What could be an important milestone in the U.S. auto industry took place in early December at the Los Angeles Auto Show. Amid the hype surrounding hybrids, plug-ins and fuel cells, a diesel car -- the Audi A3 TDI -- was named "Green Car of the Year." A week later, The Detroit News selected the same diesel as its "Car of the Year."Compared with a conventional fuel-injected gasoline engine, a modern diesel provides 30 to 40 percent improved fuel economy. The savings go up to 60 percent during towing or driving at higher speeds. In addition, diesels emit 10 to 20 percent fewer greenhouse gases.Diesel sales less than 2 percent of the U.S. vehicle market, while they account for more than half the market in Europe. This could change a little. So far in the U.S. this year, Volkswagen Jetta sales are over 35 percent diesel, the Audi Q7 is 30 percent diesel, the Mercedes-Benz M Class is more than 25 percent and the BMW X5 is 20 percent.Thus, to make the largest savings, our focus should be on the largest oil consumers. Sure we need to keep improving the small cars, but the real payback is in making the big vehicles cleaner and more efficient.Even when you consider the added cost required for filters and exhaust treatment technology to remove particulates and nitrogen oxide pollutants, the diesel is a more cost-effective package -- and offers more residual value -- than gas-electric hybrids and other technologies over the life of the vehicle.The diesels now winning honors as "cars of the year," could signal just the beginning of a real boom in diesel popularity in the United States. Given its advantages, the diesel can be -- should be -- the vehicle of choice of increasingly more American motorists.
I think that this is a serious issue, and I am really on the fence about whether or not it would work right now. I absolutely agree that diesel cars--in the long-run--are more cost-effective than gasoline-powered vehicles; a diesel engine lasts much longer, it uses less fuel, and a person can resell a diesel car for much more than a gasoline car.
However, I am unsure of whether or not the switch to diesel would be effective for a single reason: while diesel engines are more cost-effective in the long-run, they are significantly more expensive in the short-run, and diesel fuel is more expensive than traditional gasoline. Because America is in a state of recession, I am not so sure that Americans--in particular those who buy and drive trucks--will be able, let alone willing, to spend the money on a diesel engine.
I went on Ford's website and "created" two F-250's, one with a 5.4 Liter V8 gasoline engine and one with a 6.4 Liter diesel engine (the only diesel engine offered), that were identical in every aspect except for the engines. The gasoline F-250 was $25,300 while the diesel F-250 was $34,625. I am skeptical as to whether or not most Americans are able to spend $9,325 extra in the present in order to save money in the future, especially in the midst of the recession.
However, the author also raises an extremely valid point: the EPA states that "if one-third of the U.S. passenger fleet were powered by diesels, foreign oil imports could be reduced 1.4 million barrels per day." A reduction as such would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 180 million tons per year. This point makes me wonder "what if half of the passenger fleet is powered by diesels? Three-quarters?"
While it's impossible for 100% of cars in the passenger fleet to run on diesel (a millionaire isn't going to sell his collection of classic muscle cars in order to save a few bucks) I think the most potential for oil savings is in the commercial fleet. What if the government was to make a "cash for clunkers" program for businesses to use their gasoline-powered trucks and cars towards the purchase diesel-powered trucks and cars? For instance, a business can trade its gasoline-powered cars to cover the difference between the cost of a new diesel car and the cost of it's gasoline-powered version up to a certain dollar amount, and then the business will get some sort of incentive--a tax credit, a tax deduction for being environmentally conscious, a guarantee of a discount equal to x amount of money for diesel fuel for a specific period of time--for trading in their gasoline-powered vehicles.
While I'm skeptical as to whether or not Americans are currently able to make the switch to diesel at $9000 a truck at this very instant, I believe that diesel-powered vehicle sales will increase over time and, in turn, have a positive effect on America's oil imports, CO2 emissions, and/or automobile industry.
I think diesels would be good for the United States. A lot of European countries use diesel already which means its not reinventing the wheel by any means. An example would be the BMW 335d, which gets an average of 27mpg, exceeds more than 30 on the highway while also have a 300 horsepower six cylinder engine which makes the car go from 0-60 in 5.9 seconds. While I know that not everyone can afford a Beamer, it just shows that Americans can have power and fuel efficiency if Detroit or other car companies built it at a lower price.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.insideline.com/bmw/3-series/2009/2009-bmw-335d-full-test.html
I think that it is important to keep all options open. Saying that diesel will be solution or that hybrid for that matter will be is foolhardy. Changing the collision course of our current society and nature will take more steps than coming up with traditional car alternatives. While I commend the innovation of these new diesel cars for working concretely on a very abstract problem I worry about people in America and their tendency to take any innovation as a fix all band-aid. We need to change American infrastructure and mindset to reduce the need to rely on cars. We should be investing in public transit systems and revitalizing those existing ones and planning our cities to minimize suburban sprawl.
ReplyDeleteE
This was a really interesting article. And I agree with Hannah that it is important to keep all the options open. This is not something that will be changed over night.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick that diesel engines would be beneficial for the United States. Rich said that the extra cost of a diesel could deter buyers but how many of us buy a car for a few years. My mom drives her cars for years before considering buying a new one. So why not spend some extra money to save in the long run and help the environment out at the same time? Sounds like a good idea to me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it sounds like a good idea to get the U.S to switch its oil addiction to diesel, it simply has no chance of occuring. This is due to precedent dependance, or the switching of an already heavily ingrained public mindset. Its comparable to switching a qwerty keyboard to other more efficent models, and their are some, but qwerty boards are already firmly planted. They were first made to slow down secretaries to prevent paper jams in type writers. They havent changed since even thought technology has greatly advacned.
ReplyDeleteThe same principal will apply to engine type, it would take an absolutly massive amount of incentives to overcast not only the increased price of diesel vehicle, but also to convince the buyer that such a produt can become mainstream. Such incentives are not feasible or cost effective. Other more efficient, and inexpensive ways to reduce carbon emmissions and oil dependance are avaliable.
Nor would their be a supply to match such a quick demand. Automakers have purposely steered clear of diesel in the U.S. and would not be able to switch production fast enough.
Im not saying that a switch couldnt occur in the very long run, if cost were brought down, which would make the increased mpg and decreased emisssion a viable benifit. Naturally consumers would sway towards these new vehicles no matter what the precedent. bt by the time such possibilities arise elctric vehicles will have stolen all of diesels thunder. Such products are being prepared for mass production within the next couple of years and offer much better milage and almost no emmisions and a much lower cost (depending on the vehicle of cource). In stead of subsidizing diesel, a subsidary allocation for electric vehicles would have a much larger effect. T A E
Hannah: The article doesn't suggest that diesel is a fix-all band-aid; it only considers what would occur if 1/3 of the private fleet (which is large trucks in america) switched to diesel. It's more possible for this transition to occur in trucks than other cars because most full-size trucks have diesel versions available.
ReplyDeleteNick (not Gann): While the high cost of diesel engines seems like a good trade-off for environmental sustainability and long-term savings, people are less able to spend $9000 extra now in order to save even more in the future because people don't have the flexibility in their budgets to make such a decision right now.
Evan: 1. The USA isn't trading an "oil addiction" for diesel because diesel is made from crude oil.
2. Electric vehicles will not be able to "steal diesel's thunder" in the truck market for a long time because it would require a MASSIVE amount of electricity--technology that we don't have--in order to give a truck enough power to tow trailers and transport heavy goods as a truck is intended to do.
I think we need to stop labeling a business as usual mindset as realism, the way that Evan says that it would be nice if we could switch from oil but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Whether or not we continue down a path of ecological responsibility is entirely up to us; there are plenty of other countries who are taking much more aggressive strides towards to converting to renewable energy.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of renewable energy, why are we so much more excited about cleaning up diesel engines than advancing gas-electric technology which is incredibly sufficient for the average American 30 miles a day need. And it would readily run off of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, whereas if we go the route of diesel we could end up with another ethanol disaster.
Another thought, why are we even still producing trucks in this quantity? I assume the reason America is so far behind other countries when it comes to regulation of sustainable practices is because of our love of freedom, damnit! But I am quite sure that there is no constitutional right guaranteeing obscenely unenvironmental cars. I am also sure that during World War II people dealt with shortages and scrimping and the limits of Mother Nature. We could recover that mindset. This reminds me of something I read somewhere: Why do we continually try to reshape a finite planet to accommodate our infinite wants rather than determine our needs within the confines of what the planet can sustain?
A, E