Ask Joe Mechanic - Biofuels and Biofuel Vehicles (Part 1)

            Biofuels are one area of alternative fuels that holds a lot of promise, but there are still significant drawbacks and limitations to their effective use. It will never be able to completely replace fossil fuels because not enough land can be devoted to raising the crops needed to produce it. It has also had an effect on food prices as the demand for corn and soybeans increases.

            A biofuel is a fuel that contains energy from geologically recent carbon fixation. These fuels are produced from living organisms. Examples of this carbon fixation occur in plants and microalgae. These fuels are made by a biomass conversion (biomass refers to recently living organisms, most often referring to plants or plant-derived materials). This biomass can be converted to convenient energy containing substances in three different ways: thermal conversion, chemical conversion, and biochemical conversion. This biomass conversion can result in fuel in solid, liquid, or gas form. This new biomass can be used for biofuels. Biofuels have increased in popularity because of rising oil prices and the need for energy security.

            In 2010, worldwide biofuel production reached 105 billion liters (28 billion gallons US), up 17 percent from 2009, and biofuels provided 2.7 percent of the world's fuels for road transport, a contribution largely made up of ethanol and biodiesel. Global ethanol fuel production reached 86 billion liters (23 billion gallons US) in 2010, with the United States and Brazil as the world's top producers, accounting together for 90 percent of global production. The world's largest biodiesel producer is the European Union, accounting for 53 percent of all biodiesel production in 2010. As of 2011, mandates for blending biofuels exist in 31 countries at the national level and in 29 states or provinces. The International Energy Agency has a goal for biofuels to meet more than a quarter of world demand for transportation fuels by 2050 to reduce dependence on petroleum and coal.

             There are international organizations such as IEA Bioenergy, established in 1978 by the OECD International Energy Agency (IEA), with the aim of improving cooperation and information exchange between countries that have national programs in bioenergy research, development and deployment. The UN International Biofuels Forum is formed by Brazil, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, the United States and the European Union. The world leaders in biofuel development and use are Brazil, the United States, France, Sweden and Germany. Russia also has 22 percent of world's forest, and is a big biomass (solid biofuels) supplier. In 2010, Russian pulp and paper maker, Vyborgskaya Cellulose, said they would be producing pellets that can be used in heat and electricity generation from its plant in Vyborg by the end of the year. The plant will eventually produce about 900,000 tons of pellets per year, making it the largest in the world once operational.

            Biofuels currently make up 3.1 percent of the total road transport fuel in the UK or 1,440 million litres. By 2020, 10 percent of the energy used in UK road and rail transport must come from renewable sources – this is the equivalent of replacing 4.3 million ton of fossil oil each year. Conventional biofuels are likely to produce between 3.7 and 6.6 percent of the energy needed in road and rail transport, while advanced biofuels could meet up to 4.3 percent of the UK’s renewable transport fuel target by 2020.

            Most transportation fuels are liquids, because vehicles usually require high energy density, as occurs in liquids and solids. An internal combustion engine can provide high power density most inexpensively; these engines require clean-burning fuels, to keep the engine clean and minimize air pollution.  The fuels that are easiest to burn cleanly are typically liquids and gases. Thus, liquids (and gases that can be stored in liquid form) meet the requirements of being both portable and clean burning. Also, liquids and gases can be pumped, which means handling is easily mechanized, and thus less laborious.

            There are two basic classifications of biofuels, first-generation or conventional biofuels are made from sugar, starch, or vegetable oil, and second generation or advanced biofuels. First generation biofuels are made from the sugars and vegetable oils found in arable crops, which can be easily extracted using conventional technology. In comparison, second generation biofuels are made from lignocellulosic biomass or woody crops, agricultural residues or waste, which makes it harder to extract the required fuel.

Most first generation biofuels fall into two categories, they are either designed or formulated to be used in either a gasoline or a diesel engine. We will cover the internal combustion or gasoline alternatives first, with the best known being ethanol.

            Biologically produced alcohols, most commonly ethanol, and less commonly propanol and butanol, are produced by the action of microorganisms and enzymes through the fermentation of sugars or starches (easiest), or cellulose (which is more difficult). Biobutanol (also called biogasoline) is often claimed to provide a direct replacement for gasoline, because it can be used directly in a gasoline engine (in a similar way to biodiesel in diesel engines).

            Ethanol fuel is the most common biofuel worldwide, particularly in Brazil. Alcohol fuels are produced by fermentation of sugars derived from wheat, corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, molasses and any sugar or starch from which alcoholic beverages can be made (such as potato and fruit waste, etc.). The ethanol production methods used are enzyme digestion (to release sugars from stored starches), fermentation of the sugars, distillation and drying. The distillation process requires significant energy input for heat (often unsustainable natural gas fossil fuel, but cellulosic biomass such as bagasse, the waste left after sugar cane is pressed to extract its juice, can also be used more sustainably).

            Ethanol can be used in petrol engines as a replacement for gasoline; it can be mixed with gasoline to any percentage. Most existing car petrol engines can run on blends of up to 15 percent bioethanol with petroleum/gasoline. Ethanol has a smaller energy density than that of gasoline; this means it takes more fuel (volume and mass) to produce the same amount of work. An advantage of ethanol (CH3CH2OH) is that it has a higher octane rating than ethanol-free gasoline available at roadside gas stations, which allows an increase of an engine's compression ratio for increased thermal efficiency. In high-altitude (thin air) locations, some states mandate a mix of gasoline and ethanol as a winter oxidizer to reduce atmospheric pollution emissions.

            In the current corn-to-ethanol production model in the United States, considering the total energy consumed by farm equipment, cultivation, planting, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides made from petroleum, irrigation systems, harvesting, transport of feedstock to processing plants, fermentation, distillation, drying, transport to fuel terminals and retail pumps, and lower ethanol fuel energy content, the net energy content value added and delivered to consumers is very small. And, the net benefit (all things considered) does little to reduce imported oil and fossil fuels required to produce the ethanol.

             Although corn-to-ethanol and other food stocks have implications both in terms of world food prices and limited, yet positive, energy yield (in terms of energy delivered to customer/fossil fuels used), the technology has led to the development of cellulosic ethanol. According to a joint research agenda conducted through the US Department of Energy, the fossil energy ratios (FER) for cellulosic ethanol, corn ethanol, and gasoline are 10.3, 1.36, and 0.81, respectively.  Even dry ethanol has roughly one-third lower energy content per unit of volume compared to gasoline, so larger (therefore heavier) fuel tanks are required to travel the same distance, or more fuel stops are required. With large current unsustainable, unscalable subsidies, ethanol fuel still costs more per distance traveled than current high gasoline prices in the United States.

                  Methanol is currently produced from natural gas, a nonrenewable fossil fuel. It can also be produced from biomass as biomethanol. The methanol economy is an alternative to the hydrogen economy, compared to today's hydrogen production from natural gas.

Butanol (C4H9OH) is formed by ABE fermentation (acetone, butanol, ethanol) and experimental modifications of the process show potentially high net energy gains with butanol as the only liquid product. Butanol will produce more energy and allegedly can be burned "straight" in existing gasoline engines (without modification to the engine or car), and is less corrosive and less water-soluble than ethanol, and could be distributed via existing infrastructures. DuPont and BP are working together to help develop butanol. E. Coli strains have also been successfully engineered to produce butanol by hijacking their amino acid metabolism.

In 2013 UK researchers developed a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli, which could transform glucose into biofuel gasoline that does not need to be blended. Later in 2013, UCLA researchers engineered a new metabolic pathway to bypass glycolysis and increase the rate of conversion of sugars into biofuel, while KAIST researchers developed a strain capable of producing short-chain alkanes, free fatty acids, fatty esters and fatty alcohols through the fatty acyl (acyl carrier protein (ACP)) to fatty acid to fatty acyl-CoA pathway in vivo. It is believed that in the future it will be possible to "tweak" the genes to make gasoline from straw or animal manure.

Bioethers (also referred to as fuel ethers or oxygenated fuels) are cost-effective compounds that act as octane rating enhancers. "Bioethers are produced by the reaction of reactive iso-olefins, such as iso-butylene, with bioethanol." They also enhance engine performance, whilst significantly reducing engine wear and toxic exhaust emissions. Greatly reducing the amount of ground-level ozone emissions, they contribute to air quality.  When it comes to transportation fuel there are six ether additives- 1. Dimethyl Ehters (DME) 2. Diethyl Ether (DEE) 3. Methyl Teritiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) 4. Ethyl ter-butyl ether (ETBE) 5. Ter-amyl methyl ether (TAME) 6. Ter-amyl ethyl Ether (TAEE).

Biogas is methane produced by the process of anaerobic digestion of organic material by anaerobes. It can be produced either from biodegradable waste materials or by the use of energy crops fed into anaerobic digesters to supplement gas yields. The solid byproduct, digestate, can be used as a biofuel or a fertilizer. Biogas can be recovered from mechanical biological treatment waste processing systems. It should be noted that landfill gas, a less clean form of biogas, is produced in landfills through naturally occurring anaerobic digestion. If it escapes into the atmosphere, it is a potential greenhouse gas. Farmers can produce biogas from manure from their cattle by using anaerobic digesters.

Syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other hydrocarbons, is produced by partial combustion of biomass, that is, combustion with an amount of oxygen that is not sufficient to convert the biomass completely to carbon dioxide and water. Before partial combustion, the biomass is dried, and sometimes pyrolysed. The resulting gas mixture, syngas, is more efficient than direct combustion of the original biofuel; more of the energy contained in the fuel is extracted. Syngas may be burned directly in internal combustion engines, turbines or high-temperature fuel cells. The wood gas generator, a wood-fueled gasification reactor, can be connected to an internal combustion engine. Syngas can be used to produce methanol, DME and hydrogen, or converted via the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce a diesel substitute, or a mixture of alcohols that can be blended into gasoline. Gasification normally relies on temperatures greater than 700°C.

Biodiesel is the most common biofuel in Europe. It is produced from oils or fats using transesterification and is a liquid similar in composition to fossil/mineral diesel. Chemically, it consists mostly of fatty acid methyl (or ethyl) esters (FAMEs). Feedstocks for biodiesel include animal fats, vegetable oils, soy, rapeseed, jatropha, mahua, mustard, flax, sunflower, palm oil, hemp, field pennycress, Pongamia pinnata and algae. Pure biodiesel (B100) is the lowest-emission diesel fuel. Although liquefied petroleum gas and hydrogen have cleaner combustion, they are used to fuel much less efficient petrol engines and are not as widely available.

Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine when mixed with mineral diesel. In some countries, manufacturers cover their diesel engines under warranty for B100 use. Volkswagen of Germany, for example, asks drivers to check by telephone with the VW environmental services department before switching to B100.  B100 may become more viscous at lower temperatures, depending on the feedstock used. In most cases, biodiesel is compatible with diesel engines from 1994 onwards, which use 'Viton' (by DuPont) synthetic rubber in their mechanical fuel injection systems.

Electronically controlled 'common rail' and 'unit injector' type systems from the late 1990s onwards may only use biodiesel blended with conventional diesel fuel. These engines have finely metered and atomized multiple-stage injection systems that are very sensitive to the viscosity of the fuel. Many current-generation diesel engines are made so that they can run on B100 without altering the engine itself, although this depends on the fuel rail design. Since biodiesel is an effective solvent and cleans residues deposited by mineral diesel, engine filters may need to be replaced more often, as the biofuel dissolves old deposits in the fuel tank and pipes. It also effectively cleans the engine combustion chamber of carbon deposits, helping to maintain efficiency. In many European countries, a 5 percent biodiesel blend is widely used and is available at thousands of gas stations. Biodiesel is also an oxygenated fuel, meaning it contains a reduced amount of carbon and higher hydrogen and oxygen content than fossil diesel. This improves the combustion of biodiesel and reduces the particulate emissions from unburned carbon.

Biodiesel is also safe to handle and transport because it is as biodegradable as sugar, one-tenth as toxic as table salt, and has a high flash point of about 300°F (148°C) compared to petroleum diesel fuel, which has a flash point of 125°F (52°C).  In the USA, more than 80 percent of commercial trucks and city buses run on diesel. The emerging US biodiesel market is estimated to have grown 200 percent from 2004 to 2005. "By the end of 2006 biodiesel production was estimated to increase fourfold [from 2004] to more than" 1 billion US gallons (3,800,000 m³).

Green diesel is produced through hydrocracking biological oil feed stocks, such as vegetable oils and animal fats. Hydrocracking is a refinery method that uses elevated temperatures and pressure in the presence of a catalyst to break down larger molecules, such as those found in vegetable oils, into shorter hydrocarbon chains used in diesel engines. It may also be called renewable diesel, hydro treated vegetable oil or hydrogen-derived renewable diesel. Green diesel has the same chemical properties as petroleum-based diesel. It does not require new engines, pipelines or infrastructure to distribute and use, but has not been produced at a cost that is competitive with petroleum. Gasoline versions are also being developed. ConocoPhillips, Neste Oil, Valero, Dynamic Fuels, and Honeywell UOP are developing green diesel in Louisiana and Singapore.

Straight unmodified edible vegetable oil is generally not used as fuel, but lower-quality oil can and has been used for this purpose. Used vegetable oil is increasingly being processed into biodiesel, or (more rarely) cleaned of water and particulates and used as a fuel.  Also here, as with 100 percent biodiesel (B100), to ensure the fuel injectors atomize the vegetable oil in the correct pattern for efficient combustion, vegetable oil fuel must be heated to reduce its viscosity to that of diesel, either by electric coils or heat exchangers. This is easier in warm or temperate climates. Big corporations like MAN B&W Diesel, Wärtsilä, and Deutz AG, as well as a number of smaller companies, such as Elsbett, offer engines that are compatible with straight vegetable oil, without the need for after-market modifications.

Vegetable oil can also be used in many older diesel engines that do not use common rail or unit injection electronic diesel injection systems. Due to the design of the combustion chambers in indirect injection engines, these are the best engines for use with vegetable oil. This system allows the relatively larger oil molecules more time to burn. Enthusiasts without any conversion drive some older engines, especially Mercedes, experimentally, a handful of drivers have experienced limited success with earlier pre-"Pumpe Duse" VW TDI engines and other similar engines with direct injection. Several companies, such as Elsbett or Wolf, have developed professional conversion kits and successfully installed hundreds of them over the last decades.

Oils and fats can be hydrogenated to give a diesel substitute. The resulting product is a straight-chain hydrocarbon with a high cetane number, low in aromatics and sulfur and does not contain oxygen. Hydrogenated oils can be blended with diesel in all proportions. They have several advantages over biodiesel, including good performance at low temperatures, no storage stability problems and no susceptibility to microbial attack.

There is one other small sub-group of first generation biofuels, and they are actually solids. Examples include wood, sawdust; grass trimmings, domestic refuse, charcoal, agricultural waste, nonfood energy crops, and dried manure. There is also a plant to be built in nearby Schuylkill County, which will actually convert coal and coal waste into a clean biodiesel.

When raw biomass is already in a suitable form (such as firewood), it can burn directly in a stove or furnace to provide heat or raise steam. When raw biomass is in an inconvenient form (such as sawdust, wood chips, grass, urban waste wood, agricultural residues), the typical process is to densify the biomass. This process includes grinding the raw biomass to an appropriate particulate size (known as hogfuel), which, depending on the densification type can be from 1 to 3 cm (0 to 1 in), which is then concentrated into a fuel product. The current processes produce wood pellets, cubes, or pucks. The pellet process is most common in Europe, and is typically a pure wood product. The other types of densification are larger in size compared to a pellet, and are compatible with a broad range of input feed stocks. The resulting densified fuel is easier to transport and feed into thermal generation systems, such as boilers.

Industry has used sawdust, bark and chips for fuel for decades, primary in the pulp and paper industry, and also bagasse (spent sugar cane) fueled boilers in the sugar cane industry. Boilers in the range of 500,000 lb/hr of steam, and larger, are in routine operation, using grate, spreader stoker, suspension burning and fluid bed combustion. Utilities generate power, typically in the range of 5 to 50 MW, using locally available fuel. Other industries have also installed wood waste fueled boilers and dryers in areas with low cost fuel.

 One of the advantages of solid biomass fuel is that it is often a byproduct, residue or waste product of other processes, such as farming, animal husbandry and forestry. In theory, this means fuel and food production do not compete for resources, although this is not always the case.  A problem with the combustion of raw biomass is that it emits considerable amounts of pollutants, such as particulates and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Even modern pellet boilers generate much more pollutants than oil or natural gas boilers. Pellets made from agricultural residues are usually worse than wood pellets, producing much larger emissions of dioxins and chlorophenols.

In spite of the above noted study, numerous studies have shown biomass fuels have significantly less impact on the environment than fossil-based fuels. Of note is the US Department of Energy Laboratory, operated by Midwest Research Institute Biomass Power and Conventional Fossil Systems with and without CO2 Sequestration – Comparing the Energy Balance, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economics Study. Power generation emits significant amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs), mainly carbon dioxide (CO₂). Sequestering CO₂ from the power plant flue gas can significantly reduce the GHGs from the power plant itself, but this is not the total picture. CO₂ capture and sequestration consumes additional energy, thus lowering the plant's fuel-to-electricity efficiency. To compensate for this, more fossil fuel must be procured and consumed to make up for lost capacity.

Taking this into consideration, the global warming potential (GWP), which is a combination of CO₂, methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions, and energy balance of the system needs to be examined using a life cycle assessment. This takes into account the upstream processes, which remain constant after CO2 sequestration, as well as the steps, required for additional power generation. Firing biomass instead of coal led to a 148 percent reduction in GWP.

A derivative of solid biofuel is biochar, which is produced by biomass pyrolysis. Biochar made from agricultural waste can substitute for wood charcoal. As wood stock becomes scarce, this alternative is gaining ground. In eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, biomass briquettes are being marketed as an alternative to charcoal to protect Virunga National Park from deforestation associated with charcoal production.

             
Next week, we will continue this discussion by exposing some of the drawbacks and criticisms of the development of biofuels. We will also look at ongoing research into better, more efficient production of biofuels.  And, with some new areas being researched to develop new biofuels, which would have less economic and environmental impacts than existing sources. We will also examine related fuels such as flex fuels, dimethyl ether and ammonia-based fuels.

Some information for this article was obtained from Wikipedia.org.

Ask Joe Mechanic - Solar Powered Vehicles (Part 2)

It is also possible to use solar panels to extend the range of a hybrid or electric car, as incorporated in the Fisker Karma, available as an option on the Chevy Volt, on the hood and roof of "Destiny 2000" modifications of Pontiac Fieros, Italdesign Quaranta, Free Drive EV Solar Bug, and numerous other electric vehicles, both concept and production. In May 2007, a partnership of Canadian companies led by Hymotion added PV cells to a Toyota Prius to extend the range. SEV claims 20 miles per day from their combined 215W module mounted on the car roof and an additional 3kWh battery.

On 9 June 2008, the German and French Presidents announced a plan to offer a cedit of 6-8g/km of CO₂ emissions for cars fitted with technologies "not yet taken into consideration during the standard measuring cycle of the emissions of a car". This has given rise to speculation that photovoltaic panels might be widely adopted on autos in the near future.

It is also technically possible to use photovoltaic technology, (specifically thermophotovoltaic (TPV) technology) to provide motive power for a car. Fuel is used to heat an emitter. The infrared radiation generated is converted to electricity by a low band gap PV cell (e.g. GaSb). A prototype TPV hybrid car was even built. The "Viking 29" was the World’s first thermophotovoltaic (TPV) powered automobile, designed and built by the Vehicle Research Institute (VRI) at Western Washington University. Efficiency would need to be increased and cost decreased to make TPV competitive with fuel cells or internal combustion engines.

A Swiss project, called "Solartaxi,” has circumnavigated the world. This is the first time in history an electric vehicle (not self sufficient solar vehicle) has gone around the world, covering 50000 km in 18 months and crossing 40 countries. It is a road-worthy electric vehicle hauling a trailer with solar panels, carrying a 6 m² sized solar array. The Solartaxi has Zebra batteries, which permit a range of 400 km without recharging. The car can also run for 200 km without the trailer. Its maximum speed is 90 km/h. The car weighs 500 kg and the trailer weighs 200 kg. According to initiator and tour director Louis Palmer, the car in mass production could be produced for 16000 Euro. Solartaxi has toured the World from July 2007 till December 2008 to show that solutions to stop global warming are available and to encourage people in pursuing alternatives to fossil fuel. Palmer suggests the most economical location for solar panels for an electric car is on building rooftops though, likening it to putting money into a bank in one location and withdrawing it in another.

Solar Electrical Vehicles is adding convex solar cells to the roof of hybrid electric vehicles. An interesting variant of the electric vehicle is the triple hybrid vehicle—the PHEV that has solar panels as well to assist.  The 2010 Toyota Prius model has an option to mount solar panels on the roof. They power a ventilation system while parked to help provide cooling. There are many applications of photovoltaics in transport either for motive power or as auxiliary power units, particularly where fuel; maintenance, emissions or noise requirements preclude internal combustion engines or fuel cells. Due to the limited area available on each vehicle either speed or range or both are limited when used for motive power.

Some information obtained from Wikipedia.org.

Ask Joe Mechanic - Solar Powered Vehicles (Part 1)

Ask Joe Mechanic…Solar Powered Vehicles

Solar power is another source of power, which would release us from foreign dependence for energy, but it is not yet practical. The cells are expensive and it requires a large number of them to generate the power required to power a vehicle. At this time, the most practical use is to generate power to use in plug-in electric or hybrid vehicles, as opposed to using it to directly power the vehicle.

A solar vehicle is an electric vehicle powered completely or significantly by direct solar energy. Usually, photovoltaic (PV) cells contained in solar panels convert the sun's energy directly into electric energy. The term "solar vehicle" usually implies that solar energy is used to power all or part of a vehicle's propulsion. Solar power may be also used to provide power for communications or controls or other auxiliary functions.

Solar vehicles are not sold as practical day-to-day transportation devices at present, but are primarily demonstration vehicles and engineering exercises, often sponsored by government agencies. However, indirectly solar-charged vehicles are widespread and solar boats are available commercially.

Solar cars depend on PV cells to convert sunlight into electricity to drive electric motors. Unlike solar thermal energy, which converts solar energy to heat, PV cells directly convert sunlight into electricity.

Solar cars combine technology typically used in the aerospace, bicycle, alternative energy and automotive industries. The design of a solar car is severely limited by the amount of energy input into the car. Solar cars are built for solar car races or daily usage on public roads. Even the best solar cells can only collect limited power and energy over the area of a car's surface. This limits solar cars to ultra light composite bodies to save weight. Solar cars lack the safety and convenience features of conventional vehicles.

Solar cars are often fitted with gauges and/or wireless telemetry, to carefully monitor the car's energy consumption, solar energy capture and other parameters. Wireless telemetry is typically preferred as it frees the driver to concentrate on driving, which can be dangerous in such a small, lightweight car.  The Solar Electric Vehicle system was designed and engineered as an easy to install (2 to 3 hours) integrated accessory system with a custom molded low profile solar module, supplemental battery pack and a proven charge controlling system.  As an alternative, a battery-powered electric vehicle may use a solar array to recharge; the array may be connected to the general electrical distribution grid.

Solar buses are propulsed by solar energy, all or part of which is collected from stationary solar panel installations. The Tindo bus is a 100 percent solar bus that operates as free public transport service in Adelaide City as an initiative of the City Council. Bus services, which use electric buses that are partially powered by solar panels installed on the bus roof, intended to reduce energy consumption and to prolong the life cycle of the rechargeable battery of the electric bus, have been put in place in China.

Solar buses are to be distinguished from conventional buses in which electric functions of the bus such as lighting, heating or air-conditioning, but not the propulsion itself, are fed by solar energy. Such systems are more widespread as they allow bus companies to meet specific regulations, for example the anti-idling laws that are in force in several of the US states, and can be retrofitted to existing vehicle batteries without changing the conventional engine.

The first solar "cars" were actually tricycles or Quadracycles built with bicycle technology. These were called solarmobiles at the first solar race, the Tour de Sol in Switzerland in 1985. With 72 participants, half used solar power exclusively while the other half used solar-human-powered hybrids. A few true solar bicycles were built, either with a large solar roof, a small rear panel, or a trailer with a solar panel. Later more practical solar bicycles were built with foldable panels to be set up only during parking. Even later the panels were left at home, feeding into the electric mains, and the bicycles charged from the mains. Today, highly developed electric bicycles are available and these use so little power that it costs little to buy the equivalent amount of solar electricity. The "solar" has evolved from actual hardware to an indirect accounting system. The same system also works for electric motorcycles, which were also first developed for the Tour de Sol. This is rapidly becoming an era of solar production. With today's high performance solar cells, a front and rear PV panel on this solar bike can give sufficient assistance, where the range is not limited by batteries.

The Venturi Astrolab in 2006 was hailed as the world's first commercial electro-solar hybrid car, and it was originally due to be released in January 2008.  In May 2007, a partnership of Canadian companies led by Hymotion altered a Toyota Prius to use solar cells to generate up to 240 watts of electrical power in full sunshine. This is reported as permitting up to 15 km extra range on a sunny summer day while using only the electric motors.

One practical application for solar powered vehicles is possibly golf carts, some of which are used relatively little but spend most of their time parked in the sun.  An inventor from Michigan, USA has built a street legal, licensed, insured, and solar charged electric scooter. It has a top speed controlled at a bit over 30 mph, and uses foldout solar panels to charge the batteries while parked.

Photovoltaic modules are used commercially as auxiliary power units on passenger cars in order to ventilate the car, reducing the temperature of the passenger compartment while it is parked in the sun. Vehicles such as the 2010 Prius, Aptera 2, Audi A8, and Mazda 929 have had solar sunroof options for ventilation purposes.

The area of photovoltaic modules required to power a car with conventional design is too large to be carried on board. A prototype car and trailer has been built Solar Taxi. According to the website, it is capable of 100 km/day using 6m² of standard crystalline silicon cells. Electricity is stored using a nickel/salt battery. A stationary system such as a rooftop solar panel, however, can be used to charge conventional electric vehicles.

You Auto Know: Veterans' Designation on PA Drivers' Licenses & ID Cards

An update on a law benefiting veterans' was recently shared with the staff at Auto Locator

Note the 'VETERAN' designation on the right corner.

this week by Representative Dave Hickernell: 

"A law [Hickernell] voted for in 2012 has now been fully implemented by PennDOT. Pennsylvania’s servicemen and servicewomen are now able to have their veteran status included on their state-issued driver licenses or non-driver identification cards.

With this designation, veterans will be able to more easily demonstrate their veteran status and to take advantage of special offers and discounts available from businesses that choose to offer them. The designation on the license/ID card is more convenient and safer for veterans than carrying cumbersome documents that may include sensitive personal information. However, further documentation will still be required to obtain VA benefits.

Under Act 176 of 2012, the veterans designation is made available to persons producing valid honorable military discharge papers. To qualify, an applicant would have to be a person who has served in the United States Armed Forces, including a reserve unit or the National Guard, and who was discharged or released from such service under conditions other than dishonorable.

The veterans designation is available to eligible veterans at no charge at the next date of renewal of their license or ID card. If veterans want the designation prior to their next renewal, they will have to pay a fee for a duplicate license. The fee for a basic duplicate driver’s license is $13.50; fees for other types of licenses vary."  

For feedback from one of the first veterans to receive the new IDs, check out this short clip.

If you need additional information you are encouraged to contact Representative Hickernell via his Columbia office at 236 Locust St., 717-684-5525, or his Elizabethtown office at 222 S. Market St., Suite 103, 717- 367-5525.  You may also visit RepHickernell.com and click on the “PA Driver’s License Veterans Designation” banner.

Ask Joe Mechanic - Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles

       This week we begin a discussion of two alternate energy forms, which go hand-in-hand, hydrogen gas and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. These forms are looked at as being very exciting and with lots of hope to give a renewable, environmentally safe, form of power in which we would have no foreign dependence whatsoever. Unfortunately, at this time, it is very expensive and not very efficient as you will see, and requires a lot more development before it will be economically feasible.

            A hydrogen vehicle is a vehicle that uses hydrogen as its onboard fuel for motive power. Hydrogen vehicles include hydrogen-fueled space rockets, as well as automobiles and other transportation vehicles. The power plants of such vehicles convert the chemical energy of hydrogen to mechanical energy either by burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, or by reacting hydrogen with oxygen in a fuel cell to run electric motors. Widespread use of hydrogen for fueling transportation is a key element of a proposed hydrogen economy.

             

Hydrogen fuel does not occur naturally on Earth and thus is not an energy source; rather it is an energy carrier. It is most frequently made from methane or other fossil fuels, but it can be produced using sources (such as wind, solar, or nuclear) that are intermittent, too diffuse or too cumbersome to directly propel vehicles. Integrated wind-to-hydrogen (power to gas) plants, using electrolysis of water, are exploring technologies to deliver costs low enough, and quantities great enough, to compete with traditional energy sources.

             

Many companies are working to develop technologies that might efficiently exploit the potential of hydrogen energy for use in motor vehicles. As of November 2013, there are demonstration fleets of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles undergoing field-testing including the Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell, Honda FCX Clarity, Hyundai ix35 Fuel Cell and Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-Cell. The attraction of using hydrogen as an energy currency is that, if hydrogen were prepared without using fossil fuel inputs, vehicle propulsion would not contribute to carbon dioxide emissions. The drawbacks of hydrogen use are high capital cost, low energy content per unit volume, production and compression of hydrogen, and the large investment in infrastructure that would be required to fuel vehicles.

 Buses, trains, PHB bicycles, canal boats, cargo bikes, golf carts, motorcycles, wheelchairs, ships, airplanes, submarines, and rockets can already run on hydrogen, in various forms. NASA used hydrogen to launch Space Shuttles into space. A working toy model car runs on solar power, using a regenerative fuel cell to store energy in the form of hydrogen and oxygen gas. It can then convert the fuel back into water to release the solar energy.

 The current land speed record for a hydrogen-powered vehicle is 286.476 mph (461.038 km/h) set by Ohio State University's Buckeye Bullet 2, which achieved a "flying-mile" speed of 280.007 mph (450.628 km/h) at the Bonneville Salt Flats in August 2008. For production-style vehicles, the current record for a hydrogen-powered vehicle is 333.38 km/h (207.2 mph) set by a prototype Ford Fusion Hydrogen 999 Fuel Cell Race Car at Bonneville Salt Flats in Wendover, Utah in August 2007.  A large compressed oxygen tank to increase power accompanied it.

Many automobile companies are currently researching the feasibility of commercially producing hydrogen cars, and some have introduced demonstration models in limited numbers. At the 2012 World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Daimler AG, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota all confirmed plans to produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for sale by 2015. General Motors said it had not abandoned fuel-cell technology and still plans to introduce hydrogen vehicles like the GM HydroGen4 to retail customers by 2015. Charles Freese, GM’s executive director of global powertrain engineering, stated that the company believes that both fuel-cell vehicles and battery electric vehicles are needed for reduction of greenhouse gases and reliance on oil.

In December 2012, Toyota announced its plans to limit its all-electric car development and instead concentrate on the development and launch of a fuel cell vehicle by 2015. In October 2013, Toyota announced it had reduced the cost of the fuel cell system in its next hydrogen-powered car by almost $1 million USD and expects to introduce a hydrogen mid-size sedan at a price of less than $100,000 USD by 2015. The practical concept of the fuel cell vehicle Toyota plans to launch around 2015, the FCV concept, was unveiled at the November 2013 Tokyo Motor Show. The fuel cell car will have a range of just over 300 mi (480 km), and it will take about three minutes to refill its twin hydrogen tanks. California, mainly the Los Angeles area, was chosen as the first rollout market due to its largest concentration of hydrogen fuel stations.

In 2009, Nissan started testing a new FC vehicle in Japan. Daimler has introduced its B-class demonstration FC vehicle.  In 2011, Hyundai introduced its Blue² ("Blue Square") fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV), and stated that it plans to have FCEVs available for sale by 2014. Honda stated in 2009 that it could start mass-producing vehicles based on its FCX Clarity concept car by the year 2020 and in 2009 stated that it saw hydrogen fuel cells as "a better long term bet than batteries and plug-in vehicles". In December 2010, however, it introduced the Honda Fit EV, an all-electric car version of the gasoline-powered Fit, using elements of its hydrogen engine design, stating that the "industry trend seems to be focused on the battery electric vehicle.”

In 2012, Lux Research, Inc. issued a report that stated: "The dream of a hydrogen economy ... is no nearer." It concluded that "Capital cost, not hydrogen supply, will limit adoption to a mere 5.9 GW" by 2030, providing "a nearly insurmountable barrier to adoption, except in niche applications.” Lux's analysis concluded that by 2030, the PEM stationary market would reach $1 billion, while the vehicle market, including forklifts, will reach a total of $2 billion.

 Hydrogen internal combustion engine cars are different from hydrogen fuel cell cars. The hydrogen internal combustion car is a slightly modified version of the traditional gasoline internal combustion engine car. These hydrogen engines burn fuel in the same manner that gasoline engines do.  Francois Isaac de Rivaz designed in 1807 the first hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine. Paul Dieges patented in 1970 a modification to internal combustion engines, which allowed a gasoline-powered engine to run on hydrogen US 3844262.

Mazda has developed Wankel engines burning hydrogen. The advantage of using ICE (internal combustion engine) like Wankel and piston engines is the cost of retooling for production is much lower. Existing-technology ICE can still be applied for solving those problems where fuel cells are not a viable solution insofar, for example in cold-weather applications.

A number of issues currently are seriously affecting the usage of hydrogen power. Cost is one major problem, issues with freezing temperatures is another. Also, the production, storage, transport and distribution of hydrogen as a fuel seriously limit its use.  Hydrogen fuel cells are relatively expensive to produce. As of October 2009, Fortune magazine estimated the cost of producing the Honda Clarity at $300,000 per car. Many designs require rare substances such as platinum as a catalyst. In 2010, a new nickel-tin nanometal catalyst was tested to lower the cost of fuel cells.

 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated in 2002 that the cost of a fuel cell for an automobile (assuming high-volume manufacturing) was approximately $275/kW, which translated into each vehicle costing more than $1 million USD. However, by 2010, DOE estimated the cost had fallen 80 percent and that automobile fuel cells might be manufactured for $51/kW, assuming high-volume manufacturing cost savings. The projected cost, assuming the DOE to be $47/kW for an 80 kW PEM fuel cell estimated a manufacturing volume of 500,000 units/year, using 2012 technology. Assuming a manufacturing volume of 10,000 units/year, however, the cost was projected to be $84/kW using 2012 technology.

 Temperatures below freezing are a concern with fuel cells operations. Operational fuel cells have an internal vaporous water environment that could solidify if the fuel cell and contents are not kept above 0° Celsius (32°F). Most fuel cell designs are not as yet robust enough to survive in below-freezing environments. Frozen solid, especially before start up, they would not be able to begin working. Once running though, heat is a byproduct of the fuel cell process, which would keep the fuel cell at an adequate operational temperature to function correctly. This makes startup of the fuel cell a concern in cold weather operation. Places such as Alaska where temperatures can reach −40 °C (−40 °F) at startup would not be able to use early model fuel cells. Ballard announced in 2006 that it had hit the U.S. DoE's 2010 target for cold weather starting which was 50 percent power achieved in 30 seconds at -20 °C. Fuel cells have startup and long term reliability problems.

Hydrogen does not come as a pre-existing source of energy like fossil fuels, but is first produced and then stored as a carrier, much like a battery. A suggested benefit of large-scale deployment of hydrogen vehicles is that it could lead to decreased emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone precursors.  According to the United States Department of Energy, "compared to ICE vehicles using gasoline ... fuel cell vehicles using hydrogen produced from natural gas reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent."

While methods of hydrogen production that do not use fossil fuel would be more sustainable, currently renewable energy represents only a small percentage of energy generated, and power produced from renewable sources can be used in electric vehicles and for non-vehicle applications.  The challenges facing the use of hydrogen in vehicles include production, storage, transport and distribution. Because of all these challenges, the well-to-wheel efficiency for hydrogen is less than 25 percent.

The molecular hydrogen needed as an on-board fuel for hydrogen vehicles can be obtained through many thermochemical methods utilizing natural gas, coal (by a process known as coal gasification), liquefied petroleum gas, biomass (biomass gasification), by a process called thermolysis, or as a microbial waste product called biohydrogen or Biological hydrogen production.  Ninety-five percent of hydrogen is produced using natural gas, and 85 percent of hydrogen produced is used to remove sulfur from gasoline. Hydrogen can also be produced from water by electrolysis or by chemical reduction using chemical hydrides or aluminum. Current technologies for manufacturing hydrogen use energy in various forms, totaling between 25 and 50 percent of the higher heating value of the hydrogen fuel, used to produce, compress or liquefy, and transmit the hydrogen by pipeline or truck.

 Environmental consequences of the production of hydrogen from fossil energy resources include the emission of greenhouse gases, a consequence that would also result from the on-board reforming of methanol into hydrogen. Studies comparing the environmental consequences of hydrogen production and use in fuel-cell vehicles to the refining of petroleum and combustion in conventional automobile engines find a net reduction of ozone and greenhouse gases in favor of hydrogen. Hydrogen production using renewable energy resources would not create such emissions or, in the case of biomass, would create near-zero net emissions assuming new biomass is grown in place of that converted to hydrogen. However, the same land could be used to create Biodiesel, usable with (at most) minor alterations to existing well-developed and relatively efficient diesel engines. In either case, the scale of renewable energy production today is small and would need to be greatly expanded for use in producing hydrogen for a significant part of transportation needs. As of December 2008, less than 3 percent of U.S. electricity was produced from renewable sources, not including dams. In a few countries, renewable sources are being used more widely to produce energy and hydrogen. For example, Iceland is using geothermal power to produce hydrogen, and Denmark is using wind.

 Hydrogen has a very low volumetric energy density at ambient conditions, equal to about one-third that of methane. Even when the fuel is stored as liquid hydrogen in a cryogenic tank or in a compressed hydrogen storage tank, the volumetric energy density (megajoules per liter) is small relative to that of gasoline. Hydrogen has a three times higher specific energy by mass compared to gasoline (143 MJ/kg versus 46.9 MJ/kg). Some research has been done into using special crystalline materials to store hydrogen at greater densities and at lower pressures. A recent study by Dutch researcher Robin Gremaud has shown that metal hydride hydrogen tanks are actually 40 to 60-percent lighter than an equivalent energy battery pack on an electric vehicle permitting greater range for H2 cars. In 2011, scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory and University of Alabama, working with the U.S. Department of Energy, found a new single-stage method for recharging ammonia borane, hydrogen storage compound.

 The hydrogen infrastructure consists mainly of industrial hydrogen pipeline transport and hydrogen-equipped filling stations like those found on a hydrogen highway. Hydrogen stations, which are not situated near a hydrogen pipeline, can obtain supply via hydrogen tanks, compressed hydrogen tube trailers, liquid hydrogen tank trucks or dedicated onsite production.

Hydrogen use would require the alteration of industry and transport on a scale never seen before in history. For example, according to GM, 70 percent of the US population lives near a hydrogen-generating facility but has little access to hydrogen, despite its wide availability for commercial use. The distribution of hydrogen fuel for vehicles throughout the U.S. would require new hydrogen stations that would cost, by some estimates approximately 20 billion dollars and 4.6 billion in the EU. Other estimates place the cost as high as half trillion dollars in the United States alone.

 The California Hydrogen Highway is an initiative to build a series of hydrogen refueling stations along California state highways. As of June 2012, 23 stations were in operation, mostly in and around Los Angeles, with a few in the Bay area. South Carolina also has a hydrogen freeway project, and the first two hydrogen-fueling stations opened in 2009 in Aiken and Columbia, South Carolina. The University of South Carolina, a founding member of the South Carolina Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Alliance, received 12.5 million dollars from the Department of Energy for its Future Fuels Program.

Hydrogen codes and standards, as well as codes and technical standards for hydrogen safety and the storage of hydrogen, have been identified as an institutional barrier to deploying hydrogen technologies and developing a hydrogen economy. To enable the commercialization of hydrogen in consumer products, new codes and standards must be developed and adopted by federal, state and local governments.

Critics claim the time frame for overcoming the technical and economic challenges to implementing wide-scale use of hydrogen cars is likely to last for at least several decades, and hydrogen vehicles may never become broadly available. They claim that the focus on the use of the hydrogen car is a dangerous detour from more readily available solutions to reducing the use of fossil fuels in vehicles.  In May 2008, Wired News reported that "experts say it will be 40 years or more before hydrogen has any meaningful impact on gasoline consumption or global warming, and we can't afford to wait that long. In the meantime, fuel cells are diverting resources from more immediate solutions."

 K. G. Duleep commented "a strong case exists for continuing fuel-efficiency improvements from conventional technology at relatively low cost." Critiques of hydrogen vehicles are presented in the 2006 documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?. According to former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." Asked when hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never." The Los Angeles Times wrote, in February 2009, "Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars. ... Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars."

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that "Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale." The Economist magazine, in September 2008, quoted Robert Zubrin, the author of Energy Victory, as saying: "Hydrogen is 'just about the worst possible vehicle fuel'".

The magazine noted the withdrawal of California from earlier goals: "In March [2008] the California Air Resources Board, an agency of California's state government and a bellwether for state governments across America, changed its requirement for the number of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to be built and sold in California between 2012 and 2014. The revised mandate allows manufacturers to comply with the rules by building more battery-electric cars instead of fuel-cell vehicles." The magazine also noted that most hydrogen is produced through steam reformation, which creates at least as much emission of carbon per mile as some of today's gasoline cars. On the other hand, if the hydrogen could be produced using renewable energy, "it would surely be easier simply to use this energy to charge the batteries of all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles."

The Washington Post asked in November 2009, "But why would you want to store energy in the form of hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to produce electricity for a motor, when electrical energy is already waiting to be sucked out of sockets all over America and stored in auto batteries?”  December 2009 study at UC Davis, published in the Journal of Power Sources, found that, over their lifetimes, hydrogen vehicles would emit more carbon than gasoline vehicles. The Motley Fool stated in 2013 that "there are still cost-prohibitive obstacles [for hydrogen cars] relating to transportation, storage, and, most importantly, production."

 Volkswagen's Rudolf Krebs said in 2013 "no matter how excellent you make the cars themselves, the laws of physics hinder their overall efficiency. The most efficient way to convert energy to mobility is electricity." He elaborated: "Hydrogen mobility only makes sense if you use green energy", but ... you need to convert it first into hydrogen "with low efficiencies" where "you lose about 40 percent of the initial energy". You then must compress the hydrogen and store it under high pressure in tanks, which uses more energy. "And then you have to convert the hydrogen back to electricity in a fuel cell with another efficiency loss". Krebs continued: "in the end, from your original 100 percent of electric energy, you end up with 30 to 40 percent." In 2013, Volkswagen signed a $60 million to $100 million engineering services deal with Ballard for the development of fuel cells to move ahead faster with new power transportation technologies. The Business Insider commented:

“Pure hydrogen can be industrially derived, but it takes energy. If that energy does not come from renewable sources, then fuel-cell cars are not as clean as they seem. ... Another challenge is the lack of infrastructure. Gas stations need to invest in the ability to refuel hydrogen tanks before FCEVs become practical, and it's unlikely many will do that while there are so few customers on the road today. ... Compounding the lack of infrastructure is the high cost of the technology. Fuel cells are "still very, very expensive.”

In 2013, The New York Times stated that there are only 10 publicly accessible hydrogen filling stations in the U.S., eight of which are in Southern California, and that BEVs' cost-per-mile expense in 2013 is one-third as much as hydrogen cars, when comparing electricity from the grid and hydrogen at a filling station. The Times commented: "By the time Toyota sells its first fuel-cell sedan, there will be about a half-million plug-in vehicles on the road in the United States – and tens of thousands of E.V. charging stations." In 2013, John Swanton of the California Air Resources Board, who sees them as complementary technologies, stated that EVs have the jump on fuel-cell autos, which "are like electric vehicles were 10 years ago. EVs are for real consumers, no strings attached. With EVs you have a lot of infrastructure in place.

The Business Insider, in 2013 commented that if the energy to produce hydrogen "does not come from renewable sources, then fuel-cell cars are not as clean as they seem. ... Gas stations need to invest in the ability to refuel hydrogen tanks before FCEVs become practical, and it's unlikely many will do that while there are so few customers on the road today. ... Compounding the lack of infrastructure is the high cost of the technology. Fuel cells are "still very, very expensive", even compared to battery-powered EVs.

From what we see in this information, it seems that it will be a long time, if ever, before hydrogen or fuel cell power become a viable and economical alternation to the gasoline internal combustion engine.

Portions of this week’s column were sourced from Wikipedia.org.

This week’s recalls: 7,935 2014 Ram ProMaster vehicles:
If the accelerator pedal is pushed downward at a certain angle, the pedal may get stuck in the wide open throttle position due to interference with the accelerator pedal stopper. A stuck accelerator pedal can result in uncontrolled acceleration, increasing the risk of a crash.

5,001 Aston Martin 2008-2014 DB9 and V8 Vantage, 2009-2012 DBS, 2010-2012 Rapide, 2014 Rapide S, 2011-2012 V12 Vantage, 2011-2014 V8 Vantage S and 2012 Virage vehicles:
Due to a manufacturing error, the accelerator pedal arm may break. If the accelerator pedal arm breaks, the engine will return to idle and the driver will be unable to maintain or increase engine speed, increasing the risk of a crash.
31,581 B&W Custom Truck Beds (B&W):
Is recalling certain Tow & Stow Adjustable Ball Mounts manufactured from February 7, 2013, through January 7, 2014 and equipped with Nitrotec-coated steel pins to secure the ball mounts to the trailer hitches. The securing pins of the affected ball mounts may fracture while being used. If the securing pin fractures, the trailer being towed could separate from the vehicle increasing the risk of a crash.
3,773,379 Graco Children's Products, Inc. (Graco) is recalling model year 2009 through 2013 toddler and booster child restraints, models Cozy Cline, Comfort Sport, Classic Ride 50, My Ride 65, My Ride with Safety Surround, My Ride 70, Size 4 Me 70, Smartseat, Nautilus, Nautilus Elite, and Argos 70.
The alleged defect involves difficulty in unlatching the harness buckle. In some cases, the buckle becomes stuck in a latched condition so that depressing the buckle’s release button cannot open it. It may be difficult to remove the child from the restraint, increasing the risk of injury in the event of a vehicle crash, fire, or other emergency, in which a prompt exit from the vehicle is required.
Please check with your local dealership or the manufacturer for more information and how you should proceed.

Ask Joe Mechanic - Diesel Engine Vehicles (Part 4)

            We have now pretty much covered the workings and the advantages and concerns about diesel engine vehicles. The only things remaining are why they are so poorly accepted in the USA compared to the rest of the world and also what are the current and future diesel engine vehicles that are available to us.

            In the United States, diesels presently account for only about three percent of the personal transportation vehicles on the road today. In Europe, the average is about 50 percent, with France having the highest total at about 70 percent diesels. Germany is about 50 percent, which includes almost all police cars and taxis, while England rates about 38 percent. If diesels rate so much better fuel economy and engine longevity, what is the reason for this disparity? Actually, the reasons are many, and there is enough blame to cover almost everyone. From government regulations to US automakers mistakes and indifference to public perceptions and misinformation, there is much fault to find.

            The first subject is government regulations. In Europe, the governments encourage the use of diesel by taxing diesel fuel is taxed at a rate of about one half what gasoline is taxed. In the United States, federal fuel tax is 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline while it is 24.4 cents on diesel. Also, our government subsidizes the making of ethanol despite the fuel’s terrible economics and its impact on the environment as a whole (ethanol takes a great deal of energy to produce which contributes to greenhouse gases and global warming), and also requires extensive modifications to the engine and fuel system to allow its use. On the other hand, biodiesel can be better for the environment, requires much less energy to create, utilizes food waste to produce, and also requires little or no modification to a diesel engine to use. Biodiesel is also carbon neutral, which appeals to environmentally conscious consumers.

            As far as other environmental impacts, while it is true that diesels emit more particulates per gallon burned than gasoline does, there is something skewed in the way the government calculates it. If one vehicle emits 1 percent noxious oxides into the environment and another emits 1.5 percent, which is better for the environment? Clearly the one emitting 1.5 percent if it achieved twice the mileage of the other! But the government does not see it that way. Everything works by proportion, so a thrifty Toyota Corolla is judge by the same standard as a gas hog Cadillac or even worse a heavy duty GMC Yukon, which is still considered better than a VW Jetta TDI.

           

And, while we are familiar with the fleet average mileage law, there is also a much lesser known fleet average emissions law. This is why almost every year Volkswagen runs out of turbo-diesels part way through the year. And in some states such as California, New York, Massachusetts and Maine, they have even more stringent regulations. In California, there is a regulation on the number of one-ton diesel vehicles allowed to be sold each year. For this reason, in California, you do not find Dodge offering diesels in anything except its high profit Ram trucks. And, even though it is powered by a small, highly fuel efficient diesel, the Freightliner Sprinter was delayed a year being introduced into those states because it was a diesel only vehicle, unlike Dodge which had gas and diesel versions and came to market a year sooner.

            The second reason is the US automakers. As we have already seen, in certain places, vehicles are released based on profit margin only. In Europe, Dodge sells diesel-powered caravans, which amount to between 75 and 80 percent of European Caravan sales. Dodge also released diesel powered Neons and PT Cruisers for the European market.  Another factor is that US automakers have always charged a substantially higher price for a comparably equipped diesel powered vehicle. This, combined with the higher diesel fuel price has discouraged the American public from spending the extra dollars.

           

But, probably the biggest problem created by the manufacturers, which affected the sale of diesels in the United States, occurred during the first oil crisis in the 1970s.

Several manufacturers, most notably General Motors in an attempt to rush diesels into the US market, converted gasoline engines into diesels without strengthening the engine block to handle the much higher compression. The engines were very unreliable and basically at times blew up without warning, sometimes with very low mileage on them. These, combined with the fact that these older diesels were very sluggish on performance, smoked, and were very noisy; left a very bad taste in the American car buying publics’ mouth toward diesel engines.

           

Many of the public perceptions of diesels, noise, smoke; vibration, poor acceleration and cost have been addressed with the newest generations of diesels. Better balancing and injection systems have lessened the noise and vibration. Smoke and smell have pretty much been eliminated with the new ultra low sulfur fuels. Poor acceleration has been eliminated by new cylinder head designs, fuel injection improvements and turbocharging. And many manufacturers have eliminated the surcharge for a diesel or at least reduced it to a reasonable amount.

            While for years, Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen and a few other small companies were the only ones offering diesel powered vehicles in the United States; there are now quite a few choices available in many different size and types of vehicles. And, very soon, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler will be offering diesels in the domestic marketplace.

            I personally can attest to the strength and reliability of diesel engines. I grew up around diesels as my father has driven them since the late 1950’s. He had a number of 170, 180, 190, and 240 Mercedes Diesels along with a few Peugeot 504s. His 1953 Mercedes 170DS was actually in the Guinness Book of World Records with the highest documented mileage vehicle in the world in 1979 and 1980. His Mercedes had 844,000 miles on it, and basically we did all the work on the car at home. We rebuilt the transmission or engine, replaced head gaskets or whatever work was required to keep it on the road. My father worked in Philadelphia for 14 years and commuted every day, for one 14-month period working seven days a week. There were times on extremely cold winter days, that for fear of not being able to start the car when he came out of work, he would lock the car and let it idle all day. The only times he would take the car to the shop was for state inspections or to the dealer each time it turned another 100,000 so that it could be duly noted. In addition to the mileage awards he received from Mercedes for this car, they also recognized him for 1,500,000 combined miles on his various Mercedes. Mercedes actually took the engine and transmission from his car and sent them back to Germany where the training school rebuilt and restored them for him. Also, when I traveled to Germany in 1980 while they went there for vacation, my father and I received a personally guided tour of the Mercedes Museum by its Curator, in spite of fact that the Museum was closed at the time.