the single most effective thing we could do
 

the single most effective thing we, as a nation, could do to reduce fuel usage.... short of getting rid of big SUV's

switch to diesel engines.. like in europe.. diesel engines are 40% more efficient than a gas engine and the new models meet or exceed emissions..

Small diesel powered cars could easily make our usage of oil be cut in half.. combine that with the biofuel production wed be sitting in a much better situation. biodiesel is half the emissions of regular diesel

And even imagine a diesel electric hybrid ... 100mpg would be a easily attainable tank average

I would be first in line if it were affordable, if they mass produced like they do in Europe it should be. A jetta tdi being 25k or more.... not paying that for a jetta.

Yea, if they didn't cost a lot more then a traditional ICE then I would definitely consider it. However, diesel prices would also have to follow suit and get closer to the level of unleaded gas as well, I'll be damned if I ever pay $4.70 a gallon for fuel.

Can we remind you of this statement in about a year? :D

Diesel is going the way of the steam engine very quickly. The fuel costs 25% more than gasoline both here and in europe. Any fuel economy benefit will be lost in the additional cost of the fuel. Diesel fuel takes more crude oil to produce than gasoline. With HCCI gasoline engines on the horizon and hybrid technology here today, diesel will remain the domain of heavy trucks, trains and generators. Even in that market, there are signs of people trying to switch away from the dirty, expensive fuel in favor of natural gas, LPG, GLT and small turbine engines.
The cost of cleaning up diesel exhaust to California standards is another barrier to entry.

In short, diesel is dead.

I beg to differ, in other countries diesel is far more popular than here inthe states.. GM screwed over the reputation for diesels in the 80's.. however most diesels are far more reliable than most gas engines.

Many manufactures new diesels can meet even California's emission's standards. Like BMW etc.

The rise of biodiesel is even more appealing.. especially since biodiesel reduces emmisions even further than gasoline engines.. funny whats old is new again, the diesel engine was originally invented to run on peanut oil.. or other locally grown oils.

25% added fuel expense doesn't make sense? when your consumption is 40% less.. for your logic to make sense diesel would need to be 40% higher than gas .. right now with gas at $4.00 a gallon diesel would need to be over $5.60 a gallon to be less efficient from a economic standpoint.

I'd be nice to see some sources. I'm seeing some things mentioned that I know to be untrue.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...in&oref=slogin

EDIT: N/M, I forgot everyone here is an expert on the subject.

No it isn't... No it isn't

Diesels are 40% more efficient than a gas engine, diesel fuel is easier to refract than gasoline, diesel's do not produce the same emissions as gassers, diesels can run clean... It's not dead, It's undergoing a revolution..

plus, steam didn't die, IT WAS MURDERED!!! The gas car is the bullet that did the job not only to steam but to electrics... that and America's abhorrent laziness.

* EDIT: month...or less. :(

In about a year? How about a month?

I think switching to diesel would be impractical due to refining technology. You can only get a certain fraction of diesel (and gasoline) from oil. Diesel used to be cheaper than gas because there was less demand for the diesel fraction: now it's more expensive due to increased demand.

But in the long term, both diesel and gasoline IC engines are less than optimally efficient. Stirling engines can get significantly more useful energy out of each gallon of fuel than either. Their drawback has been that they are slow to warm up & accelerate, but combine them with a hybrid electric drive and that limit goes away, and the hybrid adds fuel savings from regenerative braking.

In the short term, though, the single change that would produce the greatest savings is to mandate that every car have a real-time fuel consumption gauge :-)

The single most effective things we could do are eliminate dependent tax deductions and change the school funding formula so that parents pay it. But that will never happen.

No, because if all parents had to pay for school directly, far far more of them would demand a lot more performance and accountability. Far more parents would start to pay close attention to what is being done to their kids at school. The magnitude of THAT feces-storm would be so huge that the whole school system would be overhauled, by parents with torches and pitchforks, from top to bottom. And that would step on important toes.
People don't ask too much of things they "think" of as "FREE"

Sounds good to me! :thumbup:

Diesel is losing market share due to the high cost of fuel in America
http://blogs.automobilemag.com/62511...tum/index.html
And Europe
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06...otential-buye/
Diesel emissions in European cities have been a disaster. Try going walking a few miles around Barcelona in August. I have. Its worst than LA.
http://www.cardiffcyclingcampaign.or...article&sid=32
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/21/news/air.php
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...349918,00.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/diesel/die...t-attacks.html

The health effect of biodiesel exhaust emissions are unknown.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007..._research.html

Gasoline contains 115,000 Btu, while diesel contains 130,500 Btu or 12% more energy. Not the 40% some people around here like to claim. The rest of the perceived difference in FE comes from compression igntion cycle vs the spark ignition cycle. A compression ignition HCCI gasoline engine is 15% more efficient than current spark spark ignition engines without the need of expensive particulate filters.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008...tinues-to.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOKZBAJM180

You can extract much more gasoline than diesel fuel from a barrel of oil.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/im...rel_of_oil.gif
It takes more crude oil to produce the same amount of diesel fuel as gasoline.

Diesel doesn't have a future in passenger cars.

I am trying to imagine being stuck in traffic around Toronto with every car being a 2005 diesel Jetta :eek: It would smell pretty bad, but probably more people would use public transport because of it.
I do agree that way less fuel would be used, especially in traffic jams as a diesel jetta beats nearly everything but a hybrid in city MPG and highway MPG. If we could get them to the emmisions level of gas cars then I would be all for it.
Is working over a deep fryer a health and safety risk? Biodiesel is usually cut with 1% "real" diesel because that makes it toxic enough to prevent mould or other biological problems. I would bet on biodiesel emmisions being better.

One of the comments in the first link I quoted was that portions of that barrel that could be more easily made into diesel are cracked into gasoline because of the demand for gasoline.

Anyways, I think the long term solution is to have vehicles that use 1/4 as much fuel and then you can run your diesel on straight veggie oil or run on electricity from your solar panel array or whatever without creating as much pollution and greenhouse gases. GM should just mass produce something like the Aptera, save their own company and the envrironment all at once. If they can afford to lose the billions they are now, why not add 1 billion more and develop and produce something like that. I'd have to think the engineers at GM with a billion dollars could create something that would out perform the Aptera and cost half as much... They have the dealer network that is screaming for somehting they can sell and willing to try anything at this point.
I guess it would make to much sense, and besides the Aptera looks "funny".
Ian

Actually, the single most effective thing we could do to reduce fuel usage, short of getting rid of the SUVs, would be to reinstate and enforce the national 55 mph speed limit (well, if by "we" you mean "the US" :) ) However, I don't know too many people in favor of that.. even though I travel at that speed most of the time, I don't like laws. But, it would be about a 10% increase in overall efficiency, and not require people to change their vehicles. Just their habits.

Yes, it would be nice if each new generation knew everthing their parents did, PLUS the newest technical information. Maybe there would be time for this in the school day if we reduced the lessons relating to "National Guilt Week".
must. stop. now. blood. pressure. exceeding. nominal. limits.

+1
Every car should have a trip computer like this.

Average MPG. Instant MPG is only displayed when the car is moving.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3183/...c4fccd8c61.jpg

Average speed. On this particular trip I did 50 miles at 65mph, 35miles at 55mph and 5 miles in stop and go traffic.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3277/...a1679d41f6.jpg

Miles coved.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/...a59932446d.jpg

Estimated miles to empty at average MPG.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/...a017f549fd.jpg

This is on a 12 year old Volvo. I think its shameful that every car today doesn't have this kind of display. This base model Volvo 850 wagon 5 speed didn't come with it from the factory. It was optional on higher end models. I found one at the JY and the installation was simply plug and play into the existing instrument cluster.

An idea that (in addition to all the other problems) suffers from over-generalization. For instance, on my route into town there is a small hill. I let my speed drop to ~45 mph going up (limit is 50, most traffic is 55-60), increase to about 65 on the downhill, and semi-coast to the light about a mile down the road. In good weather I can average over 100 mpg on this stretch. If a 55 mph limit was strictly enforced, I'd have to ride the brakes on the downhill (as I see many doing), wasting energy and getting lower overall mpg.

Or take another example: on my drive from Reno to San Jose, I go over an 8500 ft pass, then the next 70 miles or so is all downhill, and I effectively use zero gas on this stretch. Why should I be limited to 55 there, in order to "save gas" that I'm not using?

i agree, why should i pay for the schooling of some kid whose parent doesnt give a crap how they do.

good point, i think that the parent-endorsed drop out rate would increase though because parents dont want to take the time to care about the childs education :shakes head:





about the origional topic- i like the fuel meter but i dont think it would work for everyone - my brother and i are great examples, i have never had a mpg gauge and most of the time have been conscious of the effect of how i drive on my mpg where my brother has a newer impala with the mpg gauge and still drives like a bat outa hell. i know it would improve some peoples driving so maybe instead of getting a 10% total increase maybe closer to 3-5 (i have little faith in people, can you tell?)

also i think what would have the single largest affect on fuel would be increasing public transportation, honestly, if we had an electric trolley run on all the main streets in my city i would definately take it to school, work, friends houses, etc. i know that it would more than likely be slower because of having to switch routes but i would rather go slower and have less cars on the road. (the public transportation really stinks in my area so the only people who ride the bus are the ones who cant drive, but when i lived in ft lauderdale i would ride the bus and the train all the time)

just a few thoughts
-john

Most important thing we can do is look in the mirror.

We need to realize that somebody else is not going to do it and we need to quit waiting around for someone to fix it. YMMV

The single most effective way to save fuel is to cut out unnecessary driving, and to efficiently consolidate errands when we do drive. That would make a huge dent in transportation fuel use.

Keeping in mind that HVAC for buildings is perhaps the major use of fuel in the US, we could add tax incentives (beyond what high price is already doing to encourage thrift) to energy savings devices and techniques. Simple tricks like color selection can do a lot: White roofs in sunny climates, dark roofs only in places with cool summers. Deciduous shade trees. More insulation. Geothermal via slinkies in yards, or use existing water main infrastructure as a heat exchanger, since water mains are already buried below the frost line, run for miles, and have lots of surface area to absorb or disperse heat.

We could also use the ~3,000 year supply of methane hydrates within our shallow territorial waters. Burns clean. If we don't use it, the stuff may bubble to the surface and enter the atmosphere, and is ~25 to ~100 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Great post. So basically there is enough inexpensive fuel to run internal combustion engines way beyond the time humans migrate to other planets. The doom-mongers and hair-shirts-for-everyone-mongers never mention this kind of information. Why is that? :rolleyes:

There is never a silver bullet.

- LostCause

That is OK because there are no vampires either. :D
But would you agree that migrating the ICE from imported oil to locally available methane is an improvement in the state of the world?

In my opinion, the less money that is made available to people who choose a value system that says women should NOT be able to read, drive, show bare skin, get drunk, fornicate, or keep all their most sensitive body parts :eek:, the better.

The problem is that we are too tolerant of stupid people. :p

We keep trying to think of away of making stupid people less harmful to ourselves and others but all it does is take Darwin out of the equation and we have more stupid people. :(

I'm all for more/better instrumentation ... remember the fuel pressure or vacuum gauge on GM cars 20+ years ago? It shamed the driver into being light on the gas pedal. Why not bring a better version of that back? :confused: It won't affect all drivers ... but maybe some.

Oh, and yes, let's start mining the methane hydrate on the ocean floor. That's a no brainer! :thumbup:

I would tend to call them uneducated or ignorant, rather than stupid. I believe most all people have a capacity to learn far more than they know now (except for me, who will never be able to spell english :D ). The most vocal and persistent members of our society have glorified ignorance and made fun of learning. Then they have made a policy of sueing Darwin.

I saw a clever cartoon rap music video on youtube a while back. A piece of Art, really, and I think the guys who made it are brilliant. The video is pretty tame (by rap standards), no talk of killing cops or cap'n ho's. It uses vulgar language to state these (and other) positive messages:

Read a Book.
Brush your teeth.
Wear deoderant.
Take care of your kids.
Buy some land.

The clever part is how these positive messages are packaged in a crude and rude rap video, so that they might be absorbed by people who might need them most.

Now here is the crazy part: The creators of this video were castigated by their peers for the language content of the video. The positive content was dismissed as irrelevant.

I will not link it from here, it is not safe for work or home or really anywhere. Close your windows and put on your headphones. You can find it at youtube.com by searching for

DMite Read a Book

i love that video, i saw it a while back, very good

Do a Google search for Dr. Ira Leifer of University of California Santa Barbara. He's been studying methane hydrates and their effects on the atmosphere, and says there is a pile of this stuff on our ocean floors. The Japanese are looking to exploit a major deposit northeast of Japan in the Pacific Ocean. When things warm up (such as Siberian tundra) loads of methane are released into the atmosphere, and methane is a LOT (i.e., 25 to 100 times) worse than CO2. So, use the stuff for cheap energy or let it bubble into the atmosphere for nasty side effects.

And, while pondering hair-shirts, go on the NPR website for the Diane Rehm show of Monday or Tuesday of this week, and listen to how your gummit allows regulators in the UK and Dubai regulate the commodity trade of west Texas crude in THIS country, and about how Goldman Sachs et al speculate in oil and other commodities for as little as 7% down, cornering ~1/3 of the market thereby. They are colluding to manipulate the market in similar fashion to how Enron manipulated the California utility market some years back. Keep in mind that Enron and Ken Lay were Bush's biggest financial backers and raised him from a pup, politically speaking.

About half the price of oil today is the result of such contrived speculation, as opposed to supply vs. demand. Similar story with corn, wheat, etc., which explains food riots in Cairo, and kids eating mudpies in Haiti.

i agree, speculation realy does kill prices.

I am going to take your word for it. My doctor wants me to keep my BP down, and the more I learn, the harder that is to do. :mad:

It's called inflation. Commodities seem more expensive because the dollar has significantly devalued. It's the price to pay to avoid economic catastrophe following dishonest lending.

Speculation is going on, but I wouldn't claim it to be the driving factor.

- LostCause

There's more to it than dollar devaluation, which is a major but not the only component. Increasing demand in the face of relatively fixed supply is another major factor.

Trouble is, the commodity speculators including hedge funds and Goldman Sachs are manipulating the market and hording, or otherwise generating a self-fulfilling prophesy to their own advantage. Some economists attribute this additional pressure to account for ~30% of currently high prices.

OTOH, the speculators may get their asses handed to them if prices head south as the speculative bubble bursts. Then, they'll be trampling all over each other heading for the exits, so as to avoid being stuck with inventory they cannot unload. Markets go down a lot faster than they go up, as fear motivates better than greed.

Go on NPR and listen to the Diane Rehm show on Monday or Tuesday of this week, for an expert explanation.

I still question the speculation, you can only speculate prices up for so far and for so long before someone kicks the legs out of your house of cards. Artificially high prices encourage suppliers to operate at full bore and consumers will eventually say no more and stop consuming (realistically a significant reduction). At some point the S=D equation will become out of whack and prices crash. IMO if prices survive the July-August vacation period there is no significant level of speculation involved.

[QUOTE=Duffman;34631]I still question the speculation, you can only speculate prices up for so far and for so long before someone kicks the legs out of your house of cards. Artificially high prices encourage suppliers to operate at full bore and consumers will eventually say no more and stop consuming (realistically a significant reduction). At some point the S=D equation will become out of whack and prices crash. IMO if prices survive the July-August vacation period there is no significant level of speculation involved.[/QUOTE

That's essentially what I just said in the paragraph you quoted. Hedge funds with megabucks are into this, and only have to put up ~7% to hold a chunk of production. Goldman Sachs et al get away with this because their people run our government. Just look where a slew of our Treasury secretaries have come from over the past several decades. Listen to the Diane Rehm show on NPR as noted in prior post.

wow we'ave covered alot of ground in this post

diesel is a relative term. diesels can burn anything from wood smoke to lard, and that includes NG, gasoline, methane. so its not us and them, its we. spark ignition engines can be made more efficient, just direct inject the fuel slowly.
Don't get hung up on your grandpa's diesel fuel on account of they don't make it no more in this country. ULSD is not your father's diesel either. folks diesel fuel will soon be more like gasoline and gasoline will be more like diesel so you can direct inject it.

the housing bubble popped
the commodities bubble will pop
the inflation bubble will pop
and then we get to start over with some other cycle.

don't know where you 'll are at, but here the uneducated kids are still getting killed quite regular. if the law don't get them, the mountain will.

don't worry there will be higher margin requirements imposed,
the only problem is that will make it harder for the producers and the processors to hedge their positions, thereby negating the reason for the commodity futures markets in the first place. baby-bathwater.

the housing bubble occurred because someone thought that they could get rich by buying more house than they needed, and the government subsidized the whole bubble by allowing people to deduct the interest on their income tax.

watch the cycles, learn the cycles, time the cycles to your advantage, do not let what other people are doing influence what you do. be a contrarian, many of you are. amen

the problem with diesel in the USA is so many damn rigs on the highway. too much shipping of small loads in vehicles that get 5mpg -- 18 wheelers. trains are about 10 times more fuel efficient.
the convenience of mail order in the USA is our downfall. delivery trucks abound, and trucking companies are too plentiful. not to mention FedEx, UPS, etc shipping things overnight by Jet. ... no wonder we use so much crude oil.
a change in shipping choices by consumers (you and i) would alleviate the rising cost.
DONT do overnight shipping. it is by far the worst. purchase things from companies nearer to you than farther away. if you live in new jersey, buy things from the east coast instead of the west coast if possible.
how about avoiding products made in china? over 80% of goods in Walmart is made in china. look at the labels if you dont believe me. i would be curious to see how much fuel walmart trucks use in 1 year.

The single most effective thing we could do is for each household to choose to live within bicycle distance from work and shopping.

Diesel John, I'd like to get your farmer's perspective on a couple of things:

First, you mention the commodity problems with buying farmer's crops later this year. Can you elaborate on that?

Second, Oregon State University is doing algae biodiesel research, with an eye to local production and consumption by farmers such that the stuff does not need to be shipped and distributed around the planet.

See: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/04/70702

I'd be curious that if such a device worked, how would farmers react to the idea of making their own fuel on-site or in the immediate neighborhood.