Bio-Diesel Electric Hybrid (?)

[NismoZ]

I'm as technically/mechanically feeble as they come but am I correct in understanding that European auto makers are pumping big bucks into Diesel technology to raise mileage figures while the Japanese are pushing the gas/electric angle to that same end? How about a 3rd direction that includes a combination of Diesel and electric with the added wrinkle of a bio fuel? Shouldn't that improve the result to an even greater degree? Couldn't we grow our fuel, then? Start out by taxing imported oil at a higher level to finance the whole project. BP should start buying farmland.

[chop456]

Biofuel isn't a necessary component of design. If you choose to run your car on it - so be it. It's not available widely enough to be a design concern. Besides, Europe already mandates ultra low-sulphur diesel fuel which is an order of magnitude cleaner than the sludge we get here. ULSD is mandated for 2007, but most of our refiners will probably cease production of road diesel rather than convert to the new technology.

[Methanolandbrats]

HEre ya go Nismo...
http://www.tdiclub.com/
Happy reading :)

[NismoZ]

Yeowww! About 2400 posts on bio fuels (problems, problems) but I didn't see any talk of hybrid apps. Only 242 posts in TDI/Racing category...bet THAT changes soon! :D I hear BMW is racing a Diesel someplace this season, too?

[cameraman]

GE beat you to it...

GE engineers are designing a Hybrid diesel-electric locomotive that will capture the energy dissipated during braking and store it in a series of sophisticated batteries. That stored energy can be used by the crew on demand reducing fuel consumption and emissions by up to 15 percent when compared to our own industry leading GE Evolution series locomotive.

* The energy dissipated in braking a 207-ton locomotive during the course of one year is enough to power 160 households for that year. The hybrid locomotive will capture that dynamic energy and use it to produce more horsepower and reduce emissions and fuel use.

* GE's hybrid locomotive's lead-free rechargeable batteries will be able to provide superior performance by allowing operators to draw an additional 2000 horsepower when needed.

* Compared to a locomotive manufactured in 2004 (meeting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Tier 1 emission requirements for railroad locomotives), GE's hybrid locomotive is being designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions over its lifetime as much as taking 2,600 cars off the road for a year.

* GE's hybrid locomotive is being designed to emit half as much nitrogen oxide as locomotives built 20 years ago.

* Replacing every locomotive in North America manufactured before 2001 with GE's hybrid technology would, in a year, cut nitrogen oxide emissions as much as removing one third of all cars from U.S. roads.

* If every locomotive in North America could operate as efficiently as GE's hybrid locomotive is being designed to operate, railroads could achieve a fuel-cost savings of $425 million dollars each year.

[NismoZ]

And the downside is? :D ...I know, it was the "Diesel-electric" term from railroads that made me think of this in the first place, even though I knew they weren't hybrids. Thanks for the GE heads up. If Toyota can do a car, GE ought to be able to do a locomotive! I have a very "Green" friend/co-worker who just bought a Prius AND a hybrid Escape. He's convinced he's saving the world and my 130mph runs to RA are equivilent to War On The World. At least now I can tell him I'm going there to see a TDI Diesel that is testing technology to save us all! :laugh:

[tllips]

A couple of years ago the Chicago Tribune ran a series of articles on a contest to develop an 80mpg car sponsored by Uncle Sam.

The plug was pulled shortly after W. got into the White House, but nobody made the 80mpg. Most were in agreement that the only way to reach the goal would have been a diesel-hybrid. I think the closest anyone came was 72mpg. I did a quick search, but did not find any link to the story.

[NismoZ]

That TDI Club site says the 1.2 litre Lupo (Europe) gets 81 mpg. (US) The technology is there but we have to be willing to go smaller and slower, I guess. (though that 313 hp V-10 Toureg sounds like fun! :) ) Which comes first, the consumer or the market?

[stroker]

As soon as they make a TDI Scion Xb I'm in.

[Rocketdoc]

Peugeot has just come out with a Diesel Hybrid (Diesel engine with pancake electrical motor).

It seems that Europe is convinced that Diesel and Diesel/Hybrid is the way to go while the Japanese think that Otto/Hybrid (Gasoline/Hybrid) is the path.

America, late as ever, will decide, far too late, what way to go.

[chop456]

^ To expand on that:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060105/sc_nm/autos_peugeot_fuel_dc_2

And Rocketdoc's right. We have the most :gomer: car companies on Earth. Presenting the fuel-efficient American car - the Chevy Aveo! :rolleyes:

[Methanolandbrats]

I have a very "Green" friend/co-worker who just bought a Prius AND a hybrid Escape. He's convinced he's saving the world and my 130mph runs to RA are equivilent to War On The World. At least now I can tell him I'm going there to see a TDI Diesel that is testing technology to save us all! :laugh: Aw geezus not that crap again. Reminds me of when I almost took a breaker bar to a Greenpeace Guy. I was working on my racecar and he walks up my driveway waving a clipboard and looking for cash to buy contact lenses for otters or some such ****. Then he screwed up and told me autoracing should be banned because it wastes resources and harms the Earth. I told him very little of the total amount of energy used went to racing. He rattled on attacking my hobby. I asked him what his favorite sport was. He said basketball. Hmmmmmmmm. So you like DRIVE to a huge heated stadium, watch players run around in shorts when it's 10F outside, then you DRIVE home and the players take a virtually empty redeye flight to another city and inject a huge amount of jet fuel directly into the stratosphere. I pointed out if racing was wasteful maybe basketball should be banned too. He did'nt have much to say to that. Then I told him attacking people was a bad way to raise money and he should get the **** out of my yard. Point this out to your co-worker.

[NismoZ]

:D I know what you mean, but I try to get along with most people. He's a Notre Dame fan also, but I still like him! He likes his "My Other Car Is A Hybrid, Too" bumper sticker and I like 300 hp and a 50/50 weight distribution! :D

[Stu]

Start out by taxing imported oil at a higher level to finance the whole project.


Sweet. Then we can pay 4 dollars a gallon until this new technology is fully developed and implemented. :rolleyes:

While I agree that it looks more and more like fuel efficiency is the way to go for the future, why does the government have to be in charge of the change. Lets just allow the free market handle this. If people start demanding more fuel efficiency with their cars, they will get it.

[G.]

I thought the American companies were trying to focus on fuel cells, to leapfrog over the hybrid tech.

At least they had better be... :mad:

[cameraman]

Yeah the US is looking at hydrogen fuel cells. You know hydrogen, the gas that is made from water using a bazillion watts of electric power and can't be efficiently pipelined muchless distributed to your local 7-11. :rolleyes:

[oddlycalm]

Yeah the US is looking at hydrogen fuel cells. You know hydrogen, the gas that is made from water using a bazillion watts of electric power and can't be efficiently pipelined muchless distributed to your local 7-11. :rolleyes: Exactly. The US companies assumed some sort of distant implementation horizon, even though the handwriting has been on the wall since 1974, and the acceleration of events and prices has caught them out. There's no doubt about it, the most efficient practical power today is a turbo diesel/electric hybrid.

It's a shame because given the resources of a company like GM a good management team would be able to kick some serious tail with diesel hybrids. They even had most of the pieces in place. They were the first ones into the neodymium/iron/boron magnet business, which also meant they were first with the most compact and powerful electric motors. I saw a motor for an electric car at Delco-Remy in Anderson, IN that was superior to any used on the early hybrids, and I saw it over 10yrs ago. :rolleyes:

They also had in-house diesel expertise at Detroit Diesel, diesel fuel technology at AC Rochester in Grand Rapids... you name it. Most of that has been spun off, but even before it was GM's attemps at diesel cars were beyond pathetic. Benz was putting relatively clean and efficient turbo-diesels in cars since the late 70's while GM wanked about with converted gasoline engines that failed with singular regularity and finally had to turn to their Isuzu affiliate to supply their pickups. :shakehead

Bad decisions, missed opportunities, and all because the people in charge didn't know jack about the business they were in.

oc

[NismoZ]

YES, Stu...TAX and increase the price of a gallon of gas in the US. It is the ONLY thing that will lead to higher levels of gas conservation and increased R&D for both alternative fuels and engine technology. Take that money and spend it HERE, as opposed to the billions and billions we now just send overseas. It's our money, lets keep it here and spend it on us for projects to improve our way of life, not somebody else's. That also has the added advantage of putting the burden on those who actually buy and use the gas. Their more efficient use of it will certainly benefit all consumers in the long run by lowering costs to business. (in a just world! :D ) Let the free market determine the price AND the tax. The tax can float just as the market does. Increase the tax gradually over a period of 10 years, creating a new "Superfund" to insulate our spoiled public from a sudden shock. The trick as always would be to get our gutless Congress to stick to a promise and spend the money as needed or intended. Our fuel problems have been self-inflicted for years by prices that have been too low, (hey, keep your customer addicted, right?) leading many to believe it will always be that way. And don't blame the auto industry, they give us just what we want. When we all rush in to the dealers and demand turbo-Diesel/electric hybrids and won't spend our money the way THEY want us to, we'll GET 'em! (Of course the price will go up. :( ) Perhaps a Mid-East war every decade or so would actually be cheaper in the long run, but how would you rather have your money spent? The only way I know to avoid the economic hardship brought on by scarcity is to make better use of the resource or do without it. (or have so much money you don't even feel the hardship!) Which position do you think we are more likely to plan for? So, do you think I'd get elected by running on a platform advocating an increasing gas tax? Neither did John Anderson in 1980, but he got my vote! "We have met the enemy and he is us!"-Walt Kelly

[NismoZ]

Oh, and I just read TODAY that GM intends to show a turbo-Diesel/electric hybrid at the Detroit show beginning next week. How's that for timing? Hopefully it won't be 10 years before we can buy one. Can anyone here go and get some info? :)

[Rocketdoc]

"There's no doubt about it, the most efficient practical power today is a turbo diesel/electric hybrid."

I agree with you.

The direct injection diesel runs with open air intake (unthrottled) all the time, with fuel used on demand.

The turbo puts in a fat amount of air, and with variable valve timing, torque is tremendous and variable.

Further, a diesel can and will cruise at about 1/20-24 fuel air ratio.

Although the advanced gasoline engine still has a lot of life in it with advanced electronics, because of the inhrerent high efficiency of the compression ignition process, with forced induction, it is my opinion that the diesel has the best chance for compression engines.

[NismoZ]

Agreed. :thumbup: (but I'm not ready for one...yet! :D )

[Stu]

YES, Stu...TAX and increase the price of a gallon of gas in the US. It is the ONLY thing that will lead to higher levels of gas conservation and increased R&D for both alternative fuels and engine technology. Take that money and spend it HERE, as opposed to the billions and billions we now just send overseas.

So let me get this straight. Right now gas is 2.25ish. You want to tax it, lets say it goes up to 2.75. That means for every gallon bought, the same amount goes overseas, and now 50 cents goes to Washington. So overseas still benefits, Washington benefits more, and we are screwed. Smart.


It's our money, lets keep it here and spend it on us for projects to improve our way of life, not somebody else's.

No it isn't our money. Its my money, its your money, its the money of the individual who buys the fuel. You want it to go to Washington to try to improve your life. I'd like to keep the money in my pocket and spend it as I choose to improve my life. I think I can handle my money better than a bunch of politicians.


Let the free market determine the price AND the tax. The tax can float just as the market does. Increase the tax gradually over a period of 10 years, creating a new "Superfund" to insulate our spoiled public from a sudden shock.

You clearly have no concept of what a free market society is. I think you are missing the "free" part of the concept.


Our fuel problems have been self-inflicted for years by prices that have been too low, (hey, keep your customer addicted, right?) leading many to believe it will always be that way.

Thats an amazing statement right there. I guess if prices were too low, gas companies have been losing money for the last 50 years. Supply and demand my friend, supply and demand.



And don't blame the auto industry, they give us just what we want. When we all rush in to the dealers and demand turbo-Diesel/electric hybrids and won't spend our money the way THEY want us to, we'll GET 'em! (Of course the price will go up. :( )

Who is blaming the auto industry. They provide what we want to buy or else they lose money and eventually go out of business. See GM as an example of that.

An auto manufacturer doesnt care how we spend our money as long as it is spent with them. Why would the prices go up? If we all demanded something they couldn't make enough of, yes, prices would rise. As they built more, prices would come down. Supply and demand.


Perhaps a Mid-East war every decade or so would actually be cheaper in the long run, but how would you rather have your money spent? The only way I know to avoid the economic hardship brought on by scarcity is to make better use of the resource or do without it. (or have so much money you don't even feel the hardship!) Which position do you think we are more likely to plan for? So, do you think I'd get elected by running on a platform advocating an increasing gas tax? Neither did John Anderson in 1980, but he got my vote! "We have met the enemy and he is us!"-Walt Kelly

Won't comment, we've already gotten into the gray area of politics, commenting would just get this locked.


Cliff Notes Version:

Dear NismoZ,

Don't always think giving more money to the government is the right answer, and take an economics course.

Sincerely,

Stu

[NismoZ]

Politics? Closely tied together of course, but don't worry, we'll just keep this an economic discussion. I had some hopes of convincing you that keeping US $ at home was a good thing but it sounds like YOU want to turn it into a political question and seem to come down on the side of continuing the outflow of cash because it is your right to do so and you don't trust your government? I can understand that to a degree but isn't the idea in question here one of how to make more efficient use of a scarce resource through technology, not to simply keep it's price down? You mention supply and demand as if that was all there was to it. There is much more to the market than that, isn't there? Raising costs (the tax) can raise the price which usually, at some point, will begin to lower (or lower the increase in) demand. More than my right to spend my personal wealth on foreign oil (in this case) at a price set at the whim of a tiny group of "businessmen" who have had us by the short hairs for about the last 50 years, I look for something that will encourage research and development to aid us in managing our fuel problems. (problems, I hope you'll agee, that go a lot further than pump price.) What you advocate (status quo?) won't do that. The danger of course always is in what we can't control. Even as we try to change our habits and maybe many of our ways of living, and build VERY efficient engines, there are those "over there" that will just turn up the pumps and lower the price so we DON'T change, and reduce our research efforts. Good for them, dangerous for us. I think we are way past due for some change. I'm not holding my breath, however, because I believe the vast majority of the US consuming public still thinks the way you do. Like I said...dangerous.

[oddlycalm]

Further, a diesel can and will cruise at about 1/20-24 fuel air ratio.

Although the advanced gasoline engine still has a lot of life in it with advanced electronics, because of the inhrerent high efficiency of the compression ignition process, with forced induction, it is my opinion that the diesel has the best chance for compression engines. You make an important point about advanced gasoline engines. Variety in demand breeds variety in product and, while there's no doubt that the most fuel efficient product has an obvious attraction, we have already seen that the current market for hybrids is the affluent over-40 group. They also demand luxury and performance so we see variations like the Honda Accord which used hybrid technology to achieve a performance profile that is actually higher than the gasoline only models while offering fuel economy in the 30mpg range. The turbo-diesel hybrids will be efficient, but they will be a lot less fun to drive than something like the Accord which accelerates as well as a BMW 330i.

oc

[oddlycalm]

I thought the American companies were trying to focus on fuel cells, to leapfrog over the hybrid tech.

At least they had better be... :mad:The reason hybrids are the technology to catch on is simply that they are here today while everything else is vaporware. If you want to set the market paradigm you not only have to be first, but if it's going to be a new fuel like hydrogen you also have to invest enough to break the chicken/egg distribution log jam. No hydrogen vehicles = no demand = no distribution. No distribution = no demand for cars that burn hydrogen. It's gonna take a huge investment in infrastructure to distribute hydrogen and somebody has to pay the bill for that until it's self-sustaining financially.

Theoretically hydrogen distribution could be relatively easy if they used small (relatively) gravel bed nuclear reactors located near major markets. Pipelines aren't necessary if the generation plants are regional and many. The obvious problems with that are cost, time to build out and political opposition. While technical environmentalists would welcome this approach because it's clean, economical and safe the emotional environmentalists would freak straight on out while offering no alternative aside from bicycles and skateboards. BTW, this approach would cut our greenhouse gas emmissions by 30%-40% in 10yrs depending on whose figures you like and our need for foreign oil to zero over the same period. In reality, it will probably take an economic catastrophe to catalize a program that big in the absence of any effective leadership. Free markets are after all efficient but brutal.

oc

[Ankf00]

I think localized hydrogen production/distribution with solar power would be fantastic.

the main holdback in solar power is the brick wall we hit years ago in battery development. power storage is the issue not the photo-voltaic cells.

localized production centers would be extremely expensive initially, but they solve the distribution problem

combine the localized production unit with supercapacitors and I think you've got a winning formula :thumbup:

[Stu]

Politics? Closely tied together of course, but don't worry, we'll just keep this an economic discussion. I had some hopes of convincing you that keeping US $ at home was a good thing but it sounds like YOU want to turn it into a political question and seem to come down on the side of continuing the outflow of cash because it is your right to do so and you don't trust your government?

While what I said early is very political, so is saying that we went to war for oil, so don't just blame me. Also, the US money is staying at home, its just not going to the government. Let me spell it out for you. Gas is 2.00 per gallon with all of the profits going overseas. Under your plan, gas is 2.50 per gallon with 2 dollars going overseas, and 50 cents going to washington. Under both plans, the same 2 dollars goes overseas, and the same 50 cents stays in the US. Your plan has it going to Washington, my plan has it staying in our pockets.

Second, is it fair to tax something in order to fund its replacement. The only other thing I can think of that we do that for is cigarettes. How would you like it if back in the 70s you made typewriters, and the government would have come to you and said, hey typewriter man, computers are the way of the future. So what we are gonna due is put a huge tax on your typewriter and use the money to fund computer research, that way we can screw you, put you out of business sooner, and get computers going today. Yea thats fair. You need to remember there are a lot of good american people who work for oil companies.



I can understand that to a degree but isn't the idea in question here one of how to make more efficient use of a scarce resource through technology, not to simply keep it's price down? You mention supply and demand as if that was all there was to it. There is much more to the market than that, isn't there? Raising costs (the tax) can raise the price which usually, at some point, will begin to lower (or lower the increase in) demand.

Increasing prices will not change Demand, it will change Quantity Demanded. There is a difference there, although, I understand that you meant Quantity Demanded.

So yes, raising taxes will lower consumption and encourage people to rapidly move over to other energy sources for automobiles. However, if what you say is true about fuel being scarce, then price will rise on its own. A shift in supply with the same quantity demanded will cause the price to increase, some day to a point where people will want to switch over to other energy sources. But how soon is that going to happen? Tomorrow? Next week? Next year? In 2010? 2020? Who knows how soon gas will start to rapidly go up in price. Remember that adjusted for inflation, it was still cheaper over the summer and fall at 3 dollars a gallon than it was during the Carter administration.


More than my right to spend my personal wealth on foreign oil (in this case) at a price set at the whim of a tiny group of "businessmen" who have had us by the short hairs for about the last 50 years, I look for something that will encourage research and development to aid us in managing our fuel problems.

They have us by the short hairs? What did you do when gas prices went way up? I drove a little slower than I do now, I'm much more spirited than I am. I conserved enough. But guess what, at 3 dollars a gallon, people still drove, we still consumed. Everyone complained about it but not many people were doing anything about saving energy. I didn't start a car pool or limit my driving, I just accelerated a bit slower.


(problems, I hope you'll agee, that go a lot further than pump price.) What you advocate (status quo?) won't do that. The danger of course always is in what we can't control. Even as we try to change our habits andmaybe many of our ways of living, and build VERY efficient engines, there are those "over there" that will just turn up the pumps and lower the price so we DON'T change, and reduce our research efforts. Good for them, dangerous for us.

I've heard you say that they have us under their control, and then I have heard you say that they have kept prices down so as to keep us from using other resources for fuel. Like I said earlier, fuel is still cheaper than under Carter, so have they been keeping prices low for the last 50 years to encourage gas use?

I'm not blind here, I would like to see alternative energy used for fuel. But I would like it done right. With proper research done by GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, etc. to make a vehicle that will perform and save on fuel. They can do it on their own. They can market it to me on their own. They can prove to me that I should buy this car and stop buying gas at the pump, on their own.


I think we are way past due for some change. I'm not holding my breath, however, because I believe the vast majority of the US consuming public still thinks the way you do. Like I said...dangerous.

If it is really what the people of the United States want, then it will happen. It doesnt require government regulation to occur. You say its dangerous. I say its the free market. We don't live in Soviet Russia. We won the cold war. Regulation of the market is part of what killed Russia. Why do we want to set more precedent for regulating a major part of the market here in the US.

[oddlycalm]

I think localized hydrogen production/distribution with solar power would be fantastic.

the main holdback in solar power is the brick wall we hit years ago in battery development. power storage is the issue not the photo-voltaic cells.

localized production centers would be extremely expensive initially, but they solve the distribution problem

combine the localized production unit with supercapacitors and I think you've got a winning formula :thumbup: It occurs to me that while battery storage has brick walled for the moment, storing the energy produced in converted hydrogen would make some sense. Banks of mega-joule super capacitors would provide the necessary "flywheel" to make production practical. That might be a good production model for the Southwest while hydro power may work up here in Raintopia and the region served by the TVA. Perhaps small gravel bed nukes in places where solar or hydro potential isn't sufficient. Regardless of how, transporting something that can be easily made anywhere would be silly and increase cost for no good reason.

I don't think hydrogen is unworkable, I just think it's not here now while gasoline hybrids are and diesel versions will be soon. I also think there's a high liklihood that unless the petroleum oligarchy can figure out a way to monopolize hydrogen production they will work hard finding ways to prevent it.

oc

[Rocketdoc]

Agreed. :thumbup: (but I'm not ready for one...yet! :D )


Many years ago, I had a Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel.

I was commuting between Woodbury, NJ and Princeton, NJ daily.

Of course it snows in NJ, and the mob led governement was not at their very best in snow removal.

This little diesel never let me down once in my daily treks.

Because I had a spoiler on the front, it was advantaagous to run up I-295 at about 60-65 MPH in the deeper snow, no matter what.

Because of the characteristics of that little diesel, and its torque, if I exceeded 65 MPH, the front tires would break loose, at speed.

[Rocketdoc]

"I also think there's a high liklihood that unless the petroleum oligarchy can figure out a way to monopolize hydrogen production they will work hard finding ways to prevent it."

IMO, a winner.

[Rocketdoc]

You make an important point about advanced gasoline engines. Variety in demand breeds variety in product and, while there's no doubt that the most fuel efficient product has an obvious attraction, we have already seen that the current market for hybrids is the affluent over-40 group. They also demand luxury and performance so we see variations like the Honda Accord which used hybrid technology to achieve a performance profile that is actually higher than the gasoline only models while offering fuel economy in the 30mpg range. The turbo-diesel hybrids will be efficient, but they will be a lot less fun to drive than something like the Accord which accelerates as well as a BMW 330i.

oc

Good points all, but a high speed turbo diesel with a oh, say... 120 HP electric "kicker", with max torque at stall speed (0), and a six or seven speed electrically shifted transmission, and you have everything you need; enormous torque from launch, enormous torque through the gears, and as a high speed diesel (~5200 RPM), and tall gearing, you have something that would be hard to beat (see Audi R10).

[Ankf00]

It occurs to me that while battery storage has brick walled for the moment, storing the energy produced in converted hydrogen would make some sense. Banks of mega-joule super capacitors would provide the necessary "flywheel" to make production practical. That might be a good production model for the Southwest while hydro power may work up here in Raintopia and the region served by the TVA. Perhaps small gravel bed nukes in places where solar or hydro potential isn't sufficient. Regardless of how, transporting something that can be easily made anywhere would be silly and increase cost for no good reason.

I don't think hydrogen is unworkable, I just think it's not here now while gasoline hybrids are and diesel versions will be soon. I also think there's a high liklihood that unless the petroleum oligarchy can figure out a way to monopolize hydrogen production they will work hard finding ways to prevent it.

oc

agreed on all counts. the big 3 took down public transport in the country decades ago piece by piece. big oil will do the same w/ hydrogen production.

[Ankf00]

dp

[oddlycalm]

Good points all, but a high speed turbo diesel with a oh, say... 120 HP electric "kicker", with max torque at stall speed (0), and a six or seven speed electrically shifted transmission, and you have everything you need; enormous torque from launch, enormous torque through the gears, and as a high speed diesel (~5200 RPM), and tall gearing, you have something that would be hard to beat (see Audi R10). Agreed, it would be very efficient and the perception with electrics around town is that they are more powerful than they are due to the 100% torque from 0 Rpm that you mention. My first Prius drive was a real eye opener and my first Accord Hybrid drive was major grins. There is no doubt in my mind that this would be a good interim strategy. The fact no US company is working on this is frustrating.

The challenge of isolating the acoustical, vibration and smell emissions of a smaller diesel is a smaller problem, but will require solutions. Also, a very sophisticated control system will be required to allow a turbo diesel to live a long life while starting and stopping operation repeatedly while driving. Solvable, but no small challenge. Also, diesel NO2 emissions are challenging, and intermittent running would aggravate that situation

Long term though a diesel hybrid still means dealing with the petroleum creeps, and that's where hydrogen with alternative generation is interesting. Strategically, we'll all be better off the day that the only oil products in the car are the synthetic lubricants. Global politics, economics, emissions all become very


oc

[Ankf00]

well, GM tried their hand at hybrids...

then they quit cuz they suck at designing real technology :gomer:

[skaven]

I just got me a new hybrid. :gomer:

Atlas snowshoes for the ascent. Ride snowboard for the descent. And you can avoid the pollutin' lift lines. :thumbup:

Seriously though, I hope to live to see a change in our energy policy, but as long as the oil cabal rules the planet and people would rather spend money on AV toys made in China than renewables and American energy independence... :cry:

[Rocketdoc]

“Agreed, it would be very efficient and the perception with electrics around town is that they are more powerful than they are due to the 100% torque from 0 Rpm that you mention. My first Prius drive was a real eye opener and my first Accord Hybrid drive was major grins. There is no doubt in my mind that this would be a good interim strategy. The fact no US Company is working on this is frustrating.

The challenge of isolating the acoustical, vibration and smell emissions of a smaller diesel is a smaller problem, but will require solutions. Also, a very sophisticated control system will be required to allow a turbo diesel to live a long life while starting and stopping operation repeatedly while driving. Solvable, but no small challenge. Also, diesel NO2 emissions are challenging, and intermittent running would aggravate that situation

Long term though a diesel hybrid still means dealing with the petroleum creeps, and that's where hydrogen with alternative generation is interesting. Strategically, we'll all be better off the day that the only oil products in the car are the synthetic lubricants. Global politics, economics, emissions all become very….”



I failed to include “bio-diesel” (or bio-mass) in my description of a self-sufficient diesel automotive solution.
Again, a reoccurring problem with the equations is an efficient distribution system.
I would offer that a ‘local use system’, meaning in the sense of bio-fuel, that it is locally grown/processed, and distributed.
Entities like farm or industrial co-ops, limited to a fixed, but reasonable profit structure, with a local or regional public utility-like regulation structure, and large scale supply (large energy companies controlling growth, processing and distribution) kept firmly out of the picture unless they could sell their “bio-energy” to the local energy utility at some point under local production costs . I know about economies of scale, but the system needs to stay local to keep distribution costs minimal.



As for NVS (Noise, Vibration and Stink), you could think of a two tiered coolant system that would use a normal water and Ethylene Glycol mix generally throughout the engine, with a separate coolant system in the vicinity of the combustion process (cylinder head and upper block area), with the use of a liquid metal (sodium or some other liquid metal) solution or some other efficient, high density coolant, that would be a far better thermal transfer medium, allowing far higher combustion temperatures (again, increased efficiency), perhaps high enough to disassociate the oxides of Nitrogen (I realize that the current high temperature is the cause of the No2 problem), and as a much higher density and viscous coolant, that would act as an acoustic moderator/damper.

I’m not sure whether a frequency in stop-start operation (of Hybrid fame) would be more difficult than is now used in “gasoline/electric hybrids”. Actually, it might prove simpler.
In a TDI type compression ignition engine, the only thing that’s getting into the combustion chamber, until fuel is injected, is air. And, if the engine had a multi-valve (3 or 4 valve) configuration, it might be a simple matter of keeping one of the intake, or better yet, exhaust valves open, by means of a solenoid, when any one of the cylinders want to be taken off-line (no compression).
Through a smart ECU, you could actually take as many cylinders off-line during cruise as the ECU thinks it needs.

The problem with the gasoline engine and taking cylinders off-line is that the cylinder is still using up energy by compressing the off-line cylinder even though it’s not being fired.

I don’t want to make this into a F. Radcliff type of deal, but it does present some pretty interesting thinking in trying to get ourselves out of the grasp of our beneficent government, the worlds’ oil oligarchies, and those rotten bastards in the Middle East.