Newest Diesels Can Now Better Hybrids For Green House Gas Emissions

I think that this only shows the need for diesel hybrids. Hybrid technology is still very relevant to the future of the automobile. The combined benefits of both are unbeatable for the near future.

— BMW_DRVR (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 3:27:43 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 11   

"Tests by environmental website Clean Green Cars have confirmed that current petrol/battery hybrids offer no significant CO2 advantage over an equivalent diesel of similar performance"

So in other words, there is an advantage on the petrol/battery hybrid though not significant. And, how exactly can New Diesels better Hybrids? I understand that diesel technology is improving, but Hybrid technology isn't standing still either. You're comparing the New diesels to the 4+ year old Hybrid technology. It would be like me comparing the current Hybrids to the old diesel cars from Europe. Although both technology's Diesel/Hybrid are both pricey, the difference is still the cost of fuel.

— Lemonade (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 3:38:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 6   

I like the idea of diesels, I might even consider one as my next purchase. However, there is some information that is also important to think about other than CO2 emissions:

"The improved efficiency of diesel engines can also help reduce oil consumption. It should be noted, however, that it takes about 25% more oil to make a gallon of diesel fuel than a gallon of gasoline, so we should really look at how a vehicle does on fuel efficiency in terms of "oil equivalents." Thus, we need to adjust the mileage claims for diesel vehicles downward by about 20% when comparing them to gasoline-powered vehicles."

"But when it comes to smog-forming pollutants and toxic particulate matter, also known as soot, today's diesels are still a lot dirtier than the average gasoline car.

TIERY-EYED

US tailpipe standards for diesel cars, which have historically been weaker than those for gasoline cars, are being updated to force diesel and gasoline vehicles to meet the same set of emissions standards. The tiered structure of the new "Tier 2" standards, however, allows automakers to produce some cars that release two times more soot and smog-forming pollution than the average new vehicle and still meet their targets. Also, until the standards are fully implemented in 2009, existing loopholes allow some cars to pollute even more.

There are three size categories of soot particles:

* Large soot particles (>10 microns) deposit from the air into your nose, throat, and lungs, causing coughing and irritating your throat, and are ejected from your body through sneezing, coughing, and nose blowing.
* Coarse soot particles (~10 microns) are inhaled into your windpipe and settle there, causing more irritation and more coughing.
* Fine and ultra-fine soot particles (less than 2.5 microns) are the most successful at invading your body—they're small enough to travel deep into your lungs. Once there, these soot particles can irritate and mutate the most sensitive tissues in your lungs, your alveoli. These air sacs exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide from the air you breathe with blood in your capillaries, thus allowing your circulatory system to carry oxygen to the rest of your body. Soot particles, however, make this task more difficult because they cause inflammation and scarring of the alveoli. This also strains your heart because it must work harder to compensate for oxygen loss.

Soot also finds other ways to harm your body, including:

* chronic bronchitis,
* asthma,
* reduced ability of respiratory system to fight infections and remove foreign particles, and
* cancer.

All this means that diesel pollution can be deadly, causing premature mortality through cancer or heart and respiratory illnesses. The California Air Resources Board has concluded that diesel soot is responsible for 70% of the state's risk of cancer from airborne toxics. In the population as a whole, studies have shown a 26% increase in mortality in peopl

— _43LE (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:24:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I'm all for diesels. In fact, I was a strong proponent of bring diesels cars to the US these past few years. But someone has to get Congress to drag those oil executives to Washington and testify as to why diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline.

It is worst enough that diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline when it should be equal in price. But at more than 20% expensive than gasoline, it makes owning diesel cars for the sole purpose of saving gas pointless. Are the oil executives purposely inflating diesel fuel prices to keep the demand for diesel fuel cars down, which translates to more gas consuming automobiles and higher profit.

— investor27 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:29:52 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

My vote is for diesel-hybrid. If GM attached their upcoming Mild-hybrid system to their upper-end 1.9L diesel, I'd gladly pay the premium.

People always talk about the time it takes to make your money back on hybrids (and sometimes diesels). My view is that I'd rather take 10yrs to get my money back, so long as I can minimize how much money I send those jerks in Arabia. I'd rather spend the extra money to support R&D and hi-tech industry, even if I didn't break even.

— neutral (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:50:44 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

Would be nice if the link brought you directly to the article.

Once again the Europeans (or whatever planet .za is) load down the Prius with sandbags while driving with the doors open.
7L/100km? Canada rates it as 4.2L/100km, and I'll give it our standars may be easier, so more like 5L/100km. The new EPA rates the Prius 5.1L/100km combined.

Diesels are only cleaner than before because the oil companies were forced to take out the vast majority of the pollutans during refining. Diesel dropped from 300+ppm to 10ppm before it even comes close to a diesel engine.

I agree, diesels are good for large vehicles like SUVs and industrial use, I noticed that all the examples above are midsize at best.

chewy,
I would love to see where a new Jetta TDI is cleaner than a Prius besides on the VW brochure. If diesels are so clean, put your lips around a Prius and a Jetta's tailpipe at a red light, see which car kills you first.

For a region that can't supply its own oil, Europeans sure love to waste the stuff.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 6:37:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I forgot to mention how I love their logic.

"diesels generally used less fuel - and therefore emitted less CO2"

That's like saying 1L of gasoline requires more oil than .9L of diesel. What's funny is that a hybrid will get the same mileage as a diesel with fewer litres of fuel. A diesel Jetta will actually require you to import nearly 2x the amount of oil than a Prius would, but hey, why rain on the diesel lovers parade. Ignorance is bliss.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 6:43:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

"For a region that can't supply its own oil, Europeans sure love to waste the stuff"

Nobody in the world wasted more of the stuff than the USA, and it cannot supply its own oil either, IDIOT.

— steve27t (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 7:40:33 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I think people are misinterpreting facts when they say things like "it takes 25% more oil to make a gallon of diesel fuel than a gallon of gasoline" and "7 gallons can be refined from one barrel of crude oil, while 20 gallons of gas can be refined from one barrel of crude." Actually, the typical American refinery extracts 20 gallons of gas AND 7 gallons of diesel fuel AND many other products (aviation fuel, kerosene, solvents, plastics, lubricants, heating oil, etc.) from one 42-barrel of crude oil . To a certain degree this mix of refined products can be adjusted - for instance, making more heating oil and less gasolline in the winter, more gasoline in the summer, etc.

IN addition, American refineries are designed to extract more gasoline and less Diesel fuel from crude than European refineries, due to the fact that Americans use more gasoline and Europeans use more diesel fuel. (I've forgotten the names for the two different refinery types.) Converting between the two refinery types isn't easy.

Diesel fuel has historically cost less than regular gasoline, but that has not been the case for the last three years. Excepting the U.S., the world has jumped on the diesel bandwagon. That, a temporary lack of refining capacity for the new low-sulfur diesel fuel, political instability in the Middle East and Nigeria, and the increased demand for fuel by the emerging economies (China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc.), has caused American diesel fuel prices to be higher than gasoline. (In my neck of the woods - Richmond, Virginia - diesel fuel costs about $0.50 a gallon more than premium gasoline.)

— Audiphile (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 10:31:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

steve,
The US produces half the oil it uses. The US is more able to go import free if oil prices remain high.
The rest comes from Canada, Mexico and Hugo, although his stuff isn't even fuel grade oil. All the US has to do is cut consumption by 25% (which recent gas prices are showing is attainable) and all the US needs is itself and Canada.

Even with Eruope believing they're being much more energy efficient, they still need oil from the middle east which just happens to be under US guardianship.

It's fitting that Europe and China have shown their true colours by scrambling for bids to develop Iraq's oil fields when they were so opposed to the invasion. They probably just wanted to prevent US companies from gaining access, even if it meant undermining their own precious U.N.

btw, the US has the world's largest coal reserves, so if it has to, they can go nuclear and coal in the short term. Even with tons of nuclear plants, Europeans (notably the French) still have to import most of their oil.

Ironic that the US and China have become the leaders in wind power generation (US innovating, China waiting to steal and copy. Slave labour helps to keep costs low too).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/28/wind.energy/index.html

bintin,
When the Prius stop at a redlight or is running below 40km an hour, it doesn't emit anything, its pure electric. Diesels burn oil no matter if they're idling or running.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 12:02:46 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

MT "This article conveniently leaves out the LS600h and RX400h which are cleaner than any Euro diesel actually."

Ignorant Idiot.

— steve27t (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 8:26:03 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

This test where done on new diesels and they have a 50,000 mile break in period so that number will only get better with time.

Then when you use WVO/biodiesel and the Algea based diesel fuels those numbers will go down even more.

The way out of our current situation is to have multiple fuels available.
I would love to have an electric for work commuting and diesel truck for trips.

— wbradd3797 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:01:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

steve,
Get some facts.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_imp_net-energy-oil-imports-net
US consumes 20 million barrels a day but they have a net import of only 10 million. Wonder where the other 50% comes from?

holmstar,
So why doesn't France do it then? It'd save the US from having to secure oil for Europe.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 8:44:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Many are confusing diesel power with diesel fuel. A diesel-powered car needs no fuel made from petroleum to run, unlike regularly-designed gas engines. In fact, a diesel can run on three different renewable fuels without modification and without significant loss in fuel economy. We also must continue to keep in mind that when we write about hybrids, we're assuming an electric motor in combination with a internal-combustion engine (ICE) and since a hybrid uses an ICE for propulsion, wouldn't it make sense to design that electric propulsion with the most economical ICE. The most economical and efficient ICE known to man is the compression-ignition engine or what is commonly referred to as a "diesel".

So again, I don't get the argument. We're pairing a gas engine with an electric engine and then stating that it can sometimes do better than a diesel, which doesn't use two different systems for propulsion. If you like gas engines, then choose a car that has one. If you like diesel engines, then choose one that has one, but you'll pay a fuel economy penalty unless you choose one with advanced system that also includes an electric drive.

1. Biodiesel
2. Renewable Diesel
3. Green Diesel

And if one really must settle for dino diesel, it takes only 10% more petroleum to refine it; not 25%. Of course the fuel also has 10% more energy density and requires less energy to refine it.

— gregsfc (View Profile)

Posted on 8/9/2008 11:16:29 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Bio-anything generally uses just as much energy to make as it puts out (sometimes even less, GMC Sierra vs FlexFuel model, mileage is 1/3 less).
The exception is sugar-cane but the Northern Hemisphere can't grow it, and if everybody switched, the speculators would have a ball jacking up the futures market.

Bio-anything raises food prices.

Prove your 10%. Nobody has been able to disprove the 25% number.
On top of that, ULSD gets about 2% lower mileage than the dirty stuff.
Richard Branson even admits his biofuel investment/project is a failure since isn't efficient enough and inadvertently raised grain/feed costs.

You can recharge a hybrid's batteries with solar panels, you can't do that with diesels. The Toyota a-Bat is already toying with that idea.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/10/2008 1:53:32 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1