nacmacfeegle 0 #26 May 31, 2004 "they need low-sulfur diesel fuel that (thus far) is not available." Odd thing, I first came across ULSD (it was called ultra low sulphur diesel IIRC)whilst working in the USA about 2 1/2 years ago. We needed all the US companies supplying diesel fuelled machines (generators, both turbine and recip, along with firepump and emergency gen sets, cementer units etc) to check that their hardware was compatible with this fuel. Most were okay about it, including Solar, based in San Diego. http://www.bp.com.au/products/fuels/low_sulphur/lds.asp?menuid=ee Maybe its because nobody likes the way you guys spell sulphur?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #27 May 31, 2004 QuoteWhat is it going to take to move the American Consumer over to Alternate Fuel Sources, if a reliable solution becomes available.. Fuel efficient cars that don't suck. As I mentioned in my original post, people want cars that a big, luxerious, and powerful. We shouldn't have to sacrifice one for the other, and I do believe that in time we will have the fuel efficient cars that we desire. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #28 May 31, 2004 Yeah . . . but no matter how fuel efficient you make an SUV, a smaller, lighter vehicle using the same technology will be -far more- efficient.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #29 May 31, 2004 QuoteYeah . . . but no matter how fuel efficient you make an SUV, a smaller, lighter vehicle using the same technology will be -far more- efficient. That is absolutely correct, but I'll bet you that as long as we keep focusing the effort on tiny, underpowered, and unluxerious cars that you'll never see widespread adoption. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #30 May 31, 2004 Baby steps. Baby steps. They -had- to start with small vehicles because of the horsepower and range requirements. Horsepower = energy and while even a large SUV might need all that much in cruise on flat land, starts and especially going up hill, is a bitch. Cut the vehicle weight in half and you've just made your job a hell of a lot easier.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #31 June 1, 2004 >Odd thing, I first came across ULSD (it was called ultra low sulphur >diesel IIRC)whilst working in the USA about 2 1/2 years ago. Well, it's available in the same way that hydrogen is available, but if you bought a hydrogen fuel cell car (or a car that needed low sulfur diesel) you'd be SOL. Part of the new rules require oil companies to provide low sulfur diesel in lieu of standard diesel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #32 June 1, 2004 "I'll bet you that as long as we keep focusing the effort on tiny, underpowered, and unluxerious cars that you'll never see widespread adoption." I couldn't agree with you more, this change in the way you guys see diesels will have to be very carefully marketed. On one of our motoring programmes this week, Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson drove from London to Edinburgh and back again on a single tank of diesel, a round trip of some 800 miles, averaging about 40 mpg. The car he used was an Audi A8, with a 4 litre V8 diesel engine, hardly any sane person's definition of 'unluxurious'. So some progress is being made.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #33 June 1, 2004 QuoteI'll bet you that as long as we keep focusing the effort on tiny, underpowered, and unluxerious cars that you'll never see widespread adoption. A few questions: Do you ever see the day where a heavy full-powered truck will get comparable gas mileage to a smaller, lighter, vehicle with a smaller engine? Isn't it likely that any technology adopted by large trucks also be used by econoboxes? Is it likely that people who are buying twice or three times as much gas than their more efficient counterparts will complain, no matter how much they're actually spending? Haven't advancements like Fuel Injection, multiple valves per cylinder, electric fans, etc already increased the fuel economy tremendously of even the biggest tucks over the last few decades? Haven't the consumers and vehicle producers responded to better efficiency in trucks by just building bigger and bigger trucks, each time a new technology come out? Personally, I see no end to people buying monster trucks, then complaining endlessly about how the government is allowing gas prices to be so expensive. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #34 June 1, 2004 Big trucks are exactly the sort of vehicle that benefit the most from diesel engines. Diesels give more torque and low end power so are perfect for big vehicles. I suspect they would consistently outperform petrol engines on vehicles like this... it's that they're just not fashionable. The technology is there now. If they wanted, people could be driving the exact same truck, but with more power where it counts and a cheaper monthly gas bill. There is no excuse for society, for government, or for industry... it's that they're just not fashionable. Should the need arrise these same trucks, with the exact same engines and no or next-to-no modifications can run off biodiesel grown on fields in the good old US of A. The US could become an exporter of bio-diesel and the OPEC countries wouldn't have a hope in hell of retaining their strangle hold on the world ecconomy given their arrid climate. But diesels are just not fashionable. I drive a car with a very big petrol engine and bitch about fuel prices. I don't wear fury ear-muffs cos I'd look like an idiot - but they'd keep my ears warm in the winter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #35 June 1, 2004 > Big trucks are exactly the sort of vehicle that benefit the most from diesel engines. Big trucks already have diesel engines for the most part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #36 June 1, 2004 QuoteWhat is it going to take to move the American Consumer over to Alternate Fuel Sources High gas prices. I say double the tax on gasoline. When you're paying as much as Europeans do, you'll start buying more fuel efficient cars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #37 June 1, 2004 QuoteHigh gas prices. I say double the tax on gasoline. When you're paying as much as Europeans do, you'll start buying more fuel efficient cars. It's a neat idea, but can you imagine the consequences of doubling the gas tax right now? I could be wrong, but I think you'd fuck the economy good by doing that. To answer the original question of what will it take to move the American consumer to alternate fuel sources - I say fuel efficient cars that don't suck. As I mentioned in my original post (I think I did anyhow) diesel will be a great gap fuel until hybrid, electric, or hydrogen cars are perfected. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #38 June 1, 2004 QuoteTo answer the original question of what will it take to move the American consumer to alternate fuel sources - I say fuel efficient cars that don't suck. What does fuel effeciency have to do with alternate fuels? _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #39 June 1, 2004 >What does fuel effeciency have to do with alternate fuels? Well, for one thing, most alternate fuels are more expensive and more scarce than fossil based fuels (so far) and so a more fuel efficient vehicle will be easier to support with a limited supply of alternative fuels. Also, many fuel efficiency technologies (like hybrids) make use of alternate fuels (in the case of hybrids, electricity.) But you're right in that they can be considered as two separate solutions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #40 June 1, 2004 QuoteIt's a neat idea, but can you imagine the consequences of doubling the gas tax right now? I could be wrong, but I think you'd fuck the economy good by doing that. Depends on what that tax is used for. And a more pressing concern for the economy is the price of crude oil, more so than gasoline itself. And if demand for gasoline is reduced, that means demand for oil is reduced and therefore the price of crude comes down. Also, no need to double it instantly, but a phased in plan to raise the price of gasoline will give those dependent on gasoline to adjust and make appropriate plans to compensate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #41 June 1, 2004 >It's a neat idea, but can you imagine the consequences of doubling >the gas tax right now? Would be pretty bad. So do this instead - Every time the price of gas ratchets down 10%, add a 2% tax to it. That way taxes never increase the price of gas, they just slow down the natural drop in prices that occurs with oil gluts. So when it goes from $2 to $2.50, there is no tax increase. But when it drops to $1.80, the new tax kicks in and it only drops to $1.96. Continue this (say a max of once a year) until the new target is met. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #42 June 3, 2004 QuoteTo answer the original question of what will it take to move the American consumer to alternate fuel sources - I say fuel efficient cars that don't suck. Looks like Ford was listening when they designed the Escape Hybrid. I put a few miles on the Escape a few years ago; I wasn't overly impressed, but I think it represents a step in the right direction. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpinfarmer 0 #43 June 4, 2004 Ethonal The studies that say ethonal is in efficient are very old. New studies by USDA and Michigan State show a net gain in energy of almost 30%. It's actualy a form of solar energy as the corn (or what ever grain is used) takes the energy from the sun and converts it to carbon. Bio diesel is actualy a more powerfull fuel than regular diesel. It also has a greater lubricating property than diesel so engins last longer when using it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #44 June 4, 2004 >The studies that say ethonal is in efficient are very old. New studies > by USDA and Michigan State show a net gain in energy of almost > 30%. That's still pretty low; biodiesel is around 60% (assuming solar energy is free.) I think it makes a good oxygenating additive to extend gasoline supplies but I don't think it's a good form of energy in its own right. > It's actualy a form of solar energy as the corn (or what ever > grain is used) takes the energy from the sun and converts it to > carbon. Right, but the fermentation required greatly reduces the useful energy in the corn, trash etc. You can get almost the same efficiencies with the same materials in a methane digester, and digesters can take _anything_ (including animal wastes.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #45 June 4, 2004 I think an electric car or a electric/hybrid car will be the way of the future, but it will take a while. The nice thing about using electricity is that if we get fusion power figured out, the electricity will be practically free, and also pollution-free. We just have to develop better and cheaper batteries... MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #46 June 5, 2004 I'm not impressed with the idea of an all electric car. At least not yet. Twice a year I make a 600+ mile road trip and that's likely to increase in frequency. How long does it take to recharge my electric car? At least with a hybrid I can fill up the tank and keep going, batteries be damned. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #47 June 13, 2004 > Twice a year I make a 600+ mile road trip and that's likely to increase in >frequency. So tow a gas-operated motor for the long trips. They'd be cheap to rent. That way you wouldn't be buying an entire car, used hundreds of times a year, with a feature you will only use twice a year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #48 June 13, 2004 Quote Personally, I see no end to people buying monster trucks, then complaining endlessly about how the government is allowing gas prices to be so expensive. The price fluctuations in the economy as a whole are driven by supply, this is a well studied economic phenomenon. I'm inclined to believe supply of gas/oil has more effect on the price than demand... Does anyone know off the top of their head? nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #49 June 13, 2004 I have four letters that amount to a 'yes' answer:OPECwitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #50 June 14, 2004 "The price fluctuations in the economy as a whole are driven by supply, this is a well studied economic phenomenon. I'm inclined to believe supply of gas/oil has more effect on the price than demand... Does anyone know off the top of their head" K---OPEC." Close, but in the case of oil, its not as easy to just make more, there are capacity constraints within the infrastructure, only so many tankers, fixed pipeline capacities, fixed refinery capacities etc, etc. Even where over capacity exists, its not that easy to bring production trains out of retirement and up to full operation quickly and safely. Much of the current pricing fluctuation is, I suspect, down to demand, short term demand, panic buying if you like. Thats not attributable to domestic consumption, but more likely due to options trading.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
