Cost Conundrum Holds Up Diesel Hybrid Cars

I just priced a gallon of canola oil and it was $8.75 so that's a bargain. Not sure how it would pour at -30 but I suspect that it's no where as liquid as diesel or gas. By the time you doctored it up with low pour emulsifiers it's probably around $10, and I'm still not sure it's an economical solution. Yes it's low sulfur. That's about the only advantage that it has.

 

BULL BULL BULL BULL BULL!!!!!~!

what a load of crap!!!

experimental vehicle my A**!!!

sorry i didnt respond sooner but i just came back from hanging out at the bus station here in the experimental town of Olympia, WA where the government HAS STEPPED in... it is simply a choice of your local government. our local government has made the choice of reducing our dependance on oil, most simply have not.

http://priuschat.com/forums/album_pic.php?pic_id=874

bio diesel vehicles are on the road in rather large numbers around here but that is a direct result of a directive by the state that all fvehicle fleets for the state WILL buy alternative fuel vehicles. you will quickly find that if you give government and big business the option they will take the easy way out.

 

ok i just read the article... so anyone know anything about the hybrid pickup Toyota has???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer\";p=\"43029)</div>

They already did.

It's amazing how history comes back into play years later to an entirely new audience. Too bad that past wasn't better known already. That sure would help with the understanding of hybrids.

PNGV was a federally funded program to produce a 80 MPG family sedan, championed by Vice-President Gore. One of the prototypes delivered 72 MPG, using a diesel-hybrid configuration and every weight-reducing trick in the book (including patio-style seats).

But shortly after this administration took charge, they plugged the plug that program to establish the "FreedomCar" effort instead.

Needless to say, the PNGV prototypes disappeared and absolutely nothing has resulted from FreedomCar.

By the way, the refusal of allowing Toyota to join PNGV is actually what caused Prius to be created.

 

I've learned some interesting facts while debating the "non-hybrid diesel" supporters...

VW only sells 36,000 diesel vehicles *TOTAL* in the United States each year (due to EPA restrictions, since they are so high in NOx & PM emissions). That number includes all TDI models combined. Obviously, the sales of Prius alone will soon greatly dwarf that count. (100,000 expected in 2005 in the United States.)

Biodiesel is less efficient than diesel, by about 10%.

Biodiesel is dirtier than diesel. There's 10% more NOx (SMOG) emissions.

Biodiesel is quite a bit more expensive than diesel.

Biodiesel turns to gel when the temperature drops to 20F. So an additive, which increases the cost even more, is required.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a\";p=\"43175)</div>

Not entirely true, John. Biodiesel is actually quite a bit cleaner than conventional diesel fuel. Several school districts in Washington State have converted their school buses to run on it and have noticed huge drops in respiratory ailments among the mechanics who service them and the kids who ride on them. One school district even removed the air scrubbers from their maintenance garages because they were no longer necessary.
What you fail to realize is that biodiesel is entirely bio-degradable and the exhaust is vastly less toxic than petro diesel.

Biodiesel does cost more, but the cost is in part because most commercially available bio diesel is made from soy beans which are a high cost source. It also suffers from the economies of scale: if there were enough producrs of it, the cost would come down. We subsidize petroleum in ways most of us don't realize, so that comparing petrol to other alternative fuels leads us to unfair conclusions about the true economics. If we began paying the true environmental cost of petroleum, these alternative fuels would look a whole lot better in comparsion economically.
Bio diesel need not be made from soybeans; it can be made from virtually any cooking oil source, including used cooking oil. My partner has been making his own bio diesel for about 6 months from the used oil he gets from a local Chinese restaurant and has virtually no problem. His total cost is about 60 cents a gallon and he has already paid off the cost of his materials.

Biodiesel does tend to gel in cold weather, but there are folks in Minnesota who are able to use it either by heating their storage tanks or using additives in very small quantities.

Lyle has noticed virtually no loss of power from his biodiesel. Estimates are that it is about 5 percent less efficient. Generally, the relative loss of power is unnoticeable to most drivers and is compensated by the cleaner operation of the engine itself and the reduced carbon/soot in the exhaust.

Ironically, Rudolph Diesel invented this engine to run on oil made from crops so that farmers could be energy self-sufficient. In yet another example of how Standard Oil and friends have co-opted our lives, diesel oil production was taken over by the big oil companies with the usual detriments to our environment

Bob

 

Your references are to PM, which are in fact considerably less with biodiesel than diesel.

I suggest reading the document here... http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/biodsl.htm

It clearly shows that the NOx problem gets worse, not better. And since that is what contributes to SMOG, there is a very real concern about endorsing a product like that without also strictly requiring the cleansing hardware too... which is the very point of this topic. That hardware is quite expensive.

And no, I didn't "fail to recognize". I simply didn't mention it. I also made no mention to ethanol either (which I'm using 10% in my Prius right now). In other words, scope has not been defined. Are we talking mix or full? Are we talking short or long term? Are we talking 100,000 or 17,500,000 vehicles per year? It's really hard to tell what the heck the goal is from the article. Perhaps the fuel-cell effort is now being abandoned in favor of eventually producing a 80 MPG biodiesel-hybrid, complete with the PZEV emission rating.

 

the biodiesel used here is much cleaner than regular diesel. and all gas in Western Washington has 10% ethanol which is required by law. has been for years.

biodiesel is THE ONLY ZERO EMISSION PROCESSED ALTERNATIVE FUEL

In Washington State alone, biodiesel diverts nearly a thousand tons of used cooking oil from the landfills every year.

biodiesel has reduced emissions in every polution category.

there is no loss of performance using biodiesel wholely or as an additive up to 20% in regular diesel.

biodiesel has advanced lubricating properties that should enhance engine life, reduce maintenance and tailpipe emissions.

having a flashpoint of 300º makes it one of the safest fuels available for any purpose.



advances are made in biodiesel every day.... check out the site

www.biodiesel.com

 

One facet of bio diesel that hasn't been mentioned here is CO2. Unlike petro fuel, bio-diesel does not produce additional CO2 beyond that which was generated by the plant material from which it was made. In fact, it represents a net loss of CO2 to the atmosphere. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, introduce previously locked up CO2 into the atmosphere creating a net gain of CO2 greenhouse gases.
This shouldn't be an "us versus them" argument. Neither hybrids nor diesels are produced in enough numbers, yet, to measureably affect the greenhouse gas problem. Both hybrid technology and bio-diesel (along with all bio-fuels) are parts of the solution. The nice thing about bio-diesel is that it can be produced NOW, using existing engines with no modifications required, and with very simple tecnology that could be employed virtually anywhere.

 

The EPA report cited by John shows overall average NOX emissions increasing almost linearly with biodiesel content, up to a 10% increase in NOX for pure bioDiesel. See especially pp.37-42. But this is an average result from observations of mostly heavy-duty highway engines, most of them more than 10 years old at the time, none of them modified in any way, and using a variety of bio feedstocks. At the same time all of them showed large improvements in particulate and CO emissions. It seems highly likely that new engine designs using fuel with an optimised composition would get significantly better results.

 

Ethanol vs BioDiesel

What would it take to convert the ICE on a hybrid to run on ethanol? From what I understand, it makes less polution,
is a renewable, non-petroleum based fuel, and I believe it's relatively easy to convert standard gasoline motors to use it?

 

Ethanol is not worth the bother except as an agricultural subsidy. It takes almost as much external energy input to make as it contains (or even more, depending on details).

Methanol could work but there's not much of a distribution network for it as a fuel. This may change; it may be useful as a fuel cell fuel.

 

Check out... http://cleanairchoice.org

...especially this page... http://cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85.asp

It is technically EXTREMELY realistic. But keep in mind that Minnesota is the nation's leader in ethanol efforts. So growing, refining, and using it locally does have cost advantages that other states wouldn't.

10% ethanol is mandatory here, and has been for many years. So that's all both my Prius have ever used.

85% ethanol is a choice that some owners with FFV are very slowly starting to adopt.

 

John1701,

What would happen if you use this E-85 in your 04 Prius and did you ever use it in your earlier one?

Ben

 

Don't ever try E85 in a Prius.

The engine would run rough and the E85 would eventually eat through a few of the internal components.