Monday, February 7, 2011

Why Quixotic Climate has Soured on Diesels for Saving the World

As a former grease-car guy, how can I flip-flop and not favor diesels over gasoline? In short, the answer is that while diesels are more efficient in mpg compared to cheap, poorly built gasoline vehicles, the diesel advantage mostly goes away when you compensate for the fact that diesel fuel has 10.1 Kg of CO2 emissions per galllon of fuel burned while gasoline only has 8.8 Kg of CO2 (Numbers taken from EPA site).

Don't get me wrong, there are still great advantages to diesels. Diesels have lots of torque and drive great. I drove a 2011 Audi Q7 diesel and it is quite car ($65,000). However, it's carbon emissions are not anything to write home about compared to a gas powered, 7-passenger, car-based SUV like a Ford Explorer or Flex or a Honda Pilot.

What about biodiesel? Well, I do love biodiesel and the movement is awesome. It's Nopec. It's clearner burning. But it has it's drawbacks. Biodiesel is hard to find in many places. It takes a lot of energy and time inputs to create biodiesel.

If you enjoy working in your shed and diving in grease dumpsters to salvage waste vegetable oil, you can create biodiesel through transesterification with methanol and NaOH. Sure, you get lots of toxic co- and byproducts to deal with and your fuel won't work in the winter because it gels. Oh wait, that's part of the reason.

Until we have electric vehicles that can trade out batteries at stations along the highway, we'll need some liquid fuel to run our cars. How much better are diesels? How do the calculations work out? Should we all switch to diesels?

Diesels emit 12.8% more CO2 for every gallon of fuel they burn. Diesel Fuel also costs 7.7% more than gasoline. When you include those two factors and compare them to equally sophisticated gasoline engines, all of the advantages go away and the two fuels are equally bad. My caveat is that if you're burning biodiesel and supporting an organization like Piedmont Biofuels, then I'm all for it. Until there's a price on net carbon emissions, you'll have to come up with extra cash for that.

If you look at 2 Volkswagen models you get a feel for the payoff of using diesel. The Toureg and Toureg diesel have price differentials of $3600 more for the diesel and fuel usage differentials of $306 more dollars per year for the gasser. Thus, the payoff for a Toureg diesel (not accounting for resale value, which will be better in the diesel) occurs after 10.8 years. For a Jetta Sportwagen versus a Jetta Sportwagen Diesel, the price differential at the outset is $4600 and the differential per year in fuel is $168.70 more for the gasser. It would take 28 years to pay for the diesel not including the added resale value of the diesel or depreciation on the cost benefits because they come in the future. In short, it doesn't pay from a fuel perspective to get a diesel sportwagen, even though those EPA numbers in MPG again look better than they are.

It's surprising to read these figures, and the carbon emission figures are similar. The Toureg diesel only saves 61 Kg of CO2 per year. The Sportwagen diesel saves 297 Kg of fuel per year. Thus, while both are better, they don't approach the massive savings that hybrids provide by using regenerative braking and stop-start technology to save fuel.

The numbers are below:


Car MPG Miles driven Gallons Fuel Cost    Savings  CarPrice  Payoff   Time(yr) CO2 (KG/G) YearlyOutput CO2 Saved
Toureg 19 15000 789.5 2644.7
42882
8.8 6947.4
Toureg Diesel 22 15000 681.8 2338.6 306.1 46199 10.8 10.1 6886.4 61.0
Jetta Sportwagen 27 15000 555.6 1727.8
21150
8.8 4888.9
Jetta Sportwagen TDI 33 15000 454.5 1559.1 168.7 25973 28.6 10.1 4590.9 298.0

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Hybrids and Reduced Emissions of Carbon

On Quixotic Climate, we revel in Sissyphysian tasks and in taking the sucker's payoff because we like it. This blog serves as a permanent reservoir for those wasted hours I spends debunking fascist "news" posts about climate change and going into extreme detail about minutiae of carbon accounting that no one else would be stupid enough to worry about.

Quixotic Climate was shopping for a new car at a Toyota delearship in his hometown. The topic is the comparative cost savings of a Toyota Prius and a Toyota Highlander Hybrid.

Me: "I like the Prius, but what if we want to carry 7 passengers. Will you show me the Highlander Hybrid? It seems like the most fuel efficient 7-passenger vehicle on the market."

Toyota Sales Manager: "I'll show it to you, but I would highly recommend against buying it. You'll never make back the extra money you spend."

Me: "Well, actually, bigger cars burn so much more fuel that you save more from the bigger hybrids than a small one like a Prius. It's very deceptive the way EPA shows fuel economy on a window sticker, since the percentage improvement on a Highlander over a conventional Highlander is similar to the percentage improvement of a Prius over a conventional Corolla. Because a big car uses so much more fuel, the savings are actually greater on the Highlander."

Toyota Sales Manager: "Actually, that's not true. I have computer software inside that will calculate it for you."

Me: "I've done the calculations myself and I know I'm correct." [. . . and whatever happened to the customer always being right?? Even if I had been wrong, the guy should have shut up. He had already irked me when he put down competitors' cars in an obnoxious way, but now the deal was sealed. To his credit, that guy sensed how our personalities did not match and ceased working with me. I was impressed with his self awareness there.]

So, who was right? The numbers are below. Basically, if you get a comparably equipped base model of a Highlander with the 3.5 L V6 + AWD, it's $32,145. If you get the most basic Highlander Hybrid (3.5 L V6 + AWD), it costs $37,490. It takes 8.4 years to pay back the extra cost if gas is 3.00 per gallon. With a Prius, it takes 10.1 years versus a comparable Corolla.

In their favor, it is difficult to find the base Highlander, and they probably were comparing the Highlander Hybrid to the most stripped down 2wd, 2.4 L 4-cylinder Highlander, which is not a fair comparison since they don't sell the Highlander Hybrid with a 2.4 L or 2wd. That's Toyota's choice. They were also probably thinking that if an individual wants to minimize fuel use, getting the fuel-sipping Prius would be better. They're right about that. However, sometimes a 7-passenger vehicle is necessary. They have the best one on their lot and they don't understand it well enough to sell it. Toyota's Marketing department gets an F there.

It's a sad thing when the people selling the hybrids can't understand the basic calculations or importance of the vehicles they're selling. The Sales manager gave me erroneous information that would lead me to just buy the base model, emit 2.2 extra tonnes of CO2 per year, and have a cost profile that was basically break-even, paying off in 7 years. Most of that would be cleared up if they would just start listing fuel economy in the more logical way of liters used per kilometer driven (use of metric system emphasized). That change is supposed to be on the way.

In the next post, I'll talk about diesels versus hybrids in terms of money saved and CO2 emissions avoided.


Car MPG Miles driven Gallons Cost Savings($/yr) CarPrice Payoff Time CO2 (KG/G) YearlyOutput CO2 Saved
Prius 50 15000 300 900 600 21650 10.1 8.8 2640 1760
Corolla 30 15000 500 1500
15600
8.8 4400
Highlander 19 15000 789.5 2368.4
32145
8.8 6947
Highlander Hybrid 28 15000 535.7 1607.1 761.3 37490 7.0 8.8 4714 2233