New fuel economy report to finally recommend diesels and hybrids for first time
Posted Feb 22nd 2008 7:17PM by Michael Harley
Filed under: Hybrids/Alternative, Government/Legal, Green
In a move sure to be embraced by environmentalists, a panel of trusted outside experts is finally recommending to federal regulators that light-duty diesel engines and hybrids should be regarded as available technologies to improve fuel economy. Neither of these technologies were included in a previous report released in 2001 when hybrids were not as mainstream as they are today and diesel emissions standards were lower than they are now.
The study is part of an initiative to meet the stricter standards set by our nation's new energy law enacted this past December. That measure calls for a 40-percent increase in both car and truck standards to a 35 mpg fleet average by 2020. While the addition of diesel and hybrid technology is welcomed news, the recommendation is embarrassingly behind the times (at least for hybrids) and this time around forgets to include all-electric and hydrogen fuel cell technologies.
[Source: Automotive News, subs. req'd]
Tags: CAFE, Diesel, Electric, Energy Law, EnergyLaw, Fuel Cell, FuelCell, Hybrid
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.
Spy Shots: Production Audi TT Clubsport Quattro
Chevy Camaro getting early unveil at Indy in September
James Garner recovering from mild stroke
VIDEO: God's ringtone is a V10-powered Audi R8
IIHS releases official results on the smart fortwo
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bart @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:40PM
Hybrids might improve fuel economy slightly regarding to vehicle usage, but what about the extra resources spent and environmental damage done by making nickle hydride (soon li-ion) batteries and disposing of them after their relatively short life? With an exponential figure for all-electric vehicles?
Hydrogen still just isnt viable. The costs to make the membranes are just too high.
Daniel @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:42PM
By far the most reasonable and immediately feasible method of achieving ultra high MPG is through Bio-Diesel Series Drive Electric Hybrids. Same technology that the Big 3 used more than a decade ago under the U.S. DOE funded Program for a New Generation of Vehicles where each company achieve better than 70 MPG in full size sedans.
The technology is available today, no change is needed to our national fueling infrastructure and we would sending our $ billions to American farmers and refiners instead of to Middle Eastern oil sheiks.
This better be at the top of the next administration’s public policy agenda.
spw @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:38PM
what are you even talking about? Why in the world would you have series hybrid? There is simply no benefit.
And bio diesel - you know what happened to ethanol? you do realize how bio diesel is produced in USA and Europe? You probably dont.
And if you are talking about something like Volt with diesel engine, that technology certainly does NOT exist now.
To the article writer - reason they didnt reccomend all electric or hydrogen is because... guess what - you cant buy them now.
Nathan @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:32PM
SPW you are simply wrong on all fronts.
Series hybrids offer huge improvements in gas mileage because they generate energy at peak efficiency. And yes that does mean a car like the Volt, however the big stumbling block for the Volt is the battery pack being able to store enough energy to go 40 miles without any gas; if you were to skip the battery all together and just run 4 in hub electric motors off of a constant generated stream of electricity you could achieve better than current MPG figures.
Trains have been doing this for year and they don't have massive battery packs, the generate electricity on board with diesel generators as needed.
Biodiesel has been shown to return more energy than it takes to make and has the added bonus of being carbon neutral AND can be made from current waste products to supplement regular diesel refined from crude. And it is not produced the same way as ethanol.
Try doing a little digging before you start proclaiming you are the know all of car and green tech.
AlexP @ Feb 22nd 2008 11:47PM
I didn't know beaver-lovin' Canadians were Middle-Eastern sheiks.
Hum, maybe I should brush up on my version of "the world according to the United States" or something.
(spoiler: your main providers aren't Arabs anymore)
dean @ Feb 22nd 2008 11:53PM
Well said, Nathan. You don't happen to live in Spokane, Washington, do you? (not related)
Anyways, I do take issue with your idea on a series hybrid without battery packs. Its an interesting idea, but one that hasn't been tested ON CARS (that I know of). Light cars may perform very differently than trains (and large off-road machinery). Besides, if you run less than 40 miles per day, you don't use any fuel (practically). But cost goes up.
I'd like to see a series hybrid car without batteries just to test this...but not on an amateur level.
DC @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:29AM
Nathan, you still have some digging to do. Do you think an engine supplying electricity to 4 hub motors is going to have a constant load and rpm? That negates the advantage of series hybrids you cite - steady operating state. As spw alludes to, series hybrids may allow peak engine efficiency, but a parallel or parallel/series hybrid make the best use of the energy, since it can both take advantage of efficient engine operating conditions AND the efficient mechanical transmission of engine power at steady speeds. The comparison to trains just shows your lack of understanding - trains can use this "series" drive without a battery because the engine is able to respond to power demands fast enough for the purposes of a locomotive - not so with a car without seriously compromising your series hybrid "peak efficiency" idea. And yeah, while we're at it, lets use 4 hub motors for the fun of it instead of just one. Series hybrids do have a place however.
It is also nuts that you believe biodiesel is carbon neutral. So all the tractors and trucks in the distribution run B100, they clear no land to grow it, and they don't use fertilizers derived from fossil fuels? Right.
Dave @ Feb 23rd 2008 8:06AM
Diesel should be included because most will achieve better mpg over a conventional four-cylinder engine with the excepton being some of those low technology Mercedes supplied Jeep diesels.
Reality wise diesel cars are too expensive and would take years to recover the additional cost of the car/truck for the average consumer. Additonally, diesel fuel last I looked was 70-cents more per gallon compared with the base lead free gas.
When diesels become more common the prices for diesel fuel will continue to rise because profit at the expensive of consumers is the American way unfortunately.
m @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:06AM
No benefit to a series hybrid? What in the world are you talking about. Just plain wrong. Unless you really thought someone would build a series hybrid without a battery. That of course would be a terrible idea, but that's not the only kind of series electric hybrid.
And hub motors? Come on people... Can you say unsprung weight? I'm all for purpose built, but let's remember that real world cars that people will buy are compromises. Let's also keep in mind the quality of many of the roads we drive on. I already fear for my wheels and tires at times. I don't want to worry about my drive motors bouncing through those potholes too. I wonder what the 4 inch deep piles of salt I drive through in central Illinois would do to my motor...
John Johnson @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:56PM
"a panel of trusted outside experts"
Europeans.
Kaptain75329 @ Feb 22nd 2008 10:32PM
Racist(TM)!
...might as well beat the losers to it.
John Johnson @ Feb 22nd 2008 10:35PM
Not as in "Europeans, ick", as in "Europeans, who know how to handle some fuel and appreciate the diesel"
And, while I'm at it, "Europeans who get the BEST FORD FOCUSES".
AlexP @ Feb 22nd 2008 11:47PM
Stop whining and buy your cars in Mexico, ffs. You'd be sending them a clear message.
Jay @ Feb 23rd 2008 1:44PM
You must be confusing Europeans with the Japanese who brought us the Prius (Pree-us Jeremy) and the clean diesel that Honda should introduce in the US come 09. None of the Euro auto diesels can pass California emissions (CARB). That is why diesel cars aren't available in the US. California is the largest car market in the US, and they wield considerable clout because of their size.
DC @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:42AM
"While the addition of diesel and hybrid technology is welcomed news, the recommendation is embarrassingly behind the times (at least for hybrids) and this time around forgets to include all-electric and hydrogen fuel cell technologies."
No, I don't think they are forgetting. The report is likely referring to what can actually make a large scale difference right now. I wouldn't call it behind the times at all for hybrids - volumes weren't very significant until recently, and that was for a reason.
Bill @ Feb 23rd 2008 9:40AM
Diesel's fuel price is a wash, because turbodiesel engines compete with turbocharged gasoline engines, which require premium unleaded (nearly the same price as diesel)
I can drive the new Jetta diesel coming this fall, thrash the heck out of it, and get as good or better mileage than a Prius.
The Prius _must_ to be driven like a little old lady's behind the wheel to get its best mileage - thrash it, and one might as well have bought a Corolla.
Colin Smith @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:41AM
Last time I looked Europeans comprised pretty much the same racial mix as Americans. So racist is an odd word to use.
Anyway, the Fiat group has petrol engines of 1400cc, with turbos, producing exactly the same bhp as their turbo-Diesel 1910cc motors. The range is between 120 and 150 bhp. The diesels are roughly 10-15mpg (UK) more economical. The new Diesel 1600s havent't been released here yet, but they will improve in these figures. Other factors need including, however, when overall cost of ownership is calculated.
DKB_SATX @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:35PM
The issue with Fiat's high-strung 1.4TJet in the US is that Americans as a group aren't attracted to that sort of engine. Americans "buy horsepower but drive torque." I've found Fiat engines to be entertaining, but perhaps it's just the Italian in me that's not afraid to wring the little sucker out at high RPM to get the power.
There are definitely some who'll buy the turbo motor, and as fuel prices continue to rise I'm sure the market for such engines will as well. Another shortcoming of the lower-torque turbo motor is that it's not as well suited to pushing an overweight "crossover" or SUV, and the US market is lousy with those. Check out the lovely economy of an RDX if you want to see what putting such an engine in a big lump gets you... if you're always in boost just to make the thing move, you're not gaining much by replacing a V6 with a turbo4. Until Americans are ready to buy cars the size of the Fiat Bravo, I think there's going to be a market for displacement here.
DKB_SATX @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:27AM
It's the same arguments hashed and rehashed, isn't it? There's a place for both technologies... vehicles like taxis, commuter cars in high-traffic metropolitan areas and people who rarely drive on long trips but still put lots of miles on a car can eventually make a hybrid pay off. The start/stop abilities and electric boost save big in stop-and-go traffic. The hybrid advantage tapers off sharply in people who don't drive a tremendous number of miles in a year or do most of their driving on open roads.
The diesel's real advantage is exactly where the hybrid is weakest, long steady-state trips on open roads. It's also a poor choice for people who don't drive a lot of miles because they may never pay off the extra cost of a good diesel over an otto-cycle engine, unless they keep a car 15 years and get the durability benefit of the diesel (assuming good maintenance.)
Perhaps in 5 or 7 years, something like Volt v2.5 will bring us a series hybrid car that can run 50 or 60 miles on electricity alone in real-world conditions (e.g. operating the radio, heat or AC, DVD video narcotics for the kids in the back and the windshield wipers) at a cost under $30k. Until then I'm guessing the answer is always going to be "it depends."