Internet browsers to google the term "switch grass," or "advanced batteries," or some other future tech damn thing.
If our President and our Congressional representatives would send me the e-Newsletters and discuss diesel with 25% of the passion that they discuss E85, and the LPS cars of Europe were to show up in showrooms sometime in the next couple of years, I just have to think the public would look at a diesel car with 20 to 40% improvement in mileage and a bit more power and compare it to an E85 car that effectively gets about 1/3 worse mileage using subsidized fuel that costs roughly the same as gasoline and say "na baby na" to E85 and "yea baby yea" to diesel.
The 2.5TDI Audi A4 quattro sport was a BLAST. I'd have one now if they were available.
Both Audi/VW and Mercedes (w/4Matics) will within a year have these "sheens" these fine sheens here for us 'mericans.
I say persue them all -- and edumcate the people regarding them.
Those roadblocks, technically, are being chipped away by both the Energy act our Congresswoman bragged about (see my posts above on this subject) and by the bringing to market "clean-er and clean-er" diesel fuel THIS YEAR.
Once the government steps out of the way, as you correctly pointed out, demand will pick up -- and pick up, and pick up.
Even the win at Sebring a couple of months ago -- by a diesel powered car -- was a chipping away of some of the stigmas. Add this and the tax incentives available if one purchases a diesel together and the roadblocks will fall.
Subtracting governement intervention appears to be on the horizon. Now we just need a little bit o that "marketing magic" that we've seen from our government, broadcast PSA's and the manufacturers (of the cars and the fuel)!
:shades:
Prior to CARB tightening up regulations as relates to diesel particulate matter, etc., there wasn't demand then, either.
Until recently, we had decades of minimal legislation re: diesel, yet diesel didn't carry weight with the buying public at any time in this country. The demand was pretty close to zero before the legislation, so the legislation really has had very little to do with it.
As for the popularity of the cars, the only way that I see the free market being the sole driver of higher demand is for a mainstream automaker to have a breakthrough product that spurs its rivals to get into the game. This is not likely to come from a market leader, but from a competitor that does not lead the market and needs a distinct advantage to gain attention.
So who would that be? You know that it wouldn't be Toyota or Honda, they don't need such a differentiator when they have others. Ditto for BMW or Lexus, which dominate their luxury niches.
In my mind, that leaves firms such as VW, Audi, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Mazda, etc., which are mainstream enough to reach many buyers, but that have stronger rivals in their markets. Of that bunch, I see only VW and Audi even having a slight possibility of putting any marketing effort into it.
Is there enough to this that would encourage Audi to start heavily promoting diesels here, to accompany quattro as its prime differentiator against MB and BMW? I seriously doubt it, as these brands are associated with sophistication and performance, two areas where diesel is perceived to be lacking.
How about for VW? I doubt that, too. Neither one stands much to gain from putting a big push behind the effort, and each have quite a bit to lose. Nobody wants to be the one that specializes in selling white elephants to the US market. They may sell a few, and they may create a few loyal buyers, but that probably won't be nearly enough to influence their competitors to jump in with both feet.
Scuttlebutt has it that both Honda and Hyundai might be coming out with diesels (Accord and Sonata respectfully) in the 2008 MY. As well as seeing some non grey market Smarts (60+ MPG highway) in the future too.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Lets see 1 in three has diesel, thats a heck of a lot better that the 1 in a thousand that E85 has. So instead of having three places at every other intersection to buy gas I have one at every other intersection. With 10's of thousands of gas stations in my state that means that I cannot be to far from a place that sells diesel (most places I buy gas from has it). And the fact that 10's of millions of semis that run on diesel have no problem with getting diesel means that average Joe in his diesel powered car shouldn't have either.
That's an inconvenience for the consumer
Seeing its hard to pass a major intersection without seeing a gas station I would not consider it an inconvience. That kind of like saying its an inconvience to the residents of a home that only one in four rooms has a toilet.
As for the popularity of the cars, the only way that I see the free market being the sole driver of higher demand is for a mainstream automaker to have a breakthrough product that spurs its rivals to get into the game.
More often than not the breakthrough product comes from a minor player in the game.
But as I said break down the barriers and diesels will start flooding our roads. There are already three manufacturers that are strongly considering bringing diesels to our shores. There is a demand and those that are posed to satisfy it will reap the benefits.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm not saying that everyone would find it inconvenient, but many will. The fact that you can buy gas everywhere at every gas station, but diesel forces you to drive past two out of every three places, is a distinct disadvantage for diesel. (Of course, E85 and biodiesel are even further behind the curve in that respect -- none of them are ready for prime time.)
More often than not the breakthrough product comes from a minor player in the game.
Relative to the automakers, those firms that I mentioned are the minor players in the US market, unless you include the exotics and the kit makers. The issue isn't the technology, which is abundantly available, but whether anyone is willing to put marketing muscle behind and take a risk.
There are already three manufacturers that are strongly considering bringing diesels to our shores.
Fair enough, but is a model or two sold in low volumes and minimal promotion going to be enough to make a difference? I'm not claiming that you won't find some minor efforts by these companies to participate at minimal levels, but if the goal is widespread adoption, the question is whether these firms will undertake enough effort to be tastemakers in the market. Which brings us back again to the main question: Why would any of them make a significant effort to do it.
BEIJING: China, trying to cut dependence on imported oil, will use cassava-based ethanol fuel for cars in the southern region Guangxi in 2007, state media said.
The region will build ethanol plants with a combined annual capacity of 1.0 million tonnes to deal with a fuel shortage, Xinhua news agency quoted Pan Wenfeng, an official with the Guangxi development and reform commission, as saying.
Guangxi is China's top cassava growing region. In April an official from its Starch Association told Reuters the regional government was studying the feasibility of such plants.
All Guangxi fuel stations would be able to supply ethanol fuel made from cassava, a root vegetable also known as tapioca, by the second half of next year, Xinhua quoted the official as saying.
The ethanol plants would be added to existing alcohol distilleries, it said.
China is the world's third-largest ethanol producer, after the United States and Brazil. It has four government-sponsored ethanol plants with a combined annual capacity of 1.02 million tonnes. They use corn or wheat as their raw material.
But worried over food security, Beijing said it would use non-grain raw materials for fuel ethanol as part of its effort to cut dependence on imported oil. China imported 127 million tonnes of crude oil in 2005.
Guangxi, accounting more than 60 percent of China's cassava output, produced 8 million tonnes annually, Xinhua said. The region would encourage cassava planting to guarantee supplies.
Sen Yang, a professor from China Agricultural University, said in April that cassava alone could supply as much as 4 million tonnes of fuel ethanol in China.
Thailand, the world's top cassava (tapioca) producer, already converts some of the vegetable into fuel ethanol.
Diesel would be viable but right now there is almost a zero consumer interest in a diesel auto market here in the USA. It will take billions to develop a diesel auto market...which still leaves a tremendous amount of gasoline autos that will be using E10 or E85. We would have to convert our huge fleets of diesel trucks to Biodiesel first...not an easy or inexpensive task!
That would be more direct and far easier than trying to convince tens of millions of Americans to radically change their preferences. If you could make it worth the while of the current diesel users, then more the better.
The demand was greater than for hybrids. My local VW dealer Drew VW had no trouble selling all the VW TDI models they got before the 2004 complete shutdown by CARB. Prior to that they were limited on how many diesel VWs were sold per year. I have sold a quite a few cars and trucks via the Trader. This was by far the best response ever, when I offered a used 2005 Passat TDI at over MSRP.
You can be in denial all you like that is your prerogative. You are wrong in your misconceptions of the sale of diesel cars when they are made available in the largest markets. Diesel cars have always sold well when offered. I gave up getting a diesel Dasher in 1978 when it was a year long waiting list. I bought a POC 1978 Honda Accord. During the last energy crisis 80% of Mercedes sold in the USA were diesel. Many of which are still on the road today.
I seriously doubt that many will find it inconvienent. Driving past two to find the third with diesel isn't much of an issue when there are literally thousands of gas stations around. I would agree with you if gas stations were as few as hens teeth, but they are not. Its really no more inconvienent than someone who only buys Shell gas and passes every non shell gas station.
Fair enough, but is a model or two sold in low volumes and minimal promotion going to be enough to make a difference?
Who is saying anything about low volumes? These cars are sold in great numbers around the world, it would take little effort to make them acceptable for U.S. roads. These cars have the capacity to sell in large volumes. Just about every manufacturer makes diesels and sells the world wide, don't think for a moment they won't try to get in on the action.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There is a pent up demand for diesel in the U.S. right now. There are many people today that will strongly consider buying a diesel if they were available.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There's no history of that ever having happened in the US market. Sure, it might happen, but how can we possibly assume that?
This would require a distinctive change in consumer habits, and it's not a sound business strategy to assume that a mature technology is going to suddenly be demanded in ways that it hasn't before, unless there is a solid plan for getting here. I just don't see those conditions occurring unless the government moves the incentives around to make it more attractive.
You just hit on another benefit of diesel, the fact that they generally out last gas engines.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The "crude oil" pumped out of the ground is a black liquid called petroleum. This liquid contains aliphatic hydrocarbons, or hydrocarbons composed of nothing but hydrogen and carbon. The carbon atoms link together in chains of different lengths.
It turns out that hydrocarbon molecules of different lengths have different properties and behaviors. For example, a chain with just one carbon atom in it (CH4) is the lightest chain, known as methane. Methane is a gas so light that it floats like helium. As the chains get longer, they get heavier.
The first four chains -- CH4 (methane), C2H6 (ethane), C3H8 (propane) and C4H10 (butane) -- are all gases, and they boil at -161, -88, -46 and -1 degrees F, respectively (-107, -67, -43 and -18 degrees C). The chains up through C18H32 or so are all liquids at room temperature, and the chains above C19 are all solids at room temperature.
The different chain lengths have progressively higher boiling points, so they can be separated out by distillation. This is what happens in an oil refinery -- crude oil is heated and the different chains are pulled out by their vaporization temperatures.
The chains in the C5, C6 and C7 range are all very light, easily vaporized, clear liquids called naphthas. They are used as solvents -- dry cleaning fluids can be made from these liquids, as well as paint solvents and other quick-drying products.
The chains from C7H16 through C11H24 are blended together and used for gasoline. All of them vaporize at temperatures below the boiling point of water. That's why if you spill gasoline on the ground it evaporates very quickly.
Next is kerosene, in the C12 to C15 range, followed by diesel fuel and heavier fuel oils (like heating oil for houses).
Next come the lubricating oils. These oils no longer vaporize in any way at normal temperatures. For example, engine oil can run all day at 250 degrees F (121 degrees C) without vaporizing at all. Oils go from very light (like 3-in-1 oil) through various thicknesses of motor oil through very thick gear oils and then semi-solid greases. Vasoline falls in there as well.
Chains above the C20 range form solids, starting with paraffin wax, then tar and finally asphaltic bitumen, which used to make asphalt roads.
All of these different substances come from crude oil. The only difference is the length of the carbon chains!
Yes, but we have had diesels for decades, and hybrids for just a few years.
Plot the demand for both on a graph, put trendlines through the demand points, and you'll see that the line for diesel is flat, while the demand for hybrids is on an upward trajectory. The issue isn't just what the demand is today, but what the demand will likely be in the future.
From this vantage point, it seems that consumers are a lot more excited about hybrids than diesel, and the demand will be going to the former, rather than the latter, if fuel remains expensive and there is an eventual price reduction in hybrid vehicles. (Scale production should help achieve the latter, and the former seems likely to stay with us for awhile.)
My bet is hybrids never catch up with diesel sales in the USA. I guess we just have to wait and see who is right. My money is on JD Powers having a better perspective than anyone on this thread.
Five automakers revealed plans at the North American International Auto Show to introduce fuel-saving diesel engines in cars and trucks.
Now, cleaner fuel and breakthroughs in fuel injection and emissions technology are giving diesels a second chance. In 2005, Volkswagen sold more than 29,000 diesel-powered cars in the United States, and a top company executive said last week that the company could have sold even more.
J.D. Power forecasts U.S. diesel sales will grow to 9 percent of light-vehicle sales in 2012, up from 3.2 percent last year.
In 2005, Volkswagen sold more than 29,000 diesel-powered cars in the United States
29,000 cars out of how many in the market? I don't have the 2005 sales figures here, but I'm going to guess that it was in the neighborhood of 14-15 million vehicles.
And the Prius sold over 100,000 units in the US last year. With that sort of growth, it's understandable why Toyota is planning on quadrupling production, and expanding the use of hybrid systems across the model line.
J.D. Power forecasts U.S. diesel sales will grow to 9 percent of light-vehicle sales in 2012, up from 3.2 percent last year.
That may be, but that will still mean that 91% of the market will be running on something else.
This is exactly what I've been telling you: diesel is most likely a niche solution for a few people, not a disruptive technology that's going to fundamentally change the marketplace. You'd need something more than market forces to create signficant demand.
Stopping less frequently at a fueling station comes to mind, generally paying less (here, today, in Cincinnati, diesel is $.02 more per gallon than regular, eight cents less than mid grade and $.18 less than premium.)
I realize this price does not the whole US hold true, but typically you would stop less frequently, and pay less.
Your car would have more zippiness from 0 to 60, too.
It would be, based on the ones I have driven, quieter inside and somehow they are smoother through the first two or three shifts (the extra torque perhaps?)
Yep, the change would be distinctive and worthwhile.
If you don't think diesel is a good thing, I have no problem with that. I simply believe that of the things we could do right away, diesel could make a significant impact and a pleasant one to boot.
The groundswell of demand will, more or less, create a plan.
In some respects with the goverment out of the way, the phrase "if you build it, they will buy it" seems not too far fetched.
Drive it like YOU live! :shades:
Toyota claimed they would sell 250k Prius in 2006. I don't think they will even match last years sales. Which is pretty insignificant next to 15 million cars sold. VW is a niche seller in the USA. We will not know how many diesels they can sell till the market is opened up. They claim 20% of the sales this year are diesel. That without the CA market. I am not worried that they will not sell. I think there are more informed auto buyers than you envision. Dirty diesel has been with us for 100 years. They cleaned up gasoline 30 years ago. We will not know the impact of ULSD for at least 10 years. If it goes as the EU we can expect a flood of great diesel cars and small PU trucks coming across the pond in the not too distant future.
I think that it's actually totally far fetched. People don't like diesels, someone is going to have to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to change their minds if you want to fundamentally increase demand...and that still may not work.
If you want change, aside from issuing an edict to buy the cars or else, you'd have to do what the Europeans have -- make diesel cheaper. (That's why a friend of mine in Vienna has a 3-series diesel, rather than the gas version, despite being slower and noisier.)
Again, formulate a plan to increase demand. JDP forecasts that 91% of the market won't be using it, so how would you change that? This ain't Field of Dreams...
So what is your point? All this thread and a few of the others is debating, is do we care about conserving fossil fuel. Most of the diesel proponents feel that we can conserve 30% painlessly by using diesel instead of gas. In the case of E85, diesel would be at least 50% more efficient. I agree with you that most Americans could give a whit about saving fuel. This last jump in gas prices does not seem to have made any difference in the way people drive or use gas. Probably 10% of the population are interested in any kind of conservation of fossil fuel. The fact that the government has done everything in it's power to stop the use of diesel tells me they are more interested in pleasing the oil industry, and now the mega agriculture industry. It has been that way for 100 years and will be that way till we run out of oil. All this business of saving fuel by using ethanol is pure Hokum.
The thread topic is whether E85 will succeed in the marketplace. The discussion seems to have morphed into what alternative fuels or technologies, if any, have the best chance of succeeding in the marketplace.
That's a business question, hence the need to consider the likelihood of supply and demand for any of these products.
If you believe that biodiesel offers "the answer", then you need to show me that the fuel will be widely available in sufficient quantities, and that people will use it.
I'm not seeing anything to indicate that very many people will use it. If 91% of the market doesn't use it because they use cars running on gas or somethign else, and the 9% that does uses the petroleum-based version of it because there isn't enough biodiesel, then you'll have been talking up something that is doomed to fail.
In my mind, we should judge success or failure by whether the solution is actually usuable, not by whether a few activists like it. If at least 91% of the vehicles aren't going to using biodiesel, then it is a drop in the bucket at best, not a salvation.
The 2nd point is Diesel does not reduce dependence to foreign oil any better than other alternatives( and possibly less).
I still believe the solution will be a compilation of all in the short term.
-The good thing about E85 is that it blends with gas, something that consumers already understand, so there isn't much need to educate them. The problems are that production is not sufficient, is currently not cost effective and most cars don't use it. We will need FFV cars, sufficient supplies and to E85 be a fair bit cheaper than gas. And it would appear that corn is a relatively inefficient biomass that itself won't likely become cost effective unless the price of oil goes up a lot more, so the ethnanol folks better find ways to make it out of something else. So we have a ways to go.
-Biodiesel also has minimal production, and people don't drive cars that use it. What's worse is that it might have more barriers to adoption than would E85, unless consumers change their minds about diesel cars. I doubt the automakers are going to bet on this.
-Diesel is available now, but people don't like it. It doesn't really solve the foreign dependency problem, as you've pointed out. So I'm not sure what problem this is supposed to fix.
-EV's are well behind everything else. Range is too low, refueling takes too long and there's no commercial infrastructure for getting a quick fill-up while driving. Definitely not workable until these problems are solved.
-I see hybrids as the best short-term solution. Consumers don't need to change their habits, the benefit is immediately obvious (or it will be if/when the hybrids eventually cost about the same), the technology has much potential to improve very rapidly, and you could develop them to run on gas, diesel, biodiesel or E85. Toyota has done a good job to marketing it to the innovaters, but it remains to be seen whether price-conscious consumers who form the majority eventually adopt them.
For any given vehicle that is diesel instead of gas it will reduce the amount of oil used by at least 30%. I consider that a significant savings. Granted if no one cares and keep buying their gas guzzling cars, SUVs & trucks, nothing will be saved. We go on our merry way fat dumb and happy.
Many of the points many of us are making are certainly speculation and suited to be called Op Ed pieces. Yet, unless there is some great collusion to create an elaborate tale and substantiate that tale with bogus data -- this "slower and noisier" statement pertains NOT to the diesel but more appropriately to the gas version.
So many of the comments from diesel opponents seem to end with a sentiment that suggests those who choose diesel do so in spite of their slowness, dirtiness, noise, added cost and poor hygiene.
Using the current petrol based diesel fuel that is starting to come out of US filling stations, put into diesel equipped cars from Audi/VW, BMW and Mercedes (but not limited to these three, by any means)results in:
performance improves (acceleration)
mileage improves
operating cost declines
acquisition cost is lower
durability increases
pollution (greenhouse gasses) are reduced slightly up to 60%. . .and
your teeth get whiter
JDP's forecast, and you may be citing a newer one than the ones I have found by googling, was before Katrina and before the "performance data" was widely known as noted above. This, of course, may be no field of dreams and using diesel is substituting one petrol fuel for another -- but it would reduce our need by 1.4 million barrels PER DAY. It would reduce our cost of energy -- and although this is not anything that will ultimately save the day, it buys us time and buys down our energy costs.
Your friend may have purchased a smaller diesel engined vehicle than what he/she could have purchased. But according to the "on line" configuration web sites, getting as close as possible to an apples to apples comparison:
It is possible to buy a gasoline German car with ~3.0-ish engine and/or with a ~3.0-ish diesel engine (apples to apples as close as the mfgr's permit, i.e.)
The performance statistics typically cite:
0-100kph for the diesel version as .1 or more quicker than the gas version
19-40+% improved MPG's for the diesel version over the gasoline version
~900 Euros LESS for the diesel version than for the gasoline version up to about the same amount more for the diesel version (but this is sometimes due NOT to the engine but due to extra content in the base price of the diesel version.) Audi's A6 3.2 V6 gas is about $1,000 MORE than the Audi A6 3.0 V6 diesel and achieves both quicker acceleration and 20% better economy. BMW and Mercedes configurations permit similar comparisons.
Demand increases, if they happen, will be the catalyst for the Plan.
But, like so much of the non data non factual info we all are willing to put out there, well -- I could be wrong.
I do believe we need to either agree that diesels are slower and noisier or quicker and quieter based on sources we can agree to. Your friend's contention that his 3-series diesel is slower than BMW's gasoline version is just not correct, unless BMW's own published figures are bogus (among other sources.)
On the "noisier" front, this data point is certainly subject to some greater subjectivity. My personal hands/ears on experience was with a 2003 Audi A4 2.5TDI in Seefeld Austria -- it was quieter both inside and outside the cabin (with the engine running) than the gasoline version (which, at the time, was a 3.0 normally aspirated gasoline version.)
The 2.5TDI was the fave of the 40 Americans I was with because of its incredible low RPM torque, however.
I love the "argument" -- but I think we need to pick our data points, do what we can do vet them fully (or as much as we can here on the Internet) and make our points off of that data.
It is just difficult to "know" diesels are quicker and quieter yet see a defense and support of an argued point be based on the foundation that . . . .something something something is so "despite being slower and noisier."
Please tell me where I can look to find evidence to support the slower and noisier claim, that is.
Thanks.
:shades:
mileage improves
operating cost declines
acquisition cost is lower
durability increases
pollution (greenhouse gasses) are reduced slightly up to 60%
You know all these things are true and I know what you are saying is true because we have actually driven the vehicles. You will find most of the posters here get most of their information from Blog sites. Very little of it factual and usually NO hands on personal experience. If they see it on CNN or FOX it must be true.
90% of diesel's bad image can be traced to dirty fuel. If the EPA had cleaned up diesel when they took the lead out of gasoline we would be in the same diesel to gas vehicle ratio as Europe. We would not be using near as much fuel as we currently use.
All this E85 nonsense is a political smoke screen to cover up a serious problem. Now Congress has something they can point to when the constituency asks about high gas prices. They can say with a straight face we are going to bring the cost of gas down by using ethanol. What a joke and it is on all of US.
I'll accept the 30% reduction over gas but if E85 only has 15% petroleum products then the reality is it uses 85% less foreign oil. Now if you take in consideration that the mileage is less per mile (which is is) and use a conservative figure of 60% less oil it is still 30% better than diesel as it relates to dependence. I know..you have to factor in subsidies, infrastructure,availabilty and who know what else. The immediate way to help is to reduce buying quantities of oil thus reducing demand. No answer is perfect at this time