EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   General Efficiency Discussion (https://ecomodder.com/forum/general-efficiency-discussion.html)
-   -   VW TDI vs. Gas comparison (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/vw-tdi-vs-gas-comparison-6184.html)

guudasitgets 11-26-2008 09:31 AM

VW TDI vs. Gas comparison
 
I did some intresting figuring, took the prices of both VW jettas, TDI and the SE with a gas engine, plugged in the base price of both cars, and drove them for ten years. I usually drive 20,000mi a year so for the ten year time span here's what I found out. The cost of gas here now is $1.79 per gal, diesel is 2.79 per gal. Using VW's figures the TDI toal cost, car+fuel would be $35,940 for the ten year timespan. The gas Jetta would cost $32,264. No savings buying a diesel there. So I went double the mileage, 400k. The TDI would cost$49,890, the gas Jetta $44,609. These are just using the highway miles rating, the city would be much worse as the diffrence is only 9mpg. I did this because spring is going to be new car time and I have to start looking into a replacement for my Explorer and I'll probably get a car next and run the "Exploder" into the ground seeing as it's pretty much worthless now. I had done this because there are other SUV's that are starting to put diesels in them, thats the other avenue of choice. I guess there really is no longer an advantage cost wise when you figure that they cost more to begin with plus the fuel is a dollar more per gallon.

p.s. said Explorer is just above the tail of the race car in my avitar

theunchosen 11-26-2008 10:29 AM

This is entirely true. The new TDI gets a tax credit or something for being a super efficient vehicle(?), but the increased gas mileage never covers the 1$ more for diesel(unless someone fabricates crises that truckers refuse to buy into then gas and diesel are the same.
The reason for this is oil companies don't want to swing all towards diesel because then their gasoline is worthless(sort of). The reason they avoid the swing is you can't just produce Diesel its a byproduct of gasoline(so is kerosene). The oil companies have a strong desire to keep the market perfectly balanced to maximize profit.
<edit> If gas prices go up to say 4 a gallon like they were the numbers come out closer. But it's never under, except when they jack up gas and freeze diesel in said "crises."
</edit>

Daox 11-26-2008 10:33 AM

Well, I don't think anyone can say that the price of diesel will forever be more than gasoline. Depending on what happens in the future it could again be below the price of gas some day.

How do diesel prices compare in non-US countries?

guudasitgets 11-26-2008 10:54 AM

I don't know about other countries but I watched a report on refining process and now with the new clean diesel fuel their saying that it now costs more to refine diesel than it does gas. so the days of cheaper, "dirty diesel" apparently is now gone forever. Hence the shift for us Ecomodders is probably a gas engine, for used cars to tinker with anyway. The manufacturers are looking at diesels because it still takes less crude to make a gallon of diesel.

theunchosen 11-26-2008 11:08 AM

The emissions crap crucifies diesels in everyway. they put huge restraints on emissions that drive down their efficiency and then restrictions on the diesel itself making it more expensive.

Some emissions policies are idiotic. They reduce emissions everything equal, but they reduce MPG enough that you come out in the same place and its just more expensive to drive. If you instead put the money to refining ICE tech it'd be better spent. Making ICE 1% more efficient would reduce emissions so much more than emissions standards because there are tons of engines that do not have to conform to EPA but everyone wants better efficiency.

<edit>Most countries do not follow EPA(China India) but they would definitely follow a more efficient engine.
Even Japan has more relaxed standards. Which is most JDM vehicles have higher MPG and HP than their USA, EU counterparts.
</edit>

guudasitgets 11-26-2008 11:19 AM

unchosen, I aggree, and it crucifys every motor, not just diesels

theunchosen 11-26-2008 11:24 AM

yeah. . .but diesels get it far worse.

if you disagree. . .take out your exhaust package. ALL of it. run all your pipes together right outside the engine run that one pipe straight along to the back of your car and then into the air.

Tell me what your mpg increase(or hp) and then tell me what your emissions increase was.
. . . I reemed out some DMV types in GA for trying to ticket me for exhaust. I don't live or have the car registered in their jurisdiction so they had to back down.

some_other_dave 11-26-2008 01:04 PM

When gas prices were at their peak around here, regular unleaded was about $4/gallon, and #2 diesel was about $4.30. That makes the TDI a lot more competitive.

Even if the "delta" stays at a dollar per gallon, $4 gasoline versus $5 diesel starts to make things much closer.

-soD

tasdrouille 11-26-2008 01:30 PM

You should take note that the EPA values for the 2009 TDI are way underestimated. You can have a look over at TDIclub.com in the fuel economy forum there is a thread just on this subject.

It would be foolish to plan 10 years of fuel usage based on the current cost of gasoline vs diesel. The higher the price of gas, the lower the % difference between the two fuel. The added cost for usld does not scale up with prices, it gets diluted.

After 10 years the TDI will be worth more by roughly the premium you paid to get the diesel.

And the diesel is just a lot more fun to drive. People buy hp, but they drive torque.

Duffman 11-26-2008 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theunchosen (Post 74932)
The emissions crap crucifies diesels in everyway. they put huge restraints on emissions that drive down their efficiency and then restrictions on the diesel itself making it more expensive.

Some emissions policies are idiotic. They reduce emissions everything equal, but they reduce MPG enough that you come out in the same place and its just more expensive to drive. If you instead put the money to refining ICE tech it'd be better spent. Making ICE 1% more efficient would reduce emissions so much more than emissions standards because there are tons of engines that do not have to conform to EPA but everyone wants better efficiency.

<edit>Most countries do not follow EPA(China India) but they would definitely follow a more efficient engine.
Even Japan has more relaxed standards. Which is most JDM vehicles have higher MPG and HP than their USA, EU counterparts.
</edit>

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.

IndyIan 11-26-2008 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffman (Post 75014)
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 11-26-2008 03:51 PM

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 11-26-2008 04:05 PM

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.

Quote:

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 11-26-2008 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffman (Post 75025)
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 11-26-2008 06:10 PM

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 11-26-2008 07:31 PM

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 11-26-2008 07:52 PM

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 11-26-2008 08:44 PM

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 11-26-2008 09:05 PM

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 11-26-2008 10:22 PM

Quote:

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!!!

theunchosen 11-27-2008 08:00 AM

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 11-27-2008 06:30 PM

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 11-27-2008 11:14 PM

issues
 
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 11-27-2008 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theunchosen (Post 75277)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theunchosen (Post 75277)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theunchosen (Post 75277)
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 11-28-2008 12:52 AM

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 11-28-2008 07:19 AM

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 11-28-2008 07:34 AM

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 11-28-2008 08:09 AM

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 11-28-2008 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffman (Post 75279)


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 11-28-2008 07:27 PM

I have 2 questions to enter into this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffman (Post 75025)
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? :rolleyes: It is not a pollutant. Anyone who thinks differently should start saving the planet by discontinuing their personal oxygen aspiration habits. :p

theunchosen 11-28-2008 07:51 PM

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 11-28-2008 08:22 PM

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 11-28-2008 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theunchosen (Post 75406)
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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by theunchosen (Post 75406)
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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by theunchosen (Post 75406)
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 11-28-2008 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tasdrouille (Post 75410)
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 11-28-2008 10:39 PM

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 11-28-2008 11:20 PM

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 11-29-2008 07:06 PM

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

dremd 11-29-2008 08:28 PM

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 12-01-2008 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theunchosen (Post 75406)
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 12-01-2008 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by some_other_dave (Post 75761)
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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com