Diesel - is it the future?

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would delay buying a diesel until forever. I would be surpised if most major automakers are not offering multiple commuter diesels in the US market by then.

Fixed for you. OADD (Only A**holes Drive Diesels).
Unless you are towing a giant boat or trailer, you don't need a diesel. Get a clue, and save our lungs by not driving a diesel.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would delay buying a diesel until forever. I would be surpised if most major automakers are not offering multiple commuter diesels in the US market by then.

Fixed for you. OADD (Only A**holes Drive Diesels).
Unless you are towing a giant boat or trailer, you don't need a diesel. Get a clue, and save our lungs by not driving a diesel.

At what point are you going to figure out that the information you're going on is from commercial and heavy duty trucks? The new diesels that will be available in all 50 states in a year or so will be cleaner than most gas engines.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would delay buying a diesel until forever. I would be surpised if most major automakers are not offering multiple commuter diesels in the US market by then.

Fixed for you. OADD (Only A**holes Drive Diesels).
Unless you are towing a giant boat or trailer, you don't need a diesel. Get a clue, and save our lungs by not driving a diesel.

You've never seen diesel cars that run 'real' diesel fuel. Up until this year US grade diesel was very high in Sulfur and other crap, and was extremely dirty compared to Euro grade diesel. That was the fault of US petroleum refiners. Your opinion is ignorant, and outdated.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Strk
However, the new diesel will allow particulate traps, catalytic converters and numerous other pieces of emissions equipment. In the end, we won't be adopting European diesel technology -- ours will be a lot cleaner.

The latest diesel VW Polo (similar to the Golf) has lower emissions than a hybrid, with 60 mpg or better. We have a lot of catching up to do in the diesel (and gasoline too) technology. Especially in the diesel, Europeans are light-years ahead. I think that more than half of all European cars sold are diesel, and that includes VW, BMW, Toyota, and even the Mini Cooper, for god's sake.

That being said, I don't know many Americans who would buy a 3-cylinder car with 80hp engine.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would delay buying a diesel until forever. I would be surpised if most major automakers are not offering multiple commuter diesels in the US market by then.

Fixed for you. OADD (Only A**holes Drive Diesels).
Unless you are towing a giant boat or trailer, you don't need a diesel. Get a clue, and save our lungs by not driving a diesel.

At what point are you going to figure out that the information you're going on is from commercial and heavy duty trucks? The new diesels that will be available in all 50 states in a year or so will be cleaner than most gas engines.

Yeah, right -the clean diesel is just around the corner. Diesel fanbois have been saying this for years, it still hasn't happened. So how is this new technology going to clean up all of the existing diesel trucks, buses, tractors, cranes, etc....?

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: Strk
However, the new diesel will allow particulate traps, catalytic converters and numerous other pieces of emissions equipment. In the end, we won't be adopting European diesel technology -- ours will be a lot cleaner.

The latest diesel VW Polo (similar to the Golf) has lower emissions than a hybrid, with 60 mpg or better. We have a lot of catching up to do in the diesel (and gasoline too) technology. Especially in the diesel, Europeans are light-years ahead. I think that more than half of all European cars sold are diesel, and that includes VW, BMW, Toyota, and even the Mini Cooper, for god's sake.

That being said, I don't know many Americans who would buy a 3-cylinder car with 80hp engine.

Does it have lower particulate emissions than a hybrid? I don't think so.
And the clean air standards have only begun to attempt to measure or regulate particulates.
We should now emulate the Euros? Just because they are stupid enough to buy diesels doesn't mean we have to.
Have you ever been to japan, where diesel trucks are everywhere? Have you tried to breathe there?
We have spent decades and billions of dollars to clean up the 4-cycle engine, and you want to throw away all of that progress in favor of nasty, rattling, polluting diesels?

 

[Rainsford]

Here's the problem with the diesel vs hybrid vs gasoline vs electric vs whatever debate...the people who would REALLY benefit from more efficient vehicles aren't going to be buying ANY of those things because they want a huge SUV that gets 3 miles per gallon. The people who would buy more fuel efficient cars are already buying more fuel efficient cars, the amount the general consumption of gasoline in this country will go down if they move from a small gasoline car to a small diesel car isn't really a big impact when half the people are still driving around in trucks.

The real focus should be on getting ANY fuel efficiency technology to all models of cars. That would make a bigger difference than arguing over the technology that will be in cars only a smallish percentage of the population actually drives. Hell, a good first step would be to repeal that "light truck" bullshit and make SUVs conform to the same standards as cars.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Here's the problem with the diesel vs hybrid vs gasoline vs electric vs whatever debate...the people who would REALLY benefit from more efficient vehicles aren't going to be buying ANY of those things because they want a huge SUV that gets 3 miles per gallon. The people who would buy more fuel efficient cars are already buying more fuel efficient cars, the amount the general consumption of gasoline in this country will go down if they move from a small gasoline car to a small diesel car isn't really a big impact when half the people are still driving around in trucks.

The real focus should be on getting ANY fuel efficiency technology to all models of cars. That would make a bigger difference than arguing over the technology that will be in cars only a smallish percentage of the population actually drives. Hell, a good first step would be to repeal that "light truck" bullshit and make SUVs conform to the same standards as cars.

You've really hit the nail on the head in terms of policy. Vehicle mileage is a policy decision that was made ages ago, and the decision to create the truck exemptions for gas mileage is what has us stuck in the dark ages of poor fuel economy. Eliminating the exemptions is the first step towards improving global fuel economy, the second step could be removing direct oil subsidies, taxing oil to pay for indirect subsidies, increased cafe standards, or an oil import tariff or all of the above. The 1986 congressional budget office recommended an oil import tariff of as the most cost effective way of eliminating dependence on foreign oil and promoting the advancement of renewable fuels, and a Harvard study from that era recommended a $10 oil import tariff as well. An additional policy option would be a $400 gas guzzler tax on the sale of all new gasoline burning vehicles that get less than 45mpg and are not e85 capable. Since the conversion costs less than $400 per vehicle, this would eliminate the last motive for not making vehicles compatible without placing any cost burden upon diesel vehicles. Requiring all government vehicles to be flex fuel or full biodiesel capable would also be a good policy decision.

In terms of technology and personal benefit however, I want a car that gets more than 80mpg when burning ethanol, because e85 is the cheapest fuel available in my area and it's potentially capable of the best overall energy efficiency. I also want it to be plug in hybrid electric since my area is finally investing in wind energy as a source of electricity, and electricity is cheaper per mile than any liquid fuel.

Of course at this point the best mileage for an announced product is for a diesel, but is not going to be available in the US. Since diesel has a much higher energy density than gasoline, 157mpg with diesel is the energy equivalent of 140mpg with gasoline or 86 mpg with pure ethanol. The future needs a mix that includes both biodiesel and ethanol fuel, but since diesel is used on the home heating market and is currently made from foreign oil, ethanol is a way to get away from foreign oil now. When standard diesel fuel is more than 50% biodiesel, then it will be a viable solution. If oil production and imports are taxed at a rate high enough to internalize all the externalities, then fuels will finally be priced fairly with respect to their true cost.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/loremo_ag_157_m.php

The way things are going innovation is being driven by walmart and fedex trying to reduce their fuel costs, since they're the only players big enough to directly influence vehicle design, and normal consumers are stuck with choosing between the poor options brought to market. The unintended consequences of cafe standards has been bigger vehicles in order to qualify for exemptions, and worse overall vehicle mileage. Oil taxes are the best way of avoiding this effect in the future without excessively favoring one renewable fuel over another.

Another issue is that people with less money are stuck choosing between whatever vehicles are available on the used market, which is mostly vehicles with terrible gas mileage. This is why it is important to increase cafe standards effective immediately (but allowing compliance on a multi-year basis), and at the same time announce a phased in oil tax to increase substantially every year over a ten year period. This way vehicle designers and consumers alike are forewarned that fuel prices will increase in the future, and the used market can benefit from the improved gas mileage before the full brunt of the new taxes hits them.

Edit: Diesel oil gels at low temperatures, so it isn't very suitable for hassle free transportation operation in the north, and is better suited for heating oil in those locations. IMHO there should be universal permanent renewable energy tax credits for all forms of renewable energy, wind, solar, biodiesel, thermal depolymerization, and ethanol. It should be applied equally on the basis of energy produced, something on the order of 2-8 cents per kilowatt hour of energy. This tax credit should never expire, but if it's at the higher end of that range it need not be increased with inflation either.

 

[rahvin]

There is enough surplus power in the grid that goes unused (at night) to power all vehicle traffic in the US if there was a way to store that energy for use in the vehicles. Battery technology is probably one of the biggest obstacles towards advancement to electric cars. What we need is some serious advancement in battery technology and a congress that is willing to doing something about energy policy and a public that is willing to make the sacrifices necessary. Currently we are missing all three. There are very few people in this country that are going to be willing to give up performance in their cars, and pay more for fuel. As a result Congress isn't going to commit suicide by raising fuel prices and the batteries and fuel cells (plus hydrogen distribution system) aren't there to remove the need for petroleum fuels.

Personally I believe Hydrogen is a must, we have to create a transportation system that is energy source independent if we are going to move from oil as a power source. The shear advantage of being able to move the production system from whatever is the most efficient and effective means of hydrogen production (and to have multiple independent sources of hydrogen production) without impacting the vehicles in the system is a must. Then we aren't tied to a single source and aren't limited in the production methods. If we tie our hands with a single type of fuel that is tied directly to a limited number of production sources we will create the same problem we have now down the road. I can't emphasize enough that whatever we choose as consumers and politically it MUST be source independent (ie. generation from numerous independent sources that aren't tied to single resources.

The most promising technology I have seen so far was a hybrid fuel cell arrangement, that IIRC was demoed by Toyota. A low wattage fuel cell (and as a result less expensive) was tied to a 35 cell Lion battery pack (that also accepted grid power via a plug) that was tied to an electric motor. On the batteries the car was capable of 35mph for up to 15 miles, at 40% power the fuel cell would kick in and charge the batteries, not power vehicle. This allowed the car to still accelerate like there was a big fuel cell in it, but still provide the power needed for freeway cruising. An improvement in energy storage density combined with larger battery packs with a high efficiency fuel cell could result in vehicles with the same acceleration and performance characteristics of current automobiles while eliminating the need for CO2 producing energy sources (I pray for a transition to nuclear power and renewables from coal, in the US).

Originally posted by: K1052
Biodiesel using efficent crops is attractive to displace at least some of our petrodiesel usage. Algae is looking very promising for this in the future since can produce far more oil per acre used and can utilize low value land that gets lots of sunlight (Southwest US).

Contrary to what you may believe the southwest isn't a bunch of empty worthless land with no value. Desert ecosystems are quite important and can be teeming with life (the exception is probably Utah's salt flats). But not just that, algae are huge consumers of water, combined with the high evaporation in desert climates (more than 15 inches a year and states like Nevada only get 6 inches of rainfall a year) where would you suggest the southwest get the massive amount of water that would be required? California and Arizona nearly went to war a number of years ago over water usage and you suggest we take this EXTREMELY limited resource in the west and use it to grow algae as opposed to say drinking water? If you want algae farms they need to be places with high water availability, such as Florida or any of those eastern or midwestern states where water isn't a commodity that people get killed over like in the west. Probably the ideal location would be to recreate the everglades and arrange it in a manner to facilitate the cultivation of massive amounts of algae (probably in the headwaters by feeding it raw sewage from the eastern seaboard) that could be easily harvested while still providing animal habitat (you would have to bubble the crap out of it). I question whether it would even be economical or even energy viable (as in produce more oil than used to harvest it), not to mention the stench and NIMBY that would occur.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Here's the problem with the diesel vs hybrid vs gasoline vs electric vs whatever debate...the people who would REALLY benefit from more efficient vehicles aren't going to be buying ANY of those things because they want a huge SUV that gets 3 miles per gallon. The people who would buy more fuel efficient cars are already buying more fuel efficient cars, the amount the general consumption of gasoline in this country will go down if they move from a small gasoline car to a small diesel car isn't really a big impact when half the people are still driving around in trucks.

The real focus should be on getting ANY fuel efficiency technology to all models of cars. That would make a bigger difference than arguing over the technology that will be in cars only a smallish percentage of the population actually drives. Hell, a good first step would be to repeal that "light truck" bullshit and make SUVs conform to the same standards as cars.

Fair enough except the US taxpayer is already being hit over the head with ethanol welfare payments, while little is being done to encourage more prudent vehicle purchases. It's impossible to have a real discussion about future technology, b/c the corn lobby (and their pols) have already picked it . . . crapanol. It's impossible to have a real discussion about fuel economy b/c the domestic automakers (and their pols) know it's a losing proposition. In fairness, Toyota and Honda usually tow the line as well when it comes to CAFE or other mechanisms to discourage excess consumption.

If the Dems in Congress were smart . . . which they aren't . . . they would jiggle CAFE st'ds to the extent that only super heavy vehicles were excluded. Light trucks, SUVs, and the new darling (SAV/crossovers) would have to meet CAFE st'ds that were at least in shouting distance of cars. Yet ultimately automakers and consumers would pick the technology: biodiesel, diesel, biodiesel-electric, gas, gas-electric, butanol, ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, plug-in electric, CNG, variable turbos, well-engineered and lighter vehicles, etc.

There isn't a one-size fits all solution and all of the options have substantial pros AND cons. But the future will be FAR crappier than the present if ludicrous ideas like corn-based ethanol are allowed to masquerade as prudent public policy. Now waste biomass . . . that's interesting . . .

People keep talking about e85 being cheap but that's nonsense considering US taxpayers fork over 51 cents/gallon to subsidize it. (Oh yeah, there's a 54 cent tariff on imported ethanol . . . so the net is 3 cents on imports). Further, the crap has to be trucked to most locations b/c it cannot use existing pipelines. No subsidy should go to the PRODUCTION of a particular fuel but subsidies should be available for the R&D for new fuel/engine/drivetrain technology.

Myopia and ignorance are the primary maladies in this debate. The conflict between corn-ethanol and food needs is likely no less significant than that between home heat oil/diesel. If ethanol (like hydrogen) requires its own infrastructure, it's true cost is not competitive with gasoline or diesel . . . or even biodiesel with current technology.

 

[B00ne]

One cannot say that diesels are bad in general. Diesels have come a long way, and if they are equipped with filter und beginning with this or next year NOx catalysts they can hang in with the best.

Here are the results of the ADAC Eco-test.
trasnlation of the table:

Diesels - blue, D+Filter - blue italic, Hybrid-red

Table:
Modell | Schadstoffklasse | kW | ccm | l/100km | Punkte Schadstoffe | Punkte CO2 | Gesamtbewertung
model | emission class | Power in kW | displacem. in ccm | mileage in l/100km | score emissions | score CO2 e.g. mileage | total score

Klasse 1+2 tiny cars
Klasse 3 small cars
Klasse 4 lower middle class
Klasse 5 middle class
Klasse 6 upper middle class
Klasse 7 upper class/luxury

As you can see diesels are not generally bad. especilly if you factor in their Torque and generally better mileage
You get gas mileage in miles/gal by dividing 236,25 by the number given in l/100km i.e. 7l/100km ~ 34mpg

 

[newmachineoverlord]

"Americans pay between $4.60 and $14.14 per gallon of gasoline in "external" costs not reflected in the price at the pump."
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

Biodiesel subsidies are $1/gallon for virgin oil and $.50/gallon for used frier oil.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/policy/regulations/federal/biodiesel/

Thus if the presence of subsidies were the basis for one's hatred of a particular fuel, you would hate gasoline and diesel at least 4.5 times more than you hate biodiesel, and you would hate biodiesel about twice as much as you hate ethanol, thus you would feel that ethanol is at least nine times better than gasoline. The true cost of ethanol is less than the true cost of gasoline, but oil subsidies artificially deflate gas prices.

This is all a red herring since gasoline can't be the fuel of the future because it is nonrenewable and supply is limited. The future must belong to renewable fuels, and the only options are ethanol, biobutanol, biodiesel, and hydrogen made from wind power or biomass. Of those, ethanol and biodiesel are here now, so all the others have already lost since a solution is required now. In order for a renewable fuel to take hold either:
A) subsidies for oil must end, internalizing all externalities into the cost
B) Tax credits for renewables are made high enough for them to compete despite the tremendous subsidies for oil.
C) Business as usual continues until there are widespread gas shortages and people are unable to buy gasoline to get to work.

Option A alone will cause a massive spike in fuel prices by about $5-14/gallon, leading to gasoline in the $7-16 range. Option B combined with a gradually phased in option A over a ten year period will provide a smooth transition to the new fuels with more stable pricing. Option A alone taken to its full extent would be viable if these taxes were put into the social security pot to fund payroll tax exemptions on the first ~$20k of people's incomes for persons who's total income is less than $50k, thus offsetting the effect of fuel price increases on the poor. I agree that option B alone is an inferior solution to option A, but currently fossil fuel subsidies are much higher than those for renewables, and nobody seems likely to institute option A, so that leaves B.

In order for the transition to occur two things have to happen:
1. All new gasoline vehicles sold in the US must be flex fuel e85 or biobutanol capable.
2. All diesel vehicles sold in the US must be 100% biodiesel capable.

Both of the above should be mandated immediately, with a noncompliance fee of about $400 per vehicle, effective with the next model year vehicles and later. Hydrogen production is less efficient than ethanol production, so hydrogen can't be considered a useful option until after we are already transitioned to renewable fuels. When it comes to biodiesel vs. ethanol, they both have their place, but diesel isn't for everybody due to the hassle of winter operation. If diesel suddenly went mainstream the most common activity for mechanics would go from oil changes to clogged diesel fuel filter changes due to people's fuel line's gelling up in the cold. Only ethanol can replace gasoline, and only biodiesel can replace diesel. Therefore both ethanol and biodiesel are necessities. If biodiesel is really better than ethanol it then it will outcompete it once both are dominant in their respective parts of the fuel market.

As for CAFE standards, there should be only two standards, one for vehicles with four axles or less, and one for vehicles with more than four axles that can't fit into a standard parking space. The parking space clause is really the only way to prevent future loopholes and unintended consequences.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: K1052
Biodiesel using efficent crops is attractive to displace at least some of our petrodiesel usage. Algae is looking very promising for this in the future since can produce far more oil per acre used and can utilize low value land that gets lots of sunlight (Southwest US).

Contrary to what you may believe the southwest isn't a bunch of empty worthless land with no value. Desert ecosystems are quite important and can be teeming with life (the exception is probably Utah's salt flats). But not just that, algae are huge consumers of water, combined with the high evaporation in desert climates (more than 15 inches a year and states like Nevada only get 6 inches of rainfall a year) where would you suggest the southwest get the massive amount of water that would be required? California and Arizona nearly went to war a number of years ago over water usage and you suggest we take this EXTREMELY limited resource in the west and use it to grow algae as opposed to say drinking water? If you want algae farms they need to be places with high water availability, such as Florida or any of those eastern or midwestern states where water isn't a commodity that people get killed over like in the west. Probably the ideal location would be to recreate the everglades and arrange it in a manner to facilitate the cultivation of massive amounts of algae (probably in the headwaters by feeding it raw sewage from the eastern seaboard) that could be easily harvested while still providing animal habitat (you would have to bubble the crap out of it). I question whether it would even be economical or even energy viable (as in produce more oil than used to harvest it), not to mention the stench and NIMBY that would occur.

I wasn't referring to open tank algae production, which is indeed wasteful in terms of water usage.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/algae.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Biodiesel_production

It can use wastewater and waste CO2 from any number of industrial processes and dosen't require the vast tracts of land that open tank production would. That is better IMO than converting huge areas of the best food producing land in the world to feedstock production.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Nothing based on petroleum has long term viability given the finite nature of any fossil fuel. What works in the short term is therefore largley irrelevent. Absolutely all effort should be focused on an entirely different form of fuel and/or propulsion. That's the only reasonable course.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nothing based on petroleum has long term viability given the finite nature of any fossil fuel. What works in the short term is therefore largley irrelevent. Absolutely all effort should be focused on an entirely different form of fuel and/or propulsion. That's the only reasonable course.

I don't think anyone is really arguing that point. The contention is over what form the alternative(s) should take.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nothing based on petroleum has long term viability given the finite nature of any fossil fuel. What works in the short term is therefore largley irrelevent. Absolutely all effort should be focused on an entirely different form of fuel and/or propulsion. That's the only reasonable course.

I don't think anyone is really arguing that point. The contention is over what form the alternative(s) should take.

Exactly. Further, it's kinda retarded to focus ALL the effort on fuel considering there's so much potential left in the ICE, drivetrains, vehicle design, etc.

It's even more foolish to say 'ethanol is the answer' when fossil fuels are extensively employed in the production. It's downright ludicrous to say 'hydrogen is the answer' when fossil fuels are even more extensively employed in the production. The former is an excuse for corporate welfare (and misplaced appeal to nationalism). The latter is an excuse not to mandate improvements in engine/vehicle design for the next 15 years.

Europe and Japan understand the broader context. Not surprisingly, manufacturers based in the EU have technology spanning gas, diesel, and high-performance hydrogen. The Japanese are more practical. They've invested heavily in the best current technology (gas, gas-electric, diesel) in order to maintain technologic dominance until hydrogen becomes a reality (2025+).

What works in the short-term is relevant in part because decent cars will easily run 150-200k miles and our fuel infrastructure is based on gasoline. Accordingly, even tremendous breakthroughs in ethanol, plug-in, or hydrogen vehicles WILL co-exist with a legacy system of hundreds of millions gasoline cars and trucks. Diesels have an advantage b/c they can use the existing production/distribution infrastructure but that's not an insurmountable one.

In Brazil (which produces both ethanol and biodiesel), producing ethanol from sugar makes economic sense as long as oil costs more than $37/barrel. But even flex-fuel savy Brazil admits a 25% reduction in fuel economy. But instead of maintaing foolish jingoist subsidies, Brazil is actively exploring multiple means of producing both ethanol and biodiesel. About the only thing those lefties are doing wrong is the penchant to subsidize production instead of focusing on R&D and allowing market forces to determine utilization. Then again, Brazil has multiple reasons for pursuing biodiesel.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: K1052
I wasn't referring to open tank algae production, which is indeed wasteful in terms of water usage.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/algae.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Biodiesel_production

It can use wastewater and waste CO2 from any number of industrial processes and dosen't require the vast tracts of land that open tank production would. That is better IMO than converting huge areas of the best food producing land in the world to feedstock production.

So you were talking about something that needs to be located next to these industrial production sites (and in the MIT article clearly talks about one on the roof of such a site) yet at the same time mentioned placing the system where "can utilize low value land that gets lots of sunlight (Southwest US)"?

So how exactly do you get the water to fill these "closed tank" systems in the southwest US? And why is putting it in the southwest good as you will be hauling all this stuff 1000 miles just so you can put it where it gets a little more sunlight? Frankly your "clarification" doesn't, and seems more like a CYA attempt than anything.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: K1052
I wasn't referring to open tank algae production, which is indeed wasteful in terms of water usage.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/algae.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Biodiesel_production

It can use wastewater and waste CO2 from any number of industrial processes and dosen't require the vast tracts of land that open tank production would. That is better IMO than converting huge areas of the best food producing land in the world to feedstock production.

So you were talking about something that needs to be located next to these industrial production sites (and in the MIT article clearly talks about one on the roof of such a site) yet at the same time mentioned placing the system where "can utilize low value land that gets lots of sunlight (Southwest US)"?

So how exactly do you get the water to fill these "closed tank" systems in the southwest US? And why is putting it in the southwest good as you will be hauling all this stuff 1000 miles just so you can put it where it gets a little more sunlight? Frankly your "clarification" doesn't, and seems more like a CYA attempt than anything.

More sunlight (clear days) = more algae=more oil. Considering how much water parts of the SW waste on fvcking golf courses and giant fountains in Vegas, I think they can spare a little bit of the CWP water to put in to a system that will have a lot less evaporation.

How much is the land worth next to a coal fired power plant in the middle of the desert? A hell of a lot less than most places. It can at least be put to good use now. As to the disrupting the vibrant desert ecosystem you seem to be concerned with I think the massive housing tracts I see going up around cities in the SW are doing more damage.

 

[desy]

Future = electric cars with some vehicles hybrid hydrogen or hybrid diesel for range or industrial application.
Bio-diesel from algae and energy from clean sources 'including nuclear'

Just talked to the engineers here at coffee, Canada has only tapped about 30% of it hydro potential. No ugly wind farms need apply but where palatable.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: desy
Future = electric cars with some vehicles hybrid hydrogen or hybrid diesel for range or industrial application.
Bio-diesel from algae and energy from clean sources 'including nuclear'

Just talked to the engineers here at coffee, Canada has only tapped about 30% of it hydro potential. No ugly wind farms need apply but where palatable.

Probably pointless to have some cars be hydrogen. Unless Metal hydride research can overcome the many obstacles, any other form of hydrogen has too expensive of an infrastructure. Announcements like this give me hope that plain old electric cars might be able to meet all demands. Of course, the battery price tags are a little hight at this point, although I wonder how that would change with mass production (ie is it engineering costs or materials costs?) While it appears vehicles are selling for $45,000, I believe that's heavily subsidized as it seems I've read somewhere the batteries themselves run $75k.
Phoenix Motorcars

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: K1052
I wasn't referring to open tank algae production, which is indeed wasteful in terms of water usage.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/algae.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Biodiesel_production

It can use wastewater and waste CO2 from any number of industrial processes and dosen't require the vast tracts of land that open tank production would. That is better IMO than converting huge areas of the best food producing land in the world to feedstock production.

So you were talking about something that needs to be located next to these industrial production sites (and in the MIT article clearly talks about one on the roof of such a site) yet at the same time mentioned placing the system where "can utilize low value land that gets lots of sunlight (Southwest US)"?

So how exactly do you get the water to fill these "closed tank" systems in the southwest US? And why is putting it in the southwest good as you will be hauling all this stuff 1000 miles just so you can put it where it gets a little more sunlight? Frankly your "clarification" doesn't, and seems more like a CYA attempt than anything.

Closed tank systems are EXTREMELY efficiant when it comes to preserving water and atmosphere.

You are already hauling off more than 10 x that for a fuel that requires as much energy to be made as it gives, he is talking about a one time long term investment.

Think about it, a one term gross input of resources that basically takes care of itself with minimal amount of labour force or energy consumption.

I'm telling you that if i had the amount of cash it would take, that is where i'd spend my money because goddamnint if i failed in the US, it's ALREADY a big market in the EU.

It's clean, it's renewable, it works better than any other renewable fuel.

You can run your mercedes on it without even resetting anything, it will just adjust to it.

Oh man, if i had 20-40 million dollars... i'd make them into 20-40 BILLION, this stuff is well known to anyone in the EU but we don't have much land where we can grow it.

Why the US doesn't take advantage of this, not only would the US be self sufficiant, they would also be a main supplier to the rest of the world.

 

[hellokeith]

There are many parts of the country (or world for that matter) where an air condition and/or heater is not optional in a vehicle. Battery-stored electric won't cut it for either a heater or an AC. Maybe in 50 years. The internal combustion engine has so much more power production and potential to be significantly improved compared to battery electric.