Well don't forget you are using biofuel right now. All diesel has it in. It's one of the reasons our diesels go so well these days and have become so clean. The government are going to increase the amount of biofuel in our diesel quite soon, as they are with petrol too (within 5yrs). What Skoda means is to not use pure biofuel at the moment. Our engines are not yet certified for it's use and there isn't a proper standard for cetane ratings for bio-diesel at the moment. But it will have to comply with roughly what we have now. In other words, pure biofuels haven't been tested in VAG diesel engines yet. When pure biofuel arrives at every fuel station (it's only available in very limited areas, mostly in the home counties at the moment - hence the warning in the fuel cap), our engines will be able to run it with some small adjustments to mapping to take advantage of the benefits of bio-diesel.

He was telling the class that the VW/Audi group were hedging their bets in diesel engines being the forefront of automative transport for the next generation of vehicular traffic. this is despite hybrid and electric technology being persued by many!

I think this statement is incorrect. VAG seem to have invested at least as much if not more in petrol TSI technology. They are also now offering stop/start and energy recuperation on Greenline/ECO variants.

They have plenty of r & d in other areas including hybrid / electric / fuel cell.

I think they know what they are doing.

If you are saying my statement is incorrect, then I am mearly repeating what the highly acccredited injection expert was stating. IF, however, you are saying HE was incorrect in stating it, that is a different fuelcell!

That IS the whole point in the thread, to see if others agree or have differing opinions. But what IS clear is the fact that diesel fuel HAS become a much larger part of everyday driving.

When diesel was first introduced to the mass market for car usage, it was under half the price of petrol, making it very attractive to the use. It then had huge duties added (IN the UK at least) Making it more expensive than petrol and as it was widely thought of as a dirty, with slower engines and of no financial gain to use, it lagged behind quite a bit.

Now, ahgain, it is being used to a much higher degree, getting better mileage and now at or only just over the price of unleaded petrol, often with a lower tax band for cleanliness. Although the latter is mostly because cleanliness is measured by Co2. Had it been measured by different waste products, (Say, methane) It may be totally different.

Many people still maintain Co2 is not the real problem, being just a trace gas in the overall scheme of things but, hey, you have to start somewhere and it has seemed to be the soft option!!!

My point is Bio Fuels have to be grown, so which portion of agriculture do you dump in favour of Bio Fuels? Don't get me wrong, I'm no tofu munching banana eating bean farting motherf**ker but there is only so much space on the planet, there are more and more people all of who need feeding, so where does the real estate come from for planting / growing bio fuels?

Too many people on this earth now and it's growing at an astonishing rate by the day!

If you are saying my statement is incorrect, then I am mearly repeating what the highly acccredited injection expert was stating. IF, however, you are saying HE was incorrect in stating it, that is a different fuelcell!

He is incorrect in that VAG has not backed diesel exclusively, indeed they seem to be backing petrol (Tsi) more. Look at the recent engine additions in the ranges.

On the line of electric vehicles, all I can say is transmission losses.

To tell you the truth I think that the complexity of Diesels now make them an increasingly doubtful proposition unless you do loads of motorway miles. I doubt I'll have another despite liking the strong torque and relaxing power delivery. The particulate filter is probably the biggest concern and is actually making the use of Diesels as minicabs in cities more of a problem. Certainly in Milan a few weeks ago, Dieses were giving way to the Toyota Prius in a lot of cases.

Just read an interesting "Lesson" on battery univercity.com which after going through all the Hybrid/ battery run vehicle pros and cons, concluded that, at present and for the forseable future, diesel IS the most economical and less polluting of modern vehicular travel design.

My point is Bio Fuels have to be grown, so which portion of agriculture do you dump in favour of Bio Fuels? Don't get me wrong, I'm no tofu munching banana eating bean farting motherf**ker but there is only so much space on the planet, there are more and more people all of who need feeding, so where does the real estate come from for planting / growing bio fuels?

Biodiesl plants put a floor in the commodity price of the base materials - wheat, rapeseed, palm oil etc - good or bad depending on whether you are a grower or a consumer. But a strong floor price inveriably mean a higher price.

The 2 new plants that have opened in the UK in the past year take about 1/5th of the total UK wheat production - that's a lot of loaves of bread and can only have added to the recent world wide spike in wheat commodity prices ( up from about £100 to almost £170/t in a few weeks).

My point, which perhaps I haven't made clear enough (see earlier posts), is that we do not need to take up agricultural land to produce our biofuel. That type of production is now recognised as a short term solution, certainly in the western world. Bio-mass production is the way forward, and is already proven to work in the US for diesel production, and is safe (although still being assessed in some countries including our own). This is being carried out by using that fuel in specified vehicles around the country under strict observation by various organisations. There isn't any question about the bio mass technique being viable and cheap to use, and the quality of the product is superior and cleaner than dino fuel. In the States, biofuel from microbial sources will, it is estimated, be in the pumps in 4 years. It won't be long after that we develop a thriving industry around the same technology. We need to since the government are pressing ahead with strict rules on how much biodiesel must be in every gallon we use, in addition to the amounts we already have that is. But it's good news for diesel owners...the new fuel gives better performance and better mpg, whilst reducing nox and general particulate matter even further. Engine life is not harmed at all and may even be improved. We won't know for sure until all testing has taken place on that last one. That's unlike petrol bio fuels which actually decrease mpg, increase CO2 and wear out your engine much more quickly.

ok, we are getting off topic here, but the above is only partially true - the Bio in biofuels mean biological -i.e. it is organic and grows. Microbial sources may be more efficiant but they still need a biological feed stock to feed the bugs. Biological feedstock needs acres.

I think diesel is a good bet for the next 10-20 years. Then the greens will finally win in the end with inefficient electric cars running hideously toxic batter packs. Then they'll start to moan about that and demand we all buy a donkey.

Fuel Vs food will go for a while then politics will win out and the price of biofuel will skyrocket nicely when we're all locked into using it. We'll be taxed for ethical rather than environmental reasons. eventually we'll start to grow biofuels in a way that doesn't impact on food production. Sea based oil producing algae. Reusing rigs as processing facilities maybe.

Electric is never going to remain agreeable to the greens. A 'green' battery is unlikely and they'll continue to use some form of toxic metal in their production. The Prius factory might be carbon neutral but the farkin great open cast mines the nickel and lithium come from aren't.

Sustainable biofuels are likely to be here for a long time.

Hydrogen is a good idea but it needs a lot of energy to produce it but the biggest problem of all is that it is very difficult to store. Though I have heard that there has been some development in storing hydrogen in foamed metal tanks.

Edited 21 September, 201015 yr by Aspman

My 2p here

1- The GM electric car, I think its called the Volt ?, appears to be going in the right direction with respect to hybrid ev's, I read some where that it runs off the battery, but uses the petrol engine as a generator to keep the batteries charged & only cuts in when the battery level drops below a particular level, its supposed to return around the equivalent of 35mpg. I think they shot themselves in the foot here, wouldnt a diesel engined generator have been more efficient ?

2- I really cannot get my head around the Prius, as the electric motor is in real terms only used a very small percentage of the time the car is in motion, most of the time it runs on the petrol engine chucking out its co2, so why not remove the batteries, save weight & produce the car without them, thereby getting a better fuel economy when just the engine is driving the car not having to lug the heavy batteries around. The ONLY time this car is zero emssion is when its running on batteries alone, & correct me if i have this wrong, isnt this only up to 30 mph. Has anyone tested the distance you can go at 30mph or less without activating the petrol engine ? I bet its not that far. These Hybrid cars to me in real terms are just expensive 'seen to be green' cars, just advertising hype.

I dont hate these, I just think that anyone buying them and totally believing that they are being 'green' based on the advertising are not really living in the real world.

Just My opinion.

Derv cars dont pay for themselves until you've done 50K+. Only then are you better off having the derv over it's petrol counterpart.

Given engine tech of lighter, less consuming, less CO2, but more powerful petrol engines, you can get match derv MPG in a petrol. So why pay the higher fuel rates and initial tax?

And, as has been said, you can get more petrol per barrel than you can diesel due to the viscosity of diesel.

Derv cars dont pay for themselves until you've done 50K+. Only then are you better off having the derv over it's petrol counterpart.

I know that always used to be the case, but now the difference in price between diesel and petrol at the pump is so small, I suspect that it's much less than that.

Chris

Derv cars dont pay for themselves until you've done 50K+. Only then are you better off having the derv over it's petrol counterpart.

sorry but that's rubbush. When doing this calculation everyone factors in the extra purchase cost of a diesel car - but most forget that the car will also have an additional resale value.

diesel car at 45 mpg = 22.22 gallons per 1000 mile = 100lts

petrol car at 35 mpg = 28.57 galons = 128 lts

therfore every 1000mls the diesel uses 100 ltrs at say 118p = £118

petrol uses 128lts at 115p = £147

therefore additional fuel cost for petrol car is £29 per 1000 miles

If derv car costs £1000 more but has and added resale value of £400 then addtional capital cost is £600.

lets assume for the sake of simplicity that service/insurance and other costs are the same for both cars.

But I an saving £29 per 1000 miles in fuel cost.

£600/29 = 20,689 miles to recoup cost

cost per ltr and mpg may varu but this is basis that the calculation should be done on.

Edited 22 September, 201015 yr by slider