Don't tease the diesels

Bob,

Thanks for the data.

As a former 06 Jetta TDI owner (that I sold to buy my Prius), I have expirence in both.
The TDI was more "refined" and more fun to drive.
My Prius gets 10+ better mpg's and from a technology standpoint is very cool.

Everything considered, the Prius is still my choice but I completely understand why others would be loyal to their TDI's. I'm sure they are disappointed by the EPA #'s for the 09 TDIs, but just like the Prius, many, many drivers will exceed those figures.

 

When is somebody going to bring up the fact that diesels have the ability to run on B100 bio-diesel or even pure WVO with mods, thus using zero petroleum? Oh wait, I think I just did. This cannot be overstated, especially in respect to the trucking industry.

Speaking of the trucking industry, I'm not sure a diesel-hybrid is that beneficial given there is little stop and go traffic with rigs. However, solar panels on top to charge batteries to run accessories during down time would be great I think.

 

Interesting. I looked and the Bluetec 2007 MB E320 TD had PM of 0.002 as per the EPA test. It could only manage T2B8 as well.

I looked at the UK numbers for the 2.0TDi Jetta with DPF (which should be similar to the 09 coming to the US????) and it still lists 0.001. While low not quite the 0 you claimed in the post above Seems the larger diesel engines/cars will still have a little PM as per the tests even with the latest DPF technology.

 

Of course VW does not allow you to run higher than 5% BD without violating your warranty. Then there is the slight problem of where you would get the hundred billion + of gallons of vegetable oil needed to fuel the diesel fleet every year. Fortunately we do not eat _that_ many french fries. Trying to do this from virgin sources domestically runs into the same food price issues as ethanol. Buying it from the South East Asian palm plantations throws source/price stability and CO2 neutrality out the window and fuels an emerging environmental disaster. There is hope for long term sustainable means of biodiesel production, but none that are currently available or commercially viable.

For bio-fuels to be practical, we need to greatly reduce consumption. I would think hybrid technology is a great piece of that puzzle. A serial hybrid diesel truck, where the diesel engine is reduced in size and/or runs only part of the time at a constant operating point would probably result in a significant improvement in fuel economy and emissions. Of course much greater use of rail transport would increase efficiency far more, but some use of trucks is probably unavoidable due to our crumbling rail infrastructure if nothing else.

As far as torque goes, you don't need to worry about it. Take the EV street legal dragster "White Zombie" as an example. He's got 772 Ft-lbs of torque in an 1850 lb Datsun 510. That weight includes the dual 8" DC motors, controllers, and li-ion battery pack. So far their best 1/4 is 11.446s @ 114.08 mph. For comparison, most of the mags put the 505hp Corvette Z06 at around 12s in the 1/4 mile. The same electric motors are available up to 13", and since torque goes up with the square of radius.....

Rob

 

I thought it was MB that only allows 5% BD.

Regardless, these companies will have to stop beotching. 10% of BD is required in all CA diesels now. And soon around the country by 2010.

 

Sure, and as long as people are brewing the stuff up in their basements with chunky WVO it is certainly in their best interest to void warranty. That being said I know several people who have run B100 in unmodified TDIs for years with no problems. The larger problem is older cars/trucks with rubber hoses and rings which need to be upgraded.

Understood and point well taken but I'm not advocating bio-diesel as an all or nothing answer but as a supplement to dino I think it could still have a significant positive impact on the trucking industry. You might also underestimate just how many french fries we eat :hungry:
Seriously though, I think if we keep writing off all of these solutions to our fuel crisis because they may not be The Magic Bullet we are not going to get anywhere.

 

I think the point you are missing, is that there is a serious move afoot to convince people that diesels are clean. That they are just as clean/green a choice for personal transport as the best hybrids. This is simply not true, and it bothers me greatly that there are companies out there spending a lot of time and money trying to convince people otherwise.

My local Mercedes dealer has big signs out front heralding the arrival of the "world's cleanest diesel vehicle", referring to the E320 Bluetec. Its certainly the cleanest on the US market at the moment, but thats not saying a whole lot. Even on Low Sulfur diesel, compared to the Camry Hybrid it puts out 50% more CO2, 300+ times more CO, 16.5 times more NOx, and 13.5 times more Organic Gases (VOCs, HCs, etc). Compared to the "gas guzzling" Lexus GS450h it puts out the same amount of CO2, 288 times more CO, 16.5 times more NOx, and 10.2 times more organic gases.

Jeep claims on their website, "We can come and go without leaving a trace" with Clean Diesel Technology. In reality, compared to the Highlander Hybrid, the Grand Cherokee CRD puts out 57% more CO2, the same CO, and 40+ times more NOx.

Lastly, the frenzy on the internet for the new VW TDI has gotten to a point where everyone seems to expect 70mpg, sports car performance, and no emissions of any kind. It will be interesting to see whether the reality of 33 mpg, emissions in the same class (T2B5) as a Yukon Denali's 6.2L 380HP V8, and $4.72/gallon diesel dampens spirits at all, or if the buzz just keeps on buzzing. Meanwhile compared to the Prius, the 2006 TDI Jetta puts out 60% more CO2, 1/2 the CO, 31 times more NOx, 2.2 times more organic gases, and 25 times more overall smog emissions (HC-NM+NOX-COMP). The Jetta is about to get cleaner, but then again so is the 2009 Prius (based on the 2009 mileage estimates and the newer Camry and Lexus Hybrids actually having lower emissions than the Prius). The Jetta may make up some ground, but still looks like it will lag far behind the Prius at least on the grounds of environmental, petroleum consumption and operating cost arguments.

Of course we should be trying to build the cleanest diesel vehicles we can, but trying to move more transport onto diesel seems like a really bad idea. Seems like we should be saving it for the things that we can't easily get off. Cleaner hybrid diesel trucks sound great, but only for whatever freight we can't move by rail. Hybrid SUVs and full sized pickups have their place, but not if they are used to encourage solo commuters to keep using them.

Rob

 

Here is the latest info I had seen:
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/OEM Statements/2005_OEM_VW US Biodiesel_Statement_5_16_05.pdf

No doubt you can run higher, but at your own risk.

Rob

 

True enough. Thats my biggest problem with many of the bio-fuels advocates. They push it as an alternative to improving efficiency/reducing consumption. See the entire GM E85 fleet as an example. No doubt the solution will be a combination of things, my worry is that we tend to get on one band wagon and have a hard time getting off (hydrogen, ethanol, etc). In the mean time basic things we could have already been doing (better MPGs, PHEVs, BEVs) don't get any funding because they are not a sexy silver bullet solution.

Rob

 

Speaking of which ....

I am well aware of the role heavy duty diesel engines play in delivering materials/food/etc to me. They are built for that role and excel at it.

On the other hand, it's quite foolish to move as much freight as we do by road transport. A diesel locomotive is clearly the more efficient and "cleaner" choice. That will be a long time in coming due to the limited rail network we have

At the other end, the light duty - cars primarily - market, it would be foolish to substitute up to 50% of the fleet with diesel power. Here is why:

Your claims of efficiency are interesting. Diesel proponents like to push figures of up to 50% improvement, in the real world closer to 25%. In my field - petrochemicals - I'm well aware of how an oil refinery operates.

Due to the nature of diesel fuel, especially the mandated ULSD fuels now required, a given gallon of diesel has - at a *minimum* - a 40% greater crude stock cost than gasoline. Remember that with suitable catalytic reforming, even residual gases that were once flared are now turned into gasoline. You can't do that to make diesel

As far as the nature of diesel vs gasoline exhaust, that should no longer be open to debate

 

The Europeans have a far different test for particulates than we do. A lot of the test is weighted towards "visible" smoke, so naturally any light duty diesel fitted with a DPF will earn the perfect score you quoted for the two cars

As a hint, if those two cars did have PM values that low they would already both be on sale in California

Even the method for how PM2.5 and PM10 is weighted is far different than the EU, which is why the EU continues to allow light duty diesel engines to pump out 3-6 times the NOx and PM10 as we do

A company called Johnson Matthey makes DPF's for light and heavy duty diesel use. Even they don't claim 0 ppm, far from it

Johnson Matthey - Emission Control Technologies

Technologies - Diesel Particulate Filters

Retrofit plans do help air quality, but they are also not perfect

Edmonton Trolley Coalition

Obviously, I would prefer all diesel engines to be fitted with a DPF. But to suggest that somehow a diesel engine is "cleaner" than a gasoline engine, especially considering the approx 40% higher refinery feedstock useage, is a bit suspect

 

For what its worth, in the early 2008 TDI press releases the VW engineers were quoted as saying they hoped to hit 30% improvement. Much more in line with what you are saying. I think lots of people (press included) got fooled by the whole Imperial/US gallon conversion and really thought they were going to see 50, 60 or even 70 mpgs out of the new Jetta TDI. After all the UK VW Polo Bluemotion already gets 74mpg! Never mind that its much smaller than the Jetta, has a 1.4l engine, no AC, and their gallons are 20% bigger.

Rob

 

My apologies for shattering a dream.

 

And that is UK 47.5 mpg, which translates to .......

39.5 US mpg!!!

 

Rob

Perhaps we need a sticky to explain that

US Gallon: 3.78 litres

Imperial Gallon (Same as Canadian Gallon): 4.54 litres

 

Jayman.

Those are some sobering links. However I do take issue with the spin. ALL particulate emissions are bad, not just diesel particulate emissions. Yes, diesel exhaust has all kinds of nasty carcinogens in it, but so does gasoline exhaust.

I do realize that huge amounts of particulates are produced by diesels, but these are not from light-duty diesel engines used in passenger cars or even light to medium duty trucks. The vast majority of diesel emissions come from heavy duty trucks, off-road diesels, locomotive and marine diesels. From page 24 of the Union of Concerned Scientist paper you posted:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...fullreport.pdf

Today’s cars
Recent studies show that the average diesel passenger vehicle releases 17 to 40 times more soot than a gasoline vehicle from the same model year (Table 4). Unfortunately, the diesel vehicles evaluated in these studies are now more than 15 years old, and there is scant information available on the soot released by today’s light-duty diesel engines. Much more information is available on the heavy-duty sector, where most of the nation’s diesel fuel is consumed. Though approximately three times more gasoline is consumed in the United States than diesel fuel, the EPA nevertheless estimates that total particulate emissions from heavy diesel-powered trucks and buses are more than double those from gasoline-powered cars and light trucks (EPA, 2003).
(Table 4 shows a comparison of diesel cars from the 80’s)
​

This is the problem, modern diesel passenger vehicles are being lumped in with heavy-duty trucks or old passenger car diesels with no emissions equipment at all.


I won't argue that heavy-duty trucks haven't been a huge source of air pollution. This category went from 1994 to 2007 with no reductions in PM emission standards. The standard in 1994 was 0.10 grams/ horsepower / hour. This changed to 0.010 g/bhp/hr in 2007, a 90% reduction. Today, most of the heavy duty trucks you see on the road are pre-2007 trucks without particulate filters.

As of 2007, diesels in passenger cars have an even lower standard of 0.015 g/km (notice the difference between g/bhp/hr and g/km) Tier2Bin5 and Tier2bin2 have the same PM requirements. For a very good look at emission standards from around the world see: DieselNet: Diesel Exhaust Emission Standards

How much lower do we go? To me, ever tightening emission regulations becomes a zero sums game. How much time and money do we want to spend going from say 0.010 to 0.005? I would rather the EPA start regulating CO2 and have the automakers focus on reducing CO2, which directly correlates to fuel consumption, and reduce our oil consumption. We also need to focus on other sectors such as powered equipment and industry which have gone without regulation for years if not decades.

That was post #16, now for #32.

The reason that the EU allows more NOx and PM than the EPA is because the focus of EU regulations are CO and fuel economy while the focus of EPA regulations are smog related pollutants. The European focus is to reduce consumption of fuel, since it is a resource that they do not have domestically. The EU has 0.7% of the world’s oil reserves but consumes 19% of the worlds oil production. This compares to the US which as 2.9% of the world’s oil but consumes 25% of the world’s oil production.

The 123d is not legal for sale in the US or California due to NOx emission not a difference in test methods for PM. NOx will continue to be a challenge for diesel vehicles due to the high compression ratios inherent in the diesel engine. PM is no longer an issue due to particulate filters. (I refer to technical issues, not commercial issues.)

Yes, ECE and EPA measurement methods are different but the ECE standard is not just a check for visible smoke. The ECE method collects the particulates over a given time and weighs the total. That is why the standards are set in grams / kilometer. For Euro V and VI standards a new method will be used that is similar to the EPA method that was implemented for 2007. This method will combine weight measurement with a counting of particles. This change is to account for particulate filters that “regenerate’ by burning large particles into smaller particles that would pass through the collection instrument undetected.

For those that still don’t think that gasoline engines produce particulates since the EPA does not measure for them I present the following research paper from a Swiss Lab. Particle emissions from diesel passenger cars equipped with a particle trap in comparison to other technologies

Note that in their testing of methods to measure particulates the found that the gasoline vehicle tested produced more PM than the diesel with a PM filter. It seems that when you count particles instead of mass of PM, gasoline vehicles aren’t quite so squeaky clean after all. It remains to be seen if the EPA or CARB will start testing gasoline vehicles for PM.

Laboratory for Internal Combustion Engines, Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research), 8600 Dübendorf, SUISSE
Résumé / Abstract

Tail pipe particle emissions of passenger cars, with different engine and aftertreatment technologies, were determined with special focus on diesel engines equipped with a particle filter. The particle number measurements were performed, during transient tests, using a condensation particle counter. The measurement procedure complied with the draft Swiss ordinance, which is based on the findings of the UN/ECE particulate measurement program. In addition, particle mass emissions were measured by the legislated and a modified filter method. The results demonstrate the high efficiency of diesel particle filters (DPFs) in curtailing nonvolatile particle emissions over the entire size range. Higher emissions were observed during short periods of DPF regeneration and immediately afterward, when a soot cake has not yet formed on the filter surface. The gasoline vehicles exhibited higher emissions than the DPF equipped diesel vehicles but with a large variation depending on the technology and driving conditions. Although particle measurements were carried out during DPF regeneration, it was impossible to quantify their contribution to the overall emissions, due to the wide variation in intensity and frequency of regeneration. The numbers counting method demonstrated its clear superiority in sensitivity to the mass measurement. The results strongly suggest the application of the particle number counting to quantify future low tailpipe emissions.
​

 

ok, but i'm not introducing you to my thesis committee. i can see the arguments that would ensue

workin' on the research thing. the thing nobody tells you is the importance of the "re" in research! 2 more studies to complete, hopefully no more "re" and that should launch the frantic writing stage. cross fingers.

wvo requires a LOT of filtering and heating, which takes energy. also, you have to warm up on diesel since wvo doesn't like to run through fuel lines until the coolant has heated it up some. then you have to flush the fuel lines with diesel before shutting off or risk clogged lines at next start. we still put about a tank a month (sometimes more) into the wvo beast. granted, it's a far cry from running on diesel all the time but by no means do we use no petroleum.

 

I think we can agree that - in the end - it's mostly semantics anyway. Ever rising fuel prices will tend to force the most fuel-guzzling - therefore the largest emitters - off the road anyway

The thing is, I really take exception to not focusing on health. Emissions control were introduced in the US - California - primarily due to health concerns. Despite a much larger fleet, and many more miles travelled by that fleet, the air quality in California is light years better than it was in the early 1970's

The ironic thing is that the now universal application of catalytic converters has dramatically increased CO2 from cars and trucks. A TWC doesn't work by magic, it's a chemical reaction. So we have substituted proven smog forming and carcinogenic exhaust for CO2, which appears to be a proven global warming gas

The problem with any choice involving the economy, the environment, etc, is that there are winners and losers. We have to have all the facts presented, the costing, and make a rational decision that benefits the greatest number

Oh, and on an oil consumption issue, substituting diesel for the light duty fleet will *not* help reduce oil imports. For refinery yield, gasoline has a minimum 40% higher yield per barrel of oil. A diesel powered vehicle must be at least 40% more efficient than a comparable gasoline engine to "break even."

Now with all the extra hydrotreating you have to do to make ULSD, the equation is even worse