VW TDI vs. Gas comparison

[theunchosen]

I don't think its that obvious. . .they keep getting elected. or maybe most people do not consider what they are doing. . .I opt for the latter.

[Duffman]

Your well to tank numbers... WTF? If it took then energy of 5 barrels of crude to make 1 barrel of gasoline there wouldn’t be so many people pissed off about corn ethanol. I have come across 80% for gasoline and 84% for diesel on more than one occasion. A good source are ethanol to gasoline energy analysis.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/354.pdf (Slide 4)

Increase in fuel used to fight emissions. This is a hard number to pin down so I will be generous and say it’s a 25% increase for the purpose of your argument.

Now the math:
1.25 x (1/0.8) = 1.5625 increase in emissions due to extra fuel required.
1/1.5625 = 0.64, 1-0.64 = 36% reduction in emissions to break even. 36% is not hard to do on any type of emission except CO2 which is not a pollutant but a green house gas and cannot be reduced with emission control equipment.

[theunchosen]

Two large issues.
1st and most obvious. Just because they deliver 1 million BTU's does not mean you get out 1 million BTU's. you get 400,000 BTUs(using the most advanced ICE piston engine ever).

They take the BTU reading from the chemical reaction of burning gasoline. You only get to access on a great day 40% of that. so multiple your numbers by two and then we'll talk that source.

two. . .
USDA's New Ethanol Energy Ratio where I got the other data(we'll just assume its wrong)).

Chiba (they now use excess gases that cannot be transported to produce huge volumes of electricity(no longer from coal) produces 420,000 gallons an hour.
They produce consequently 82 cubic meters of NOx per hour, 102 cubic meters of SOx, per hour.
Per gallon it yields 2 lbs of CO2(I assumed the plant ran full capacity 24/7/365 and divided yearly tons of CO2 by 365 and then 24 to get hourly and then divided that by number of barrels per hour 420,000).
Now Nox has 1912 grams per m3 and SOx has 2,300 grams per meter cubed
156,784 grams of NOx(taking the lowest average presented on the nets) per hour and 234,000 grams of SOx.
quickly estimating thats .30 grams of NOx per gallon and .5 grams SOx per gallon(which your engines are forbidden from creating altogether).

If anything the oil company is going to lie and underestimate as much as possible on its pollution statistics. It also uses substantial volumes of water per gallon of gasoline as well as other things. but even if it doesn't it still matches that old no cat diesel. and I'm talking gasoline that doesn't really produce either substantial amounts of SOx or NOx

It is WELL worth thinking about the sites employ off-site electrical grid. This is just from the refinery. So take its power consumption divide by half multiple by 2.17(lbs of CO2 per KWH of coal) divide by its gallon rate for whatever the rate of electrical consumption is. . .and tada. . .still right back where we started and the production of fuel creates more pollution than burning it. Save it, use less, pollute less. If you can emissions control without negatively influencing my MPG by even a single drop fine. Otherwise its creating more pollution.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

two. . .
USDA's New Ethanol Energy Ratio where I got the other data(we'll just assume its wrong)).

Assume their wrong??? No it doesn’t work that way, you don’t like my link then you show one that supports you data. Your link reinforces my data:

(2) Replacing a gallon of gasoline replaces about one quarter more energy than in the gallon, becasue fossil used to make gasoline.

Note 1/0.8 = 1.25 the number I used.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Chiba

I don’t care about China, 1) they don’t follow EPA regs, 2) None of my fuel comes from China, if anything, China imports Fuel from North America. 3) Lets see some links to the data instead of some random numbers on the screen.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Two large issues.
1st and most obvious. Just because they deliver 1 million BTU's does not mean you get out 1 million BTU's. you get 400,000 BTUs(using the most advanced ICE piston engine ever).

They take the BTU reading from the chemical reaction of burning gasoline. You only get to access on a great day 40% of that. so multiple your numbers by two and then we'll talk that source.

Why are you throwing efficiency at me, if a car only gets 40 mpg instead of 100 mpg its because efficiency is already factored in, I said a 25% increase, when you are dealing with % increases and decreases it doesn’t matter what the base number is. For someone who is adamant pollution control devices create more pollution than they abate, you sure don’t have credible resources handy to support it.

[Big Dave]

The "dollar delta" is working its evil when even a diesel diehard like me has to start considering a gas vehicle over a diesel.

[tasdrouille]

Up here gas is 3.1 per gallon and diesel is 4.126. That's a 33% difference. As long as the difference is below 60% I'm better off driving my TDI than my Elantra.

I just checked in the US and you guys have a much higher gas/diesel price gap than up here. That might make the gasser less expensive at the moment.

But we're looking at the long term here. In fact I just went to Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government and extracted Weekly U.S. Regular Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices and Weekly U.S. No 2 Diesel Ultra Low Sulfur (0-15 ppm) Retail Prices since 2/5/2007 (since when ULSD prices are available) and compared both on a weekly basis. The average weekly price gap between the two is 11%. So, over the time ULSD has been here, it's been more economical to run a diesel than a gasser.

[theunchosen]

COSMO OIL | Sustainability Report 2006 | Site Data : Chiba Refinery

Sorry I did not mean to leave that out. I had it in the middle and then cut it. . .and forgot to do the pasting at the end.

As for the zfacts website I read that incorrectly(and I apologize again) and meant Ok I will start over, not I assume your sources are unreliable. Sorry I had 3 thanksgiving events to hit from 4-9, and I hosted one at noon and was just a little too tired.

But following your data. . .if it still takes 5 GGE to produce 4 gallons of gas(the ratio is worse for diesel because gas consumes more than 50% of the total end product). it requires 165 KWH to produce 4 gallons. so it takse 35 KW to produce one gallon which is 35 lbs of CO2. Thats strictly electricity. no pollution generated from the refining process or anything else(transportation whatever you wanna call it) your car produces something under 20 lbs per gallon(Theoretical max is 20).

[theunchosen]

Anyway the point above is wherever you produce more emissions is where the most efficiency(fuel/power) is most important above all else.

Even if you want to talk about U.S. refineries producing less emissions Texas City refinery(BP)
produces. . .All Polluters in City | PlanetHazard to pull the data from here its under BP Amoco Texas City chemical plant.

1,600,000 NOx(I will assume its grams if not all bets are off, although industry standard measurement is m3(multiply to get grams)). But even if its just grams
thats 182 grams per hour or .00024 grams per gallon. As I said though its likely measured it m3 and is much closer to the numbers provided for Chiba.

And yes the 35 lbs of CO2 plus other emissions(several pounds of hazardous coal waste) just for the electricity to do it, unless your power comes from something other than coal.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I don’t care about China, 1) they don’t follow EPA regs, 2) None of my fuel comes from China, if anything, China imports Fuel from North America. 3) Lets see some links to the data instead of some random numbers on the screen.

As I also said you have to look at the big picture. Not just your car, not just US refineries, not just any one specific source. The more gasoline(diesel) you use means the more has to be produced. It of course is a microscopic percentage of the total gas consumption, but every car in NA has the same issues. If you can decrease the united states gasoline consumption by 1% then its more that Chiba doesn't produce. I am well aware they will produce gasoline almost as fast as they can. On the same note if someone else is importing it it makes it slightly harder to compete and shifts up the market a little.

1.25 units of energy to produce fuel 1 unit out from fuel. if you increase your efficiency 1% there is a 1.25% savings at the source because it takes 5 units to make your 4. if it were 1:1 emissions control would be somewhat important in relation to FE. It's not. It's 1.25 to 1. Also the method of conversion uses a fuel thats dirtier to start with. 2.5 units of the 5 to make it are much dirtier than gasoline or diesel.

As I said if you can cut emissions without slipping MPG by a single drop, thats worth it. Otherwise the refineries, power plants, diesels, pipelines, gas stations those things will produce more pollutants than you did to start with.

[The Atomic Ass]

I have 2 questions to enter into this discussion.

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.

#1: How is it even possible to reduce emissions at MY tailpipe, not accounting for the oil chain, by increasing fuel consumption? How does the excess fuel help to reduce the emissions? I ask this out of honest ignorance, and a lack of keywords to Google.

The only thing I have to compare is wood burning, wherein getting as much fresh air to the fire as possible results in reduced ash in the fireplace and soot up through the chimney. Throwing more wood at it usually results in the opposite effect. Obviously gasoline is different, but what am I missing?

#2: Why is CO2 ever, and I mean EVER mentioned in topics of pollution? It is not a pollutant. Anyone who thinks differently should start saving the planet by discontinuing their personal oxygen aspiration habits.