More Ethanol in the Gas Tank Coming

A Bit More Ethanol in the Gas Tank
By MATTHEW L. WALD, The New York Times, 10-13-2010


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration made a gesture of support for the ethanol industry on Wednesday, with a declaration by the Environmental Protection Agencythat gasoline retailers can sell fuel blends containing up to 15 percent ethanol for use in late-model cars.

But it was unclear when drivers might find the new fuel mix. Numerous other changes would have to occur before gas stations will begin selling the blend, known as E15, including many approvals by states and significant changes to the infrastructure at most gas stations.

The ruling, which was requested by ethanol producers, was widely expected but is the subject of heated debate over whether E15 is safe for cars and other gasoline-powered devices. Fuel sold today typically contains as much as 10 percent ethanol, but automakers and other critics say that a higher blend of ethanol could corrode engines.

The agency said Wednesday that government testing found the blend would not damage the engines in cars with a model year of 2007 or later — about one in seven cars on the road — and would not cause unacceptable increases in air pollution. The agency is still testing cars for the 2001 to 2006 model years and expects to issue a ruling on those as soon as next month.

Ethanol producers called the ruling a “good first step,” which ended the 30-year-old cap of 10 percent on ethanol for ordinary cars. “We know we have challenges on which we have to move forward,” said Tom Buis, chief executive of Growth Energy, the industry group that petitioned the E.P.A. for the change.

Oil producers, gasoline retailers and the makers of gasoline-powered equipment denounced the decision, many of them in the hours before it was released. A spokeswoman for the auto manufacturers — which generally support renewable fuels but want additional testing before more ethanol is used in cars not designed for it — described the announcement as “ethanol creep.”

Gina McCarthy, the E.P.A. assistant administrator for air and radiation, said that the decision advanced an important national goal of reducing oil consumption. The federal government would like to see Americans use 36 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2022, including 21 billion from advanced biofuels beyond the corn-based ethanol that is prevalent now. Currently, the industry says it can produce about six billion gallons of corn ethanol a year.

It was not clear why the agency made an announcement on one group of cars when a decision on another group is coming in a month or two, but analysts suggested that election-year politics played a role.

Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, a research firm, said that in the midterm Congressional elections in three weeks, “there are nine at-risk Democrats from the top 10 ethanol producer states. If you’re fighting for every seat in a midterm election, you can’t afford to wait until the rule is finished.”

But Ms. McCarthy said the agency was obligated to respond to a petition by an ethanol producer group, Growth Energy. It had originally intended to reply this summer.

The first group of cars affected is small. R. L. Polk, the auto industry consultant, said that as of January, there were 231 million vehicles of the model year 1981 or later, of which 35 million, or 15 percent, were covered by Wednesday’s decision. Another 85 million vehicles, or 37 percent, are in the group for which a ruling could come next month. But the newer vehicles are driven more miles and burn a disproportionate share of the fuel.

The fuel itself gets a mixed reception from environmental advocates. Ethanol production consumes prodigious quantities of natural gas, diesel fuel and other inputs that lead to carbon dioxide emissions. And it contributes to the demand for corn, helping to drive up the cost of that commodity, raising food prices and diverting farmland that could be used for growing crops for human consumption.

It also pits farmers against car owners. Ethanol can eat away at the seals in engines and fuel systems that are not designed for its use. The E.P.A. said that cars sold in the 2007 model year and later were more able to withstand ethanol because they were built to tighter pollution standards and that older cars might be able to accept higher blends as well.

But the automakers and fuel suppliers fear liability if the higher-ethanol fuel damages engines. Hand-held garden equipment and boat engines could fail in ways that create safety problems, people in those industries say.

Ethanol also evaporates more easily than gasoline, which can put an ingredient of smog into the air.

A more practical barrier to widespread adoption of E15 are the gas stations that would sell it. Even if a station has enough pumps to offer a new grade of fuel, most have too few underground tanks, experts say.

Stations that sell regular, midgrade and premium fuel typically do it with one tank of regular and one of premium; the pump blends the two for midgrade. For them, going to E15 would mean giving up sales of premium, said Prentiss E. Searles, the marketing issues manager at the American Petroleum Institute, the trade group for the oil industry.

“If you’ve got a limited number of vehicles that can use E15, it doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Mr. Searles said.

John Eichberger, a spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 115,000 of the about 160,000 locations in the United States that sell gasoline, said that some gas stations might sell E15 by giving up selling diesel fuel.

Mr. Eichberger said many other state and federal regulations would have to change before E15 could be legally sold. But the basic problem, he said, was that “we don’t have a retail infrastructure that can handle the product, we don’t have consumers ready to buy it, and we don’t have the auto industry ready to approve the use in their cars.”

Even gas pumps aren’t certified for E15, Mr. Eichberger said.
He and others said that once the fuel was offered for some cars, it would be mistakenly used in others. It is likely to sell for less per gallon, making it look attractive to buyers, although it may turn out to be more expensive per mile, because ethanol has less energy than gasoline.

But Todd Becker, the chief executive of Green Plains Renewable Energy, said that the decision “tells the investment community that this is an expanding sector of the energy market.” Ethanol’s biggest problem, he said, is access to the retail market, which he complained was controlled by oil companies.

The problems of E15 could mirror those of E85, an 85 percent blend of ethanol. While the auto companies have made millions of vehicles that can use it, most of them still fill up on regular gas because very few places sell E85.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/business/energy-environment/14ethanol.html?scp=4&sq=ethanol&st=Search

Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Backing

Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Backing-October 12, 2010- NY Times
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON — Google and a New York financial firm have each agreed to invest heavily in a proposed $5 billion transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard that could ultimately transform the region’s electrical map.

The 350-mile underwater spine, which could remove some critical obstacles to wind power development, has stirred excitement among investors, government officials and environmentalists who have been briefed on it.

Google and Good Energies, an investment firm specializing in renewable energy, have each agreed to take 37.5 percent of the equity portion of the project. They are likely to bring in additional investors, which would reduce their stakes.

If they hold on to their stakes, that would come to an initial investment of about $200 million apiece in the first phase of construction alone, said Robert L. Mitchell, the chief executive of Trans-Elect, the Maryland-based transmission-line company that proposed the venture.

Marubeni, a Japanese trading company, has taken a 15 percent stake. Trans-Elect said it hoped to begin construction in 2013.

Several government officials praised the idea underlying the project as ingenious, while cautioning that they could not prejudge the specifics.

“Conceptually it looks to me to be one of the most interesting transmission projects that I’ve ever seen walk through the door,” said Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees interstate electricity transmission. “It provides a gathering point for offshore wind for multiple projects up and down the coast.”

Industry experts called the plan promising, but warned that as a first-of-a-kind effort, it was bound to face bureaucratic delays and could run into unforeseen challenges, from technology problems to cost overruns. While several undersea electrical cables exist off the Atlantic Coast already, none has ever picked up power from generators along the way.

The system’s backbone cable, with a capacity of 6,000 megawatts, equal to the output of five large nuclear reactors, would run in shallow trenches on the seabed in federal waters 15 to 20 miles offshore, from northern New Jersey to Norfolk, Va. The notion would be to harvest energy from turbines in an area where the wind is strong but the hulking towers would barely be visible.

Trans-Elect estimated that construction would cost $5 billion, plus financing and permit fees. The $1.8 billion first phase, a 150-mile stretch from northern New Jersey to Rehoboth Beach, Del., could go into service by early 2016, it said. The rest would not be completed until 2021 at the earliest.

Richard L. Needham, the director of Google’s green business operations group, called the plan “innovative and audacious.”

“It is an opportunity to kick-start this industry and, long term, provide a way for the mid-Atlantic states to meet their renewable energy goals,” he said.

Yet even before any wind farms were built, the cable would channel existing supplies of electricity from southern Virginia, where it is cheap, to northern New Jersey, where it is costly, bypassing one of the most congested parts of the North American electric grid while lowering energy costs for northern customers.

Generating electricity from offshore wind is far more expensive than relying on coal, natural gas or even onshore wind. But energy experts anticipate a growing demand for the offshore turbines to meet state requirements for greater reliance on local renewable energy as a clean alternative to fossil fuels.

Four connection points — in southern Virginia, Delaware, southern New Jersey and northern New Jersey — would simplify the job of bringing the energy onshore, involving fewer permit hurdles. In contrast to transmission lines on land, where a builder may have to deal with hundreds of property owners, this project would have to deal with a maximum of just four, and fewer than that in its first phase.

Ultimately the system, known as the Atlantic Wind Connection, could make building a wind farm offshore far simpler and cheaper than it looks today, experts said.

Environmentalists who have been briefed on the plan were enthusiastic. Melinda Pierce, the deputy director for national campaigns at the Sierra Club, said she had campaigned against proposed transmission lines that would carry coal-fired energy around the country, but would favor this one, with its promise of tapping the potential of offshore wind.

“These kinds of audacious ideas might just be what we need to break through the wretched logjam,” she said.

Projects like Cape Wind, proposed for shallow waters just off Cape Cod in Massachusetts, met with fierce objections from residents who felt it would mar the ocean vista. But sponsors of the Trans-Elect project insist that the mid-Atlantic turbines would have less of a visual impact.

The hurdles facing the project have more to do with administrative procedures than with engineering problems or its economic merit, several experts said.

By the time the Interior Department could issue permits for such a line, for example, the federal subsidy program for wind will have expired in 2012, said Willett M. Kempton, a professor at the School of Marine Science and Policy at the University of Delaware and the author of several papers on offshore wind.

Another is that PJM Interconnection, the regional electricity group that would have to approve the project and assess its member utilities for the cost, has no integrated procedure for calculating the value of all three tasks the line would accomplish — hooking up new power generation, reducing congestion on the grid and improving reliability.

And elected officials in Virginia have in the past opposed transmission proposals that would tend to average out pricing across the mid-Atlantic states, possibly raising their constituents’ costs.

But the lure of Atlantic wind is very strong. The Atlantic Ocean is relatively shallow even tens of miles from shore, unlike the Pacific, where the sea floor drops away steeply. Construction is also difficult on the Great Lakes because their waters are deep and they freeze, raising the prospect of moving ice sheets that could damage a tower.

Nearly all of the East Coast governors, Republican and Democratic, have spoken enthusiastically about coastal wind and have fought proposals for transmission lines from the other likely wind source, the Great Plains.

“From Massachusetts down to Virginia, the governors have signed appeals to the Senate not to do anything that would lead to a high-voltage grid that would blanket the country and bring in wind from the Dakotas,” said James J. Hoecker, a former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who now is part of a nonprofit group that represents transmission owners.

He described an Atlantic transmission backbone as “a necessary piece of what the Eastern governors have been talking about in terms of taking advantage of offshore wind.”

So far only one offshore wind project, Bluewater Wind off Delaware, has sought permission to build in federal waters. The company is seeking federal loan guarantees to build 293 to 450 megawatts of capacity, but the timing of construction remains uncertain.

Executives with that project said the Atlantic backbone was an interesting idea, in part because it would foster development of a supply chain for the specialized parts needed for offshore wind.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose agency would have to sign off on the project, has spoken approvingly of wind energy and talked about the possibility of an offshore “backbone.” In a speech this month, he emphasized that the federal waters were “controlled by the secretary,” meaning him.

Within three miles of the shore, control is wielded by the state. Nonetheless, if the offshore wind farms are built on a vast scale, the project’s sponsors say, a backbone with just four connection points could expedite the approval process.

In fact, if successful, the transmission spine would reduce the regulatory burden on subsequent projects, said Mr. Mitchell, the Trans-Elect chief executive.

Mr. Kempton of the University of Delaware and Mr. Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the backbone would offer another plus: reducing one of wind power’s big problems, variability of output.

“Along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, we tend to have storm tracks that move along the coast and somewhat offshore,” Mr. Kempton said.

If storm winds were blowing on Friday off Virginia, they might be off Delaware by Saturday and off New Jersey by Sunday, he noted. Yet the long spine would ensure that the amount of energy coming ashore held roughly constant.

Wind energy becomes more valuable when it is more predictable; if predictable enough, it could replace some land-based generation altogether, Mr. Kempton said.

But the economics remain uncertain, he warned, For now, he said, the biggest impediment may be that the market price of offshore wind energy is about 50 percent higher than that of energy generated on land.

With a change in market conditions — an increase in the price of natural gas, for example, or the adoption of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide from coal- or gas-generated electricity — that could change, he said.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 14, 2010


An article on Tuesday about a proposal to build a transmission line off the mid-Atlantic Seaboard that would harvest energy from future offshore wind farms misstated the size of the investment stake that Marubeni, a Japanese trading firm, has taken in the $5 billion venture. It is 15 percent, not 10 percent.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Solar Power Plants to Rise on U.S. Land

Solar Power Plants to Rise on U.S. Land - NY Times

By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: October 5, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — Proposals for the first large solar power plants ever built on federal lands won final approval on Tuesday from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, reflecting the Obama administration’s resolve to promote renewable energy in the face of Congressional inaction.

Both plants are to rise in the California desert under a fast-track program that dovetails with the state’s own aggressive effort to push development of solar, wind and geothermal power. The far larger one, a 709-megawatt project proposed by Tessera Solar on 6,360 acres in the Imperial Valley, will use “Suncatchers” — reflectors in the shape of radar dishes — to concentrate solar energy and activate a four-cylinder engine to generate electricity.SAN FRANCISCO — Proposals for the first large solar power plants ever built on federal lands won final approval on Tuesday from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, reflecting the Obama administration’s resolve to promote renewable energy in the face of Congressional inaction.

A 45-megawatt system proposed by Chevron Energy Solutions and featuring arrays of up to 40,500 solar panels will be built on 422 acres of the Lucerne Valley. When complete, the two projects could generate enough energy to power as many as 566,000 homes.

Mr. Salazar is expected to sign off on perhaps five more projects this year; the combined long-term output of all the plants would be four times that of the first two.

“It’s our expectation we will see thousands of megawatts of solar energy sprouting on public lands,” he told reporters.

The announcement, which came shortly after the White House unveiled plans to install the latest generation of solar panels on the roof of its living quarters, reflects a need to enable solar manufacturers to break ground by the end of 2010 so they can share in soon-to-expire grants and loan guarantees for renewable energy.

Federal stimulus grants and federal loan guarantees could underwrite as much as hundreds of millions of dollars or more of the $2.1 billion Imperial Valley plant, said Janette Coates, a Tessera spokeswoman.

The decision also follows a long series of setbacks for climate and energy legislation in Congress. After passage of a House bill last year, efforts to advance a major emissions-reducing bill through the Senate collapsed over the summer for lack of votes linked to fears of a voter backlash.

In addition to the two plants approved Tuesday, projects that are poised to gain approval by the end of the year include BrightSource Energy’s proposed 370-megawatt Ivanpah facility, Tessera’s 850-megawatt Calico project, NextEra’s 250-megawatt Genesis Solar Energy Plant and Solar Millennium’s 1,000-megawatt Blythe project.

The next batch of approvals, Secretary Salazar said, “is something that is not months away.”

But even with federal approval, a major hurdle remains for most of the projects: finding excess capacity on transmission lines in the desert, most of which are fully booked or nearly so. At the moment, capacity exists for about 345 megawatts of the 754 megawatts that would eventually be generated by the two newly approved projects.

The rest would require a new line, like San Diego Gas & Electric’s 123-mile proposedSunrise Powerlink, which has been approved but faces challenges in federal and state courts.

Mr. Salazar emphasized that the Lucerne Valley and Imperial Valley projects had the support of the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife and the Wilderness Society.

Both projects were altered to meet environmental objections: they have a smaller footprint than was originally planned and now include greater commitments to mitigate the impact on species like the endangered desert tortoise. Imperial uses minimal water, a scarce resource in the desert. Still, local desert-protection groups remain opposed, and representatives of large environmental groups expressed support in carefully parsed statements.

“These projects were not selected by us,” said Johanna Wald, a senior lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They are, as it were, the cards that we were dealt. So we are doing the best that we can by working with the companies, working with the agencies,” to “make them as good as they can be.”

Jim Lyons, who works with renewable energy projects for Defenders of Wildlife, said he supported the Lucerne Valley project. But he said he had some concerns about the impact of the sprawling Imperial Valley solar-reflector project on the landscape, though it has been scaled back from the original 900-megawatt proposal.

“It is smaller, it will go forward in two phases — that certainly is an improvement,” Mr. Lyons said. He said that to achieve such concessions, conservation groups had lodged a formal protest with the Bureau of Land Management, part of the Interior Department.

“It is important for the department to take the lessons learned from these fast-track projects and use that to develop some guidelines,” he added.

The power from the Imperial Valley plant will fulfill its contract for renewable energy made with the San Diego Gas & Electric Company. The power from the Lucerne Valley photovoltaic array is destined for Southern California Edison.

California utilities are currently required to meet a state mandate that they generate 33 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020.

The announcement of the planned solar panels on the roof at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which would be used to heat water and generate a small amount of electricity, came just a few weeks after the White House rebuffed an environmental organizer who tried to present the White House with a panel from an array installed by President Jimmy Carterin the 1970s. (Ronald Reagan’s administration removed those panels in 1986.)

“This project reflects President Obama’s strong commitment to U.S. leadership in solar energy and the jobs it will create here at home,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement. “Deploying solar energy technologies across the country will help America lead the global economy for years to come.”

The Interior Department’s action was delayed by the need for multiple approvals from agencies ranging from the Secret Service to the General Services Administration, officials said.

John M. Broder and Michael D. Shear contributed reporting from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/science/earth/06solar.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=506
5

A version of this article appeared in print on October 6, 2010, on page A16 of the New York edition.

The Future of Diesel in the US: Analysis

The Future of Diesel in the US: Analysis - September 2009

Concerns over fuel economy and carbon-dioxide emissions have left many wondering why more cars with diesel engines aren't available in America. After all, diesel-engined cars are 20 to 40 percent more efficient, and they're cleaner than ever. Diesels are wildly popular in Europe, accounting for roughly 50 percent of the car market there. So why don't automakers simply bring the European cars here? It comes down to intrinsic differences between U.S. and European governmental policies, consumer demand and fuel prices. Here is a primer on the future of diesel in the United States.

An Audi Q7 TDI clean diesel at the Point Honors Event in New York City.




In the U.S., gasoline and diesel are dirt cheap compared to their cost in Europe. In late August, the average U.S. price for a gallon of gas was $2.60, and a gallon of diesel cost $2.65. Both diesel and gasoline come from the same barrel of oil--since diesel is a heavier, less refined product, it has historically cost less than gasoline. However, the relative price difference in the U.S. is determined by market forces, refinery constraints and taxes. Typically, demand for gasoline is higher, and U.S. fuel taxes favor gasoline, making gas less expensive here. Federally, we tax diesel at a higher rate than we do gas--24.4 cents per gallon of diesel versus 18.4 for gas. Some states tax gas a higher rate, but on average, the diesel tax is higher (With state taxes added in, the average diesel tax is 51.4 cents per gallon, gas is 47.0). According to the Energy Information Administration, since 2004, diesel has generally cost more than gasoline in the U.S., year-round.

While determining the drivers of fuel and oil prices is an undertaking worthy of a business-school dissertation, we can simply say that European drivers pay more than double our prices--seven bucks for a gallon of gas and six for diesel (here's an illustrative graph). Why the big difference? Fuel taxes in Europe are not only historically much higher, the tax on diesel is less than gas. And it's been that way for over a decade. Over time, the high European taxes caused a marked difference in customer demand.

Americans haven't been clamoring for diesels because our fuel is so comparatively inexpensive--and diesel engines cost so much more to manufacture. Diesel engines cost more because they require added equipment such as a turbocharger to make power levels close to a gas engine. They also need heavier-duty internal components to stand up to higher compression ratios. The time it takes to "pay back" the $1500 to $3000 cost premium of a diesel engine with fill-ups at the pump, is very long at current U.S. fuel prices. Consider a hypothetical $20,000 gas car that gets 30 mpg (3.33 gallons per 100 miles). Check the diesel engine option for $1500 and you'd see a 30 percent efficiency improvement (39 mpg or 2.56 g/100m). Over a 15,000-mile year, the diesel will save about 115 gallons. With our fuel prices, it would take more than four years to make back that $1500 investment. At six bucks a gallon for Euro diesel versus seven for gas, the payback is less than two years.

Gas-electric hybrid systems add cost penalties to new cars similar to diesel engines', yet these types of vehicles are gaining in popularity. "In 2007, 56 percent of consumers said they would consider a hybrid," says Mike Omotoso, senior manager of powertrain forecasting for JD Power and Associates. "In 2008, that number went up to 62 percent," he says. The specific cost penalty of both hybrids and diesels depends on which car manufacturer you ask. Jim Lentz, the head of Toyota's U.S. operations told us that a hybrid system like the one in the Prius is less expensive for them to develop than a 50-state diesel. But Wolfgang Hatz, Audi's powertrain chief, says that a hybrid system is double the cost of a modern diesel. So who's right? The answer is contingent upon where a company's competency lies. European manufacturers traditionally know how to manufacturer and develop diesels at a lower cost because they've been serving their home markets for years. The Japanese, on the other hand, have concentrated on hybrids.

Unlike hybrids, which have a green reputation in this country, modern diesels must still overcome the reputation here of those soot-belching, unreliable oil-burners of the past. Additionally, since diesel doesn't evaporate like gasoline, the pumps are dirtier--no matter how clean those diesel engines are. And then there's another challenge for diesels--stricter U.S. emission regulations. The 50-state light-duty vehicle limit for emissions of nitrogen oxides is 0.07 grams per mile. In Western Europe, the limit is 0.29. Reducing NOx to nitrogen and oxygen is much harder with a diesel engine because the exhaust is typically cooler and contains less oxygen compared to a gas engine. To meet U.S. regulations, diesel engines are required to use complicated--and expensive--high-pressure fuel injection and after-treatment systems that in some cases inject an aqueous urea solution to handle the NOx. The added expense of course means an even longer payback period for the consumer.

So where does that leave the U.S companies? Ford and GM--and now Chrysler--have access to perfectly competent diesel cars produced by their European arms. When asked about the possibility of bringing diesel cars to the U.S., GM's product chief, Tom Stephens, said that GM has a wide portfolio of diesel engines and continually investigates bringing them stateside. But right now he thinks that diesels are better suited to heavy-duty trucks. A diesel engine under load offers a greater efficiency bump than what could typically be expected in a light-duty diesel car. "It's also a question of priorities," he says. "One of the things we look at is that we have a 96 percent dependence on conventional petroleum. The electrification of the automobile tends to take you away from that dependence; we think that's a worthwhile strategy." Of course, he's talking about the Chevy Volt.

Even though Honda and Toyota recently shelved plans to bring a diesel car to the U.S., there's still a steady, slow increase of diesels--mostly from the German manufacturers. Mercedes, VW and Audi all offer at least two diesel models. Ford recently announced an all-new truck diesel.

BMW is also increasingly bringing diesels stateside. In addition to the BMW X5 diesel, the company now offers a diesel in the 3 Series sports sedan, the BMW 335d. "We believe diesels have a future in the U.S," Jim O'Donnell, president of BMW North America recently told the media, "By 2014, between 10 and 20 percent of our mix will be diesels." BMW isn't relying solely on diesels, however. O'Donnell said, "We're putting our money in all the technologies." Soon BMW will offer X6 and 7 Series hybrids. Every automaker has some type of hybrid either currently for sale or on the drawing board as well.

Except for the VW Jetta TDI and, to a lesser extent, the new Audi A3 TDI, the diesels we can get in the U.S. are expensive premium cars and SUVs. So even if more diesels are coming, when will we see the small, 50-mpg-and-better economy diesels that populate Europe? Don't hold your breath. Except for VW, the manufacturers we spoke with said that at current fuel prices, American small-car buyers aren't willing to pay extra for diesels. What we'll have in the future instead is a mix of powertrains. Gas engines will, for the foreseeable future, dominate our cars. According to JD Power's Omotoso, hybrids are projected to become 9.5 percent of the passenger-car market by 2015 (up from 3 percent this year), yet diesels will grow to become just 3.5 percent of the car market here by 2015, up from less than 1 percent this year. However if the U.S. fuel prices take off more abruptly than analysts predict, we could see a deeper penetration of both diesel and hybrid vehicles.

The Case For Diesel

The Case for Diesel: Clean, Efficient, Fast Cars (Hybrids Beware!)

The dark horse of fossil fuels has cleaned up its act, allowing automakers to create cars for the U.S. that are ultraefficient and high-performance. Here comes the 75-mpg revolution.

BY BEN HEWITT- JANUARY 1, 2008

Merging with northbound traffic on Interstate 75 just outside Auburn Hills, Mich., I punch the accelerator, quickly swing left into the passing lane and pull forcefully ahead of the cars around me. In any other ride, on any other gray morning, it'd be just another Interstate moment. But this rush hour, I'm behind the wheel of a preproduction 2009 Volkswagen Jetta, which is powered by a 2.0-liter turbo-charged, direct-injected diesel engine that, even as I leave the speed limit in tatters, is averaging nearly 50 mpg. Equally important, what's coming out of the tailpipe is no dirtier than the emissions from the 35-mpg econoboxes I can now see in my rearview mirror. Speed, fuel efficiency and minimal emissions? These aren't characteristics usually associated with diesel-powered vehicles. But they will be.

Most Americans have a bad impression of diesel cars. We think of them as loud, hard to start and foul-smelling. We sneer at them for lacking the get-up-and-go of their gasoline-powered cousins. And we dislike them for their perceived environmental sins, chiefly the polluting brew of sulfur and nitrogen compounds that they emit into the atmosphere. All those complaints were fair a generation ago, when the twin energy crises of the 1970s propelled diesels into national popularity and kept them there for a decade. Back then, many drivers ignored diesel's faults, or were unaware of them, because diesel cars ran 30 percent farther on a gallon of fuel than similar gasoline-powered cars. It felt savvy to buy a diesel, even daring. Then fuel prices dropped in the mid-1980s, and drivers abandoned their clattering, odoriferous fuel sippers. They went back to gasoline.


Today, diesel powertrains are on the map again, for both car manufacturers and efficiency-minded drivers. The technology could be here to stay, even if fuel prices (improbably) decline. The new cars run as well as their gasoline-powered competitors. And as for the emissions problems of the past--well, the dirty bird of fossil fuels isn't so dirty anymore.

The Coming Diesel Invasion

AUDI A4 SEDAN	BMW 3 SERIES SEDAN	CADILLAC CTS SEDAN
Engine: 3.0-liter V6 Target Release Date:2008 This 240-hp turbocharged direct-injected engine will also be available in the full-size Audi Q7 sport utility.	Engine: 3.0-liter twin-turbo inline Six Target Release Date:2008 BMW plans to release this 3.0-liter in 5 and 6 Series models in 2008 as well. It reportedly gets more than 35 mpg	Engine: 2.9-liter TDI V6 Target Release Date:2009 Look for clean diesel also in the Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and GM light-duty pickups, around 2010.
FORD F-150 PICKUP	HONDA ACCORD SEDAN	SATURN AURA SEDAN
Engine: 4.4-liter V8 Target Release Date:2009 Derived from the Euro-spec 3.6-liter currently used in Land Rovers, which get around 31 mpg on the highway	Engine: 2.2-liter i-DTEC Target Release Date:2009 The British version gets 51.4 mpg in combined city/highway driving. The hybrid Civic gets 50 mpg.	Engine: To be determined Target Release Date:2010 The Aura's Euro twin, the Opel Vectra, gets more TDI options in '09, which will transfer to the model coming here.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/diesel/4237945

The Sulfur Solution

"If you told me 10 years ago that I'd be putting `clean' and `diesel' in the same sentence, I'd have said you were out of your mind," says Margo Oge, director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at the Environmental Protection Agency. However, in response to EPA mandates that went into effect in late 2006, oil refineries are now producing what's called ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD). By definition, this "clean diesel" has sulfur concentrations of no more than 15 parts per million (ppm). That's 98.5 percent cleaner than the sludge that coursed through the fuel delivery systems in those disco-era rides, and 97 percent less sulfur than was allowed under a 500-ppm stand ard instituted in 1993. The cut in sulfur means that less sulfur dioxide goes into the atmosphere, where it can combine with water to produce sulfuric acid--and thus, acid rain. There are further beneficial effects of the sulfur-light fuel, ones that could make the advent of clean diesel as environmentally momentous as the introduction of unleaded gasoline in 1974.


"Sulfur clogs emission-control devices in diesel-powered cars the same way lead impeded catalytic converters in gasoline systems," Oge says. "Removing the lead from gasoline enabled engineers to develop a new generation of emission-control technologies that helped reduce noxious exhaust emissions by 98 to 99 percent." Carmakers have already started building exhaust-scrubbing systems for engines that burn ULSD--so that not just sulfur but a rogue's gallery of other pollutants are kept out of the air. Though they differ in design, the systems share some basic components. In a Mercedes-Benz BlueTec system, for example, exhaust from the engine is first filtered through a device that lowers carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon levels. Then it runs through an apparatus that removes soot and other particulates. Finally, the remaining exhaust gas is sprayed with a urea-based substance that helps convert harmful nitrogen oxides--NOx is the shorthand for this group of compounds--into harmless nitrogen gas and water vapor. According to Mercedes-Benz, the system reduces the total output of harmful emissions by 80 to 90 percent. The process even eliminates diesel's bad odor.

What's the Difference Between Diesel and Gasoline Engines?

Both are internal combustion engines designed to convert the chemical energy in fuel into mechanical energy. However, diesel and gasoline engines differ in the way combustion is accomplished. A gas engine takes in a mixture of gasoline and air, compresses it and ignites the mixture with a spark plug. A diesel engine takes in air, compresses it--raising the temperature past 800 F--and then injects fuel into the cylinder. When the fuel contacts the hot air, it ignites. This process is possible because diesel engines produce much greater compression ratios and diesel fuel is more stable than gasoline. Typically, a gasoline engine compresses at a ratio no higher than 12:1 to avoid preignition, which can damage vital components. A diesel engine com­presses at ratios of 14:1 to as high as 25:1.

How They Work: Emission Reduction Systems

Exhaust leaves the engine and passes through a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), which minimizes carbon monoxide and hydro carbons. It then passes through a self-cleaning particulate filter that traps and stores soot. A urea-based solution, commercially known as AdBlue, is then sprayed into the exhaust flow. Heat from the exhaust transforms the urea into ammonia, which reacts with nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the SCR, where the mix is converted into harmless nitrogen gas and water vapor. Exhaust from the engine flows through a combination DOC (diminishing the amount of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons) and a self-cleaning particulate filter, which removes soot. From there, it enters a new type of catalytic converter that absorbs a portion of the NOx from the exhaust gas and converts it into ammonia without the need for an organic catalyst like AdBlue. The system recombines that ammonia with the remaining NOx, converting it into harmless nitrogen and water vapor, just like the SCR system.

The 250,000-Mile Engine

ULSD fuel and the new exhaust systems receive most of diesel's accolades, but they aren't the only advances to set today's diesels apart from their predecessors. Advanced electronic engine control modules regulate functions, from fuel injection to timing, more precisely than old mechanical control systems, further minimizing emissions and maximizing fuel economy. Turbochargers pump more air into the engines, helping to overcome diesel's former sluggishness at higher rpm. And improved engine isolation strategies, such as the incorporation of active mounts, has quieted the knocking noises typically associated with diesel-powered vehicles.


Meanwhile, diesel's core virtues remain unchanged. The fuel contains more energy per unit volume than gasoline, and diesel engines operate at higher compression ratios than gasoline engines--typically 14:1 to 25:1, compared to 8:1 to 12:1. (The compression ratio is the relationship between the volume of the cylinder when the piston is at the bottom of its stroke and the volume when it's at the top.) The higher the compression ratio, the more mechanical energy an engine can squeeze from its fuel/air mixture. So each time the mixture in a diesel engine's cylinder ignites, the car gets a slightly bigger push than it would in a gasoline engine. That means it takes less fuel to move the car down the road. It also means that the engine generates a lot of power even when it isn't cycling fast--and that's the source of the beefy low-end torque these vehicles are famous for.


The high compression ratios also explain why diesel engines tend to last so long. "Diesel engines need to be built stronger," explains Tony Molla, author of Chilton's Diesel Engine Service Manual. "The crankshaft and connecting rods are quite a bit heavier than those in gasoline engines." And because diesel has a low coefficient of friction, it also happens to be a good lubricant that provides protection to the cylinder walls. The result? It's not unusual to see diesel engines still chugging along at 250,000 miles.

The European Model

Fans of diesel technology often look longingly at Europe to see how their favorite automotive fuel is faring in a friendlier environment--namely, one where gasoline costs $7 per gallon. Many European countries provide tax breaks on diesel that make it consistently cheaper than gas. More than half of the vehicles sold on the continent are diesel powered, and the technology's proponents like to point out that Europe's average fuel consumption is 36 mpg, compared to just 22 mpg in the United States. (To be fair, that fuel economy number is partly due to the fact that Europeans drive smaller cars, regardless of their powertrains.) Could diesel gain a similar level of acceptance here? Perhaps. A recent study by J.D. Power and Associates found that in 2007, 23 percent of U.S. car buyers were considering a clean diesel for their next purchase, up from 12 percent the year before.

Ultra-low-sulfur fuel is the key to clean diesel. Shell fuel scientist Nigel Dickens displays the fruits of the lab. (Photograph by Getty Images)

In the short term, those numbers won't be reflected in new-car purchases, simply because there aren't many choices for American consumers. Only one clean-diesel sedan is on sale in the United States today, the Mercedes-Benz E320 BlueTec--and it costs around $50,000. Drivers may also be discouraged by the fact that only about 45 percent of the nation's 170,000 filling stations carry diesel fuel. On the other hand, the 75,600 stations that do carry it are spread conveniently along the nation's highways. "Yes, you might have to change filling stations, but most people won't even notice," says Tom Fulks, the West Coast representative for the Diesel Technology Forum, a trade group composed of automakers, parts suppliers and petrochemical companies.


Further down the line, diesel could lose some of its allure if the price jumps. Diesel and gasoline prices have been neck and neck in recent years, normally staying within about 20 cents of each other. However, "Diesel use has been growing for several years, and there's no guarantee it couldn't become more expensive than gasoline," says Jeff Hazle, technical director of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. Federal renewable-fuel policy is one factor that seems destined to push diesel prices higher. If so, it will be an unintended consequence of legislation that aims to raise production of ethanol from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007 to 7.5 billion in 2012. That's because the machinery required to grow and harvest the corn that's made into ethanol runs on ... you guessed it, diesel. "I wouldn't go so far as to predict shortages," Hazle says. "But I can't say it's going to be a cheap fuel."

Hybrid Versus Diesel: Which Powertrain Produces the Fewest Greenhouse Gases?

To see how hybrids compare to their diesel-powered cousins, we pit Europe's version of the Toyota Prius against the efficient Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion 1, currently only available overseas, in a war of numbers. The Polo is lighter (it weighs almost 500 pounds less) and somewhat smaller, so we expected it to be more fuel efficient. However, we didn't think it would go 38 percent farther on a gallon of fuel or emit 5 percent fewer greenhouse gases per mile. (We didn't look at particulates or NOx emissions.) While hybrids might be the green champions, clean diesels can be just as friendly to the environment--possibly even friendlier.

Base Price: $20,950 Engine: 1.5-liter, four-cylinder gas/electric hybrid MPG: 54 CO2 Emissions: 0.369 lb./mile Weight: 2866 lb.

Base Price: $23,315 Engine: 1.4-liter, three-cylinder turbodiesel MPG: 74.3 CO2 Emissions: 0.351 lb./mile Weight: 2390 lb.

The 1.5 Million Barrel Wild Card

For now, at least, diesel vehicles are an intriguing option if only because they promise a viable alternative to hybrid vehicles--and drivers like to have choices. Especially choices that offer the bold, torque-heavy performance of some diesels. Nearly all the major carmakers say they'll deliver clean-diesel models to the U.S. market within two years. German carmakers may have a head start. Audi, BMW and Volkswagen all plan to offer multiple models within two years. Honda is preparing a diesel Accord to be sold first in the U.K., and all three major American car companies plan to introduce diesel cars by 2010. But they won't be cheap. The manufacturers will begin by introducing the technology in V6 and V8 engines, rather than in four-cylinder versions. And while little pricing information is available, Volkswagen says its clean-diesel Jetta will carry a premium of about $2000 over its gas-powered sibling.


Sadly, the real fuel misers of the diesel world--inexpensive three- and four-cylinder wonders like the Volkswagen Polo on our cover, which gets 74.3 mpg--probably aren't coming to the U.S. anytime soon. Right now, even the best of these European diesels don't meet the emissions standards in the five states that follow California clean-air regulations. So far, manufacturers have been mum about whether they will modify these vehicles to take advantage of ULSD-ready emissions controls.


But diesel has outsize potential even without these models. According to the EPA, if 33 percent of U.S. drivers switched to diesel vehicles, the country would reduce its oil consumption by about 1.5 million barrels a day, cutting oil imports by more than 10 percent. The agency's Oge, for one, is optimistic that the technology will leave behind its dirty old image and win a whole new generation of fans. "This is going to be remembered as the decade when we transformed diesel."

Turning to diesel power in the late '70s and early '80s was easy. This 1977 VW Rabbit engine could travel over 50 miles on a gallon of fuel. But it was loud, didn't offer much performance and belched smoke.

Today's clean diesels, such as this engine from a Euro-spec 2007 VW Polo, can offer better fuel economy (74.3 mpg) and produce fewer greenhouse gases than some gas/electric hybrids.

Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/diesel/4237945