Is This the "Day of the Diesel?"

ruking1

One of the components which has been acknowledged along has been and continues to be cost. Coming under the heading of almost mantra like repetiveness are stuff like less dependency on foreign oil. Alternative fuels also ranks up there. Using less resources,etc, etc.

The other is how seriously uncompetitive the price of diesel. This is almost a slam dunk caused by the 2.9% of the vehicle fleet being diesel where the other 97.1% is gasser.

winter2

Talking about the price of fuel and fuels in general, there was an interesting tidbit concerning the future of ethanol. It is going to be a bust. Here is the tidbit.

A Modest Proposal When it comes to energy, and cars in particular, we tend to fall into an all-or-nothing mode of thinking. First we run out and buy the most ridiculous vehicle we can think of, a Hummer or Lincoln Navigator, then when gas prices spike we dash back to the dealer for a Prius. In Washington, ethanol is all the rage these days, even though it is probably a poor solution economically and environmentally. But a team of researchers at MIT have come up with an intriguing notion -- designing a smaller, lighter gas engine that would use an ethanol-powered turbocharger to supply a squirt of power when it's needed. The researchers say it would be much simpler and cheaper to build than a hybrid.

Couple of interesting things here. They state ethanol will be environmentally unsound. And now adding a squirt of ethanol to a turbocharged gasser. That should be interesting. Everyone complains about the Ad Blue tank on a Mercedes. Now we have an ethanol tank on a gasser. Both will have an interesting impact on the environment. An empty tank in either case will be bad. For the diesel you will dump more NOx into the air. For the gasser, the timing will have to be retarded to save the engine from detonation thus dumping more unburned HC and CO into the air. What a fine idea this is.

qbrozen

I may have mentioned this before here, but my father is the shop supervisor at a large trucking company here on the east coast. Anyway, I asked him how they are making out with this conversion. He stressed the mechanical problems developing from the new diesel are a BIG concern. We're talking full engine rebuilds due to the decomposition of the O-rings that were designed with the lubrication effects of high-sulfur in mind.

the new trucks come with a $15k premium per unit over the old ones, mostly due to the new platinum muffler systems. In addition, these muffler systems require once-per-year cleaning by law to the tune of about $2k. OUCH! The system required to clean them costs $25k and has a limited lifespan.

They are also experiencing an average drop of around 10-15% in fuel economy with the ULSD.

There are widespread grumblings of strike by the owner-operators out there who can't afford to keep up with these changes. Currently, all of the trucks on the road must be compliant by January. If not, they aren't allowed on the road.

gagrice

There are widespread grumblings of strike by the owner-operators out there who can't afford to keep up with these changes. Currently, all of the trucks on the road must be compliant by January. If not, they aren't allowed on the road.

This is a lot more serious than most folks realize. It impacts EVERYTHING we eat and use on a daily basis. The handwriting was on the wall watching trucking companies in CA going broke because of heavy regulation. I guess we will all have to drive out to the fields in our Prius to get food for supper.

It does not stop at truckers. School buses are mostly diesel. They will have to be retrofitted or replaced. With the high cost in So CA to put your kids on the bus it has increased the traffic at schools by a huge amount. More SUVs and Mini-Vans than you can shake a stick at.

Add to that truck drivers are in such short supply that many are getting more money than college grads with PHDs.

ruking1

Indeed the discussion is bizarre. I think that the underlying assumption is the "lone ranger" approach. We all look for the "silver bullet" solution. One fuel with magical attributes (truth, justice, mom, apple pie, etc) to replace unleaded regular. Cheap, plentiful, can use it in place of milk in your morning cereal bowl, cleans up the environment, can adjust the global temperature and conditions and foster world peas.

At all levels the regulators "mouth" the words, but given diesels obstacles, they truly do not believe that we really need to get off a single fuel!!! BUT we need to ????

qbrozen

This is a lot more serious than most folks realize.

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, I don't feel I'm being an alarmist when I say, if all owner-operators went on strike, this country would be brought to its knees awfully fast.

School buses are mostly diesel.

Well, maybe this is a regional thing, but the only effect this will have on me is raising my taxes. Not that I appreciate having my taxes raised, but what I mean to say is, the school buses will continue to run in my state.

nippononly

This, I think, is part of the problem. Diesel is a lot less competitively priced because it is only sold at about 20% of the stations. Station owners can count on you not going another 5 miles out of your way to save a few cents, hence the price rises and rises. The ARCO I visited was not even in my town, which as far as I know does not have diesel available anywhere except one Shell station.

As someone else above said, it is time to move quickly to multiple fueling choices to get the market more competitive again and bring costs down for everyone. Not to mention, begin to fight global warming in a more meainingful way.

ruking1

In 2002 when I was doing the research, I was able to "get over" the issue that you could not really get diesel at the corner store, even though I was able to get it at the corner store. I mean how many people REALLY DO get fuel at the corner store, if it more expensive than another station along your transportation route? As you have said, at the time I believe the ratio was 20-25% of the stations had diesel. Fast forward to 2006, while I have not seen statistics, I believe % and vol wise both are more.

My real issue was being able to get it on a road trip. BUT really: DAH, diesel IS the mainstay of the interstate system !!! So the concern really disappeared.

nippononly

Yes, interstate availability seems to be almost as good as unleaded.

But in town, who wants to go out of their way, or in some cases out of town to get it?

The 20% availability figure I quoted came from an article I read this month in R&T (which was provided to them by the government) that talked about the future of other fuels, including diesel. So it would appear that number is holding steady, which means you probably shouldn't expect it to increase a whole lot until/unless the time comes when we have heavy market saturation by diesel-powered cars.

I think when it comes to gassing up, most people are either brand shoppers that go to the same station every time when they are in town, or else price shoppers that keep their eye out for the most rock-bottom price and know where it is usually most likely to be. Then there are a few who just fill up when the whim strikes them, but mainly people are creatures of habit.

Price shoppers know that unless the savings are more than a few cents a gallon, it won't pay them to drive more than two or three miles out of their way.

ruking1

I would actually agree with everything you have said. However, what I said was a statement of me "getting through to the other side" so to speak.

The only thing is that I read in passing (another government provided statistic) mentioning a far greater %. Since I did not bookmark it, I won't quote the stated % and the resulting % increase.

bumpy

But in town, who wants to go out of their way, or in some cases out of town to get it?

When I read something like that, I have to wonder where some of y'all live. I'm having a hard time thinking of places here that don't sell diesel. Just a few country stores with two pumps out front, and most of those were wiped out of the gasoline business when the underground tank liner requirement went in around 2000.

gagrice

CA is probably unique in its lack of diesel pumps. One reason being they have banned the sale of new diesel autos. second when they mandated the low sulfur, made in CA diesel in 1990 they killed much of their cross country truck business. Most will fill in AZ, Nevada or Oregon prior to coming into CA. I know when I was driving my Passat TDI I had to look long and hard in Simi Valley for a station with diesel. I wanted ARCO ULSD. The only station was a Shell so I only bought enough to get me back to San Diego. If you live in a bedroom community in CA with little or no truck traffic it may be challenging to find diesel.

ruking1

Yes, it hit me a bit strange also.

As an example, since most of the world would recognize the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge (or so I would assume.) a major arterial that feeds the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge (from the south towards the north) has many fuel stations that not too long ago in the past, did not have ONE station, Now of 5 stations (that I can think of) NONE of these stations carried diesel a very short time ago. NONE of these stations are conducive to tractor trailer fueling!!!

gagrice

It is all you hard core environmentalists in the Bay area that have made the diesel market viable. Getting ready for the transition to biodiesel. I got several calls from your neck of the woods, on my ad when I sold my Passat TDI. It is a good market for used diesel cars.

ruking1

I am not sure I can even project the correlation of variables such as these.

It is interesting to note that close to the epicenter of the environmental movement, there ARE contingents of folks who advocate diesel. Of course new car sales in CA have been banned starting with the 2005 model year. Hmmmmmmmm.

nippononly

has one of the very few commercial pumping stations for biodiesel, if the R&T article is to be believed. Biodiesel will take off, I think, once there are 50-state diesel cars and trucks available. The price tends to run 10-15% above even the very-high California oil-based diesel prices, yet people can feel super-green burning it, as it is completely renewable and very low-emission (in ways that oil-based diesel can't approach). I approve! :-)

Now we have to make the underhood conversion cheap enough that people will do it en masse, and we have to increase the number of places where it is commercially available. I would love to see oil-based diesel entirely replaced (in some distant future) by biodiesel (or at least the B85 they run around here - yes, I am aware they still have to mix in 15% oil-based diesel to account for cold mornings).

ruking1

"Biodiesel will take off, I think, once there are 50-state diesel cars and trucks available. "

I would say there is TREMENDOUS pressure in (at least) two of those states to change, NY and CA. NY state is home to one of the premium manufacturer's of diesel particulate filters as one small reason. Don't forget the massive east coast port facilities and air transportation and trucking industry. Indeed CA procedures encourage diesel registration with 7500 or more. Oxymoronically it sells the cleanest diesel in the 50 states. Oxymoronically folks in CA will literally CRAWL out of the woodwork to fight an unleaded gas refinery, but small 1.5 M dollar bio diesel "refineries" are springing up all over the state (other places also). Yah got soybeans? (etc) Get your farm fresh (ORGANIC !!?? )bio diesel !!!!

gagrice

small 1.5 M dollar bio diesel "refineries" are springing up all over the state

That is what I like to see grass roots solutions to our energy problems. I do not trust the Government or big buisiness to solve the problems. Too many strings and taxes attached. Too few results. Rather than spend 40 million to get a bill passed the wealthy could finance some of our great inventors.

ruking1

On the other side of the food chain: got a DUMP ??!! Process that junked oil headed to the waste facility to make BIODIESEL.!!!!

gogogodzilla

Not to mention a sewage treatment plant.

Thermal depolymerization can convert any organic waste into a light oil that is very easily converted into diesel or gasoline.

Think of the profits that large cities like LA, San Francisco, New York, Washington, etc... could make off of selling their sewage-based oil.

$60/barrel factored into 5-6 million people...

:P

larsb

With ULSD available now everywhere (I thought) I expected to notice a change.

A change in the diesel exhaust SMELL which I despise so much.

Riding my Segway 8 miles every day as a part of my commute, I drive right down sidewalks on major streets. So I get a whiff of every diesel exhaust pipe that comes along the road.

In recent days I have been attempting to discern if there has been a change in the strength or the level of the diesel exhaust odor because of the ULSD that these vehicles SHOULD be using now. This leads me to two questions:

1. Does ULSD "smell different" coming out of diesel exhaust pipes? I thought the sulfur was a large component in the bad smell?

2. Does Biodiesel exhaust smell different than ULSD exhaust? I thought I noticed a different sort of diesel exhaust smell the other day - it was lighter and different but at the end still had that diesel "aftersmell" so that I recognized it as diesel.

So, any help with the smell issues you diesel experts?

ruking1

You know with upwards of 97% of the passenger vehicle fleet being GASSER, am not sure if you "like" the smell of gasser exhaust, have no nose for gasser, or what? It is funny how your "nose" ignores the ABSOLUTELY overwhelming majority of the passenger vehicle fleet, and the only "diesel" you can smell is only ONE of the 2.9% of the passenger vehicle fleet that is on the road!!??? So by process of elimination IF you do NOT notice at all the sulfur emitted in upwards of 97% of the gasser passenger vehicle fleet AND ULSD now has even less sulfur than gassers....THEN.... OR if you are saying diesel does smell different from unleaded regular then the answer is yes, it always has.

qbrozen

funny ... i like the smell of diesel. I wish they'd market a glade diesel plugin.

but, no, i don't believe sulfur is the cause of the smell. Otherwise, diesel fumes would smell like rotten eggs. I don't believe they do.

you will also get different smells based on how clean the engine burns. Just like how a big V10 gasser truck smells much different than a Honda Civic. Or how a gasser that is not running properly smells much worse than a properly running diesel.

nippononly

some people have really been sniffing those tailpipes! :-P

It is certainly easy to pick out the diesel exhaust among a group of gas-powered cars. The ULSD will not change that.

gagrice

You may still be smelling the old 500 PM diesel. Some states were given waivers on total implementation. The requirement is the dealer has to post on the pump if it is NOT ULSD. My Passat TDI had no smell standing next to the exhaust when it was running. I only used BP/ARCO ULSD as it has been available in CA for over two years. Biodiesel will have a different smell as it has no sulfur. If it is mixed B20 as is common and the diesel was still high in sulfur you would smell that sulfur smell. Also remember that many trucking businesses have large fuel storage tanks. They are not going to be changed over until the old diesel is used.

I see much worse problems in AZ with uncontrolled development and agriculture. When we were there in December it reminded us of Los Angeles in the late 1960s. You have a serious smog problem and it is a lot more than diesel causing it. Your Sedgway is adding some to the pollution. AZ uses a lot of high sulfur coal to produce electricity. You provide coal fired electricity for Phoenix and Las Vegas. The two fastest growing areas in the USA.

The thousands of acres of agriculture irrigated by the Colorado river adds dust, chemicals, pollen and pollution to the air and land.

The heavy equipment clawing up the desert is creating a horrible dust problem. Those big earth movers are not subject to low sulfur fuel regulations for another 6 years or more. You could all be dead from the dust, pollen and pollution by then.

What was considered one of the best climates for asthma sufferers 50 years ago is now one of the worst. It is not diesel that has caused that.

gagrice

You are right it is the diesel car that does not smell. If you think a gas exhaust is all right to breathe. Think again. It will kill you a LOT faster than a diesel exhaust. The exhaust from our 1990 Mazda smells much worse than the Passat TDI did. And it just passed the smog check for another 2 years. Gas exhaust also burns your eyes worse than diesel from a modern diesel car engine. The next time you see someone with a 2005 or newer VW TDI ask where they get their diesel. If if is BP ULSD it will not smell. I do not think that VW added the Particulate filter until 2005. Because the high sulfur diesel destroys it very quickly. Just as those Prius with the catalytic convertors going bad were victim of high sulfur gas sold in the USA until January of this year.

larsb

gary says, "Your Segway is adding some to the pollution."

Umm, Actually, NO it's not.

Because for the 8 miles I use it each day, it is replacing the use of a car. If I were using it for, say, replacement for WALKING, then yes it would be adding pollution - but I'm not. The smidge of electricity the Segway uses pollutes far less than driving any gasoline-powered car 8 miles.

Anyone have an answer on the biodiesel exhaust question?

PS. I also pay my electric company $3 per month for a slice of "clean energy" so the Segway in essence is being powered for the month by my contribution to the clean energy program - no COAL involved.

qbrozen

some states were given a pass? Which states? What is the new date for them?

I know NJ isn't one of them.

By the way, its not just a sign for NOT ULSD. My father had to put a sign indicating it IS ULSD on his pumps (his is one of the trucking companies you speak of. they had to start pumping in ULSD quite a while back in order to dillute their high-sulfur diesel enough to meet the deadline last month). The sign is kinda silly since you aren't supposed to be able to get anything else now in the state.

ruking1

Actually the answer can be very complicated.

Here in CA the change over was set to take place in 2006 OCT (15?). Pass a date certain, there is a 32,500 per day fine levied for non compliance. (greater than 15 ppm) So in theory the later they catch you, the greater the fine!!! Being as how the retail outlets literally make cents on the gal, it makes absolutely NO economic sense to be out of compliance. The rest of the 49 states have later in the year follow on, but of course that does not prevent earlier "compliance". I have used the fuel stations any number of times, and locations from a bit before the change over date to 2 days ago. There has been literally NO/ NONE/ NADA indications at the retail level of the change over. If all the information I got was at the pump, it is literally a NON event.

nippononly

is just that they are selling ULSD by 12/31, isn't it?

Here in CA, I understand that we had much-lower-sulfur-diesel for some time now, on the order of 50 ppm? But that since October 15th, it has been mandated not to exceed 15 ppm?

elias

i haven't noticed any change in TDI exhaust smell since ULSD was introduced.
the only change i've noticed since ULSD arrived is that i am not able to put huge soot-clouds on tailgators - instead
the soot-clouds are smaller/less-dense if at all.

larsb

That's funny - using diesel soot to ward off tailgaters - never thought about that as a weapon.... :shades:

bumpy

have a new sticker declaring "low sulfur diesel" and how it's against the law to use it in MY 2007 vehicles. We've had on-road LSD (150 ppm IIRC) for a few years already, whereas the off-road pump is something like 500 ppm.

gagrice

NO/ NONE/ NADA

I have noticed that the BP/ARCO pumps no longer have the ULSD signs on them. I filled up my can for the tractor the other day and it was just #2 diesel. I have to assume it is ULSD as it was a Thrifty/ARCO station. Best price in SD $2.49 per gallon. Cheaper than the red dye diesel that is still high sulfur for heavy equipment and off road use. I ran some of that a couple years ago in my Kubota and it blew out black smoke.

gagrice

It seems that aromatics also play a part in the smell of diesel vehicles. With biodiesel if you are lucky enough to be able to get B100 made from McDonald's used cooking oil it will smell like french fries, mmmmmm good.

What is the CARB Low Aromatics Diesel requirement?
Beginning in October 1993; CARB implemented a 10 volume percent limit on the aromatics content of "vehicular" diesel fuel as a means to achieve further reductions in diesel engine particulate matter (PM) and nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions. In California, vehicular diesel fuel is the fuel which must be used in both on-highway vehicles and in non-road use (e.g. agriculture and construction equipment). Locomotive and marine vehicles are not included in the definition of vehicular use.

Subsequent to the implementation of the 10 volume percent aromatics limit, CARB adopted a provision for alternative low aromatics diesel (ALAD) formulations, whereby a refiner/producer could apply for certification to produce an alternative diesel fuel formulation if they could demonstrate through a specified testing protocol that their formulation provided equivalent or better emissions performance when compared to a 10 volume percent aromatics reference fuel. Most diesel fuel in California today is produced to a certified ALAD formula, with typical fuels having about 160 ppm sulfur, 21% aromatics, and a 53 cetane number.

Is CARB diesel required to meet the Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) requirement?
Beginning June 1, 2006, all diesel fuel produced and sold for vehicular use in California must meet a 15 ppm maximum sulfur limit, in addition to meeting all of the current low aromatics CARB diesel specifications. The definition of "vehicular use" in California includes on-highway vehicles and non-road vehicles (e.g. agriculture and construction equipment). Locomotive and marine vehicles are not included in the definition of vehicular use.

Is there a "California Exemption" for meeting the U.S. Evironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) rules?
There is no exemption for diesel fuel in California. Diesel fuel produced, imported, and sold in California must meet all of the EPA S15 (ULSD) standards. Producers, importers, and distributors of diesel fuel in California must meet all of the requirements of the EPA regulations for registration, recordkeeping, reporting, testing, etc.
http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel/regional_ca.shtml

ruking1

..."is just that they are selling ULSD by 12/31, isn't it?

Here in CA, I understand that we had much-lower-sulfur-diesel for some time now, on the order of 50 ppm? But that since October 15th, it has been mandated not to exceed 15 ppm? "...

I am sure there is information on the net that documents the regulatory procedures.

However on a practical level, the change over has almost been totally seamless for the last few years of #2 diesel operation. I intellectually "feel better" for the switch to ULSD 15 ppm, as the 2003 VW's are designed to run on this. I have notice no ill effects, performance, mpg, etc. I have been told and have physically (and pictorially) seen the differences in the longer term CA diesel vs the 49 state diesel usage on the EGR systems, specifically on VW TDI's. While I have used 49 state #2 diesel, the majority has been CA state #2 diesel. This by regulation has been 140 ppm and 45 cetane, as I have also been led to believe more like 50 ppm and 48 cetane.

larsb

Let's talk Phoenix area dust particulates for a second, since you brought it up, allrighty?

First of all, there is no such thing as "uncontrolled development" in the Phoenix area. It's all controlled. Water trucks must be in place during certain times and are required to keep dusty areas wetted down to reduce dust entering the atmosphere.

Developers are strictly watched, licensed, and fined for dust violations.

Same with agriculture. Dust controls are in place.

That's all we can do in that area.

Diesel exhaust, however, can be more closely controlled by mandating clean fuel and conversions for older equipment. That also is being done.

There is nothing which can be done about slowing the development or stopping the agriculture. They are both needed for the growth of the area. All these people moving out here must have homes and must have food. Growth is what cities WANT.

Controlling the negative environmental effects is the job of the governing bodies in charge, and they are doing what the law allows them to do.

qbrozen

huh. I thought it was October 15th nationwide.

hmmmmm... this just confused me even more:
http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Daily_News_Archives/October2006/nd1016062.ht- m

In one paragraph it notes the $32k penalty, but then goes on to say they aren't required to be fully compliant until 2010. HUH??

So... you don't HAVE to sell ULSD, but if you do, it better be 15 ppm or you get fined??

ruking1

Well I do remember at one time was supposed to be early 2006. Then, it was supposed to be June 2006. Then it was supposed to be sometime in 2006. Of late it is Oct 2006. Follow on for some is 12/31/2006? And now you say some time for someplaces, sometime in 2010? Par for the course I'd say?

ruking1

..."First of all, there is no such thing as "uncontrolled development" in the Phoenix area. It's all controlled. Water trucks must be in place during certain times and are required to keep dusty areas wetted down to reduce dust entering the atmosphere. "...

I think if you just stop debating the "semantics" of whether it is "controlled or uncontrolled", you really DO know where the majority of the discussed pollution comes. If you must cling to the legal definitions, then all this is being caused legally and by specific CONTROLLED design.

Suffice to say % wise, diesel cars and light diesel trucks which have been mitigated are not the majority of the problem.

gagrice

There is nothing which can be done about slowing the development or stopping the agriculture. They are both needed for the growth of the area. All these people moving out here must have homes and must have food. Growth is what cities WANT

BINGO,
Exactly what Tony Blair told a big EU audience. You cannot have growth and Kyoto both. It just ain't gonna happen. People pollute. Whether it is driving more cars or tractors in the fields. What needs to be determined is whether the added fuel used to cut the pollution is environmentally sound. For every thing we do something else is impacted. We are destroying the Gulf of Mexico fisheries to satisfy our desire to grow more corn and soy beans. I guess we eat Pop Tarts made from corn, instead of fish and shrimp.

Cutting the use of fossil fuel by driving a diesel car may be environmentally better than driving an old gasser that pollutes more than the new diesel. Many of us would not consider the current options. Would it be better to keep an old high pollution beater going or a modern diesel that may not be SULEV but much cleaner than the old beater?

You can slow development. San Diego county has implemented limits on permits each year. They have also made subdividing much more difficult. When all the houses and apartments are full we send them to Phoenix or Las Vegas.

gagrice

hmmmmm... this just confused me even more:

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. It is confusing. I think each state is on their own to enforce the regulations also. How would you know if it was ULSD? I know that the diesel here in CA does not have the same smell when you are pumping it, as the stuff we got on our trip in AZ & TX. Typical government operation, make a rule and not provide for enforcement.

highender

""BErkeley has one of the very few commercial pumping stations for biodiesel, if the R&T article is to be believed. Biodiesel will take off, I think, once there are 50-state diesel cars and trucks available. The price tends to run 10-15% above even the very-high California oil-based diesel prices, yet people can feel super-green burning it, as it is completely renewable and very low-emission (in ways that oil-based diesel can't approach). I approve!

You are right, Berkeley has Biofuel Oasis, a co-op that sells biodiesel. I joined last month. The biodiesel is $3.70 there....and still see lots of people pull in and fill up. Only one pump. Honor system...you tell the cashier how much you pumped....nice. I enjoyed the nice clean smell...and it is non toxic...you can drink the stuff ( tastes awful..but smells nice ).

Now we have to make the underhood conversion cheap enough that people will do it en masse, and we have to increase the number of places where it is commercially available. I would love to see oil-based diesel entirely replaced (in some distant future) by biodiesel (or at least the B85 they run around here - yes, I am aware they still have to mix in 15% oil-based diesel to account for cold mornings).

I think you may have it mixed up. Biodiesel can go straight into your regular diesel engine. It has better lubricity than even the old diesel formulas. You do not need to modify your engine if you are using biodiesel . YOu have to clean out your fuel filter more the first few months after switching over, cause the biodiesel is a cleaning agent, and cleans all the diesel coke off the fuel systems.

YEs...I agree, for colder locales, one may need to add some diesel #2 to prevent it from geling.

I also agree that it would be great to have more stations sell biodiesel...that way it will make prices come down ( diesel is $2.85 here) . Also, it will help clean your fuel system....

highender

1. Does ULSD "smell different" coming out of diesel exhaust pipes? I thought the sulfur was a large component in the bad smell?

I think ULSD would pollute less ...and thus be more acceptable. Smell would be similar....maybe a bit better ???? But most gas stations still have their old stock of diesel...so takes time to sell it when not that many cars pull up. I just dieseled up with #2 at Union 76 , and it smells , and I asked...they said it was regular #2 .

2. Does Biodiesel exhaust smell different than ULSD exhaust? I thought I noticed a different sort of diesel exhaust smell the other day - it was lighter and different but at the end still had that diesel "aftersmell" so that I recognized it as diesel.

I used a mix last tank of 4 gallons diesel #2 and 10.5 gallons biodiesel...and most of the regular diesel was gone, to be replaced by fried foods smell.

Last night, my supplier delivered a 55 gal drum of biodiesel....and I noticed his truck smelled like fried foods oil smell also....no regular diesel aftersmell. OF course, if you have some diesel #2 mixed in, you may get some regular aftersmell......

highender

and try to use it when available....

it does eliminate most of the diesel smell....if one does not like it.

Depending on the waste vegetable oil source, it can smell like french fries, or just fried foods smell.....like someone is frying something, but you do not know what it is....

biodiesel is a relatively renewable resource....and it does a good job of cleaning your fuel system...without damaging your hoses ( unless you have a pre 1995 diesel, in which case you would need to change out some rubber hoses.) . It lubricates your injector pump....so it is better than ULSD in that regard.

gagrice

It sounds like you have gone gungho Willie. You know Willie Nelson got into biodiesel because his wife living in Hawaii was using it in her Jetta wagon TDI. His complex on Maui is completely self contained energy wise. They use solar electric. Home school the kids. Kind of utopian commune from the sounds of it. I heard an interview with Woody Harrelson that has moved his family onto the compound. He drives a Jetta TDI and is using biodiesel. Last I checked it is about the same price on Maui as #2 diesel. Biodiesel is a mature product with good energy characteristics. It is best suited for warmer climates. That covers a lot of vehicles. Keep us posted on your experience using Home Grown fuel.

dardson1

I think it might have been a Popular Science article that stated diesel's higher mpg was due to it's higher BTU content. The writer suggested a diesel is no more efficient than a gasoline engine BTU for BTU. As I recall he also said diesel was a by-product of refining gasoline meaning there was no way to switch all vehicles to diesel engines with nothing to do with all the gasoline by-product of refining diesel.
Seemed a reasonable explanation to me why the world never switched to an engine that gets 40% better milage. Am I dreaming I read all this?

gagrice

Just to set the record straight. In the distillation process it is true we get several products. The original use for oil was kerosene or number one diesel. Gas in the early days was a by product that was dumped. That is when someone came up with the gasoline engine. Diesel is about 35% higher in energy. That is why no matter what you do to a gas engine it will not give you the mileage of a comparable diesel engine. If you can find a 3100 LB car with a 1.9L gas engine that gets 50 MPG on the highway I would want one. The Jetta TDI Wagon is famous for that kind of mileage.

PS
He is right that we would not have enough diesel. The idea is to grow it. Biodiesel is a good replacement for diesel. And it can come from crops, coal or natural gas.

ruking1

For certain a gal of diesel has a higher BTU content than unleaded regular. Diesel engines also operate at a higher compression ratio.

But if you think that an adequate reason to DISMISS diesel both as a main line AND alternative fuel, I think a few more facts and issues might be in order.

Here is a reprint of a government referenced web site describing the products of a barrel of oil.

http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/crude_products.aspx

What it does not address is the myriad of alternative bio diesel sources. The almost overwhelming ways bio diesel products can be generated makes unleaded regular literally look like a one trick pony.

As you probably know, upwards of 97% of the USA passenger fuel supply is unleaded regular. So in a barrel of crude (light sweet crude) that is 46% with diesel being 23.4% In addition LSC is much less abundant and costs 30-40% MORE than more commonly available crude oil(other than light sweet crude) I am sure you can see the consequences and magnitude of these ratios. Europe sure has, AND has used it to generate much more TAXATION and in effect LESS CRUDE oil usage with app the same sized passenger vehicle fleet with the diesel passenger cars being 50% and GROWING. My own take is we can do the same and actually make the costs and TAXATION LOWER !! However the temptation of huge INCREASES in the sums and percentages of transportation money/s might be more than an overwhelming temptation to those who can legislate its WASTE.

While there are many many other sources, here is one that can get you going

http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/

http://api-ec.api.org/

"If you can find a 3100 LB car with a 1.9L gas engine that gets 50 MPG on the highway I would want one. The Jetta TDI Wagon is famous for that kind of mileage."

I would agree with the above quote, but show me a GASSER than can do what the above does and it will not even address a good percentage of current issues.

dardson1

">It appears (all things remaining the same) the most efficient use of a barrel of oil (imported or not) is a mostly gasoline fueled vehicle fleet until and unless someone figures out how to use the 46% gasoline yeild to some useful purpose.
What drew me to this thread was to ask the question. . .why aren't we all driving high milage diesels? Seems to me that diesel on a miles-per-barrel rather than a miles-per-gallon measure are similar to gasoline (2 barrels of oil to make the same amount of diesel as one barrel yields of gasoline). This, of course, assumes we are making diesel from a barrel of oil.
I've read most of this thread. Dotted here and there are suggestions that bio-diesel is the answer. If someone can figure out how to economically make diesel outta stuff we otherwise throw away, the arguement for a diesel is a no-brainer. Even if we can use our own resources rather than imported oil to make vehicle fuel, the arguement is equally compelling. Seems to me the plus of a diesel engine is its versatility. It doesn't care if the fuel comes from a barrel of oil or a barrel of used cooking oil.
Does a gallon of bio-diesel have the same BTU value as a gallon of diesel made from crude oil? <img src="