Will diesel become significantly more popular soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Has anyone done a cradle to grave TCO of the environmental and other impacts of these various green technologies.

Like - we have to rape the Earth for the metals to make the stuff, have to use hydrocarbons (Fossil fuel is not correct at all; it's been proven oil is not all or even mostly from fossils) to create it, ship it all over, set it up, maintain it, and in the case of solar, wipe out some carbon sinks (the grass underneath).

I wonder if once you add it all up they would not be the same as or worse than what we have today?


Yes, these studies have been done. Yes, solar power emits less carbon. No, grass is not a carbon sink.
 
One of the more efficient solar technologies is evacuated tube hot water (pre) heating. Up here this would displace #2 heating (diesel) oil in most of the housing stock. And done on the roof there's no additional real estate footprint. Just time it with a roofing job.

Co-irker has this and the feed coming down from his roof, in April, is 165'F. The a-ha moment is touching his copper pipe and getting scalded.
 
The auto and pickup OEM's love playing in the EPA sandbox, so they will not do what the commercial truck OEM's have done. While those big truck OEM's play lip service to the Environmentalists, and even offer emission laden trucks, At the other end of the plant they are offering new trucks without engines and transmissions, complete with wiring harnesses and all the associated plumbing to allow a buyer to drop in the rebuilt pre-emission diesel of their choice. That is how I did my 2013 semi truck. All legal. When it is done that way, the EPA ties the emissions standard to the year the motor was made, not the truck.

The auto and pickup OEM's could do likewise if they really wanted to. Say, offer a brand new 2500 Silverado, delivered without motor or trans. The buyer could then drop in a pre-emission Dmax and Allison into it and have a truly great truck without all the emissions stuff, and considerably less cost for the complete vehicle. When I did my semi truck, I saved $30K over the cost of a new regular production truck with emission laden motor. It is not unrealistic to think that a pickup, if offered this way, would be $5K, or more, less than a regular new pickup with all the EPA stuff.

And most every state allows this kind of thing, allows titling and registration. It falls under their "kit car" regulations. It is the same as if you built a kit car in your garage. As long as it meets federal and state highway safety criteria for new vehicles. My semi truck was titled, registered, and licensed under the kit car regs. You are not required to assemble the kit, as the OEM can do that assembly. You just have to worry about dropping in the motor, trans, and driveshaft and hooking everything up.
 
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Originally Posted By: A_Harman

Tell us how many square feet of solar panel are required to recharge a 70 kW*hr battery pack in 8 hours on a day with an average level of cloudiness.


Sorry, but your roof isn't big enough.


Yes, I know that. I was wondering if you did, and if you had enough intellectual honesty to do the calculation. I suppose not.
 
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Yes, wind integration is problematic. In the NW it's working reasonably well because of the hydro balancing reserve. Large scale demand side balancing is coming on line.

Solar is easier to integrate, but still no cake walk. One big problem is that large base-load thermal plants aren't flexible enough to ramp up and down production as needed.

If you think these issues aren't being worked on and won't be solved please turn over all the computers in your car and retrieve a set of breaker points. There is a sea-change happening in the utility industry, but I don't think that's your area of expertise. Change would be happening faster, but there are huge capital expenses involved.


I like the fact that you've presented that wind and solar are difficult(ish) in the market, but not sure on where you get the idea that thermal plant isn't flexible.

35-100% is a pretty typical range for a black coaler, gas thermal (devil's work, should never use gas for thermal power stations) can do lower. Brown coal and nukes certainly don't have the turn-down.

Wind and solar are harvesters, and can't be "dispatched" like thermals and GTs

Wind blows, and sun shines, and you get power, but then you need a grid and thermals to control (actually to provide) system frequency, control that frequency, and to provide power factor correction (latter can be done with static VAR compensators, or synchronous condensers, but no-one wants to pay for that service, although it's essential).

South Australia keeps making headlines as the state that regularly provides all of it's capacity as wind.

This particular day was intereresting

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/how-south-australia-coped-without-any-baseload-power-65138

on a couple of fronts, a brown coaler had an explosion, and 4 people were injured (some of the media seemed to take delight in that fact), and the state "survived solely on wind power". Repeat on the news ad nauseum.

Can see the event below (BTW, that "gas" is all open cycle GT, and Gas fired thermal)...firstly, it's not a big market...and secondly the gas was ignored. Note which of the two remaining sources could be intentionally ramped up to meet the demand...gas, as the wind dropped later that day.

image-20150623-19431-7xdrku.png


What they didn't report was that the state is connected at the other end to a mass of brown coal fire thermal at the end of a transmission line, and should the line have gone down, the whole state would have been black...

Great renewables story, but the missing details are that the state was on a knife edge...if it lost access to the thermals, then it could not self start. The windmills don't make the grid start.

What also wasn't reported was that two days later, there was no wind in that state, it's interconnectors were maxxed out with the station still shut down, and the wholesale price was $100s/MWHr (normally $30-$45), which naturally encouraged the demand side to keep their consumption down. 1,000MW wind gen one day, and three days later less than 100.

The station got back in after the investigations were completed, and prices stabilised, the state became it's usual import/export self, with normal prices...they are still one of the most expensive states to buy electricity in.

Good news (in certain circles who glee in that news) is that Station will be closing down within the next 8 months, and the state gets to demonstrate how reliable its wind is. Half of that gas power shown in the chart is due to go as well.

It's all economic and shareholders. The wind gets first access, and drives down the power price, but there's no money in providing the systems that keep the grid up.

Traditional radial feeds are now having power reversals, making huge problems with system stability, frequency control, and power factor.

As you correctly say, these things are being worked on, but they are an expense that the grid companies are having to pay for, not the wind generators...it ends up on your electricity bills, but not apportioned to the sources that have displaced traditional sources, while only providing one of the half dozen or so things that thermals provide to the grid.
 
The reliability of the pre emission diesels used in 3/4 and one ton pickups was good.

The reliability of post emission diesels on these vehicles has not been anywhere near as good.
 
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner


Yes, these studies have been done. Yes, solar power emits less carbon. No, grass is not a carbon sink.


Link please.

Don't forget high school Biology. Plants take CO2 and use photosynthesis to make Oxygen.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Don't forget high school Biology. Plants take CO2 and use photosynthesis to make Oxygen.


They do, but we are releasing it faster than they can absorb it.

How doe we know this ?

Because the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising in this little global experiment that we have got going at the present time.

Note, the above is not a statement for or against Global Warming, just an observation that we are materially changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Given that the atmosphere was once CO2 and methane, and plants made it oxygenated, there's enough carbon stored to get it back there...we just can't burn stuff when it gets to 12% O2 in the atmosphere.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner


Yes, these studies have been done. Yes, solar power emits less carbon. No, grass is not a carbon sink.


Link please.

Don't forget high school Biology. Plants take CO2 and use photosynthesis to make Oxygen.

Shannon answered you very well, I would add: DO not forget deforestation, especially in the Amazon which is considered as lungs of this planet.
 
I think that the US has missed out accumulating a significant fleet of light diesels because of a mismatch between the applicable EPA and EURO standards over the last 15 years. But it's probably a good thing in the long term as some European cites are finding out.
I owned an '81 Rabbit diesel and '03 Golf TDI in Calif and here we have owned a 320D and Suzuki Grand Vitara TD. The BMW is still with us and at only 120,000 km, smokes badly on acceleration but it's too expensive to repair.
My new (gasoline) VW polo 1.2TSI easily matches the BMW in economy and is much cleaner.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
... Because the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising in this little global experiment that we have got going at the present time.
Note, the above is not a statement for or against Global Warming, just an observation that we are materially changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Well, there is plenty of data to show warming as well and in addition to the simple physics of the greenhouse effect the correlation between the data has also been established.
 
All I'm going to say on the "Global Warming" front is this: The Earth has been much cooler before mankind - hint - North America was once entirely ice covered.

If you follow the $$ those pushing this agenda stand to make the most $$ and take the most control of the situation.

If we really "cared", we'd stop the deforestation of various parts of the world, work to reduce population (the Earth really can't support all the people we have here), work on increasing the plant life, and getting "dirty" countries to clean themselves up.

However none of those are really financially viable. But creating a problem, creating the solution, and making everyone pay sure is a great way to do things. Especially when you shun and vilify those that refuse to go along with the party line.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
All I'm going to say ...

The problem with that is that it's not relevant to the problem at hand.
 
Originally Posted By: Burt
There is a reason that manufacturers aren't rushing to put diesels in vehicles. Diesels make NOx and soot and you need to put chemical treatment equipment to spray ammonia and particulate filters that need to regenerate like self cleaning ovens. Ammonia freezes at low temps and needs to be heated. On top of this, light duty diesels operate with a lot of excess air, meaning that you have to recirculate a higher percentage of exhaust gas to lower the excess Oxygen to control the NOx. Higher EGR rates means more carbon build up.

Add to it the fact that diesel fuel is lower cetane and quality here than in Europe and it's way too much complexity to deal with these issues for the bragging rights of higher efficiency. Now that gas engines have fuel injection and other valve timing features, the benefits of diesel have narrowed.

From one who knows from first hand experience.


We have coal plants in this country. So I say excuses. EPA can close shop as it is.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
All I'm going to say on the "Global Warming" front is this: The Earth has been much cooler before mankind - hint - North America was once entirely ice covered.

If you follow the $$ those pushing this agenda stand to make the most $$ and take the most control of the situation.

If we really "cared", we'd stop the deforestation of various parts of the world, work to reduce population (the Earth really can't support all the people we have here), work on increasing the plant life, and getting "dirty" countries to clean themselves up.

However none of those are really financially viable. But creating a problem, creating the solution, and making everyone pay sure is a great way to do things. Especially when you shun and vilify those that refuse to go along with the party line.


It's hard being rich, because ultimately, the GDP we create gets burnt into smoke. The only real exception is what Bill Gates and Berkshire Hathaway have socked away for a rainy day.

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy
 
I doubt diesel will see much growth in the USA. Remember when the Mahindra diesel pickup was going to be sold in the USA, and make a huge impact?
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Everything on this planet is cyclical.

Many of the cycles are difficult for us to understand as we die so quickly..


Exactly the point. These cycles have occurred many times over past millennia. But guess what? There weren't a bunch of highly evolved apes running around, digging up long buried carbon stores and burning them. All around the globe, in massive scale.

Things that took millions of years to decay and compress into oil and gas; these carbon stores are now being released on the order of decades.

Yes we little humans can make a difference. We build tools and machines and lay waste to the land far more than any dinosaur ever could.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar


Exactly the point. These cycles have occurred many times over past millennia. But guess what? There weren't a bunch of highly evolved apes running around, digging up long buried carbon stores and burning them. All around the globe, in massive scale.

Things that took millions of years to decay and compress into oil and gas; these carbon stores are now being released on the order of decades.

Yes we little humans can make a difference. We build tools and machines and lay waste to the land far more than any dinosaur ever could.


So what? What's the difference if the cycles will be happening more often than before? We will most likely be extinct before the next cooling cycle anyway, so I don't understand what's this huffing and puffing is all about. You want to save the oil for the next generation of apes or something?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top