Diesel versus ethanol versus hybrid: Why not Dare to Dream?
"Advocates for diesel -- a less refined fuel than gasoline that burns more completely in the engine, delivering more power -- say it can cut oil use, perhaps more quickly and cost effectively than alternatives such as hybrids and ethanol." (CNNMoney)
Wow, diesel can cut oil use. Holy cow, somebody call up the Nobel committee!! We're ready to end foreign oil dependence!!
O.K., maybe not. While clean diesel is an excellent technology, it will never go far enough.
Diesel advocate Dieter Zetsche, CEO of DaimlerChrysler, "estimated that if 30 per cent of the vehicle fleet were powered by diesels, the United States could reduce fuel consumption enough to cut oil imports by the equivalent of what it buys each year from Saudi Arabia." (MotorTrend)
But what about Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela, etc.? Why are we so content with such insignificant results and small goals?
Additionally, I disagree with the fuel efficiency of diesels. Advocates claim that clean diesel is 30% more fuel efficient - on the highway at least.
Yet new studies claim, "The worst traffic in the U.S. is getting even worse. It pollutes as the vehicles idle. It wastes the time of trucks and passenger cars. The annual delay per driver is in excess of 47 hours per year. It creates delayed shipments. It wastes more than 2.3 billion gallons of fuel each year." (Fortune)
In reality, diesel gas is going to have little effect on reducing fuel consumption in these conditions. Since census data suggests that the far majority of Americans are going to live around just a few large cities in the future, shouldn't congestion be the new standard for testing fuel efficiency?
In congestion - or the driving conditions of the future - full hybrid technology, such as that powering Toyota and Ford hybrid cars, is the best.
Then there is the cost of diesel fuel, and even if those costs are eventually reduced, Americans will simply drive more and then we'll need that Saudi Arabian oil anyway. So, where is the gain?
Dare to Dream
Why are we so afraid to shoot for the moon? Why do we accept such complacency from governments, oil barons, and automotive corporations? Why don't we demand the best, most innovative fuel efficient technology available? Why don't we demand choice?
For example, instead of diesel, why not diesel hybrids? Even better, flex-fuel diesel plug-in hybrids or flex-fuel gasoline plug-in hybrids blow every competitor away.
The only technology that can compare to or surpass flex plug-in hybrid technology is fuel cell technology, but the costs are just to high at this time, and fuel cell vehicles will probably be hybrid vehicles anyway.. Flex-fuel plug-in hybrids, on the other hand, can already achieve well over 100 mpg, while offering numerous fuel choices, such bio-diesel, diesel, gasoline, ethanol, electricity, solar-electricity, wind-electricity, etc.
More important, as hybrid battery technology advances, the fuel efficiency of hybrid batteries will increase significantly while reducing costs - think notebook computers and their batteries.
Besides isn't capitalism supposed to be about competition? Where is the competition in today's energy paradigm?
Don't question the lack of competition because energy is cheap?
How many trillions will oil politics and oil-driven pollution end up costing the world? Has cheap oil really been such a bargain?
Obviously, cheap oil has been great for oil companies. Entire countries are driven by oil profits alone, and oil conglomerates set unbelievable records for profits, yet continually ask for tax incentives as if they have somehow lost money over the history of oil.
We the People
Ultimately, most American simply haven't demanded more. Instead we complain about high gas prices, about Bush's oil connections, about Haliburton, about Iraq, about Iran, and then we go buy a gas-guzzler.
Americans should Dare to Dream for energy independence just as we dared to dream for the moon. If America could become energy independent, then any country could become energy independent, and what would be so wrong with that? Bankrupt oil companies?
I say let's start judging our politicians, corporations, and other capitalists by their ability make our dreams reality, not by their ability to maintain the status quo.
Let's DARE TO DREAM!!!
Wow, diesel can cut oil use. Holy cow, somebody call up the Nobel committee!! We're ready to end foreign oil dependence!!
O.K., maybe not. While clean diesel is an excellent technology, it will never go far enough.
Diesel advocate Dieter Zetsche, CEO of DaimlerChrysler, "estimated that if 30 per cent of the vehicle fleet were powered by diesels, the United States could reduce fuel consumption enough to cut oil imports by the equivalent of what it buys each year from Saudi Arabia." (MotorTrend)
But what about Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela, etc.? Why are we so content with such insignificant results and small goals?
Additionally, I disagree with the fuel efficiency of diesels. Advocates claim that clean diesel is 30% more fuel efficient - on the highway at least.
Yet new studies claim, "The worst traffic in the U.S. is getting even worse. It pollutes as the vehicles idle. It wastes the time of trucks and passenger cars. The annual delay per driver is in excess of 47 hours per year. It creates delayed shipments. It wastes more than 2.3 billion gallons of fuel each year." (Fortune)
In reality, diesel gas is going to have little effect on reducing fuel consumption in these conditions. Since census data suggests that the far majority of Americans are going to live around just a few large cities in the future, shouldn't congestion be the new standard for testing fuel efficiency?
In congestion - or the driving conditions of the future - full hybrid technology, such as that powering Toyota and Ford hybrid cars, is the best.
Then there is the cost of diesel fuel, and even if those costs are eventually reduced, Americans will simply drive more and then we'll need that Saudi Arabian oil anyway. So, where is the gain?
Dare to Dream
Why are we so afraid to shoot for the moon? Why do we accept such complacency from governments, oil barons, and automotive corporations? Why don't we demand the best, most innovative fuel efficient technology available? Why don't we demand choice?
For example, instead of diesel, why not diesel hybrids? Even better, flex-fuel diesel plug-in hybrids or flex-fuel gasoline plug-in hybrids blow every competitor away.
The only technology that can compare to or surpass flex plug-in hybrid technology is fuel cell technology, but the costs are just to high at this time, and fuel cell vehicles will probably be hybrid vehicles anyway.. Flex-fuel plug-in hybrids, on the other hand, can already achieve well over 100 mpg, while offering numerous fuel choices, such bio-diesel, diesel, gasoline, ethanol, electricity, solar-electricity, wind-electricity, etc.
More important, as hybrid battery technology advances, the fuel efficiency of hybrid batteries will increase significantly while reducing costs - think notebook computers and their batteries.
Besides isn't capitalism supposed to be about competition? Where is the competition in today's energy paradigm?
Don't question the lack of competition because energy is cheap?
How many trillions will oil politics and oil-driven pollution end up costing the world? Has cheap oil really been such a bargain?
Obviously, cheap oil has been great for oil companies. Entire countries are driven by oil profits alone, and oil conglomerates set unbelievable records for profits, yet continually ask for tax incentives as if they have somehow lost money over the history of oil.
We the People
Ultimately, most American simply haven't demanded more. Instead we complain about high gas prices, about Bush's oil connections, about Haliburton, about Iraq, about Iran, and then we go buy a gas-guzzler.
Americans should Dare to Dream for energy independence just as we dared to dream for the moon. If America could become energy independent, then any country could become energy independent, and what would be so wrong with that? Bankrupt oil companies?
I say let's start judging our politicians, corporations, and other capitalists by their ability make our dreams reality, not by their ability to maintain the status quo.
Let's DARE TO DREAM!!!
Labels: clean diesel, energy independence, Ethanol, Flex-fuel, Ford, fuel efficiency, hybrid trucks, Hybrid Vehicles, plug-in hybrids, toyota
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:16 PM
11 Comments:
I have two Toyota Prius hybrids. I agree whole heartedly, what concerns me is the new Bush agenda regarding ethanol. For one; ethanol production takes energy, two; that energy will most likely come from electricity, three; the major source of electricity is coal, four; the major producers of coal are Haliburton and Kerr Magee. Is it supprising that GM is now advertising a new line of 80+% ethanol burning vehicles so soon after the state of the union where this new energy stratagy was anounced. Why are Ford, Toyota, and Honda the only players, and GM has been so incredibly short sighted that they do not even consider that the hydrogen fuel-cell car that they created would be better if it were a hybrid.
Well, I have been re-considering (see "Not Yet Carbon Neutral" http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1520 ) after seeing a report from a Dutch consulting firm.
Foremost, the report supported a conclusion from a previous study that electric drive is the most cost effective.
Agreed. Where's the plug, car makers?
The exceptions we know: electric conversions and now the Mercedes Sprinter Plug-in Hybrid Van.
Nevertheless, if you have to use combustion, which all hybrids do and most car buyers can afford until advanced technology, e.g., fuels cells, lithium batteries, and ultra capacitors, then make use of cleaner, flex-fuels.
After stating a preference for using biomass to produce electricity, the Dutch economic analysis rated alternative fuels from biomass in the following order, the first being the most cost effective:
1. Gasification
2. Cellulosic ethanol
3. DME
4. Biodiesel
Cellulosic ethanol above DME or Biodiesel surprised me since ethanol has less energy value. I recently learned that DME and Biodiesel do have somewhat less energy value than diesel while still more equivalent fuels than ethanol, which has about three-quarters the energy value of gasoline.
Other economic factors must offset the intrinsic energy values. Thus, I now give more credence to a highly efficient E85 powered engine, especially for passenger cars.
The E85 engine is great, if you live in Minnesota. While the E85 engine has great potential, most states have only a couple - if any - gas stations that carry ethanol.
Thus, most E85 engined-vehicles produced by GM have never been filled with ethanol by their owners. Flex-fuel capability was only added to receive CAFE credits that helped GM avoid huge fines for not meeting fuel economy numbers.
Still, let's say all Americans use ethanol and production becomes cheaper, the American way is simply to use more and more.
That's why I think mile per gallon, not just fuel, is extremely important. Hybrid technology, like that which is in the Prius, offers the ability to make E85 engines significantly more fuel efficient.
Plus, while we're waiting for ethanol in some states, we can use gasoline, solar power, bio-mass, clean diesel etc, if we are manufacturing plug-in flex-fuel hybrid vehicles.
Ethanol holds great potential as a fuel source, but if all Americans are driving E85 Hummers, Yukons and Tahoes, E85 won't ever be nearly enough.
ok for starters, a diesel hybrid may beat a gas hybrid by a good percentage.
second, all that stuff about wasting gas in traffic jams? replacing gas engines with diesels would cut THAT fuel consumption by a LARGE amount, right off the bat. diesels consume "virtually no fuel" at idle, compared to the best non-hybrid gas system. if most of the gas wasted is in traffic jams, diesels would nail that problem overnight.... if anyone would be willing to put up with the smell, etc.
finally, for my two cents, converting all of these gas-wasters to plug-in hybrids without doing the math on what that will do to your home electric bill is really the result of smoking some good stuff. it borders on "bad science."
ok for starters, a diesel hybrid may beat a gas hybrid by a good percentage.
second, all that stuff about wasting gas in traffic jams? replacing gas engines with diesels would cut THAT fuel consumption by a LARGE amount, right off the bat. diesels consume "virtually no fuel" at idle, compared to the best non-hybrid gas system. if most of the gas wasted is in traffic jams, diesels would nail that problem overnight.... if anyone would be willing to put up with the smell, etc.
finally, for my two cents, converting all of these gas-wasters to plug-in hybrids without doing the math on what that will do to your home electric bill is really the result of smoking some good stuff. it borders on "bad science."
plusaf.com -
Bad science? Such as the bad scientists at Argonne Laboratory whom have studied plug-in's and electricity? I'll take their credentials over yours anytime.
As for diesel, no emissions or fuel burning at idol - that's the essence of bad science.
You don't go 35 and then sit at idle, then go 35 - that's why they call it stop-and-go traffic. Moreover, diesels and hybrids have been tested for city fuel economy by consumer reports and hybrids EASILY win.
Studies have been done on diesel hybrids and hybrid technology makes diesel vehicles 20-30% more fuel efficient.
So, I guess I'm just not sure what your point is.
Another note. No matter what we do for our energy, it has to come from somewhere. By choosing an electric plug in vehicle, you are making an improvement in net C02, NoX emissions, but you are not helping reduce oil use. Take a look at Brazil. They don't import any oil because their transit system is based on E100. Now look at the enviromental implications of such a setup. All the emissions from your tailpipe are comming from recently grown plant matter which sequestered it from the atmosphere. So net pollution is negative.
As far as the first comment from "now is the time". I'm not sure where you get your data on ethanol production, and yes, data from one source to another varies, but the average of what I find is:
Fuel Energy yield*
Gasoline 0.805
Diesel 0.843
Ethanol 1.34
Biodiesel 3.20
*usable fuel energy/energy required to produce it.
What does this mean? It means it takes 1.25 gallons of gas to process oil into 1 gallon of gas... not very effective if you ask me. Compared to Ethanol at 3/4 a gallon to produce 1 usable gallon, or even better, biodiesel at only .31 gallons to produce 1 gallon. So when you're driving your hybrid prius and you get your 55mpg, you are in actuallity getting 24.44 mpg. Compare that to VW's TDI golf (a bigger more powerful car) at 45 mpg, which when looking at the bigger picture becomes 34.35mpg. Now, to make this fair, diesel has a higher energy density at 135kbtu/gallon, compared to gas at 120, (roughly). So consider this, and VW TDI, gets .254miles/kbtu, compared to a prius at .204miles/kbtu. All this while producing 100hp and 177lb-ft of torque compared to a prius at 67(electric) or 78(gas)hp.
I support hybrid vehicles, but as an engineer, I recognize their complexity and the production costs to the enviroment that go into making them. All of you seem to neglect the batteries that go into a hybrid. While yes, battery technology is improving, the efficieny of a hybrid does not yet offset the enviromental impacts of the production of the batteries it requires and then the cost(literally and environmentally) of recycling the chemicals. I'm more for a biodiesel and E100 based economy. We all know this country produces enough corn for it. Just my two cents.
Oh, and P.S. plus AF was mearly saying that a diesel hybrid would be better than a gas hybrid.... except for the fact that a diesel requires a warm up time. (this is why truckers leave their engines running...) Though VW and Honda have been putting alot of work into diesel design to overcome this and are making a push in 2008 to bring diesels to the american market.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Whitaker -
First, plug-in hybrids DO reduce oil consumption. You're not substituting equal amounts of electricity instead of gasoline. Because a hybrid can generate its own electricity - or fuel - the idea of plug-ins is topping of your batteries. Today's plug-in hybrids can achieve more than 100 mpg, and they can often function on pure electricity for as much as 40 miles with much of that electricity being generated by the hybrid itself.
As lithium-ion batteries develop this energy-producing capability will significantly increase and hybrids will then produce more and more of their own fuel simply by braking,etc. More important, with-in a decade a small fuel cell stack could be added into this combination creating even great efficiency.
As for hybrid battery pollution, the majority of hybrid battery components are already recycled. As economies of scale increase hybrids and hybrid recycling becomes cost-effective.
As an engineer, I assume you realize that essentially every new innovation isn't cost-effective as it emerges. Cost-effectiveness is driven by economies of scale.
For example, Toyota has seen continued decreases in hybrid production costs and sees greater decreases in just the next couple of years. By 2009 not only does Toyota see more efficient hybrids, with hybrid component weight cut in half, but production prices also cut in half.
Second, there isn't enough corn to replace our gasoline habit. Even the majority of die hard ethanol advocates know that corn-based ethanol isn't the future. The goal is cellulosic ethanol and the use of various plant material and waste. Corn isn't efficient.
Moreover, our CURRENT ethanol use has already pushed the cost of grains higher as there is already competition between converting corn into ethanol or food. As we add more ethanol to our energy supplies, we'll also raise the price of bread, rice, etc.
Moreover, pollution?
Simply growing and tilling soil to grow corn causes green house gas emissions, especially when crop rotation isn't used. This then requires massive increases in fertilizers and pesticides which have already significantly contaminated groundwater supplies, lakes and rivers throughout America.
Additionally, how many feet of some of the world's best top soil has been lost to corn production in just the last couple of decades? America has lost more top soil in the last couple of decades than it did over 1000s of years - this trend cannot continue. There simply ins't that much top soil left.
Corn as a fuel is a complete and utter joke. Cellulosic ethanol offers excellent possibilities, but it is not close to being cost effective.
Moreover, simply changing our fuels, and not addressing fuel economy, will lead to the same thing it has for decades - increased fuel demand. So, it is quite possible that as we add more and more ethanol into our energy supplies, we'll simply demand more and more fuel. Suddenly, we'll realize that we are using just as much foreign oil as ever, plus billions of barrels of ethanol - yet nothing will have changed.
I have not read all the postings,but I dont think anyone have ever thought about why the common gasoline engine waste so much fuel and get its mpg greatly improved when coupled to a battery pack and an electric motor (the hybrid at a great expense)
When a manifold fuel injected engine runs at idle or low-medium load it pumps out a lot more horsepowers it need and that wastes a lot of gasoline into excess heat. Air/gas mix does not
ignite well if the mix is leaner than a ratio of 1:14. In a hybrid
drivetrain much of that excess energy is captured and stored in a battery and used when needed. Great
system, but it comes at a high price and complicated drive train.
There is another way (at least partly) and that is to use direct injection (long used in japan and Europe). DI (direct injection) inject the gasoline into the cylinder right in fron of sparkplug
where it has the concentration of
1:14 while most of the cylinder for
the most part contains only air.
This type of engine uses a fraction of the fuel a indirect fuel injection uses at idle and
low-medium power. It also make the engine run smoother, better hp and low end torque. As an extra bonus it runs cleaner and maked oil change intervals twice as long.
Mpg get improved with 15-20% depending on driving style. If a hybrid improves mpg with 25-30% it
is typically at an investment cost
of $3000-5000 while a DI system gets close to the same, but for a
few hundered $$$ more. Even better
get a modern diesel car. They are way ahead of hybrids.
Anothe point if we manage to cut our oilconsumption equal to what we import from a country we dont like it does not mean that country
wont be able to sell its crude.
They will just sell its elswhere.
Its an international market
Post a Comment
<< Home