Diesel vs. Gasoline
On the show yesterday, there were a couple of factual disputes that I think were more or less dealt with. One was whether diesel is “dirty” or not, and whether it is the solution to all our fuel problems. According to Grinning Planet and the Union of Concerned Scientists, the answer is that diesel is better than gas in some ways but worse in others:
Good diesel performance may mean better fuel economy and less carbon dioxide, but what about diesel’s problems with other types of air pollution? What about the higher up-front cost of diesel technology? There’s also a catch when it comes to comparing mileage estimates for diesel and gasoline vehicles.
So much for diesel being the end-all, be-all solution, but that doesn’t mean we should not be looking at it as an option in the interim, before something fundamentally better (like hydrogen fuel cells?) is devised.
WTF man? They BOTH taste awful.
A couple of things:
1: If you are interested there are many articles that you can read which talk in depth about the pluses and minuses.
This is one:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/04/autos/fortune_diesels.fortune/index.htm
2: I think that quote you posted saying that the upcharge for a diesel car is a turnoff is bullshit considering that people are willing to pay anywhere from 8,000 to 25,000 more for a hybrid. The upcharge for a diesel is much, much less than that.
3: Mercedes, VW, Honda, Audi, Nissan, BMW, and Chrysler Group (and likely more but those for sure) all have plans to unveil new high MPG diesel cars, trucks, and SUV’s very soon.
4: Diesels emit less CO2 than gasoline cars (in general) but more smog creating pollutants (such as nitrous oxide) but that is being combated by adding Urea tanks to those cars. The Urea tanks however will have to be maintained every 10,000 miles which is a problem.
5: Honda has apparently found a way around the Urea tank/added smog pollutant issue.
http://www.greencar.com/features/honda-diesel/
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN13358600
As I tried to make clear, clean diesel isn’t THE ANSWER but it sure is a step in the right direction.
I take offense to people who think we need to go from being the world’s biggest pollutant to 100% green in one step.
It is a gradual process and every step in the right direction is a good one.
Big Brother Reply:
November 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Grant, on point (2), the “upcharge” for a hybrid is also a turnoff. I don’t think you’re formulating an argument for diesel there, just pointing out that hybrids have no advantage there.
I think our disagreement revolves around your use of the term “clean diesel.” I understand the motivation to exaggerate, but I think it backfires. Everyone knows diesel isn’t clean, even if it is “less dirty.” And of course, “less dirty” is not as catchy as “clean”, but in the end, people who find out that diesel is somewhat dirty will turn on you for having called it “clean,” so I think honesty is the best approach.
It’s the same with this bizarre notion of “clean coal.” The industry is dumping millions into a propaganda campaign that 100% ignores the environmental horror show that is coal mining. When people find out that “clean coal” folks have no idea how to make the coal process truly clean, they tend to become 100% anti-coal. (Rightfully so in that case, IMO, but it would be a shame if people turned against diesel because the pro-diesel messenger used distortion to make what was otherwise a good case.)
In terms of steps, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say we need to go to a 100% clean economy in one step. I could be wrong — maybe you could provide some links proving that is not a straw argument you’ve created in order to make yours look good in comparison. But the controversy here has to be how much a society invests in going down a certain path, vs. other options. These are called “opportunity costs,” and just like for a particular individual or business, at the macro level they are in play for whole industries. That means that to the extent the auto industry invests in making cleaner diesel engines, etc, that is exactly the extent to which they cannot invest in plug-in hybrids or electric cars or hydrogen fuel-cell cars or whatever. So it’s not as if there’s no potential downside to diesel.
All this just means there should be a lively debate. If you have investigated all of this and made the decision that diesel is the best possible option, then you are welcome to argue that, of course, Grant. But if you argue it by denigrating others’ preferences, or their hesitation, etc — or if you argue it by insisting that there is no downside (like opportunity costs) to focusing on your choice, then you are not really contributing positively to the discussion.
My point about “clean diesel” is not that it is 100% wonderful for the environment, emits butterflies from its tailpipes, and is kid friendly and mother approved.
My point is that as the vast majority of Americans do not know diesel is a lot CLEANER than it used to be and is a viable option now both from a standpoint of MPG and pollutants.
For many people, like yourself apparently, unless it is completely pollutant free it is not “clean” which I suppose is true. However, that stance also leads to blanketing everything that is short of that as “dirty” which is the connotation that it is a bad choice and horrible for the environment.
It is these types of people who I often seem, whether its true or isn’t, to not want to take steps in the right direction they would much rather just wake up and be in the right place. That is a great way of not going anywhere.
Case and point is your argument that we possibly shouldn’t spend money on diesel technology because that’s money taken away from possibly developing other future technologies that would be cleaner.
Eventually we will be like the Jetsons with flying cars so I suppose we shouldn’t be developing better, safer, long lasting tires?
The airplane replaced the boat as the fastest way to cross an ocean but boats are still around for some strange reason too.
Plug in hybrids/electric cars raise the problem of how much we have to pollute to get all the energy required to power those cars. Hydrogen fuel cells are nowhere near ready for mass production.
If Honda develops a diesel engine (or any other type of engine) that pollutes very, very little and gets fantastic MPG I’m all for using that until someone finds an economical way not to pollute at all and money spent towards developing that is not wasted.
Until you can point a direction and say definitively that is 100% the way of the future then no money spent on any green technology is wasted.
Big Brother Reply:
November 19th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Okay, we seem to have come to an understanding, Grant — provided you don’t still think I’m some kind of monolithic eco-authoritarian who refuses to consider that diesel might be better than gas. I think we should use the term “cleaner diesel”. If something isn’t clean, it is dirty, but that doesn’t mean we have to use black and white terms or can’t see the relative value of something.
My point about opportunity costs is a really simple one: before concluding that any choice is the way to go, we should look at all the alternatives. If you were arguing adamantly for hydrogen fuel cells, maybe by saying in 10 years we could have the perfect engine if we put all our R&D resources into that, I would be saying, wait, maybe we should be putting some in cleaner diesel so that for the next 10 years — or even if that made it 15 years because of opportunity costs — we’d be polluting less while working toward zero pollution. My point is, I’m not arguing for any extreme. And I’m no expert. I’m just saying we need to step back and evaluate all possible paths in context of all others.
Well said, my friend. I think I concur… Thanks for the good discussion and the good resources on diesel.
Big Brother Reply:
November 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
What’s sadly ironic about all this, of course, is that you and I have absolutely zero say in any of this. I’d put you in charge of all this in a heartbeat, Grant, if I could knock industry hacks and political shills off their posts and appoint you.
Neither the auto industry nor the government give a shit what we think. So as long as we are saddled with an ass-backwards market economy and a government that ignores the citizens except for a day ever 4 years, we can’t much hope to affect these policies. Markets are blind to the future and will never have the capacity to plan appropriately for human needs, let alone ecological needs. And government is bought and paid for, so there goes that option.
If only we could change either/both the economy/government… hmmm…
Not to be a total dickhead and disagree with everything you say Brian but I have to disagree again.
I 100% agree with everything you said except for the fact that no one gives a shit what we think.
The problem is we can’t speak with our mouths we have to speak with our wallets. I wanted a big SUV because between coaching basketball and being 6′5 I need space. I could afford paying tons on gas but I wanted something that got decent mileage and wasn’t such a pollutant so I went with a V6 diesel SUV.
My girlfriend drives a hybrid and I know several people who envy that hybrid simply because it is a hybrid and they are “cool” to have.
But here is my thing Brian and this is where people are lost and pardon me if I go on a rant here.
I 100% agree that we need to do as much as we feasibly can to protect the planet and environment. That said, I’m not 100% sold on global warming. I just think we should do it because it is the right thing to do.
Global warming has become a political issue and when you throw global warming in people’s faces to force them to feel guilty or force them to be scared then you are making as many enemy’s as you are making allies.
To use an analogy to prove that point listen to these two statements:
1: I personally think that we should limit abortion and partial birth abortion as much as possible. I think we should do more teaching everyone and especially teens about safe sex and personal responsibility. We are taking what would be a human life and I believe we should not do that if at all possible.
2: I think that we shouldn’t have abortions and partial birth abortions because Jesus said before you were in the womb I knew you. This obviously means that you are taking a life that our lord, savior, and creator meant to exist and that is the wrong thing to do.
One statement is up front, honest, and reasonable. The other one involves a faith that many people don’t share, is polarizing, and is completely confrontational.
Realize that for many level headed people that throwing global warming in their face is just like someone throwing Jesus in yours.
The point is to do the right thing. The point IS NOT to do the right thing for yours, mine, or anyone else’s specific reason.
PS: Its been great having this debate with you though I think we agree far more than we both realize. We just have to realize that regardless of the reasons we agree, we do agree and that is all that matters.
Big Brother Reply:
November 19th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Grant, it’s fine to harp on the parts where we disagree. It makes for good conversation, as long as we’re respectful.
If you want to claim that believing in global warming is an act of faith, I don’t have much to say about that. I guess it is faith in the 99% of climate scientists who believe global warming exists and is manmade. And to paraphrase Sarah Palin, I guess that’s a little bit like believing the Bible is the word of God, except with mountains of actual evidence
People voting with their dollars has never made any sense to me, especially on this matter of the environment. Maybe you can enlighten me. If rich people have the least to fear from catastrophic global warming (that’s what the climate scientists are claiming), then it isn’t very fair that rich people also get more say in the market. It only stands to reason that rich people would be the last to respond to global warming concerns, even if they were 100% convinced it is real and they are causing it. There needs to be other influences, like government regulation, precisely to protect the most vulnerable, who have the least “voice” in that market you seem to be praising. The market is blind to such concerns. Even when industries figure out that their products are killing their customers, short-term profit motives tend to override such concerns, because markets are so profoundly shortsighted. So we can’t depend on them to do the right thing. And poor people (who outnumber rich people, of course), can’t afford to get outvoted by rich people’s superior dollars.
I too am glad we are finding broad points of agreement, Grant. Beats all the bickering.
I don’t mean voting with your dollars.
I mean speaking with your dollars. Rich people in this country own several cars but even the poor people in this country by and large own at least one car and possibly 2.
When you go to buy one, but the most efficient one that you can. When people begin to do that en masse as they already are then auto manufacturers will begin to take notice and act accordingly.
Pete and you are quick to notice that the auto makers sales are way down but from what I have read the most efficient cars are actually still selling fairly well.
It also says a lot when every SUV on the lot is being closed out for huge discounts and when you try to trade in an SUV they won’t give you shit for a value on them because people don’t want them.
Also I didn’t say that global warming is an act of faith. I did say it is very politicized which I don’t think you would agree with.
The more political something becomes the harder it is to get people to agree on anything.
The simple fact is a lot of people believe in it and a lot of people don’t too. But we don’t all have to agree that New York is sinking into the sea to agree that driving an efficient car is the right thing to do.
Big Brother Reply:
November 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
The science around global warming is politicized, but from what I’ve seen the politicians have always intervened to weaken the conclusions of scientists. If you look at the IPCC, they all said that political representatives intervened to soften the IPCC report. Not to mention what’s gone on in the Bush administration, with political actors quashing scientists trying to expose their actual findings about climate change. I’m not sure there’s much evidence that it has worked in the other direction, though I’m sure there is some. There certainly was a lot of it in the other direction until pretty recently, with big polluters dumping tons of money on the “climate skeptic” scientists.
Here’s one report. There are tons of these.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/case_studies_and_evidence/climate-change.html
Does anyone think things are really going to change with the tentacles that big oil has around the world and our own government?
I feel like all this country does is TALK about what we need to do to make things better without doing a damn thing.
We’ve lost our edge at being innovators in my opinion.
We don’t have the national willpower to do what is necessary to really turn things around.
The media is pew pewing the holiday season right now but watch how folks will eventually turn out to buy Ipods and big screen televisions.
We’ve become a nation of Jabba the Hut’s.
Tell me I’m wrong. This country has lost its backbone to be the leader of the world.
The only thing we have left is being the strongest military on the planet and we’ll probably lose that before long.
I pity the next few generations if things continue the way they are right now.
I’m always the optimist!
Lay it on me! I love to stir the pot.
I drove though Arkansas this morning and seen E-85 at $2.23 and unleaded for $1.90 about. I am now really laughing at those who feel for the flex fuel, which get less mpg. Diesel may not be the best solution but when Ford has a car in Canada getting 80mpg but America won’t allow it, thats messed up. Most VWs are getting 50 plus mpg I agree with Brian, kets go with what works best until we find something better. Diesel may be a bit higher but when your doubling your mpg it doesn’t matter. And when your getting better mpg its burning slower, so less emissions for the short term sounds like a better plan then what we have now. But lets face it, the government doesn’t care, good mpg means doing something good and making less profit, so it’s not even hardly worth talking about.
steve, jasper Reply:
November 19th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Scott,
they have us by the short hairs and they know it!
This country was built on the interstate highway system, not other mass transportation systems.
We’ve been had.
It doesn’t matter at this point, we are at the mercy of the oil companies.
I’d love to drive to the nearest interstate highway location and jump on a high speed mono rail to my next location then get off and take a electric car to my ultimate location. Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon!
Speaking of gas…THIS from Herb Stark in this morning’s am-ny Letters: Let the oil companies bail them [the auto industry] out, because after all, they are their best customers
THEY could’ve had a 100mpg car years ago if they weren’t in cahoots with the oil industry…so now, we’ll soon be back to the horse & buggy
If you haven’t watched the documentary “Who Killed The Electric Car?”, do so immediately. As an American consumer, it will infuriate you to no end. It makes diesel versus gas and ethanol verses hydrogen fuel debates worthless. All electric is the only way to go. We have plenty of free sources of electricity (wind, solar, geothermal, etc), why (other than corruption) we still use fossil fuels is beyond me.