VW TDI vs. Gas comparison

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I suggest you do a little research into what you speak because you are more than a little off base in more than one area. Engine manufacturers do not employ retards in their engineering departments, if their strategies did not work, they would simply do nothing instead.

I think he is getting a couple issues confused, the laws driving lower diesel noxious emissions(smoke, NOX, etc) are causing fuel consumption to go up, creating more CO2. Also I don't know if they are measuring absolute emissions for pollutants or relative concentrations in the exhaust. If its relative concentrations then you could meet the new standard but still pollute more overall when you use more diesel... Governments do sometimes employ mentally challenged people. I don't know in this case.
Ian

[Duffman]

Ian, most measure grams of pollution per HP. There is no doubt that emission control devices cause engines to burn some more fuel, but I have seen comments like his on various other forums, such as how can burning more fuel reduce emissions? Well it can and does, go do some research or ask a question before spreading mistruths and acting like you have a PhD in the process. We all become stupider every time we read mis-information, I don’t stand for it.

[guudasitgets]

Like I said I'm looking in both directions. But if it's going to be a pickup I'll most likely go with a diesel.

It would be foolish to plan 10 years of fuel usage based on the current cost of gasoline vs diesel.

Why not, it's all we have to work with as far as cost. I have been watching the prices thinking about this choice but the new clean diesel fuel doesn't seem to be coming down very much.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Ian, most measure grams of pollution per HP. There is no doubt that emission control devices cause engines to burn some more fuel, but I have seen comments like his on various other forums, such as how can burning more fuel reduce emissions? Well it can and does, go do some research or ask a question before spreading mistruths and acting like you have a PhD in the process. We all become stupider every time we read mis-information, I don’t stand for it.

Not true. . .It's per RPM which is not equal to horsepower. Go get tested. They will monitor your rpms and find out how much your outputting.

Besides. . .there are alot more considerations than just your engine. . . that's myopic.

Consider how many pollutants are created in simply acquiring the fuel itself and getting it here. . .drill it out, transport it to the us. refine it, transport it to your gas station. If we speak only of your car then I spoke false. If we consider the entire equation the more fuel you consume the more emissions you create and thats the single biggest factor. Reducing emissions reduces MPG argue that if you like but I'm just going to ask you to disconnect everything at your catalytic converter and test it for a day(be careful if the pipe is too short you can distort the pipes in the temperature differential).

Emissions come from drilling facilities, power plants that create the power to do the drilling refining transporting whatever and then the emissions of cargo vessels and diesel trucks that haul it to station. When you want to talk about a global issue you can't just look at your car.

If you want to save the environment you save fuel first over everything else. period. greater MPG= fewer emissions in the grand scheme.

[theunchosen]

And I never said that engineers were retards. NEVER. I am one. Politicians who pass EPA policies are.

They think that because they reduce car emissions by half they reduce emissions. Not true. We burn more fuel which causes more drilling(read more pollution than your tailpipe), causing more international shipping(read more pollution), which forces more refining(read substantial amounts of pollution) and finally it forces more trucks to haul gasoline and diesel around. If you cut fuel consumption in every car in half then you reduce emissions by a much larger factor because you also mitigate those other suppliers of pollution.

The engineers, not retards, say let's just produce engines that are absolutely the most efficient possible. Then you can ignore international treaties about emissions because it won't matter. You have to FORCE people to follow emissions(and then they always cheat and get around it). People WANT to use more efficient engines. All you have to do to drop emissions radically is produce engines that use less fuel rather than any policies or any other non-sense that is not properly considered.

[Duffman]

theunchossen,
So tell us: How much energy is lost from gasoline getting it out of the ground to your tank, how much more fuel is used due to adding emmision control equipment and how much of the various pollutants are reduced as a result of the emmision control equipment. I'll take estimates for the second.

[tasdrouille]

Less fuel used = less emissions is totally false.

I'll take my own car as an example. My 2000 TDI is tier 1, that means it does not even meet bin 10 of tier 2 which is set at 0.4 g of nox per mile, but is below 1 g per mile. The new jetta TDI 2009 meets bin 5. That's 0.05 g of nox per mile. My 2000 emits at least 8 times the nox of a 2009.

8 times less nox, yet that car was driven across all 48 states averaging 58 mpg...

[theunchosen]

After searching for the real costs of drilling and refining. . .they are not that available. So I'll assume the ideals. I'll assume the the goods are produced in Houston Texas(no travel to refinery), that the ratio is 2.21(2.21 and then some) of crude to product, and that the shipping is pollutant free to wherever it goes. Also we'll assume 1 gal = 3 liters for convenience(its 3.8 liters but whatever)
Well say for convenience and underestimates that we need to move the crude only 1 km straight up, that crude oil is 1/2 as heavy as water, gravity is 9.8.
The government estimates that coal power produces 2.17 lbs of CO2 per KWh

it takes 4,900 joules to move the oil to surface. No packaging flows directly into refinery. it takes 2.21 gallons of crude to make one gallon of gas. It takes more than 1 watt to drag the juice to surface. so it takes 5.98 lbs of CO2 for electricity for just the lifting of one gallon of gas. Your car at best (stochiometrically) can produce 20 lbs of CO2 per gallon.
Now IRL its going to cost a substantial amount of power to distill gasoline/diesel. if it even matches that weak 1 watt per GALLON 2/3 of the emissions from my car "produces" comes from the lifting and refinement.
The average gallon of crude now lies further than 5,600 feet below the surface(not including any ocean that has to be lifted through. Thats almost twice as far as my estimates and that was in 2005. over 4 years the average depth has sunk 900 ft. so we'll be conservative and say 200 ft per year. 3 more years 600 more feet. so half the emissions I produce through my car are strictly from the manufacture of gasoline. Trucking it to me adds but computing that is pointless unless you wanna tell me exactly where you live and the nearest pipeline depot and where your average fill happens. also the average barrel of oil does not come from right outside Houston Texas. so it has to be trucked there and twice of much of it has to be moved because it has to be refined.

I can only hope you are beginning to see that the manufacture of gasoline using underestimates is much greater than the MOST POSSIBLE emissions it can create.

If not then give me the numbers on what gas station you fill up on or the middle of the city you fill up in. and I'll start digging for the actual power needed to convert crude and the average distance a barrell travels before refinement

[theunchosen]

alright scratch that. found the numbers
It takes 165 KWH or 5 GGE(Gallons of Gasoline(or) Equivalent) to refine gasoline. if thats coal powered only its 330 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gasoline. if it follows the national average then at least half the energy is from coal. so just 150 lbs of CO2 per gallon. . .

so 150 lbs is less than 20 lbs of CO2 my car can possibly produce per gallon.

[guudasitgets]

And I never said that engineers were retards. NEVER. I am one. Politicians who pass EPA policies are.

As the starter of the thread and viewing many posts this my friends is the most obvoius truth I have ever seen!!!