Clean Diesel from Coal

Technology Review ^ | April 19, 2006 | By Kevin Bullis

[Gorjus]

The break even point on wind power is about $50 a barrel.

I'm not discounting your statement out of hand, but what's your data source on that? Except in areas of strong, steady wind (as I mentioned in my first posting), wind power generators often consume more electricity to power their magnets than they produce - and even when the winds are right the net production is very small. They also have some pretty significant maintenance/depreciation requirements that are factored into conventional power plants but often ignored when considering only net cost per watt produced/consumed.

I'd appreciate knowing your data source so I could see what's changed since the last time I looked into it in any depth. But when I did, it was ONLY the subsidies that made wind power viable at any price.

[Gorjus]

There is nothing more constant than the sea breeze.

That's a start, and I'm not saying wind power has no potential. I'd like to see an honest set of numbers, including maintenance and depreciation. If the numbers are there - without subsidy - then fine. And the best way to see if that's true is - as my first post on this thread suggested - get rid of all the artificial constraints including things like not exploiting ANWR and let the marketplace demonstrate the right answer.

In addition, I've always favored government-sponsored research even though I don't support government subsidies of production facilities. Even if wind power is not competitive today, that doesn't mean it will never be competitive, and I think there is a compelling social interest in finding out.

[B Knotts]

having sat behind a diesel bus, there is nothing clean about diesel

Hello? We're currently using high sulfur diesel fuel, not the clean diesel that can be obtained from coal or crude. That's changing this year, and by October we will be using ultra low sulfur diesel nationwide (<15 ppm sulfur).

This will allow for particulate traps and catalytic converters on diesels.

Besides that, the nastiest pollutants are the ones you can't smell.

[B Knotts]

Perhaps we need a diesel ping list. Heck, there's a ping list for everything else, no matter how obscure. :-)

[Salo]

Might be a good idea - dhuffman and I both own VW TDIs, so I am aware of his interest in the subject.

I wish there were more diesels available in the US. Damned hippies ruing everything. :-)

[Mr170IQ]

> having sat behind a diesel bus, there is nothing clean about diesel

Well, the diesel fuels and motors used in typical trucks and buses are generally pretty nasty, especially when operating at non-optimal RPM, i.e. accellerating.

However, a diesel engine burning dimethyl ether - which can be synthesized from coal - at optimal RPM - such as in a properly designed hybrid, produces much less pollution than almost any gasoline engine.

[B Knotts]

They're coming. At least from Daimler-Chrysler. I think others will jump on board in the next few years. As you know, ULSD was the hold-up, and we're getting it this year.

[SampleMan]

I'm no eco nut putting up wind power because its fashionable. I agree with you on market dynamics being the key. Even subsidies (if done for solid reasons) should be done to use market dynamics. Like setting a market floor on oil, below which it is taxed. Thus all alternatives are on equal footing. I'm pretty busy now, but if I have time I'll try to find the numbers for you.

The key to alternatives has always been making them market ably wise. The instability of the oil market has always been a problem in setting a business model.

[Salo]

D-C can't build worth a damn, either, unfortunately.

If Ford, GM (ok, maybe not GM), Toyota or Honda could put diesels in smaller vehicles, I would buy from them and not VW, which has serious kwality control issues (yeah, VW put the "kw" in "quality").

[Gorjus]

The instability of the oil market has always been a problem in setting a business model.

I'm not sure about things like setting a market floor on oil, with a tax penalty (which is in effect a negative subsidy) or any other type of subsidy. I guess I'm not sure there is a 'solid reason' for a subsidy, barring only maintaining an essential industrial capability which is not normally needed. I think - if the government got out of the game - that the oil market would be a lot more stable unless there were some special case like a Katrina that interfered with normal oil production. And in that case, prices are going to go up so a floor is not relevant.

[SampleMan]

OPEC. If it didn't exist, you would have a free market in oil, but OPEC is a solid reason for consuming countries to either act collectively (think how well it works with the UN) or to take unilateral action to protect their own industries for a foreign monopoly.

I would support the tax penalty concept on the grounds that it provides long term stability for alternative fuels, when OPEC decides to wipe out Western investments in alternative fuels (and what good is a monopoly if you don't attack the competition).

It would not raise energy costs on the consumer, unless oil were to drop substantially. Nor would it hurt domestic oil production.

All you are doing is protecting your domestic market from a large and active foreign monopoly.

[B Knotts]

I don't know about that. The new OM642 engine looks pretty good, and I've read that it may show up in some Chrysler vehicles.