An 100mpg car

[ivymike1031]

Originally Posted by biofuelsnow

US automakers peer nervously over their shoulder at the fuel efficient vehicles of the European market

Hmm... some of these very vehicles are made by US manufacturers, though, such as the ford focus diesel...

the technology exists with diesels to easily top 40 mpg.

That's true, but it's a whole lot less expensive if you can make US emissions standards less strict (or prevent them from becoming more strict). VW has several cars in the US that get better than 40mpg running diesel, but last I heard they're planning to cease production once the next tier of emissions regulations kick in. I'd definitely like to see more diesels in the US (job security), but I'm not holding my breath.

Besides, diesels couldn't make up more than about 40% of the worldwide oil demand without causing significant inefficiencies in the refining process, if I remember correctly.

[biofuelsnow]

It's true Ford makes a Focus diesel, but I wasn't able to get the specs from the American Ford website. In fact I wasn't even able to find a mention of it anywhere on their US website. Ford has a product, but it's not being marketed to this population. Perhaps a dealer can order it for you, but you have to know it exists first.

I think there is some confusion over the 2006 diesel emissions standards. They mainly center around a requirement for low sulfur diesel, with the current level of 500 parts per million reduced to 15 parts per million.

Using low sulfur diesel fuel, VW's TDI engines already meet California emmissions standards. Based on VW's marketing literature, the emissions would be as low as gasoline fueled engines. I've read nothing that indicates that VW is going to pull diesels from the US market. However, to get those low emissions, you must use low sulfur diesel fuel, which is hard to find in the US right now. Without low sulfur diesel, the emissisons control devices on the new generation of diesels can be damaged.

The problem isn't the technology, it's the fuel. Put plainly, the US makes poor quality diesel fuel. For example, cetane values (the opposite of octane) for diesel fuel in Europe are around 50. In the US, that value is 40 (higher is better for combustion). As a result, in the US, you get a fuel that doesn't burn cleanly, but since that's what comes out of the pump, that's what gets used. As a result, the diesel engine gets a bad rap for spewing lots of pollution into the air even though, to borrow a phrase from the computer world, it's "garbage in, garbage out" so to speak.

Let's say it's true that 40% production is the maximum limit for petrodiesel. One option is to blend that 40% with biofuel to stretch it. France does this now, blending 5% biodiesel (B5) with all of the diesel fuel they produce. By doing so, they automatically cut emissions since it has been shown that there is a significant reduction in emmissions with as little as 3% biodiesel. It also helps their agricultural industry.

Right now is isn't realistic to talk about running all diesels on 100% biodiesel because currently there simply isn't enough growing capacity for biofuel crops to meet 100% demand, but blending is a good way of making up for it.

The fuel would cost more, but with more fuel efficient cars, the cost per mile could actually decrease. It would depend on what you were paying for gasoline, and your mileage before switching. Here's an example where the cost of fuel goes up, but you're actualy paying the same per mile:

Let's say that right now you pay $1.70 (national average) per gallon, and your car gets 34 mpg (I'm being generous). That works out to 5 cents per mile.

If you had a car that gets 50 mpg, and wanted to continue to operate your car at 5 cents per mile, you could pay up to $2.50 per gallon and be no worse off.

The average person won't think about the fact that getting better mileage could offset the higher cost of better fuel. They'll only see the $2.50/gal and flip out at the price. But, think about it. If part of that fuel is grown and processed right here, then more of your $2.50 goes back into the US economy, not overseas. That's just one benefit.

Remember, that the US oil and auto industries sit at the same table. They've got a good thing going and they are heavily invested in gasoline technologies. A unilateral move on either side will upset the balance. While it doesn't have to be this way, biofuels represent a threat to market share. Biodiesel represents a market loss on the big oil side and what amounts to a paradigm shift on the auto side.

Still, I think the shift is inevitable, but it's going to start from the bottom up. This will be especially true when people can point across the Atlantic and ask why we aren't doing the same here if it works over there.

[bm2boats]

Hey Biofuel, Aren't the car makers that make diesels engine going to catilitic convertors in them to make them less smoggy?

[ivymike1031]

Originally Posted by bm2boats

Hey Biofuel, Aren't the car makers that make diesels engine going to catilitic convertors in them to make them less smoggy?

you can't without low-sulfur diesel. Biofuel does help in this regard, as it is nearly sulfur free.

It's true Ford makes a Focus diesel, but I wasn't able to get the specs from the American Ford website. In fact I wasn't even able to find a mention of it anywhere on their US website. Ford has a product, but it's not being marketed to this population. Perhaps a dealer can order it for you, but you have to know it exists first.
No, you wouldn't be able to order it because it can't run with a cat w/ current levels of sulfur in the fuel. It's not, however, intentionally hidden from the US marketplace, as your post would tend to suggest. There is nothing nefarious going on here - there are just different demands and market conditions between the two continents. There are a large number of manufacturers who are itching to break into the US auto market w/ diesel compact cars; they simply haven't been able to get the numbers to work out yet. The big 2 in the US will certainly have diesels to offer if the numbers do crunch the right way in the future.

I think there is some confusion over the 2006 diesel emissions standards. They mainly center around a requirement for low sulfur diesel, with the current level of 500 parts per million reduced to 15 parts per million.

It's my understanding that there is also a significant restriction on PM emissions that doesn't exist in european marketplace, which is pushing diesel mfrs who sell to the US market to adopt technologies such as particulate traps, etc. These reduce the efficiency of the engine and increase cost. Lean NOx emissions regulations are also a concern in the US (hence LNTs, ARIS, etc); I'm not sure about how they're regulated in europe.

Let's say that right now you pay $1.70 (national average) per gallon, and your car gets 34 mpg (I'm being generous).
National average is currently $1.49/gal (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp) and my car gets 32mpg in the city (>40 hwy). 34mpg is in the neighborhood of my average economy.

So if I were able to find a diesel vehicle that averaged 50mpg (not one of VW's current US diesels, which would average about 38-40mpg), I'd be able to spend as much as $2.19/gal to break even, assuming the vehicles cost the same out the door and maintenance was similar.

Right now is isn't realistic to talk about running all diesels on 100% biodiesel because currently there simply isn't enough growing capacity for biofuel crops to meet 100% demand, but blending is a good way of making up for it.

As far as that goes, there doesn't seem to be enough arable land on the surface of the planet, given current farming technology, to support the current demand for fuel, even if we wanted to give up eating.

Remember, that the US oil and auto industries sit at the same table. They've got a good thing going and they are heavily invested in gasoline technologies. While it doesn't have to be this way, biofuels represent a threat to market share. Biodiesel represents a market loss on the big oil side and what amounts to a paradigm shift on the auto side.

Now that's just conspiracy-theory nonsense. The US automotive industry is actively investigating the potential for biodiesel, and they routinely consider adding diesels to their US lineup. You're also completely discounting the significance of the US heavy truck industry, which is not by any means attached to gasoline engines, and is fairly interested in biodiesel. They certainly do grumble about having to add aftertreatment to their engines, though, and you've neglected the impact that increasing diesel costs would have on the US economy. The majority of freight is moved around this country by truck, and the single largest variable cost in trucking is fuel - accounting for as much as 40% of trucking operating costs, based on estimates I've heard in the last year. Truckers are definitely interested in improving fuel economy, and heavy diesel mfrs are actively pursuing ways to make this happen. These same heavy diesel mfrs are also constantly looking for ways to sell more engines. The cummins ISB (dodge) and International / Ford Powerstroke are a couple of examples. There have been attempts by some of these mfrs to bring out car-sized diesels as well, although the recent economic downturn squashed a couple of likely prospects.

[ivymike1031]

potentially useful link:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesa..._fotw214.shtml

another couple:
http://www.autoalliance.org/pressrel...ieselcar3d.pdf (propaganda)
http://www.fleet-central.com/af/newspick.cfm?rank=3592 (related story)

[biofuelsnow]

Yes, the new emissions control devices used on the new generation of diesels include catalytic converters. On some engines, particulate matter traps and conversion devices are also present. They all rely on low sulfur fuel to do their jobs reliably.

Yes, in addition there are particulate matter and other exhaust gas reductions in the 2006 diesel emissions requirments. However, even now, those standards can be met usiing 100% biodiesel and biodiesel blends.

As for the Ford Focus diesel, I simply pointed out that is isn't being marketed in the US. As a result, most people don't know about it. Some German car makers seem to think there is a market here and they have product offerings that run on current US diesel fuel, and meet current emission standards.

With regard to feedstocks for biofuels, particularly biodiesel, arable land for 100% use of pure biodiesel would be a problem. However, results from an NREL study indicate that oil producing algae is a viable source for fuel feedstocks, yielding 100 times more oil per year than canola, which has one of the highest yields of crops grown in temperate climates. Another advantage with algae as a source is that it doesn't require arable land or fresh water. The NREL study showed that the plants thrive in saline water, and require large amounts of sunlight. The desert areas on the planet where conventional farming cannot be done are perfectly suited for algae cultivation. Also, there is little danger of running out of salt water on the planet. When this technology is mature, 100% of diesel fuel can be produced from biological sources.

I was talking about passenger vehicles, which in the US, 97% are gasoline powered. Truck and rail transportation are obviously the heart of the diesel market. The new Cummins engine is an excellent example of progress in the market. If nothing else, it shows that the engineering prowess is available in the US to produce suitable diesel engines that could be used in passenger vehicles.

The price per mile comparison was to illustrate a switch from gasoline to biodiesel. The link provided by ivymike indicates that the average price of regular gasoline is $1.56, not $1.48. $1.48 is the average petrodiesel fuel price. No matter, my point was that if you get better mileage, a higher price for biodiesel fuel can be borne by the consumer up to the equvalent cost per mile for a gasoline fueled vehicle. I'll add "all things being equal" to account for the other variables mentioned.

As for conspiracy theories, I have no use for them. I simply look at the market, the history, the direction, pace and priorities, and what's plausible falls out. I don't think that every business is trying to get one over on the public, but I don't pretend that US business has my (or your) best interest at heart, or that they are doing everything they can to bring sustanable products to market. I see nothing wrong with pointing out that big auto and big oil have a symbiotic relationship. If I were in the the auto business, I would actively seek out that relationship because it is beneficial to the business. It would be foolish not to. If my priorities were to increase the bottom line, then I would make decisions to that end. It would invariably mean that I would not pursue things that upset the balance of the business. There's nothing conspiratorial about it. It's just that I don't always agree with the actions or priorities of the auto (and oil) industry.

Frankly, I wouldn't be on the side of defending the auto industry against accusations of underhanded dealings in the name of profit. It's been shown time and time again that large corporations will do things that are unethical (if not downright illegal) if they think they can get away with it and if it helps to increase profit. That's not just in the auto industry, but any industry competing globally - and who isn't competing globally these days?

Ultimately, if one thinks the auto industry is doing everything possible to do the right thing, and moving at the fastest pace they can sustain, then fine. If someone who holds this point of view would like to change the minds of those who don't share that opinion, the best way to do it is to offer independently verifiable facts as evidence. I don't think name-calling ever changed anyone's mind, but if someone lays everything out for me, I have no problem changing my mind in light of the evidence. For now, on the sustainable fuel front, I see Europe as more progressive than the US. I also see lots of reasons why US companies have adopted a "wait-and-see attitude" toward passenger car diesels and a resistance to raising CAFE standards. Innovations in this area will not come from US companies. As much as Americans take pride in being leaders (myself included), here the US will follow, not lead. This isn't a prediction, its happening now.

[ivymike1031]

Originally Posted by biofuelsnow

The link provided by ivymike indicates that the average price of regular gasoline is $1.56, not $1.48. $1.48 is the average petrodiesel fuel price.

If I'm reading that page correctly, the US average price of gasoline is currently $1.49/gal, down 2.2 cents from a week ago. Diesel is currently $147.6/gal, down 1.5 cents from a week ago.

The price in October 2003, which is shown at the top-right of the page, was $1.56, and Diesel was $1.48/gal at the same time. (I think that's what you're looking at).

I'm interested in hearing more about the algae-fuel, even though it doesn't sound like something I could grow on my 1/8 acre lot in the midwest. What I think would be really neat would be if there was a way to grow your own oil crops and process it at home, economically, into fuel, without having to deal with toxic by-products. A grow-your-own diesel kit, if you will.

I tend to think of bio-derived fuels as a biological solution to the problem of capturing and storing solar energy for use in transportation. What do you think about that? Would you prefer (if it could be developed) a biological means of efficiently converting solar energy directly to electricity?

[biofuelsnow]

I stand corrected. The average price for a gallon of gasoline today is $1.49 as you correctly stated. I'm familiar with the web site you used and when I was doing resarch last, it reported $1.70 was the average, which I used in my example.

You intuit what is a biological fact. Every living thing on the planet is a solar energy storage device. The only renewable energy source is the sun, and all life derives energy from the sun. That energy takes different forms in plants, and animals that eat plants, and animals that eat animals, to the microbes that dispose of animals and plants when they die, and start the process all over again.

There are bacteria which do generate a small electrical potential when exposed to sunlight. While it is facinating that such creatures exist, harnessing the elecricity is not practical.

If you really want to produce your own biodiesel fuel, you can do so from waste vegetable oil. Restaurants normally pay to have the used oil taken away, and most will allow you to take some since they are disposing of it anyway. If you decide to do this, you'll want the book "From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank", which has the instructions for making biodiesel out of waste vegetable oil. You can make biodiesel with waste vegetable oil for as little as 50 cents a gallon.

The experiments with oil producing algae were in open ponds of 1000 square meters of area, at an NREL lab in New Mexico. The crucial parameters were water, nutrient, temperature, carbon dioxide concentrations and sunlight. There were other parameters, but remove one of these, and you've got no algae.

One potentially significant attribute of algae is its ability to absorb many times more carbon dioxide by weight than other plants. A carbon dioxide rich enviorment makes algae divide faster. There is a potential therefore for algae to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In fact, waste carbon dioxide produced by a power plant was piped into the algae tanks to improve production during the experiment.

1000 square meters translates into a round pond that is about 110 feet in diameter. For experimental purposes, most people don't have that kind of real estate available to them, nor to they have the warm climate of New Mexico at their disposal.

The answer for small scale experimentation is to use a photobioreactor. Bioreactors are sealed vessels used to cultivate organisms that do not require light but need an environment with control of temperature, pressure, nutrient mix, and atmophere. A photobioreactor is the same, but is designed to allow light to penetrate the vessel and/or house a light source within the vessel.

While the term "photobioreactor" sounds intimidating, it really boils down to a container in which you can control the environment. People who have fish can relate, particularly if they raise tropical fish. You can make an aquarium a photobioreactor. You can make a bottle or jar a photobioreactor.

There is a report available entitled "A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy's Aquatic Species Program - Biodiesel from Algae" Dated July 1998 and available on the NREL or DOE websites. You'll want the full report which is about 3 meg, not just the executive sumarry, which is about 20k. Check the links on my first post.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations covered oil from algae in their 1997 report entitled "Renewable Biological Systems for Alternative Sustainable Energy Production (FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin -128) http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e00.htm

[ivymike1031]

Originally Posted by biofuelsnow

If you really want to produce your own biodiesel fuel, you can do so from waste vegetable oil. Restaurants normally pay to have the used oil taken away, and most will allow you to take some since they are disposing of it anyway. If you decide to do this, you'll want the book "From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank", which has the instructions for making biodiesel out of waste vegetable oil. You can make biodiesel with waste vegetable oil for as little as 50 cents a gallon.

Yeah, but then I'd have to wait for a nice small diesel car to come out - I'd consider a Passat, but they're a bit pricey for me. Too bad there's no Imogen on the market in the US currently (or at least a diesel Mini).

In the short term, what I'd really like to see someone develop, is a bioreactor for making fuel alcohol from lawn clippings - then I could run an alcohol-fueled lawnmower on home-grown fuel, rather than running my crappy electric unit. To take it a step further - put an appropriate bioreactor into a self-guiding alcohol fueled lawnmower, and let it roam the yard as it pleases w/o further input from me.

[pod]

you would like the vw polo or the lupo. the lupo gets nearly 75 mpg on a little 1.2 turbo 3cyl

[pod]

you would like the vw polo or the lupo. the lupo gets nearly 75 mpg on a little 1.2 turbo 3cyl and has claimed the title of going 100 km on 3 leaters of diesel

[bm2boats]

IvyMike, You are a Friggin Genius!!! What a GREAT Idea!!!

[ivymike1031]

Originally Posted by bm2boats

IvyMike, You are a Friggin Genius!!! What a GREAT Idea!!!

Hey, thanks. If you figure out how to make one, all I ask is that I get one unit from the second production run, for my personal use.