Hybrid cars versus diesel
Hybridcarblog.com
I just responded to a post of my criticism of CNN's hybrid hype article, where someone commented that hybrid cars were hype and that biodiesel was the answer. (more)
This train of thought seems to come up often.
While I commend biodiesel users, I do not see it as viable answer to oil dependency, though I can see it as a part of the solution. In particular, I would love to see a biodiesel hybrid vehicle.
Still, it does take a extra energy to produce biodiesel. Is that energy clean and cheap? Additionally, it would take a lot of land to create enough biodiesel to end foreign oil dependency. Inevitably, I believe, it would be agribusiness that would dominate biodiesel, and the land would become even more polluted with pesticides and fertilizers.
Is that really the best solution?
Granted, compared with today's hybrid technology, biodiesel makes a strong case. However, plug-in hybrids and experimental hybrids have been demonstrated to achieve as much as 250 mpg, and some believe a biodiesel hybrid could achieve as much as 500 mpg.
The potential of hybrid technology offers too much upside not to invest, and if combined with diesel and biodiesel, offers a real solution to ending foreign oil dependency in the short term, while ending oil dependency in the long term.
Labels: clean diesel, foreign oil dependency, hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns @ 11:53 AM
45 comments
45 Comments:
One thing that is not mentioned often is the power source used when charging a plug-in Hybrid. If it's coal, how much does it matter that we are reducing dependency on foreing oil. How much oil was used to mine the coal and ship it to the plant to be burnt? Do we want to encourage the use of more oil to supply this coal power? I know the answer from you will be no, but that doesn't change the fact that a very large amount of the power in this country is still generated from coal. Another topic that I'd be interested to know more in is the batteries used in Hybrids. What goes into making one of these? What are the consequences when they are no good anymore and how long until they are no good anymore? I'm not talking about future technology here, I'm talking about the current NiMH batteries that are in use in today's hybrids.
Steve,
There have been numerous studies that prove that the electricity used to power a plug-in hybrid is cleaner and more efficient than burning oil, especially if you plug in your vehicle after coming home from work (off peak hours). One such study was completed by the Argonne National Laboratory.
Additionally, in California some are using solar arrays to generate their electricity for their plug-in.
In terms of batteries, the batteries should last - minimally - at least 8 - 10 years. According to Toyota engineers, there isn't any reason that the batteries in the second generation Hybrid Synergy Drive couldn't last much longer.
Your question regarding the pollution aspect of the materials used in the battery is a good one, and one that I don't have a complete answer. However, I would bet that the battery materials can be recycled and properly disposed and/or re-utilized.
Biodiesel has the highest life cycle energy return of any existing alternative fuel. Including Hydrogen fuel cells is their current state of development. The electric plug-in idea is a good one, particularly when paired with a diesel hybrid powered by biodiesel. I have yet to see a complete analysis of how this electricity is created. Coal? Hydro? Solar has yet to show a viable solution. Let's keep digging! (And utilize the best options available now)
The electricity is created just like the regular electricity in your area.
Studies, such as by Argonne, show that using even standard electricity from your house is still cheaper and cleaner than using gasoline via oil.
If you top off your batteries in off peak hours, the process is much cheaper. Overall, the average price would be about a dollar per gallon.
Typically, the batteries in your hybrid aren't going to be fully depleted. So, you would just be topping them off. Then as you drive and break, you'll generate your own electricity.
I believe, with subsidies, solar is viable in places like California, especially if plug-in hybrids are utilized. I know of people a few people in Southern California that power their house and two electric cars with only solar power, and their costs are significantly cheaper than their old power bill and gas for two cars.
Just after I made my post, CNBC ran a special on solar power. With natural gas prices rising, and the threat of hurricanes predicted for the next couple of decades, solar power is becoming far more cost-effective.
Coal powered electricity is neither renewable nor clean. Any emissions for electric plug-ins should include the emissions generated for the electricity, not measured exclusivly at the tailpipe.
That WAS taken into account by the study. Coal generated electricity is still cheaper and cleaner the oil power.
It takes energy to create bio-diesel. It will take pesticides and fertizilizers to create bio-diesel. That also results in pollution.
Plug-in hybrids are not utilizing that much electricity, you are just topping off your batteries, which is far cleaner, far cheaper than using oil - even if the electricity comes from coal.
It doesn't; however, have to come from coal. The point is, if solar power could not only power your home, but your vehicles - cost effectively - how big of an energy revolution would that be?
Well, that is possible, TODAY.
Still, without solar power, plug-in hybrids can extend the fuel efficiency of a hybrid vehicle to 80 - 100 mpg. These hybrids could end foreign oil dependency as fast as the vehicles could be made.
Additionally, a car functioning on electric power, particularly a hybrid is functioning much more efficiently than a conventional vehicle on gas or biodiesel.
In congestion, in stop-and-go traffic, waiting at a stop light - in these conditions - biodiesel or gasoline cars funtion very inefficiently, which wastes significant amounts of energy and cuases significant amounts of pollution. Hybrids fuction MOST efficiently in these conditions. So that electricity from your house is being used EXTREMELY effectively.
Additionally, hybrids will become much more efficient over time, as the second generation Prius did compared to the first generation Prius.
This evolution of hybrid technology, plus combining plug-in hybrids to biodiesel, could create vehicles capable of achieving 500 mpg within the next decade. In 10 years, conventional vehicles on biodiesel will still average 30 mpg, 40 mpg at best.
That's not worth striving for?
I would immagine that IF the government would let farmers grow corn instead of paying them not too, Bio fuels would be mor avaliable and cheaper to use. Bio Deisel is very expensive compared to regular deisel.It is too bag that biog oil companies lobby to keep us dependent on oil. They shold start buying good land and grow corn
The influence big energy has on American politics needs to be held in check without question. Unfortunately, only 'the people' are capable of such an act.
Through our consumerism and by voting, I believe we can make a difference, especially if 90 percent, rather than just 50 percent, of the the people vote. Then it wouldn't be so easy for lobbyists to influence elections.
One key issue regarding the production of bio-diesel as an alternative fuel to reduce dependency on foreign oil and reduction in air emission is being missed. Growing plants used for bio-diesel taking up more land is in no form the answer to our energy and environmental problems but to also reduce vegetable oil waste from the thousands of restaurants in California. Recycling used vegetable oil by collecting, filtering and transesterfying waste oil into clean bio-diesel is more sustainable and viable solution.
M. Lucht
Seal Beach, CA
Recycling is always a good idea. I think that the people that use recycled vegetable oils to run their vehicles are true patriots and revolutionaries.
Unfortunately, recycled vegetable oil can't replace petroleum, so it can't be used on a wide scale. Plus, too many American consumers are just too fickle.
I support hybrid vehicles simply because I think the technology has huge upside, incluing biodiesel and flex-fuel hybrid vehicles, and this upside can be sold to all automobile consumers without really changing any of their habits or expectations.
Unfortunately, the majority of Americans just aren't concerned about foreign oil dependency or pollution - at least not concerned enough to take any serious action.
Still, to all those driving on french fry oil, KUDOS!
A question. Large trucks, farm equipment, heavy machinery run on petro diesel. Electricity, ethanol, etc. do not seem to produce the power needed for these as well as locomotives, ships, etc. Does anybody have info on the use of these fuels for those applications?
I don't have the greatest answer, but anyway.
GM hybrid technology will be better suited to large equipment and already powers many buses, so it would definitely fit the needs of agricultural equipment.
Alternative fuels, such as ethanol, and even electricity, could power many of these vehicles as well, there just hasn't been much demand.
The problem with something like ethanol, today, powering a ship or locomotive, is quantity. Ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline, but not as efficiently, according to the Department of Energy. Thus, you need between 20 - 30 percent more fuel for the same trip - not very efficient for ships and trains. Ultimately, still, fuel cells would be the best for ships and locomotives.
Still, ethanol and bio-diesels, while they have been used for more than a century, just haven't received the type of investment that gasoline and diesel have received.
Additionally, electricity is often used for light rail, such as subways.
On a slightly different, but related path, diesel hybrid technology appears likely to power the future of large, and very heavy military vehicles.
Thus, I think it is just a matter of time before alternative fuels and engines power heavy machinery.
Yes, it bugs me too when someone says hybrids are hype and biodiesel is the solutions. Why not both? Thanks for responding to that.
But it also bugs me when plug-in advocates make sky-high mpg claims without qualifying them. Doesn't ANYONE realize that the MPG you get in a plug in is highly dependent on the distance you drive after each charge. Sure, if you drive 10 miles, you MPG will be awsome. But if you're driving cross country at 1000 miles per day, it will be only a tiny bit better than the non-plugin version. Why not state something like "this plugin can drvie X miles on battery alone" instead of trying to come up with a MPG number?
One of the biggest reasons for plug-in hybrids is the fact that the far majority of daily driving is less than 50 miles per day.
While a plug-in hybrid isn't going to be nearly as fuel efficient on 1000 mile trips, how often do the majority of Americans take 1000 mile trips?
That's why plug-ins have the high mileage estimates.
why not use grow HEMP to make bio diesal. It leaves the ground in better shape, it's a hardy plant and would no need alot of extra chemicals and shit.
I think hemp would probably be a great source for biofuel, but since it can hardly be studied thanks to illogical government regulations, we'll probably never know.
I'm an Arizona solar powered home owner. I sell solar to the grid and use what I need from the grid. Indirectly, I'm solar charging the house and, if they build a pluggable hybrid, I'll charge my Prius this way. California hackers have done this to their hybrids with great success. After the warranty is ended I'd guess. The most interesting part of the equation is who owns the patents for the battery technology. Travel down that rabbit hole.
I agree that biodiesel alone is not a viable solution for the gas problem; but when combined with hybrid technology, it could make a great difference.
It is true that the US could not realistically support growing biodiesel through cash crops such as corn, canola, or soybeans, and that the resources used for such production would include many pollutants.
There is, however some great research being done on producing biodiesel using high-oil algae in shallow ponds. This would allow production to occur using low overhead, little environmental impact, and would be able to use otherwise fallow land for its growth. You can read up on it here:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Combining the superior mileage of future hybrids with the largescale production of biodiesel could effectively end our dependence on petrol (though not its use entirely, of course, unless we start making all of our plastics from soybeans, too.).
On the topic of government subsidies for agricultural production, and on what crops would be best suited for biodiesel fuel.. what about the New Yorker mag article last year on sugar cane? Seemed to say this is potentially the best yet, but that the sugar industry has some protections in place that prevent it from being raised as widely as the economic opportunity we're talking about might suggest it should be. Apparently revisions to the status quo came up for a vote, and apparently a certain Illinois senator running for higher office didn't see fit to support it. WTF?
ok, here's how the biodiesel hybrid situation as of now:
#1 PRODUCTION OF BIODIESEL
making enough biodiesel to replace the foreign oil imports is as easy as 800 acres of the plant that produces the most biodiesel per acre(algea) in each state(keeping in perspective that being so fuel efficient, the current yearly demand for oil in the u.s. in around 7.5 billion gallons). A few, meaning 2-5 processing and transesterification plants in each state would produce enough, then shipping the biodiesel to wherever it is needed within the state and the state could regualate the prices of the fuel.
#2 THE CAR
as of now, we have the technology to produce a biodiesel hybrid. i mean, we have engines that run on B100. We also have hybrids. And electrically motorized cars. Oh, and so many improvements to the diesel engine. how hard could it be for car manufacturers to put 1&1 together?
#3THE PROBLEM/REASON WE DON'T HAVE THESE CARS AVAILABLE YET
The reason we don't have these cars yet is mainly the ties of the oil companies and the car manufacturing industries. both companies make so much more profit, and will continue to do so until they run out of crude oil. This is all in the problem with importing nations having ties with terror groups, whose plan has been stated, to try to drain the U.S.'s money slowly to try to defeat it. they do this with the war, it's costing us too much that's being spent on a lost cause as of now. it's obvious the importing countries have ties is because gas there is very underpriced. as low as 30 cents to the gallon. how do they make up for this? they charge us. how this relates to the car? like i said before, the ties between the car manufacturers and the foreign oil companies in it for the highest profit they can get. so the biodiesel hybrid is just about out of the question of getting one from the factory within the next 5-15 years, or until we have burnt all oil available.
Quick Question: Doesn't the Hybrid only use the battery when the vehicle is going less than 40mph or maybe 50mph? I was told that the Prius, once going over 40mph, would switch to gas. For freeway driving and even most surface streets, it seems like you would mostly be using the gasoline part of the Hybrid.
FOR THOSE WHO THINK IT'S AN EITHER/OR QUESTION, HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR A BROADER PERSPECTIVE...
I drive a DIESEL - it's awesome. Great torque, great highway mileage, great range.
I've tried a HYBRID - it's awesome! No idling but all systems operate, great power, great city mileage, great range.
I use energy from the GRID - it's awesome - there when I want it - mostly during the day - unfortunately at night the infrastructure is under-utilized (WASTED!), making it inefficient causing pollution per KWH to be high.
I can only think that the combination of these three technologies would be the best of all worlds - Range of a DIESEL, regenerative and on-demand power of a HYBRID, and utilization of untapped grid energy via night time PLUG-IN.
These technologies are not hypothetical bait and switch pie in the sky political posturing, these technologies and the infrastructure EXIST! ARGUING EITHER/OR IS STUPID AND DIVISIVE. INSTEAD WE SHOULD BE ARGUING FOR ALL.
How about a vehicle with an engine that runs only after you've driven 50-60 miles!
For most it might only run once or twice a month!
You'd almost NEVER go to the gas station (most don't think about their weekly visit - once you drive a vehicle that calls for this once a month you recognize the inconvenience).
Electrics need very little maintenance, think about changing the oil every 3 years.
And if your house lost power you'd have a backup diesel generator in your garage.
tedkidd-
I totally agree with you. In addition, I believe that diesel hybrids could be cost-effective with economies of scale. Sure, it requires long-term thinking, but when added with ending foreign oil dependency, for example, it's not just cost-effective, it's cost smart.
It's time for the government to create incentives for automakers to develop these vehicles and incentives for consumers to buy them. I'd much rather have my tax dollars go towards ending foreign oil dependency, rather than towards fighting wars to protect foreign oil dependency.
dacrydns,
"I'd much rather have my tax dollars go towards ending foreign oil dependency, rather than towards fighting wars to protect foreign oil dependency."
Really nicely put!! Be so much nicer to have those resources going to technology and PRODUCTION instead of consumption and death. Imagine - might help us stay competitive in the 21st century...
Oh yeah, thanks too for the part about economies of scale; "...I believe that diesel hybrids could be cost-effective with economies of scale." That is a necessary part of my position that I forgot to include. (Can you believe I was an Econ major?)
Both of these points are being proven by Germany's Solar Energy program. I believe I saw something about that on NOVA or FRONTLINE.
When you use a plug-in hybrid vehice you recieve the energy from coal burning sources. Your point about land being used for bio-desil plannts is void because the oil will be used by homes,fastfood,resturaunts,and other places. Bio-desil can be produced in a garage or even inside the vehilce and can be converted to the usable source while driveing.
I cant see how a hybrid that still uses gasoline as the main engine can be seen as progress? 1980's Geo Metro's got the same mpg as the Prius with a smaller engine. Is mpg the goal here or an alternative to foreign oil dependence.
Biodiesel basically is solar powered if you look at sun being the origin of plant growth. How can one argue that is not a superior fuleing method over a gasoline/electric system. Plus VW produces intercooled/turbocharged fast, nimble cars vs the grandma looking prius with toyota cheap interiors. As for 2007 I don't see much of an argument. The future might bring changes but at least biodiesel has a positive energy return. The diesel engine has proven itself as a bulletproof engine for over 100yrs, the prius less than 10. We'll see how the prius fares as the battery systems start to deteriorate. Both are making a good argument but the biodiesel option wins as far as I see right now.
In response to the question about large scale applications of electricity and ethonal.
Electricity is already the dominant form of rail power not only in light rail, but in heavy as well. see http://travel.howstuffworks.com/diesel-locomotive.htm
Ships have been able to run off of battery power for years and much of the naval fleet is nuclear or diesel/electric hybrid. see
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question286.htm
The problem with elect. in large scale apps is also highlighted in these examples. In order to produce the amount of power necessary a large generator must be used. The fuel cell idea mentioned in another post could be a good way to store the power and has already been demonstrated for special applications in a German sub see:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/
Ethanol is much like diesel and bio-diesel, in that it gains much of its energy benifits from its ability to achieve higher compression ratios than standard gasoline. This isn't currently being utilized as most ethanol engines on the road are actually flex-fuel engines that are tuned for gasoline and not ethanol.
see here for an exp. engine:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/fev_displays_tu.html
Even if the engines were tuned properly, bio-diesel and petro-diesel will always be able to out perform ethanol as they have a naturally higher energy density and can achieve high compression ratios. see:
http://hypertextbook.com/physics/matter/energy-chemical/
and
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/diesel.html
It also helps bio-diesel that the petro-diesel infrastructure and customer base is already in place and is easily integrated with bio-diesel. This is not the case for ethanol.
All I know is that only one hybrid makes the top 25 most fuel efficient cars in Europe (The slow moving Prius) All the rest are diesel (http://www.bovinebazaar.com/deisel.htm). We need to stop our bickering about side matters and understand that our top priority is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the quickest way to do that is to deal with the cars we drive, and the best technology available on today's market is all ready proven to be Deisel.
No one ever seems to mention about biodiesel is that today's modern diesel injction systems have very close tolerances and are much more complicated than the old single pump systems of the past. Biodiesel has been known to gel up in these systems causing extensive damage and very poor performance. Using high quality biodiesel and only switching to biodiesel when the engine is warm can minimize these effects, but most of the people who fill up at McDonalds and start to use biodiesel without doing some research first will have problems down the line. This is not a simple plug-n-play type switch like many people seem to believe.
This post has been removed by the author.
I have driven a Toyota Camry Hybrid for the past year and 1/2. Any car that can be this large, comfortable, get between 35 and 45MPG consistently, and have about a 600 mile rage per tank is awesome. I have also been a huge supporter of the National BioDeisel Board (http://www.biodiesel.org/) for the past 4 years. Think about the family car, SUV, mini-van getting 60+MPG between a Hybrid, BioDeisel and Plug-in, this would reduce our foreign oil dependency drastically.
Steve Regney pointed out that oil is used to mine and ship coal for electricity. That isn't necessarily required. ALL railroad locomotives in use today are ELECTRIC, or specifically Diesel-Electric Hybrids, and they have been since World War II. And all the coal currently in use in the US comes from the US and Canada. They also liquefy and/or gasify coal for use as a cleaner, more portable fuel.
However, coal is still a finite resource.
Others have posted that corn oil could replace a large part of the foreign oil we use now. Corn is not a very efficient plant for producing oil. Soybeans and peanuts, as well as many other plants, are far better producers of vegetable oils. In fact, Mr. Diesel invented his engine to run on peanut oil. The biggest problem is the dirty fuels available in the US won't allow most diesel vehicles to be sold in Tier II LEV states (NY, CA, MA, etc.) As the EPA tightens fuel standards, this may become less of a problem.
I believe hybrid technology is vital to supplement our fuels. I believe bio-diesel can help. I don't believe fuel cells will be reliable and portable enough for transportation use for a very long time, despite Honda's FCX.
Even more important, we need to optimize the existing technology better. The Honda Civic Hybrid could easily get 10 percent better economy just by adjusting the programming, for example, if the cruise control used the electric assist primarily instead of relying heavily on the gas engine to accelerate. And a plug in system, EVEN for the Honda IMA, would allow the program to have a "dual mode" operation where as long as the battery charge was above 65% the electric assist could be used more effectively.
Whoever said Biodeisel was more expensive... I thought the state of Oregon Produced Biodeisel at a cost of $1 to $1.20 a gallon. I don't remember where I read that, I'm trying to look it up, but that is significantly cheaper than what you thought. If I find it, I'll post it.
You've oversimplified the biodiesel issue. If we do biodiesel properly, mostly producing from waste oil and some from high yield oil crops that will not destroy our land we will probably be alright. However, using one alternative fuel solution is NOT the answer. If we do that things won't be much better than using Petro. I think the idea is to get people choosing different types of alternative fueled and flex fueled vehicles to reduce dependence on any one source.
1 I saw a report that came out referring to pure EV cars that if the car's charger was rigged to "load balance" for the electric grid, you car would help the utils be cleaner because they could use your batt power for the evening peak then recharge it over the night so they would need less capacity.
the main power usage is after every body gets home after work
2 In Toronto Canada Toronto hydro a government run elec utility is running b20 biodiesel in there line trucks with sucess
3 there IS a diesel hybrid car the Peugeot 308
4 hino makes a hybrid diesel delivery van with a 4000 KG payload!
5 international also sell a hydrid
version of there "durastar truck"
so how much do u think batteries used to power cars like this are going to cost us and do u think they will be made here in the US, and why aren't these cars in production?!, and if there have been numerous studies why don't u show us proof
Nice article and comments!
I will say that M. Lucht made a critically-important point. The source of biodiesel is all-important for determining if it is net helpful or harmful. Legislation in Europe is set to ban many sources of biofuels, including biodiesel.
One of the big problems is the way forests and wetlands are being destroyed to clear land for biodiesel and other biofuel production. The draining of peat bogs in Malaysia and neighboring areas, and anywhere else in the world, leads directly to massive CO2 release, making a complete mockery of using the products of this kind of agriculture(like palm oil) for environmentally-friendly fuels.
Waste cooking oil isn't the only source of recycled oil for biodiesel. Waste fish oil is an example that would work well locally (in fishing towns).
Anyway, once again, nice article and follow-up comments!
Best wishes, Jim
I'm all for a biodeisel hybrid, but it depends on where the fuel is coming from. From http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37035
"The irony here is that the growing eagerness to slow climate change by using biofuels and planting millions of trees for carbon credits has resulted in new major causes of deforestation, say activists. And that is making climate change worse because deforestation puts far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined.
'Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil,' said Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay. "
We need to push for high-oil algae as our energy source for vehicles.
mbuddha, I would have to agree with you 100% (if not more): posts from my blog that support your points, with references.
I just started a sustainability group that people are welcome to add their favorite links, sites, etc. to:
http://www.squidoo.com/groups/Sustainability
Best wishes, Jim
I must point out that biodiesel can come from natural sources that do not require much processing or engery. For example, if algae were to be used to provide biodiesel fuel, the only processing it would need is compression to extract nearly 99% of the oil it can hold. At the same time, there is no need for drilling or refinery because algae can grow almost anywhere there is a body of water. How much do you think it would cost to scoop algae from a lake? The third point that I want to make is that algae grows on its own and will easily absorb any emissions (which aren't many) therefore canceling out any impact it is having on the environment. The major cost would be to car companies to switch their machinery from focus on fossil fuels to biodiesel fuels.
Anon: you are completely right and I haven't seen anybody here deny what you say. However, if you look at the actual investments in biodiesel going on at the moment by major ag and energy companies, they are not the kind that make sense. We need to stick to the sensible biodiesel that you recommend, which still has many possible sources, including algae, as you say.
As for the couple of comments questioning what is real and what is hype, you can buy electric cars in the US right now from a number of manufacturers, including Phoenix motor cars and other options discussed here.
The batteries of these EV electric cars and trucks are made to last the life of the car (25 years).
Also, if you missed the news, VW is introducing a Jetta turbo diesel to the US market in 2009
that gets 65 mpg! It meets the strictest emission standards in the US, apparently (which is not the case with many high mpg turbodiesel cars from Europe, from what I understand).
Sorry, that is 60 miles per gallon, not 65, for the VW Jetta BlueTDI. Apologies for the typo. Jim
The typical comment about switching 100% to anything is crazy. Why do we have to switch 100%? Biodiesel is one alternative not the 100% answer. Unless you are going to run cars on peet moss there is no 100% bio anything. Invest in reducing our dependency on foreign fuels. Don't get wrapped up in the pay back.
Post a Comment
<< Home