Gasoline usage in the USA.....hopeless.

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Thu May 24, 2007 7:55 am

Don't you think that diesel cars would sell as hell in the USA? I mean, you can break it down to the same power with consumption reduced by a third and torque up a third, compared to gasoline...
Most of our emissions laws are set by California standards, and require specific diesel standards that are too stringent by non-truck standards. That is to say, diesel pollutes too badly. I believe it has to do with a particular sulfur emission, which is good for me, because sulfur products can make me really sick, but whatever, that's OT.

Emissions laws in the US are set not by volume of emissions but by content; therefor, as long as you're burning gas cleanly, it's not important that you burn a lot of it.

Also, while the US is (I believe) the greatest per-capita consumer of oil, I have to point out that we are not the greatest consumer of refined fuel per capita or as a whole country; most of the oil we buy is used for plastics, which go a long way to making the US the least wasteful of food of the first world countries, and makes other health issues non-existent. Only something between 35-40% of our oil is used for gas.

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Thu May 24, 2007 8:31 am

It will be another 12-18 months before we see more diesel vehicles in the USA. The standard mentioned above is known as LEV-II in Caifornia or Tier 2, Bin 5 for the federal government's EPA tables. Each bin is a different category of emissions. I believe VW's last TDI they sold here was the 2006 Jetta which was Tier 2, Bin 8. Decent, but not good enough. The 2008 TDI should meet Bin 5, and I've seen claims they can hit Bin 2 (which is something like 1/5th of Bin 5) by 2011. Honda and BMW are also planning to have new diesel entries by 2009-2010 or so.

On the CO2 front however, This story indicates USA's CO2 emissions DROPPED in 2006 which from a possible global warming perspective is really good news. Fossil fuels were cheaper in 2006 than 2007, so if even 2006 registered a drop, then perhaps we've had a silent revolution already? No surprise though, as fossil fuels get more expensive, it makes sense to conserve, or just use it more efficiently.

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Thu May 24, 2007 9:43 am

which from a possible global warming perspective is really good news.
The greenhouse effect and global warming aren't really tied, and for every "eat a balanced diet to cut down on farts WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" theory of greenhouse effects there's a "If we launched every nuke at once directly into the the combined uranium deposits of the world we couldn't budge the planet's thermostat" theory.

I'm going to take solace in the fact that we're between 5-7 thousand years through a deglaciation period, and in paleoclimactically, we're due to warm up some more, and there's nothing that could or should be done about it, though I'm still going to push for more efficient cars because, why not, it's a good idea for a host of reasons.

Anyway, greenhouse != global warming.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Thu May 24, 2007 9:54 am

The two aren't clearly linked, but there's certainly a possibility.

It also seems likely that if we change the environment drastically, a result will occur. Fossil fuel carbon has been stored for how many millions of years?

Of course as you said, many complaining about the environment are not honest or are off their rocker, simply using it as an excuse for global government for example... And then there are those on the opposing with claims also not founded in reality. The debate is anything but honest.

Note: I'm not requesting any 'proof' for your claim that the two aren't linked because you might in turn request proof from me which would require some sort of effort :P The best discussions are full of hot air.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Thu May 24, 2007 10:30 am

jaganath wrote:Trip, about limiting immigration, that seems rather unfair for all those poor people who just want to make a better life for themselves and their families.
You knew I was looking for someone to respond to that :) They bring their diseases, culture, and habits that caused their original problems in the first place - if they aren't cleaned up and melted in, America will become the third world rather than help some in the third world. Why encourage Americans to have fewer babies and simultaneously import foreigners? The result is to simply replace the current population with no result other than to prepare America for further globalisation and to risk transforming it into a third world state itself. America cannot help all of the 7 billion people of the world; it can't even provide properly for its own people. Additionally it can help some states, especially if it remains strong I suppose.

An explicit example of one problem with importing foreigners who need our help: Sunnis and Shia fight in Iraq, Palestinians and Israelis fight in their lands. Move the groups into America, and they still hate each other. Move enough of them, and they might even start up the wars anew here.

Another example: Country X has a high birthrate. Move Xians here, and they will continue to have a higher birthrate at least for some number of generations. Their home nations remain the same, or are probably diminished as a result of the taking away of their best talent while America is at best the same.

How was Tibet conquered? Han Chinese were moved in who, being Han Chinese, were loyal to China. Similarly, if we move in millions of Mexicans into the Southwest, they'll attempt (successfully IMO) to secede and "rejoin (as they see it)" Mexico. War and conflict tend to pollute.

Let's be honest the real disagreement is over whether a global state is a good idea or not. Not to say that you are exploiting the issue but just that your stances on the environment would differ if your view of globalisation differed. Likewise with myself of course, and I'm admittedly the one with the more extreme view on this issue within the current paradigm.

:P or if pretending only the environment is of concern, the environment is not entirely a global issue. A Mexican tossing trash on the ground affects me far less than a neighbor doing the same. Fewer neighbors means less trash in my area in general. Also, there's local air and water pollution and resource and land usage (Mexican maids and construction workers or nature reserves? Additionally the issue is the distribution of said limited resources among the human population: many for each or few for each?)

An ideal, environment friendly society is going to arise more easily with a relatively low population density. Establish an environment friendly society, set the example, and encourage others to follow the example. If a global state doesn't come into being, pursue another goal.

jhhoffma
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jhhoffma » Thu May 24, 2007 12:16 pm

Finally, something I can speak with extensive knowledge on.

I was an owner/operator of one of those GM crap diesels ('81 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham), and it SUCKED. Actually it was my first car, on loan from my dad. Back in the early-mid 90's when diesel (or "diesel gas" as most people called it then) was more expensive than regular unleaded. I almost wish I had that car back. It exploded on the freeway while my dad was coming home from work (threw a rod right through the bottom of the crank).

It belched out billowing clouds of blue smoke when it started and had TWO batteries (both usually died on me in cold weather) and required about 30 seconds for the glowplugs to heat up. It was an awful car to drive.

However, let's not leave blame solely there with GM. I remember seeing quite a few diesel-power VW Rabbits in the area that were just smoking piles as well.

I would love to drive a diesel again, but many Americans would be reluctant. I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of previous diesels, I think it has to do with changing peoples ideas of normalcy. Some think that the diesel sounds funny and don't like it. Other see the semis driving by and say I don't want a car that uses an engine like that.

If it were an aversion to diesel engines in general, I think we'd see more rotary engines on the road, instead of the 3 dozen Mazda RX models still roaming the US. While the engine isn't any better with efficiency it's lighter and can't be any harder to make than a diesel.

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Thu May 24, 2007 2:54 pm

The greenhouse effect and global warming aren't really tied
I really,really,really don't want to turn this into another GW thread, but,like,what? greenhouse effect as it relates to the atmosphere AFAIUI says that several gases absorb and reflect IR radiation (heat) back to Earth, acting like a blanket round the Earth; global warming theory says C02 emissions make this blanket "thicker" and thus the Earth heats up more. This is a simplification,of course, but that's the essence AIUI.

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Thu May 24, 2007 3:04 pm

This is way OT, but I owned a Mercedes 220D for a few years. Big mistake....I bought it when diesel fuel was 69c a gallon. Within 6 months the price jumped to $1.09, higher than gasoline at the time, and never went back. The thing got 30mpg......fantastic for the year. But it smoked, took maybe 90 seconds to warm up the glow-plugs, was hard to start in cold weather, always sounded like it had a broken piston, and needed the oil changed every 2k miles or you would regret it. No more diesels for me....... :P

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Thu May 24, 2007 9:25 pm

Bluefront wrote:This is way OT, but I owned a Mercedes 220D for a few years. Big mistake....I bought it when diesel fuel was 69c a gallon. Within 6 months the price jumped to $1.09, higher than gasoline at the time, and never went back. The thing got 30mpg......fantastic for the year. But it smoked, took maybe 90 seconds to warm up the glow-plugs, was hard to start in cold weather, always sounded like it had a broken piston, and needed the oil changed every 2k miles or you would regret it. No more diesels for me....... :P
Yeah, those old ones have zero in common with modern diesels. Even my brother's crapy Powerstroke fires up in 5 seconds, and the newer models activate the glow plugs either when you hit the keyless entry unlock or when the driver's door is opened, thus making for instant start. They are also far, far more quiet, go for 10-15k miles between oil changes (yes, 10-15k miles) and don't smoke; especially the 2008+ models when they get here since that kind of goes along with meeting tier 2, bin 5 emissions.

frostedflakes
Posts: 1608
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: United States

Post by frostedflakes » Thu May 24, 2007 9:47 pm

Unfortunately diesels just have a bad stigma in the US as being loud, stinky, etc. With good reason too, this was before my time but from what I've read the 70's and 80's diesel cars were utter crap. Now that the government has mandated ultra-low sulfur diesel I welcome some modern diesel cars with open arms. Hopefully we will have a good selection of affordable diesels in the US in the next 5-10 years. Then once more people on the road have diesels migrating to alternative fuels such as biodiesel will be much more viable.

alleycat
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 10:32 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by alleycat » Thu May 24, 2007 11:09 pm

A small truck drove past me the other day, must have been running biodiesel. Smelled like fish 'n' chips...

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Fri May 25, 2007 12:22 am

Jaganath, also alien species can travel with immigrants. The Southern US suffers from the alien super weed Kudzu.

Additionally, a people will tend to voluntarily care for their own environment more readily it would seem if they viewed said environment as their home and not as a mere temporary home, the latter being more typical of recent immigrants the former of settled citizens. Thus lacking a natural respect for authority and for the local environment, more force would be needed. At least such seems the case in the abstract. I offer no evidence to back me up :D

---

Cheap lead-acid batteries and batteries in general create problems with disposal I suspect.

I wonder if well designed cities utilising efficient mass transit isn't the ideal.

In principle I'd love to live in a sustainable city, but I wonder what sacrifices and hardships I'd have to make and endure... Surely it's easier to just pass on costs to future generations. Such is the American (the great debtor and trade deficit state) way!

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Fri May 25, 2007 1:27 am

Jaganath, also alien species can travel with immigrants. The Southern US suffers from the alien super weed Kudzu.
Trip, that link didn't mention anything about immigrants bringing in kudzu; in fact it was introduced by clueless non-immigrants, ie natives. :lol:

yes, invasive species can hop a ride on immigrants, but there are many other ways they can get there, ie on food shipments, in the ballast water of boats (eg zebra mussels). The "don't allow migrants because they bring invasive species" is a pretty weak argument if you ask me, also you would have to restrict natives from travelling to places with invasive species to be consistent.
I wonder if well designed cities utilising efficient mass transit isn't the ideal.
Say a big hello to Singapore! cheap, comfortable, clean mass public transport. Although it's probably a lot easier when your population is only 4 million and your country is the size of LAX's parking lot. :wink:
A small truck drove past me the other day, must have been running biodiesel. Smelled like fish 'n' chips...
here in the uk you can get home reactors to make your own biodiesel. I'm sure they're available in the US too.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Fri May 25, 2007 5:05 am

jaganath wrote:Trip, that link didn't mention anything about immigrants bringing in kudzu; in fact it was introduced by clueless non-immigrants, ie natives. :lol:
I never said it was introduced by them. This was simply an example of how nonnative species can create problems.
The "don't allow migrants because they bring invasive species" is a pretty weak argument if you ask me, also you would have to restrict natives from travelling to places with invasive species to be consistent.
This was a very small part of my argument and yes I do believe that to protect an ecosystem citizens ought to be kept from bringing in nonnative species. Immigrants from a foreign ecosystem are going to tend more to desire to bring their alien species with them and any movement among ecosystems poses such a risk of introduction.

This adds not to the argument against only immigrants but more generally against the no border globalism that is the dream of so many. Separate ecosystems could not be protected from harmful aliens under such a system.

Indeed, 'environmentalists' who wish for such a system probably wouldn't want to allow the existence of unique ecosystems or unique anything; their idea of saving the environment is constructing their ideal global society and maintaining it once it has been created. The great threat to a borderless, nationless, religionless, soiless, tieless people (who thus have less cause to create major conflicts) is that segments could develop such exclusive qualities and become more than individuals again. As an extension of their not being attached to any specific ecosystem, I think they would lack the depth of ties to natural organisms in general and would tend more to embrace GE as a result. Man learns to love the whole as an extension of loving a part in my experience. Was my specific homeland lost, I can't say I'd care as much for this world (allusion to the afterlife) though I'm fairly certain this is a point of high controversy.
Say a big hello to Singapore!
I've never been. It sounds nice, but it'd be preferable I'd think to possess some pristine land around said city. I suppose a Singaporian (who have so far always told me they're Chinese not Singaporian) could just sail into the blue, but I wonder just how far he'd have to go to get away from the modern world.

Anyway, you're no fool and perhaps it's unfair to delve too much into how your ideal would actually work without discussing the alternative which is simply how man has always lived for the most part, bc it is easier to criticise such an ideal than to present an alternative... IOW, you could just as easily attack an alternative to globalism by saying all ecosystems are interconnected, tragedy of the commons, and a failure to create such a utopia would lead to nuclear destruction.

Regardless, this should demonstrate why I view most (not all) environmentalists as fakes, watermelons, who do not truly wish to preserve... anything; they want global government for its own sake. America's Sierra Club is a perfect example of people who (a majority) are willing to sacrifice America's unique ecosystems upon the altar of globalism. Many in my area at least distinguish themselves from enviros with the term conservationists.

Erssa
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Erssa » Fri May 25, 2007 8:57 am

Bluefront wrote:I bought it when diesel fuel was 69c a gallon. Within 6 months the price jumped to $1.09, higher than gasoline at the time, and never went back.
So cheap. Over here it's over 5$, regular fuel is a bit over 7$. I think americans might think differently about fuel economy, if their gas was taxed like ours...

Natronomonas
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by Natronomonas » Fri May 25, 2007 4:24 pm

Petrol has just hit A$1.40 here in Australia, which is high by our standards. Interestingly, public transport rockets every time there is a fuel price surge, then settles once people get used to the new price.

The other strong correlation with fuel price is housing price; every time the price jumps, house prices close to the city or near good PT links go up a LOT more than houses that are in car-dependent suburbs, or far away from the city.

Since oil prices aren't going to drop any time soon, or ever, I know where I'll be buying, since the govt can't really be trusted to actually do anything about expanding public transport or planning suburbs that aren't car dependent.

kittle
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by kittle » Fri May 25, 2007 4:40 pm

jhhoffma wrote: However, let's not leave blame solely there with GM. I remember seeing quite a few diesel-power VW Rabbits in the area that were just smoking piles as well.

I would love to drive a diesel again, but many Americans would be reluctant. I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of previous diesels, I think it has to do with changing peoples ideas of normalcy. Some think that the diesel sounds funny and don't like it. Other see the semis driving by and say I don't want a car that uses an engine like that.
color me one of the UN reluctant americans.
I had one of those VW deisel during college (1980 vw dasher).

yes it stunk, ran loud, was a royal pain to start on cold mornings, and had very little power, but for the gas concious starving-student type it was GREAT. I wasnt into racing it... and if i wanted music, just turn up the radio (or get a high power stereo). The thing also got 45mpg in the city and I clocked at 55mpg on a long road trip.


when my last vehicle was totaled I went to buy another vw deisel. but it was an $8-15k 'option' and living in CA finding deisel fuel at the pump wasnt easy (possible.. but a pain).
but the kicker was the actual mileage.. these new and supposedly more efficent models didnt get much better than the current gas models. I think they were quoted at 40mpg on the highway.
Wtf happened to the EXISTING 45mpg my old dasher got? this was 20yr old technology.
Makes a guy wonder what really goes on behind making fuel efficent cars. Mabye those stories of oil companies making the inventer of the 100mpg carbeurator vanish really are true?

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Sat May 26, 2007 6:20 am

the kicker was the actual mileage.. these new and supposedly more efficent models didnt get much better than the current gas models.
check out the new Mini Cooper D, soon to be released; BMW claim 72.4mpg, has regenerative brakes, "Stop-Instant Start" feature like the Prius, supposed to be pretty fun to drive as well. of course it's way out of my price range but just to show that the big manufacturers haven't been completely wasting their time since the dasher.

Elixer
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:31 am
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Contact:

Post by Elixer » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:17 am

jaganath wrote: BMW claim 72.4mpg
Note that this is using the "imperial gallon", which isn't the same gallon as used in the US. I believe that works out to about 60mpg. Note that this is probably also their "ultra-urban" rating which is the car travelling below interstate speeds.


Personally I think the US should do like Brazil and mandate that all cars sold in the US have to be able to run on E85 fuel. E85 fuel is fuel that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Many new cars can already run on this mixture. The only change that is needed for most cars is to open or close a few valves on the engine a few fractions of a second earlier or later (I'm no car guy). For exsisting cars there are electronic kits for a several hundred dollars which you simply plug in to your car and are as easy to install as "changing the oil". Most of these kits also allow the cars to run on 100% ethanol. E85 fuel stations are already available in most major cities and in most cases is actually cheaper than gasoline! Although most cars using E85 fuel get ~10% less gas milage using ethanol, it can be found in most states with a price 10% or lower than gasoline (http://e85prices.com/).

You could say that car manufactorers would incur great costs to impliment this, but in truth all they would need to do in 99% of the cases is reprogram the computer chip in the car slightly. There are no additional adjustments necessary (it's likely that additional fuel effeciency/performance could be achieved with small additional tweaks). Ethanol does have some problems environmentally, which need to be addressed. One study suggested a 10% increase in respitory illness in a city if switched entirely(key word here) from Gasoline to ethanol which is far from serious. As ethanol is a renewable source of energie, can easily and cheaply be implimented as an alternative for part of the US's gasoline demand, it makes absolutely no sense as to why the government has not yet done this.

Edit: like I often do - I read up a bit more and I'm not so sure now. E85 does seem to be a very good alternative, however it will be a long time before we can produce enough ethanol for the entire US.
Last edited by Elixer on Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:15 am

As ethanol is a renewable source of energie, can easily and cheaply be implimented as an alternative for part of the US's gasoline demand, it makes absolutely no sense as to why the government has not yet done this.
ethanol in the US is mostly made from corn, which has a very poor EROEI (energy return on energy invested).corn as it is grown in the US requires large fertiliser (petrochemical) and fossil fuel inputs. also I believe the production of ethanol in the US is not economically viable without subisidies? (not sure about this,been a while since I looked at it).

ethanol could be a good "green" fuel, if it was made in a more environmentally-friendly way (like they do in Brazil-however the US puts enormous import duties on ethanol from Brazil). at the moment however you are simply replacing gasoline with something else that is largely made from oil.

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:16 pm

There is hope yet. Subcompact car sales are almost DOUBLE in 2007 what they were in 2006:

http://www.thecarlounge.com/news/publis ... 1270.shtml

This could be the start of a trend away big cars and towards smaller, more efficient cars in the USA!

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Make hydrogen from water and metal pellets

Post by NeilBlanchard » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:18 pm

Greetings,

Well, here's something that is very interesting: making hydrogen from water and aluminum pellets and gallium. So, you can produce hydrogen on the spot when you need it! Take a listen to this:

http://cache.libsyn.com/sciencefriday/s ... 060113.mp3

Post Reply