Europe has it figured out, it's about time diesel cars become more mainstream here.. autoblog.com/2007/06/06/…

"British motoring mag Autocar is reporting that the new Accord diesel we recently told you about will get really good mileage. That might seem like a no-brainer, but when we say "really good," we mean it. Like more than 60 mpg really good. Autocar says the diesel will be good for as much as 62.8 mpg when it appears in a dealership near you. That's 52.3 mpg here in the States, by the way."

They Accord Hybrid was crap (which they're discontinuing), it cost a whole lot more than the regular Accord but not much more in terms of mileage (in part because the Accord was great already).

The only problem though is that diesel is priced low in part because of its low demand, if diesel really takes over big it may offset any increase in mpg that we'll get.

fuck yeah

fuck hybrids. their batteries are a environmental fuckmeharder bullshits.

diesel is the way to go for mileage. cdi, blutech. umm hello!??!?!?

i'm dying to get a diesel.  Its unreal how the recent VW TDIs have held up in terms of resale value.  I would trade 50 hp for 100 ft/lbs of torque and better gas mileage.

diesel kick ass, and it smells yummmmy

speaking of hybrids.. you know whats funny about the Prius..?
There are people in south america who make about $2 a day cutting down trees so they can use the wood to build sheds. In these sheds, they burn coal which is an additive in the metal used to make various parts found in the prius, including the motor itself.

just a little tid-bit I thought i'd thrown in

Why don't we already use diesel?

Diesel's are fine as long as you don't live anywhere cold.  My family had one when we lived in the snow.  Not fun.

This topic is supposed to be about Shaquille O'Neal and his hate for hybrids.

diesel motors were introduced to the US market in the late 70s due to that whole gas shortage thing. unfortunately, the engines were crude, noisy, notorious for burning oil, and just downright smelly.  Plus, the mpg performance wasn't significantly better - although the engines themselves were just about bulletproof.

Fast forward 30 yrs, and technology has made them viable.  They can be super clean, give terrific mpg, and they don't burn (as much) oil now.  Plus you get gobs and gobs of torque (which is great for pulling stuff, towing stuff, and driving around the city). The only downside is they run a bit rougher and noisier than their unleaded counterparts.

Its fairly common to find diesels in full size American pickups (f-150+, Silverados, Rams) as well as all tractors and trucks.  Benz has recently released in the US their version called Bluetech which can be found on their midsize e-class cars.  And the cheapest diesel powered vehicles are the VW ones - the rabbit, and jetta, and the passat.

so how to find a mechanic in bay area that modifies an old diesel german car to take like biodiesel...just curious...what do they do in Brazil with all that alter fuel stuff...besides burning the amazonian jungle...what is a good solution...better public transit system for all of bay area where there are shuttles that pick up and drop you off door to door, is what i would like to see...

James - I know what you mean about Diesel in the cold.  My family had a 1980-81ish diesel Suburban.

Ran great, but on those family ski trips to Tahoe.. what a b!tch!

The Honda Accord is discontinued because Honda does not know how to do hybrid well.  They keep their Civic hybrid for now, but it may go away too.  The Honda's hybrid design is lame.  The percentage gain in mileage is mediocre.  The Civic did okay in mileage because it is a small car, the hybrid system helped a little bit but not much.  The Civic was attractive just because its EPA mileage estimate was over 45mpg which qualifies its solo drivers to use the Car Pool lanes.  Now that the Car Pool Lane stickers has already exceeded the quota, the Civic hybrid is much less attractive.

Don't be fool when you read the mpg data from a British publication.  They use imperial gallon which is not the same as US gallon.  So the number appears high than the equivalent that you get in the US.  

Diesel stinks.  When clean diesel cars become more popular, it is good for the environment.  But no matter how good a diesel car gets.  Someone would come up with a diesel hybrid car that do much better than a regular diesel car.  So if the diesel car can get 52.3 mpg, then a diesel hybrid may break new ground at 80mpg.

The hybrid design is independent of what kind of fuel you use.  Comparing diesel to hybrid is like comparing apple to orange.

I'm all about the 2-strokes!

I wanted the Passat TDI, but you can't get it in Cali.

Answer to Matt H.

Diesel used to have a very high sulfur contents which pollute our air big time.  The carbon soot emit from the tail pipe (you can see those black smoke from big rig trucks and buses) can cause lung cancer.  Gasoline is bad for causing smog.  Diesel is bad for causing lung cancer.

Europe has been using clean diesel for many years now.  Clean diesel requires extra refining processes to remove the impurities in the fuel.  US didn't want to spend extra money to produce any clean diesel until government regulation forces them to recently.  The bottom-lines of the oil companies are more important than your lungs, you know?  Now the clean fuel is available, the clean cars can come.  The new diesel cars are designed to burn the fuel more completely and hence getting more energy out of the same gallon of fuel.  The clean diesel cars will be a great improvement to air pollution problems.

Sweet!  Thanks Joe!

Diesels were designed to be run on vegetable oil.
Hybrid batteries only last 5-7 years, and cost $10k to replace, and $2k to dispose of.
California will undergo a massive population shift as gas rates climb.
Invest in private transportation companies, and emerging power technologies.

I did not say this. I was not here.

Passat TDI is not allowed in California because it is a big polluter.

Probably not a site that's called treehugger.com :)

Joe L. says:

Passat TDI is not allowed in California because it is a big polluter.

---

Is it really? I was under the impression that they weren't allowed because stations weren't equipped for fueling them like in New York.

Susan, I talked to the guy from Calcars calcars.org at Makerfaire makerfaire.com, and he pretty much validated my research.

I have Diesel jeans.

Diesel is great cause you get better mileage and you can also use biodiesel interchangably.  Go diesel!

That is one way to look at it..but I think they'll be more for hybrids since that is the "Green" way to go these days..and batteries are seen as money as being the only green that's been wasted..

It has 260 horsepower, every other hybrid has 110 or something.  It's just not made strictly for the mileage weenies..
--
The Camry hybrids are popular, much more popular than the Accord when you compare them to their gas counterparts.

The 'green movement' is all about exploiting emerging markets. People that are environmentally aware were 'green' long before it was cool.

Green is the 'Web 2.0' of the environmentalist movement.

Furthermore, the whole 'carbon trading' scheme is scam.

We are not even in Kyoto...do you think the USA gives a hoot about hybrid cars?

I wonder what vin diesel would have to say about all this.

I wonder where  "Fallopian Swim Team D" got the misinformation from.  Look like you are totally clueless.  You believe in all the lies you heard and helped to spread them too.

Let's compare notes.

Toyota's warranty on the hybrid batteries is 10 years and 150K miles.
Not many parts on any car, not even the engine, get this kind of guarantee.

The Toyota Prius was first released in 1997 in Japan and in 2000 in the US.
If the batteries only last 5-7 years, and cost $10K to replace, Toyota would have already pulled the Prius off the market.
If my math and your claim is correct, those tens of thousands of batteries have started to fail a few years ago.
The actual statistics proved all those rumors were just lies.  You know, sour grapes probably spread by Detroit.

FYI.  A new  battery pack costs about $2K.  And Toyota pays for it under warranty.  Toyota claims the batteries are expected to last as long as your car, just like a normal engine would last the lifetime of the car.  If you are unlucky enough to need a replacement battery after the 10 year 150K mile factory warranty.  You can get a used one for about $600 at a junk yard.   (compare that with a replacement engine or transmission).  Even hybrid cars get in crashes too, so there is a supply of after market used batteries.  As far as I know, the material in the dead batteries can be refined and recycled to build new batteries.  I am sure there is a recycle program for those dead batteries and you don't need to dispose of them.

Joe, I am not going to argue with you. I was relating a discussion I had with a company rep at the Makerfaire, and how it related to things I have seen on the net, and other discussions I have had. I am sure you have a hybrid, or sell them, and know tons more than I do. Furthermore, I do not own, and have never owned a car (as a lifestyle choice), so my input is further nullified, but I have never had to worry about polluting either.

"The Prius gets about 44 "real" mpg, not nearly as much better than the similar Corolla or Camry models as EPA figures suggest. Consumer's Union suggests a typical driver will save 176 gallons/year over a Corolla and 284 over a Camry. As the Prius-style non-hybrid is in between, call it 200 gallons or $450/year -- $2800 present value over the predicted 8 year life of the battery. Not enough to cover the added cost of a Hybrid today (in part because high demand for Hybrids makes them more expensive) but it is nice to get.
But what if you didn't buy it and put the saved money into carbon credits? Well, you could offset 681 tonnes of CO2 with $1500 at the current cheap U.S. price. That's 77,000 gallons of gasoline!."

My lifestyle choice nullifies your argument.

Do you have any idea how much petroleum is used to make those stupid batteries? On the Toyota, the battery pack (nickel-metal hydride aka Ni-MH) is comprised of 38 individual battery modules (228 1.2-V cells). Each cell is encased in a plastic chamber with all the plastic modules mounted inside a large metal container. This battery pack weighs approximately 110 pounds.

Do you have any idea what it costs to 'properly dispose' of such materials?

Oh yeah...don't forget that the American Prius is intentionally handicapped , just to sell more gas autoblog.com/2006/06/01/….

The Calcars mods are great, but also void the warranty. Very sad.

Answer to Keane L.

I found this 3 year old article at
theautochannel.com/news/…
It says that the car was banned from California and New York etc. due to pollution problems.
It also predicted that the car will be available in those states by 2007.
So if New York is getting them now, it may come to California soon.
Just keep waiting.

In one of my postings above, I pointed out clean diesel cars needs clean diesel fuel.
So the car is still a big polluter until you can get clean diesel fuel.

The most promising alternatives I have seen so far  use  Brown's gas en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br….

Youtube has several videos...Yes, one of them is even a converted car youtube.com/results?sear….

Ethanol/biodiesel will not work. We would need to convert 100% of all available farmland in The USA, and multiply it by ten to accommodate 2006 consumption levels. Even then, carbon credits, global dimming, ozone, and air pollution would not be addressed.

the only way to avoid these MAJOR problems is to redistribute populations, into smaller, self sustaining communities, with organic farming, composting, and waste disposal. Mass transit and carpooling should be mandatory. Bicycle lanes (more like bicycle highways) should be mandatory. Anything less is a band-aid on a gunshot wound

A regular car burns gas at the moment you start the car.  A hybrid only burns gas when it needs to.  One uses a constant burn strategy and the other is to burn as needed.  One gets a relatively consistent mpg no matter what you do.  The other gets variable mpg depending on driver's driving habits, traffic condition, terrains, climate etc.  For example, if you usually rush to the red light and slam on the brake at last moment, you will probably get 45mpg and need to replace the brake pad every 20K miles.  However, if you time your approach and lift your foot off the gas when the light turns red ahead and let the car roll to a stop, you will probably get 65mpg and never need any brake work.  It is a matter of choice how you waste gas and money.  The same change in driving habit gets you better mileage on any car except the improvement is much obvious on a hybrid.

The Toyota Prius mileage number starts at 45mpg and up.  Some guys in the east coast ran an experiment to drive a Prius in ideal driving conditions, they recorded 110mpg over a course of some 1300 miles on an unmodified Prius.  The potential is there.  It is really up to you whether you want to take advantage or not.

Do you find it funny when these people compare the alleged Prius actual mileage with the Camry EPA estimate?  Why couldn't they compare actual to actual or estimate to estimate?  Isn't the hidden agenda very obvious?

clean diesel is progressing...but it's still oil based.  Biodiesel's great for countries with excess biomass...but would be a disaster in the US.

Go electric.

(if you want the long version of my answer...just search talk)

Do you find it funny when these people compare the alleged Prius actual mileage with the Camry EPA estimate?  Why couldn't they compare actual to actual or estimate to estimate?  Isn't the hidden agenda very obvious?
--
The actual Prius mpg and estimates vary a great deal more than with a regular gas car.  The Prius's EPA estimate is 60/51, but most people get in the 40s or so, a huge discrepancy.

With a Camry or similar vehicle the estimate is generally no more than a couple mpg apart..

You're right though, it should be oranges to oranges..

Those guys that achieved 100+ mpg also did it by driving at 30mph everywhere.  If you drive 30mph at a constant speed anywhere in America you should be run over at that speed.

BUMP

People need to get in on this thread. Either to read it, or participate. This is about our future.

how about the Tesla
teslamotors.com/index.php

Tien N.
I was not saying the 110mpg is realistic nor typical.  BTW, I believe those guys drove at around 40 to 45 mph on a local highway with no stops.  I used that just to illustrates the range of mileage the hybrid can achieve.  It further strengthens my points on how much you save on a hybrid is very dependent on your choice of driving style.  On regular car, the mileage is pretty much fixed because the idling engine always burn a certain minimum amount of fuel.  But on the hybrids, you can get from 40 mpg up to 110mpg depending on what you do.  So when a critic wants to find bad examples, there are plenty to choose from.  Are they true?  Perhaps true in some situations for some people.  But are those typical?  Of course, the hybrid bashers want you to believe that.  

On the Toyota Prius, the typical mileage is around 48 mpg if you drive at or below speed limits like 65mph in typical commuting situations.  Yes, the result is below the EPA estimate.  The EPA test condition is just not how typical people would drive.  I beleive EPA assumes highway speed means 45mph.  Like those guys in the East Coast, the EPA test condition produces some incredible results.  Since no one drives like the EPA people, there is a big gap in expectation. Many people can achieve more than the EPA estimates, but most cannot, hence the disappointment.  Starting next year, the EPA tests will be updated to give a more accurate estimate closer to reality.  Expect every estimate on every car to go downwards.  

People who likes to speed will get less.  People who drives short trip will get even less.  The warm up cycle of the Prius consumes gas.  So the first 5 minutes of driving always give you between 25 to 30 mpg.  If you always drive less than or about 5 minutes short trips, you probably get less than 30mpg out of your trips.  Is 30mpg bad?  It is bad compared to the EPA estimate of 60mpg.  But compare to any other car under the same driving condition, 30mpg is still better than 15mpg on some cars.  Such short trips hurt all car's mileage, but they bring down the average much steeper on the hybrid.   A pure electric car is ideal in those short trips.  Since the warm-up cycle in the first 5 minutes is a fixed overhead, the length of your trips impacts the mileage by the averaging effect.  It is very hard to give a consistent estimate because everyone's driving habit and route is different.  It is very true that some people would be disappointed, but most aren't.  According to consumer surveys, the Toyota Prius is the car that most current owners will buy again.  Such stats prove that the disappointment is NOT typical.

The 250 mile range of the Tesla does not bother me, it is plenty for daily commute or weekend cruising.
But the 3 hours charging cycle will prevent you from driving between SF and LA without a long break.

The $100K price tag is too much.  But I wouldn't reject it if it were a gift.

Funny story... My Dad owned a VW rabbit that was diesel. We took it to LA once... Got on average 50 MPG... That's driving at 55 (back in the day when the speed limit was 55 MAX).

Honda Insight is a two seater.  Its emission is so bad that it didn't even qualify to get the Federal tax credit despite its high mileage.  

Prius is a 5 seater family car with a Corolla size exterior and a Camry size interior.  With a hatchback, it doubles as a utility vehicle at Home Depot when you are not hauling your kids to their soccer game.  They are popular for many reasons.

Camry is marketed as a fuel saving family car.  Accord hybrid is marketed as a performance car, but trimming one second off the 0-60 time is not good enough because it is still not a sport car.  It is hard to compare their popularity when they are targeting different kind of buyers.

Joe do you work for (now), or have you ever worked for Honda, or a subsidiary? You are pushing the 'Honda' point while ignoring all of the other points raised here. (I am not trolling, just curious)

Diesels are pants, right?

There are many ways to make Diesel clean..filters and particle traps can cut emissions to much lower levels, so hopefully something like that becomes required if Diesel ever explodes..

diesel gas pollutes the air...yeah it's cheap but they stink...

european car manufacturers are investing heavily in hydrogen plants.  I think your argument doesn't quite fit all the facts.  Don't miscompare a spot comparison with a long-term outlook.

Oh yea I own a Prius btw ^^v

i LOVE IT!

I'm a considerate driver. I drive ALL THE WAY ON THE RIGHT LANE! So that way I can get my 55-65 mpg! I typically on average get about 50-55 mpg. I tend to drive around 60-65 mph. If I'm late I drive 70-75 mph

Anyways there may be ppl hating on the Hybrids and I'm getting tired of hearing it because

*POINTS AT YOU AND YOU AND YOU**

ARE YOU DRIVING A MERCEDES!SUV! HUMMER! BMW! INFINITI or a FREAKING LUXURY CAR!

HUH ARE YOU!

I bet SOME of you are! So quit your yapping you FREAKING 19-25 MPG-ers!

And umm I'm going to add in Mustang and Audi too while I'm at it

On a full tank w/ my Prius I was able to reach around 450 miles driven w/ still one bar left.
and the prius tank holds about 11 gallons

answer to F.S.T.D.

No, I don't and have never worked for Honda.  I was not speaking for Honda. As a matter of fact,  I kept pointing out the Honda hybrid system is inferior and lame.  The Honda Insight burns less but it burns dirty, so it is no good.  The reason why the Honda Insight gets the highest mileage among all hybrid cars is because the two seater is the smallest one.  Not because it has the best hybrid design.  When the same technology applies to the Civic and the Accord, everyone can see that the result is not very impressive.  I'll bet that if Toyota puts its hybrid technology on a car as small as the Insight, it would definitely outperform the Insight by a big margin and still be rated as a Partial Zero Emission car.

Brown's gas does not work in practice.  How are you going to carry the Hydrogen-Oxygen mixture?  Like a bomb?  Or you plan to install a very powerful electrolysis system on board and generate the HHO mixture out of water on the fly?  So where do you get the power to do the electrolysis?  A Mr. Fusion like the one you saw in Back to the Future?  Or a very long extension cord that drags behind the car?

Hydrogen fuel cell car is not ready for prime time until the refueling stations are all converted for hydrogen.  Strictly speaking, hydrogen is just an energy storage medium.  You still have to find the energy to produce the hydrogen.  I don't think the current hydrogen production can keep up when people start buying fuel cell cars.  Are you ready for hydrogen rationing or paying a skyrocketing price when supply fails to catch up?

Clean burning and high mileage are two independent considerations, one does not imply the other.  The Honda Insight and the new diesel cars are high mileage but dirty cars.  The cleanest is electric cars.  However, Electric has range problem and the batteries are major issues to the pocket books and to the environment.  At this time, hybrid is the best compromise before we invent Mr. Fusion.   It is the best way to save energy other than not travel at all.

The Tesla roadster sounds like a good car, but it pales in front of the Toyota Volta if they ever go in production.  Image a car as fast as a Ferrari but still give you 30 mpg.  See toyota.com/vehicles/futu…

Is there such a thing as a QUIET diesel?

A couple neighbors have diesel pick-ups and the noise pollution is ridiculous.
It is so bad that when they drive down the street, I am woken...with my windows closed.

While I am on the noise topic...anyone know why another neighbor's Harley is so darn loud...and needs to warm up 10 minutes before every ride he takes?! ha.

Joe the Honda question was tongue in cheek. I mentioned Brown's gas because it is 'clean,' and represents an 'over unity' engine. It can be used in conjunction with electric batteries and a solar powered starter. As long as it is not under pressure, it represents a minimal risk. We need a paradigm shift from combustion engines to really address the problems that we (the entire human race) are facing. Ideally, we should be looking for human or solar powered 'clean' vehicles.

The Tesla is a very snazzy car. It was right out in front at the Moscone center (first car as you came down the escalator). Unfortunately, people need to be weened off of the race car image and steered towards a more practical solution. Perhaps cars are not in our future altogether (clean or otherwise). What happens when India and China develop a 'true' middle class, and they all want to buy cars? Even if they are hybrids...where are all those batteries going to go? Nickel futures are already at an all time high. Where would we dispose of all of those batteries? If they were all biofueled cars, where would the fuel come from? "In agricultural terms, the world appetite for automotive fuel is insatiable. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year. The grain to fill the tank every two weeks over a year will feed 26 people."

The problem is a lot bigger than people are willing to admit.

FSTD,

I think we are on the same page in terms of the long term view of human race's future.  I totally agree with you regarding what should be done ultimately.  As my previous post has pointed out, for the time being, I think hybrid is the best compromise before other options become viable solutions.  You are talking about the long term and I am talking about the present.  It is actually not really a disagreement.  

I also disagree with the idea of putting food in the fuel tanks.  The whole thing about Ethanol probably will eventually cause a worldwide famine that kills off 3 quarter of the world population.  Hey, but it is from Detroit.  They need to survive.  They need to come up with something when Toyota is eating their bread and butter.

Public transportation in the US is a joke compared to Europe.  There are a lot of rooms for improvement.  Have you seen an old cartoonish movie called "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"?  The underlying plot was about how the automakers and oil companies dismantled the established street cars and light rail systems in LA many decades ago to benefit their pocket books.  They destroyed public transportation and pushed for a world where everyone owns a car.  If you look at the traffic mess in LA now, you would wonder if the public transportation system in LA were allowed to continue to evolve in the past half a century,  LA would be a totally different world.  Who is to blame for the current mess?  In many other developed countries, the governments take a major role in transportation and community planning.  Do you really thing the same would happen in the US when the government is run by an oil mogul family?  The Bush family has a strong tie with the oil industries, do you really think his administration would do anything bad to his buddies.  While you and I agree public transportation is important, many politicians have a totally different agenda.

Joe L. I am glad we are on the same page. I knew about the LA conspiracy (it is pretty well documented). Completely forgot that Roger Rabbit referenced it (in fact, I forgot about that movie).

If we are talking hybrids, what do you think of this?

jalopnik.com/cars/altern…

err bad link fixed

solarelectricalvehicles.…

just a note about all the MPG blabbering.. PREMIUM gas is always used in the EPA estimates as it does get better mileage than lower octanes, for the most part the only people who buy premium are those with luxery or sports cars. Just throwing it out there, better for your car..

I think if you actually cared about the environment as much as most prius/hybrid owners claim to, they wouldn't even own a car period. I have no problem with the owners who do buy from a financial standpoint, but don't claim to be an activist or think you're doing your part more so than others and you're not part of the problem.

Miko,
There are wants and needs.  You may be right that some of these hybrid owners may not even own a car if they have a choice.  Like FSTD has pointed out that he does not own a car as a matter of lifestyle choice.  You are looking at the world in black and white. You basically say that environmentalists should not own car at all.  But this colorful real world is not B/W.  People want to stay in the middle of the spectrum.  They believe they should buy a hybrid instead of a Hummer.  Isn't that good enough?   It is unfair to tell them they should not buy a car so that what they save up can feed into the Hummer's tank.

It is people's misconception that PREMIUM gas gives better mileage.  Every Prius owner knows that Toyota specifies in the owner's manual that regular gasoline should be used to maximized mileage.  Contrary to what the oil companies want you to believe, Premium gas has lower energy content than regular gas.  Most gullible people simply think more expensive means better.

The high octane gas are designed for high compression engines found in most high end, luxury, high performance car.  Note that high performance here refers to horsepower performance, not mileage performance.  These muscle cars' high precision engines are much more delicate than other cheaper engines, hence they need to use less powerful and slower burning gasoline.  The higher octane gas has additives in it to make sure the combustion is not too powerful to damage the high precision engine.  So if you drive a regular car that does not need premium gas, and yet you fill it up every time with premium gas just because the word premium sounds more luxury, then you are just throwing away more money to get less.  If you think along the same line, diesel fuel is a much more powerful fuel, but if you put diesel in a gasoline tank, too much power will damage your gasoline engine.  Likewise regular gas will damage a premium gasoline engine.  But using premium gas in a regular gasoline engine will not harm your engine except your wallet.

When the gas prices went up recently, some people decided to use regular gas in their premium gas cars to lower their bill.  But that would be unwise, what you save at the pump may not be enough to pay for engine repair years later.  So you should not go cheap when your car needs premium, but on the flip side, you should not waste money on premium unless your car needs it.

Have you checked the price of a hybrid car lately?  They are NOT  cheap cars.  If you do the math carefully, it does not make sense to buy a hybrid car on financial standpoint alone.  It takes years to break even.  If you don't care about the environment, the hybrid cars are just too expensive.  Those who blindly jumped on the bandwagon thinking the gas saving will pay for the higher price and those end up being the disappointed owners.  There were numerous newspaper articles analyzed whether hybrid cars make financial sense, the results were always no.

FSTD,
I think the solar hybrid car is stupid.  The amount of solar energy the car can absorb does not contribute much.  Assuming you get full sun exposure all day, and your solar panel is facing the sun continuously to get the maximum energy.  The charge may be good enough for a few miles of travel.  After that, you still burn gas.  If you park in the shade, the solar system become useless. How much does that thing cost for doing not much?  I think the whole thing was designed for suckers.  On the other hand, the Plug-in Hybrid is the right way to go if your house is also equipped with a solar generator that integrates with PG&E's power-grid..

BTW.  Just a silly question.  Did your swim team get a lot of "trophies"?  Given the cost of living, your trophies can be very costly high maintenance items.  :-)  I'm just kidding if you get my joke.

I get the joke, and I appreciate you keen nose for BS. None of these technologies will be adapted until they are both cheaper to implement and easier to maintain than current systems. This brings us back to vegetable oil in diesel engines...

With (approx) 3 billion gallons of waste vegetable oil per year, and 135,921,000 cars in the USA, that breaks down to 22 gallons each. At 40 miles per gallon (which is good), that is 880 miles of driving (doubled if using 50% oil/gas mix).

According to DOE "The average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year. The average vehicle is driven more than 12,000 miles per year."

We need a whole lot more oil. (and this is if the number of cars and miles is static, which, of course, it is not)

FSTD.
Don't target to change the world completely overnight.  If you can convert 20% of the cars to use veg oil, then the 3 billion gallons waste oil will be in good use. Don't worry about producing more veg oil to supply to every car.  There is always a mix of other energy alternatives.  If you try too hard, you get into same situations like the ethanol controversy.  Do you rather feed the corns to the cattle and hungry people than into some Hummer's fuel tank?

Ok, so San Francisco gets all of the oil, and the cool biodiesel bumper stickers. (Marina and Pac Heights can get the H7s)

Is there real factual support for some of the allegations in this thread that the batteries in Toyota Priuses do more harm than good in the long run?  I'd like to hear it.  So far I've heard a lot of opinion and conjecture, but if you can point to an article written by someone w/ credibility, I'd love to read it.

I'm a Prius owner myself and couldn't be happier with the vehicle.  I've had it since 2003 and have experienced absolutely no problems w/ it.  Drives smoother than anything and I get almost 50 m/gallon (though I usually BART everywhere).  I just want to know if some of the things on here are repeated/parrotted speculation promulgated by the American car industry/ahem, detroit, or if there's some legitimacy to it.

i say someone come up with THE JETSON'S-like technology and we fly around in putt-putt things that let off little electric looking circles off from the exhaust...

MY SMALL REAL CONTRIBUTION TO THIS THREAD WOULD BE THIS:

everyone, try to carpool... i know we have the carpool lane, BUT NO ONE FUCKING USES IT!!!  and when it is used by myself and boyfriend, i see sedans with ONE STUPID PERSON in it ALL THE TIME, CHEATING.  i admit my guilt, ive done it before when i was a youngin that owned a 93 honda del sol [barely a gas guzzler compared to what else was out there...] - but after i got that stupid ticket for being in the carpool lane, [a whopping $375... now raised i believe...] - i know better and use the carpool lane the way its supposed to be.  and drivers in california - especially the bay area should be more considerate of other cars and allow them to merge over easily if you know your lonesome ass is blocking the entry-way for a car filled with people when it comes to the carpool lane.  thats it.  and use your turn signal indicators.  for fucks sake, its like no one bothers with those anymore...

angry drivers make for unhappy driving conditions and delays... wasted time, gas, effort getting mad...

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius' battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.

"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside," said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce 'nickel foam.' From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius's arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The "classic" 2001-2003 hybrid battery pack (with all the associated casings and electronics), new from dealer, is around $5000, although usually less than $1000 from a junkyard. It is also possible to replace individual cells, although the packs are considered to new to bother rebuilding them right now. (The 2004 Prius battery pack is of a denser design, with fewer cells, than the 2001-2003 Prius battery pack.)

"Battery disposal. What happens to the batteries when their lifespan is over? It turns out that Toyota uses batteries that are recyclable, include a phone number and a $200 'bounty' on each of their batteries to encourage returning them to recycling facilities. I'm not sure how other auto manufacturers handle the battery disposal, but Toyota seems to have a great solution here."

They give you a $200 credit on a $5000 battery. Good deal? You decide.

Nickel is not getting any cheaper. Odds are, your replacement batteries will be a lot more $$$

infomine.com/investment/…

Some of the greater cost of hybrids, according to CNW, is due to the higher cost of recycling hybrids. On an energy basis, the firm says, vehicles cost an energy-equivalent average of $119,000 to recycle, while hybrids average $140,000. But CNW later says that it calculates the Prius's battery as costing $93 in energy to recycle.
Toyota says that credible scientific research has found that end-of-life recycling and disposal use disproportionately small amounts of energy. Although CNW does say that vehicle recycling accounts for about one-quarter of all the energy used in U.S. recycling, it also says that much of the extra energy cost of hybrids is due to their complexity, which requires more energy through many stages of its life, such as in sourcing materials and making repair.
"If Toyota can reduce the complexity of building hybrids to a simple 'plug and play' system whereby major hybrid electrics and electronics can be easily detached and disposed of for simplified replacement, the cost would drop dramatically. That is not the case with most hybrids today, however," CNW says.

Owners of 'environmentally friendly' hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight may be hit with a bill for up to $7000 when their car's battery dies less than eight years after purchase. The battery unit, which has a lifespan of 8-10 years -- shorter in hotter climates like Australia -- cannot be reconditioned. It must be thrown out and replaced with a new one, at considerable cost to the owner.

"A replacement battery on the Insight retails for $6840," said Honda spokesman Mark Higgins. Honda began selling the Insight hybrid in Japan car in 1997 and in Australia in 2000. It sold 44 Insights before withdrawing the futuristic-looking two-door coupe from the market earlier this year. Honda will re-enter the hybrid market with the Civic sedan in March, and aims to sell around 20 per month.

Toyota's Prius four-door sedan has fared considerably better since it launched in October 2001. Nearly 500 Australians had bought the hybrid sedan by September 2003, and Toyota hopes to move a lot more of the second generation model released in September. Toyota divisional general manager - marketing, Scott Grant believes there is a market for around 50 Prius a month. "This product is no longer a science experiment but a mainstream car," he said.

Toyota's manager of alternative fuels and specialized vehicles, Vic Johnstone, concedes the batteries, like the car itself, are built to last less than a decade. "The life of the car and the battery are supposed to be the same... around 8 to 10 years," he said. "We're not expecting to replace them [the batteries]. In fact we only hold one [replacement] battery in stock nationally."

A high percentage of hybrid vehicles brought to Australia so far have ended up in government hands. In fact Toyota believes government and business fleets will account for around 50 percent of all Prius purchases. Fleet managers turn over their vehicles after 2-3 years, meaning unsuspecting second hand buyers will be stuck with an unexpected and unwanted bill down the track.

Despite the dramatic price drop, hybrid ownership remains a nod to better fuel economy, not financial savings. CarPoint's review of the Prius, published in October, compared the hybrid's fuel consumption to a similarly specified Toyota Corolla, and reached the conclusion it would take 15 years before the Prius' fuel economy paid off the extra purchase price.

Add battery replacement every eight years to this equation, and replacement parts costs as the vehicle exceeds its planned life of ten years and components wear out, and owners have no chance of ever seeing a dollar back.

To further add environmental insult to injury, a considerable cloud exists over just how recyclable NickelMetal Hydride batteries really are - some reports even suggest that those who buy green may be doing more environmental harm than good. Both Toyota and Honda were unable to tell CarPoint exactly how much of the battery could be recycled. Both have left the task of recycling in the hands of a third party recycler.

I agree w/ Joe L. on this part.

Miko,
There are wants and needs.  You may be right that some of these hybrid owners may not even own a car if they have a choice.  Like FSTD has pointed out that he does not own a car as a matter of lifestyle choice.  You are looking at the world in black and white. You basically say that environmentalists should not own car at all.  But this colorful real world is not B/W.  People want to stay in the middle of the spectrum.  They believe they should buy a hybrid instead of a Hummer.  Isn't that good enough?   It is unfair to tell them they should not buy a car so that what they save up can feed into the Hummer's tank.

I mean seriously It is really hard to NOT own a car in this day and age especially if you're commuting to places. Sure you can say "Why not take the Bart, bus"

Well I try my best to carpool w/ other ppl when I can.

The world isn't all black and white.

Why hunt down Prius/Hybrid owners? Or fling poo at them.

Why not do it to the SUV/Hummer owners/Luxury car owners.

I'll admit I get my kicks when I only have to pay 25$ for my 11 gallon tank and I'm able to last all week, when I drive on average of 50 miles per day.

Cyn W. says:

Is there real factual support for some of the allegations in this thread that the batteries in Toyota Priuses do more harm than good in the long run?  I'd like to hear it.  So far I've heard a lot of opinion and conjecture, but if you can point to an article written by someone w/ credibility, I'd love to read it.

I'm a Prius owner myself and couldn't be happier with the vehicle.  I've had it since 2003 and have experienced absolutely no problems w/ it.  Drives smoother than anything and I get almost 50 m/gallon (though I usually BART everywhere).  I just want to know if some of the things on here are repeated/parrotted speculation promulgated by the American car industry/ahem, detroit, or if there's some legitimacy to it.

-------------------------

Woot Cyn N.

High Five! Prius owner also

Hi Cyn,

The CNW report that FSTD talked about was discussed heavily on other Prius forums.  Believe what you believe, but a lot of the information were obsolete facts that were pieced together to present a picture that is far from present reality.  I guess the only thing you can do is to read the arguments from both sides and decide for yourself.

One of the thread was restarted recently at
autos.groups.yahoo.com/g…
and there were much older threads on the same topic a few months back.
After you get into this yahoo group, you can also search for "Sudbury, Ontario" and read about how some truth was twisted in order to put blames, find out what actually happened at that location and when, and by who etc.
The logic these people used is like making links, e.g. Holocaust was linked to Hitler, Hitler was linked to German, German is linked to BMW and if you drive a BMW then you are a murder.  Looks like these people have no concept of space and time and everything just mingled together.  I guess it was very true that Ni production was very polluting, but is the same mining process still in use today?  How dirty is Toyota's batteries compared to the 5 cents coins in your pocket that was minted in 1950s?  They are made of the same metal, but were they mined the same way?

Diesel fuel was very dirty before, but now it is not.  Should VW Passat TDI be allowed in California because diesel cars used to be so dirty decades ago.  Same kind of argument can go against hybrid cars.

I think it is very important to read both sides of the story and decide for yourself what make sense.

How many Silicon valley residents aware of the EPA Superfund sites?  Look up Google for them.  Yes, many are living right on top of them and drink ground water out of all the poisoned wells everyday.   Many of the semi-conductor factories were responsible for the pollution decades ago.  Do you stop using computer and boycott Intel because of all the superfund sites that are not yet cleaned up???

Oh yeah, I will be the first to tell you that all I did was Google "Prius battery disposal," and glance over each article, selecting what seemed relevant. I am not bashing any Hybrid owners, just pointing out that they are not a (perfect) solution to a (huge) problem. This thread was about diesel cars vs hybrids, and I am sorry if it got sidetracked when I got all uppity about paradigm shifts and reorganizing cities around bicycles etc.

I am busy getting ready for the manga show at the Asian Art Museum, but would love to participate some more later. This place needs more threads with honest discourse about real issues.

Also, while I may be 35, and have never owned a car, I still take taxi's and order goods that are delivered in cars and trucks. I still use electricity (I used to have 8 computers in this room, but I got it down to two). I am trying to go 100% vegetarian, but I still wear (some) leather (and give into meat cravings maybe twice a month). I am the first to tell anyone that I am far from perfect, and still 'part of the problem.' I am working on it though.

i wrote my BA thesis on biodiesel production facilities and my emphasis in my degree was on renewable and alternative energy.

the 2 technologies people should be on the look out for and promoting are:
biodiesel/electric hybrids (for the next 5-10 year interim)
and ultimately solar reclaimed hydrogen fuel cells.

note that hybrids experience there large gas savings IN THE CITY where the regnerative braking recaptures much of the energy lost to braking and therefore runs on electric power most of the time. On the freeway they are basically gasonline engined cars with little (10%) savings over a non hybrid version.


Biodiesel is EXTRMELY clean as a fuel, it's net positive as an energy source (as opposed to fossil fuels which are net negative, and ethanol which in it's best forms is net neutral). We also have millions of pounds of animal byproduct and excess produce that could be used as feedstock for biodiesel. the only actual pollutant of biodeez is NOx emissions but those are easily scrubbed with a modfified catalytic converter.

you will start seeing diesel hybrids in the next year or two. most companies are waiting for bigger ad campaigns and more happy mushy feeligs towards diesel in general to start releasing them in the states. and of course a fix to CA and other states ridiculous diesel laws.

thinking diesel is dirty and the wrong fuel is so 1990's. Get with the times, it's been cleaner and more efficient for YEARS.

also, want to stop funding terrorism? go biodiesel, the largest producer of Soy bean feedstock for fuel is BRAZIL. The united states is still number 2 i believe.

My buddy got rid of his Prius because (in his words) "it had no pickup." Anyone do a lot of inner city SF driving, and care to comment on acceleration, and power on hills?

Jake, glad that you dropped in on this thread. Can you comment on the issues raised by 'diverting' crops to fuel production (and the resulting rise in food prices)?

sure fallopian.

it's BS. if you do some research you will find that Americans only eat/use about half of the crops grown in this country. there's still a large number of farmers on subsidys from the government who let crops rot in the fields because it's cheaper to live off our tax money than to bring them to market.

there is NO shortage of food in the US, in addition, huge amounts of economic loss to oil producing countries would be reclaimed if we attempted to grow our own fuel. The amount of money saved to the united states if 10% of gas was replaced by home grown biodeisel would be in the hundreds of billions. National Deficit? What naitional deficit?

We dont eat any of the things we would using for feedstock, IE rendered animal fat (waste and shipped to china currently or land filled) nor crop soybeans. Plus, we still end up far ahead if we paid other countries to grow the feedstock for us for simialr amounts of power as we would for fossil fuel imports (the price ratios are ridiculous).

The only thing holding us back from any of this is EXTREMELY powerful lobbies in Washington on behalf of the oil companies slowing down the process. It will be a long fight, they have more money than god.

Jake, by any chance have you researched algal oil yields? A hectare pond of marine phytoplankton CCMP647 (Pleurochrysis carterae) can produce 15,000 to 80,000 liters of vegetable oil a year. Only about 6,000 liters of palm oil can be squeezed out of a hectare a year.

I have been involved with limited studies (and prototype bioreactor designs) that are extremely promising.

the last word i heard on algae was that no one has made it viable yet, mostly for reasons of harvesting the lipids. everything i read was that it had a lot of potential but that the majority of funding and the big stake holders are agricultural in nature and therefore have no real interest in algae.

yay for politics

Hmm....Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill controlling both our food supply as well as our fuel supply?

I'm not convinced that that's such a great idea.  Trading the oil lobby for the agribusiness lobby sounds like...not a lot of progress.

Fuel and food have both been controlled by Big oil since WW2 with the introduction and 'forced' proliferation of petrochemicals via fertilizer and pesticides.

at least it's domestic AJ. and they wouldnt control, it's easy for anyone at home to make their own fuel if they dont want to deal with the big businesses.

and they dont control our food supply. they only do if you eat processed food. learn to cook, garden, and store food.

organic, local, sustainable...never give ADM another one of your dollars if you ACTUALLY care. if you're not willing to do those things, dont complain.

but people wanting cheap processed food that will kill them but not wanting to save billions domestically by moving away from oil...that just makes no sense.

I smell a biodymanic thread in the making.

Let's think of things in a practical matter though...Sure, folks like us who can and do chose to avoid agribusiness food supplies...but if we're talking about the country as a whole and where this country gets most of its calories...they come from agribusiness.  How many folks do each of us know that grow their own food?  Yes there's room for individual effort, but at least in this country, I don't see a wealth of available biomass to offset the country's fuel needs.  

Trucking, shipping, Air travel?  Should I really just have faith that the companies that run such businesses will make sustainable fuel choices?

I am all for sustainable fuel choices....and for progress in each possible area.  However, it's certainly necessary to consider the incentives set up by a certain fuel choice...and what our country will look like after we've made that choice.

I second James, I grew up in Connecticut where our old diesel mercedes just refused to run in the winter, and it always made a lot of noise, maybe that was just the car though.

And to the point....Biomass based fuels are almost a panacea in countries like Brazill with excess biomass.  However, in the US, we've already created something of a broken farming machine and I think that further production pressure would exacerbate problems with our food supply as well as fail to provide a fuel solution.

I'd suggest that the fuel problem is not one of choosing the "winning technology" (i.e. Hydrogen, bio-diesel, electric) for the world to support....but of figuring out what fuel technology is appropriate for a given country/region.  Europe's made it's choice (small engine, diesel), just as Brazil it's choice (ethanol).  Here in the US, we've made a transitional choice (hybrid) and are currently searching for the next solution.  I'm hoping that we come up with an answer that doesn't break more than it fixes.

Corporate 'factory' farming is the problem. If anyone wants to see a quick and insightful movie, try The Future Of Food.

thefutureoffood.com
imdb.com/title/tt0427276

Good stuff.

meg,

diesel thickens and gels at lower temps than gas. but there are lots of ways to work around that, and additives which decrease the gel/cloud point for those fuels.

aj,
i am talking about the US, i dont care what other countries do, most of them are light years ahead of us anyway, we're playing catch up. we do have the agricultural excess to move to Biodiesel. this country is no way taxed for food. our countries problems with the poor and hungry are POLITICAL and LOGISTICAL, like 90% of famines and starvations, and aboslutely not from a lack of food.

jake r. says:
   thinking diesel is dirty and the wrong fuel is so 1990's. Get with the times, it's been cleaner and more efficient for YEARS.

Do you recall when clean diesel arrived in California?  I don't mean the clean diesel cars, but the refinery production of clean diesel?    I thought you should not use ALL-CAP in the word YEARS.

If I understand it correctly, the modern clean diesel cars use catalytic converter to clean the emission like other gasoline cars.  However, the high sulfur contents in regular diesel fuel will ruin the converter within a short time.  So unless the diesel is sulfur free or you keep replacing the catalytic converter, your clean diesel car is dirty after a short time.

Cooter C. says:
         I had to rent a Prius for my trip to Oregon.  ... only got 40 mpg ...

The Prius is NOT a performance car.  Its 0-60 is rated at 10 sec.
EPA estimate was 60 mpg in city and 51 mpg on highway.
EPA changed their test criteria since then and the estimates on all cars are adjusted downwards.
Note that it is not a typo, high in city and low on highway, unlike most cars.
That is because at highway speed a hybrid simply reduce to a regular car and the fuel saving is not significant on highway.

If the car is driven with a lot of hard acceleration and braking, it is not abnormal to get poor mileage.
The car has the potential to save, but if the driver don't take advantage of the potential, it is reduced to a regular car.

Drag is proportional to the square of velocity, i.e. double the speed quadruple the drag.
You probably drove at very high speed to bring the mileage down to 40 mpg.
However, most normal driving around speed limit will yield 50+ mpg like the other posters had pointed out.
Some people reported 65 mpg consistently when not driving on highway.
I would say 40mpg is not  typical for Prius, but it is possible depending on how you drive it.

Jake, sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not particularly concerned about any kind of food shortage...nor am I even concerned about an increase in the price level of food.  This country can certainly absorb the effect of less available or more expensive food.  What does concern me about a biomass fuel base is the increase in pressure on our farming machine.  To be more specific, how much more reliant will we be on pesticides and technology to satiate the additional need for biomass?    It's important to examine the side effects of the agribusiness model.  We're not talking about "do we have enough bushels of corn to feed the people"..we're talking about the ramifications of how that corn is grown and used.

Also, let's consider why we're moving away from oil in the first place?  We're in a non-sustainable situation--economically, as a source of energy, environmentally, etc.  Fossil fuels are a limited resource, it causes our country to make policy moves that upset the peace in the world, and it hastens the deterioration of the environment.  I'll agree that moving to biofuel does abate some of the ills of dependence, but I'm suggesting that the agricultural machine, at least in its current iteration would either collapse under the weight of a fuel customer, or it would mutate into a far greater societal ill than we could ever expect.  Even without  the burden of a fuel demand, the chinks (Hi Ed!) in the agribusiness model are showing through.  A culture of obesity, food contamination scares, ground water poisoning, and so on are ills that would worsen as we try to increase the yield from X acres of land.

I understand that you are a strong proponent of your chosen technology.  But I would at least urge you to consider some of these consequences.  An insular nation is not the solution either...but I think that's a topic for another day...or at least another post.

TG,
The tailpipe emission is a cocktail of poisons.  The dirty parts that you talked about is the carbon soot produced by incomplete combustion.  These particles are tiny solids that stick to the walls outside the houses, and inside your lung.  I think the larger particles are nothing more annoying than regular dust, they are trapped out by your nose.  But the finer particles can cause lung cancer when you inhale them all the way into your lungs.  The other parts of the cocktails are not solid particles but poisonous gases that hang around like fog, hence the term SMOG (smoke + fog).   Dirty diesel is infamous for producing both, so you not only get something like LA, but a very blacken LA covered in soot.  

As Jake R. has pointed out, modern technology allows diesel to be clean.  Europe uses clean diesel and is way ahead of the USA.  The question is whether Californian diesel can be as clean.  Another bigger concern is that if I buy a clean diesel car to use clean California diesel, what happens when I travel out of state.  Will my clean diesel car turn into a polluter after a long trip??  So unless clean diesel is available across the whole country, clean diesel cars are not ready for prime time.

Some things that have already been established, but I think are for some reason being lost in the debate and so need reiteration:

-- Clean diesel is a reality.....so even if you're used to soot throwing cars, we're not talking about "old diesel".  As Jake and maybe others have mentioned....advances in particulate filtration allow us to have clean burning diesel

-- Regular diesel is still an oil-dependent technology...i.e. stopgap.  However, there is an open debate on bio-diesel fuels  (i.e. based on growing stuff in the ground and turning it into fuel)

Carry on!

No worries Turgid, there have been big strides recently with diesel so I'm not surprised that knowledge of it is not that widespread:

Here are some links:
Dupont:
ap.stop.dupont.com/Autom…

Audi:
audiusa.com/audi/us/en2/…

Mercedes (this has a good walkthrough):
www4.mercedes-benz.com/s…

Regardless of the company....they're sharing the same diesel technology...just under house brands.  Visibility of the technology has been coming from the racing community...but there have also been some very recent releases of consumer cars based on "clean diesel" technology.

And I'm sure Jake could provide even better links?  Especially with regard to bio-diesel in particular?

Joe, the third post in this thread is about TDI.

My next car will run on Hapa power.

FSTD,

This thread is about diesels or hybrids.

If I can choose between a VW TDI and a Toyota Volta toyota.com/vehicles/futu…, I definitely will pick the latter.  Hybrid all the way.  I don't mine if the hybrid is powered by a clean diesel engine.  So my choice is diesel AND hybrid.  Am I being too greedy?

I know, I know. The Toyota Volta is a concept car, it is not available.  But VW TDI is banned in California.  So it is not available either.  So we are just both dreaming, aren't we?

Well, Joe, at least nobody has brought up the PR wizardry of the BMW H7 ;)

For cars that we CAN drive, my friend swears by her oldskool Mercedes biodiesel. Her father is a diesel mechanic too ;)

(still secretly hoping for my "mr fusion" joe cell)

FSTD,
What's wrong with the H7 except for the difficulty to find a fueling station?  It is definitely much cleaner than any bio-diesel cars ever possible.  Since these cars are on lease only, BMW can pull them off market if they don't work as planned.

Re: BMW H7

"The Hydrogen 7's standard combustion engine has been adapted to run on both liquid hydrogen and regular gasoline as well -- and tons of it. The company says the car will consume an average of 13.9 liters (3.7 gallons) per 100 kilometers (roughly 17 miles per gallon) using regular gasoline and a whopping 50 liters to drive the same distance when fueled by hydrogen. In other words, BMW has created an energy-guzzling engine that only seems to be environmentally friendly -- a farcical ecomobile whose only true merit is that of illustrating the cardinal dilemma of a possible hydrogen-based economy."

Please see

spiegel.de/international…

Well, BMW has been building hydrogen cars since the 70's and it is a simple retrofit, just need a new fuel tank, new fuel lines, and a fuel injection system.  The big problems are that hydrogen is difficult to store and has far less energy than gasoline.  BMW didn't create a fuel guzzler, they created a pollution free (well, if you don't consider the process required to GET hydrogen) car that happens to produce a lot of CO2.  Ethanol is the same thing, less pollution, worse miles to the gallon (and hence, more CO2).

As for diesel, I love diesels, I think they're great.  The problem is that people don't buy hybrids to save money, you don't save money buying a hybrid.  People buy hybrids to flaunt the fact that they are 'environmental,' that is why the Prius sells very well and mild hybrids, like the Accord, Escape, Camry, and Civic don't sell nearly as well.  It is a status symbol, no different than a Ferrari.  It says to people, 'I care about global warming and stuff.'  Never mind that a lot of those people then park their hybrid in front of their big ass house that is heated and air conditioned.  When they drive, they are 'good.'

Diesels rule, they get great mileage, are really powerful, very reliable, cheap to build and own, and the fuel is all there.  Only problem is people buy cars for a myriad of reason, the biggest of which is as a status symbol.  Diesel is not 'in,' so nobody wants them.

Um well...when enough people buy diesels then prices of those go up too. It's only cheaper by 20 cents on average compared to unleaded. Diesel may be cheaper now but when it becomes mainstream like unleaded there'll be pricing pressures on that too which will make Diesel as expensive. And besides, refining capacity isn't going up on either fuels anytime soon so no, Diesel is still not the answer. It doesn't help that diesel is non-renewable.

Eric M.
We see people putting the yellow ribbons stickers on their bumper to show their support of the troops.  We see people drive a Prius as an symbol of support to conserve our environment, it is a statement that says they care.  It is not really about status, rather a lifestyle symbol or something like a cardboard sign that you wave during a demonstration.  

The Prius is better than an alternate kind of "symbol" such as driving a Hummer.  That is more the opposite symbol to the Prius.  It is just a statement that say "I don't care about the environment, I have my right to burn my fuel as long as I can afford it.  It is my money.  And the fact that I don't care about how much I paid at the pump is a statement by itself that I am financially better off than you lowly people."  Do you think that is a better or worse symbol than the Prius?  

I agree with you that the Prius is an expensive car given it is ONLY a Toyota.  It does not make financial sense to buy a Prius just to save money.  You can save alot more money by buying any cheaper cars.  There is no reason to buy a Prius unless you really care about the environment.  

$30,000 is nothing compared to those Maybachs and Ferraris parked on Santana Row.  No way you can call a $30000 car a status symbol when any BMW can double the price tag.

The Prius is definitely a symbol, an icon to show off your belief, your support to a good cause etc., but absolutely not about status.

Diesel can be made from soy beans, cow pies, or entire cows.  It is far more efficient that gas and easier to produce from renewable sources.  Plus, the price of diesel won't rise too much, the constant demand for it from truckers, shipping companies, train lines, and electric generator users is great that it will (and does) far out weigh the drop in the bucket that consumer fuel use currently represents.

Right now though, diesel is not 'on average cheaper' or more expensive.  It is pretty much the same cost across the entire country because it has an inflexible demand curve.  Try analyzing things with economics as opposed to whatever goofy system you're using.

bump

Eric M.
I understand what you are saying about renewable bio-diesel vs. fossil based gasoline.  That is an argument valid for a diesel vs. gasoline debate.   How is that relevant in picking hybrids vs. diesels?   When diesels become more popular and if they can pass the strict California emission regulations, you will definitely see diesel hybrids on the road that are both environmental friendly and renewable at the same time.   IMO, the only reason why Toyota makes a gasoline-electric hybrid instead of a bio-diesel-electric hybrid Prius is because diesel has emission problems regardless of its renewable fuel source.

There are several independent factors that we need to look at and find a balance.
1. renewable energy source
2. clean emission
3. fuel efficiency (in term of energy waste)

A high mileage car can be very dirty, like the Honda Insight.  But a clean and efficient car like the Prius does not use renewable fuel.  You cannot have the cake and eat it too.

The Honda Insight was hardly an efficient but 'dirty' car.  A 1963 Fiat 500 is a efficient but dirty car, an Insight is an efficient and clean car.  A Prius is a very clean and pretty efficient car.

If the argument is shift to emission though, there is a simple solution to pollution problems, and it has nothing to do with new cars.  New cars, and I include diesels, are minor polluters compared to older cars.  A 1965 Chevy puts out more pollution in parts per million going a mile than a new Chevy would in 1000 miles.  The fact that they even measure it parts per million is indicative of how bad it is because nowadays they measure pollution in parts per BILLION because cars are so much cleaner.

You want to pollute less?  Crush all the beaters on the road built before 1985.  You can compensate the owners, but crush.  Many companies already do, buying thousands of old polluters and crushing them for carbon credits.  Of course, old beaters are cheap, and by crushing them you are preventing those who can't afford a better car from having their own vehicle.  But that is a whole other conversation...

Making new cars ever cleaner is pointless when compared to the pollution spewed by old, poorly kept, cheap hulks...

Eric M.
I think it is fine to buy back and eliminate the old cars.  But it is not okay to say since there are worse cars still on the road, then there is no need to improve new cars.  The process need to continue.  There are SMOG regulations in place that will force some old car out of the market.  If a car fails to get a SMOG certificate, it cannot be sold nor registered for use on the road.  So you don't have to spend money on those carbon credit firms.  These cars will end of in junk yards or third world countries when their tail pipes don't behave.

Regarding renewable fuel, I just heard on the radio today that the milk price will rise at lease $1 within the next two months.  The reason?  The cattle are competing for corns with the Ethanol fueled cars.  So when a gallon of milk is more expansive than a gallon of fuel, we know that the general public is subsidizing the driving elites.  This starts to turn into a social class issue.

"and by crushing them you are preventing those who can't afford a better car from having their own vehicle.  But that is a whole other conversation..."

Many argue that the entire 'carbon credit' scheme is designed to keep 'third world' countries from 'modernizing.'

California has among the strictest emissions standards in the country, diesel engines are not more dirty or polluting then unleaded gasoline engines, just produce different emission levels. Auto manufacturers are working with legislators to change the emissions standards so as to allow the importation of more diesel vehicles into CA.

Or you can buy a used one with over 7500 miles and bring it in to the state no problem.

Vin Diesels, that is!!  Growl!!

 We're all on the internet on a Saturday evening.  We're so very boring.

Saturday?

Joe L:

Regarding renewable fuel, I just heard on the radio today that the milk price will rise at lease $1 within the next two months.  The reason?  The cattle are competing for corns with the Ethanol fueled cars.  So when a gallon of milk is more expansive than a gallon of fuel, we know that the general public is subsidizing the driving elites.  This starts to turn into a social class issue.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
That is a result of the government playing economist.  The ethanol market is a complete fabrication by the corn growers , it has no economic rhyme or reason and only exist because corn lobby pushed politicians to make it so.  Anyone with half a brain could have told you that there simply wasn't enough corn to fuel even 1/3 of the American market, let alone the world market, and that corn would become scarce and prices would rise.  Wonder of all wonders, all the corn is now being used for ethanol production, jacking up the cost of corn, making it out of reach for dairy, poultry, and pig farmers.  Livestock farmers now must find alternative sources of feed, namely over-stock or human food produced in error (cereal put in the wrong packages is a popular source of feed) or trail mix and other mixed nuts and chocolate.  This is more expensive though, jacking up the cost of ANYTHING that was fed corn.

So we've come back to the cost of milk rising.  Milk prices are going up because the government is interfering with the natural course of the economy.  If the government would have just stayed out, let ethanol; which is inefficient, expensive to produce, and creates huge amounts of carbon dioxide in both creation and use; fade into sunset, milk wouldn't be rising.  But no, they got involved and now, as short sighted politicians so often do, the government is now having to reverse its 'progress' in ethanol production because, wonder of all wonders, the pig, cow, and poultry farmers' lobbies are now pissed off.

Let the market decide, it is virtually always right.

I spent three weeks in France driving a Citroen C3 - on city streets, the autoroute and country roads.  I'm impressed with an efficient diesel engine.  I averaged about 56mpg - with diesel going at about USD6.50/gal. The Citroen kept pace on the autoroute, although this model had a speed gong at 85mph.  In the states, I drive BMW's and MBZ's - but I will convert to an efficient diesel model in a heartbeat.  California has introduced ultra-low sulfur diesel, so I think we'll see in a couple of years, major car companies introducing diesel powered cars.  (When the American domestic car builders such as GM introduced diesel engines, they did it on the cheap, using gasoline engine blocks and other poor design features that caused a major setback for diesels in the US.  Current diesels in domestic trucks are made by diesel engine manufacturers such as Cummins - who know how to build such engines!)  Good topic.