Future in Diesels?

[GRG55]

Re: Future in Diesels?

I am a big big big proponent of Diesel and I told my wife I refuse to by another car until they come out with a 2 door diesel that is a manual transmission...

If you live in the USA you may be waiting for a while [except perhaps the smallest engines/vehicles]. One of the ways the manufacturers will be achieving lower diesel emissions is drivetrain management systems. The computer manages the engine and the transmission as an integrated unit. That's difficult on a manual transmission where it cannot control the shift points.

[Wild Style]

Re: Future in Diesels?

If you live in the USA you may be waiting for a while [except perhaps the smallest engines/vehicles]. One of the ways the manufacturers will be achieving lower diesel emissions is drivetrain management systems. The computer manages the engine and the transmission as an integrated unit. That's difficult on a manual transmission where it cannot control the shift points.

Way to crush my hopes and dreams

I don't need anything major, a nice 4 cyl. twin turbo will do me fine. The BMW 3 series diesel doesn't have the manual option because they said the fly wheel was too heavy for a already heavy diesel engine.

[ASH]

Re: Future in Diesels?

My knowledge is extremely limited but I thought "cracking" was used to increase the proportion of desirable fractions in a barrel of crude. Alter the cracking and you alter the balance of gasoline / diesel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)

On its face this would appear to offer a means of altering the gas/diesel balance.

I hope GRG will correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't diesel heavier than gasoline, and doesn't cracking go from long chains to short chains?

[lurker]

Re: Future in Diesels?

I hope GRG will correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't diesel heavier than gasoline, and doesn't cracking go from long chains to short chains?

Cracking does go from long to short chains, but both diesel and gasoline are the outputs from cracking even longer hydrocarbon chains. If you read my link you'll see it uses a different cracking process, but the net result is that European refining produces a greater proportion of diesel from a barrel of oil than US refining, which is tilted toward gasoline production.

The implication is that a refining change in the US could significantly alter the ratio of diesel to gasoline here in the states.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Future in Diesels?

I can't see an investment angle. All the major motor manufacturers produce diesel engines for non-US markets. European diesels (latest generation) have overcome the pollution problems and as CARB certified now.

The main problem as I understand it in the US is lack of refining capacity for ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.

The main problem in the USA is an Environmental Protection Agency in Washington that considers everything to be an air pollutant, even the carbon dioxide in diesel exhaust and even the carbon dioxide in human breathe. So long as there is an obnoxious EPA like that and pot-smoking eco-frauds on the West Coast who support that kind of EPA, there is no future in diesels in the U.S.

And now I hear that the EPA in Washington is opposed to the importation of refined, up-graded oil, coming originally from the tar sands in North-east Alberta. The EPA asserts that such oil would contribute too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, so the U.S. can not import it.

So according to the eco-frauds and their EPA, there will be no new nuclear power, no diesels in cars or light trucks, and no up-graded oil coming from N.E. Alberta in America's future. In other words, the Americans will freeze in the dark as their dollar is de-valued away to nothing, before anything is done by government to improve their standard of living.

I wanted Obama for national health insurance and some new thinking in Washington--- like good old-fashioned liberalism. I wanted the Bush gang thrown-out.... But I did not want Obama for endless bank bail-outs, re-inflation, dollar de-valuation, solar energy dreams, and EPA restrictions on how we can live. And if this is what Obama and his bunch are all about, then good riddance to them in the next election.

Liberalism was always about government helping the little guy. It was never supposed to be about the hidden agenda of the Obama Administration, as dictated by the radical environmentalists and Bernanke's inflationists.

There could be low-sulfur diesel refined in the U.S, just as there could be more nuclear power in the U.S. There could be more drilling for oil, and more encouragement for the development of heavy oil reserves in Alberta. There could be national health insurance for everyone in the America modelled after the very successful Canadian Health Insurance Plan. There could be a strong dollar under-pinned with gold in Ft. Knox, and there could be higher interest rates for savers. There could be a lot of things.... But so far, with the Democrats in Washington (with Nancy Pelosi and her bunch in the Congress) I don't see very much at all.

[lurker]

Re: Future in Diesels?

Do you have a source for your assertion that the EPA is holding up deployment of the new diesel engined vehicles (that meet CARB standards) or trying to delay introduction of low sulfur fuel ?

CARB restrictions have, until very recently prevented diesel cars from being sold in the US (not trucks though, because they were too much of a cash cow for the US auto industry). However now common rail diesels with particulate filters can meet CARB I wasn't aware of any restriction on their IMPORTATION (I say importation because none are made domestically AFAIK).

[ASH]

Re: Future in Diesels?

Cracking does go from long to short chains, but both diesel and gasoline and the outputs from cracking even longer hydrocarbon chains.

Good point. I wasn't thinking straight. (I was thinking there was a significant fraction of the lighter hydrocarbons in the raw crude oil.)

[Wild Style]

Re: Future in Diesels?

There are already new diesel engines in the states from BMW, VW and Audi so no one is holding them back.

[Sokesleezy]

Re: Future in Diesels?

This latest announcement by the White House that they are going to require 30 mpg from light trucks by 2016 has got me thinking about how the hell they will make it. That's really not that far away, and you don't design cars or trucks in a month. I'm no expert but I don't see that happening without the use of diesel engines. The current Chevy Silverado Hybrid only gets 22 mpg hwy, and if I'm not mistaken, that's the best full size light truck mpg right now.

Lighten things a bit, make them smaller, slower. That all will help. But I suspect we'll see a lot less pickup and SUV sales in general. Gone will be the days of the full sized, crew cab, 4x4 pickup being used as a commuter car. But those of us who use trucks to make a living will still need something to haul more than people around. I assume work trucks will get around this by going with 3/4 ton vehicles exempt from the MPG requirements.?:confused: Not sure what the rules will be on that. But if they exempt these vehicles then we'll just see people forgoing the light duty 1/2 tons for the heavier versions. So the requirement may actually backfire and produce more low mpg trucks on the road.

Anyway, to get back to my point, I've read here and elsewhere that diesels may finally be ready to make it big in the USA. I tend to agree, especially in light of this new mpg requirement. Gas powered cars are already topping those numbers, and hence my main question would be about diesels in trucks. Anyone have any input about the future of diesels in the USA in regards to the current technology and its ability to achieve 30 mpg in a 5000lb+ truck?

1) Is 30mpg in a full sized truck possible with current technology?

2) If so, who has this?

3) Do any US automakers currently have the capability of developing these high MPG diesels? I know they make a lot of powerful diesels for Heavy duty trucks, but these are very expensive and don't turn in those kind of numbers. And they are going to be pretty busy reorganizing after the bankruptcy. Well GM at least.

I'm just wondering if there is a investment angle here.

Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes

By Matt Hardigree, 12:00 PM on Fri May 22 2009, 9,049


When Obama unveiled new fuel standards we decried the end of fun cars and pointed out how far most automakers are from meeting new-for-2016 fuel standards. It turns out, thanks to Hummer-sized loopholes like your car's air-conditioning, automakers should be able to meet them with little fear.
At issue is the federal government's twin towers of regulation power — the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). What President Obama announced Tuesday was that the EPA and NHTSA intend to work together to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards at the national level. This avoids different standards being implemented at the state versus federal level, and to avoid unharmonized or inconsistent GHG emission and CAFE standards.
The problem is, as has been widely reported by everyone in the media, ourselves included, NHTSA is not proposing a 35.5 MPG CAFE standard by model year 2016. Rather, as we're now being told by analysts at Credit Suisse, the EPA intends to propose GHG emission standards that, based on its estimates of model year 2016 light vehicle sales at that time, would result in fleet average CO2 emissions (of vehicles sold in that model year) of roughly 250 grams/mile. This creates at least one huge loophole in the system for automakers to take advantage of.
The Air Conditioner Loophole
That level of CO2 emission per mile would equate to about 35.5 MPG in fuel economy parlance. However — here's the big loophole — it's expected by the EPA and NHTSA that most manufacturers would apply air conditioning improvements to reduce GHG emissions. Air conditioning improvements do not enter into the NHTSA's calculation of MPG fuel economy.
Thus, the improvement in MPG that is equivalent to the estimated 250g of CO2/mile will actually fall well short of the 35.5 MPG mark. The gap between what the fleet CAFE will be and the widely reported 35.5, would be made up by air conditioner improvements. So basically, when you buy your supposedly more-fuel-efficient vehicle in 2016, it won't have as high of a fuel economy as it could — thanks to your car's air conditioning.
Automakers Get Lower Standards The More Large SUVs, Trucks They Build
Credit Suisse also points out in a new report released today that another key component of the proposal yesterday is that the EPA and NHTSA both intend to propose separate footprint-based standards. This is consistent with NHTSA's current approach to CAFE standards and, as such, means that there will be no set standard, with respect to either CO2 or fuel economy, for any single manufacturer or in fact for the fleet as a whole. Any standards you hear about for a given manufacturer or for the fleet as a whole are estimates.
This is because the actual MPG or CO2 "standard" for every manufacturer will vary depending on what they build. Footprint-based means the amount of CO2 emitted and the level of fuel economy will vary depending on the vehicles wheelbase multiplied by its track width. Put another way, the area between where the tires touch the road.
This quote from the proposal addresses the implications for automakers: "Under a footprint-based standard, each manufacturer would have a GHG and CAFE standard unique to its fleet, with a separate standard for passenger cars and light-trucks, depending on the footprints of the vehicle models produced by that manufacturer. Generally, manufacturers of larger vehicles (i.e. vehicles with larger footprints) would face less stringent standards (i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile standards and lower CAFE standards) than manufacturers of smaller vehicles." This clearly favors the domestic makers.
Will That Be Cash Or Credit?
The EPA and NHTSA foresee flexibility in compliance with its proposed standards based on certain credits. Credits can be earned for fleet over-compliance in a given year, and applied in future years. Current consideration is to allow credits to be carried forward for at least 5 years.
In addition to credits at the fleet level that could be carried forward, the agencies intend to consider giving manufacturers the ability to transfer credits among its fleet. That is, if an automaker achieves over-compliance on the car side, it can transfer those credits to the truck side, and vice versa.
Air conditioning credits: AC units contribute to GHG emissions in two ways. First, through the leakage of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, and second, by placing additional load on the engine, which causes the engine to produce additional CO2. The EPA is considering an approach that would enable automakers to earn credits by reducing GHG emissions (HFC and CO2) related to AC systems. Under the approach, reductions in HFCs would be converted to a CO2 equivalent reduction on a gram/mile basis that could be used as credits in meeting fleet CO2 standards. The EPA said it believes automakers would reduce HFC and CO2 emission through AC upgrades in order to take advantage of these credits.
Additional credit opportunities are being considered to help promote the commercialization of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. They are called "super credits", and they would take the form of a multiplier such that the number of hybrid/electric vehicles sold would count as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer's fleet average. Thus helping automakers achieve fleet compliance by offering such vehicles, and applying those credits as needed.
Who Comes Out On Top?
All of this doesn't mean the automakers won't have to make an improvement. There's still much work to be done to bring all the vehicles up to these standards, but as we learn more it becomes clearer why so many auto execs were willing to stand behind President Obama.
[Credit Suisse, EPA, Green Car Advisor]






http://jalopnik.com/5265996/ballyhoe...BF%BDloopholes

[santafe2]

Re: Future in Diesels?

Not sure what you mean?

The refiners cannot make diesel all by itself. The more diesel they make from that cut of the crude barrel the more other products including gasoline, etc also must come out the back end of the refinery. Nobody can "ramp up" diesel output in a big way in the USA all by itself. That's the dilemma.

The Europeans, who use large amounts of diesel in their private transportation fleet (passenger cars) "solve" the problem of all the extra gasoline by shipping their excess to the USA market where the passenger fleet is predominantly gasoline. Try to shift the USA market heavily to diesel and something has to "give". The first thing that will give is the worldwide supply of diesel is not able to meet demand and the price goes up. Then everyone who stayed with a gasoline engine looks like a hero because their fuel is selling cheaper...

Thanks GRG. I'd made a similar observation on another thread and asked for some input from someone with an industry background. EJs great with regard to supporting his positions so I'd like to understand how the largest consumer of energy in the world can move to diesel when the rest of the world is already using diesel. Aren't we, (the US), the only viable off-taker of gasoline?

[Starving Steve]

Do you have a source for your assertion that the EPA is holding up deployment of the new diesel engined vehicles (that meet CARB standards) or trying to delay introduction of low sulfur fuel ?

CARB restrictions have, until very recently prevented diesel cars from being sold in the US (not trucks though, because they were too much of a cash cow for the US auto industry). However now common rail diesels with particulate filters can meet CARB I wasn't aware of any restriction on their IMPORTATION (I say importation because none are made domestically AFAIK).

The Business News Network (BNN) all-day Monday, May 25th, and every day next week as well, will be broadcasting a programme about the Alberta Oil Sands in North-east Alberta. And in that programme, a five-part series, there will be one or more clips from the EPA about forbidding importation of up-graded oil into the U.S. because up-graded oil has a larger carbon foot-print than conventional oil..... I know this because I heard one of the clips to-day, a short segment with an EPA representative speaking, and I was shocked and dismayed at what I heard.

Hear it for yourself, starting Monday on BNN. The programme is called, "Shifting Sands", and the time of the programme is 8:30AM PDT, 11:30AM EDT. Here is more info to get you to watch: http://www.bnn.ca/9514.html

Why they call heavy oil, "dirty oil" is covered in Part IV of the programme series, so it looks like the real juicy part of the expose on the oil sands will be on Thursday, May 28th. But don't believe me; click the link I provided in the paragraph above.

This is what the eco-frauds and their EPA are up to. This was their hidden agenda. This is why I can no longer support the Obama bunch, especially in Congress.

[santafe2]

Re: Future in Diesels?

Cracking does go from long to short chains, but both diesel and gasoline are the outputs from cracking even longer hydrocarbon chains. If you read my link you'll see it uses a different cracking process, but the net result is that European refining produces a greater proportion of diesel from a barrel of oil than US refining, which is tilted toward gasoline production.

The implication is that a refining change in the US could significantly alter the ratio of diesel to gasoline here in the states.

I've finally gotten my copy of Morgan Downey's "Oil 101". As another iTuliper suggested, it appears to be an excellent book for anyone wanting a greater understanding of oil history, composition, processes and markets.

I've only browsed chapters tonight but cracking does indeed allow refineries to create more valuable small hydrocarbons; gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. US refineries are quite complex. He speaks about complexity creep in referring to our refineries. The finished product yield of US refineries is now 99.9% gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. This is up from an average of ~83% in the 1980s. In the US these three finished products break out as 61% gasoline, 29.1% diesel and 9.9% jet fuel, (Oil 101, pg. 162).

The 99.9% finished product yield is not achieved by refining alone. Blending is also used to achieve this. Ethanol blends are a major factor.

There is another refining process called combining. This is the opposite of cracking and can be used to combine hydrocarbons. It isn't clear to me from my quick review if this process would assist in creating more distillate fuel instead of motor gasoline.

My quick takeaway is that finished product outputs can be manipulated. To what extent these outputs can be manipulated is not clear. Globally slightly more diesel is created than gasoline. In the US, refineries create twice as much gasoline as diesel, (Oil 101, pg. 153).

We know from our experience last summer that European refineries were shipping gasoline to the US and that kept our gasoline pump prices from moving even higher than they did. What we don't know, and I suspect, is that the EU refineries could develop more complex refineries to create additional diesel and less gasoline if there wasn't a ready US market for the product.

[GRG55]

Re: Future in Diesels?

Cracking does go from long to short chains, but both diesel and gasoline are the outputs from cracking even longer hydrocarbon chains. If you read my link you'll see it uses a different cracking process, but the net result is that European refining produces a greater proportion of diesel from a barrel of oil than US refining, which is tilted toward gasoline production.

The implication is that a refining change in the US could significantly alter the ratio of diesel to gasoline here in the states.

1. Hydrocrackers have been in wide use in the USA for decades; this is not some new or underused technology that can be introduced and all of a sudden alter the landscape.
2. Refining techniques are used to alter the mix of product outputs, in part to target market demand dynamics, in part to produce more quantity of the more valuable products, and in part to allow the use of lower grades of crude oil thus reducing input costs.

The one thing all these technologies cannot do is allow the production of one single product, such as diesel, to the virtual exclusion of everything else. However, solving the fuel mix may be the least of the problems.

Shifting the USA private passenger car fleet from predominantly gasoline to predominantly diesel will take a very long time, and there are a lot of [bigger!] hurdles beyond fuel supply. The distribution system will have to be overhauled at major cost [in a capital contrained environment]. And by far the biggest hurdle is the politics surrounding the mish-mash of Federal and State regulations, which stand solidly in the way of any innovation or changes. A little anecdote...

...When Daimler-Benz first introduced its Smart Car to North America it chose to sell it only in Canada. The car was designed around a small, very efficient diesel engine. Daimler-Benz AG is, after all, regarded as one of the most engineering-intensive automobile manufacturers, and has been producing passenger cars with diesel engines for longer than Toyota Motor has been in existence. Apparently Daimler decided the highly variable regulations in different parts of the USA, including [as I understand] severe restrictions on diesel cars in the large California market, made it impractical to market the car south of the 49th.

The Smart Car is now being sold in the USA with...yep, you guessed it...a gasoline engine. Since the Canadian market is relatively small, Daimler decided to discontinue the original diesel version [that is still sold throughout Europe] and sell the gasoline version in Canada also. The older diesel versions are now sought after in the used market up here. Opportunity lost?

Politicians trying to generate pie-in-the-sky outcomes with regulations that invariably result in unintended consequences are just wasting taxpayer money and overcomplicating the situation. If there is a desire to get off gasoline and move to diesel then just tax the gasoline fergawdsake. If instead the desire is to increase the use of public transit then just tax all the transport fuels purchased for private use [and cut the price of a bus ticket].

Idiot politicians are everywhere. Up here the local politicians decided some years ago that it would be better to reduce congestion downtown and encourage the use of public transit, so they raised the downtown parking fees dramatically. Initially it had the desired effect. Unfortunately they did nothing to increase transit capacity, so after a while people got tired of the human sardine experience and started going back to their cars. Recently the authorities started charging a parking fee at the transit "park & ride" lots. Believe it or not, the parking fee is more than the transit ticket price. The combination is more expensive than parking downtown. No prizes for guessing what behaviour commuters are exhibiting now... :p

[flintlock]

Re: Future in Diesels?

Not sure what you mean?

The refiners cannot make diesel all by itself. The more diesel they make from that cut of the crude barrel the more other products including gasoline, etc also must come out the back end of the refinery. Nobody can "ramp up" diesel output in a big way in the USA all by itself. That's the dilemma.

The Europeans, who use large amounts of diesel in their private transportation fleet (passenger cars) "solve" the problem of all the extra gasoline by shipping their excess to the USA market where the passenger fleet is predominantly gasoline. Try to shift the USA market heavily to diesel and something has to "give". The first thing that will give is the worldwide supply of diesel is not able to meet demand and the price goes up. Then everyone who stayed with a gasoline engine looks like a hero because their fuel is selling cheaper...

I am totally ignorant about oil refining. So you can't just refine diesel? You get gas from the process as well? All I meant by ramp up is that we don't seem to have as much diesel available at the pumps. How they fix that I have no idea.

[flintlock]

Re: Future in Diesels?

I'm not sure why so many posters think that the rise of diesels will spell doom for Ford and GM.

Ford and GM have subsidiary companies around the world who have excellent diesel engine technology: in fact Ford and GM Europe are years ahead of the US in this respect. All they have to do is bring the technology across the atlantic.

I don't think it necessarily spells doom for US automakers, but consider this.
About the only profitable sector for US automakers is light trucks and SUVs. They are all either going bankrupt or losing billions a month right now. They aren't exactly well capitalized now to be able to shift gears radically and pour money into new technologies. So they have a lot stacked against them compared say, to Toyota. That's why I was primarily discussing light trucks in regard to diesel technology. If US automakers can't make a diesel truck that fits the bill, I think they are doomed. They'd lose the one segment they currently dominate. They are just too far behind in cars to make up ground quickly, and the technology in cars is already there to get this kind of mileage, so the real question is in regards to light trucks with diesel engines.