VW TDI vs. Gas comparison

[theunchosen]

Well, I'll be glad to bring you into the debate.

The debate is over whether or not emissions control on cars is effective. Currently emissions are regulated(the car can only produce this much to pass EPA standards). Which means that the car must have a catalytic converter to reduce the amount of Hydrocarbons and other stuff that passes out the tailpipe(In your case it would be soot released into the environment from your chimney).

My argument is that emissions control do in fact decrease emissions at the pipe(read if you want eliminate all emissions) at the cost of fuel economy.

It costs several MPG to reduce emissions and follow other procedures regarding the exhaust gases, I argue since it takes more energy to produce gas than you get out of it(but its cheaper energy(electricity)), its more eco friendly to increase MPG because it reduces the emissions by a factor of 1.25 times whatever you gain in FE(this is just for the electricity used to refine gasoline). Also Petrol refineries produce huge amounts of NOx and SOx. They are huge volumes in terms of meters cubed per hour but not very high per gallon of gas. Given that they are not very high in pollutants per gallon it could be argued that cars are 1:1 in emissions at the refinery. However this does not take into account the Coal plant that was used to produce the electricity(I agree moderately that CO2 is not a huge deal, but if we are going to talk about reducing emissions in the form of maintaining the global atmospheric conditions as are then we have to count it). The electrical plants alone are enough concern because coal waste cannot be dumped in a landfill as it damages soil conditions and water tables and is not convenient like nuclear waste in that several oil drums can contain the size of the waste. Coal waste is an enormous issue. By ton its loss obnoxious than nuclear waste, but there is not very much nuclear waste whereas coal plants produces tons per hour of hazardous waste.

Obviously there are the transport ships, trucks and pipelines as well which have not been factored in or calculated.

Anyway US coal plants pump out 37 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gas and your car can only produce 20 lbs(theoretical maximum(which means there are 0 unburned hydrocarbons coming out)). The refineries drop .2 grams of NOx per gallon and .5 grams SOx per gallon.

Now you are informed and can make a decision.

[tasdrouille]

The unchosen, have you read my post, #17 in the thread? My 9 yo car emits at least 8 times the nox of the new model. Yet, the 2009 still manages to get very decent mileage.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Given that they are not very high in pollutants per gallon it could be argued that cars are 1:1 in emissions at the refinery. However this does not take into account the Coal plant that was used to produce the electricity(I agree moderately that CO2 is not a huge deal, but if we are going to talk about reducing emissions in the form of maintaining the global atmospheric conditions as are then we have to count it). The electrical plants alone are enough concern because coal waste cannot be dumped in a landfill as it damages soil conditions and water tables and is not convenient like nuclear waste in that several oil drums can contain the size of the waste. Coal waste is an enormous issue. By ton its loss obnoxious than nuclear waste, but there is not very much nuclear waste whereas coal plants produces tons per hour of hazardous waste.

Electricity consumption by oil refineries is a relatively small part of their energy consumption(~1/10th to ~1/20th IIRC), and naturally coal is half of that according to the U.S. average. The difference of course is that auto emissions tend to be the worst is heavily populated areas and can have a greater impact than a coal power plant located farther from population centers. I'd certainly be interested in what any research you do turns up but IME these sorts of things tend to be considered already.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Obviously there are the transport ships, trucks and pipelines as well which have not been factored in or calculated.

Actually they are. CA recently had it up to there w/ emissions from heavy duty diesels since they were costing the state billions of dollars in costs/lost revenue, so they put forth legislation that's way more strict to deal w/ the problem.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Anyway US coal plants pump out 37 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gas and your car can only produce 20 lbs(theoretical maximum(which means there are 0 unburned hydrocarbons coming out)). The refineries drop .2 grams of NOx per gallon and .5 grams SOx per gallon.

Now you are informed and can make a decision.

T2B5 is .05g/mile of NOx so at .2g/gallon and lets say 20mpg, refinery emissions account for .01g/mile of NOx and we can still see greater gains via auto emissions system. The CA BLM has light duty trucks at .01g/mile for SOx, compared to .03g/mile at 15mpg for refinery emissions so in that case cleanup of refinery output is definitely better, although I'm pretty sure that would be the case no matter what since a three way cat doesn't deal w/ SOx emissions anyway.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

The unchosen, have you read my post, #17 in the thread? My 9 yo car emits at least 8 times the nox of the new model. Yet, the 2009 still manages to get very decent mileage.

Yeah I did. I believe you were talking about a TDI(or a diesel engine). I acknowledge that your 2000 emits 8 times more NOx and gets less mileage.

I didn't say don't worry about emissions. I said. . ."If you can cut emissions without costing an extra drop of fuel, do it." Apparently the emissions on your diesel do not cost you any extra, if you regulate them.

On the same token you also have to account for the idea that (hopefully) the engine and systems in the car have become more efficient over that time period. So, it may be the the emissions regulations in your car are costing you MPG, but the drive systems overall have advanced at virtually the same rate. I'm also hesitant to speak on the subject because I am not terribly familiar with diesels. I am aware that injecting small amounts of water vapor into the exhaust eradicates most of the emissions which does not really hamper drive very much(it creates slight back pressure that is not desirable but is negligible).

Nevertheless, I would ask you to read my post. The point is when you want to talk Global, you have to look global. If we talk just about your car. . .we discover the universe is over-unity. Because mysteriously you have diesel(gas) in your engine and it creates power in the motor, but you are not inputting anywhere near that kind of power. You sit down depress the pedal and go.

I am also aware that the refineries and power plants(I actually was not able to discover their pollutions level in anything other than CO2) produce less NOx and SOx per gallon than your car. That said several pounds of hazardous coal are dumped into the environment and 370 lbs of CO2(to fill my car) are dumped in as well. The numbers are greater for diesel because this only accounts for the production lines in gallons gasoline and much less diesel is recovered than gasoline.

I have no problem with limiting emissions so long as it does not cost any MPG in the vehicle. I don't agree with trashing the environment and like the idea of limiting how much we dump. Having said that, increasing FE is the single greatest factor in total emissions(for transportation) and increasing it decreases emissions.

[guudasitgets]

Ok I'll step in and throw my 2 cents in. When the Insight and pirus came out a few years ago Car & Driver Magazine did a study on how big the real total carbon footprint would be to produce the batteries, plastics gas, oil and diesel fuel in the whole equation, as well as the hydrogen cars and the least evasive on the evnvironment they said would be a Diesel-Hybrid. Just throwing that out there.

[theunchosen]

Yeah I divided the electricity production in half to get just the coal. The total energy per gallon of gasoline is 37 KW. Coal produces 2.17 lbs of CO2 per KWH so. . .I just rounded down because it was easy.

I am interested in seeing the statistics for the electricity numbers, because a couple of other sites indicated that outside of a tiny part (the amount they could produce by burning the gases they can't use) all the electricity came from off site. But even the fuels that they can't sell, they can also only burn so much of it and then have to sacrifice some of its power to emissions(so taking the percentages of "lost fuels" and using that to calculate is not relevant because they produce substantial amounts of hazardous waste, which is consequently why monitoring the "torch" or "burner" has been such a big deal since refineries were regulated.)

I definitely disagree with the idea that government thinks about things before it does it. I don't remember the exact number but last year when the ESP went out they spent something in the neighborhood of 42 million dollars just to mail out notices to people who would(or would not) be getting them. If you noticed virtually none of those were delivered due to errors in the USPS regarding those specific letters. 42 million dollars is small change to the government but when your budget is not balanced and your deficit is out of sight the last thing you need to do is spend money.

Also said same system makes rules regarding tax returns for specialty needs children that says you have to mail in your claims and they have to arrive within 30 days of march something. On that note they do not process the requests until 45 days later and then they mail out a notice telling you they need more paperwork and you have to file a special appeal that has to be done within 60 total days of the original date. leaving you more or less just one day to find the paperwork they need and get it back to them and file an appeal to review the case with a revenue agent(the paperwork has to arrive before it can be reviewed). If you want to say they think things over carefully go ahead, but not many people will agree with you.

[tjts1]

I guess VW didn't get the memo: Diesel is dead.

[dremd]

I have not read the entire thread; but I will throw a few bones to the TDI's side.

1) Higher resale value
2) Longer engine life
3) Bio-Diesel
4) EPA under rates the TDI. What did the couple average across 48 states 58mpg? I think their speed was fairly reasonable as well.
5) Torque is fun!

If diesel fuel was more competitively priced it would definatley help.

[some_other_dave]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

My argument is that emissions control do in fact decrease emissions at the pipe(read if you want eliminate all emissions) at the cost of fuel economy.

Depends on what you regard as "emissions control".

Picture, if you will, a 1965 Mustang. It makes somewhere around 200 HP, gets something like 12 MPG on the freeway, and emits unbelievable amounts of pollution. Compare to a 2008 Mustang GT. It makes 300 HP, gets 27 MPG on the freeway (current EPA rating), and the exhaust is arguably cleaner than Houston or L.A. air on a bad day.

Fuel injection was, at least for a while, regarded as "emissions control equipment". And that is one of the main things that is responsible for the increase of HP, the increase of fuel economy, and the decrease of emissions...

-soD

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by some_other_dave

Depends on what you regard as "emissions control".

. . .

Fuel injection was, at least for a while, regarded as "emissions control equipment". And that is one of the main things that is responsible for the increase of HP, the increase of fuel economy, and the decrease of emissions...

-soD

As I said, and am happy to say again, I have no issue with emissions control as long as it does not cost an extra drop of gas.

Using the 65 Mustang in comparison to the 08 GT is kind of cheating though.

I'll definitely give up the idea that most auto-manufacturers are aiming for a balance of HP/FE. They are. The notion of the golden mean and having substantial horsepower and getting out of the teens in FE are what they like. Most people love to talk about the cars that do not follow this golden mean: Ferrari F40, F50, Enzo, McClaren F1 LM, Lamborghini Murcielago, Diablo, superlegarra series, Mazerati MC12 and the list goes on.

I love talking about some of those cars because they were revolutionary in the development of huge horsepower and because of them we see advances today. Examples are more sturdy clutch plates, VTEC, and many more.

My point is the 1965 Mustang and GT 500 of that golden era are designed like our F1s, Enzos and MC12s. Around the 60s Citroen released a vehicle that could get 60+ MPG because it was on the other end of the spectrum. I think my 35 MPG 93 Del Sol would have trouble emitting less emissions per distance than the Citroen. The auto industry has changed because the Mustang is not just a collection item its a daily driver for thousands of people. Can't do the 700 HP and daily commuter tandem, so they broke it even and went 300 HP 20-30 mpg.

I'm not arguing to make cars dirtier on purpose. I'm arguing maximize fuel economy period. Add all the emissions controls you like so long as FE stays the same or improves, and you save global emissions.