Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Future in Diesels?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Future in Diesels?

    Originally posted by Sokesleezy View Post
    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

    I was expecting this, good post.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by flintlock View Post
      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.
      OK, having "lost" this reply twice now, we'll try one last time...


      Actually we don't "refine diesel". We actually refine crude oil...essentially break apart the mixture of different hydrocarbon molecules that make up a barrel of crude oil and separate them into a series of individual products that range across a spectrum of very light hydrocarbons [such as high octane aviation gasoline] to very heavy [such as asphalt for road surfacing]. In between these two extremes are products that are classified as "middle distillates" because they are composed of the hydrocarbon molecules that are in the middle [weight] portion of a typical barrel of crude oil, and these middle distillate products include jet fuel, kerosene, diesel and fuel oil.

      Think of a barrel of crude oil as a mixture of cannon balls, marbles and sand grains all mixed together. "Heavy oil" like the Canadian tar sands bitumens contain more "cannon balls" and fewer sand grains, while higher quality light crude oils such as the US benchmark West Texas Intermediate [WTI] contain more marbles and sand grains. However, every barrel of crude oil contains a mixture of hydrocarbon molecules. Refining separates these with the "cannon balls" representing the long-chain heavy-hydrocarbon asphalt, the sand grains representing the gasolines and the marbles representing the middle distillates. Cracking technology means that some of the cannon balls can be busted up and mixed with the marbles, and some of the marbles can be busted up and mixed with the sand grains. But there is a practical limit to how much of this can be done in the real world, partly governed by reaction and distillation kinetics in the refinery processes. So what this means bottom line is that even though the processes can be "tuned" to maximize products such as diesel, to significantly increase one product inevitably means there will be increases in most/all other products coming from the other parts of the hydrocarbon spectrum contained in the input crude oil.

      Just as an aside, you may hear the term "processing gains" in reference to refineries. This refers to the increase in the total volume [barrels] of products coming out of a refinery compared to the volume of crude oil going in the front end. Again think of a barrel of crude as a mix of cannon balls, marbles and sand grains, with the smaller stuff filling the interstitial space between the bigger stuff. Once that barrel is refined ["unpacked"] the space needed to store the cannon balls, marbles and sand grains separately [the products] is greater than when they were mixed together. That's the processing gain volume.

      Hope this crude [no pun intended] analogy helps...
      Last edited by GRG55; May 23, 2009, 11:47 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Future in Diesels?

        Originally posted by flintlock View Post
        Aha! I didn't think about Imperial gallons. What type of gallon do they use in Australia.?
        I used to be a fan of the metric system until I discovered that 60 KPH is 37 MPH, and that is the speed limit on most British Columbia highways, and even on some four lane highways in rural areas.

        Travel from Alberta to BC, and the first thing you will notice is the sharp drop in speed limits. Then come the speed traps. Then come the pot-head attitudes and the eco-frauds. Then come the sales taxes. Then come the ferry fees, the outrageous water bills, and the new electric rates starting this summer...... Oh, but find-out for yourself. Come and visit us.

        And always remember: Horse-carts have the right-of-way in BC; it's in provincial law.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Future in Diesels?

          Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
          I used to be a fan of the metric system until I discovered that 60 KPH is 37 MPH, and that is the speed limit on most British Columbia highways, and even on some four lane highways in rural areas.

          Travel from Alberta to BC, and the first thing you will notice is the sharp drop in speed limits. Then come the speed traps. Then come the pot-head attitudes and the eco-frauds. Then come the sales taxes. Then come the ferry fees, the outrageous water bills, and the new electric rates starting this summer...... Oh, but find-out for yourself. Come and visit us.

          And always remember: Horse-carts have the right-of-way in BC; it's in provincial law.
          Yep, that's a good reason to dislike the metric system.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Future in Diesels?

            Originally posted by leegs View Post
            Yep, that's a good reason to dislike the metric system.
            And Potheads.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Future in Diesels?

              Time will tell if the new diesels sold by MB and VW in the US can stand the test of time. Compared to the VW TDIs of a few years ago they are much more complex.

              My understanding of why the diesels sold in europe aren't sold here is because of different emission standards. The EU zone cares more about cutting CO and CO2 from diesels. The US cares more about NOX and other smog gasses. The new diesels need more cat. converters than cows have stomachs in order to scrub/burn off smog gasses. I also understand this makes them less efficient.

              for anyone interested the TDIclub forum has been nerding out over this subject for several years.


              My $0.02 about diesels: wait until honda or toyota release one. I have a TDI right now and its great little engine but the crappy VW wrapped around it eats into my fuel savings.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Future in Diesels?

                Originally posted by snakela View Post
                Time will tell if the new diesels sold by MB and VW in the US can stand the test of time. Compared to the VW TDIs of a few years ago they are much more complex.

                My understanding of why the diesels sold in europe aren't sold here is because of different emission standards. The EU zone cares more about cutting CO and CO2 from diesels. The US cares more about NOX and other smog gasses. The new diesels need more cat. converters than cows have stomachs in order to scrub/burn off smog gasses. I also understand this makes them less efficient.

                for anyone interested the TDIclub forum has been nerding out over this subject for several years.


                My $0.02 about diesels: wait until honda or toyota release one. I have a TDI right now and its great little engine but the crappy VW wrapped around it eats into my fuel savings.

                As a driver of a tdi in europe. These are great cars. but it is not the future. Toyota, is in my opinion an inferior brand, with inferior quality to the VAG concern, VAG is also the best make, when it comes to RUST.. It is also in the part details. Things like shock absorbers, and different details, that nobody does like the Germans. It's the same thing with shaving machines, like BRAUN. The future is something that use even less. Most cars that are sold here, is better than 45 mpg I think. 55-60 mpg is no problem on many cars. Around 50 % of new cars sold here are diesels, I am not sure, but i think they are 15-20 % more efficient than a gas car.

                What I dont like about older TDI's is the timing belt. Other makes, in the older cars, use chains. That are much better.

                Generally a TDI will do around 300000 miles, before there is any significant engine wear. They are much more durable than gasoline engines.

                On pickup-trucks and vans. Who needs them? It is just something that is un-needed, unwanted, and will have to end. I am pretty much provoced on how americans import oil, paid for with crap dollars, only to be , wasted through using in-efficient cars.

                What Obama needs to do, is to introduce a big fuel tax. That will help solve the problem. Diesel, needs to cost something resembling an oil price of 300-400 dollars, as it does where I live.

                Someone might confuse freedom, with the right to pollute, and use big cars, it's built into the American culture I think. But I don't think anyone should have the right to shit in the garden of others, and that's what they do, with their big trucks, as we all live on the same planet.

                A problem with diesels, while the conserve oil better, and use less fuel, and also pollute less to the atmosphere, I think the local pollution, in a city, like micro diesel dust, is more harmful like the things from gasoline. Not a big problem in Norway, but in bigger cities in the US, I think gas is more friendly for the local environment.
                Last edited by nero3; May 23, 2009, 06:30 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Future in Diesels?

                  Classic Nero.:p

                  What the heck is a VAG? Volkswagen AG?

                  Yeah right, Toyotas are junk.

                  I agree most don't need pickup trucks, but a lot of us do. Very useful vehicle. Very popular too. We don't all live in our parents basement.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Future in Diesels?

                    Originally posted by nero3 View Post
                    As a driver of a tdi in europe. These are great cars. but it is not the future. Toyota, is in my opinion an inferior brand, with inferior quality to the VAG concern, VAG is also the best make, when it comes to RUST.. It is also in the part details. Things like shock absorbers, and different details, that nobody does like the Germans. It's the same thing with shaving machines, like BRAUN. The future is something that use even less. Most cars that are sold here, is better than 45 mpg I think. 55-60 mpg is no problem on many cars. Around 50 % of new cars sold here are diesels, I am not sure, but i think they are 15-20 % more efficient than a gas car.

                    What I dont like about older TDI's is the timing belt. Other makes, in the older cars, use chains. That are much better.

                    Generally a TDI will do around 300000 miles, before there is any significant engine wear. They are much more durable than gasoline engines.

                    On pickup-trucks and vans. Who needs them? It is just something that is un-needed, unwanted, and will have to end. I am pretty much provoced on how americans import oil, paid for with crap dollars, only to be , wasted through using in-efficient cars.

                    What Obama needs to do, is to introduce a big fuel tax. That will help solve the problem. Diesel, needs to cost something resembling an oil price of 300-400 dollars, as it does where I live.

                    Someone might confuse freedom, with the right to pollute, and use big cars, it's built into the American culture I think. But I don't think anyone should have the right to shit in the garden of others, and that's what they do, with their big trucks, as we all live on the same planet.

                    A problem with diesels, while the conserve oil better, and use less fuel, and also pollute less to the atmosphere, I think the local pollution, in a city, like micro diesel dust, is more harmful like the things from gasoline. Not a big problem in Norway, but in bigger cities in the US, I think gas is more friendly for the local environment.
                    Nothing they can do about micro diesel dust? I thought that urea stuff they use was supposed to deal with that issue. And to your 50 mpg being easily accomplished in European cars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pydHuL9tT4

                    As for Americans "shitting in others gardens", as a American i can tell you that this mentality is built into the fabric of our society from day one. Our society is built and based on Adam Smith's theory of individualism. Individualism and the greater good of humanity very rarely find a middle ground.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Future in Diesels?

                      Originally posted by flintlock View Post
                      Classic Nero.:p

                      What the heck is a VAG? Volkswagen AG?

                      Yeah right, Toyotas are junk.

                      I agree most don't need pickup trucks, but a lot of us do. Very useful vehicle. Very popular too. We don't all live in our parents basement.
                      I've got an 89' 4-runner with a broken odometer that reads 240,000 miles. This piece of junk still pulls our steel horse trailer with no problem!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Future in Diesels?

                        Originally posted by flintlock View Post
                        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.
                        There is absolutely no technical barriers to this.

                        EU already has stricter policies in place and on the roadmap for both MPG and emissions.

                        The problem is (was?) the US car makers, who didn't *want* to do it. They kept rolling out 80s tech. The rest of the world moved on.

                        Now they can just copy European and Japanese car makers. The tables have turned.

                        And yes, diesel will be in the mix more and more.

                        Personally I see this as a problematic move as diesel is a mid-distillate and that gets crimped as soon as China/Asia starts their full recovery and power up their diesel powered electricity generators all over semi-rural industrializing Asia.

                        BTW, jet fuel is also mid-distillate so it's going to mean bad for the airlines, just like in the 2007-2008 spike.

                        The future is electric and burning coal, whether we like it or not.

                        Nothing else comes as cheap, as fast and with as low tech as possible.

                        Yes, it'll destroy the climate, rape the environment with plenty of open pit mines and so on.

                        But if that's what the suits from Harvard say is the cheapest option, then that's the option we'll choose

                        Wish for the best and prepare for the worst.

                        BTW, if one believes in surging recovery and the return of the merry old times, then it might not be too late to look into palladium and lithium investments. Just pure fyi, I have no position on those one way or the other.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Future in Diesels?

                          Originally posted by Wild Style View Post
                          ...Individualism and the greater good of humanity very rarely find a middle ground.
                          Which is unfortunate. But still a hell of a lot better than Collectivism and the greater good of humanity, which never find a middle ground...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Future in Diesels?

                            Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                            Which is unfortunate. But still a hell of a lot better than Collectivism and the greater good of humanity, which never find a middle ground...
                            If individualism was better than looking out for the greater good of society, then why are Americans (as seen by many of the post on this forum) and as displayed during those silly ass tea parties crying foul? Those in power are doing what naturally comes with a individualistic society. They are doing what they feel is necessary to keep money in their pockets and the pockets of their friends (self preservation). I guess individualism is great for its practitioners as long as the negative effects of individualism doesn't affect them.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Future in Diesels?

                              Originally posted by flintlock View Post
                              Classic Nero.:p

                              What the heck is a VAG? Volkswagen AG?

                              Yeah right, Toyotas are junk.

                              I agree most don't need pickup trucks, but a lot of us do. Very useful vehicle. Very popular too. We don't all live in our parents basement.


                              I like this one, the 3 liter engine VAG. it's 78 mpg, and typically around 70 mixed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ene7P7-cwZo

                              It's the same configuration in the audi a2

                              You could import one, used, as they are out of production, from germany, real cheap, maybe 3000-5000 euro. Emissions are also low, around 80 grams.

                              Who needs a pickup truck you say? I think most don't, and I rarely see anyone around here. Those who have, could probably have another car instead.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Future in Diesels?

                                Originally posted by Wild Style View Post
                                If individualism was better than looking out for the greater good of society, then why are Americans (as seen by many of the post on this forum) and as displayed during those silly ass tea parties crying foul? Those in power are doing what naturally comes with a individualistic society. They are doing what they feel is necessary to keep money in their pockets and the pockets of their friends (self preservation). I guess individualism is great for its practitioners as long as the negative effects of individualism doesn't affect them.
                                If things move as I think, people won't be able to afford heavy vehicles due to the extreme fuel costs, that then creates two classes on the road. Those who can afford a car that is "crash safe", and heavy, even making the road less safe for those who can't afford such a car, and those who don't, that is why I would like weight regulation, on what you could drive on the road, improving safety for smaller cars. I would like to eliminate trucks, ban SUV's, and have a total move over to rails as a way of moving goods, as it is 3-4 times as effective as trucking. You would also need a total new infrastructure.

                                In norway, so many complain about the road standard. Wanting there to be a lot of money spent on fixing it. They just don't understand, that they will not be able to enjoy those roads, so the best thing is to just let it fall apart, and instead use the money on rails.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X