As I Had Thought
 

Let me start out with the observation that the prices of gasoline and diesel are high. Obviously the price of crude has a big effect.

What I want to zero in on is the fact that diesel fuel costs eighty cents a gallon more than regular unleaded (or premium for that matter) gasoline. The US is pretty much alone in that difference.

This table is in euros.

gasoline-germany.com - International Gas / Petrol / Diesel prices -

From the link:

England
91 Octane Gasoline: €1.34
Diesel: €1.22
Spread: Gasoline is 10% more expensive than diesel


France
91 Octane Gasoline: €1.39
Diesel: €1.32
Spread: Gasoline is 5% more expensive than diesel


Japan
91 Octane Gasoline: €0.97
Diesel: €0.75
Spread: Gasoline is 29% more expensive than diesel


Australia
91 Octane Gasoline: €0.94
Diesel: €1.18
Spread: Gasoline is 26% more expensive than diesel


Germany
91 Octane Gasoline: €1.43
Diesel: €1.33
Spread: Gasoline is 18% more expensive than diesel

But at my local gas station
91 Octane Gasoline: $3.83
Diesel: $4.45
Spread: Diesel is 16% more expensive than premium gasoline


So let’s put the myth that the spread of diesel over gasoline has anything whatsoever to do with world demand down as being busted. In most countries that tend to prefer diesel cars, diesel is less expensive than gasoline. But in the US the reverse is true.

There is only one plausible reason: Ultra-Low (15 ppm) Sulfur Fuel is required ONLY in the US. It costs more money to remove the sulfur. This relationship was not true at all in 2006, prior to the advent of ULSD requirements. Gasoline and diesel cost roughly the same (gasoline was more expensive in summer, diesel more expensive in winter) prior to ULSD.

Diesel in the US is more expensive than gasoline and you can exclusively thank the EPA.

I thought Europe had been using low sulfur diesel for longer than us?

Also, isn't diesel subsidized by the government in some countries?

European countries tax gasoline higher to encourage diesel use...or so Europeans tell me.

Big Dave -

The plot gets messier :

Ultra-low sulfur diesel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To me, this implies that we are just transitioning our diesel fuel to more closely match the EU chemistry. I think we are paying for the transition costs.

Question: In the above Wiki, they are saying that our pre-ULSD was not compatible with EU diesel because the EU emissions equipment would be poisoned by the US diesel fuel. Does that sound right? Are the current EU diesels designed for <= 50 PPM sulfur diesel fuel?

CarloSW2

Yup, the rest of the civilized world is low sulfur and for longer too, gets 33 countries a better low sulfur score than the US according to IFQC - Top 100 . All the above countries except Australia got a better score than the US. The Kanuks even beat us at position 33 :)

I don't know about subsidies. Every time someone dies in the sand, is it a subsidy?

Thank you EPA!

I'm sorry, but your list and conclusion couldn't be further from the truth.

» August Fuel Price Report Fleet Directory News: THE Fleet Industry links directory

Why is diesel more expensive than petrol?
Why is diesel more expensive than petrol? | This is Money

Diesel is more expensive than gasoline in most of europe. Scroll down for the list.
Czech diesel price ranked fourth-highest in Europe - Prague Daily Monitor - 21.07.2008

The list at the begining of this thread is so incredibly wrong, it actually claims diesels in the the USA is cheaper than gasoline.
http://gasoline-germany.com/internat...phtml?land=229

The high price of diesel has nothing to do with ULSD or the EPA and everything to do with supply and demand. Over the last few years the whole world (not just europe) has been switching from gasoline powered cars to diesel powered cars. Refiners on the other hand can't infinitely vary the proportion of diesel to gasoline they can extract from a barrel of oil. They can only go so far one way or another before drastically increasing the cost of refining. But because the US has remained largely a gasoline market, it has been able to survive without building a any new refineries in the last 30 years by importing refined gasoline from markets where diesel is more in favor.


The upfront cost of a diesel engine plus the cost of fuel more than offsets any fuel economy benefits. The huge premiums I was used to seeing on Craigslist for old beat up Mercedes and TDIs have started to disappear as people wake up to the reality that diesel costs an additional 60 cents a gallon. Sure you still have SVO conversions and biodiesel. If you can find it, more power to you.

cheers
Justin

For the People, by the People
 

In defense of the ULSD decision, and the EPA, here are a few more data points to consider...

Older Diesel engines produce soot. Some more than others. This translates into "Particulate Matter" or PM.

This just in: PM2.5 levels in many areas of the Country are at an unhealthy level:

http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/20...aps/natmap.gif

The biggest offenders are coal power plants and vehicle exhaust. Older diesels have a high output of PM comparable to gasoline engines -- which is why action was taken.

We're making ourselves sick. It seems like a sensible regulation to me. EPA bashing is the easy way out.

More info: EPA Regulatory Actions for Nonattainment.

RH77

OK, so you want more?

Point your browsers here.

Common sense unleashed.

RH77

Australia
91 Octane Gasoline: €0.94
Diesel: €1.18
Spread: Gasoline is 26% more expensive than diesel

Sorry but not so.

Gasoline is LESS expensive than diesel at the pump.

Diesel is and has been for many years more expensive than unleaded (gasoline) here.
The main reason is the rates of tax levied on the two different products.

Cheers , Pete.

I have to disagree. Fuel is the often single biggest expense over the lifetime of a road vehicle, sometimes exceeding the purchase value of the vehicle itself. Diesel would have to cost a whole lot more than 16% over gasoline to offset FE benefits.

I own 2 compact sedans, one a gasser and the other a TDI, so it's easy for me to compare. I think it's a fair engine comparison, both being 4 cyl engines with pretty much the same displacement.

Doing the same type of driving with both my cars I get the following:

Highway only
TDI: 65 MPG
Elantra: 43 MPG

City only
TDI: 50 MPG
Elantra: 33 MPG

In a 50/50 city/highway mix and gas at $4/gal while diesel at $5/gal, a 25% difference, the TDI cost $1830 less per 100k miles than the Elantra.

The premium you pay for the diesel engine is partly transferred to the resale value so it's not a sunk cost.

The death of the small diesel engine has already begun in europe.
GERMANY: Diesel share has peaked - study: Automotive News & Comment

In France, gasoline is more expensive because government get less taxes on diesel since 70's. I heard that at this time petrol companies had too much diesel they had to export and not enough gasoline so they had to import a lot.

Currently, always in France, without taxes the diesel is more expensive than the gasoline, but with the taxes it's the contrary.

When prices began to climb this year, gasoline and diesel were roughly at the same price. I heard it was because we had to import more diesel. Since a few week, diesel is again less expensive.

About low sulfur gas, it's 50ppm max since 2005 all over Europe, but 10ppm is available since then, noticeably because some particle filters do need them. It will be mandatory at 10 ppm at 2009/01/01, except in some eastern European countries that joined Europe lately. Some northern European countries have 2-5ppm available.

So in France we prefer diesel because if you drive more than the average it's cheaper, except when you buy an old second hand diesel car so it's immediately cheaper whatever how much you drive.

Denis.

I agree. A lot of us pay a lot more a month for fuel than what a car payment would be. Plus you pay the car off eventually, you never stop using fuel.

It cost more to fill the tank in my Pontiac 6000 wagon than what I paid for it.

I suppose it all depends on which flavor of Kool-Aid you prefer. Those who prefer the EPA Kool-Aid will never believe anything else so are beyond reasoning with.

Foreign gasoline and diesel prices are tricky to use because local taxation varies a lot. However one thing is clear. In 2006, before ULSD in the US, gasoline and diesel cost about the same (with some regional and seasonal variations) within 25 cents a gallon at the most. In 2007, ULSD came along and within a couple of months, diesel in the US cost 80 cents to a dollar more per gallon. If that does not make you smell a rat then you have been snorting the EPA Kool-Aid as well as drinking it.

If it were truly a supply and demand thing the change would have been far more gradual. A sudden change indicates a single powerful cause. If the link in post #17 is credible, then demand in Germany – a place where diesels have always been popular – is dropping. I’m not buying the “supply-and-demand” myth a bit.

One thing for certain: Diesels built before Tier II (needs ULSD) are considerably more efficient than Tier II engines. My old school bus motor has zero emissions controls on it and no pickup diesel engine today can get close to it for MPG. You can take a International 6.4 or a Cummins 6.7 or the Tier II Duramax and put them in a truck of similar configuration to mine, drive it the same, and at best you get 21 MPG. Most guys are seeing 16 MPG – about what a gas F-150 gets. Tier II has wrecked diesel performance. If past is prologue, it will be twenty-five years for diesel performance to recover.

Post number 8 had a map showing nonattainment areas for PM 2.5 and the statement was made that these areas are at an “unhealthy” level. Who says they are “unhealthy?” The EPA? The EPA is not credible. These areas have been submitted to arbitrarily set ambient concentration levels. These levels have nothing to do with health – hospitalizations for respiratory problems today per 100,000 population are about the same as they were in 1970 when the EPA was established. The air quality is certainly better today than in 1970 and half as many people smoke as in 1970, but hospitalizations are about the same. The EPA’s statistical medicine does not add up. The air quality is better but there is no metric for any health benefit. The real dynamic here is that the EPA is fighting for its survival. Like many governmental organizations, it was established for a specific purpose, and like many governmental organizations it has been too effective at slaying its dragon. Air quality is the best it has been in living memory, but the EPA needs to keep coming up with new “health scares” to justify its existence. If it fails to do so, the EPA becomes like the Rural Electrification Agency or TVA – backwater agencies subject to sunsetting whenever congress ever feels the need to actually cut something.

I’ve had the opportunity to work closely with both oil companies and with the EPA and I find the oil companies to be a great deal more believable.

What will you guys do if the McGyan process and algal biodiesel work out? Would you prefer the US make biodiesel and export it rather than using it domestically? Your precious spark-ignition engines will not run on biodiesel.

In the scheme of getting better MPG the efficiency advantage of non-Tier II diesels over gasoline engines is so great that all the other stuff mentioned here (duct tape over air intakes, etc) looks like peanuts by comparison. For instance low-rolling resistance tires might gain you a 5% MPG improvement but a pre-Tier II diesel in the same vehicle gives you a 25-50% improvement in MPG. Post #11 and my experience bear that out. One does not throw away an advantageous technology without getting a substantial benefit, but that is precisely what ULSD and Tier II – both promulgated by the extremists at the EPA – have done.

In addition to the increase in fuel cost, and the reduction in engine efficiency the cost of added equipment makes Tier II diesels command a $12,000 premium over a gas engine in the same car. IF Honda, M-B, and VW import diesels in the near future, how much of a premium do you think these engines will fetch? I’d bet the M-B diesel will cost $20,000 more than the same car with a gas engine. The barrier filter on a Ford diesel pickup costs $4,500 (dealer’s price) alone. By comparison my old school bus motor cost me an extra $2,700. I think that pretty much kills fuel-efficient diesels in the US and condemns most people to driving inefficient gas pigs.

Go to blazes, EPA.

Diesel premiums in Canada:

The 2009 Jetta 2.0 TDI is $2300 over the 2.5 gasser.

Oddly enough the 2008 MB E320 3.0 BlueTEC is also $2300 over the 3.0 E300 gasser.

common sense says that the algal biodiesel is the ONLY RENEWABLE alternative gasoline performance. I can only hope to construct a 1000 sq.ft. hydroponic alge farm in my backyard, cause when my kids can drive, gas will be 15 bucks a gallon

That map really puzzles me. I don't see anything on the source, but if it's recent, say the last couple of months, there's a more likely explanation than diesel for most of the areas west of the Rockies, and that's all the forest fires. Most of California was smoked out for a month or more.

And the rest of those red areas, like northwestern Utah. Why are they so high? Maybe all those speed record attempts on the Bonneville Salt Flats, you suppose? The northern corner of Montana, and south central Oregon? Areas not exactly noted for a lot of diesel engines, but with a lot of forest or rangeland subject to fires.

jamesqf -

It's from 2006 :

Area Designations for 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standards | US EPA

CarloSW2

Actually, it was released just a few days ago (August 19, 2008). Check the link in my post with the picture ...

Regulatory Actions | Area Designations for 2006 Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standards | US EPA

And the map with explanations and datestamp from that page: EPA Response to State Recommendations on 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Designations | Area Designations for 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standards | US EPA

RH77

What a fun topic, but we can all try to figure out why fuel costs more and everyone will have a different idea. Same with why gasoline costs so much more. There's a thousand reasons. If you hate the epa for cleaning up diesel then i question your sanity. We have been trying to get more diesels on the road in the us and one of the main reasons we couldn't was because of how dirty they were. Now we have cleaner diesel technology that would allow those diesels to hop the pond...but our fuel was too dirty. Now it's cleaner, but it costs a little more. Aw well, at least my skin isn't melting from the rain. And you can't expect diesel to stay dirt cheap as oil becomes more expensive. Gas has gone up substantially, so has diesel. Who cares how it compares to the uk...i'm sure somehow it's apples to oranges(tax, grade, something is bound to be different). If you want things to cost the same as in europe then why aren't you getting upset and questioning why gasoline isn't 9.00 a gallon like in germany? Who cares why it costs more, lets use less or something else. Everything costs more right now anyway.

The combination of making the price of diesel fuel nearly a buck a gallon higher, reducing engine efficiency to the point that diesels barely get any more MPG than gas pigs, and making the engines be sold at a huge premium for no quantiable benefit kills the diesel in the US. This forecloses any serious efforts to increase fleet MPG. You can play your little games with duct tape on your radiator inlets forever, but that will not be as effective as having an engine that is 25-50% more efficient.

VW Jettas with gas-pig engines struggled to get more than 25 MPG. Diesel (pre-Tier II) Jettas routinely got 40. With ULSD and Tier II, that effiency is just a memory.

Yeah. I've got it in for the EPA. They slew their dragon in the 80s but they keep wrecking the country to continue justifying their existence. They are wrecking my country and I despise them for that reason.

Yeah, what he said.
S.

I used to believe in the EPA, but what Ive seen and read recently has me wondering where they went off on a sideways tangent and who is steering that money pit now.

If the EPA had anything to do with the price of diesel I would say they are doing the rest of us a service, but I can't give them credit for that. That theory has already been debunked. But I can't help but smile at the thought that we will never have to deal with the diesel emissions nightmare that Europeans have been living under for the last 10 years.

European Diesel Decline Has Begun | The Truth About Cars

Green Car Congress: Diesel Exhaust Associated with Higher Heart Attack, Stroke Risk in Men

Diesel exhaust nanoparticles can get trapped in lungs

Roadside diesel pollution poses heart danger: study | Science & Health | Reuters

A danger that swirls in the air of Europe - International Herald Tribune

BBC NEWS | Health | Diesel pollution 'clogs arteries'

RH77 -

Thanks for the correction. I should have said the image was from a URL that had /2006standards/ in tha path.

CarloSW2

Take a deep breath and check your facts, Dave. I'm looking at a 2009 Diesel Jetta rated at 30/41.

Not only is it rated over 40 MPG highway, but this rating is utterly conservative. Real world fuel economy on the highway is very likely to be over 50 MPG.

If by dragon you mean pollution and emissions, you're way off. We just recently started reducing smog emissions like we should. Go to the epa, you will see that even four bangers(gas) in 2000 were putting out over 60# of smog forming emissions,now comparable cars are putting out 6# a year. That's 90% less smog and acid rain forming emissions because epa standards are becoming more strict. And we have all seen the recent reduction of co2 emissions. So don't say their job is done because the air in the cities still sucks and we're still doing more damage. Diesels were really dirty, they are getting cleaner and I'm happy for that. And i have yet to see a car model that even comes close in their rated fuel economy in gas to what they get in diesel. I think you're just using the epa as a scape goat for the side effects of cleaner diesel. Epa didn't design the engines, they just set the standards. Blame it on the car companies that Didn't take the initiative in the first place and are now making all of us pay for it. I for one don't hate the epa(i disagree with them when they do stupid things) but i like to breathe and not have lung cancer.

The bottom line for the EPA is ambient air quality. They have been measuring that since 1970. Establishing a baseline was the logical base line. The air stunk prior to 1970.

Regs began spewing out and big strides were made in ambient air quality during the 70s but the law of diminishing returns hit them hard and improvements sincw the mid-80s has been marginal. Every improvement since then has been small has come at ever-higher prices.

Literally tens of millions of US jobs have been chased offshore because of enviro-regs, and now we see the most powerful technology available for increasing MPG has been foeclosed.

The EPA is just another agency thay has done what it was put there to do but has now gone rogue to maintain its existence.

dann_04 -

I think this graphic shows a good comparison :

2008 | NGK News | NGK INSULATORS, LTD.
http://www.ngk.co.jp/english/news/20...ge/0611_02.gif

I don't think you can argue that the US EPA is the e-vile mastermind of ULSD unless you think they control the EPA equivalents of Japan and Europe too.

Changing the subject ...

Diesel Fuel Prices: What Consumers Should Know
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...ges/barrel.png

Energy Information Administration Brochures
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...intversion.pdf

Question: From the above picture, is it true that you get about twice as many gallons of gas as diesel for every barrel of oil or .... ????

CarloSW2

BINGO!
This is what I've been trying to point out. Refinaries can vary those proportions by about 1-2% in either direction but for the most part these are fixed numbers. If you increase the energy input dramatically you can extract gasoline from even the heaviest part of crude but that is a very expensive route that most refiners are not equipped to handle. The type of crude oil such as "light sweet crude" or "heavy sour" will also have an influence on the sulfur content as well as the cost of refining it into either diesel fuel or gasoline. The problem remains that the whole world (ex the US) has been replacing gasoline engines with diesels which has driven up the cost of the fuel to the point that any per mile cost advantage as disappeared. The price of diesel fuel will fall when diesel engined cars go out of favor in the rest of the world. I wouldn't bet on it any time soon.

So, do you have a creditable source to cite for this information?

I know that I'm not going to change the way you view this issue

I simply have a concern that other readers of this thread would be receiving inaccurate information or pure opinion.

RH77

(Gets up on soapbox)

If you have a solution to dealing with hazardous wastes and chemicals that doesn't cost money I'm sure industry would love to talk to you.

In the late '60s my mom worked in a factory that made mercury vapor lamps. At the end of the day they would sweep up all the loose mercury and flush it down the sink, into the sewer, and out into the Merrimac river. The same river that used to run red from the blood from the meat packing plant. Other times it would run blue or green when they dumped the dyes from the fabric factories. Ah, the good old days.

Now you can actually eat the fish you catch from the river. Because now there ARE fish in the river.

Yes, lots of those jobs left to go overseas, but they weren't great jobs. Those same buildings are now occupied by high tech companies. The lamp plant is still there but they dispose of their haz waste properly and pretreat the wastewater.

In 1959 my family moved from NH to California. My dad drove a bus in L.A. He always told us about his favorite route that ran up into some hills east of the city near UCLA. There was a turnaround that overlooked the city and he almost always saw a blanket of smog with a few tall buildings sticking through it. In 1998 my parents drove all through the western states and visited California and my dad drove up to that turnaround and was amazed. He never knew you could see the Pacific Ocean from there.

I'm willing to pay more for a car if it means that things will continue to get better.

The EPA is far from perfect, (it IS a government agency after all) but they have a constant fight against attitudes like yours.

(Steps down from soapbox)

:thumbup:

There is no doubt that in its early days the EPA did a lot of good. I remember just how bad the air and water were in the mid-60s.

But somewhere along the line (I ink about 1976) the passed the point of diminishing returns and kept on promulgating job-killing regs long after thewt were on the asymptote of environmental improvement.

ULSD/Tier II are a great example. Even the EPA admits there will be no measurable improvement in overall air quality, but the cost, as we have seen is tremendous.

The US has been robbed of the most powerful technological tool we have for improving MPG but no measurable benefit will come of that robbery.

Bury your strawman. I'm not calling for 1962 regs. Just maybe 1989 regs.

I'd love to see this in writing.

You're graph quotes grams per kWh which is a different way of measuring engine power, just like hp. So if you wthink about it, typically a u.s. car has alot more horsepower than a typical u.k or japanese car. So lets say you have a u.s. car with 150hp and puts out 2g/hp. It would put out 300g correct(not saying constantly, but just keep reading.) a u.k. car with 70hp and 3g/hp would put out 210g. So on your graph the us car would apear 2/3 cleaner than the uk car, when infact the uk car would be the one putting out about 2/3 the emissions of the us car. Yes the us has stricter per kWh standards, but that's because we have these crazy big cars that have to have tons of horsepower as well as the fact that we have so many freaking cars on the road the per kWh standard has to be tighter to even come close to the uk or japan. That graph is a horrible example and just looks good to people who don't understand what it really means. A g/km or g/mile representation would show better how dirty our cars are in comparison.

dann_04 -

Thank you. My main point was to show that the EPA is "not acting alone". But, your distinction makes the USA/EPA 2010 target mild in comparison with other countries.

CarloSW2

The EPA does not control the regs of Europe and Japan, but their agencies are dominated by like-minded people.

Regardless of who, the what is the same: Diesel cars are dead in the US and maybe in other nations as their regs bite in.

...still standing in front of SuperTrooper's soapbox and applauding his speech.


RH77