I appreciate your enthusiasm for the entire broad subject area and I specifically appreciate your response (the one I am replying to, i.e.)
Let me attempt to explain my curiosity as was started and commented upon as follows:
I said --
"The question stands -- what was the time frame to get Europe to 1 in 3?"
You commented --
"Not sure how that helps if oil dependency and/or environment are the primary motivators for change. Unless you like diesel for its own sake (and obviously, some people do), is this a goal worth prioritizing?"
When I started down my "path" of interest in this subject it was when I came across a comment pertaining to a value to us (here in North America, at least) were 1 in 3 of our vehicles diesel (petrol or bio was not the issue discussed.)
In a Feb 20th, '06, Business Week article, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality:
“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.”
Reading this, these months ago, I extrapolated this would certainly help reduce our dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Many people (both in the public and private sectors) believe this is a worthwhile goal. Moreover, if such could happen we can use some renewable diesel or blends in these vehicles which would further this laudable goal.
Additional secondary sources, many quoted and noted here on this very blog, indicate greenhouse emissions would be reduced if such a switch would be made (over some period of time that I cannot find in the literature to quote.)
The greenhouse emissions stated by the DTF (Washington, DC) are up to 60% less if a modern diesel engine burning clean diesel (just now coming on line in the US) was compared to a modern gasoline engine burning unleaded.
This, then, leads me down the path (hopefully not a slippery slope) of thinking that adopting such a posture (encouraging, rather than ignoring or de-emphasizing the adoption of clean diesel powered vehicles) does indeed help "if [reduction of Middle Eastern, to name but one region] oil dependency and/or environment" are at least a secondary goal and even more germane if we view this as a primary goal-set.
I have found it difficult to grasp what seems to be not only an emphasis, but apparently an over-emphasis on the use of ethanol as a method to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, stretch our supplies of oil overall and reduce the environmental impact. Hence my participation in this blog.
The purpose of this forum, according to what is posted above is very broad, broad enough I suspect to permit the point of view that E10, E85, diesel, B20, hybrids, fuel cells and steam even are "alternatives" to the situation we find ourselves in.
I am pleased to see the number is 3% of new registrations -- but the information I have been able to glean says that total "light duty (aka passenger car and light truck) diesel utilization" stands at a paltry 0.26%. This is 2006 data -- but I like the characterization that it is 3% of new registrations better since it at least is larger than the whole number 1!
Maybe, too, diesel as a technology and fuel is perhaps coming into its own with the new fuels hitting the market and the EP Act of 2005 actually "bribing" us to buy a diesel (or a hybrid for that matter) rather than putting up yet another roadblock to seeing if the market will kill it once and for all or if there may, just may be a market for it.
If my number, 0.26% is for bio or blended diesel only, I do thank you and stand corrected. But, all I have been able to find is as I noted.
Obviously going from 3% to 9% or 30% is a lot easier than going from 0.26%, but in either case, it is still a long and steep uphill battle.
I am "rooting" (essentially) for all of these "alternatives," even the alternatives that no one is talking about and no one has even thought of yet. We are, perhaps NOT literally running out of oil (at least in our lifetimes and probably our children's lifetimes), but we certainly cannot wait to address the issues.
Frankly, diesel seems to be like the horse and the jockey in Seabiscuit -- it is hard to imagine it could win. But ethanol seems even less likely to succeed based on the secondary information that is floating around in ABUNDANCE. Ethanol seems to be the "clothes" on the Emperor, that is.
Consumers will vote with their wallets. Consumers will either prove or disprove the validity of these approaches, despite Energy Bills, Acts and other public policy responses. I say "let 'em all be tried." At this point, they all seem flawed. Diesel (in all its various flavors) at least seems like it could work.
But, you may well be right, diesel may prove to be so historically unpopular that the stigma it has cannot be overcome.
I just wonder what will happen if E85 gets 30% worse MPG's and costs at least a half a buck more per gallon than E10, if it can overcome this hurdle.
Me, I'm investing in that new cable TV for cars. The problem to overcome there is simply the tangle of wires dragging out behind everyone's cars -- compared to the alternative fuel issue, this looks like an easy problem to overcome. :shades:
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER The Associated Press Monday, June 19, 2006; 4:11 AM
WASHINGTON -- With the market for corn-based ethanol booming, lawmakers from sugar-producing states are hoping that beet and cane growers can soon jump onto the renewable fuel bandwagon.
"One of the things that people ... need to think about it is what generation of ethanol do they want to pursue? The corn-based or the sugar-based ethanol, which is called first-generation ethanol, is going right at the food costs," said John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co.
"In other words, there's only so much corn, and if oil companies are attacked for the price of gasoline and we've seen ethanol go from $1.20 a gallon in 2005 to last week it was hitting $5 a gallon on the spot market _ if we start sucking up, as oil companies, all the ethanol, it's going to hit the price of eggs, the price of bacon, the price of hamburger, the price of Doritos and Fritos, because there's only so much corn to go around," he said.
Ethanol may clean up the smelly air in Iowa. Does it help you sleep better knowing you are destroying the land, rivers & Gulf with your toxic waste?
PS That is about the 10th time you have posted the same information. Do you have any new research to post.
Stick to the topic, not personal attacks. All I am doing is rooting out the Myths and Falsehoods about Ethanol and Biodiesel. Hey Ms Host, how do we get rid of the personal attacks or don't we.
The Nebraska Ethanol Board is devoted to the development, support and advocacy of the ethanol industry. It is the Nebraska leader in the promotion of the farm based fuel. Established in 1971 by the Nebraska Legislature, the Nebraska Ethanol Board:
Assists ethanol producers with programs and strategies for marketing ethanol and its co-products; Fosters the growth of the ethanol industry in Nebraska by acting as a resource for developers and investors; Supports organizations and policies that advocate the increased use of ethanol fuels; Administers public information, education and ethanol-focused research projects; Provides leadership and counsel for the industry and its advocates in ensuring a role for ethanol in the state’s economic future—and in America’s fuel supply. The tremendous growth of the ethanol industry in Nebraska is testament to the focus, experience and leadership of the Nebraska Ethanol Board.
And I take it you don't feel you have attacked any one here for their opposing views on Ethanol? Such as disparaging remarks about what cars we own or the fact that we prefer diesel or biodiesel. I agree that personal attacks are not appropriate. I can guarantee the debate will get more heated on the subject of ethanol, as people realize what a damaging business it is. I think we both feel we are doing the right thing for America. I just want to avoid another MTBE fiasco. You are looking at ethanol as being good for the economy of the Midwest.
He did stick to the topic, he noted that you repeat the same information and asked you to provide something new to the discussion. I too find your posts way to long and repetitive (not to mention with their own myths and falsehoods) that I just gloss over anything you write.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
In a Feb 20th, '06, Business Week article, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality:
“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.”
That's an interesting point.
If that alone is reason enough for diesel to become part of US public policy, then the answer to encourage adoption is clear: provide a tax credit to consumers who buy diesel vehicles and/or an extra tax to buy gas-engined cars (incentives for buying the equipment), combined with fuel tax shifts that make diesel cheaper than gas, i.e. $1-1.50 per gallon less.
But do you honestly see that happening? I sure don't. For one, who in the Congress has the political will to raise gas taxes in order to create this incentive?
I just wonder what will happen if E85 gets 30% worse MPG's and costs at least a half a buck more per gallon than E10, if it can overcome this hurdle.
If it was priced like that, then no, E85 would fail. Consumers would need an incentive to buy FFV vehicles and then use the fuel, while automakers may need to see enough demand to make the cars (although this shouldn't be difficult, given that they already make gas-engine cars -- it's an easy add-on for the automakers).
I could see E10 as a way to achieve some net reduction in oil, but given the loss of fuel economy, the net savings in oil usage would be less than 10%. But again, you need to increase ethanol production by 400% of current levels in order to have E10 at every station in America.
And we need to keep in mind that the net benefits of these technologies may not be as great as we expect, because of human behavior. For example, if consumers move to cars that are cheaper to fuel up, they may respond in part by simply driving more because they can afford to. With the lower fuel costs, you can't just presume that consumers may not change their behavior in line with the economics.
provide a tax credit to consumers who buy diesel vehicles
A tax credit of up to $3400 is in place. The diesel car has to pass certain emissions to qualify. I am sure the new diesels from Mercedes, Honda and VW will be eligible.
Interesting that they did not include any Flex Fuel Vehicles in the tax credit program. Maybe they figured they gave enough to the Ethanol industry. Let the consumer eat cake.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) posted its estimates of tax credits for 31 hybrid and diesel cars and light trucks that fall under tax credit provisions of the new federal energy bill. These are best-guess estimates, based on a combination of preliminary 2006 model year data, 2005 model year data, and manufacturer announcements, and are intended only to give a sense of the magnitude of the upcoming credits, which will be available starting January 1, 2006
Wait a minute, I live IN THE MIDWEST -- I, perhaps alone, see ONLY a short term benefit to ethanol for my state. And, that is due in no insignificant measure to the public money being spent.
Yep, there will be some new jobs (and I do understand the importance to the people getting those jobs) in Cadiz, Ohio. Yet, overall, the impact beyond these jobs is good for the Midwest? Hmm.
Speaking only for myself, apparently a screaming voice in the wilderness, this midwesterner was not consulted regarding the creation of an ethanol refinery that in some small way reminds me of the "bridge to nowhere."
The one, that I know of, redeeming piece of information about this plant [Cadiz, Ohio] seems to be that it has a bunch of private money. Of course there is that nagging feeling that somewhere someone is getting [our tax money] on the back end to essentially subsidize this as of yet not quite ready for prime [economic] time endeavor.
Not all Midwesterners are in love with ethanol. In fact, even though my in-laws are from the Cadiz area they think it is not a good use of the public's funds or the public's trust. :confuse:
Some folks love "rent controlled" housing, some don't. Ethanol, TODAY, even in Cadiz is "apparently" known to produce a fuel (E85) that returns about 30% worse fuel mileage. It must be true, it was in the papers!
Seriously, I ASSUME someone has figured out this apparent contradiction (EXTRA EXTRA Read all about it: ". . .renewable fuel, ethanol, costs the same as gasoline yet takes 30% more to go as far as gasoline. . .public clammors to wait in line for opportunity to buy. . ." EXTRA EXTRA) or is this one teeny tiny data point (not to mention the possibility of E85 actually costging MORE than a gallon of the pure stuff) somehow being overlooked or, worse, toleated in violation of the "law" of comparative (and competitive) advantage?
I can relate. When I was a kid in Oregon they built a paper mill close by. Everyone was happy. But the smell was horrible. Thankfully we moved back to smoggy Los Angeles then to San Diego. Most of the Ethanol plants are a little better than 1950s paper mills. Though St. Paul, MN was not happy with the ethanol plant in their backyard. Sometimes the EPA earns their keep.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will require ethanol plants in Minnesota to install millions of dollars worth of pollution control equipment, under a settlement announced Wednesday in St. Paul. The agreement is expected to be a model for the ethanol industry nationwide.
Not all Midwesterners are in love with ethanol.
Midwesterners are hard working conservative people. I think this whole ethanol thing has become a 3 ring Circus that all of us are paying for. We did not learn a single thing from the ethanol mess in the 1980s. If the money was spent to research for viable alternatives to corn ethanol I believe most Americans would support the effort.
It was the same mentality that got Nixon in trouble. "The End Justifies the Means." Eat, Drink and grow corn for tomorrow we will realize what we have done to our land.
Speaking only for myself, apparently a screaming voice in the wilderness,
You may not be alone. I sure would not quit a good job to take one in an ethanol plant. This is like deja vue for the USA and Brazil.
Congress last engineered an ethanol boom in the 1970s, and most producers went bust a few years later. The Carter administration, facing oil prices of $13 a barrel, the equivalent of $40 today after factoring in inflation, supported a new ethanol tax break for refiners in 1978.
For each gallon of ethanol they mixed into gasoline, refiners received a 40 cent reduction in the federal excise tax on gasoline. That helped stimulate a 10-fold increase in the number of producers to a record 163 by the end of 1984.
When oil prices crashed, falling to $11 a barrel in 1986 from $37 in 1981, the price of ethanol was no longer competitive with gasoline, and demand plummeted. More than half of the ethanol distillers went out of business. ``Even with a subsidy, nothing was enough to prevent the high rate of market change,'' a U.S. Energy Department history of the era says.
The LAST sentence of the following quote pertaining to ethanol is what I would call the "zinger."
Story time: My wife is an attorney and she will sometimes write a letter stating in a calm, logical and straightforward manner, the "facts of the matter," offer some "suggestions," speculate on the possible consequences and then conclude "Be guided accordingly. . . ."
That line always gets me.
Here is the ethanol discussion. . . .
“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."
And now for the zinger:
"Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter.”
Source – “Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels,” Popular Mechanics, April 2006.
I stepped out of the discussion two days ago but have read every post. Great job folks of pulling information from many different sources to enable everyone to draw sound, logical conclusions based on facts. It's readily apparent that everyone wants what is good for America regardless of the outcome. Keep an open mind as the picture clarifies over time.
While I'm not a big fan of CAFE it seems our legislators are constantly coming up with ways to make it more ridiculous. When GM sells a 15 mpg Yukon that is a FFV they receive credit for a 33 mpg vehicle. This allows them to sell more large, low efficiency vehicles without incurring penalties for violating CAFE. It turns out that GM and Ford have been making FFV trucks since the mid 90s for this very reason. Did anyone know that these vehicles existed prior to a couple of years ago? Probably not many of us because the manufacturers sure didn't agressively advertise this capability. The only way you would know that you were purchasing a FFV would be by the VIN. Only last year did GM start putting yellow gas caps on the vehicles. As far as I can tell legislators have no intention of closing this loophole. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that this provision has resulted in an additional 80,000 barrels of oil being consumed per day. Are our legislators really as dumb as their actions would lead us to believe?
Someone in the last couple of days was concerned that we were going off topic here. Always a possibility I thought, so I looked at the title:
"Will ethanol E85 catch on in the US? Will we Live Green and Go Yellow?"
Hmm, well there are departures from this regularly and frequently -- when in doubt consult the what this is about line:
"What is this discussion about? Chrysler, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mercury, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Chevrolet Avalanche, Coupe, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, SUV, Alternative Fuels, Hybrid. . ." (and I will add etcetera since I bet the definition was space constrained.)
So, since we are talking BROADLY about alternatives (apparently an alternative can be just about anything that is an alternative to the [US?] status quo of using either 100% gasoline or 90% gasoline mixed with 10% ethanol -- and of course going all the way to E85 and one may assume from PURE diesel (and getting more pure every day over here if you get my drift in pts per million, i.e.) to B20. Further, even hybrids can play in this discussion.
But the spirited discussion often seems to be the pro vs con ethanol crowd and somewhat of a "consideration" (and often dismissal) of diesel as an alternative to gasoline that does in part achieve some of the desires we apparently all share: reduction of dependency on [mostly] middle eastern sourced oil, extending the lifespan of our fossil fuel sources and reduction of greenhouse gasses and even bigger bang for our energy buck.
So, in case you have any interest in what can be done TODAY with a mature technology or even if you just want a bit of entertainment with [apparently] no intention to proselytize, I submit for your dining and dancing pleasure:
A stock A8L 4.2 diesel auto video. The Audi in question was driven, 800 miles on the public highways of the UK on a single tank of fuel about 20 gallons.
This was for a TV show segment on British TV and there was a camera in the cockpit and in the fuel tank ("Tank Cam") -- the driver/story editor quips as the mileage per gallon exceeds 40MPG, "Audi have apparently created an engine that runs on air. . ."
For anyone that would like to see the show, it can be found in two parts here:
Are our legislators really as dumb as their actions would lead us to believe?
They're not dumb, they're just using oblique methods to provide protection for the domestic auto industry.
The decision was made years ago to cede some ground to the "imports" for passenger cars, in exchange for preferential treatment for the Big 2.5 in the truck market. Just a loophole to allow them to sell vehicles that did not truly conform to the goals of CAFE, as protected companies has taken precedence over saving oil.
the driver/story editor quips as the mileage per gallon exceeds 40MPG...
You cannot use UK mileage figures without converting them to American gallons.
Remember -- the US gallon is 80% of the size of an Imperial gallon. That means that a car that gets 40 mpg in the UK is getting 32 mpg in the US.
That, and there are smaller, less powerful engine choices available in the UK. There is no 3.0 liter A8 in the US, but the smallest turbodiesel A8 in the UK is a 3.0 liter with 230 hp, only 30 more than the gas engine 2.0 liter turbo used in the US A4, and a fair bit less than the larger engines used in the US A8.
But the spirited discussion often seems to be the pro vs con ethanol crowd and somewhat of a "consideration" (and often dismissal) of diesel as an alternative to gasoline that does in part achieve some of the desires we apparently all share: reduction of dependency on [mostly] middle eastern sourced oil, extending the lifespan of our fossil fuel sources and reduction of greenhouse gasses and even bigger bang for our energy buck.
Yet diesel is in the future, not NOW! Biodiesel might be nice but there is so little soybeans to be had that it may never get off the ground...another "future" fuel, not NOW!
If you want to learn about diesel autos, read the VW diesel forum to see how many problems there still are...tons and tons. and the reliability that should be there still is not...the VW diesel ads sound like a 1070s GM ad...loud on promises and short on execution.
However, hope springs eternal, Maybe Honda or Toyota can solve the diesel reliability problems, VW sure can't.
Correction there are 1.2 US gallons to the Imperial gallon which means a US gallon is 83 1/3% the size of an Imperial gallon.
It's a funny thing, because on one hand, that is true, but on the other hand, there are 128 ounces in a US gallon versus 160 ounces in an Imperial gallon. (128/160 = .8, or 80%.)
Seems simple enough, but apparently, as I just learned, the 3% difference comes from the fact that the weight of water used to calculate the size of a gallon is different in the two systems, which means that you need to toss a bit of extra fluid into those US gallons (called a "fluid scruple") when performing the conversion.
(Yes, that's more about fluid measurements than I ever wanted to know, but there you go.)
Remember -- the US gallon is 80% of the size of an Imperial gallon.
Correction there are 1.2 US gallons to the Imperial gallon which means a US gallon is 83 1/3% the size of an Imperial gallon. Meaning its 33 1/3 MPG.
Actually Gud Ole Ben Franklin changed the gallon with the 8 pints of 20oz to 8 pints of 16oz, that is the true difference.
Of course now doing the whole thing in Kilomiters per liter would be much better, rather than trying to figure out some type of fraction to a percentage, where accuracy would be lessened.
Seems simple enough, but apparently, as I just learned, the 3% difference comes from the fact that the weight of water used to calculate the size of a gallon is different in the two systems,
Yep one UK ounce is .96 US ounces. So 160 UK ounces equal 157.3 US ounces. Confusing isn't it? :P
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Actually Gud Ole Ben Franklin changed the gallon with the 8 pints of 20oz to 8 pints of 16oz, that is the true difference.
Then why are the ounces different?
Of course now doing the whole thing in Kilomiters per liter would be much better, rather than trying to figure out some type of fraction to a percentage, where accuracy would be lessened.
Doing Kilometers per liter is no more or less accurate than MPG. It is still a distance per unit of gas. Every one MPG is just .42613 Kilometers per liter.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Besides the entertainment value -- humor even -- I was hoping to bring to this serious and erudite forum, I am glad that folks actually watched the video.
Even if the mileage based on American units of measure would be 33.3 remember this is in a very large, very powerful, very luxobarge car. 0-60MPH in 6 seconds.
If we took this technology, toned down, so to speak to fit American tastes in a smaller car (a "full sized car" rather than a jumbo sized car, that is), with a 3.0 6 cylinder engine motivating a somewhat lighter chassis, it would not be beyond the pale to imagine 40 AMERICAN MPG's would be demonstrated.
We have so many technologies that are already in production is "part" (not "all") of the theme here.
More importantly, I would assume since this is, after all, edmunds, that the choir we are all preaching to is made up of auto enthusiasts (of some fashion, form or ilk.)
This was a temporary insertion of something that while apparently factually based was overwhelmingly meant to entertain us.
Anyway, I hope we don't read too much into this.
It just makes me want to be among those who own a hot rod diesel vehicle, thereby mitigating, somewhat, my fuel hogging ways.
Well, just for the sake of disclosure, let's compare two similar A8's, and see how it shakes out. From What Car?
Cars: 3.0 liter turbodiesel / 3.2 liter gas (non-turbo) HP: 230 / 256 0-60 mph: 7.8 / 7.7 MPG (city, UK gallons): 23.1 / 19.2 MPG (hwy, UK gallons): 42.8 / 39.8 MPG (combined, UK gallons): 32.8 / 28.8
The cars have very similar performance in this comparison, and the mileage benefit of the diesel is certainly there, but not what you might have imagined. The diesel has mileage that is 20.3% better on the highway, 7.5% in town, and 13.9% overall, which is a modest improvement.
To be fair, the diesel in this case might have had a bit of a handicap because it has AWD, whereas the gas version does not have AWD with this particular engine, so it wouldn't surprise me if the gas car had lost 5-10% with the quattro system. (Quattro adds weight, which uses power and eats fuel.) Then again, the gas engine produces more horsepower, which means that it should be generating more power and using more fuel at many points across the powerband, giving it a slight disadvantage. And perhaps the transmissions and gearing are different, I don't know.
I'll let you conclude what that means, but I'm seeing a fair, but not radical difference here. And do remember that you need to get forced induction (turbos) to get similar performance from a diesel that you would get from a similarly sized gas engine.
I believe a better comparison would be the E320 CDI against the E320 gas, both available in the USA.
The diesel according to C&D does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds the gas version is 7.4 seconds. Diesel according to EPA is 27/37 for a combined 30 MPG. The gas version is 20/28 MPG. For a nice round 25% increase in mileage while gaining performance. I believe the price difference is about $1000. What is nice is 800 miles on a 23.5 gallon tank of diesel. When they come up with an E85 vehicle that compares to the E320 CDI I will be in line.
When you compare the E320 diesel to the E320 gas engine, you're comparing a new diesel design to a rather old gas motor that had not seen many tweaks since its introduction many years prior.
It would be a bit better to compare the newer diesel to its newer gas counterpart, the E350, as they both benefit from the most recent technologies. While the fuel economy advantage clearly goes with the diesel, the gas car is faster with sub 7's from 0-60, an improvement over the old car. (Admittedly, though, the comparison is tough because the gas engine produces 67 more horsepower than does the diesel, so it's not quite apples to oranges in either output or usage.)
On the EPA scale of 1-10, 10 being best, the diesel gets a "1" while the California gas car gets a "7", and the 49 state car a "6". That's another issue to be considered here. You're trading economy for a fair chunk of smog.
The diesel afficianados have been cut a bit of slack here, because we've comparing turbodiesels to naturally aspirated gas engines. As you probably know, gas engines produce more power for a given amount of displacement than do diesel engines, and diesels need turbos to match output for a given amount of displacement. Additionally, a turbo motor with a given amount of peak output should have better fuel economy than would a non-turbo with the same amount of power.
So let's compare a turbocharged diesel with a turbocharged gas engine that produces similar output to the diesel. In Europe, the Audi A4 Quattro can be purchased with a 2.0 liter gas turbo or a 3.0 liter turbodiesel, both of which similar horsepower (197 vs. 201) and acceleration (0-60 in 7.2 seconds), which makes these two comparable to one another.
Here, diesel still has the mileage advantage, but the difference is much lower because you can use a smaller gas engine in order to achieve the same output and performance when turbos are used for either:
Car: A4 Q 3.0 liter turbodiesel / 2.0 liter gas turbo HP: 201 / 197 0-60: 7.2 / 7.2 MPG (city, UK gallons): 26.4 / 22.1 MPG (hwy, UK gallons): 47.1 / 41.5 MPG (combined, UK gallons): 36.7 / 31.4
Net result: Diesel mileage is better by 19.5% highway, 13.5% city, 16.9% combined.
you're comparing a new diesel design to a rather old gas motor that had not seen many tweaks since its introduction many years prior
That's not true. The E320 CDI currently being sold is an inline 6 cylinder. The new BluTec one is a V6 diesel. The E320 CDI is the same engine they have used in Europe for several years. Both the Gas and diesel cars will be new. The Gas E350 is the newer V6 version out now. That will compete with the new E320 BluTec diesel. Many are skeptical of the V6 diesel and prefer the old inline 6 version.
On the EPA scale of 1-10, 10 being best, the diesel gets a "1"
Those tests were run using very dirty 500 PPM sulfur laden diesel. I have tried to get some of the anti-diesel crowd to show any credible tests using ULSD. So far only talk, no evidence. If you go back 5 years, a Toyota Camry V6 is rated "ONE" also. That makes most 5 year old cars as dirty as a diesel using dirty fuel. How clean is the car you drive?
You really need to drive a modern diesel car for yourself. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Those tests were run using very dirty 500 PPM sulfur laden diesel. I have tried to get some of the anti-diesel crowd to show any credible tests using ULSD. So far only talk, no evidence.
What evidence would you like? I provided you with the EPA data that's available on the website fueleconomy.gov about those specific cars.
I find this funny -- I have not supported any particular form of propulsion on this thread, but I am learning that some people are intense supporters of fuel types, which never occurred to me.
I don't really have an ax to grind on this issue, but I do find a propensity for proponents for each technology to be awfully selective in what data they use, and I'm just trying to provide some balance. I do favor whatever works, and I can accept that there appears to be no Magic Bullet solution that should be applied in every situation. (If anything, allowing any one solution to have a monopoly only makes us vulnerable to supply shocks and political downturns, so I'd probably oppose any magic bullet answer.)
If you have data on ULSD emissions, present it, I'm happy to see it. If you want it here, then present it, but let's keep in mind that diesel is not really an alternative fuel, and there's no way I can see that anyone will be able to produce enough biodiesel to wean us off the dino version.
I can accept that there appears to be no Magic Bullet solution that should be applied in every situation. (If anything, allowing any one solution to have a monopoly only makes us vulnerable to supply shocks and political downturns, so I'd probably oppose any magic bullet answer.)
there's no way I can see that anyone will be able to produce enough biodiesel to wean us off the dino version
So what are you saying, diesel isn't a magic bullet solution? This is where I'm a little confused. Your previous post states you would tend to oppose a single "magic bullet" solution. So is your last sentence an argument for or against diesel?
This is not a diesel forum and the infinitesimal amount of diesel autos now are irrelevant in the American market and will continue to be so as long as companies like VW and DC still can't produce reliable diesel engines or autos. Any solution to diesel engineering and diesel reliability probably will not come from Europe, but will be solutions from Asia whose attention to the American market, engineering detail and commitment to quality and reliability are legendary, namely right now Toyota and Honda.
Please stick to the purpose of this forum and not try to cover up the shortcomings of the discussions by bringing up irrelevant topics. The subject of this forum is E85, ethanol in general and possibly, to a lesser extent, Biodiesel. Start a diesel forum, there are already a few, but don't bury the E85 discussion on a topic whose time has yet to come.
The differences according to as close as possible to an apples to apples comparison work out something like this:
A6 V6 3.0 TDI 0 - 100KPH 7.0 seconds
A6 V6 3.2 GAS 0 - 100KPH 7.1 seconds
Mileage improvement over GAS ~ 20%
I read an article pertaining to CAFE standards. Unfortunately, like most of the things we "hobbyists" write here (with apologies to any who are fuel economy, ethanol, diesel, bio-diesel, hybrid, etc etc etc engineers, or experts), this article is a secondary resource and is subject to the same responses as most of the secondary resources we cite. The article made its points, showed some charts and graphs and concluded essentially that one weapon in our arsenal is our government.
The article concluded that a one MPG per year increase in CAFE requirements would, within 10 years have significant positive effects with respect to our use of "foreign" oil -- and the list of "good things" that would happen was certainly not unimpressive.
Of course, it makes me wonder if this E85 rush (or at least move in the direction of E85 at what would appear to be a higher speed than would otherwise happen without government "encouragement") is not in part because due to a technicality, an E85 vehicle can, despite its real world worse MPG's, be counted as contributing to improved MPG's since only the gasoline component is counted to calculate the CAFE average number.
The ability to improve MPG's by 20 - 25% (using mfgr's apples to apples gas vs TDI engined cars) would accomplish this apparently desirable CAFE goal of improving by at least 1 MPG (typically much more than 1 MPG, in fact) per year without "fine print" technicalities.
Indeed the improvement of several MPG's "immediately" all the while using a slightly cheaper fuel, and one that CAN be renewed or used as part of a renewable blend, in a slightly less expensive vehicle that happens to be quicker, more durable and has a lower total cost of operation -- and, if using a fuel that is soon to be here (as it already is in Europe) is cleaner even, seems to be in the short term darn near the magic bullet many are looking for (perhaps especially in Congress.)
Until we actually have every retail pump putting out this cleaner fuel, however, we do have the dirtiness issue hanging over us like the haze we see here in our small Midwestern city every summer.
Buying a Mercedes diesel or a Chevy Suburban FFV TODAY is not going to help us move toward our goals of improved CAFE (other than by a technical slight of hand in the case of E85) or lower greenhouse gas emissions, energy independence or cut our expenses. Well, OK, maybe buying the Mercedes will improve our MPG's and lower our fill up costs, but TODAY this could create more negatives than positives (due in large part to the dirty fuel that is still the norm.)
By 2007, though, some of the negatives relating to the fuel will be out of the picture.
Also by 2007, there will be more E85 (love it or hate it) and one would imagine more FFV's and hopefully better FFV's. It would be more than "nice" too to recalibrate the CAFE calculus to actually include both the + and the - to the average MPG's that E85 will bring along, rather than just the +'s. :surprise:
This forum, based only on what is written above in the purpose of the blog seems to include hybrids and virtually anything one wants to write so long as it advances discussion about Green and Yellow in the broadest sense.
I enjoy the discussions about ethanol, hybrid, diesel, bio-diesel and anything that is not too far off the topic of alternatives to where we are now. That is, E10, E85, diesel, B20, batteries, etc ARE "alternative" fuels if the conventional is said to be oil based gasoline.
Of course, as usual, I am often wrong -- but, NEVER uncertain. :shades:
and there's no way I can see that anyone will be able to produce enough biodiesel to wean us off the dino version.
I agree wholeheartedly. I do not expect biodiesel to make any more of an impact than is practical for it to make. I don't believe it should be mandated to some percentage of diesel. I like diesel all by itself. It is 25-35% more efficient than unleaded regular. I am fully behind removing the sulfur from both diesel and gasoline, that is the major polluting element in fuel.
AS far as the EPA fuel economy tests. I sent an email with several questions to the EPA. Their response to the question of ULSD is, it will not be part of the tests until it is universally available across the country. So the test that indicates that the diesel cars get a "1" are valid in areas that have dirty diesel. They are not accurate for those that have ULSD. Which as of 6/1/06 all of CA is mandated to have only ULSD. I also took my Passat into a smog check station to have it tested. Just to satisfy my own curiosity. Guess what? They have NO way in CA to test a diesel engine with their current equipment. Probably part of the reasoning behind banning diesel cars.
You are going to like this article and chart I am posting from Popular Mechanics. It has a comparison of what it would cost to driver from CA to NY with all the different alternatives to gasoline. Your favorite electric vehicle was far and away the least expensive. Hydrogen, methanol & ethanol were of course a lot more expensive. I won't spoil it for you.
You will be hosing ethanol into your gas tank. You will. It’s the law.
The 551-page Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed last August, includes many sops to a blur of special interests, but one single provision rang the bell for automakers, greenies, and farmers, and for a broad coalition of ordinary motorists who were hoping for something, anything, to bring down gasoline prices; starting in 2006, the average gallon of “gas” will contain 2.78-percent ethanol.
Congress has made to the petroleum industry an offer it can’t refuse. It’s called a mandate.
And it’s a mandate that keeps on giving, at least to the farm states, as it ratchets up the ethanol quota, nearly doubling it over the next six years — from 4.0-billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5-billion in 2012.
The idea is simple: Use ethanol as the gasoline equivalent of Hamburger Helper. The nation will stretch more miles out of every barrel we import from, as the President says, “unstable parts of the world.” It’s hardly the “energy independence” we’ve been promised for 30 years, but it’s a baby step in that direction.
Or is it? We’ll measure ethanol’s benefits against the promises made for it down the page, but first, a few basics.
So what are you saying, diesel isn't a magic bullet solution?
I was a little unclear, sorry. What I had intended to say that if the topic is alternative fuels, as opposed to the traditional fuels of gas and diesel, then the biodiesel variant appears to be an incomplete solution because you probably will never produce nearly enough to make much of a difference.
If you truly want to create a diesel orientation among the buying public, then assuming you can do that, you haven't done much to alleviate the oil dependency problem, because using diesel cars will effectively consign us to continue to use large quantities of petro diesel that we will need to import.
The differences according to as close as possible to an apples to apples comparison work out something like this:
A6 V6 3.0 TDI 0 - 100KPH 7.0 seconds
A6 V6 3.2 GAS 0 - 100KPH 7.1 seconds
That's not an apples-to-apples comparison because, as I pointed out, you are comparing a turbocharged diesel to a naturally aspirated gas engine.
That difference alone gives the advantage to the motor with the turbo. Gas engines with turbochargers also save fuel compared to larger naturally aspirated gas motors with the same output. So some of that fuel savings is due to the turbo, not to the fuel.
By comparing the 2.0 liter turbo gas motor to the 3.0 liter turbodiesel, you are making a more accurate comparison because you are comparing the engines based upon output and performance results, and equalizing the effect of turbocharging on fuel economy. (Turbos allow peak power to be produced less frequently across the powerband, which should save fuel if you don't drive at 10/10ths all day long.)
Again, you need to remember -- for a given amount of displacement, diesels produce less horsepower, a lot less. That's why modern diesels invariably have turbos, because they would slog along like tortoises if they didn't have the turbo.
In the case of the Audi, the turbodiesel motor has to be 50% larger to create the same output as a gas engine with a turbo. You can't ignore this when comparing the two technologies.
the topic is alternative fuels, as opposed to the traditional fuels of gas and diesel
Actually the EPA does consider diesel an alternate fuel. Gasoline being the fuel of choice as you have pointed out for 97% of the vehicles on the US highways. That is why the tax credit for diesel is included with hybrids. I do agree it is mostly oil based, it can be made from coal or natural gas. Exxon is in the process of building an 8 billion dollar processing plant in Qatar to convert natural gas into a much easier to transport diesel fuel. Many people will be happy to buy that totally sulfur free diesel.
". . .using diesel cars will effectively consign us to continue to use large quantities of petro diesel that we will need to import."
Yet, does the potential for the reduction of importation of 1.4 million bbl PER DAY (were we to acheive 30% diesel penetration) not have merit?
In other words, is the fact that we will "continue to use . . ." but in reduced quantities, not in the short run justify encouraging the use of diesel and publicizing the merits to the population?
Then, of course, standing back and letting Adam Smith prove or disprove the point. . . .?
That's not an apples-to-apples comparison because, as I pointed out, you are comparing a turbocharged diesel to a naturally aspirated gas engine.
Sounds like a desperation move on your part. Funny Mercedes on their website compares the E320 gasser to their E320 CDI. The CDI wins all the comparisons. I guess the Europeans are way ahead of us in automotive progress.
Why do you always choose HP instead of torque in your comparisons? Many would argue that torque will get you up a long grade where HP is left far behind. I think in America we are brain washed to believe the most important number attached to a car is the 0-60 MPH time. I cannot remember the last time I was concerned with that. Probably in the 1960s when I was involved in 1/4 mile racing. My thing is the need to drive the Interstate from 400 feet to 3500 feet in a few miles. I pass the high screaming gassers by while rarely going past 2200 RPM in a diesel. Torque, give me torque over HP any day of the week.
You can have your high octane ethanol for the screaming gassers that cannot get moving until they are past 4000 RPM.
In the lab, many gasoline alternatives look good. Out on the road, automotive engineers have a lot of work to do, and energy companies have new infrastructure to build, before very many people can drive off into a petroleum-free future. And, there's the issue of money. Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter
A good article on Ethanol and alternative fuels from ruking1:
When you compare a turbocharged engine to a non-turbocharged engine of similar outputs, the turbocharged motor will have better fuel economy.
That's why turbocharging is used, so that you can get more horsepower out of smaller engines, while getting some of the fuel savings from having a smaller engine. (Or more to the point, because fuel consumption is based upon power output, and a turbo motor is able to turn on power more selectively, which should save fuel.)
So again, compare apples to apples, or in this case, turbos to turbos. Since gas engines produce more horsepower per cubic liter/inch, a turbo gas engine of a given output will necessarily be smaller than a comparable diesel engine.
In your comparison, some component of the fuel savings is coming from the turbo, not from the diesel. You're giving credit to the fuel for savings generated by the turbo. Surely, you know enough about engines to know this?
Torque, give me torque over HP any day of the week.
While looking at all the numbers (HP and Torque and the RPMs you need to get there) are important in the overall picture I do agree with you. I will take a lot of low end torque in leu of high end HP.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I believe you are missing the whole point of the discussion. It is getting as many MPG in a given size vehicle while maintaining the needed driveablity. You are wanting to match HP for some unknown reason. Match torque and you would need twice the size of gas engine. It is the vehicle and the MPG that are primary in my mind. If it takes a turbo so be it. If your view is correct why doesn't Toyota and Honda turbocharge the Civic & Corolla engines to get better mileage?
You are wanting to match HP for some unknown reason.
How is it unknown? Because horsepower is a useful measure of the output that is needed to get a passenger car to speed, the practical benefit of output. Comparing the Audi 2.0 liter turbo gas motor to the 3.0 liter turbodiesel is helpful, because both versions of the car need about the same amount of time to get to 60 mph.
Comments
Let me attempt to explain my curiosity as was started and commented upon as follows:
I said --
"The question stands -- what was the time frame to get Europe to 1 in 3?"
You commented --
"Not sure how that helps if oil dependency and/or environment are the primary motivators for change. Unless you like diesel for its own sake (and obviously, some people do), is this a goal worth prioritizing?"
When I started down my "path" of interest in this subject it was when I came across a comment pertaining to a value to us (here in North America, at least) were 1 in 3 of our vehicles diesel (petrol or bio was not the issue discussed.)
In a Feb 20th, '06, Business Week article, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality:
“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.”
Reading this, these months ago, I extrapolated this would certainly help reduce our dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Many people (both in the public and private sectors) believe this is a worthwhile goal. Moreover, if such could happen we can use some renewable diesel or blends in these vehicles which would further this laudable goal.
Additional secondary sources, many quoted and noted here on this very blog, indicate greenhouse emissions would be reduced if such a switch would be made (over some period of time that I cannot find in the literature to quote.)
The greenhouse emissions stated by the DTF (Washington, DC) are up to 60% less if a modern diesel engine burning clean diesel (just now coming on line in the US) was compared to a modern gasoline engine burning unleaded.
This, then, leads me down the path (hopefully not a slippery slope) of thinking that adopting such a posture (encouraging, rather than ignoring or de-emphasizing the adoption of clean diesel powered vehicles) does indeed help "if [reduction of Middle Eastern, to name but one region] oil dependency and/or environment" are at least a secondary goal and even more germane if we view this as a primary goal-set.
I have found it difficult to grasp what seems to be not only an emphasis, but apparently an over-emphasis on the use of ethanol as a method to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, stretch our supplies of oil overall and reduce the environmental impact. Hence my participation in this blog.
The purpose of this forum, according to what is posted above is very broad, broad enough I suspect to permit the point of view that E10, E85, diesel, B20, hybrids, fuel cells and steam even are "alternatives" to the situation we find ourselves in.
I am pleased to see the number is 3% of new registrations -- but the information I have been able to glean says that total "light duty (aka passenger car and light truck) diesel utilization" stands at a paltry 0.26%. This is 2006 data -- but I like the characterization that it is 3% of new registrations better since it at least is larger than the whole number 1!
Maybe, too, diesel as a technology and fuel is perhaps coming into its own with the new fuels hitting the market and the EP Act of 2005 actually "bribing" us to buy a diesel (or a hybrid for that matter) rather than putting up yet another roadblock to seeing if the market will kill it once and for all or if there may, just may be a market for it.
If my number, 0.26% is for bio or blended diesel only, I do thank you and stand corrected. But, all I have been able to find is as I noted.
Obviously going from 3% to 9% or 30% is a lot easier than going from 0.26%, but in either case, it is still a long and steep uphill battle.
I am "rooting" (essentially) for all of these "alternatives," even the alternatives that no one is talking about and no one has even thought of yet. We are, perhaps NOT literally running out of oil (at least in our lifetimes and probably our children's lifetimes), but we certainly cannot wait to address the issues.
Frankly, diesel seems to be like the horse and the jockey in Seabiscuit -- it is hard to imagine it could win. But ethanol seems even less likely to succeed based on the secondary information that is floating around in ABUNDANCE. Ethanol seems to be the "clothes" on the Emperor, that is.
Consumers will vote with their wallets. Consumers will either prove or disprove the validity of these approaches, despite Energy Bills, Acts and other public policy responses. I say "let 'em all be tried." At this point, they all seem flawed. Diesel (in all its various flavors) at least seems like it could work.
But, you may well be right, diesel may prove to be so historically unpopular that the stigma it has cannot be overcome.
I just wonder what will happen if E85 gets 30% worse MPG's and costs at least a half a buck more per gallon than E10, if it can overcome this hurdle.
Me, I'm investing in that new cable TV for cars. The problem to overcome there is simply the tangle of wires dragging out behind everyone's cars -- compared to the alternative fuel issue, this looks like an easy problem to overcome. :shades:
The Associated Press
Monday, June 19, 2006; 4:11 AM
WASHINGTON -- With the market for corn-based ethanol booming, lawmakers from sugar-producing states are hoping that beet and cane growers can soon jump onto the renewable fuel bandwagon.
"One of the things that people ... need to think about it is what generation of ethanol do they want to pursue? The corn-based or the sugar-based ethanol, which is called first-generation ethanol, is going right at the food costs," said John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co.
"In other words, there's only so much corn, and if oil companies are attacked for the price of gasoline and we've seen ethanol go from $1.20 a gallon in 2005 to last week it was hitting $5 a gallon on the spot market _ if we start sucking up, as oil companies, all the ethanol, it's going to hit the price of eggs, the price of bacon, the price of hamburger, the price of Doritos and Fritos, because there's only so much corn to go around," he said.
PS
That is about the 10th time you have posted the same information. Do you have any new research to post.
Stick to the topic, not personal attacks. All I am doing is rooting out the Myths and Falsehoods about Ethanol and Biodiesel. Hey Ms Host, how do we get rid of the personal attacks or don't we.
The Nebraska Ethanol Board is devoted to the development, support and advocacy of the ethanol industry. It is the Nebraska leader in the promotion of the farm based fuel.
Established in 1971 by the Nebraska Legislature, the Nebraska Ethanol Board:
Assists ethanol producers with programs and strategies for marketing ethanol and its co-products;
Fosters the growth of the ethanol industry in Nebraska by acting as a resource for developers and investors;
Supports organizations and policies that advocate the increased use of ethanol fuels;
Administers public information, education and ethanol-focused research projects;
Provides leadership and counsel for the industry and its advocates in ensuring a role for ethanol in the state’s economic future—and in America’s fuel supply.
The tremendous growth of the ethanol industry in Nebraska is testament to the focus, experience and leadership of the Nebraska Ethanol Board.
He did stick to the topic, he noted that you repeat the same information and asked you to provide something new to the discussion. I too find your posts way to long and repetitive (not to mention with their own myths and falsehoods) that I just gloss over anything you write.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Station Name: Shell
Station City: Stanley, WI
Unleaded Price: 2.95
Date: Sunday, June 18, 2006
“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.”
That's an interesting point.
If that alone is reason enough for diesel to become part of US public policy, then the answer to encourage adoption is clear: provide a tax credit to consumers who buy diesel vehicles and/or an extra tax to buy gas-engined cars (incentives for buying the equipment), combined with fuel tax shifts that make diesel cheaper than gas, i.e. $1-1.50 per gallon less.
But do you honestly see that happening? I sure don't. For one, who in the Congress has the political will to raise gas taxes in order to create this incentive?
I just wonder what will happen if E85 gets 30% worse MPG's and costs at least a half a buck more per gallon than E10, if it can overcome this hurdle.
If it was priced like that, then no, E85 would fail. Consumers would need an incentive to buy FFV vehicles and then use the fuel, while automakers may need to see enough demand to make the cars (although this shouldn't be difficult, given that they already make gas-engine cars -- it's an easy add-on for the automakers).
I could see E10 as a way to achieve some net reduction in oil, but given the loss of fuel economy, the net savings in oil usage would be less than 10%. But again, you need to increase ethanol production by 400% of current levels in order to have E10 at every station in America.
And we need to keep in mind that the net benefits of these technologies may not be as great as we expect, because of human behavior. For example, if consumers move to cars that are cheaper to fuel up, they may respond in part by simply driving more because they can afford to. With the lower fuel costs, you can't just presume that consumers may not change their behavior in line with the economics.
A tax credit of up to $3400 is in place. The diesel car has to pass certain emissions to qualify. I am sure the new diesels from Mercedes, Honda and VW will be eligible.
Interesting that they did not include any Flex Fuel Vehicles in the tax credit program. Maybe they figured they gave enough to the Ethanol industry. Let the consumer eat cake.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) posted its estimates of tax credits for 31 hybrid and diesel cars and light trucks that fall under tax credit provisions of the new federal energy bill. These are best-guess estimates, based on a combination of preliminary 2006 model year data, 2005 model year data, and manufacturer announcements, and are intended only to give a sense of the magnitude of the upcoming credits, which will be available starting January 1, 2006
http://www.aceee.org/press/0508hybridtaxcr.htm
Addition: the MB E320 Blutec has passed the test and will get a $2175 tax credit. Alright MB.
Yep, there will be some new jobs (and I do understand the importance to the people getting those jobs) in Cadiz, Ohio. Yet, overall, the impact beyond these jobs is good for the Midwest? Hmm.
Speaking only for myself, apparently a screaming voice in the wilderness, this midwesterner was not consulted regarding the creation of an ethanol refinery that in some small way reminds me of the "bridge to nowhere."
The one, that I know of, redeeming piece of information about this plant [Cadiz, Ohio] seems to be that it has a bunch of private money. Of course there is that nagging feeling that somewhere someone is getting [our tax money] on the back end to essentially subsidize this as of yet not quite ready for prime [economic] time endeavor.
Not all Midwesterners are in love with ethanol. In fact, even though my in-laws are from the Cadiz area they think it is not a good use of the public's funds or the public's trust. :confuse:
Some folks love "rent controlled" housing, some don't. Ethanol, TODAY, even in Cadiz is "apparently" known to produce a fuel (E85) that returns about 30% worse fuel mileage. It must be true, it was in the papers!
Seriously, I ASSUME someone has figured out this apparent contradiction (EXTRA EXTRA Read all about it: ". . .renewable fuel, ethanol, costs the same as gasoline yet takes 30% more to go as far as gasoline. . .public clammors to wait in line for opportunity to buy. . ." EXTRA EXTRA) or is this one teeny tiny data point (not to mention the possibility of E85 actually costging MORE than a gallon of the pure stuff) somehow being overlooked or, worse, toleated in violation of the "law" of comparative (and competitive) advantage?
Last one out, get the lights!
:shades:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will require ethanol plants in Minnesota to install millions of dollars worth of pollution control equipment, under a settlement announced Wednesday in St. Paul. The agreement is expected to be a model for the ethanol industry nationwide.
Not all Midwesterners are in love with ethanol.
Midwesterners are hard working conservative people. I think this whole ethanol thing has become a 3 ring Circus that all of us are paying for. We did not learn a single thing from the ethanol mess in the 1980s. If the money was spent to research for viable alternatives to corn ethanol I believe most Americans would support the effort.
It was the same mentality that got Nixon in trouble. "The End Justifies the Means." Eat, Drink and grow corn for tomorrow we will realize what we have done to our land.
Nope, Midwesterner here and I don't see no real benefit to anyone but a few people and some mega corporations.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You may not be alone. I sure would not quit a good job to take one in an ethanol plant. This is like deja vue for the USA and Brazil.
Congress last engineered an ethanol boom in the 1970s, and most producers went bust a few years later. The Carter administration, facing oil prices of $13 a barrel, the equivalent of $40 today after factoring in inflation, supported a new ethanol tax break for refiners in 1978.
For each gallon of ethanol they mixed into gasoline, refiners received a 40 cent reduction in the federal excise tax on gasoline. That helped stimulate a 10-fold increase in the number of producers to a record 163 by the end of 1984.
When oil prices crashed, falling to $11 a barrel in 1986 from $37 in 1981, the price of ethanol was no longer competitive with gasoline, and demand plummeted. More than half of the ethanol distillers went out of business. ``Even with a subsidy, nothing was enough to prevent the high rate of market change,'' a U.S. Energy Department history of the era says.
Story time: My wife is an attorney and she will sometimes write a letter stating in a calm, logical and straightforward manner, the "facts of the matter," offer some "suggestions," speculate on the possible consequences and then conclude "Be guided accordingly. . . ."
That line always gets me.
Here is the ethanol discussion. . . .
“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."
And now for the zinger:
"Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter.”
Source – “Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels,” Popular Mechanics, April 2006.
Got me again!
"Will ethanol E85 catch on in the US? Will we Live Green and Go Yellow?"
Hmm, well there are departures from this regularly and frequently -- when in doubt consult the what this is about line:
"What is this discussion about? Chrysler, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mercury, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Chevrolet Avalanche, Coupe, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, SUV, Alternative Fuels, Hybrid. . ." (and I will add etcetera since I bet the definition was space constrained.)
So, since we are talking BROADLY about alternatives (apparently an alternative can be just about anything that is an alternative to the [US?] status quo of using either 100% gasoline or 90% gasoline mixed with 10% ethanol -- and of course going all the way to E85 and one may assume from PURE diesel (and getting more pure every day over here if you get my drift in pts per million, i.e.) to B20. Further, even hybrids can play in this discussion.
But the spirited discussion often seems to be the pro vs con ethanol crowd and somewhat of a "consideration" (and often dismissal) of diesel as an alternative to gasoline that does in part achieve some of the desires we apparently all share: reduction of dependency on [mostly] middle eastern sourced oil, extending the lifespan of our fossil fuel sources and reduction of greenhouse gasses and even bigger bang for our energy buck.
So, in case you have any interest in what can be done TODAY with a mature technology or even if you just want a bit of entertainment with [apparently] no intention to proselytize, I submit for your dining and dancing pleasure:
A stock A8L 4.2 diesel auto video. The Audi in question was driven, 800 miles on the public highways of the UK on a single tank of fuel about 20 gallons.
This was for a TV show segment on British TV and there was a camera in the cockpit and in the fuel tank ("Tank Cam") -- the driver/story editor quips as the mileage per gallon exceeds 40MPG, "Audi have apparently created an engine that runs on air. . ."
For anyone that would like to see the show, it can be found in two parts here:
Kliky Here part #1
and here:
Kliky Here part #2
Hope you like it -- and if you're not interested, sorry I bothered you. Full disclosure it is 14 minutes long and full of Brit Wit! :shades:
They're not dumb, they're just using oblique methods to provide protection for the domestic auto industry.
The decision was made years ago to cede some ground to the "imports" for passenger cars, in exchange for preferential treatment for the Big 2.5 in the truck market. Just a loophole to allow them to sell vehicles that did not truly conform to the goals of CAFE, as protected companies has taken precedence over saving oil.
You cannot use UK mileage figures without converting them to American gallons.
Remember -- the US gallon is 80% of the size of an Imperial gallon. That means that a car that gets 40 mpg in the UK is getting 32 mpg in the US.
That, and there are smaller, less powerful engine choices available in the UK. There is no 3.0 liter A8 in the US, but the smallest turbodiesel A8 in the UK is a 3.0 liter with 230 hp, only 30 more than the gas engine 2.0 liter turbo used in the US A4, and a fair bit less than the larger engines used in the US A8.
Correction there are 1.2 US gallons to the Imperial gallon which means a US gallon is 83 1/3% the size of an Imperial gallon. Meaning its 33 1/3 MPG.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yet diesel is in the future, not NOW! Biodiesel might be nice but there is so little soybeans to be had that it may never get off the ground...another "future" fuel, not NOW!
If you want to learn about diesel autos, read the VW diesel forum to see how many problems there still are...tons and tons. and the reliability that should be there still is not...the VW diesel ads sound like a 1070s GM ad...loud on promises and short on execution.
However, hope springs eternal, Maybe Honda or Toyota can solve the diesel reliability problems, VW sure can't.
It's a funny thing, because on one hand, that is true, but on the other hand, there are 128 ounces in a US gallon versus 160 ounces in an Imperial gallon. (128/160 = .8, or 80%.)
Seems simple enough, but apparently, as I just learned, the 3% difference comes from the fact that the weight of water used to calculate the size of a gallon is different in the two systems, which means that you need to toss a bit of extra fluid into those US gallons (called a "fluid scruple") when performing the conversion.
(Yes, that's more about fluid measurements than I ever wanted to know, but there you go.)
Correction there are 1.2 US gallons to the Imperial gallon which means a US gallon is 83 1/3% the size of an Imperial gallon. Meaning its 33 1/3 MPG.
Actually Gud Ole Ben Franklin changed the gallon with the 8 pints of 20oz to 8 pints of 16oz, that is the true difference.
Of course now doing the whole thing in Kilomiters per liter would be much better, rather than trying to figure out some type of fraction to a percentage, where accuracy would be lessened.
Yep one UK ounce is .96 US ounces. So 160 UK ounces equal 157.3 US ounces. Confusing isn't it? :P
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Then why are the ounces different?
Of course now doing the whole thing in Kilomiters per liter would be much better, rather than trying to figure out some type of fraction to a percentage, where accuracy would be lessened.
Doing Kilometers per liter is no more or less accurate than MPG. It is still a distance per unit of gas. Every one MPG is just .42613 Kilometers per liter.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Even if the mileage based on American units of measure would be 33.3 remember this is in a very large, very powerful, very luxobarge car. 0-60MPH in 6 seconds.
If we took this technology, toned down, so to speak to fit American tastes in a smaller car (a "full sized car" rather than a jumbo sized car, that is), with a 3.0 6 cylinder engine motivating a somewhat lighter chassis, it would not be beyond the pale to imagine 40 AMERICAN MPG's would be demonstrated.
We have so many technologies that are already in production is "part" (not "all") of the theme here.
More importantly, I would assume since this is, after all, edmunds, that the choir we are all preaching to is made up of auto enthusiasts (of some fashion, form or ilk.)
This was a temporary insertion of something that while apparently factually based was overwhelmingly meant to entertain us.
Anyway, I hope we don't read too much into this.
It just makes me want to be among those who own a hot rod diesel vehicle, thereby mitigating, somewhat, my fuel hogging ways.
Cars: 3.0 liter turbodiesel / 3.2 liter gas (non-turbo)
HP: 230 / 256
0-60 mph: 7.8 / 7.7
MPG (city, UK gallons): 23.1 / 19.2
MPG (hwy, UK gallons): 42.8 / 39.8
MPG (combined, UK gallons): 32.8 / 28.8
The cars have very similar performance in this comparison, and the mileage benefit of the diesel is certainly there, but not what you might have imagined. The diesel has mileage that is 20.3% better on the highway, 7.5% in town, and 13.9% overall, which is a modest improvement.
To be fair, the diesel in this case might have had a bit of a handicap because it has AWD, whereas the gas version does not have AWD with this particular engine, so it wouldn't surprise me if the gas car had lost 5-10% with the quattro system. (Quattro adds weight, which uses power and eats fuel.) Then again, the gas engine produces more horsepower, which means that it should be generating more power and using more fuel at many points across the powerband, giving it a slight disadvantage. And perhaps the transmissions and gearing are different, I don't know.
I'll let you conclude what that means, but I'm seeing a fair, but not radical difference here. And do remember that you need to get forced induction (turbos) to get similar performance from a diesel that you would get from a similarly sized gas engine.
The diesel according to C&D does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds the gas version is 7.4 seconds. Diesel according to EPA is 27/37 for a combined 30 MPG. The gas version is 20/28 MPG. For a nice round 25% increase in mileage while gaining performance. I believe the price difference is about $1000. What is nice is 800 miles on a 23.5 gallon tank of diesel. When they come up with an E85 vehicle that compares to the E320 CDI I will be in line.
It would be a bit better to compare the newer diesel to its newer gas counterpart, the E350, as they both benefit from the most recent technologies. While the fuel economy advantage clearly goes with the diesel, the gas car is faster with sub 7's from 0-60, an improvement over the old car. (Admittedly, though, the comparison is tough because the gas engine produces 67 more horsepower than does the diesel, so it's not quite apples to oranges in either output or usage.)
On the EPA scale of 1-10, 10 being best, the diesel gets a "1" while the California gas car gets a "7", and the 49 state car a "6". That's another issue to be considered here. You're trading economy for a fair chunk of smog.
So let's compare a turbocharged diesel with a turbocharged gas engine that produces similar output to the diesel. In Europe, the Audi A4 Quattro can be purchased with a 2.0 liter gas turbo or a 3.0 liter turbodiesel, both of which similar horsepower (197 vs. 201) and acceleration (0-60 in 7.2 seconds), which makes these two comparable to one another.
Here, diesel still has the mileage advantage, but the difference is much lower because you can use a smaller gas engine in order to achieve the same output and performance when turbos are used for either:
Car: A4 Q 3.0 liter turbodiesel / 2.0 liter gas turbo
HP: 201 / 197
0-60: 7.2 / 7.2
MPG (city, UK gallons): 26.4 / 22.1
MPG (hwy, UK gallons): 47.1 / 41.5
MPG (combined, UK gallons): 36.7 / 31.4
Net result: Diesel mileage is better by 19.5% highway, 13.5% city, 16.9% combined.
That's not true. The E320 CDI currently being sold is an inline 6 cylinder. The new BluTec one is a V6 diesel. The E320 CDI is the same engine they have used in Europe for several years. Both the Gas and diesel cars will be new. The Gas E350 is the newer V6 version out now. That will compete with the new E320 BluTec diesel. Many are skeptical of the V6 diesel and prefer the old inline 6 version.
E320 BluTec
On the EPA scale of 1-10, 10 being best, the diesel gets a "1"
Those tests were run using very dirty 500 PPM sulfur laden diesel. I have tried to get some of the anti-diesel crowd to show any credible tests using ULSD. So far only talk, no evidence. If you go back 5 years, a Toyota Camry V6 is rated "ONE" also. That makes most 5 year old cars as dirty as a diesel using dirty fuel. How clean is the car you drive?
You really need to drive a modern diesel car for yourself. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
What evidence would you like? I provided you with the EPA data that's available on the website fueleconomy.gov about those specific cars.
I find this funny -- I have not supported any particular form of propulsion on this thread, but I am learning that some people are intense supporters of fuel types, which never occurred to me.
I don't really have an ax to grind on this issue, but I do find a propensity for proponents for each technology to be awfully selective in what data they use, and I'm just trying to provide some balance. I do favor whatever works, and I can accept that there appears to be no Magic Bullet solution that should be applied in every situation. (If anything, allowing any one solution to have a monopoly only makes us vulnerable to supply shocks and political downturns, so I'd probably oppose any magic bullet answer.)
If you have data on ULSD emissions, present it, I'm happy to see it. If you want it here, then present it, but let's keep in mind that diesel is not really an alternative fuel, and there's no way I can see that anyone will be able to produce enough biodiesel to wean us off the dino version.
there's no way I can see that anyone will be able to produce enough biodiesel to wean us off the dino version
So what are you saying, diesel isn't a magic bullet solution? This is where I'm a little confused. Your previous post states you would tend to oppose a single "magic bullet" solution. So is your last sentence an argument for or against diesel?
Please stick to the purpose of this forum and not try to cover up the shortcomings of the discussions by bringing up irrelevant topics. The subject of this forum is E85, ethanol in general and possibly, to a lesser extent, Biodiesel. Start a diesel forum, there are already a few, but don't bury the E85 discussion on a topic whose time has yet to come.
A6 V6 3.0 TDI 0 - 100KPH 7.0 seconds
A6 V6 3.2 GAS 0 - 100KPH 7.1 seconds
Mileage improvement over GAS ~ 20%
I read an article pertaining to CAFE standards. Unfortunately, like most of the things we "hobbyists" write here (with apologies to any who are fuel economy, ethanol, diesel, bio-diesel, hybrid, etc etc etc engineers, or experts), this article is a secondary resource and is subject to the same responses as most of the secondary resources we cite. The article made its points, showed some charts and graphs and concluded essentially that one weapon in our arsenal is our government.
The article concluded that a one MPG per year increase in CAFE requirements would, within 10 years have significant positive effects with respect to our use of "foreign" oil -- and the list of "good things" that would happen was certainly not unimpressive.
Of course, it makes me wonder if this E85 rush (or at least move in the direction of E85 at what would appear to be a higher speed than would otherwise happen without government "encouragement") is not in part because due to a technicality, an E85 vehicle can, despite its real world worse MPG's, be counted as contributing to improved MPG's since only the gasoline component is counted to calculate the CAFE average number.
The ability to improve MPG's by 20 - 25% (using mfgr's apples to apples gas vs TDI engined cars) would accomplish this apparently desirable CAFE goal of improving by at least 1 MPG (typically much more than 1 MPG, in fact) per year without "fine print" technicalities.
Indeed the improvement of several MPG's "immediately" all the while using a slightly cheaper fuel, and one that CAN be renewed or used as part of a renewable blend, in a slightly less expensive vehicle that happens to be quicker, more durable and has a lower total cost of operation -- and, if using a fuel that is soon to be here (as it already is in Europe) is cleaner even, seems to be in the short term darn near the magic bullet many are looking for (perhaps especially in Congress.)
Until we actually have every retail pump putting out this cleaner fuel, however, we do have the dirtiness issue hanging over us like the haze we see here in our small Midwestern city every summer.
Buying a Mercedes diesel or a Chevy Suburban FFV TODAY is not going to help us move toward our goals of improved CAFE (other than by a technical slight of hand in the case of E85) or lower greenhouse gas emissions, energy independence or cut our expenses. Well, OK, maybe buying the Mercedes will improve our MPG's and lower our fill up costs, but TODAY this could create more negatives than positives (due in large part to the dirty fuel that is still the norm.)
By 2007, though, some of the negatives relating to the fuel will be out of the picture.
Also by 2007, there will be more E85 (love it or hate it) and one would imagine more FFV's and hopefully better FFV's. It would be more than "nice" too to recalibrate the CAFE calculus to actually include both the + and the - to the average MPG's that E85 will bring along, rather than just the +'s. :surprise:
I enjoy the discussions about ethanol, hybrid, diesel, bio-diesel and anything that is not too far off the topic of alternatives to where we are now. That is, E10, E85, diesel, B20, batteries, etc ARE "alternative" fuels if the conventional is said to be oil based gasoline.
Of course, as usual, I am often wrong -- but, NEVER uncertain. :shades:
I agree wholeheartedly. I do not expect biodiesel to make any more of an impact than is practical for it to make. I don't believe it should be mandated to some percentage of diesel. I like diesel all by itself. It is 25-35% more efficient than unleaded regular. I am fully behind removing the sulfur from both diesel and gasoline, that is the major polluting element in fuel.
AS far as the EPA fuel economy tests. I sent an email with several questions to the EPA. Their response to the question of ULSD is, it will not be part of the tests until it is universally available across the country. So the test that indicates that the diesel cars get a "1" are valid in areas that have dirty diesel. They are not accurate for those that have ULSD. Which as of 6/1/06 all of CA is mandated to have only ULSD. I also took my Passat into a smog check station to have it tested. Just to satisfy my own curiosity. Guess what? They have NO way in CA to test a diesel engine with their current equipment. Probably part of the reasoning behind banning diesel cars.
cost to drive from CA to NY
The 551-page Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed last August, includes many sops to a blur of special interests, but one single provision rang the bell for automakers, greenies, and farmers, and for a broad coalition of ordinary motorists who were hoping for something, anything, to bring down gasoline prices; starting in 2006, the average gallon of “gas” will contain 2.78-percent ethanol.
Congress has made to the petroleum industry an offer it can’t refuse. It’s called a mandate.
And it’s a mandate that keeps on giving, at least to the farm states, as it ratchets up the ethanol quota, nearly doubling it over the next six years — from 4.0-billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5-billion in 2012.
The idea is simple: Use ethanol as the gasoline equivalent of Hamburger Helper. The nation will stretch more miles out of every barrel we import from, as the President says, “unstable parts of the world.” It’s hardly the “energy independence” we’ve been promised for 30 years, but it’s a baby step in that direction.
Or is it? We’ll measure ethanol’s benefits against the promises made for it down the page, but first, a few basics.
Read on complements of qbrozen:
Car & Driver on Ethanol
I was a little unclear, sorry. What I had intended to say that if the topic is alternative fuels, as opposed to the traditional fuels of gas and diesel, then the biodiesel variant appears to be an incomplete solution because you probably will never produce nearly enough to make much of a difference.
If you truly want to create a diesel orientation among the buying public, then assuming you can do that, you haven't done much to alleviate the oil dependency problem, because using diesel cars will effectively consign us to continue to use large quantities of petro diesel that we will need to import.
A6 V6 3.0 TDI 0 - 100KPH 7.0 seconds
A6 V6 3.2 GAS 0 - 100KPH 7.1 seconds
That's not an apples-to-apples comparison because, as I pointed out, you are comparing a turbocharged diesel to a naturally aspirated gas engine.
That difference alone gives the advantage to the motor with the turbo. Gas engines with turbochargers also save fuel compared to larger naturally aspirated gas motors with the same output. So some of that fuel savings is due to the turbo, not to the fuel.
By comparing the 2.0 liter turbo gas motor to the 3.0 liter turbodiesel, you are making a more accurate comparison because you are comparing the engines based upon output and performance results, and equalizing the effect of turbocharging on fuel economy. (Turbos allow peak power to be produced less frequently across the powerband, which should save fuel if you don't drive at 10/10ths all day long.)
Again, you need to remember -- for a given amount of displacement, diesels produce less horsepower, a lot less. That's why modern diesels invariably have turbos, because they would slog along like tortoises if they didn't have the turbo.
In the case of the Audi, the turbodiesel motor has to be 50% larger to create the same output as a gas engine with a turbo. You can't ignore this when comparing the two technologies.
Actually the EPA does consider diesel an alternate fuel. Gasoline being the fuel of choice as you have pointed out for 97% of the vehicles on the US highways. That is why the tax credit for diesel is included with hybrids. I do agree it is mostly oil based, it can be made from coal or natural gas. Exxon is in the process of building an 8 billion dollar processing plant in Qatar to convert natural gas into a much easier to transport diesel fuel. Many people will be happy to buy that totally sulfur free diesel.
". . .using diesel cars will effectively consign us to continue to use large quantities of petro diesel that we will need to import."
Yet, does the potential for the reduction of importation of 1.4 million bbl PER DAY (were we to acheive 30% diesel penetration) not have merit?
In other words, is the fact that we will "continue to use . . ." but in reduced quantities, not in the short run justify encouraging the use of diesel and publicizing the merits to the population?
Then, of course, standing back and letting Adam Smith prove or disprove the point. . . .?
Sounds like a desperation move on your part. Funny Mercedes on their website compares the E320 gasser to their E320 CDI. The CDI wins all the comparisons. I guess the Europeans are way ahead of us in automotive progress.
Why do you always choose HP instead of torque in your comparisons? Many would argue that torque will get you up a long grade where HP is left far behind. I think in America we are brain washed to believe the most important number attached to a car is the 0-60 MPH time. I cannot remember the last time I was concerned with that. Probably in the 1960s when I was involved in 1/4 mile racing. My thing is the need to drive the Interstate from 400 feet to 3500 feet in a few miles. I pass the high screaming gassers by while rarely going past 2200 RPM in a diesel. Torque, give me torque over HP any day of the week.
You can have your high octane ethanol for the screaming gassers that cannot get moving until they are past 4000 RPM.
A good article on Ethanol and alternative fuels from ruking1:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html
You must be joking. Let's try this again:
When you compare a turbocharged engine to a non-turbocharged engine of similar outputs, the turbocharged motor will have better fuel economy.
That's why turbocharging is used, so that you can get more horsepower out of smaller engines, while getting some of the fuel savings from having a smaller engine. (Or more to the point, because fuel consumption is based upon power output, and a turbo motor is able to turn on power more selectively, which should save fuel.)
So again, compare apples to apples, or in this case, turbos to turbos. Since gas engines produce more horsepower per cubic liter/inch, a turbo gas engine of a given output will necessarily be smaller than a comparable diesel engine.
In your comparison, some component of the fuel savings is coming from the turbo, not from the diesel. You're giving credit to the fuel for savings generated by the turbo. Surely, you know enough about engines to know this?
While looking at all the numbers (HP and Torque and the RPMs you need to get there) are important in the overall picture I do agree with you. I will take a lot of low end torque in leu of high end HP.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
How is it unknown? Because horsepower is a useful measure of the output that is needed to get a passenger car to speed, the practical benefit of output. Comparing the Audi 2.0 liter turbo gas motor to the 3.0 liter turbodiesel is helpful, because both versions of the car need about the same amount of time to get to 60 mph.