An 100mpg car

VW has a car with a diesel engine that gets 100mpg. The US will not let them sell it over here. I wonder why?
So VW put a car on the in the US that gets 40mpg.
Why can't we have cars that get over 100mpg?
I read about some guys that have 100 and 150mpg Carbs but, the Big US 3 auto makers buy them out. Why?

But have you thought about how much money you could make if you own a bridge?

You could put up a toll booth and charge people to drive over it.

Later,

Well, many cars are capable of getting nearly 100mpg. In the 50's and 60's, "economy runs" were popular, basically people would drive a certain distance and see who managed to use the least gas - getting over 80mpg from a stock VW beetle was easy - you just couldn't travel over 35mph if you wanted to do so!

The 150mpg "carbs" you speak of are not really carbs in the regualr sense, but rather vaporizors. There's two reasons vaporizors are not used on production vehicles, for one thing oil companies don't want them to be, for another thing - they're highly dangerous because vaporized gasoline is exceptionally volatile.

In 1973, employees of the Shell Oil Company turned a new world record for high mileage, with a modified '59 Opel that got 376.9mpg for a contest the company put on. Amazing, but probably not practical for everyday use (slow speeds, but incredible none the less) That record has since been beaten more than two times over, but by vehicles even less practical for the average person than the highly modified Opel.

VW has a car with a diesel engine that gets 100mpg. The US will not let them sell it over here. I wonder why?
So VW put a car on the in the US that gets 40mpg.
Why can't we have cars that get over 100mpg?
I read about some guys that have 100 and 150mpg Carbs but, the Big US 3 auto makers buy them out. Why?

The VW car you're referring to, I believe, uses a hybrid-electric drivetrain with a 3-cyl diesel engine. It seats two passengers, one behind the other. (see pic @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/highefficiencyvehicles/ ) I don't believe it's a mass-produced vehicle, even in Europe, nor would it be profitable to mass produce it at present. Heck, VW can barely sell a regular diesel in the US to begin with, let alone a diesel-electric hybrid. Another factor that comes into play is emissions regulations. The US has stricter particulate matter emissions standards than many European countries, which makes it difficult to sell a diesel in the US. Also, European fuels have a different composition than those commonly available in the US, and the fuels in the US prevent certain diesel exhaust aftertreatment technologies from being viable. The fuels could be upgraded, but then truckers would have to pay more, and our economy would be hosed.

Honda and Toyota are losing money on their high mileage vehicles, the Insight, Civic Hybrid, and Prius. They expect that the research and development of the technology will pay off in the long run, so they're willing to get soaked in the near-term. In some ways, Honda and Toyota are onto something. Much of the technology required for fuel cell cars is a part of the hybrid cars that they're currently selling. Participating in, and building, the marketplace for this technology will help them to bring their costs down (quality, manufacturing, etc), so that when the fuel cells become cheaper, they'll have a big advantage over their competitors. On the other hand, with a fairly modularized automotive marketplace (as we currently have), it may pay off to be a spectator until the technology matures. Toyota and Honda will have developed a supplier base for these components, but those suppliers will be ready and willing to sell to other mfrs when demand picks up.

That crap about 150mpg carburetors will never die out (I just hooked it up and my power, driveability, and fuel economy increased 500%!), but you'll never meet an honest man who can tell you he's tested one (unless he's just a bumbling idiot who means well but can't tell his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to testing). If they really worked the way they do in make-believe land, they'd already be in mass production; capitalism is funny that way. "Big oil" conspiracy theorists seem, for the most part, to have slept through basic economics (or in their terms, refused to be "brainwashed" by the establishment). Usually the proponents of these devices (vapor carbs, supercarbs, fuel catalysts, etc) confuse the thermal efficiency of an engine with its combustion efficiency, and assume that if only 25% of the fuel energy is converted to useful work (a common figure), the other 75% is unburned fuel going out the tailpipe. In reality, nearly all of the fuel is burned (typically better than 99%), and other losses account for the low efficiency of the engine, such as pumping work, exhaust waste heat, heat xfer out of the chamber, friction, etc.

What it all boils down to, in the end, is a question of supply and demand. Auto makers sell what people want to buy, because they want to make money. Different manufacturers find different portions of the market to sell to, based on where they think they can do best, but the goals are essentially the same.

That crap about 150mpg carburetors will never die out (I just hooked it up and my power, driveability, and fuel economy increased 500%!), but you'll never meet an honest man who can tell you he's tested one (unless he's just a bumbling idiot who means well but can't tell his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to testing). If they really worked the way they do in make-believe land, they'd already be in mass production; capitalism is funny that way.

Capitalism is funny in the way that people like to make money - car manufacturers make more money off of large vehicle than they do off of small vehicles - this is why Honda left the Kei class in Japan all those years ago, and makers like Toyota and Nissan never even got involved. It has nothing to do with building the most efficient vehicle, but with making money - all the money that could be tapped from that market had pretty much already been sucked up by Subaru and Suzuki anyway, so there was little reason to build a product with a low profit margin in a market sector that's already near saturation point(but most importantly it's the low profit margin). So don't think all automakers would just jump on the boat if these "150mpg" carbs worked.
Secondly I have to agree, the 150mpg crap will never stop. Nobody has gotten 150 or 200mpg on an otherwise normal car using one of these types of carburetors. Some of these mythical carbs will actually return less mpg than a stock unit (like the infamous "Fish" carb) others like the vaporizer may return much higher mpg than stock, but still nowhere near the 150mpg that people seem to think these types are capable of. Production of vaporizors would also be more expensive than current fuel systems (yet another reason automakers don't want to deal with them despite improved efficiency and cleaner exhaust, not to mention decreased performance, and of course the safety hazard of a vehicle with an ammount of boiling gas under it's hood)
So saying that automakers don't produce them because they don't work is like saying Greenland doesn't actually exist because you can't see it from your street (but I assure you it is a real place)

saying that automakers don't produce them because they don't work is like saying Greenland doesn't actually exist because you can't see it from your street

not really, because
A) they really don't work, because there is very very little margin for improving combustion efficiency, which is all the devices are purported to do, and
B) if there was anything nearly as cheap as this that would eliminate the need for vvt / regenerative braking / emissions controls / etc., it definitely would make economic sense to use it, and
C) If you could make a two vehicles identical save for a 3x improvement in fuel economy and a $20 difference in mfr cost, you'd definitely take the $20 hit and make the more efficient vehicle. Your competitors certainly will.

Those "vaporizor" heaps may compete well against other carburetors, but they're nowhere near as good as a modern PFI system. Seriously. Hot intake valves do a pretty darn good job of evaporating fuel. The safety concern you keep citing is a non-issue. The fuel in the intake of a standard carbureted vehicle is ready to burn; vaporizing a few more fuel molecules isn't going to make an important difference. Besides, even if all the fuel&air in the intake manifold did explode, the result would be the same as a typical backfire through the carb - a loud noise, a flicker of flame, and an engine that stops running. There's nothing magical about evaporating the fuel. You're really not adding much energy. Heck, you're a fan of two-stroke engines - how do you feel about having all that fuel/air mixture swirling around in the crankcase? Sounds soooo dangerous, doesn't it?

Besides, even if all the fuel&air in the intake manifold did explode, the result would be the same as a typical backfire through the carb - a loud noise, a flicker of flame, and an engine that stops running.
Gee mike I wish I were so smart as you. I wish I was so smart that I understood that hot gas in a heat exchanger is no more volatile than cold gas in a float bowl. I wish I could understand that since a flame won't travel through a tiny hole in a jet, that a flame can't travel through a much larger port that communicates directly with a heat exchanger filled with highly explosive gasoline vapors - gee if only I knew everything there was to know about anything like you mike.http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

How about you try this little experiment, first light a match above a container filled with gasoline, that has a needle sized hole in it.
Then light another match, this time above a container filled with boiling gas, and hole in it's top the size of a dime.

When you get back from the hospital, if your fingers haven't all been blown off, you can write your opinions on which is more dangerous, using first hand experience.http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Gee mike I wish I were so smart as you. I wish I was so smart that I understood that hot gas in a heat exchanger is no more volatile than cold gas in a float bowl. I wish I could understand that since a flame won't travel through a tiny hole in a jet, that a flame can't travel through a much larger port that communicates directly with a heat exchanger filled with highly explosive gasoline vapors - gee if only I knew everything there was to know about anything like you mike.http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

How about you try this little experiment, first light a match above a container filled with gasoline, that has a needle sized hole in it.
Then light another match, this time above a container filled with boiling gas, and hole in it's top the size of a dime.

When you get back from the hospital, if your fingers haven't all been blown off, you can write your opinions on which is more dangerous, using first hand experience.http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Well, when you finally stop crying, and get over that horrendous shock of having some guy on the internet tell you that you're wrong, especially in a forum that you moderate (gasp!), perhaps you'll pop the hood on a carbureted vehicle, and note that when the engine is running, the entire length of the intake manifold, from the intake valve to the throttle plate, is full of a nearly stoichiometric mixture of gasoline and air (ready and willing to burn). If you've ever worked on a real-life carbureted car (jockeying for status on an automotive forum doesn't count), then perhaps you've noticed that from time to time a little bit of flame will slip out of the combustion chamber in the wrong direction, resulting in the rapid combustion of all the air and fuel between the intake valve and the throttle plate... and a loud noise... and a flicker of flame, if the air cleaner cover is removed... and then the end of the world! oh wait, no, it stops after the loud noise and flicker.

While you're at it, puzzle over the fact that a gasoline & air mixture doesn't ignite in the combustion chamber, even when it has been compressed and heated to many times atmospheric temp & pressure, until somebody actually puts a spark to it...

Then you can go back to nursing your ego.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, a partially-filled gasoline can is more dangerous on a cold day than on a hot day, because on a hot day there won't be enough air left in the can to sustain a reaction.

Jeez, some people, eh?

and here's some more food for thought - how about turbocharged carbureted vehicles, where the intake manifold is not only full of fuel and air, but it's full of hot, pressurized, fuel and air? Nobody would ever build something THAT dangerous, would they? They sure as heck would, wouldn't they... they'd even sell it at a mark-up.

Talk about who's nursing their ego...
I offer some insight I've learned from studying dozens of patents, and research, and you've got a problem with what I'm saying? What's the matter, don't like it when you write about something you have very little idea about?

Frankly, if you try telling me that there'd be no risk running a shelton (patent 2,982,528) then I think I'd loose all faith in any opinion you offered about anything mechanical. Safety isn't even the main point I was trying to make with my first two posts in this thread. Mostly I wanted to point out that there is no such thing as a "150mpg" carburetor, and that the majority of such carbs labeled as such don't even claim increased efficiency in their patents.

I'd also like to point out that if you were to use a vaporizer, it's much wiser to use a fuel like alcohol instead of gas, because a vaporizer is more suited to a fuel that vaporizes at one temperature, instead of a composite like gasoline where different elements vaporize at different temperatures. Unfortunately, you can't fill your tank up with 180 proof ethyl at every street corner like you can with gas - another reason automakers don't build them. I assure you they do work, but they are less practical to use with gasoline, more dangerous, and more expensive to make. You claim to know something about capitalism, so I'm sure you can figure out what the previous sentence means.

To recap why they aren't made, in order of importance:
1: not practical with widely available fuels.
2: expensive to build
3: (when used with gasoline) sludge buildup and expensive maintenance.
4: safety

Now what are you going to tell me? That they are practical to use with gasoline, just because I said they're better with alcohol? (even though you're already of the opinion that they don't work)
Or that they're actually cheaper to make than regular carbs?

Gees, I didn't think anyone would get into a pissing match over my post. Thanks for the answers.
I just thought that in the year 2003, that someone can come out with a car that could get 100mpg doing 55 - 65 mph.
Thanks again.

Gees, I didn't think anyone would get into a pissing match over my post. Thanks for the answers.
I just thought that in the year 2003, that someone can come out with a car that could get 100mpg doing 55 - 65 mph.
Thanks again.

Actually, there is the California Commuter which I think holds the world record for highway driving, I believe it was set at about 150mpg at 55mph. I think the inventor even sells plans over the internet, but it's a single seater!
I also forgot to mention that back in the 70's(and early 80's), there was a three-wheeled car called the "HMV Freeway" that was a 2-seater with a 2-cylinder engine, it's capable of highway travel and it gets about 80mpg, there's a still a few out there.

The challenge is not to engineer a car that gets extraordinary mileage; that's been done many times over. The challenge is to engineer a car that does everything that a practical car is supposed to do - and do it well - while also getting extraordinary mileage. Saab is doing just that with their variable compression setup. Last I heard, they had an inline-5 that made ~245 HP and got 60 MPG (I don't know it that was in a test vehicle or just a theoretical figure). Their goal is put a vehicle on the road that makes similar power but gets 80 MPG. Notice that they haven't tried to get the best possible mileage out of this technology; instead, they're concentrating on meeting all of their goals for a useful engine together.

As for all the "150 MPG" vaporizer carbs: most of the people who make noise about these are the same ones that claim the government is suppressing "free energy" devices and cold fusion. In other words, they can be divided into two categories: devices whose usefulness is greatly exaggerated, and pure mythology.

Well, all I can say is that backfires will seem lame after you try this....Take a Ford 429, then, put the distributor in 180 degrees backwords. Try to run said engine (without an air filter, of course).
Observe the massive, 3-4 foot jet of flame coming out of the carburettor, shaking, and many loud noises. Turn off engine as fast as humanly possible, and say a short prayer.


But seriously, the 150mpg practical car doesnt exist, and never did. It probably came about during a session between about 6 people, someone wondered aloud if an oil company ever killed a revolutionary product. Someone got confused, thought they said that it had actually happened...yada yada yada.

As for no current cars getting 100mpg, its mainly because of our demand for a host of other things, such as power, car size (weight), cost, etc.
That and the fact that an engine can only be made so efficient, and the law of diminishing returns WILL come into play.

Interesting posts, if not uneccessarily hostile.

I think the VW in question is the Lupo, which is sold in Europe, but not in the US. During the publicity event, the a fleet of Lupos averaged 99 mpg. Real-world mileage is closer to about 60 mpg, which is reportedly better than the hybrid vehicles available.

http://www.lupousa.com/

Anotther advantage of choosing a diesel powerplant is the option of using biodiesel or a biodiesel blend. While choosing to use a vegetable oil based fuel or blend adds cost, it also supports an emerging industry of sustainable, renewable fuels. This would reduce the reliance of the US on importing oil. Europe has already realized this and is far ahead of the US with regard to vegetable based fuels, particularly biodiesel. This is probably why most of the research and development of new, cleaner diesels is coming from European automakers.

Based on National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) studies conducted over the last decade or so, emissions of particulate matter and carbon dioxide are signifcantly reduced when biodiesel is blended with petrodiesel and can be reduced even further with emissions reduction devices. The main emission problem with biodiesel is elevated NOx due to the higher oxygen content of the fuel compared to petrodiesel.

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/1998/30biodiesel.html
http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/publications.html

Lastly, there is more to the free market than supply and demand. The US brand of captialism has demonstrated historically that monopolies are preferred to competition because profits are ensured. Maintaining dominance in a market means reducing risk, and innovation is risky in a market of sure profit from SUV sales. If I was an auto company bent on maintaining profit in the US market, it would be much easier and cheaper for me to supress a technology than tool up to produce it. And if you think the bottom line doesn't matter, just ask the folks about 15 miles up the road from where I live at the Ford plant who lost their jobs last year, or the folks at the GM plant 1 mile up the road who will be loosing their jobs in the next few months. A bold foray into new technology might keep those folks working AND produce a fuel efficient vehicle that people would buy, but that's not happening.

There are powerful organizations that lobby legistlators to champion or decry laws that would be detrimental to the immediate bottom line. US automakers peer nervously over their shoulder at the fuel efficient vehicles of the European market because they have testified before Congress that it would bankrupt them to produce cars that get even an average 5 mpg better than they do now, even if they have 10 years to do it (current CAFE standards for passenger cars have been the same since 1986 at 27.5 mpg), yet the technology exists with diesels to easily top 40 mpg. That is if the American public will forgive the attempt by GM to kill the passenger car diesel with their disgraceful engine in the 80s.

Enough said.

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.

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.

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

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.

potentially useful link:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw214.shtml

another couple:
http://www.autoalliance.org/pressreleases/dieselcar3d.pdf (propaganda)
http://www.fleet-central.com/af/newspick.cfm?rank=3592 (related story)

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.