Look at Bio-Diesel, and you might even start waving the flag. It's renewable. It's growable by American farmers. The refining process (as with Dino) is far less energy intensive than refining gasoline. It burns clean, and smells good.


I don't think this is very viable either cause no one especially in this administration wants to get rid of our dependance on oil. There is too much money involved in it. Other racing series use methonal thats, if im not mistake, made from corn but you don't see it in the local 76 do you? Hybrids are rare cause they haven't been massed produced for very long. Diesels have been around a lot longer.The US is 5% of the worlds population and uses 25% of the world energy. Its a wasteful lifestyle suv's show this, everyone wants one, hardly anyone needs them. That last part is just my personal view.

 

Wrong. The 1 out of 10 rating has nothing to do with GreenHouse emissions. The Poor rating comes from the particulate emissions, of which the blame rest fully on the poor fuel available in the United States. If we were to be as scrutinizing with the Insight, or other Hybrids, we should add a couple hundred pounds of waste batteries as part of their toxic emissions.

We are more than aware of the common misconceptions about current diesel technology, and the lengths that we still need to go. TDI owners are probably the most interested group when it comes to reducing emissions in our vehicles. We are active in bringing retail Bio-D outlets to our areas, and are constantly writing to our legislators to mandate better fuel.

 

the hybrid is the best short term solution until fuel cells take over...they run off regular gasoline but technology now allows ulev/sulev emissions along with 40+ mpg in most vehicles...this allows us to keep using the same gasoline infrastructure until fuel cell stations are built (including home units...one that powers the home and creates fuel for the car)

i'll admit that biodiesel (mono alkyl esters) sounds like a good plan...but we'd have to redo the refueling infrastructure (millions of gasoline stations will need to convert) when fuel cells are right around the corner...biodiesel may be much cleaner than regular diesel but not as big an advantage over gasoline...and biodiesels burn fuel which still adds to global warming

heres a basic analysis of biodiesel:
cons:
- in pure form won't work wtih regular engines b/c it degrades rubber (in order to work on any diesel engine you'd have to run a 20% petroleum based 80% biodiesel formula which may make it as cleaner than a normal diesel engine but still not a gasoline engine
-to run on 100% biodiesel you'd have to have your engine rebuilt without rubber based gaskets, hoses, etc.
-french fry smell (that's what the exhaust smells like)
-biodiesel is reduces unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter but DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM (http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/emissions.PDF)...just looking at convential clean gasoline engines they are about 70% less polluting than a diesel and biodiesel would only get them to where gasoline already is (and we don't significantly reduce sulfur in our gasoline...so we can clean it more but at a higher cost...no SUV driver wants to pay more than the $100/week they are already paying)
-have to remake diesel infrastructure and create whole new mfgring industry to make it widely available...experts say 18 months to be available...very very optimistic estimate...it doesn't include most mfgrs having to create new diesel engines to install in new cars

pros
-biodiesel is oxygenated which means it has more oxygen to burn and is the primary reason why it is cleaner (burns more fuel)
-flashpoint of fuel is 175 degrees higher than regular diesel making it harder to ignite
-reduces dependence on foreign oil

if we decided to do switch over to biodiesel by the time everything else is working out fuel cells would be here and we'd have to redo the whole infrastructure again...not to mention fuel cells would be underfunded still b/c all the mfgrs had to invest in biodiesel technology

(interesting read on how lev engines reduce pollution [actually clean the air during rush hour] http://www.hondanews.com/Forms/corp/...s(r)_text.html)

 

particulate emissions cause cancer...is that a concern? (that's why i try to avoid following any diesel on the road)

the current hybrid platforms still have their problems...it's b/c the battery industry has never had such a challenge before...they still rely on chemical batteries [mostly Lead Acid] creating the landfill waste...hint...these are in your vw tdi diesel...so your car also creates this pollution...but they are no longer dumped there and are recycled (only if the owner is honest and does't bury it somewhere)

a 2nd type are Sodium Sulfur based batteries...these are in ford ecostar minivans and the batteries will explode if immersed in water!...so of course ford uses them

the 3rd type are Nickel Iron and Nicad...they are 100% recycleable...(these are the ones that are in the insight, prius and civic hybrids...their only downfall is cost and they wear out over time)...honda recycles them when they need to be replaced...the toxic waste misinformation is plainly false

a 4th type are Lithium Iron and Lithium Polymer Batteries...these are expensive to make and hold lots of power for long periods

another are the Zinc and Aluminum Air based batteries...these are also recycleable

the most promising technology is not based on chemical batteries but intertia called Flywheels...it is still in development though

i've shown that promising biodiesel still pollutes...its not widely available...most car mfgrs don't have diesels for a whole lineup so 100's of engines will need to be developed...hybrids get similar emissions still using regular gasoline, and it uses 100% recycleable batteries...and in 10 years fuel cells will be here since over 10 different auto mfgrs currently have concept cars and honda has the 1st commercial fleet car available...dcx has some buses...biodiesel had its time but noone listed to it...it was a promising technology at its inception but has gone nowhere since...its time to move on and reduce our reliance on any fossil fuel based fuel

 

But hybrid was going to be the golden new race technology.

The highbred hybrid's roots date to 1998, when Don Panoz's Le Mans racing team discovered that shoehorning a 195-horsepower electric motor and a 300-volt nickel-metal-hydride battery alongside the gasoline engine would give the team's car an edge. It successfully competed in a race, but the team didn't have enough time or money to develop the car as its primary racer. Several Formula One teams, though, got wind of the idea and started pursuing hybrids of their own.
Their plan was to use a car's alternator—the mini generator in every vehicle that keeps the battery charged—as an electric-assist motor that could contribute small boosts of power. This prompted the Formula One sanctioning body to ban the technology before it ever got to the track. "They had to," says John Wallace of Ford's electric-centric Think division. "Teams without it would have had their behinds waxed."

read the rest here.....

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/auto/ar...220824,00.html

 

Probably do, but gassers produce particulate matter (PM) too...is that a concern? Do you know of any studies that exhonerate gassers' cancer concerns?

First of all, both of my vehicles are diesels (one of which is a TDI), so I'll admit to a bias here. However, I have to challenge some of what I consider misconceptions about diesel emissions (I've been an environmental professional for over 20 years).


Point: Diesel emissions cause cancer.

Counterpoint: Assays of gasoline and diesel PM and semi-volatile organic compounds demonstrate that gasoline emissions show a positive response in 5 of 6 categories of mutagenicity, DNA damage, chromasomal damage. Diesel emissions showed a positive response in 2 of 6 categories.

Source: In Vitro Genotoxicity of Gasoline and Diesel Engine Vehicle Exhaust Particulate and Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Materials

Presented at the 2002 DEER Conference


For cytotoxicity, high emitting gasoline engines demonstrated a much higher response than even old, high emitting diesel engines. (That's why I try to avoid following old/poorly maintained GASSERS on the road!) "Normal" emitting gas and diesel engines exhibited essentially the same cytotoxicity.

Source:

COMPARATIVE TOXICITY OF COMBINED PARTICLE AND SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC FRACTIONS OF GASOLINE AND DIESEL EMISSIONS

Presented at the 2002 DEER Conference


Gasoline engines emit approximately ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more benzene (a known carcinogen) than a comparable diesel engine (and this doesn't even take into account fugitive benzene emissions from gasoline fuel transfer).

Gasoline engines emit numerically more PM and more polycyclic aromatic compounds (many of which are considered carcinogenic) than equivalent diesels under many real-world driving conditions.

Most harmful gaseous emissions were lower for diesel.

Source:

Environmental and Health Impact From Modern Cars
May 2002


Point: Diesels cause "smog".

Counterpoint: The ozone forming potential was considerably lower for diesel cars, i.e., roughly one order of magnitude lower than for petrol cars. This is mainly due to the low level of HC emissions for diesel cars compared to petrol cars. Should the evaporative emissions have been taken into account, the relative differences would have been even greater.

Source:

Environmental and Health Impact From Modern Cars
May 2002

Gasoline exhaust and gasoline vapor account for ~80 percent of ambient NMHC in on-road samples and at regional air monitoring locations suggesting that gasoline emissions are responsible for the majority of ozone found in the SoCAB.

Source:

DOE’s Studies of Weekday/Weekend Ozone Pollution in Southern California

Presented at 2002 DEER Conference


Point: Fuel Cells are the most efficient energy converters known.

Counterpoint:

...the ranking between drive systems is (with one exception) the same independent of motor fuel type, namely:

-hybrid with diesel-engine
-hybrid with fuel cell
-direct operation with fuel cell
-hybrid with otto-engine
-conventional diesel-engine
-(hybrid with direct-methanol fuel cell)
-conventional otto-engine.

(This is taking the energy required for fuel production into account.)

Source:

Well-to-Wheel Efficiency For Alternative Fuels From Natural Gas or Biomass

October 2001


Which brings up one more point (or counterpoint): why are hybrids only mentioned with gas engines, as if diesels with hybrid drive trains are mutually exclusive? If a VW Lupo with a 1.2 liter TDI and a more or less conventional transmission can achieve nearly 100 mpg (U.S.) in its "around the world in 80 days" tour, I contend that a diesel hybrid Civic would get significantly better fuel mileage than an equivalent gasoline-hybrid Civic!

 

Hmmmmmm........ good point. But such a car would have a lack of a high end....

 

"gsr territory" :rofl:

 

You, my friend, are terribly mistaken. You have no clue how diesels work, pure battery operated vehicles went out the window with the Prius, Insight, and Civic Hybrid, and there will soon be 250hp Honda vehicles getting 40 mpg with a low weight IMA system (which, by the way, does not weigh as much as you think to begin with). By the way, I hate when people use words like "dood", "hellz", and "yea" and whatever other slaughter of the English language you can think of. As a fellow Clevelander, I must say I'm embarrased to see someone on HAN who has little knowledge of Hondas from my city.

 

Youch! He'll feel that one tomorrow morning when he wakes up.