Comments on: Home for Christmas (or: diesel vs gas) http://syzygysailing.com/archives/105 Island hopping in the South Pacific Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:58:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: mattholmes http://syzygysailing.com/archives/105/comment-page-1#comment-1614 mattholmes Wed, 27 May 2009 06:30:21 +0000 http://syzygysailing.com/?p=105#comment-1614 whoa there, it appears that you can support anything if you scour the internet long enough. The europeans are meeting higher emissions standards than we are, and doing it with diesels, if you want to sift through the details: http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/#eu. Also, this "money you put into servicing": do you personally own a diesel? Because I have personal knowledge of what it costs to service an old diesel versus buying a new gasoline vehicle, and from personal experience I can assure you that it's better to fix your old than buy a new. Also, I have personally changed my own oil on both gasolines and diesels, and you select the oil for the application and you change it at the same intervals. I don't just have facts, I have direct experience with both types of engine--you can consider me a primary source if you like. I grew up on a farm and was exposed to a dozen diesel engines and a half-dozen gasoline engines. I grew up in a family where we counted our mileage and the gallons of fuel/gas to check gas mileage, and where we did all our own work on the vehicles. Our diesels outlast the gasolines and have cost significantly less, both to maintain and in lifetime cost. Sounds like you've been overly affected by the pressures of our consumer economy. True, diesel engines aren't all roses--in ways they're definitely dirtier--but the marvels of modern technology have brought cleaner diesels, and new regulations will further ensure even cleaner diesels as the US is forced to adopt new nitrogen capture exhaust technology. And next time, if you want me to accept your comment, put your real name and take ownership of your comments, and not some phony link. whoa there, it appears that you can support anything if you scour the internet long enough. The europeans are meeting higher emissions standards than we are, and doing it with diesels, if you want to sift through the details: http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/#eu.

Also, this “money you put into servicing”: do you personally own a diesel? Because I have personal knowledge of what it costs to service an old diesel versus buying a new gasoline vehicle, and from personal experience I can assure you that it’s better to fix your old than buy a new. Also, I have personally changed my own oil on both gasolines and diesels, and you select the oil for the application and you change it at the same intervals.

I don’t just have facts, I have direct experience with both types of engine–you can consider me a primary source if you like. I grew up on a farm and was exposed to a dozen diesel engines and a half-dozen gasoline engines. I grew up in a family where we counted our mileage and the gallons of fuel/gas to check gas mileage, and where we did all our own work on the vehicles. Our diesels outlast the gasolines and have cost significantly less, both to maintain and in lifetime cost. Sounds like you’ve been overly affected by the pressures of our consumer economy. True, diesel engines aren’t all roses–in ways they’re definitely dirtier–but the marvels of modern technology have brought cleaner diesels, and new regulations will further ensure even cleaner diesels as the US is forced to adopt new nitrogen capture exhaust technology.

And next time, if you want me to accept your comment, put your real name and take ownership of your comments, and not some phony link.

]]> By: Borg http://syzygysailing.com/archives/105/comment-page-1#comment-1606 Borg Sat, 23 May 2009 20:14:28 +0000 http://syzygysailing.com/?p=105#comment-1606 Most of these "facts" are not facts. Diesel engines are much worse than gasoline for environment. Instead of reading few VW sponsored magazines read scientific FACTS: http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/04-12/diesel-vs-gasoline-article.htm Also at the same compression ratio gasoline is MORE efficient than diesel, and to get 1l of diesel you need 25% more oil. Diesels also need to have motor oil changed more frequently, and are nightmare for service. It may last 2x as gasoline but money you put in servicing costs more than 3 new gasoline engines in same period of time :) Most of these “facts” are not facts. Diesel engines are much worse than gasoline for environment. Instead of reading few VW sponsored magazines read scientific FACTS: http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/04-12/diesel-vs-gasoline-article.htm
Also at the same compression ratio gasoline is MORE efficient than diesel, and to get 1l of diesel you need 25% more oil. Diesels also need to have motor oil changed more frequently, and are nightmare for service. It may last 2x as gasoline but money you put in servicing costs more than 3 new gasoline engines in same period of time :)

]]> By: mattholmes http://syzygysailing.com/archives/105/comment-page-1#comment-1055 mattholmes Fri, 26 Dec 2008 03:43:17 +0000 http://syzygysailing.com/?p=105#comment-1055 The research I have done suggests that biodiesel is better than petrodiesel in some ways, worse in others. The energy content is 9% less than petrodiesel, so you need to burn more of it, the NOx emissions are worse, and the sulfur emissions are better. The carbon emissions are identical (at the exhaust). People make claims about how biodiesel greatly reduces carbon emissions, but the claims are all based on the production side of things, not the actual amount that comes out of the exhaust pipe (which is actually greater, since you have to burn 9% more of it to go the same distance as on petrodiesel) http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf. So it is unclear how it comes out, in the balance, on the burning side of things. It happens to be better for the engine (better lubrication). On the production side of things, we can make it here at home out of soybeans (which is currently the most efficient crop for biodiesel production in the US). Unfortunately, the debate is almost a moot point, because the data I've seen suggests that even if we converted all of the arable land in the US to growing soy for biodiesel production, we would still only come up with a tiny fraction of what we need. My dad grows soy and sells it as part of a farmer's brokerage consortium, and he said that they came close to getting into it when fuel hit $3/gallon, but it is not profitable below that. So it is exciting, but not yet a practical answer. There are promising possibilities in the works, including the use of algae (which might even eat waste as food) to increase yield by 30 times the current efficiency we get from soybeans. Like you said though, as far as the environment is concerned we really need to be looking into repowering without fossil fuels entirely, because both petro and biodiesel pump nearly the same amount of carbon dioxide into the environment either way. The research I have done suggests that biodiesel is better than petrodiesel in some ways, worse in others. The energy content is 9% less than petrodiesel, so you need to burn more of it, the NOx emissions are worse, and the sulfur emissions are better. The carbon emissions are identical (at the exhaust). People make claims about how biodiesel greatly reduces carbon emissions, but the claims are all based on the production side of things, not the actual amount that comes out of the exhaust pipe (which is actually greater, since you have to burn 9% more of it to go the same distance as on petrodiesel) http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf. So it is unclear how it comes out, in the balance, on the burning side of things. It happens to be better for the engine (better lubrication). On the production side of things, we can make it here at home out of soybeans (which is currently the most efficient crop for biodiesel production in the US). Unfortunately, the debate is almost a moot point, because the data I’ve seen suggests that even if we converted all of the arable land in the US to growing soy for biodiesel production, we would still only come up with a tiny fraction of what we need. My dad grows soy and sells it as part of a farmer’s brokerage consortium, and he said that they came close to getting into it when fuel hit $3/gallon, but it is not profitable below that. So it is exciting, but not yet a practical answer. There are promising possibilities in the works, including the use of algae (which might even eat waste as food) to increase yield by 30 times the current efficiency we get from soybeans. Like you said though, as far as the environment is concerned we really need to be looking into repowering without fossil fuels entirely, because both petro and biodiesel pump nearly the same amount of carbon dioxide into the environment either way.

]]> By: Laureen http://syzygysailing.com/archives/105/comment-page-1#comment-1048 Laureen Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:56:01 +0000 http://syzygysailing.com/?p=105#comment-1048 Great post! Thanks for breaking it down like that. Freak that I am, though, and cutting-edge guys that you are, I'm wondering if you've though about biodiesel (what does Dad think about that?) and if you've thought about taking The Big Leap (tm) and moving to electric? With the new numbers out for Peak Oil (Monbiot has a great tirade going about it), I wonder how much longer the debate about *which* kind of fossil fuel can be sustained, before it becomes a debate about how to repower entirely... Great post! Thanks for breaking it down like that. Freak that I am, though, and cutting-edge guys that you are, I’m wondering if you’ve though about biodiesel (what does Dad think about that?) and if you’ve thought about taking The Big Leap ™ and moving to electric? With the new numbers out for Peak Oil (Monbiot has a great tirade going about it), I wonder how much longer the debate about *which* kind of fossil fuel can be sustained, before it becomes a debate about how to repower entirely…

]]>