Doc,

I agree that alky doesn't have the same BTU content as gasoline making it less potent of a fuel. However you provide a pretty gloomy outlook on the whole topic while others provide a very bright look into it. I would estimate the truth to be somewhere in between. However you reference an article written about 11 months ago - a lot of the stuff I have been reading (I didn't bookmark most of it) is point to facts comparing say 2004/2005/2006 and the amount of ethanol/bio fuel being produced is growing exponentially. So I don't doubt your data from 11 months ago as being very valid, based on what I read I think it fits perfectly inline. Near as I can tell 2004 was more or less the first year we saw mega gas prices, and late 2004 was probably the first point that people started getting interested in alternative fuels. Here we are in early 2006 and I haven't been reading up on the subject as of late (been doing a LOT of work as my business is growing) however I think the outlook is getting good. All of this will be for nothing if they can't figure out how to produce ethanol and other bio fuels from something other than prime stock IE: they need to produce it from the waste husks and other 'trash' and not have to use the corn. When they figure out how to make the enzymes produce fuel from the waste as they can from corn kernels then we'll be sitting pretty - we have TONS and TONS of waste, just imagine that being turned into fuel for our cars. This is a technology that several companies are working on which is great - there is competition in the field meaning they'll have to one up the other guy to stay in business meaning we get better products.

JSsDS,

The depreciation difference I gave you wasn't anything to do with California - it was straight from an Edmunds.com article where they compared the two latest versions. Anyone can go to http://www.edmunds.com and go to their comparison section where you can select any two cars - choose the Prius and the TDI, then review their TCO - it shows you depreciation and "TCO" total cost to own including the cost of depreciation and the TDI is lower. That being said you can't buy a brand new unit in CA; however you can bring one in as long as it has 7500 miles on it. If I had an itch for a brand new TDI I could register it in AZ for a couple months then 'move' it to CA. (I don't plan to since I'm not looking to buy one.)

Your information on the batteries is interesting - it contradicts the article I'd read so that is interesting. I'm not actually interested in such a vehicle but if I was I would certainly read up on that. The point I would make is that I don't think I've seen any type of battery as of yet that could or has lasted 10 years in anything but again research is the answer for someone interested in such a vehicle. You are certainly correct with mass production and increased demand as well as newer technology fueled by increased demand the price should come down and the technology should be better in some time.

As an indicator of supply and demand - I've been watching used Volkswagen TDIs on eBay for some time now. This past winter at any given time there were 5 - 10 on eBay within about 750 miles of Los Angeles. Right now there are 2, and they come up only once every couple of weeks - not to mention they are selling for more than they did this past winter.

To get a hybrid that is going to work exceptionally well, we really need a diesel hybrid - that would give you some spectacular numbers.

As far as me and my thoughts if buying a Volkswagen TDI - I was looking at used TDIs since I do a lot of driving for my on site PC/Network support business. My current vehicle a 1995 200SX gets around 28-32 MPG depending on a few factors. I was looking to possibly replace it with a vehicle that gets better fuel economy, has low depreciation (IE: used as opposed to new) and has more features that I can use for my business (4 doors, larger trunk, etc.) I've since decided to hold off as the time to regain the money spent even on a used vehicle through fuel savings is a ways off thus I think I'll drive this 200SX into the ground and then replace it with something that sips gas a little slower. Perhaps in a couple of years there will be something even more appealing.

 

Excellent post Blackhawk. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

Part of the rap that ethanol has gotten for using more energy than it takes to produce is that alot of it figured in the sunlight energy that is required to grow corn, also corn yeilds have steadily increased and have become more efficent in thier use of inputs, seed companies are starting to devolop corn with higher starch content which will produce more ethanol for the bushel. The corn left over is a very good feed source for livestock, now if we could harness the heat produced by the ethanol plants to produce the electricity to operate the plant. Yes ethanol does produce lower btu's and that E85 blends do need to run richer and aren't as fuel effecent so we will have to use more of it than gasoline. As for the cost of ethanol I know corn is still selling for just over $2.00 nationally a bushel, a bushel of corn wieghs 56 pounds, and the ethanol industry is still recieving per gallon tax credits, alot of the ethanol plants are farmer owned so don't go jumping to the conclusion that the production is owned entirely by 2 or 3 big companies. As I said earlier bio fuels are only a portion of the answer to our energy problems,wind generating is another for electricity, using bio mass to complement coal to fire electric generaters is another avenue being explored. I am strong on the idea of a hybrid, but if indeed they do need $5000 worth of batteries in 3 to 4 years, that would be comparable to buying a complete power stroke engine, btw a power stroke had better last for at least a quarter of a million miles. This is of a study done that explains the ethanols industries claim of 1.67:1 energy gain Net Energy of Ethanol Production, I would be willing to read a independent study that refutes this data and the models used in it. Another thing that needs to be addressed is the oil that is used to make plastics and other non motor fuel products, i know they are just a drop in the bucket to what we consume as gas, but still have to figure into the energy indepent equation somewhere.

 

ODP,

Thanks!

ksfarmboy,

I am glad to hear that most Ethanol plants are farmer owned, it is a topic I hadn't seen talked about much. Though as I think about it one of the articles mentioned small co-ops of farmers going together in the production aspect. What I recall about the larger companies is that they had their own plants (sounded like large sized ones) and that they were competing to find a way to take waste stock and make it ethanol. I would have to assume, they'll both probably produce a method which may differ and then they will license that technology out to other people. I would personally love to see this come to be where our farmers are producing the fuel that the rest of the US uses. Then you'ed see some very rich USA farmers which could only mean a stronger us economy. Not to mention that if the fuel we're buring in cars were produced from renewable crops the Enviro-****'s would be happier too. (Not happy - they never will be, but happier and finding something positive in a new technology is always good.)

You also made reference to the oil used to make plastics etc. I'm not sure I understnad how that fits in here; are you speaking from the standpoint of still importing some oil for those uses? I think I could personally feel ok about small imports like that - besides with that low of a usage I'd bet we could supplement the supply with US oil anyhow.

Here is a fixed version of the link referenced earlier:

Net Energy of Ethanol Productions Working Link

 

Good debate people.
I will check your links out when I get a chance. I will also see if I can dig the study link out that I was talking about.
One of the studies was done by Berkeley UN. The most liberal school in the country. If they said it did not pan out, I believe them because they are as green as it comes.

Anyway, first day of racing and I'm late. Thanks again for the reading material. I will check it out.

PS. Your right on track with the TDI, BH. I almost bought one about 6 months ago. Just did not pencil out for me though. I don't drivge a ton though. You must have been looking at the ones I was on ebay.

 

Since we are on the topic of fuel costs, I'm keenly interested to see if anyone has had good experience with ways of increasing their fuel economy. I've heard people swear by enzyme additives either in tablet form, or powder form. I have a 03 Cummins 4x4 HO 305hp 555t, 48RE, oem size tires, 3.73, 4" Banks turbo back, K&N, no other mods. I get 17-20mpg empty, no complaints there, but when I tow my toyhouse, it sucks the $$'s out of my pocket at the rate of 9-10.5 mpg[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img] I would be interested in hearing if anyone has had luck with increasing their fuel economy[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

Those tablets (BioPerformance) are part of a pyramid marketing scheme exploiting peoples desire to pay less for gas and get better mileage during current times of high prices. The only thing I can guarantee you they will do is clog your fuel filter. Stay away from it.

 

Blackhawk
I use Edmonds all the time! In fact. I did the comparison that you suggested and found a completely different outcome.!.!!!!? Like I suggested, try the 05 or 06 models in the comparison. I found that they are about dead even depending on options added. The real problem with this kind of research is that its all conjecture considering 05 & 06s are too recient have any real data on them.
As for the battery warranty, the research is easy just go to your dealer and ask. If you still don't beleive it (as I didn't) get it in writing (as I did).
Your right though, the economy and power of a diesel engine with the battery back up would be an excelent marrage if
diesel engines were able to be sold in every state of the union and if the diesel engine could start in a second and at a seconds notice. The current hybred cars normally drive on the batteries and use the engine whenever you require more power then the batteries can provide by themselves. This requires an engine that will start in about a second. As anybody who has owned one knows, a diesel engines need some prep time before they start and they can be finicky. I have owned two Volkswagen diesels. If they can work those issues out, they would have a winner for sure
My point was not to sit here and bicker or to change your mind, I don't have that much time on my hands. I like to keep the record straight for those who may have their opinions swayed by the inciteful information being provided here. I was sceptical of the hybreds as you are until I actually drove one. Then came the research to back up what the dealer told me, now I am convinced. Hybreds are in their toddler stage right now. They will be the way of the future and in my opinion, that is a really good thing. Not only for our economy but for the ecology as well.

 

OverRaTeD, man it was like you were reading my mind, that is the exact product that someone was trying to pawn off on me, it seems to be working marginally well for them, but if it truly compromises your injectors, not to mention the whole bs pyrimid scheme theory, pretty much answers my questions on that product. thanks[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]

 

Here is the study I was talking about. Some believe it, others don't. The debate goes on.
More energy?
Kind of like, is a 2.0 liter better in a race car than a 2.3 liter? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] (got in that one last night)
Kind of like, is a KFX faster than a DS in a drag race? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
Kind of like, is a Ford faster than a Chevy? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
And on and on it goes......................................