+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    Lets say that we could divid the country in half with a line. Right down the middle, from Canada to Mexico. Let's say that the West side wanted to drive EXCLUSIVELY hybrid vehicles. NO DIESEL.

    And let's say that the East side wanted to drive EXCLUSIVELY diesel vehicles. NO HYBRIDS.

    Where would you want to live?

  2. Remove Advertisements
    HybridCars.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    I'd move to the Left coast.
    I don't think they would like me there, though

  4. #3
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    As mentioned in the other thread, right now there's a disparity between the quality of gasoline available and the quality of diesel available. If the diesel was ultra low sulpher and/or B100 biodiesel, it would be compatible with the latest emissions cleaning technology for diesels. Right now catalytic converters, soot traps, and even EGR's don't work so great with high sulpher fuel.

    Take away the sulpher and you can implement all of those methods that have been available to gasoline engines for 20-30 years already. Only then would we be able to compare the two forms of combustion in an "apples versus apples" scenario. In such a scenario, for regular vehicles, diesel wins because of it's higher thermal efficiency. Diesel fuel contains more BTU's per gallon and is more thermally efficient to boot.

    Still, there is NO reason you can't use hybrid tech with a diesel engine. VW has already said they're working to produce a diesel hybrid. That would mean that things like autostop, electric assist from low speed, and even full-electric mode at low speed should still be perfectly workable for a diesel hybrid.

  5. #4
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    But the question is today...if right now, today, the question were asked, what would be the response?

    I'd most definitely be on the West side.

  6. #5
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    I would not buy a diesel prior to the September 2006 deadline by which all diesel sold in the USA is required to be ultra low sulpher. However, having said that, keep in mind that means in 18 months ULSD will be here to stay. That's a very, very short time from now in terms of the lifecycle of vehicle technology. 18 months from now every company that makes diesel engines will be able to offer them in the USA just like they do in Europe and Japan and have them pass US emissions and be clean like their gas counterparts.

  7. #6
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    I'd live on the side with the diesels. Everything would be cheaper there. The folks on the hybrid side would be paying more for everything they bought, they'd have to install electric catenary everywhere to get rid of the diesel trains and busses. They'd be bankrupt within a couple years and miserable.

  8. #7
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    Definitely the diesel side.

    I get my water from a well.

    I would not want all those dumped batteries leaching heavy metals into my groundwater. Sure some will be recycled, but some won't give a damned and will let the cars rot away in a field. The lead-acid batteries in normal, non-hybrid cars are already a major disposal headache.

    Plus what do you propose to use to deliver your goods on the non-diesel side? Gasoline trucks would ruin your economy; hybrid trucks probably aren't practical.

    On our side we'd rely on diesel trucks for delivery, and we would continue to rely on diesel-hybrids, in the form of diesel-electric locomotives, for heavy goods haulage.

    I spent three weeks in a part of Europe where about 40-50% of the new cars on the road are diesels, last summer. Did a fair amount of cycling too. I did not have any more problems with air quality there than over here.

    Mike G.

  9. #8
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    I have been impressed with what I have read about biodiesel (B100). Apparently the only significant downsides are the poor storage-life and the tendency to gel at much higher temperatures than other fuels. Hopefully these issues will be addressed as refining and distribution techniques develop further. Does anyone have information on expected yield from soybean?

  10. #9
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    For straight biodiesel, yeah, cold weather is a real issue. It begins to gel arounds 30 degrees F, but before you panic, over the counter additives can get that down to 5-10F or so. VW I believe actually uses a heated fuel filter even which could extend useful temp ranges down to maybe 0F. There's other means of providing gel resistance too for areas that really need it during the cold months. I've read of no storage life problems however. Even good old gasoline is only rated for 3-6 months without use of a fuel stabilizer.

    Soy is not the most cost effective means of producing biodiesel on an extremely large scale. The main reason it's the leading biofuel right now is because of farm subsidies that help make certain crops cost effective up to a certain point. From what I've read, there's an oversupply of soy in the USA right now, so soy farmers are all too happy to find any buyers they can, including non-food uses such as refining into biofuels.

    For large scale production such as, say, replacing all ground based transportation fuels for the entire USA, algae production is more cost effective and requires far less land use. See the following University of New Hampshire analysis from August 2004 on the topic:

    http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

    The bottom line is that it's possible, and it would require only about 9.5 million acres of land compared to the 450 million acres already in use for farming in the US, and another 500 million acres used for grazing. We've got about a billion acres of great land in the USA and it would take only about a percent of it to replace all transportation fuels with biodiesel according to that report.

  11. #10
    Guest

    dsl vs. hbd continued...

    "The lead-acid batteries in normal, non-hybrid cars are already a major disposal headache "

    Mike, hybrid cars do not use lead acid batteries. They use an advanced Nimh which is not listed as a toxic substance.

    Perhaps the trillions of leaking carbon and alkaline flashlight batteries dead and buried would pose a more significant problem?

    For those who would live in the diesel side, you wouldn't have your diesel-electric trains, those are hybrid

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts