Ok, newbie here so i apologize if this is well known.
I've
read a lot of studies that compare biodiesel against petroleum diesel and
petroleum diesel vs gasoline, but I haven't found one that addresses biodiesel
vs gasoline. I'm really interested in emissions of a B100-fueled compact
car (VW bug, golf) vs. hybrid-electric gasoline vehicle (prius, etc).
And that's the issue I'm considering as I look for a more environmentally friendly vehicle.
Any pointers, suggestions to reports (hopefully with DATA) would be appreciated.
It's hard to get exact car vs car figures, or engine vs engine figures for diesel vs gasoline. But this page - http://www.tdiclub.com/TDIFAQ/TDiFAQ-5.html
- goes into some detail. Generally, diesels produce more NOx and particulates,
while less CO and CO2. In other words, more local pollution and less global
pollution (greenhouse gasses).
(emission, then percentage difference for b100 and b20) Total Unburned Hydrocarbons -67% -20% Carbon Monoxide -48% -12% Particulate Matter -47% -12% NOx +10% +2% Sulfates -100% -20%* PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)** -80% -13% nPAH (nitrated PAH’s)** -90% -50%*** Ozone potential of speciated HC -50% -10%
If
you're going to run your car on b100, you will be driving the cleanest car
(overall) on the road. The only place a gasser will beat you is with NOx.
And, word is that gassers get worse and worse with NOx as time goes on, while
diesels do not. So by 60k miles, they're relatively equal and thereafter,
the gasser emits more NOx.
There are a whole host of reasons other than emissions that make B100 the
fuel of choice for most of us. Do some more research and see why we are determined
to cut our personal dependance on the Devil`s Tea.
Two `96 VW TDI B4 variants, Oilguard bypass filters `89 Ford F250 diesel All biodiesel powered
Soypwrd makes some good points about why biodiesel is important beyond emissions.
Unlike gasoline, it's renewable. Every gallon used isn't one gallon closer to the end of the fuel source.
Unlike gasoline, it keeps our fuel dollars at home and helps the weakening US economy.
Unlike gasoline, it doesn't support hostile regimes (Iraq, anybody?). According to the US government (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0504.html), in 2001 we imported 778,000 barrels of oil PER DAY from Iraq and another 1,657,000 per day from Saudi Arabia.
Oil
is a dead end. When one buys oil, they simply accelerate global society towards
the inevitable crash. When one buys biodiesel, they simply go along for the
ride without helping. When they become a biodiesel advocate, they're beginning
to actively apply the breaks (or at least lay off the accelerator).
From page 53 at http://www.vv.se/publ_blank/bokhylla/miljo/2002_62/2002_62.pdf (these
are emissions per km, so we'll need to convert. The blue column is their
measurements, the white is what VW specs. To be conservative, I'll go with
the higher numbers - the VW specs). a Golf TDI emits 0.081 g CO per km,
0.016 g of HC/km, 0.376 g of NOx per km, and 0.029 g of particulates, and
146 g/CO2 per km. To convert to per mile, divide by 0.6, and that gives,
for a petro diesel powered Golf TDI, in g per mile: car________CO________HC_______NOx______CO2_______PM Golf TDI__0.135____0.0267____0.627_____243______0.483 (diesel) now, using the biodiesel reductions from http://www.cityofseattle.net/cleancities/Biodiesel%202.htm So, the CO will be reduced by 50%, HCs by 93%, NOx will increase by 13%, and PM will decrease by 30%. So running on biodiesel, we now have: car________CO________HC_______NOx______CO2_______PM Golf TDI__0.065____0.0019____0.709______53.46____0.338 (biodiesel) Now, compare that to a Prius or Insight from http://www.geocities.com/hevo101/impact.htm car________CO________HC_______NOx______CO2_______PM Prius_____1.0______0.010______0.02______166____? Insight___2.1______0.055______0.07______129____? bioTDI____0.065____0.0019____0.709______53.46____0.338
I
can't find particulate data on the hybrids, so can't compare directly. But,
as can be seen, the CO and HC are far far far lower. The CO2 data is considerably
in favor of the biodiesel powered TDI (and as mentioned, if the alcohol were
derived from biomass, it would drop to 0). The biodiesel powered TDI emits
considerably more NOx - but, NOx is not nearly as much of a concern as CO,
HC, and CO2. Or at least it shouldn't be. US EPA standards consider NOx very
important, but Euro standards don't. NOx is only a smog problem when combined
with high levels of HCs. As can be seen, bioTDIs emit far far less HCs than
gasoline cars. And of course, US emissions standards ignore CO2 altogether
(can anyone say "oil lobbyists"?).
In my book, the biodiesel powered
TDI wins out easily. Also, consider that NOx emissions can be drastically
reduced with improved catalytic converters - the only reason we can't use
them is because of high sulfur levels of US petro diesel. If running on biodiesel
or low sulfur petro diesel, modern catalysts can reduce NOx a lot.
It
was a good analogy, but I'm REALLY glad that all the travel was in a straight
line and didn't involve any turns, or worse yet -- A U-TURN! (and when I
say U I really mean Nate...)
Thanks to all for the great help. Natescape & NHMike, thanks for the
numbers too. NHMike, I'm interested in the modern catalyst reduction of
NOx -- any further pointers on that?
And I do like all the non-emission-related
reasons for using biodiesel. I really like the idea of whatever $/gal i
spend going to an honest soybean farmer in America's heartland. For those
who like numbers, I just looked up (on soystats.com) that 90% of all US soybean
production comes from Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio,
Missouri, S. Dakota, Arkansas, Kansas, N. Dakota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kentucky.
(Actually those states totalled 91.9% of all soybean production in 2001)
Does anyone know if there is a "Made from 100% US-grown soybean" branding for B100?
Nate, it would be nice to have a comparison of biodiesel TDIs versus hybrid
car emissions on the main page somewhere. When I first saw this thread, I
started looking on the web, and couldn't find a comparison anywhere.
So, I decided to try doing it myself. Just finding the emissions statistics
for a regular (diesel powered) TDI was a pain in the butt.
So, it
would be nice if some people could check my numbers, maybe try to find the
particulate emissions from hybrids, and put that (or a link to it) on the
main page somewhere. It is an important issue, and one that many people consider
when trying to figure out what kind of car to buy. So, it might be nice to
have that information easily accessible.
Hybrids do not use lead acid batteries. They are NiMH. NiMH is not even considered hazardous waste. SULEV's are required to keep the same emissions for 120,000 miles. And in CA they qualify for a 150,000 emission warranty. So emissions are not allowed to change very much. Particulate (PM) for the Prius is 0.01 grams/mile.
CNG
is another good choice with modern emission equipment, not old bus conversions.
Evaporative emissions are a big deal and CNG is the cleanest in this respect.
Biodiesel for diesels. CNG or even propane for gassers.
How about combining a Biodiesel engine with hybrid car technology?! We would
cut down the use of fuel (albeit Biodiesel) by about 50% (how about a car
that get 100 miles on a gallon of Biodiesel?). Perhaps then people won't
mind paying $3 a gallon anymore (or making it themselves in their backyards).
Simba, diesel hybrids (running on biodiesel) are likely the best transportation
choice for now (or perhaps even 50 years from now). Audi makes somewhat of
a diesel hybrid in Europe, the A2. It's a four door sedan that gets around
80 mpg, if I remember correctly.
sjdthree, I just noticed that I forgot to give any further info on the catalysts. See http://transtech.anl.gov/v1n6/aftertreatment.html That
includes some tests done on one of these cats. Note that NOx was reduced
up to 98%, and PM up to 99% (so that would bring the biodiesel powered TDI's
NOx and PM down to 0.014 and 0.0034 respectively, both lower than the Prius
(oh, thanks Autodiesel for the Prius' PM spec)). But, as mentioned earlier,
those catalysts get killed by sulfur. So, until only ultra-low sulfur diesel
(ULSD) and biodiesel are available in the US (i.e. no more high sulfur diesel),
no company will sell cars equipped with those cats here.
Nate - I'm
writing up a long report of various things I've written (for the biodiesel
processor project we're working on here). When it's done, I'll send you a
copy. This will include the emissions calculations, large scale algae production,
and.... hm, what else was there?
Hey mike, now that you have the PM stats for the Toyota Prius how about listing
them with all other available emission stats on the Prius side by side with
the emission stats of a 2000 or newer Jetta TDI running on B-100. I think
this will help tip the scales for the many "wanna be" greener drivers who
are finding themselves stuck choosing between these two vehicles. Even if
the numbers were not quite as good I would still go with the jetta because
of the bigger size, higher weight capacity, trunk space, crash test rating,
not to mention the turbo. Thanks, g
The info on Catalysts can be found by contacting Brown Oil Company in Ventura
Ca. You will have to look up their info on the Map and numbers of biodiesel
distributers list on the home page of Biodieselnow. Good luck.
quote:Originally posted by sjdthree
Thanks
to all for the great help. Natescape & NHMike, thanks for the numbers
too. NHMike, I'm interested in the modern catalyst reduction of NOx -- any
further pointers on that?
And I do like all the non-emission-related
reasons for using biodiesel. I really like the idea of whatever $/gal i
spend going to an honest soybean farmer in America's heartland. For those
who like numbers, I just looked up (on soystats.com) that 90% of all US soybean
production comes from Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio,
Missouri, S. Dakota, Arkansas, Kansas, N. Dakota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kentucky.
(Actually those states totalled 91.9% of all soybean production in 2001)
Does anyone know if there is a "Made from 100% US-grown soybean" branding for B100?
Hey
mike, now that you have the PM stats for the Toyota Prius how about listing
them with all other available emission stats on the Prius side by side with
the emission stats of a 2000 or newer Jetta TDI running on B-100. I think
this will help tip the scales for the many "wanna be" greener drivers who
are finding themselves stuck choosing between these two vehicles. Even if
the numbers were not quite as good I would still go with the jetta because
of the bigger size, higher weight capacity, trunk space, crash test rating,
not to mention the turbo. Thanks, g
"wanna-be" gasser drivers can buy ULSgas in virtually any big city today! And in 2004 it will be the norm at every pump in the land. Something you can't say about biodiesel.
I'm playing devils advocate here. I don't think we should be talking down vehicles that you can buy off the showroom floor today that meet SULEV standards with available pump fuel.
Something you can't say about TDi's.
And the emissions figures posted above for the Prius are the certification limits not the actual test results. Here's the actual certification test results by the NREL. One of the national labs that does emission testing for the EPA. actual test results for: Toyota Prius Emissions (g/mi) --HC----CO----NOx--CO2 0.009-0.116-0.003-158 PM will be tested in the 2004 Tier-II certification. Toyota has indicated the actual PM will be about half of the .01g/mi limit.
Real world VW TDi results with typical dirty diesel, which is the norm everywhere right now until 2006. car________CO________HC_______NOx______CO2_______PM Golf TDI__0.135____0.0267____0.627_____243______0.483 (diesel)
The
facts are those theoretical figure are achieved with B100. And there's not
a chance that you'll find B100 at every pump in the nation very soon. (ie,
never!) B20 would be great. But get real, B100 isn't going to happen.
If VW or any other manufacturer want's to come out with a practical clean
diesel vehicle that will meet SULEV or ULEV standard, then go for it. But
until then talking down the vehicles that do achieve those standards will only cause a larger gap to grow between diesel people and gasser people.
I
use biodiesel because it is a renewable fuel and doesn't send my money oversees
to people who don't even like us. If emissions are reduced that is a benefit
also. But I'm not going to try and tell someone they aren't doing something
about emissions or economy just because they choose a different path. To
do otherwise is very shortsighted.
quote:Originally posted by Autodiesel I'm playing devils advocate here. I don't think we should be talking down vehicles that you can buy off the showroom floor today that meet SULEV standards with available pump fuel.
If
anything I've said has come across as "talking down" vehicles like the Prius,
I did not intend it that way. My point was to give a realistic comparison
between a Prius and a biodiesel powered TDI - the reason being that many
people who do have access to biodiesel are stuck with trying to decide which
is a better choice. If their issue is the "green-ness", it's nice to be able
to compare the emissions side by side - at no place on the web are those
side by side comparisons currently available. So, I merely want to present
the comparison so people can make that decision. The simple fact is that
simply choosing based on whether one is an SULEV vehicle or not is very misleading,
since only a few emissions of concern are regulated, and the most important
one (CO2) is not. Total hydrocarbons are regulated, but PAHs (Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons), nPAHs (nitrated PAHs), the mutagenicity of the emissions,
and the ozone potential of speciated HC emissions are not. Biodiesel has
a huge advantage in those areas, drastically reducing all of them by 80%
or more (the ozone forming potential of the speciated HCs is only reduced
about 50%, but the total amount of HCs is reduced considerably).
So,
it's important to try to compare the two directly. No, biodiesel isn't available
everywhere - but, for someone who knows they have access to it, it is useful
to compare the two to know which would be a better choice environmentally.
They
are only theoretical in the sense that they came from taking the typical
reductions in emissions found in most studies when using biodiesel rather
than petro diesel, and applying those reductions to the measured emissions
on a TDI (actually, I applied them to the speced emissions, since they were
higher than the measured emissions). As mentioned over at TDI Club, an important
factor is that spark ignition engines degrade much more over time than diesel
engines do. So, comparing the measured emissions of both cars when measured
fairly early in their life doesn't give a good representation of how they
will compare 50,000 miles down the road. The diesel engine won't change much
over that time, but the spark-ignition (gasoline) engine will degrade considerably.
quote:Real world VW TDi results with typical dirty diesel, which is the norm everywhere right now until 2006.
True
- but the point was to compare with biodiesel - both so people who have access
to biodiesel can better decide whether to go with a Prius or a TDI running
on biodiesel, and also to show that biodiesel powered TDIs are a good long
term solution.
quote:The facts are those theoretical figure are achieved with B100.
Yes,
that's exactly what I said they were achieved with, that was the whole point
- to compare a biodiesel powered TDI to a Prius. And again, they're only
theoretical in the sense that they came from applying the typical reductions
(with biodiesel) as measured in many tests to the measured emissions of a
TDI running on petro diesel.
quote:And there's not a chance that you'll find B100 at every pump in the nation very soon. (ie, never!)
Please
explain why the fact that you won't find it very soon means you will never
find it. In 1890, gasoline wasn't available at 176,000 stations around the
country - should people have therefore concluded that it would never be available,
so there would be no point in buying a gas powered car?
quote:
B20 would be great. But get real, B100 isn't going to happen. If VW or
any other manufacturer want's to come out with a practical clean diesel vehicle
that will meet SULEV or ULEV standard, then go for it. But until then talking
down the vehicles that do achieve those standards will only cause a larger gap to grow between diesel people and gasser people.
I
don't think many people, and certainly not me, are trying to talk down hybrids.
We're merely pointing out that a biodiesel powered TDI is better when it
comes to the emissions issue - in particular since CO2 is the main emission
of concern. The fact that a Prius can meet SULEV criteria while a current
generation biodiesel powered TDI cannot is essentially meaningless - since
those criteria completely ignore CO2 and the other most important emissions
(mutagenicity, PAHs, etc.). They simply focus on the emissions that are easy
to reduce, so that manufacturers can stick a decent catalytic converter on
a 8,000 pound SUV and claim it's "green". The only criteria that a hybrid
is noticably better than a current generation biodiesel powered TDI on is
the NOx emissions - which aren't particularly important, and can be readily
taken care of once the ULSD spec goes into effect so that better catalysts
can be used (and hopefully they will also become available aftermarket so
older cars can be fitted with them).
quote:I
use biodiesel because it is a renewable fuel and doesn't send my money oversees
to people who don't even like us. If emissions are reduced that is a benefit
also. But I'm not going to try and tell someone they aren't doing something
about emissions or economy just because they choose a different path. To
do otherwise is very shortsighted.
I
don't think most of us are arguing that. The point was simply to give a reasonable
comparison. Look at the first post - the poster was looking for a comparison
because he's trying to decide whether to go with a hybrid gas car or a biodiesel
powered TDI. We're not saying "anyone who buys a Prius sucks" or anything.
Just comparing the two.
A hybrid diesel-electric running on biodiesel would be ideal. They're available in Europe, but not yet in the US.
Autodiesel makes some really good points. Additionally, the 98% and 99% reductions
in NOx and PM are the BEST results obtained in one particular duty cycle
test. Also note the 10% fuel consumption increase to obtain these results.
There is no trucking company alive that would stand for that. Cummins claims
that 10% can be reduced to 5%, but that is questionable. It takes additional
fuel with no additional oxygen to regenerate the NOx adsorber. You will get
very little if any additional power from that fuel.
NOx must be reduced
(takes a reduction catalyst) which works only in the absense of oxygen. Of
course the higher efficiency of the diesel engine is due to the excess air
taken in by the engine. So the engine has to be run at a no exess oxygen
mode like a gasoline engine at some point in order to regerate the adsorber.
Right now, realistic expectations are an 80-90% reduction in NOx and PM in
the tests required by EPA using catalyst technology.
quote: A hybrid diesel-electric running on biodiesel would be ideal.
Even though we have been going back and forth with this I do agree with you. A nice Polo diesel hybrid would be nice for me.
But the odds are agains't it. The shift has already begun toward gas hybrids and it will get bigger. --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.auto.com/industry/iwird25_20021025.htm Toyota
Motor Corp., the world's third-largest automaker, plans to use gasoline-electric
hybrid engines in all vehicles by 2012 to increase fuel efficiency and reduce
tailpipe emissions, an executive said. Toyota expects to sell 300,000
hybrids annually through its own dealerships by 2007, Takimoto said. That's
two years later than the company indicated in previous statements. That number
could be doubled or tripled by sales of the technology to other companies,
Takimoto said.
Nissan Motor Co., Japan's third-largest automaker,
last month said it would buy hybrid-engine parts from Toyota starting in
2006. General Motors, the world's biggest automaker, also has asked about
buying Toyota's technology, Takimoto said.
General Motors spokesman
Scott Fosgard said the company has had talks with Toyota about buying hybrid
engines. No decision has been made, he said. --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afv/hybrid.html Ford
Motor Company expects to be selling its first hybrid passenger car in 2003.
In January 2000, Ford Chairman William Clay Ford Jr. said he believes hybrid
electric vehicles will capture 20 percent of the vehicle market by 2010.
"Longer term," said Ford, "I believe fuel cells will finally end the 100-year
reign of the internal-combustion engine as the dominant source of power for
personal transportation." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh no, he said the "fuel cell" term! --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17089/story.htm NEW
YORK - Ford Motor Co. , the world's number two automaker, is looking at how
to offer Volvo, Land Rover, Mazda and some of its other brands with electric-gasoline
"hybrid" engine systems, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Can't beat 'em, then join 'em! --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/06/tech/main535322.shtml "If
everybody took advantage of the offer, we would sell as many as a million
hybrid units per year," says Rick Wagoner President and Chief Executive Officer
General Motors Corporation.
GM says it wants to sell perhaps a million
of these and can build a million of them. But the question remains: is there
a market for that?"
"Oh absolutely, thanks to Honda and Toyota who laid the groundwork," says Jean Jennings, Automobile Magazine editor.
Honda
and Toyota Hybrid sales are still only in the tens of thousands. But the
hybrid engine can get seventy miles a gallon, and GM believes there could
be a market for that. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Even the Automobile Mag. believes it! --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.autoexecmag.com/current_articles/feature_jan03_01.html DaimlerChrysler
(DCX), for example, expects to have a gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle by
2004 and will place about 60 fuel-cell vehicles into fleets in the U.S.,
Asia, and Europe this year. --------------------------------------------------------------------- What? DaimlerChrysler and hybrid gas-electric? ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could go on and on about what the best fuel source will be. Won't prove anything. What
will prove something is what is on the market today and what will be on the
market in the near future. That is what will decide what will hold the largest
market share in the future. --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_02/b3765610.htm The
numbers tell the story. Toyota (TM ) has been growing steadily--its share
is up two full points since 1997 and stood at 10.1% through November last
year. Chrysler (DCX ) maintains a lead--at 13.3%--but its slice of the pie
has narrowed by almost three points since the merger. For Christopher W.
Cedergren, auto analyst at Nextrend Inc. in Thousand Oaks, Calif., these
trends suggest that Toyota's ascendance is not just possible but maybe even
likely. As a group, Asian auto makers are expected to pick up another two
points of market share this year--to 32%--as their U.S. rivals, particularly
Ford (F ) and Chrysler, continue to struggle financially. "There's just nothing
out there to stop Japan's momentum," says Cedergren ---------------------------------------------------------------------
If
the product isn't there to buy, how are you going to put the fuel of choice
in your tank? Not everyone will be willing to drive a used car forever. And right now ultra-clean diesels off the showroom floor aren't happening whether we like it or not. That is what will decide the market in the future.
quote: A hybrid diesel-electric running on biodiesel would be ideal.
Even though we have been going back and forth with this I do agree with you. A nice Polo diesel hybrid would be nice for me.
But the odds are agains't it. The shift has already begun toward gas hybrids and it will get bigger.
I
agree, within the US a shift has begun - and my argument is that that shift
is being caused entirely by ignorant regulations alone - in particular the
choice to regulate something like NOx to very low levels, while completely
ignoring the more important emissions (CO2, PAH, nPAH, etc.). They're essentially
just regulating the emissions that are easy to control in gasoline vehicles,
and effectively saying "well, if limiting them would require using something
other than gasoline, we won't regulate it". Europe's regulations are much
more logical - which is a big reason for the emphasis by European carmakers
on diesels. Even Ford makes a pretty sweet diesel (Focus TDI) - but they
won't sell it here because of our ignorant EPA (incidentally, I briefly worked
(contracted) for the EPA on their Superfund project - for some ignorant reason,
they contracted out to Stone & Webster to have us oversee the project
in this region - even though Sone & Webster is primarily a nuclear engineering
company, not chemical engineering. I quickly learned that the EPA represents
one of the most idiotic beaurocracies in our country. Their regulations may
start out with some input from actual scientists, but by the time idiotic
beaurocrats and politicians get done rewriting everything, all scientific
logic is lost). The EPA's regulations are doing a pretty good job of forcing
the death of diesels - the low NOx requirements can't be met with crappy
high sulfur fuel, but they will put that low NOx requirement into effect
before they require better fuel. They're essentially regulating diesels out
of the marketplace, by not requiring oil companies to sell decent fuel that
won't kill the catalysts necessary to meet the emissions criteria. Absolute
morons.
The bright side though is that European car manufacturers
are continuing to focus on diesels. And even a few US and Japanese manufacturers
are as well. From 2004-2006, there will probably be almost no diesels sold
in the US, because of the ignorant regulations that essentially make them
impossible to sell here (requiring low NOx, but not requiring clean fuel.
Essentially saying to the auto companies - hey, you have to make this crap
burn cleanly. Not possible? Oh well, not our fault). But, diesels will continue
to be sold in Europe, and once the ULSD requirement goes into effect, they
can then start selling them here again.
quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.auto.com/industry/iwird25_20021025.htm Toyota
Motor Corp., the world's third-largest automaker, plans to use gasoline-electric
hybrid engines in all vehicles by 2012 to increase fuel efficiency and reduce
tailpipe emissions, an executive said.
Toyota
doesn't sell much in Europe - their biggest international market is the US.
Since our government is regulating diesels out of the market, there's no
reason for Toyota to develop something that they can't sell here.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afv/hybrid.html Ford
Motor Company expects to be selling its first hybrid passenger car in 2003.
In January 2000, Ford Chairman William Clay Ford Jr. said he believes hybrid
electric vehicles will capture 20 percent of the vehicle market by 2010.
"Longer term," said Ford, "I believe fuel cells will finally end the 100-year
reign of the internal-combustion engine as the dominant source of power for
personal transportation." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh no, he said the "fuel cell" term!
Ask
Bill Ford what happened to the PNGV program (Partnership for the Next Generation
of Vehicles). They and the other auto makers were given billions of dollars
for eight years (Clinton era) to develop fuel efficient vehicles - and haven't
marketed anything yet from it. US automakers have learned that they can give
lip service to politicians and the public about having good intentions towards
making new developments, and get lots of money for it - even if they don't
do anything with it.
The PNGV program gave the US automakers billions
to try to make more fuel efficient sedans - the goal was for 80 mpg in a
vehicle that meets today's consumer expectations. With all those billions,
they never introduced a vehicle to market from the project (see below though).
With almost no budget, a program at SDSU (San Diego State University) accomplished
that goal - an 80 mpg vehicle. How did they do it? A diesel-electric hybrid,
using a VW TDI engine. It's an interesting read:
or the nicest one: http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/concept_cars/2001/1/GM_hybrid_gets_80_mpg/ That's
GM's "Precept" - what they finally ended up displaying as a result of the
PNGV money. They had that car at a production stage a few years ago - but
haven't produced it. Instead the've focused on things like the Avalanche,
that gets something like 13/17 mpg, but yields huge profits. They took the
billions from the PNGV project (which was aimed at developing a full size
family sedan that gets 80 mpg), found that they could meet the goals, but
then never put the car into production. Instead they're going to put the
hybrid technology developed with that money into their SUVs. That's American
ingenuity for ya.
Dodge made one too with that money: http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/motor_sports/2000/3/dodge_hybrid/index2.phtml Another
diesel-electric hybrid, getting 73 mpg. But, like GM, they aren't going to
put it into production - the profit margins on sedans aren't big enough -
so, they'll put the hybrid technology (likely with just a gasoline engine)
into their SUVs.
Those vehicles were road tested three years ago.
Bush came into office, and decided the "hydrogen economy" was the best way
to appear to be doing something useful, so, the US makers can now get billions
to do a little work on that, scrap the diesel-electric hybrids, and continue
selling 6,000 pound SUVs. Ain't America great.
quote:We could go on and on about what the best fuel source will be. Won't prove anything. What
will prove something is what is on the market today and what will be on the
market in the near future. That is what will decide what will hold the largest
market share in the future.
And the unfortunate thing is that idiotic regulations developed by beauraucrats (damn, how the hell is that word spelled )
rather than scientists are deciding that for us. Even US automakers have
developed diesel-electric hybrid full-size sedans that get around 80 mpg.
So has Audi. They won't be sold in the US though until at least 2006, because
they won't be able to meet the NOx criteria with the poor quality of fuel.
The vehicles are producable - regulations will just keep them out
of the US. And now, all the money going into fuel cells will just result
in nothing being accomplished for probably at least a decade. If we made
a committment to biodiesel, within ten years practically every vehicle in
the country could be running on it. Instead, in ten years, the nation will
be primarily running on gasoline, and we *might* see some concept cars from
US makers that actually have workable fuel cells in them (so far, pretty
much all of their "fuel cell" concept cars have had no actual drivetrain
- they've just been fancy looking skins they can display and say "imagine
this had a fuel cell in it"). At that point, they'd still probably be about
20 times as expensive as normal drivetrains, we'd have no infrastructure
to support them (although we do for biodiesel), and no way of producing hydrogen
en masse. Essentially it will be ten wasted years, with us still being stuck
on oil.
quote:If
the product isn't there to buy, how are you going to put the fuel of choice
in your tank? Not everyone will be willing to drive a used car forever.
Once
2006 brings the ULSD requirements into effect (unless the oil companies successfully
lobby to delay it more), clean diesels will be readily available. They can
easily meet SULEV requirements with the new catalysts - provided they don't
get killed by high sulfur fuel. The only requirement they don't meet now
is the NOx - which again, isn't nearly as important as the many emissions
that EPA doesn't regulate at all.
quote:And right now ultra-clean diesels off the showroom floor aren't happening whether we like it or not.
Not in the US - and only because of the crappy fuel.
quote:That is what will decide the market in the future.
But
that will change completely once the ULSD requirements go into effect in
2006. Several automakers have some very nice diesel-electric hybrids. Even
if the US automakers choose not to build theirs, instead focusing on bigger
and bigger trucks, European makers are making them. Once crappy fuel isn't
all over the place over here, they can be sold here.
US automakers
have no one to blame for losing market share but themselves (and to some
extent the politicians and oil companies who pushed back the ULSD requirement
to 2006). They've been given billions by us (the taxpayers) to develop fuel
efficient vehicles. They even succeeded in developing them - using diesel-electric
hybrids. They just choose to focus on bigger and bigger SUVs. As more Americans
realize how ridiculous it is to drive to their office in a vehicle that gets
15 mpg, the US makers will be left high and dry.
biodiesel vs gasoline
Posted - 01/29/2003 : 09:53:36
Does that bother you?
