Modern, computer controlled, clean diesel motors may be a major part of what America needs to break free of imported oil.
As September 2008 makes its appearance anyone who has been watches gas or crude oil prices has noticed their recent decline. Of course we would all like them to fall further, but reality being what it is, makes this unlikely. Meanwhile, what some of us may not have noticed is that diesel prices have not declined along with gasoline. This fact had attracted my attention and when the August copy of Energy Tribune arrived with a cover story “Diesel Prices Head for the Stratosphere” I had to give it a detailed look.
Most Americans are probably not very aware of the history of the diesel motor, named after its inventor, Rudolph Diesel, a Swedish engineer who was disappointed with the efficiency of the gasoline motor. His design, which ran on peanut oil, was more efficient and more powerful, leading to its use for marine propulsion, in heavy trucks, military armored vehicles, and the like. Roald Amundsen had his ship, the Fram, fitted with a diesel motor for his expedition to the South Pole, knowing that it would be better able to navigate Antarctic pack ice than conventional coal fired steam ships. Today’s diesel motors generally run on petroleum based diesel fuel but this does not prevent them from using non-petroleum sources. This is amply demonstrated by those who use bio-diesel which is frequently reprocessed used vegetable oil. As a result, some of these vehicles produce exhaust that smells like French fries.
Diesel was correct about the gasoline motor. Its thermal efficiency at the time was somewhere in the 10 to 15 percent range at the time. Today it tops out around 30 percent, while high efficiency diesels get around 45 percent. According to Engineer Philip E. Lewis, the US Department of Energy expects that diesel motors could reach an efficiency of between 55 and 63 percent.
Why has the diesel motor been so unpopular in the US? The answer may be a matter of public perception. They are frequently characterized as noisy, smelly and smoky; a perception that was reinforced for me when, many years ago, my neighbor purchased a diesel powered Mercedes Benz. But diesel has a number of distinct advantages. The motors provide several distinct advantages. Diesel fuel has an 18 percent greater energy content than gasoline and because the motor uses a higher compression ratio it provides between 25 and 40 percent greater mileage per gallon of fuel consumed. With new, low sulfur diesel and high efficiency computer controlled motors, the noise, smell and smoke are essentially a thing of the past.
What many Americans don’t know is that Volkswagen had produced a high efficiency turbo charged direct injection (TDI) diesel motor for commercial uses in 1988. Today Volkswagen produces a TDI Rabbit / Golf available in the US, which purportedly gets over 40 miles per gallon, and is extremely reliable mechanically. An interesting review of the vehicle with additional related information can be found here. BMW and Mercedes Benz have also introduced their own high efficiency TDI diesels which show some amazing performance. Again, according to Philip E. Lewis, The Times of London reports a road test of 545 miles from London to Geneva between a BMW 520d 2.0 liter diesel and a full hybrid Honda Prius diesel which was 500 lbs. lighter. Even with 100 miles of urban driving included, the BMW achieved 41.9 mpg while the Prius achieved only 40.1 mpg. This may seem insignificant, except that the larger, heavier BMW was a safer vehicle, and had no environmental concerns attached from disposal of the battery pack. The BMW also exhibited better acceleration and greater top speed. Clearly, if Americans want a “greener” car, they should buy diesel hybrid instead of gasoline hybrid models. Mercedes only charges $1,000.00 for the TDI upgrade, while most hybrid upgrades cost a lot more.
So what remains? Firstly, there is no reason for General Motors, Ford and Chrysler not to produce competing models. Most filling stations already stock standard diesel. Adding biodiesel to the mix should not be a major problem if the market wants it. Motor fuel producers and automobile manufacturers should cooperate on this to promote a better future in terms of fuel and fuel efficient vehicles. The second part is generating a reliable source of the fuel.
Past market trends show that demand for “middle distillates” which include diesel fuels have been increasing faster than demand for other petroleum products. Part of this trend is caused by the increasing demand for diesel vehicles in Europe, where they are presently producing more gasoline than they need. Today approximately 30 percent of all vehicles on the road in Europe are diesel powered. By 2015 this is expected to be 40 percent or more. America’s diesel fleet is much smaller; only about 5 percent of the total number of automobiles. This may keep gasoline prices lower, but it also would tend to prevent a transition to the more efficient and more ecologically friendly solution.
In May 2003 a potential solution to the problem appeared . A technology known as thermal depolymerization which was featured in Discover Magazine appeared to solve this problem. Promoted by Brian Appel and his company, Changing World Technologies, it sounded like a dream come true. A pilot production plant in Carthage, Missouri was constructed with high hopes. Unfortunately the pilot plant has done little, and while some of this might be due to delays caused by lawsuits and other legal issues, it also appears that the technology might not be as efficient as expected. Costs turned out to be much higher than expected and less than anticipated revenues. A better solution was needed.
In the Summer of 2008 a new company known as Bell Bio-energy entered the scene. Instead of using a thermal process Bell Bio-energy employs bacteria to convert waste vegetable matter into hydrocarbons including diesel compatible fuel oil. Bell’s process uses microbe produced enzymes to digest biomass in a manner similar to that occurring in the digestive tract of cattle. Digestion in cattle produces methane; essentially the same gas you may use to cook dinner. There is no reason why a similar process cannot be used to produce hydrocarbons for industrial use and working in connection with the federal government Bell hoped to do just that. As of this time it is building about half a dozen production plants on military bases. This should avoid some of the litigation problems experienced by Changing World Technologies. Also, the process should be less costly overall, and therefore more economically viable.
The connection is clear. Advanced computer controlled diesel motors powered by bio-fuels should enable American to break away from imported oil and make the nation much more energy efficient. If we focus on development of viable bio-fuel sources the future may be a lot brighter than many on the radical environmentalists are willing to believe or admit. And most important of all, we won't have to drive around in that despised form of transportation; the "clown car."
slaib@intellectualconservative.com
http://intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Steven D. Laib
Dear Mr. Laib,
Brilliant story.
I was reviewing current car and truck manufacturers use of diesel engines.
I was amazed to find that Isuzu Motors in Japan made 40 Million diesel engines last year. Most of them used by GM and Ford.
Now if the consumers can buy some cheaper low sulfur fuel, and biomass fuel we've got a solution.
Regards,
globalroamer
Comment by GlobalRoamer | September 8, 2008
Dear Mr. Laib
I'm not quite as enthusiastic about your story as the Global guy. Being from Detroit and the son of a Navy diesel mechanic, I know a little about this subject. Not enough to write a story like this one, but a substantial amount more than you seem to. I think it’s better to leave this question to engineers and economists.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | September 8, 2008
The issue is not quite so straightforward. A gallon of gasoline has only about 89% the energy of diesel fuel. As a minimum, therefore, it only takes about 89% of amount of crude oil to produce a gallon of gasoline as it does to produce a gallon of diesel fuel. However, through processes like cracking, hydrogenation and methane injection it is possible to get approximately 30% more gallons of gasoline from a given quantity of crude than gallons of diesel fuel (assuming the most efficient refineries are used). So, supposing that one get 100 gallons of diesel and 130 gallons of gasoline out of a specific quantity of crude, the energy in the gasoline is about the equivalent of 115.7 gallons of diesel. So, just to be as efficient as gasoline in terms of carbon input, a diesel has to be approximately 15% more efficient than a gasoline engine, just to break even. Clearly, this is happening and diesel engines are reaching about 45% greater efficiencies than gasoline measured in gallons of consumption. Measured in terms of crude input, however, they are only about 15% more efficient.
Comment by marpag | September 8, 2008
I suspect that most commenting have not had a diesel vehicle. I had a VW rabbit diesel in the 1979-1980 era and got an average of over 50 mpg with it. Only problem was an exhaust pipe which would crack periodically.
The last time I reviewed refinery output diesel was actually easier to produce in those areas using anything other that Texas light crude for the input feed. The heavier oils lend themselves to diesel production, however it appears that many of the bio-engineering projects underway are targeting diesel as an output fuel. The diesel, like the rotary wankel engine, is very adaptable in its fuel choices.
I am due to replace my 3 year old jeep this upcoming year. Looks like a Honda Fit unless a high mileage diesel is available. I still can't make the financial cost projection work for a hybrid.
Comment by Mickey G | September 9, 2008
Steven,
I am sorry to have to disagree with you.
Marpag,
I am glad to see you point out, as I was prepared to, that Steven has mixed apples with oranges and gotten persimmons. Yet, this is just one of several apples/oranges mistakes made (no reflection on you, Steven) made when comparing energy solutions. If energy were a simple matter, we would have solved it already. Besides the energy yield of the product, you have to know the energy inputs and conversion losses. Combined, you get the net energy balance; which is the right measure of comparison. Remember too, we aren’t just comparing fuels; we are comparing entire infrastructures underpinning them. For example, the gasoline economy’s viability and current dominance depends on a steady supply of oil, roadways, distribution, uniformity, engine technology, the cost of replacing any and all components of this unique to oil, suitability for use in existing equipment, and pump price including subsidies. Before assuming you have a better fuel or system, therefore, you need to look at the availability of feed-stocks, rates of sustainable production, and restructuring.
Just because a fuel has a better net energy yield does not necessarily mean there is enough of it to replace oil and gas. All renewables (including bio-diesel, but excluding nuclear) have a combined potential (estimated by EIA) of supplying roughly 15% of the world's energy needs; a need that is still growing. Solar theoretically could supply enough, but so far lacks the necessary conversion efficiency. We’ve been hearing solar is not quite there for over 40 years with a breakthrough expected momentarily. We can’t eat a maybe. Therefore, even with improvement in efficiencies, renewables can only shrink as a percent of total consumption. Only nuclear has the potential to supply 100% of our energy needs. Depending on the technology, improvements, demand-growth, waste and husbandry, there exists enough nuclear fuel to run the world for 1,000 to 10,000 years (perhaps more). No other energy source can make this claim, not even oil. The value of renewables then reduces to sources that are relatively cheap, easy to exploit, safer, transportable, serve as a bridge, serve primitive regions, niche technologies, and minimize the drain on resources. More simply put, they help but cannot replace.
Also, consider this. Bio-fuels are obtained by either converting waste or converting food/vegetable matter. If the latter, we trade a fuel problem for a food or other commodity problem. As fuel is more often a means to an end whereas food is an end, this is not usually a good trade-off. Converting waste, on the other hand, can never represent more than a small percent of total our energy demand. Why? Because it takes more energy to create food and plastics that eventually enter the waste-stream than we can realize from the waste-stream. Food and plastics will grow in volume, but only as a proportion of population. As we tend to more mature societies with greater conservation, our wastes shrink and we become less wasteful. Ergo, the only way to get even more bio-diesel is to be profligate of organic resources. We’ve discussed elsewhere the other variable is land used to grow food or fuel. Assuming unlimited sufficiently cultivated land, we could do both. However, current proposals and tendencies are to convert existing cultivated lands to fuel production. Finally, bio-fuel production using non-waste would be horribly water intensive, especially if we increase acreage to do it.
I noticed the bio-diesel producer (Discovery link) admits bio-fuels are subsidized, but then argues “so are fossil-fuels”. This is both true and misleading. Renewables advocates always love to pound oil companies as receiving far more than they in tax-breaks, rebates, grants and subsidies. However, what they never tell us is, in terms of dollars per unit-energy, renewables receive far more than does oil. In terms of net energy they make out even better. Without these props renewables are uncompetitive. Both receive corporate-welfare; but oil remains profitable and viable without props, whereas the others would be forced off the field under unsubsidized competition. Most (though not all renewables) become more competitive as the cost of oil rises. That, rather than economic props, ought to be the determinate of which fuel dominates. Those, like geothermal, that require little energy to produce will rise in value faster than those, like bio-diesel, requiring large inputs. Archer Midland Daniels, the big ethanol producer, is the past master of shifting cost unseen onto taxpayers (see http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html), but bio-diesel is almost as bad and somewhat less justifiable economically.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 9, 2008
I have mixed feelings about biodiesel. I like that some of the research is coming up with ways to use bacteria or algae to produce it using waste products as feed, but I don't like that the companies researching are upstarts that essentially came out of nowhere. If bio-fuels were really as feasible as the loons claim, I have no doubt that the R & D of big energy companies would have come out with a fantastically cheap and profitable solution. That companies can come out of the woodwork like this makes me wonder if I should have chosen liberal junk science researcher as an easy money career.
Comment by abkicksa | September 9, 2008
abkicksa
Do you mean upstarts like Thomas Edison and Nickolas Tesla who fought it out over DC vs AC?
To me bio-diesel is like DC, only to be used in limited applications.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | September 10, 2008
Bob, you have a few interesting points, and i whole-heartedly agree with you that we shouldn't be using our food resources as an energy source. The population is just going to keep going up, and our available land isn't growing much either. An alternate solution though is the production of ethanol.
What I mean by ethanol is not what is produced by corn and other foods today, but what is made by industry waste. Just look at this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN0847220620080909
In short, it explains that there is a very efficient way to produce ethanol from things such as cornstalks and sawdust, things that we'd normally throw away.
This eliminates the need for us to use things we already need.
Admittedly, there are some flaws in going ethanol even this way: The materials we would be using would have instead been decomposed into the ground to enrich the soil for another generation, and that either new pipelines will have to be built, or the ethanol will have to be trucked across the country because it is too acidic for the gas and oil pipelines already in place.
But ethanol use can also be instituted gradually, because it can be mixed into gasoline to make a combination that can be used in a normal gas tank available today. As more is produced, more can be mixed in, so we reduce our reliance slowly on foriegn sources and there is no drastic change.
I feel this is a pretty good answer to the energy problem, no?
Comment by koppler | September 10, 2008
Oh, be careful Koppler. I don't think cornstalks and sawdust are going to waste now. Maybe we have some farmers and lumbermen out there that can tell us for sure, but I think those items are either being recycled at the harvest site or being used to manufacture goods. There are a lot of things we city boys assume are going to waste but even chicken poop is sold and used for something.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | September 10, 2008
Ivan is correct. Despite all the howling about 'waste' there is very little wasted by industry. That would be throwing money away. Therefore, the choice is to use these waste byproducts either as fuel for consumption or feedstocks for products. If a company doesn't do something with it directly, it sells its waste to someone else who does. So, there may be no real net gain had by diverting corn to fuel, especially if you wind up using more energy to produce or gather more sawdust, straw and cornstalks.
As for land, there is plenty of it we can develop for growing more corn. But that is not what happens in the short-term. We saw this last year when demand for ethanol skyrocketed. Did growers suddenly cultivate additional land or did they divert corn already produced to ethanol? Over time, they should cultivate more land to meet both needs, but only if those needs are real, sustained, and economic.
Water is a bigger problem. Corn is a water intensive crop, so you can't grow it just anywhere. The water you divert to corn means there's less for other needs. Most importantly, there is the question of what ethanol production does to our water supplies, especially ground-water. It takes a lot more cornstalk than corn to produce a gallon of ethanol, and the water consumed is proportionally higher also. This makes ethanol a less attractive substitute, particularly when it is not really clear there is a need for it just yet.
The bottom line is, whether corn or cornstalks, you can never replace oil entirely with renewables. Oil is a fuel that has taken millions of years to produce. We consume it far faster than we can produce more, and the same dictum applies to renewables.
In any case, what I object to is not ethanol, bio-fuels or alternate energies, per se. What I object to is using confiscatory policies rather than letting the market decide which fuel makes most sense in each application.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 11, 2008