Diesel not the long-term solution

GTDI4

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Location
Howard Co. Maryland,U.S.A
TDI
Golf, 2002, Black
Jeremy Cato, 06/10/08 at 11:35 AM EDT:eek:
MUNICH, Germany – Last week in Kingston, Ontario, diesel fuel for cars was selling for 13 cents more per litre than regular gasoline. That's according to MJ Ervin & Associates which tracks these things (http://www.mjervin.com/).
In the United States it's a similar story. Ten days ago, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said the average U.S. gasoline price was $3.72 per gallon. For diesel it was $3.96, but in reality, the price disparity varies widely in different parts of the U.S., as it does in Canada where the average price last week was $1.27 a litre.
So diesel fuel in Canada and the U.S. is more expensive than gasoline and that poses a problem for anyone interested in vehicles with better fuel economy. Diesels, advanced, cleaner diesels, offer a short- to medium-term solution here, but if the fuel is too expensive, buyers will be less likely to pay the premium for a diesel-powered vehicle.
Diesels are everywhere in Europe, commanding about 50 per cent of the new car market. They are everywhere because European governments collectively have manipulated fuel taxes to encourage people to buy them.
Why? Diesel engines deliver 20 to 40 per cent better fuel economy than comparable gasoline engines. Less fuel consumption translates into sharply lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduced oil consumption.
On the other hand, diesels – particularly cleaner diesel engines -- cost manufacturers thousands of dollars more to build, and ever-toughening emissions regulations will make them more expensive still in the coming years. The pump price penalty of driving a diesel is exacerbated by environmental regulations aimed at cleaning up dirty diesels.
No one with any sense opposes cleaner diesels; unregulated, they spew out all sorts of horrible things, including particulates that clog up lungs and oxides of nitrogen that cause lung disease. Auto makers know how to clean up diesel emissions to meet tougher standards, but they don't know how to clean them up inexpensively.
Nonetheless, various auto makers – mostly the German ones -- will introduce more than a dozen models with advanced diesels in the coming year. Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen already sell light-duty diesels that meet the same clean-air standards as gasoline engines, and BMW (headquartered here in Munich), Audi (just up the road in Ingolstadt), Honda and Nissan all have plans to launch new diesels in the coming months and years.
Diesel engines are not the endgame when it comes to better fuel economy, lower emissions and less reliance on fossil fuels. But they are a step in that direction. Governments in Canada and the U.S. could help here by adjusting fuel taxes in the same way Europe's governments have done.
What's wrong with making cleaner diesel fuel for cleaner diesel engines less expensive than gasoline? Such a move by governments would help push buyers into vehicles that use less fuel and that can't be a bad thing, can it?
We've got an election going on in Canada now. What do the candidates have to say about this?
 

MrPolak

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2003
Location
Atlanta, GA
TDI
2001 New Beetle TDI
I'd say decrease the diesel fuel tax and shift to higher license tag taxes on big rigs to pay for the road damage they do. Then increase tax on gasoline to pay for my next TDI purchase. Yeah, I'm all for that.
 

Powder Hound

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 25, 1999
Location
Under a Bridge, Crestview, FL, USA
TDI
'00 Golf 4dr White 5sp, '02 Jettachero 5sp, Wife's '03 NB Platinum Gray auto(!)
MrPolak said:
I'd say decrease the diesel fuel tax and shift to higher license tag taxes on big rigs to pay for the road damage they do. ...
Yeah, except you'd really want a high fuel tax that pays for road damage in proportion to the actual amount of damage, rather than a license tax that hits all of them regardless of miles driven. And as they do a diesel pumps in Arizona, you could have pumps for commercial trucks (or heavy motorhomes) and separate pumps for us lightweights.

But whichever, since the damage caused by one maxed out class 8 truck causes as much damage as 10,000 cars (yes, that's a valid number, folks - at least Reader's Digest said so) the next thing out of your mouth would be screams of how expensive all things in stores are due to skyrocketing freight rates.

You can't have your cake and eat it too as the saying goes. But keep trying everyone, the vain machinations are a mild amusement to watch.
 

ruking

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Location
San Jose area, CA
TDI
2003 VW Jetta, 5 M, Reflex Silver: 09 Jetta, 6 Sp DSG, Candy White: 12 VW Touareg, 8 Sp A/T, Flint Gray
I think to put things in context will put some operative realities to the fore.

First, the passenger diesel population has gone from almost 3% to 2%. This is an almost 33% DECLINE. (254.1 M US registered vehicles) So the math indicates app 5.082 M (5,082,000) diesel vehicles.

Second, most (majority) of the passenger diesel fleet are so called "light trucks" 250/350 series. 75% of 5.082 M= 3.8115 M: LEAVING 1.2705 M so called passenger diesels.

Third, yearly MY sales (mostly gassers by definition) are estimated @ 14 M, down (15%) from 16.1- 16.5 M.

Fourth, passenger diesel sales percentage wise are almost not measurable (not light trucks). Who really knows what they are in comparison to 14 M, MY sales ?

(So if you look at the passenger diesel population 1.2705 M/254.1M= .005 (one half of 1 percent)

So given almost not measurable passenger diesel percentage MY sales, how long do you think it will take to expand the passenger diesel population to whatever percentage one cares to mention/target/ have as a goal? Keep in mind it took app 30 years to get to 1.2705 M passenger diesel vehicles.
 
Last edited:

CentralFloridaTDIguy

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Location
Orlando
TDI
none yet
When shift is onto non-petroleum/electric vehicles...

MrPolak said:
I'd say decrease the diesel fuel tax and shift to higher license tag taxes on big rigs to pay for the road damage they do. Then increase tax on gasoline to pay for my next TDI purchase. Yeah, I'm all for that.
they are going to have to find another way to tax vehicles to pay for road upkeep.... can you say Big Brother with GPS tracking and paying tax by the mile driven? and I bet that they could issue speeding tickets that way also.....:(
 

domboy

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Location
Wilmington NC
TDI
2003 Golf GLS TDI 5spd
Powder Hound said:
But whichever, since the damage caused by one maxed out class 8 truck causes as much damage as 10,000 cars (yes, that's a valid number, folks - at least Reader's Digest said so) the next thing out of your mouth would be screams of how expensive all things in stores are due to skyrocketing freight rates.
Less big-rigs, more trains, I say.

As for the whole "Diesel not the long-term solution"... how does anyone come to this conclusion with any certainty, I'd like to know? My eight-ball is just as accurate as the next guy's. And what exactly is the long term solution?? Is gasoline?? Diesel? Electric? Hydrogen? Water? Air? Nuclear? Garbage? Genetically enhanced hamsters running around in giant wheels?? I'd say diesel has just as good a shot as the next technology. Besides, from everything I've read and observed over the last few years, I don't think there is one single long term solution.
 
Last edited:

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
CentralFloridaTDIguy said:
they are going to have to find another way to tax vehicles to pay for road upkeep.... can you say Big Brother with GPS tracking and paying tax by the mile driven? and I bet that they could issue speeding tickets that way also.....:(
And then I can use my electrical engineering skills to build a GPS jammer to keep the G-men off my back . . .
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
Powder Hound said:
But whichever, since the damage caused by one maxed out class 8 truck causes as much damage as 10,000 cars (yes, that's a valid number, folks - at least Reader's Digest said so) . . .
Reader's Digest may be the best-selling consumer magazine in the USA, but they still are 100% fluff pieces. I would cast a skeptical eye on the fact checking done by the writers of any piece that shows up in that rag.
 

bluengreen

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Location
Hauppauge NY
TDI
2012 Passat, 2009 Jetta, had 1985
CentralFloridaTDIguy said:
they are going to have to find another way to tax vehicles to pay for road upkeep.... can you say Big Brother with GPS tracking and paying tax by the mile driven? and I bet that they could issue speeding tickets that way also.....:(
That is essentially how it IS in Europe.Truck and Bus rules are strictly enforced and they all have a "black box" whose data disk can be checked at any time by the Police and followed by fine, arrest or seizure of a vehicle if warranted. In France trucks halt Sat @ midnight and can only move Monday @12:01am.
Since vehicle weight kills the roadbed, let the big rigs pay proportionately to their size. Fairer than that you can't get.
 

jvance

Veteran Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Location
Private
TDI
Gave it back to VW
MrMopar said:
Reader's Digest may be the best-selling consumer magazine in the USA, but they still are 100% fluff pieces. I would cast a skeptical eye on the fact checking done by the writers of any piece that shows up in that rag.
The figure I've heard from civil engineers is the damage is proportional to the 4th power of the axle weight. Here's one source:

http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JFE/bin/get6.cgi?directory=July99/&filename=martin.html

So Reader's Digest is wrong - its figure is way too low. Turns out trucking is heavily subsidized by the Government. Road taxes and fees only cover about half the cost of our road network. The rest comes from general taxes. We all pay to repair the road damage caused by heavy trucks, which makes rail less competitive for freight.
 

Pyrokinesis

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Location
Alameda, C.A. (The Rock :P )
TDI
2000 Jetta
GTDI4 said:
Jeremy Cato, 06/10/08 at 11:35 AM EDT:eek:
Ten days ago, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said the average U.S. gasoline price was $3.72 per gallon. For diesel it was $3.96, but in reality, the price disparity varies widely in different parts of the U.S., as it does in Canada where the average price last week was $1.27 a litre.
Odd...

Diesel is now selling at roughly 3 cents cheaper then 87 octane unleaded in the bay area C.A. as of 10/09/2008. Who knew it would drop below fuel prices in just four months. :rolleyes:

And Domboy, you hit the nail on the head. Trains would decrease emissions and fuel consumption. They can also help reduce wear and tear on the already battered California roads. The trucking union is just too powerful ATM.
 
Last edited:

bluengreen

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Location
Hauppauge NY
TDI
2012 Passat, 2009 Jetta, had 1985
Pyrokinesis said:
Odd...

Diesel is now selling at roughly 3 cents cheaper then 87 octane unleaded in the bay area C.A. as of 10/09/2008. Who knew it would drop below fuel prices in just four months. :rolleyes:

And Domboy, you hit the nail on the head. Trains would decrease emissions and fuel consumptions and at the same time reduce wear and tear on the already battered California roads. The trucking union is just too powerful ATM.
I agree about rail, but I wouldn't put it all on the truckers. Intermodal Freight (I'm an infrastructure guy when I'm not trying to coax my car out of VW) is fightin' words in a lot of places and NIMBYrules definitely apply. Internal and internecine politics seem to array against this even from rail lines themselves, who will talk the talk but won't walk the walk when the NIMBY's cry foul.
No one solution is THE solution but the tech to do anything is only half the battle, most new tech demands support infrastructure to succeed and it faces the same hurdles as a road or utility project. On this one call me: "Been There"
 

Dooglas

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Location
Portland, OR
TDI
'06 Jetta
domboy said:
Less big-rigs, more trains, I say.
+1. Yes, the era of long distance trucking is coming to an end due to the costs of fuel and highway maintenance. Let's get on with rebuilding our rail system. (and lets move toward a mixed diesel/electric and electric rail system as Europe and Russia have already done)
 

VWGMDIESELFAN

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Location
Portland OR
TDI
(totaled 4/30/2014) 2002 JETTA GLS TDI
"Diesel is now selling at roughly 3 cents cheaper then 87 octane unleaded in the bay area C.A. as of 10/09/2008. Who knew it would drop below fuel prices in just four months. :rolleyes:"

Word! I will be in San Joser Ca(my home town). on Hollween for my brothers wedding that weekend. I am taking the jetta. Nice to know D2 is cheaper than RUG.
 

g-wagen

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Location
Ontario
TDI
2014 Touareg Execline
diesel in kingston ontario as mentioned in the original post right now is 1.209 per liter and gas is 1.016 almost a 20 cent difference. Back to the gasoline engine before the bloody winter heating oil demands push diesel any higher.

:mad:
 

Scott_DeWitt

Vendor
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Location
Texas USA
TDI
2000 Audi A4 1.9TDI quattro
JonsBlkTDI said:
Trains move one ton of freight 436 miles on ONE gallon of diesel. better then a truck that averages 4 or 5 mpg
That number is a bit misleading, but it's true that Train freight is far more efficient than truck freight.
 

so2315

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
Chicago, Ill.
TDI
2009 Jetta Sedan
Gas just dropped to $2.68 a gallon here, while diesel is still hovering at $3.79. $1.11 a gallon difference. I wish VWoA would have got these TDI's out before gas dropped. Maybe that will free up some of the demand as others will get the gas models now. . . . .
 

coolbreeze

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Location
Troutman NC
TDI
2015 Golf TDI SE DSG - 2016 Tig SE for the wifey
south east

so2315 said:
Gas just dropped to $2.68 a gallon here, while diesel is still hovering at $3.79. $1.11 a gallon difference. I wish VWoA would have got these TDI's out before gas dropped. Maybe that will free up some of the demand as others will get the gas models now. . . . .
my local station has d2 cheaper by 10 cents over rug. 3.65 vs 3.75 reg.
 

TPAcdi

Active member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Location
Tampa, FL
TDI
E320 CDI
Fed tax higher on diesel

Unfortunately, most Americans don't know, and the media don't report, the per gallon federal tax is higher on diesel than gasoline.
 

The_Warden

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Location
Pacifica (SF Bay Area), CA
TDI
2015 Passat SE TDI 6 speed (fixed), 2001 Jetta GLS TDI 5 speed
wxman said:
According to...

http://www.aar.org/Pressroom/PressReleases/2008/05/RailroadFuelRecord.aspx

...it takes 27 gallons of diesel fuel to move one ton of freight one mile by truck while it takes 7 gallon of fuel to move one ton of freight one mile by train, i.e., about 1/4 as much (see graphic on bottom of referenced page).
Actually, if I'm understanding the graphic correctly, it takes 27 gallons of diesel fuel to move one ton of freight 3,000 miles, compared to 7 gallons for the train. :)

I wonder how many gallons of fuel is used to move one ton of freight by sea from coast to coast (through the Panama Canal)?

Can't argue that rail transportation's more efficient than road transportation, but that would make for quite a few jobs lost... :(
 

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
In 2007, major freight railroads in the United States moved a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on each gallon of fuel.
That equals 2.29 gallons per 1000 miles per ton. The 7/27 gallon figure is for the whole coast-to-coast haul of 3000 miles.
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
The_Warden said:
Can't argue that rail transportation's more efficient than road transportation, but that would make for quite a few jobs lost... :(
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the largely unseen truckers of our country. When we pick up a pair of jeans, a banana or a set of AA batteries, those goods got there because somebody sat behind the wheel of a truck and brought it to us.

Having said that...

We do need to get off of petroleum. I do believe that means we should be building high speed electric rail and national electric line "corridors". Our future is wind from the midwest (From Texas to the Dakotas) and solar from the desert southwest. There will still be liquid fuels, but those liquid fuels will end up being more expensive in the long run. We should use long haul rail transport when we can.

Think about the interstate highway system.

How great would it be to have high speed rail linking our major cities and making the flow of goods inexpensive, reliable and not dependent on imported oil.
 
Last edited:

ruking

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Location
San Jose area, CA
TDI
2003 VW Jetta, 5 M, Reflex Silver: 09 Jetta, 6 Sp DSG, Candy White: 12 VW Touareg, 8 Sp A/T, Flint Gray
ikendu said:
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the largely unseen truckers of our country. When we pick up a pair of jeans, a banana or a set of AA batteries, those goods got there because somebody sat behind the wheel of a truck and brought it to us.

Having said that...

We do need to get off of petroleum. I do believe that means we should be building high speed electric rail and national electric line "corridors". Our future is wind from the midwest (From Texas to the Dakotas) and solar from the desert southwest. There will still be liquid fuels, but those liquid fuels will end up being more expensive in the long run. We should use long haul rail transport when we can.

Think about the interstate highway system.

How great would it be to have high speed rail linking our major cities and making the flow of goods inexpensive, reliable and not dependent on imported oil.
I scratch my head on this one for (sans the actual fuel for the engine), we already have long haul rail transportation. It has been in arrested decay despite federal/state/local subsidies (aka, welfare) for literally 5 decades and more. Not much is more cost effective for coal and other farm commodity transportation. Historically it has served as the "evil example" of predatory and monopolistic capitalism.
 
Last edited:

Mark_J

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Location
Deer Park, Washington
TDI
2015 TDI Passat SEL Premium, 2017 Fiat Spider, 2017 Ford F350 6.7 Diesel crew cab PU, 2016 Harley Trike, 2016 Tesla Model X P90D (I know went to the dark side)
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Diesel here has not fallen to the same price as regular, but I expect it to rise as the demand for stove oil climbs this winter as it always does in the winter. But I will continue to drive diesels because of their economy and especially now that they are cleaner. Yes you can buy a gasser that comes close to the Jetta on MPG, but most of those cars are very light, small, not very comfortable, and you cannot tow like I can with my Jetta. And my two 2005.5 Jettas every about every option you can think of and it is pretty darn comfortable. But if you take the average MPG of gassers, excluding pickups, the mileage is not that great. So even though I usually pay the same or more for my diesel than regular gas, in the long run I am still ahead money out of pocket because of the MPG we get with our Jettas.[/FONT]
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
The_Warden said:
Actually, if I'm understanding the graphic correctly, it takes 27 gallons of diesel fuel to move one ton of freight 3,000 miles, compared to 7 gallons for the train. :)
...
That equals 2.29 gallons per 1000 miles per ton. The 7/27 gallon figure is for the whole coast-to-coast haul of 3000 miles.
Right. Moving one ton of freight one mile on 27 gallons of fuel (or even 7 for that matter) wouldn't be very efficient, would it? :eek:

The_Warden said:
...I wonder how many gallons of fuel is used to move one ton of freight by sea from coast to coast (through the Panama Canal)?...
Don't know, but there appears to be a push to move more freight to coastal and inland waterways - http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot14908.htm
 
Top