« Shell Hydrogen and Virent Energy Systems to Partner on Virent’s Hydrogen from Biomass Process | Main | Companies Add Solar Roof to Plug-in Prius »
Study: Diesel May Outpace Gasoline Hybrids in US
24 May 2007
 |
| The relative merits of gasoline hybrids and diesels. Click to enlarge. Source: Ricardo estimate, Schommers, DaimlerChrysler, GM, Aachen, October 2005 |
Although hybrid gasoline technology currently appears to be the preferred route to increased fuel efficiency in the US, new investment research published by UBS and Ricardo predicts that sales of diesels will outpace those of hybrids by 2012.
Diesels will constitute 56% (1.5 million units) of a forecasted combined diesel and hybrid gasoline sales of 2.7 million units in 2012, according to the study. At 2.7 million units, the two technologies would represent 15% of the US light duty vehicle market. UBS highlights that European automakers and a number of global suppliers look set to benefit from the diesel trend.
 |
| Cost comparison of gasoline, diesel and hybrid for a 4-liter V8 powertrain in the US. Cost gap for smaller cars is closer, but still favours diesel. Click to enlarge. Source: Ricardo |
Prospects for both technologies are strong, according to the report, given the increasing regulatory focus on fuel economy and reduction of greenhouse gas reductions. However, it concludes, diesel’s cost burden is lower than that of hybrids for similar fuel economy, even with the advanced technologies needed to meet tough US emissions regulations (including California).
Diesel’s cost lead over hybrid is the most marked for larger vehicles (crossovers/SUVs).
Should the energy storage cost barrier be overcome, the report notes, plug-in hybrid vehicles have longer-term future opportunities.
Resources:
May 24, 2007 in Diesel, Hybrids | Permalink | Comments (47) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/18761864
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Study: Diesel May Outpace Gasoline Hybrids in US :
Comments
Is there something wrong with deisel hybrids? Do deisels not idle at stop lights? Would they not benefit from regenerative braking? These are not competitive solutions. They are two different choices for future efficiency gains that can be complimentary.
For that matter, hybrid technology makes sense for ethanol too.
I see no reason why hybrids won't continue to gain marketshare even among deisels. Even deisel or ethanol gensets for PHEV's make sense.
Posted by: Darwin | May 24, 2007 11:24:46 AM
It's not a question of are-diesel-hybrids-better-than-just-diesel. The chart shows a Diesel hybrid would have the best of both worlds. The question is, "How much extra does hybrid add to diesel?" The answer varies depending on the driving (in the city, a lot), the vehicle class (heavier vehicles, full hybrid is harder), vs the added cost of full hybrid. Clean diesel seems worth looking at because it gets more miles per gallon than standard gas. But, doesn't it take more oil to refine a gallon of diesel than a gallon of standard grade gasoline? How do diesels compare from a well-to-wheels point of view? Also, is the clean-diesel tech clean enough?
Posted by: C Harget | May 24, 2007 11:32:58 AM
That begs an interesting question, from a CO2 standpoint, which emits more CO2, a gallon of diesel or a gallon or gasoline?
Posted by: Scott | May 24, 2007 11:47:06 AM
Diesel and parallel gasoline hybrids are competitors. A TDI diesel uses no fuel while coasting to a stop and a TDI diesel uses almost no fuel while idleing (my golf uses only .6L per hour!). It is true that regenerative breaking could be implemented on diesels, but you could not gain much of an advantage from it because it wouldn't allow the engine to be downsized anymore (gasoline engines for any given application are sized significantly higher than their diesel counterparts). Electric assist on launch is not as useful on a diesel as on a gasoline vehicle because high torque at low RPMs is where diesels shine.
I submit that A 76HP diesel engine in a Toyota prius hybrid would net less than a 5 MPG gain over a standard Miller cycle Prius. This while increasing tailpipe emissions, increasing NVH, and adding a couple of thousand to the price tag.
I like hybrid tech and diesels (I own one of each), but in the parallel setup they are redundant.
Posted by: coal_burner | May 24, 2007 11:51:01 AM
Darwin, you're making too much sense.
But, doesn't it take more oil to refine a gallon of diesel than a gallon of standard grade gasoline?
No, just the opposite.
How do diesels compare from a well-to-wheels point of view?
Also, is the clean-diesel tech clean enough?
If it isn't, neither's gasoline, especially the way gasoline technology is going (stratified charge lean burn)
Posted by: cidi | May 24, 2007 11:52:20 AM
It is clear that a gallon of diesel emits more co2 than a gallon of gasoline. The relevant parameter is co2 per mile or co2 per km.
The other thing that should be kept in mind is that Toyota is briging the marginal cost of hybrid technology down to at least half of what it is now. In addition, some say that the next gen Prius, for example, will get in excess of 65 mpg. That could be a game changer.
Posted by: tom | May 24, 2007 11:55:01 AM
Nothing on the table right now is a game changer. Everything on the table still play by the same rules, and it's by those rules that we need to figure out how to encourage people to drive more efficient vehicles.
Posted by: k | May 24, 2007 12:10:21 PM
Cidi:
Gallon of gasoline weights about 6 lb, gallon of diesel weights about 7.2 lb. Would be interesting to see how it takes less oil to produce gallon of diesel than gallon of gasoline.
Posted by: Andrey | May 24, 2007 12:13:45 PM
It is also clear that a gallon of diesel contains more ENERGY than a gallon of petrol.
The other reason why you don't have diesel hybrids is cost. The fuel injection and aftertreatment systems of a modern diesel are not cheap (esp if it is to meet T2B5). As a result of this and the fact that a diesel is a better compromise than a petrol hybrid under most circumstances make a diesel hybrid less likely.
Posted by: Ruaraidh | May 24, 2007 12:16:17 PM
Diesels are a temporary improvement at best. ICE efficiencies can go up from 25-35% by use of the diesel cycle. But after that there is nothing further to be gained.
Diesel answers no long term questions. If the Peakists are eventually correct, diesels are not the answer. If the atmospheric concerned are eventually correct, Diesel is no long term solution there either.
Only ground transport electrification makes long term sense.
Thankfully this report fits into the category of 'Garbage IN, Garbage OUT'. The cost differential for the capital expenditure for a clean diesel is overlapped by the higher capital expenditure for a full hybrids. But this study does not account fro or include operating expense. There is mighty few gallons of diesel fuel available for 75 cents a gallon equivalent as the hybrid offers. So even in the short term clean diesel won't have much of a permanent economic advantage, if any.
If as seems probable that Toyota can indeed drive the manufacturing learning curve and the battery learning curve down to a mere $1000 capital difference between a hybrid and a conventional gasoline engine, there will be no capital difference between a diesel and a hybrid. Toyota aims ot achieve thsi is as short a period as two years.
In actuality, the diesel capital cost may prove higher.
Would you purchase the car than can be fueled for 75 cents a gallon or the same priced one, that must be fueled at $3-4 dollars per gallon?
Question asked; Question answered.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | May 24, 2007 12:17:15 PM
If a move to diesel slows or delays the implementation of PHEVs by reducing the adoption of HEVs then this is not good. While diesels are better than gasoline cars, there still remains to major problems. One: they still get all of their motive power from fossil fuels, mostly oil. Two: now we have even more direct competition between private, often unnecessarily driven, LDVs and the delivery trucks that brings our food to market.
Posted by: Neil | May 24, 2007 12:18:36 PM
Scott: The figures I've generally seen are 2.7kg/l for diesel and 2.3kg/l for unleaded gasoline.
Posted by: Planck | May 24, 2007 12:30:06 PM
During the 90's GM, Ford, and Chrysler independently arrived at similar conclusions to meet PNGV's family sedan challenge: light weight, diesel-electric hybrids.
Cost is the detractor:
If a clean turbodiesel adds $2,500 to the cost of a vehicle, and hybridization adds another $4,400- how many consumers are willing to fork over $7,000 in the name of fuel efficiency? (notice, I did not take into consideration the cost of lightening vehicles- a fuel saving measure that, to date, has not been expolited)
What does the $7,000 price premium buy the US consumer?
Take two identical vehicles: one with a conventional 30mpg drivetrain, the other with a 70mpg diesel-electric drivetrain. Driving both 15,000 miles per year, while paying $4/gallon for fuel:
70mpg diesel-hybrid requires: 214.3 gallons or $857/year
30mpg conventional drivetrain: 500 gallons or $2000/year
At $4/gallon it would take over 6 years of driving to recoup the $7,000 price premium for the diesel hybrid.
This is where tax breaks and subsidies would help. From a National Security perspective cars using 214 gallons/year are much more favorable than 500 gallons per year, let alone over 700 gallons a year (as present US fleet average fuel economy dictates).
Posted by: DieselHybrid | May 24, 2007 12:40:41 PM
To Stan Peterson: Take it a step further. We need electrification of ground transport AND the electrification of all highways. The second will save millions and millions of gallons of oil.
Posted by: Ralph Taite | May 24, 2007 1:27:32 PM
Andrey, I note you're using weight and not volume or energy. Anyway, if you fractionally distill a barrel of oil you'll get 5-20% diesel (depends on crude), which you test for cetane and maximum sulfur (again, depends on crude), and that's it. You will get no gasoline. To get gasoline you have to make it, which means combining the naphtha (which you do get) with fractions (some naphtha, some heavier) you isomerize and fractions you crack into small aromatics. Demand being what it is, you'll likely also crack heavier fractions into naphtha. Then you combine it all, check for octane and max sulfur content. The additional processing steps of cracking and reforming all take energy.
If a move to diesel slows or delays the implementation of PHEVs by reducing the adoption of HEVs then this is not good. -- Neil
Agree 100%. It's hard to see that ICEs will go away in the next couple of decades, so hopefully maturing technology will significantly lower the premium for diesel hybrids. Preferably serial, Volt style. And hopefully all urban traffic will be electrified.
Diesel answers no long term questions. If the Peakists are eventually correct, diesels are not the answer. If the atmospheric concerned are eventually correct, Diesel is no long term solution there either. -- Stan Peterson
Good Lord. I agree with Stan Peterson!
Posted by: cidi | May 24, 2007 1:47:45 PM
In the summer of 2005 we were in the market for a new car. We wanted a high mileage vehicle for our long commute to work. We drove both the Prius and the Jetta TDI. They were very close to equal in many ways; price,mileage,room. The Jetta felt like a better car, drove better, handled better. We run our 2005 TDI on bio and are very happy with it. I think this report realizes in a side-by-side comparison most people will see that the diesel is a better car, from an asthetic point of view.
Posted by: Joesph | May 24, 2007 1:56:38 PM
bad news- according to the American Petroleum Institute, most of the refineries in this country are optimized to produce gasoline (despite as coal burner correctly points out, the fact that there is less gasoline available in a barrel of oil than diesel.) And, despite that optimization, we can't even provide enough gasoline to keep up with domestic demand. In fact, 1 in 8 gallons of gasoline in this country is imported from European refiners.
If the refiners wanted to switch to optimize for diesel, it would require an investment in the ball park of $500MM-$1bb PER refinery, along with a 4-5 year lead time.
The point is, until that potential switch, diesel supplies (which are already tight globally) would be increasingly strained, driving up prices above gasoline (which they already are in the US most of the time), and hurting diesel's chances against gasoline.
I personally would love to see diesel take off in this country, and there's no question we would be more efficient with it. The question is whether our energy supply chain can keep up with such a switch, and I believe that the answer is no, at least for the med-term.
Posted by: Andrew | May 24, 2007 1:57:53 PM
Andrew,
Correct, US refinery construction will require billions of dollars in investment to keep up with demand. US refinery capacity is currently the longest pole in the tent due to NIMBY-ism and environmental shortsight.
On the bright side, Marathon Oil (MRO) is investing close to $1 billion to upgrade their existing refineries to produce more diesel. The expected lead time is 3 years. I think their forray into this market will be richly rewarded as clean diesel gains market share.
Posted by: DieselHybrid | May 24, 2007 2:14:34 PM
In all this comment, bio-diesel was largely ignored.
We need an interim method of fueling our transportation. (While waiting on nuclear fusion)
Realistically it comes down to Bio-fuels.
After all that is carbon neutral, solar power.
Posted by: Lucas | May 24, 2007 2:24:26 PM
In regards to peak oil, why doesn't biodiedel (and hence high efficiency deisel hybrids) play a part?
Granted, EV's make much more sense, but only for 90% of people's driving. For rural areas, high efficiency biodeisel makes sense. IMHO, I see farmers all over the midwest US using soybean in their crop rotation. The soybean would be used for biodeisel, which the farmers will need to run their tractors. Wouldn't the farmers then use that same biofuel for transportation? They could then rotate that crop (which fixes nitrogen) with their money crop (nitrogen using) of corn, or sugar beets (if the corn subsidy goes away).
Posted by: darwin | May 24, 2007 2:30:09 PM
When the Diesel prices were lower than gasolene prices, I think that owning a Diesel may be better especially in light of its higher mileage.
But, we have to see how much Diesel (% age) comes out of Crude refining.
If all the vehicles in the World convert to Diesel, what will happen to Gasolene.
If we think this way, Nat-gas, Hydrogen and Electricity may be the neutral fuels.
Posted by: Max Reid | May 24, 2007 2:35:58 PM
Both the US military (JP8) and Volkswagen (HCCI) seem to support the idea of a universal fuel for IC engines. Fortunately the major diesel types petro, methyl ester, BTL, nextbtl and perhaps carbon taxed CTL can all be blended. However if you're looking at $2/L or $8/gallon this has to be combined with electrification on several levels such as hybrids and rail replacing truck haulage.
Posted by: Aussie | May 24, 2007 2:47:27 PM
Joseph,
Just about every car on the road has better handling and road feel than nearly any Toyota (save for the now discontinued MR-S, MR2, and Supra). You don't buy a Toyota for handling...you buy them for fuel efficiency and reliability.
If you want to know what a well handling car driving experience is like go try a Mazda 3 or the new Mitsubishi Lancer as they will easily out handle the Jetta TDI.
Posted by: Patrick | May 24, 2007 2:48:54 PM
Seems to me a diesel plug in hybrid would be the best way to go. particularly if it is optimized to run bio diesel from algae.
Look into algae bio diesel and it looks quite promising. And with the yields that seem very possible that a nation of mostly diesels is very possible and most probable so that in the longer term, maybe 10 years, diesel could be quite plentiful and quite cheap comparatively.
In the mean time I am slowly saving up my grease from cooking and making biodiesel from it. :) Its taking a while but by the time I purchase my next hybrid, hybrid diesels should be around and I should have a few gallons. I like the idea of traveling on waste breakfast sausage. I only accumulate about a pint a month but it adds up! :)lol
Posted by: fstvette78 | May 24, 2007 3:25:24 PM
Increasing the use of diesl is a logical step toward making better use of conventional fuels as they are not going away any time soon. I think we will all continue to use fossil fuels to some extent as long as they are available to extract, and although conventional oil may be ready to peak, overall fossil fuels are still very abundant. Unconventional oil, GTL and CTL, possibly with CCS will pick up the slack to fuel the world economy along with some renewables, but since those are all much more expensive, we will need to be smarter about fuel use. One day diesel or maybe designer fuel vehicles with regen braking will be the rule. I think it is evident that maximizing efficiency for liquid fuel vehicles will happen before battery electric or hydrogen is ever a real option.
Posted by: norore | May 24, 2007 3:29:40 PM
How about a CNG powered diesel hybrid, or a CNG powered (gas engine) hybrid? I am sure Honda would have no problem building a Civic GX-Hybrid. I would buy one.
Posted by: jetboat | May 24, 2007 4:55:43 PM
Forget CNG or even EV...
How about an air-powered car?
Goes on sale in India next year. 125 mile range, comparable to many EVs. Top speed 68mph. Uses a special carbon fiber air tank at 4350 psi. I hope it works...
Posted by: Cervus | May 24, 2007 5:09:12 PM
Diesel-electric hybrids should be considered. And why not diesel after all? Think about it...not only can we use biodiesel but there's the potential of e-diesel too (FYI, e-diesel is 95% ethanol,5% diesel).
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr. | May 24, 2007 5:27:10 PM
The big deal with Diesel is that it is a great "Immediate" solution, while we wait for other technologies to become more viable.
Long term I think we will see cars that function primarily by charging off the grid at night.
The problem with a "Hybrid Diesel" is that diesel engines don't like to be turned off for extended periods of time. They only are at thier optimal efficiency when they are working. That is why a VW TDI is a bad choice for anyone who only drives 10 Miles each way to work each day - they would be lucky to get 30MPG doing that in a VW TDI.
That doesn't mean that some efficiency couldn't be gained from "hybridization" to some extent. For example, making all of the Accessories "Electric" and not having them load the engine under acceleration would help performance and efficiency. Then when sitting at a stop light, putting the diesel engine under slight load to put power back into the battery while keeping the engine warm and happy might be a good thing. Point is, it isn't as simple as dropping a diesel engine into the Prius Design.
Posted by: Spokane Walt | May 24, 2007 6:01:18 PM
Diesel vs Gasoline
Energy content
Diesel > Gasoline
Diesel molecule made of longer chain hydrocarbon then gasoline. This means it has more carbon packed into a unit volume, which implies more energy.
Crude oil required
Diesel < Gasoline
That means each barrel of crude contain more diesel then gasoline. As you know, it just happened that the long chain hydrocarbon exsisted more then the short one naturally. It is hard to break those long chain to become short chain as this required lots of energy.
Engine Eficiency
Diesel >> Gasoline
Some diesel engine can reach up to 50% thermal efficiency and the normal one in cars will reach ~35% efficiency compare to 25% in gasoline. This is due to the nature of the machine and fuel, ie compression ignition vs spark ignition. Turbo + high compression + higher energy content = high MPG.
The same size vehicle especially SUV, a diesel one can go up to 30MPG or more, a gasoline would burn your wallet by doing less then 15MPG. A compact diesel car will have similar MPG to hybrid gasoline car.
Engine behavior
Diesel: high torque and they all come in at low RPM, hp generally lower then gasoline.
Gasoline: a sweet rev of engine boost torque and hp, torque mainly doesnt match diesel counterpart
The nature of diesel engine that all the torque comes in at low RPM so basically there is no need to rev the engine, therefore improving MPG. Everybody likes the sweet rev of gasoline engine but we all knows that it will burn your cash faster as well.
Cost
Diesel > Gasoline
The diesel engines is tougher and required stronger construction due to much higher compression and forced air intake. Therefore diesel engines is generally cost slightly more then a gasoline engine, about 30%(i think), that would me you pay an extra $1-2k for a diesel car.
Biofuel Option
Biodiesel made of vegetable oil contain slightly less energy content compare to fossil diesel, ethanol contain much less energy then gasoline.
Therefore your gasoline car run on ethanol is going to have worse milage and less power. Diesel car running on biodiesel is said to have similar power and milage compare to the fossil one, according to journeytoforever.org
Emission per miles
CO2 Diesel < Gasoline
NOx Diesel > Gasoline
Particulates Diesel >> Gasoline
CO2 is much lower in diesel due to higher efficiency engine, NOx is higher for diesel due to higher combustion tempurature, particulates is higher for diesel due to the long hydrocarbon chain is harder to burn completely.
Engineers believe that the latter two weakness of diesel can be tackled by improving catalytic converter and installing better particulate filter. But it is up to the goverment how to make sure everybody's diesel has all the required cats and part filter installed.
My 1/2cents, any comments or misunderstanding of physic, blast me.
Posted by: rexis | May 24, 2007 7:03:18 PM
The way to make a diesel hybrid is to make it be a serial hybrid like the volt. The diesel is optimized for one speed of power generation and it will stay on for a preset amount of time so its tempeture cycle is also optimized. Probobly a very small engine would be all thats needed.
Posted by: hampden wireless | May 24, 2007 7:30:18 PM
Here are more comparison:
Cost(maintenance)
diesel ~= gasoline
even though diesel cost more during each maintenance service, but the service intervals are longer then gasoline engine. Therefore both have similar mainenance cost.
Engine spartparts of diesel engines should cost more then of gasoline, but they last longer too, due to the fact that they are naturally built tougher then gasoline one.
cost(fuel)
Diesel fuel is cheaper then gasoline, obviously because we can suck out more diesel then gasoline in a barrel of crude oil.
cost(production)
Ethanol(starch based like corn, cassava): cook the starch into sugar(cook = energy), ferment the sugar(50% energy loss for yeast growth), distill and purify the ethanol into fuel grade(distill = energy). The energy used by a ethanol refinary should come from burning the waste material like corn cob, etc. Waste materia used as animal feed, fertilizer, etc, not too sure.
Biodiesel(from vegetable oil): press the oil from harvest(energy), esterification(20% energy content become gycelrin), filter then thing and ready to use(took little energy). Waste materia/by product gycelrin is raw material to make soap.
According to my understanding here, ethanol takes more effort to produce compare to biodiesel.
Cost(environmental)
There will surely cost our environment something if we want to take a lot of thing from it and burn them in our engines. We have various comments from all over the world, basically it is like the producing country will say good thing like forest reserves and, and the importing country will say bad thing like killing rain forest. But no matter what it will cost the environment something. So it is just like a religion here, it is up to you what you believe - some believed that it is good to go to work in their H3 burning precious biofuel, and some believed that it is more convinience to take bus to work as you do not need to drive thru that massive traffic.
Posted by: rexis | May 24, 2007 7:36:03 PM
Hi All,
A Toyota engineer has commented in a public speech that the HSD system is a $2000 premium, based on comparing like optioned Camrys. Which is probably very similar to a clean Turbo-Diesel. This includes the Atkinson engine. Indeed, a Hybrid Camry is cheaper than the V6 Camry, and nearly as quick. Although, some people will quible with the 1/2 second difference to 60 mph.
The reason this is believable is that the starter, alternator, asociated bracketry, about 1/4 of the transmission assembly labor, and 1/2 the transmission parts are not needed in the Hybrid version.
As far as Diesels exceeding Hybrids in the US, well, the Diesel better get clean fast. Because the Prius is digging them a hole they may not be able to climb out of. Prius density is exploding on the roads here in Chicagoland.
My mileage experience with a Prius is much more similar to the Diesel curve in that graph. Stop and Go is still a mileage problem. The Diesel only beats the HSD on the open free flowing interstate between cities in the summer. But then the urban motorway around here rarely averages above 45 mph. Especially when somebody dumps a horse trailer, complete with horses just before rush hour on one interstate, and an RV dealership goes up in flames spewing smoke across another interstate - both of which happened today!
Posted by: donee | May 24, 2007 7:45:27 PM
cidi,
I thought you might agree with me, and why I am so sanguine and unconcerned about the future.
All of us here, fully expect that the LDV fleet of the immediate future will be primarily PHEVS, with some admixture of HEVs and BEVs and some fewer and fewer diesels and gasoline ICEs.
This is what I call the electrification of ground transport.
Large trucks will be T2B5 or better, and locomotives will get to diesel electric hybrids with T2B5 in the near future as well. Delivery vans will be diesel hybrids, too. All this will come because it will be cheaper to do it than not. Not all the bureaucrats or speeches by professional knot heads would ever suffice; market price always works.
Remember there is no intrinsic reason why the capital costs of a hybrid drive train should be more than an conventional ICE drive train. That is true, once R& D has been expensed, and infrastructure factories to make them are amortized.
By comparison, Diesels have just barely started the cleanup cycle.
Let us not forget that the currently impossible to reach T2B5 standard for diesels, until 2008, equates only to the relatively primitive LEVII gasoline vehicle emissions level.
That is still pretty dirty; most modern cars designs being released are meeting the PZEV SULEV level which equates to T2B3 or even T2B2 levels.
Europe won't even get to T2B5 until 2014 when EU-6 regulations are implemented. Is it any wonder that EU cities STINK of diesel fumes? To reach T2B3, you can probably expect that standard in 2025, in the EU, a long way away for those supposedly concerned, but only watermelon Greens.
PHEVS will cut fossil fuel demand by two thirds. The US will be at 1920 demand levels, and virtually self sufficient.
The Peakists worriers argue about when half the oil recoverable as oil at some quality and price point will have been found, and consumed over the last 150 years. That will mean that they expect they will have only an equal period (another 150 years!) before exhaustion.
When expressed that way their concerns are for some other time, a century and a half or more in the future. The Peakists might be correct in the very long run, but it won't take 150 years to collapse oil demand; hell, it won't take 50 or even 25; the oil demand collapse is relatively right around the corner in a mere 5 to 15 years.
When that happens the remaining half left for the Peakists, isn't 150 years worth, its a heck of a lot longer. This is as it should be. Fossil is too valuable to be used to merely BURN it. Make medicines with it or polymers. Frankly, let Americans of the 2175 or 2400AD have some problems to solve.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | May 24, 2007 10:03:32 PM
Why has nobody mentioned veggie oil in regard to diesel powered cars. This is the land of the french fry, nearly every restaurant in the country sells them. Couldnt we find a way to collect that used oil and add it to the crop yields we have for making biodiesel.
Not to mention - that stock will really far once we get to plug in diesel hybrids (at 60mpg fleet average we cut national fuel use by 66%) So having 10B gallons of fuel would be like having 30B with todays ICEs
Posted by: eliot | May 24, 2007 10:10:07 PM
I agree with Stan Peterson. After practical BEVs and PHEVs begin appearing in the marketplace -- within the next two or three years -- I can easily envision their popularity exploding and displacing gasoline-powered light passenger vehicles much more quickly than most people would imagine.
Posted by: Tony Belding | May 25, 2007 5:50:03 AM
Ralph Taite,
Electrification of ground transport IS powering LDVs rail locomotives, delivery lorries, and heavy duty trucks with electric or partial electrically driven vehicles, (PHEVs) to increase efficiency and reduce costs.
Electricity equivalent at 75 cents a gallon fuel equivalent will be the driving attractiveness that leads to adoption. Legal air emission laws will also add a push to adoption.
If you mean electrification of the highways as automated intelligence control that is coming too.
If you mean electrification of the highways employing electrical cables for the roadway to power vehicles that is never likely to come, IMHO as a professional
Engineer/Scientist.
The Automated Intelligent Highway will be the genuine "mass transit" of the 21st century and not any investment in antique 1870s era toy trains which are inefficient in moving people from where they are, to where they wish to go.
Somehow it is fashionable by politicians to invest in toy trolley trains at prodigious expense as some sort of a civic investment. They never pay for themselves, require prodigious operating subsidies as well. They end up moving many tons of empty trolley cars back and forth accomplishing nothing for most of the day, wasting energy, except for an hour or two a day in rush hour.
Automated Highway control in a distributed fashion will occur in steps; first certain lanes will be dedicated and computers in every vehicle will join in long trains at optimum spacing and create "trains" of vehicles operating at the highest lane and vehicle efficiency.
This will save Energy certainly, but I think it will come more as a Safety Concern, and Lane efficiency response than any other reason. It is independent of the choice of drive train, but the more drive-by-wire, steer-by-wire, brake-by-wire systems, adopted in electrified vehicles, by necessity; the quicker Automated Vehicle and hence Automated Highway control will come.
You can already see the first primitive functions becoming available such as: Radar controlled Cruse control to maintain set vehicle spacing, automated parking control to park vehicles, automated stability control, pre-accident safety controls, and automated braking optimization (ABS), being offered from the manufacturers.
All of these systems augment human control and taken together are the first glimmers of the coming Automated Intelligent Highway. It is significant that the USHSA, that mandated airbags and seat belts, is now promulgating a standard requiring all 2012 model year and subsequent vehicles to have both ABS and Stability (anti-skid) control as a standard.
Automated driving will evolve from the mid-teens onwards getting more and more common, as experience and safety concerns are alleviated. Humans are pretty good as drivers, but we still kill 40,000 a year.
By comparison, on any single holiday we kill more than all the annual casualties in the GWOT; and annually that is more Americans killed than in the entire history of the Iraqi/Afghani GWOT and Korean War combined. There is ample room to do better; and We will.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | May 25, 2007 9:53:29 AM
"trains at prodigious expense as some sort of a civic investment. They never pay for themselves, require prodigious operating subsidies as well. They end up moving many tons of empty trolley cars back and forth accomplishing nothing for most of the day, wasting energy, except for an hour or two a day in rush hour."
Stan, do you have an analysis of trains vs personal vehicles? I'm very curious as to the detail of the comparison.
Posted by: Nick G | May 25, 2007 10:32:11 AM
That will mean that they expect they will have only an equal period (another 150 years!) before exhaustion.
That would only be true if demand were constant. But today's demand is much higher than the average demand over the last 150 years, so the time to exhaust the remaining half will be much less (if it weren't limited by the rate at which it could be extracted; in reality prices will rise further as supply constraints tighten.)
Posted by: Paul Dietz | May 25, 2007 11:59:51 AM
Why has nobody mentioned veggie oil in regard to diesel powered cars.
There simply isn't enough of it to make any important difference in overall fuel demand.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | May 25, 2007 12:01:36 PM
So I'm sitting here in the Northwest waiting to buy a brand new low NOx diesel. Let me just surf the interweb and see if I can BUY ONE. Oh, I see....there are NONE. I could by a PowerStroke something or other - BUT ALL I WANT IS A BRAND NEW MIDSIZE DIESEL WAGON. How hard is this for any manufacturer to provide? 50% of the market in Europe are diesels, yet my only choices here is a Jetta or mamoth pick-up.
I don't see how Diesels could outpace Hybrids by 2012 when there AREN"T ANY DIESELS TO BE HAD!
Posted by: Dave | May 26, 2007 8:32:30 AM
Planck: Your numbers are inverted; you'll surely agree that gasoline and diesel are less dense than water (which comes in at 1 kg/l). Gasoline is about 0,8 +-0,03 kg/l, whereas diesel has a density of 0,87 +-0,03 kg/l.
The carbon content of diesel is higher (yielding the higher volumetric efficiency). Generally one volume unit of diesel burned emits about 13-18% more CO2 than the same volume of gasoline (the density differential only would be 8-12%).
Or, in other words, the milage of a diesel powered vehicle needs to be at least 15% (on average) higher, to be comparable with a similar sized gasoline vehicle. If the milage is NOT higher by that factor, the diesel is actually less efficient (fuel to driven miles). This is despite the typically higher inheritent combustion efficiency of diesel engines - but then, a diesel weights more, requires more auxilliary devices to run (ie. turbo, exhaust gas recirculation, high-pressure (2000+ bar) common rail injection and pump) and thus in inherently more expensive to produce and operate.
The more complex aftertreatment of a diesel engine, just to meet T2B5, is not even included.
I doubt very much, that any diesel will ever satisfy the SULEV emissions levels at reasonable cost; at the same time, HEVs already fulfill these requirements as AT-ZEV SULEV at paractically the same cost offset over an gasoline engine, with even higher milage (and less emitted CO2).
Posted by: realarms | May 27, 2007 2:27:40 AM
Yes,hybrids are cleaner than diesels,but middle income people need a high efficiency vehicle that we can afford now.Our only choices are 1.5-2.3L gas engines and many are still LEV.If we can get a LEV 1.4L diesel next year in a civic for around $20,000 we will buy them in droves because they will cut our monthly fuel bill nearly in half.Our numbers will make our changes more effective than the rich buying hybrids.We don't care about a $30,000 hybrid Camry because we can't afford it.We also can't afford to maintain or fix it.
Posted by: middleoroad | May 28, 2007 6:20:12 PM
I havent looked at the exact details, but there are PZEV status conventional gas vehicles (Jetta, Nissan Sentra I believe, NOT hybrids) that are as clean or cleaner than Prius in terms of non-greenhouse emissions. I don't know where everyone keeps getting the idea that diesels cannot or will not be as clean or cleaner than these vehicles, with aftertreatment of course. And note that for all the seeming cleanliness, that information is based on US driving cycle tests done by EPA, etc. It is NOT indicative of the level of emission for say, a Prius, doing 80+mph on the freeway, which most are doing. In that case, the Prius is probably nearly as much a polluter as most efficient, modern non-hybrid gas compact and midsize sedans.
Posted by: joe blow | Jun 1, 2007 9:20:35 AM
Look at fueleconomy.gov under mympg and check what Prius owners are claiming for mpg.Then check Jetta diesels.The numbers are similar.Yes the Prius is cleaner but the Jetta is simpler and cheaper.The Jetta can be serviced at independent garages all over and doesn't require highly toxic batteries.
Posted by: middleoroad | Jun 6, 2007 10:22:49 AM
I haven't looked at all the posts that come up, but had a few comments on several of the re-occurring topics:
Diesel Hybrids: In theory they are a good idea, but a diesel engine will not benefit to the same degree form hybridization as will a gasoline engine. You end up paying a premium for the diesel and then add to that the premium for the hybridization with little gain in fuel mileage. It comes down to simple economics. Hybrids have their own problems as well. Batteries are a tremendous cost both in energy required to produce them and environmental impacts (there have been authors that provided a compelling argument that when looking a vehicle’s cradle to grave impact that a hybrid may be worse than most conventional vehicles environmentally). Battery packs (which constitute the great bulk of the hybrid premium cost) have a limited life span, certainly nowhere near the life expectancy of a common diesel engine. Also, the advertised MPG of a hybrid is generally significantly below the advertised MPG. I have had several friends with TDI’s report consistently getting 45-50 MPG
Diesel fuel: Diesel fuel is simpler to refine from crude, unlike gasoline. This fact makes is less costly and less energy intensive to produce. American refineries may be optimized to produce gasoline, but it is clear that more refineries will need to be built to keep up with demand. It is less costly to build a diesel-producing refinery than it is to build a gasoline-producing refinery. Diesel fuel will not entirely, or even substantially replace gasoline anytime soon. There will be a significant transition time in which refineries will naturally need to be built/improved. I can’t see that our refinery condition will present any real challenge. Bio-diesel and CTL/GTL technologies are increasing rapidly. Bio-diesel has an energy content very close to that of conventional diesel. The energy content of ethanol is substantially lower than that of gasoline. Hydrogen fuel makes absolutely no sense with today’s technologies and concepts when one considers the vast amounts of energy required to produce, transport and compress it, and then to have very little range in comparison to congenital fuels.
Electric cars: The ideal solution, but we are not there yet. Battery technology is not currently at the state where it is a viable alternative economically or environmentally. We will need to transition into it as the technology develops. Electric comes with an environmental toll as well as most does and will continue for some time to come from fuels that raise environmental concerns. For the time being diesel power vehicles are the best answer. They can be equal or improve on the emissions of gasoline engines, we currently have an abundance of fuel particularly when one considers the current technology we have to produce CTL, GTL, BTL and bio-diesel. Also, diesels are reasonable affordable. Consider the other benefits of diesel, longer engine life (compared to a gasoline engine) and good low end torque.
Posted by: Bubba | Jun 15, 2007 12:45:45 PM
Guys
Need some help with this thought. I want to use a 10 HP diesel to power an old VW Beetle. They originally came with 32 HP gas, low torque. The 10 HP diesel I am looking at has over 400 Cu in of displacement and must have huge torque. What about a flywheel to transfer torque and keep the diesel from stalling when the clutch kicks in?
Posted by: Bill | Dec 4, 2007 9:41:17 AM
