Excellent job, Bob

I think biodiesels are a big step in the right direction, especially compared to the old dirty diesels. Regular diesels are getting cleaner, too (so I hear), but let's see if California ever lets them be sold in their state again. I think only the new biodiesels will be eligible.

There is plenty of room on the road (in my mind, anyway) for any vehicle where a real emphasis in reducing fuel consumption has been made. Diesels, bio-diesels, hybrids of any variety, full electrics - bring 'em on! Step by step, I say. We will not change an entire country's gluttony overnight. I'd love to see us all driving around in plug-in full electrics. Then, we just have to clean up the power grid (with more solar, hydro, wind, and nuclear power). It's going to be a long time coming, though.

 

Nicely done Bob ... but just because I'm making the forum aware of what is being published doesn't make me anti-hybrid.

Personally I still prefer my long running biodiesel powered TDI over a hybrid since I make several 4 hour drives on the interstate each week. I like being able to fill up with a carbon neutral domestically produced fuel, return an average of 45 mpg, enjoy the spirited 'tuned' performance I get from my VW Jetta and take pleasure in both the current resale value and longevity possible from diesel cars.

Again, I'm not dissing hybrids ... but since subject of this thread seems to ask for debate thought it was a good place to offer up that article? Maybe 'all' of the authors' opinions are wrong ... nevertheless not many hybrid owners know the life cycle of their batteries or the gasoline going into their tanks. (as fuel sipping as they may be)

 

Hi Rich,

I too have posted anti-hybrid articles from time to time but I make sure to include the counter facts and data. I do that because it provides readers with 'ready answers' when such nonsense is tossed in our faces by well meaning but terribly ignorant folks.

On a carbon neutral fuel-transportation cycle, I agree. As for the means, I have no problem with modern, well designed and maintained, engines regardless of cycle: Diesel, Otto, Atkinson, Sterling, turbine, internal or external.

Understand that I have no problem with posting anti-hybrid articles provided their worst claims are answered. The archives of just about every hybrid forum are sprinkled with anti-hybrid postings and the ensuing debate. But as I shared with someone else, I've had to deal with 'propaganda' techniques for such a long time that the pattern has become too familiar. Whether for or against something I like, it just rubs me the wrong way to see semantic tricks used to defend what the facts and data show to be wrong.

One thing useful that has come out of this discussion are two new 'persons of interest:'It has been my experience that what happens is these 'useful idiots' are cited and quoted by more venial, anti-hybrid advocates. These names become excellent search terms for future attacks in mainstream media.

The familiar pattern is one disreputable source publishes a lie or a rumor of a lie. Then the rest copy and write and publish articles about "the issue" while claiming no responsibility for repeating the lie or doing fact checking needed to puncture the falsehood. That is why it is so important to do the fact checking.

Please don't take this as anything but an explanation of how this engineer sees the world. I'm thankful for an opportunity to supply the facts and data while saddened that it is necessary.

Bob Wilson

 

If you use the nuclear energy to desalinate water you're left with very expensive water but no energy left to sell. Why bring up desaltification?

 

I found the original article in the UK paper, "The Mail", and offered this comment:

--Begin comment--
Martin Delgado's article, "Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness" contains enough falsehoods to make one wonder if the "Daily Mail" has any fact checkers:

1) "Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness" - while Martin states, "Sudbury has spewed sulphur dioxide into the air for more than a century."

2) Photo of SO(2) ravaged plants - compare that to oil spill photos and tar ***** on the beaches.

3) "The car giant buys about 1,000 tons a year" - about 0.7% of the 144,500 tons Canada mined just in 2002.

4) "environmental cost of producing that car battery" - while ignoring the nickel use in high temperature steels in ordinary cars and other nickel uses WHILE the hybrid batteries reduce oil consumption.

5) "questionable . . . more miles to the gallon than a good diesel" - while ignoring every engineering study that shows hybrids more efficient.

Perhaps someone should wake-up the fact checkers?
--End of comment--

I don't know if it will do any good but the best answer is to question their accuracy. Delgado is just a hack and what is important is to get those who 'publish' such nonsense to be shamed into do the right thing. IMHO, this article should have been tossed back in Delgado's face with at least the red-lines I've pointed out.

Bob Wilson

 

ok... so I was not incorrect in saying the GX is the cleanest out there... at least according to this:
http://www.greenercars.com/highlights_greenest.htm

 

This looks like a pretty good thread. Emissions testing is very important. I too would like to know which is better in terms of car emissions (not factory/transportation considerations):
Biodiesel 99 or 100, a "real" hybrid like the civic or prius, or waste veggie oil (WVO), which I also currently use for my formerly dirty diesel short school bus (yes, I wear a helmet).

I am v. excited about WVO because it cuts out all the "production factors" of biodiesel (even bidiesel 100). It is simple to collect and filter at home. Also, mind you this is for a school bus that holds approx 25 gallons of WVO.

thanks for the discussion.

 

Apparently Bob and others have "misinterpreted" the article, so it has been pulled. Click the link to see the explanation. Looks like there will be no apologies made for this trash journalism. Nonetheless, thank-you for speaking up, Bob!

I'm skeptical of ever seeing a diesel-hybrid engine in a North American consumer car that includes ICE stop. Diesel engines are already complex and sensitive to engine stops (eg. the cooling of the turbo and its bearings), and getting even more complex with the updated emissions standards. Ruling out ICE stop, since a diesel runs lean at idle anyways, battery assist and regeneration might work if it can handle the torque.

My experience with consumer car diesel is that it's not as reliable and enduring as its proponents make it out to be. Whether it be clogged EGR valves, turbo failures, extra-sensitivity to oil levels, engine vibration causing leaky hose joints, it turns out to be a paradoxically high-maintenance engine.

 

That makes a lot of sense and explains the disparity between long-haul trucker experience and what we see in consumer vehicles. However, I suspect the marrage of a diesel and hybrid, especially a hybrid with significant power, say 2/3 hybrid and 1/3 diesel would work. Today, our gas hybrids are 1/3 hybrid and 2/3 gas.

The reason for a stronger ratio diesel-hybrid is this lets the diesel run longer in computer controlled power levels while the stronger electric system handles peak loads. IMHO, the biggest problem with ICE operation is variable power demands. If we can insulate the actual operation and have computer management, a lot of difficult problems such as condensation of combusion products, lubrication and cooling go away.

Bob Wilson

 

The problem with the premise of the original question (biodiesel vs hybrid emissions) is that there's no common standard in the US for what constitutes "biodiesel" in the first place (notwithstanding the propaganda from the commercial biodiesel industry); the German car companies who probably have the most experience with passenger car diesel engines, like VW, won't warranty a car in North America with a more than 5% biodiesel blend. Period. And in Europe, there are just now being agreed upon manufacturing standards for what is called "biodiesel".

So, not knowing what exactly constitutes biodiesel fuel, it's impossible to make accurate predictions as to how the new Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel emission-equipped cars (model year 2009 VW, for instance) will perform when using non-standard fuel. From what I've been reading, the new emission systems are even less tolerant of biodiesel than were the Low Sulfur Diesel equipped cars previous.

And all this talk of comparing biodiesel cars with hybrids is nonsense anyways; Joe Sixpack or Soccermom Sally aren't going to mess with gelled fuel filters in the cold months, and having to worry about blend ratios when the temperature begins to fall. They just want a vehicle that will take them from point A to point B with minimal hassle. Until biodiesel is manufactured to international agreed to standards, and cars are specifically engineered for their use (which the new ULSD emissions-equipped cars ARE NOT), it's just pie in the sky.

BTW, VW MY 2008 diesel passenger cars introduction to the US are being delayed, due to problems during long-term emissions testing. Latest word is fall of 2008, which is MY2009.

~Joe