Are diesel vehicles only the methadone of gasoline addiction? LA Times writer says so.

Agent001 submitted on 12/03/2007 Official AutoSpies Timestamp: 12:47 PM
from: www.latimes.com

[54] user comments | category: Spy Shots

Tags: Clean diesel,

Tag Links:

Clean diesel

Are diesel vehicles only the methadone of gasoline addiction? LA Times writer says so.

Probably one of our favorite auto writers is our good friend Dan Neil of the LA Times.

The reason we like him is two-fold.

From day one he has always treated us and our medium with respect, when every other automotive writer thought the internet was a fad like Starbucks.

Plus, we like the fact that he truly speaks his mind with no fear (Just ask Patti LaBelle...long story!).

Here are his latest thoughts on clean diesel.

"I know there are many people out there waiting patiently for the thriftier high-tech diesels. I'm sorry. It's just methadone for gasoline addiction.

But, sadly, except in highly unusual cases where needs and vehicle match up precisely, these big diesels offer only a variety of complacency, coaching people to keep their oversized vehicles while assuaging whatever guilt they might feel."

Read Article

Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

EL34 - 12/3/2007 1:22:29 PM

-1 Boost

Who gives a damn about the LA Slimes?

I read the Orange County Register ;)

reply to this comment

Agent001 - 12/3/2007 1:28:26 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

How about an intelligent comment about his perspective on clean diesels?

001

enthusiastx11 - 12/3/2007 1:41:25 PM

+5 Boost

the LA times is not exactly a paragon of high journalism...but NOBODY who matters cares about some orange county rag.

EL34 - 12/3/2007 2:03:59 PM

+2 Boost

001, I'm sorry.

In 10 years all newspapers will only be on the internet.

BTW, the diesel/hybrid is the next big logical thing for automobiles if they market them right.

Agent001 - 12/3/2007 2:11:20 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

Most will be, but there will always be print pubs.

A paperless reading life is about as logical as a paperless bathroom.

001

EL34 - 12/3/2007 3:57:27 PM

0 Boost

You know, I didn't read the article 001 before I posted and I didn't mean to offend you or your friend that works for the Times :o

Agent001 - 12/3/2007 7:15:40 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

Bill,

You could just put an Amazon Kindle next to the crapper and laugh at that! ;)

001

EL34 - 12/3/2007 9:07:33 PM

+1 Boost

They should just print car magazines on toilet paper and be done with it.

enthusiastx11 - 12/3/2007 1:39:49 PM

+3 Boost

yet another misleading headline!

the author is saying that ALL SUVs (no matter what kind of engine) are not green because of their sheer size and poor fuel economy RELATIVE to smaller vehicles.

and i have to agree. if environmental impact is your top priority you need to buy a small vehicle, it's that simple.

reply to this comment

SevorbeupstryIsBack - 12/3/2007 1:42:40 PM

+1 Boost

I can't read the article?

reply to this comment

EL34 - 12/3/2007 2:14:54 PM

+1 Boost

You have to create a login name and password to read the LA Times online.

I believe it's free :)

SevorbeupstryIsBack - 12/4/2007 10:53:51 AM

+1 Boost

Thanks!

1995e34 - 12/3/2007 2:25:20 PM

+1 Boost

YES

reply to this comment

TheSailor - 12/3/2007 3:15:24 PMView My AgentSpace

+4 Boost

Well... Clean technology can only do so much. You need to get people into smaller cars! And that is exactly what this guy is saying... And I can only agree!

Fortunately, people who drive SUVs are slowly killing themselves. Because the oil prices will only increase forcing fuel prices up! And unlike europe, there is no way to adjust the prices in the US! When fuel prices get unbearable in Europe, it is possible to decrease fuel tax keeping prices at status quo. In the US however, the fuel prices are almost completely governed by the oil companies!
This is part of the reason while the european economy is getting stronger while the dollar keeps plummeting!

And the worst thing about it is that the government have forced themselves into a corner. Because implementing a sudden fuel tax would make it almost impossible to get by for lots and lots of people who drive guzzlers. They wouldn't be able to get their huge cars of their hands and they can't pay for the fuel they need to get around... I guess that just leaves the bus huh?
And they can't enforce a car tax on SUVs, because whenever the government tries, the manufacturers start weeping like a bunch of three-year-olds! "But what about the people who need a 5500 lbs SUV to haul their boat?"... Well, if they can afford a boat that need that big a car to move around, they can afford to pay twice as much for the car! And the "but people need cars this big for their work" doesn't hold up either! Nobody need cars that big for their work, unless they drive an 18-wheeler! Nobody in europe does! And huge parts of europe are as (if not more) mountainous than the US... There is just no real excuse for the ridiculous waste of fossil fuels taking place in the US!

reply to this comment

1995e34 - 12/3/2007 4:22:17 PM

+2 Boost

bless you sir

1970toyotamarc - 12/3/2007 3:23:08 PM

-1 Boost

The future of diesels runs parallel to the future of gasoline engines, and it doesnt look so good. Diesels have just made a huge leap in cleanliness to match their efficiency (which should be commended). This advancement comes after 100 years of development. Gasoline engines, with variable valve timing, overhead cams, etc hit a huge peak in their development since the 80s. These engines, gasoline and diesel, are not going to get exponentially better. But the supply of fuels will continue to dwindle, while the demands from developing countries will increase. Therefore an alternative to fossil fuels is the only answer.

For now, hybrids represent a real advantage. We are only starting the second decade of hybrid engines, gen 3 for Toyota, I believe. As they progress, the engines will rely less on their gasoline parts, and more on their electric parts. This is a sustainable answer, and a good transition to EVs or hydrogen vehicles. We need to move away from as much of a reliance on fossil fuels as possible. Diesel does not wean us off the dino juice, and so they are not the answer.

reply to this comment

Cynical - 12/3/2007 4:28:36 PM

+1 Boost

I would hope that China and India would adopt some form of hybrid technology as well, to reduce the global demand on petroleum. However, the world would likely run into a huge problem because the disposal of batteries creates an environmental problem. Add to that the fact that less green-conscious countries (I believe India in particular) have been used as a place for disposal because of less stringent environmental regs.

S4cabriofoxone - 12/3/2007 8:16:34 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

"We need to move away from as much of a reliance on fossil fuels as possible. Diesel does not wean us off the dino juice, and so they are not the answer."

Right now, nothing is.

We need fossil fuels to make hydrogen into a usable energy source.

Hybrids are just about as bad as diesels and gas engines... they run solely on gas. You need it to get the electric motor to run--you can't get anywhere on an empty tank of gas, even in a Prius.

enthusiastx11 - 12/6/2007 1:08:59 PM

+1 Boost

"The future of diesels runs parallel to the future of gasoline engines, and it doesnt look so good."

REALLY? so why are mercedes, bmw, audi, GM, toyota and honda introducing DOZENS of new diesel models in the next couple of years?

BMW995 - 12/3/2007 4:40:18 PM

+2 Boost

We ought to tax the hell out of those driving vehicles (more like industrial equipment) weighing more than 4,000 lbs. Wake up folks, we're slowly (I may be too optimistic here) running out of crude. That guy/gal next to you in the giant SUV is using up your gasoline allotment that you'll need in a few years.

reply to this comment

Bmw8ter - 12/3/2007 5:31:26 PM

0 Boost

Frantic, are we? Don't worry. Everyone who is currently a member of this site, will be dead before they'll ever have to experience any kind of fuel rationing. We still have shale oil extraction technology that is right over the horizon. MIT is working on an ethanol injection engine that gets diesel-like gas mileage. Biodiesel is slowly gaining influence. You'll be fine in your lifetime.

Monk - 12/3/2007 8:37:48 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Ethanol seems to be rubbish right now, but biofuel (combination of fuels, not just corn) seems to make more sense. If you grow corn to make fuel, then you are just restricting the FOOD we could use. On the other hand, by making fuel out of garbage, that would be good.
Anyway, shale oil is also too expensive to collect because of the ineffectiveness and high cost of the process.

Rupert - 12/3/2007 5:14:30 PMView My AgentSpace

+4 Boost

I've put cars and environmental friendliness on the back burner for me - my new campaign is to save the rainforest!! The destruction of the rainforest accounts for over 18% of ALL CO2 emissions in the world! All transport accounts for 14%!

SAVE THE TREES, don't buy stuff with palm oil in it or buy bio-fuels, as people cut down forests to plant palm oil plantations to sell to cosmetic companies and bio-fuel makers!! It's a horrible horrible irony!!!
Plant a tree in your backyard, but don't drive to the store to buy it!!!

reply to this comment

cdoke - 12/4/2007 12:46:37 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

"The destruction of the rainforest accounts for over 18% of ALL CO2 emissions in the world! All transport accounts for 14%! "

I am weary of such statistics- it really depends on who you ask. It isn't directly related but I remember a statistic from a vegan group that said that...oh something like 50-60% of all greehouse gases come from livestock for food. Be careful of who the source is.

cdoke - 12/4/2007 12:54:41 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

That is not to say, incidentally, that the statistic is wrong. I don't know that. I'm just saying watch the source when something is not readily verifiable.

Rupert - 12/4/2007 12:27:47 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

In one of our Sunday papers there was a feature about it, world wide agriculture and agricultural waste accounts for 14%.

Rupert - 12/4/2007 5:35:30 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

But a very large proportion of methane comes from farting cows.

Neverfollow - 12/3/2007 5:15:54 PM

+2 Boost

I don't think that anyone is saying that Diesel engines are the final answer to any of this. No more than replacing a light bulb or two in your house is going to make a huge impact on your electric consumption. Put enough diesels and/or Hybrids on the road however, and we will see a significant reduction of fossel fuel consupmtion which is what we all want.

These are also the only marketable options right now. Distribution of fuel is already in place and performance of the vehicle does't really suffer that much.

Until someone figures out how to produce Hydrogen and/or electricity cheaply enough and build the infrastructure to support these new systems, we will be stuck with these solutions for the forseeable future. It doesn't matter how many laws we pass, or how committed you are to the green cause, the math is still the math.

There needs to be some sort of breakthrough in the production cost of Hydrogen to make any switch even feasable. There also needs to be some work done in the area of battery technology and the disposal and recycling percentages. Everyone is working on these things but the math still doesn't add up yet. There are also safety concerns with Hydrogen storage in a vehicle. I'm still not completely comfortible driving around with the equivilant of a brick of C4 in my trunk. Put enough cars on the same street with all that explosive power and you kind of well, get the picture. Park a few hundred of those things in the basement parking garage of your nearest office building and see how comfortable you feel.

The answers will not come overnight and may not happen for decades to come. We are however, at least working on it.

reply to this comment

cdoke - 12/4/2007 12:37:45 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

"In the US however, the fuel prices are almost completely governed by the oil companies!"

Wrong. The oil companies do not have some secreat lair containing a dial with which they control teh prices- it does not work that way. Dr Carol Dahl, head of the Department of Economics and Business at the Colorado School of Mines recently conducted a study for the-I can't remember if she said DOE or WTO-and found that recent jumps in prices can be entirely explained by the market. She incidentally is no friend of the oil companies.

The oil companies are not withholding production in order to drive the price up either- they are producingas much as possible. The reason for this is simple- the futures market is in backwardation. Prices are anticipated to fall and the thing that people who have never taken a natural resource economics class often miss is that firms producing under a fixed stock constraint inter-temporally optimize their production to maximize net present value. The only way in which companies would withhold production is when the prices are anticipated to rise at a rate greater than r, the opportunity reinvestment rate. If you have any doubts about anything I have just said the works of Hotelling and Nordhaus are excellent. The point is that they don't set the price, the price is an input from which their production is determined.

There is also a great book by Dr. John Tilton (Educated at Princeton and Yale and the former occupier of Carol Dahl's position) called "On Borrowed Time? Assessing the Threat of Mineral Depletion".

I understand that you may be refering to a sort of market buffer in the form of taxes which can be releived in order to decrease the bruden on the consumer. That won't necesarily do anything to fix the problem in terms of substitues and the market. Removing the taxes pushes is not necessarily bad in the short term. But that type of activity can be destructive when it moves from that to setting price caps. There is a book called "The Doomsday Book" as I recall and the only times when when scarcity has lead to a ciilization destroying catastrophy is when government has stepped in and set a price cap.

reply to this comment

TheSailor - 12/4/2007 8:00:06 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I know that using tax-reductions to buffer a sudden price jump have been used with success in europe several times. In Denmark, the government used it to buffer an inflated real estate market in the 80's when interest rates suddenly started sky rocketing and it kept a lot of people in their houses. I'm not saying that tax reductions should be used to keep the prices at a certain level for a prolonged period, but it can be used to soften the price curve so you don't get a 50% price jump in less than a year which is what experts are saying will happen soon with the increase in oil prices.
In the US however, there is no way to do this. If the oil price rise 50% overnight, the fuel prices will aswell. And in a country where everybody is so dependant on oil, that could mean finiancial catastrophy! "doomsday" if you want...

And as to your quote, I think you might have misunderstood me, because I know refineries are producing as much as they can, but I also know that the oil companies (Asin the ones who produce the crude) like the company I work for is not doing anything AT ALL to get the oil prices down, on the contrary! The cost of extracting a barrel of oil have not risen as much relatively as the price of a barrel of oil have on the open market. So they keep the production at the level where there is barely enough oil to go around. That might mean that you sell less oil, however, the inflated prices more than makes up for this! I have friends who sail supertankers, and the owners of the cargo sometimes charters the tankers for several months in order to hold on to them until oil prices rise so they can get more for their oil.

cdoke - 12/4/2007 12:29:05 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

"In the US however, there is no way to do this. If the oil price rise 50% overnight, the fuel prices will as well."

It isn't a one-for-one relationship between crude prices and gasoline there is some asymmetry there as well as a lag.

"I have friends who sail supertankers, and the owners of the cargo sometimes charters the tankers for several months in order to hold on to them until oil prices rise so they can get more for their oil."

That is the result of short-term price speculation on the part of the person making the decisions- and is rather risky. They are not holding the tanker in the hopes that witholding production will raise the price at which point they can sell it (unless the place to which they intend to sell has poor infrastructure attachements and low consumption- they usually go together). A tanker has no market power. They are waiting for the price to rise through market mechanisms (whoever is doing the analysis has apparently anticipated such in the short term) at which point they can sell their crude at a higher spot price. It is a short-term thing not a long-term one 3 yr. 5yr and 7yr prices are expected to decline. I know this because no firm wanting to produce a long time out will produce the oil at all- this is a result of time value of money. The other thing is the longer that tanker sits there the more time value of money eats into the margin. If this is not the case then there is something else going on such as queueing or capacity issues at the destination port or refinery.

"So they keep the production at the level where there is barely enough oil to go around."

That may work for OPEC (OPEC has some market power) but a firm in a competitive market with high prices and a futures market in backwardation will never produce like that- unless it is run my imbeciles. The firm wants to produce as much as possible because they can recieve that high price for everything they produce. In total over the economy that will serve to lower the price, but from the firms perspective optimality in terms of NPV is producing now- tha optimality includes the future lost opportunity cost of production. I say again oil companies are producing as fast as possible and developing new fields as fast as possible. Read the international rig reports- there aren't any idle rigs that work.

Interestingly, OPEC is in a quandry, sure the high prices benefit them, but it also errodes their market power. It happened during the Oil embargo- OPEC production declined and total world production increased.

TheSailor - 12/4/2007 2:34:01 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

What asymmetry is that?! I know there is a lag, but that is only some months (the time it takes the crude to reach it's destination, be refined and sold) but the fuel prices depend on the crude price, this is the case for the fuel oil we sail on, the aviation fuel planes use as well as the fuel used in cars! The only asymmetry will arise from fuel providers who adjust their prices, i.e. to fit the market, and they don't adjust just for the hell of it. So overall, fuel will follow crude. There might be some small fluctuations as a result of anticipated prices, but if crude sky rockets 50%, don't tell me fuel won't become more expensive! Fuel will only become cheaper, relative to crude, if consumption goes down and since people have become so dependant on fuel, consumption won't go down.
Why do you think it has become so much more expensive to fill the fuel tank on your Jaguar after oil prices started going up? And as the oil being traded on the market now reaches the filling stations in a month or so (because of the aforementioned lag) the prices will jump even further. In Denmark, the prices are expected to jump as much as 30% within two months. So much that the government are actually considering a temporary reduction of fuel tax followed by a gradual return to get this buffer effect.

As to the production of oil, as you mention, OPEC does it, but so does companies who sell the oil on the open market. Everybody want to get as much as possible for their oil, but they also want to make sure they can get the best possible price for their oil. And even though my company is not the biggest in the oil industry, far from it, they can't just start dumping oil on the market in order to lucrate as much as possible on high prices because the oil extracted in the north sea is sold locally and that would cause the market to get saturated and therefore reduce the price.

cdoke - 12/4/2007 3:03:03 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

By assymetry I mean that the relative increases are not proportional. It has to do with the percentage contibutions of crude to gasoline and elasticities. I really don't know that much about it but the anwer is running around in one of the 40 or so papers I have sitting next to my desk for a paper just finished on the (non) relavance of peak oil. I'm not saying that price increase of crude won't cause increases in pump prices, I am saying the relationship is not exactly a one-to-one increase.

If the market local to the North Sea production is captive then that is a different matter. That is a market failure and generally the result of transportation and poor infrastructure problems.

TheSailor - 12/4/2007 3:25:31 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Naptha and kerosene are the crude components we need the most (for car and aviation fuel), therefore refineries try to distill as much of them from each barrel of oil as possible. Since the refineries do this, the price will always rely heavily on the crude it has been extracted from giving you a price very close to a one-to-one relative ratio. There is no way of getting around this fact! I have yet to see or hear about a refinery who said "We won't extract naptha from our crude, no money in that"...

And this is the whole core of what I was trying to point out: The US is completely dependant on the oil prices and have no remedy for a sudden increase in oil price! If crude goes up, gasoline goes up. There is no way to get around that. You might not like it, you might not want to accept it, but crude oil and gasoline will always walk "hand-in-hand".

cdoke - 12/4/2007 4:01:54 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

"There is no way to get around that. You might not like it, you might not want to accept it, but crude oil and gasoline will always walk "hand-in-hand"."

Why wouldn't I want to accept it? I haven't said a single thing to the contrary. There is a lot of literature about the gasoline price response crude - it alos depends on what direction the price is going.

TheSailor - 12/4/2007 7:42:34 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

You should, because then you would know that he is actually agreeing with you... What he is saying is that though diesels are way cleaner and more efficient, it doesn't help when you stuff it in the same heavy and completely ridiculous SUVS! The true remedy is going to smaller cars with better fuel economy, a cold turkey if you want, but people are just prolonging the pain by going to diesels, the methadone in this analogy...

reply to this comment

t_bone - 12/4/2007 9:51:31 AM

+1 Boost

Every day I see brand-new SUV's and pickups. You can tell them by the cardboard temporary license plate tags. It just amazes me. The first tank of gas is $100 and they are saying, "yes, I will pay this."

reply to this comment

I95SPEEDINGTICKETS - 12/4/2007 12:19:31 PM

+1 Boost

How come nobody has mentioned the Fuell Cell option ?

With the FCX model honda has shown that Fuel Cells are a very available option so i will venture a guess that within the next 10 ears you will see huge improvements in the efficiency and performance of this Technology, and the Infrastructure around the supply of hydrogen.

reply to this comment

huu76 - 12/5/2007 11:40:24 PM

0 Boost

It's not commonlpace yet, but hydrogen is available to the public in large urban centres.
http://www.h2stations.org/
There are 5 in and around Toronto which is perfect since that's where most sales will be initially.

reply to this comment

gregsfc - 12/6/2007 6:04:43 PM

+1 Boost

One must also consider that ALL diesels are 100% renewable fuel ready right out of the box. Unlike gas-powered cars that must be designed with a special manufacture to accept an inferior alternative fuel, diesels can readily accept any blend of biodiesel or renewable diesel fuel with no modification and only a few precautions. Moreover, biodiesel and renewable diesel fuels contain much more energy density than gasoline alternatives and consumers lose little if any fuel economy while reducing petroleum consumption even more.

For example, I drive my 2006 Jetta TDI exclusively on B20 blend (20% biodiesel blended to 80% diesel fuel). I maintain 44 mpg, average and there is no sacrifice of any kind. The gas Jetta gets 26 mpg (combined cylce, EPA estimate). Buying B20 nets me no extra premium at the pump; no extra precautions; no maintenance issues, and no difference in performance or fuel economy. I Just drive up; pump; and pay. That's it. Everything else is the same except less hyrdocarbons, SO2, CO, and CO2 are being emitted from the tailpipe; and 19% less petroleum is being consumed. And this reduction in petroleum is counted after considering that the TDI gets most people about 50% better fuel economy than standard Jetta owners.

I know, there is biodiesel made from palm oil, but most in the U.S. comes from soy oil; and the potential of algae could net us 20,000 gallons of oil per acre for energy. Even with palm oil, it does not all come from deforestization. Most of Europe's biodiesel comes from rapeseed (canola). The production facilities are cheap to build and operate, and for every energy input for biodiesel, 3.1 units of energy are produced. Biodiesel is nontoxic, nonhazardous, and has twice the flashpoint as regular diesel fuel. Lifecylce CO2 is reduced 78% according to the DoE.

reply to this comment

TheSailor - 12/7/2007 12:28:17 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Hallelujah! This guy has seen the light... Finally someone with a bit of common sence...

HUUEY, DID YOU READ THIS?

gregsfc - 12/9/2007 7:00:22 PM

+1 Boost

Next someone will come on and state all the limitations regarding worldwide use of renewable fuels, but I'm not claiming that renewable diesel fuels are a cure all or that diesel vehicles are a silver bullet, however, I am stating the obvious: Diesels, together with blends of renewable diesel fuel blends, can save us petroleum and simultaneously reduce greenhouse gases far beyond where we are now with 21 mpg, gas-powered cars. Does this mean we should not continue to move forward towards hybrid technologies and electric cars? No. But this also doesn't mean we should ignore a technology that has already a huge infrastructure in place that could start saving us millions of barrels of oil per month. That technology is diesel engine technologies for cars. Diesel technologies should not rival electric hybrid technologies, because diesels can be electric hybrids as well. The only rivalry is between spark ignition and compression ignition. And as long as we are building cars that are powered by internal combustion engines, we might as well use the most efficient ICEs on earth, and those are diesels!

reply to this comment

To post a comment for this story, you must first Login.

If you do not have an account, you will need to Register (It's Free!).

	Agent001 Dis is your ninety eight vatchamacalit?
	View My AgentSpace