A new report (PDF) claims that more Americans are likely to opt for diesel vehicles over hybrids in the near future in the quest for fuel economy: total sales of hybrids and diesels will hit 2.7 million annually by 2012, and diesels will account for more than half (1.5 million) of those sales.
"A new diesel's cost burden is lower than hybrid's for similar fuel economy -- even with the 'clean' technologies needed to meet tough U.S. emissions regulations (including California)," the report claims.
Good or bad, there's little doubt that more diesel vehicles are on the horizon.
Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation
Comments
View as Threaded
GreyFlcn Posted 6:36 am
29 Jun 2007
Diesels are pretty much just as good as hybrids.
Especially mild hybrid diesels
As compared to full hybrid gasoline
Plugin Hybrids, while those make a lot of sense, they make sense as "Electric cars with a gasoline backup" as opposed to "A Prius with a bigger battery".
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:40 am
29 Jun 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:29 am
29 Jun 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 10:57 am
29 Jun 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:54 pm
29 Jun 2007
However, such predictions are based on costs of fuel, MPG, and engine costs that are highly variable and I would say suspect when predicting out 5 years in the future - but it might prove right. There's quite a few billion riding on this gamble.
Diesels and hybrids have their own maintenance issues, which is just now becoming evident. I think that maintenance could be a deciding factor as well. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:53 pm
29 Jun 2007
Who cares about hybrids or diesels. About the same gas guzzling infernal combustion from each. 2.7 million out of 17 million sold anually.
Only plugins can make enough mileage difference to turn this climate disaster and perpetual oil war situation around.
200 to 400 mpg is the right range for sucess. with conversion as well as new vehicles.
Plugin serial hybrids will do that. Electric cars with a backup generator. A diesel generator that can run on biodiesel from fry grease. Or a fuel cell/turbine that runs on biodiesel, biogas, or regular from the oil mob.
Why not write about that oh mighty mass media pundits?
26% of GHG from vehicles, is that worth reducing by 90% over 10 years? would it save the climate?
It would surely be a big step towards that goal. since these cars would be a lot cheaper to drive, it would put the nations and businesses and workers who manufacture them in a very competitive spot in the world economy. That would drive others to catch up. and further reduce gHG worldwide.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:36 pm
29 Jun 2007
Diesels atleast for 2008 seem to be cheaper than hybrids.
But past that, depending on the cost of battery technology, hybrids could overtake diesels on the pricepoint.
_
But if anything, Diesel is a good way to convince petrol-heads to conserve.
_
If anything, if anyone says "OMG we should do corn ethanol", tell em that:
Diesel costs 30-40% less than gasoline per mile
Corn Ethanol costs 30-40% more than gasoline per mile
Diesel puts up less CO2 than Corn Ethanol per mile. (Actually a lot less if you don't agree with the USDA study)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:30 pm
29 Jun 2007
Parallel hybrids with CVTs and computers to integrate electric and ICE are a lot more cosdtly to manufacture.
On the other hand, serial plugin hybrids would have fewer parts and control systems than a regular diesel with an automatic transmission. manual transmission? Still more parts. and really they have a limited market appeal.
Teenage boys like them because it's easier to burn rubber. and some older guys who think they can get better mileage with a manual transmission.
This is why serial plugins would actually be cheaper to produce. Given mass production that is. But that won't happen unless the word gets out. And this article doesn't help do that, it merely reclouds the issues involved once again.
It perpetuates the myth that ICEs of any kind are worth producing in terms of GHG reduction and fuel cost. Stop the burning. That's the problem.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:08 am
30 Jun 2007
You can even carry it in a Prius (or Diesel VW). You don't need a diesel V-8 (or V-10!) king-cab pickup to haul it.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:09 am
30 Jun 2007
Back to the ICE technology for low-emission vehicles known as TLEV, LEV, NLEV, SLEV, and ULEV. Go figure. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Coyote369 Posted 3:37 am
30 Jun 2007
I don't buy the off-peak argument, either. Here in the Pacific NW, water through turbines is water taken away from fish, regardless of what time of day that electricity is produced. And running coal plants at night releases just as much pollution as running them during the day. I don't swallow the claim that using off-peak power will forestall the need to build new facilities. It may for a short while, but how long is that going to last?
Because wind and solar won't provide nearly enough juice to run tens of millions of cars, PHEVs will require the construction of even more gas and coal plants, and probably nuclear plants (which some PHEV supporters think is just fine).
PHEVs will also require the massive expansion of strip mining in places like New Caledonia (nickel doesn't grow on trees). And after all that, PHEVs will still require gasoline.
This is a "green" solution?
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:43 am
30 Jun 2007
As Monbiot says on his website, tell people something they already know, they will thank you; tell them something they don't and they will crucify you.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:45 am
30 Jun 2007
But we don't want to fall into the Madison Avenue trap, of talking about things we can switch to ... after our next Tahoe, after our next Hemi.
People do say things like "I'll switch to <insert favorite magic car> when the time comes."
I think the important argument is that the time is now, and that good choices are here.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:22 am
30 Jun 2007
We could power 84% of today's vehicle fleet as electric using only existing power plants.
greyfalcon. net/ plugins4
And even if it's powered by the dirtiest coal availible, it'd be like driving a Hybrid in emmisions.
greyfalcon. net/ plugins3
Furthermore, one ample storage mechanism coming, would be the cars batteries themselves. (After the drivers have no use for them they still got 80% chargelife in em)
greyfalcon. net/ plugins5
_
I actually don't expect solar PV to make any strides unless it's thinfilm.
greyfalcon. net/ pv
However large scale solar, now that has promise.
California already has 2 Gigawatts of solar-thermal planned.
greyfalcon. net/ csp
greyfalcon. net/ csp2
greyfalcon. net/ csp3
Geothermal, would be a potent baseload replacement for nuclear/coal.
greyfalcon. net/ raser2
Wind, it's powerful and cheap when you got it.
_
All in all, electric drive is a lot more realistic than hydrogen or biofuels.
_
But I guess what it all comes down to is how effecient our cars are.
And short of lightweighting, the only major way is more effecient drive trains.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:23 am
30 Jun 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins5
http://greyfalcon.net/pv
http://greyfalcon.net/csp
http://greyfalcon.net/csp2
http://greyfalcon.net/csp3
http://greyfalcon.net/raser2
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:21 am
30 Jun 2007
Depressing, no?
sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:21 am
30 Jun 2007
The real issue is that car companies stand more to lose by making cars that make their sunk costs worthless.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GZetMvu8Vao
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:43 am
30 Jun 2007
Gasoline is the end (or rather waste product) of refining of oil that is mainly used for plastics and other high end hydrocarbon products.
The ideal car would be able to use raw crude, and extract as much energy value from it as possible with as little waste gases and heat.
That spells crude oil fuel cell to me.
Then we would be able to spend $70 a barrel (1 barrel = 31 gallons ) or $2.25.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:34 pm
30 Jun 2007
Go ahead PHEV fans, tell me what they cost as a Prius-upgrade today. Tell me what electric-only cars in the same class go for today.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:29 pm
30 Jun 2007
As to a typical barrel of crude oil, HALF goes into making gasoline, a quarter goes into making diesel and heating oil, a little over a tenth goes into making residual bunkers. The remainder is used for lubes, asphalt, chemicals, and all those nasties you were thinking of Mr. Bailo.
I think you were joking but crude oil cannot be used as a fuel, since it contains too much sediment and water and other contaminants. The closest thing is residual "Bunker "C" or marine heavy fuel oil (IFO 380). This fuel is so viscous it has to be heated and run through a centrifuge and a giant filter just to make it work. Not a great solution there my friend...
sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:12 pm
30 Jun 2007
Obviously the answer is to pursue plugins AND renewable distributed power generation AND storage AND conservation.
These go hand in hand, they are not mutually exclusive. Ever use that skull for anything but banging your head into the wall of reason JMG? I didn't think so.
Sorry for being so harsh with you, but I just went to a Feingolsd town meeting. I expect a little more reason from the usual suspects. don't worry those expectations are already waning.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:07 am
01 Jul 2007
Who among us actually went out on a limb and predicted that the Prius would make the top-10 selling cars in America?
It did, for a recent month.
Where will it end? No one knows certainly, but I'll repeat that no one has to frikin' wait for the holy-grail car of the new century. There is an inexpensive, four-passenger, four-door, large-cargo, hatchback, that gets 50 mpg.
(Should the holy-grail car arrive, sure I might trade-up.)
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:56 am
01 Jul 2007
Stats from the Big Three automakers bolsters this opinion, as annual sales measured each month continue to drop in the plus-ten point range, much to be benefit of Toyota and Honda (and other imports). In fact if it were not for some strength in pickup and SUV sales, there would be little reason for the Big Three to even try to stay in business - even so, the market is totally upside down. Even though the Big Three can make $5,000 of a big-ass vehicle as opposed to $500 off a compact, they're pretty much "road kill."
What do the foreign companies like Toyota and Honda do? They make money off the quick, peppy, small vehicles that already have extremely clean emissions and very good safety records. Their business model is extremely robust, considered that they buy ship their vehicles overseas or build new plants in the southern US. Anyway, that's what I meant by the "economics" of the industry.
Honda has withdrawn a popular hybrid and Toyota still limits sales of theirs. However, I'd sure like to change my electrical provider to mostly wind power and be able to go battery-electric for a vehicle. So far all I've seen are some on-road versions of golf carts made by Club Car that seem popular ... but maybe I'm missing something. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:25 am
01 Jul 2007
(Note this assumes a $6000 clean air act tax credit which is already on the books)
Permalink
Coyote369 Posted 4:56 am
01 Jul 2007
The link you provided to the PNNL study confirms that, "in the West, and specifically the Pacific Northwest, there is limited extra electricity because of the large amount of hydroelectric generation that is already heavily utilized." You can forget about dam breaching if PHEVs become popular. Things are tight as it is.
What we need is serious reflection on the irrationality of our individualistic car culture. PHEVs don't encourage that---on the contrary, they are explicitly designed to perpetuate that culture.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 6:01 am
01 Jul 2007
I suppose what is galling is that any excess capacity for electricity would primarily be derived from coal and natural pas electricity generation stations. There are about 158 such permits now being considered by the US EPA.
Let's not blame it all on anticipated growth in PHEV (which most really go have small IC generators that use fossil fuels, right?). Industrial, commercial, and residential demand for electricity will continue to be the main problem areas no matter what else enters the equation.
sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Steven T Posted 1:27 am
02 Jul 2007
I don't think Toyota can be criticized for moving too slowly into hybrids. What I find disheartening is that the company has invested so heavily in gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs. This goes a long way toward explaining why Toyota teamed up with the Not So Big Three to oppose a major boost to CAFE regulations.
Note that Toyota's investment in gas guzzlers transcends its product line. It recently built a brand-new production facility in Texas to pump out full-sized pickups. That's a HUGE investment which could be jeopardized by tougher fuel-economy standards.
Dirty little secret: Toyota has been as good as you could reasonably expect on hybrids, but not all that much better than GM in its overall product strategy.
Permalink
Yehuda Inbar AIA Posted 12:16 am
04 Jul 2007
Yehuda Inbar, AIA
Permalink