Order of Kilopi
Part of it may be the rules to reduce diesel sulfur emissions. Part of it may be the heavy reliance upon diesel in our distribution systems and other heavy-duty vehicles. it's also similar to fuel oil which is used for home heating in some parts of the continent. Small vehicles and power tools tend to use gas because they need to be lighter, which is allowed by gasoline engines. But if we did all switch to diesel, then what would we do with all this gasoline?
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
I'm not sure what you mean. Gasoline supply is a based on demand. There is very little time between refinement and pump. http://www.quora.com/Oil-and-Gas-Ind...l-gas-stationsOriginally Posted by Ara Pacis
Order of Kilopi
Wrong on both counts.
I have started a diesel at 7deg below. Started fine. Infact I've started a Citroen Bx from the 90's, a Seat Leon from the '00s and a a Jag XF from the '10s - all started fine during very cold cold snaps well below 0deg, all with Diesel engines.
Pay a 'lot more for diesel fuel'?
Really?
Current prices at the nearest ARCO at 3.55 for standard gas, 3.59 for diesel. 4 cents. 1.1% more expensive. That's not a lot.
And of course, Diesel doesn't exist in isolation - you get more OUT of it.
The best petrol Jetta gets 24/34 mpg. The best diesel Jetta gets you 30/42mpg.
So in cents per mile of fuel - that's 14.8 / 10.4 for petrol and 12.0 / 8.5 for the diesel.
Per mile - you don't pay a lot more for diesel. You pay less.
Now - yes - the car is approx $2k more expensive - and that would be recouped, at current prices, in about 70,000 miles. After 250,000 miles you would be $5000 up.
And of course with a 14.5 gallon tank, the Jetta has more than 600 miles of freeway driving in its tank. Enough to get from LA to Vegas. And back.
Order of Kilopi
I mean that if we're not using gasoline in cars, we'll have to find another use for it or convert it into a hydrocarbon that we are using. Can gasoline be converted into diesel economically?
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
There are plenty of uses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrole...er_derivatives
Established Member
Perhaps someone can clarify this for me - I'm having trouble finding an answer (and have limited time online). Is gasoline a *necessary* product of refinement? In other words does it HAVE to be made?
Established Member
Without comparison of quantities that means very little.
Given that unconventional oil production (especially shale and tar-sand) is a small fraction of total oil production, its production can increase dramatically and still be very low. It also does not mean unconventional oil production can increase to the point where it can replace current levels conventional oil production.
If so then probably because by then it's no longer used as fuel.My bet is that oil prices will be lower in real terms in ten years.
And lower by how much? Will price be 1/5th of today's price so that it's at 1990s price level?
Or would a few % lower than today mean you won the bet?
Order of Kilopi
I thought you'd already seen the other thread. Start here:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....49#post2029049
Ha! No. Part of the cost now is due to political uncertainty. As oil production shifts more to likely stable regions, that will decrease. There is also now large investment in new production, that will pay off more in the later part of this decade.If so then probably because by then it's no longer used as fuel.
The price floor is probably about $50 a barrel, though there could be overshoot for a bit.And lower by how much? Will price be 1/5th of today's price so that it's at 1990s price level?
Or would a few % lower than today mean you won the bet?
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
Again, you are pointing out that there is a premium due to regulation. The reason for their lack of popularity is not just due to market demand. Whether or not some people will pay a premium for something else is irrelevant to that.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
Again some clarity. We are speaking solely of market conditions in the US. Diesels are wildly popular *almost* everywhere else. Many luxury brands do volume sales in diesels in fact. The lack of popularity in the US *is* due solely to market conditions. I make the argument that the premium for hybrid and diesel is similar and that the popularity of one over the other has to do primarily with market conditions - i.e. marketing and demand. Diesels have never caught on in the US and that is not due to any current flaw in the technology. It is due to marketing and demand.
Order of Kilopi
And I again refer you to your own statement:
YOU, yourself, are clearly saying it is not due SOLELY to market forces. Clearly, as has been repeatedly discussed, emission standards have been involved.What you do end up with a a more costly engine and emissions system than most people would be willing to pay for.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the definition? "Solely, 'Not involving anyone or anything else; only: "appointed solely on the basis of merit".'
Flatly, it is not only due to market forces. And it's more than you're saying: There are now diesels that can meet current emission standards, but that wasn't always the case. I specifically remember reading about the reintroduction of diesels in California (very expensive models) because there had been recent developments in emission reduction technology. There has also been uncertainty about what future standards would require, which diesels might not be able to meet again. And while CARB is warming up to clean diesel, they weren't earlier, being more interested in gasoline hybrids, pure electrics and other alternatives to gasoline cars.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
And again I agree and restate it is solely to market forces. Diesel is and will remain the most efficient combustion engine for automobiles. That is not effected by hybrid marketing. Diesel fuel simply holds more BTU's. That translates, simply and without market forces, to more efficiency per volume. Something gasoline hybrids cannot ever compete with.
However I admit my terminology is perhaps deficient. I am unaware that any CARB standards predate themselves. At least here, in NY, no standards are retroactive. 2012 emissions are not required to be met my 2007 vehicles. Federal standards are much the same. 2007 emissions diesels meet and are only required to met 2007 standards.
Order of Kilopi
My recollection on the diesel car reintroduction was that they had managed to meet soot standards, which they hadn't previously been able to do. Here's a page which discusses diesel soot from CARB:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm
Quoting:
It should be noted that other states can either follow Federal EPA rules or California's tougher ARB rules on emissions. California (because of the heavy smog problems) got into air regulation early. From the wikipedia page:In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems. Diesel engines also contribute to California's fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality problems. Those most vulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. Based on year 2006-2008 emissions in California, diesel PM contributes each year to approximately 2,000 premature deaths, with an uncertainty range of 1,500 to 2,400. In addition, diesel soot causes visibility reduction and is a potent global warmer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...esources_Board
Apparently, 17 out of the 50 states follow the CARB rules.California is the only state that is permitted to have such a regulatory agency, since it is the only state that had one before the passage of the federal Clean Air Act. Other states are permitted to follow CARB standards, or use the federal ones, but not set their own.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
That's just wrong. But if you want to believe it still, fine.
And how is this relevant?Diesel is and will remain the most efficient combustion engine for automobiles.
Eh? Why would you go to the trouble of making a substantial investment in selling diesel vehicles if you aren't sure you'll be able to sell them in a few years? It would make much more sense to sell the cars you can be pretty sure you'll still be allowed to sell. There has been uncertainty about what CARB would allow in future years because they hadn't apparently fully specified what would be allowed.However I admit my terminology is perhaps deficient. I am unaware that any CARB standards predate themselves.
By the way, I believe New York is one of the CARB states.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
All of your questions restate that the facts are substantially more in weight of the market forces - the sole force in deference to US adoption of diesels as a light vehicle source of fuel. NY does adopt CARB standards. As far as I know no CARB standard has predated its own year. I can't picture any CARB standard doing so.
And how is this relevant?
Eh? Why would you go to the trouble of making a substantial investment in selling diesel vehicles if you aren't sure you'll be able to sell them in a few years? It would make much more sense to sell the cars you can be pretty sure you'll still be allowed to sell. There has been uncertainty about what CARB would allow in future years because they hadn't apparently fully specified what would be allowed.
By the way, I believe New York is one of the CARB states.
Order of Kilopi
Then you define government regulations and restrictions as market forces?
You don't believe uncertainty about near-term but future regulation would affect selling decisions? Why would you go to a major effort to putting the resources to diesels if you don't know you'll be allowed to sell them in five years? Especially when you can be pretty sure you'll be allowed to sell gasoline fueled cars?NY does adopt CARB standards. As far as I know no CARB standard has predated its own year. I can't picture any CARB standard doing so.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
(emphasis added) By the way, is this an admission market forces aren't the sole issue?
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
I'm unsure where you get the idea that future emissions regulations effect currently sold vehicles. As far as I know (correct me) current regulations do NOT effect past vehicles. A 1983 VW Diesel does not need to meet 2012 regulations. There is no disadvantage to selling currently regulated vehicles. Diesel regs are not exclusive of gasoline regs for that matter. Your argument does not withstand basic logic. Why sell anything at all? Future regulations are sure to be more strict than current. Any fuel type.
Order of Kilopi
It doesn't sound like you're going to answer the questions, like what you define as a "market force" or why near-term future regulation uncertainty would be ignored. Anyway, I'm tired of this and everyone else probably is too.
Final comment: Government regulations and restrictions are generally classified as non-market forces.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
Our responses are cross-talk. I was typing a response to something earlier but you posted the question first.
I think you are discounting the fact that engines take years to develop and release. You also are separating diesel development from gasoline. Both fuels face future regulation. Both will become more strict in their standards. Neither are held back from release to markets due to ANY regulations. They are developed to meet those regs. The US does not demand diesel due primarily to marketing. Diesels offer more all around than any hybrid (currently). the US demands Hybrids due to the marketing. Hybrids offer no factual advantage over diesels. Hence they are not dominant anywhere else save the US - which has very short attention span for facts and figures.
Order of Kilopi
I understand that you're intentionally trying to conflate supply and market as synonymous, but I'm not sure that's valid. Diesel fuel is often more expensive than gasoline. Sometimes it's so much more expensive that it's more expensive per mile even considering the higher energy density. Adding more diesel powered vehicles to the mix would increase demand and consequently raise prices. You need to examine the reason why diesel is expensive and look at mitigating that issue.
The US is spread out so a lot of our distribution system uses diesel powered trucks and trains. I'd be interested to see a comparison with other countries' distribution systems and their use of diesel trucking, diesel trains, miles traveled, mass and volume transported, etc. Perhaps we should include other diesel vehicles such as agricultural equipment use and heavy construction equipment use. Do these other countries have as much construction occurring? Do they have as much land under cultivation? Do they have as many diesel military vehicles in use? Do they have as many diesel powered motor-coaches (buses) in use?
Besides demand, you need an analysis of supply constraints, such as domestic or local refineries and the amount of diesel they produce and how closely that correlates with demand. Then you need to analyze methods for increasing supply to meet the new demand of putting additional diesel vehicles on the road. Then you need to analyze how altering the light vehicle mix towards diesel would reduce demand on gasoline and lower its price compared to diesel.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Currently - that's wrong. See my post earlier where I explicitly show the actual current status of that claim.
You're not the first to make it in this thread. It doesn't make it any less false.
Established Member
Diesel may only be 4˘ more per gallon where you are, but is is between 28˘ and 40˘ more than "regular" per gallon at the moment where I live.
(Source: gasbuddy.com)
I will concede, however, that the difference in economy for a diesel car should trump the price difference.
Established Member
Sorry but that's hardly any more quantitative. I see mostly marketing talk there.
I've replied separately to that post, specifically to this: "So, if they're right, peak oil has been delayed again."
My argument being that we are 'on the peak', not before it.
In conclusion: there's no good reason not to look very hard for alternatives, which probably should involves electric cars whether swappable or not.
And part is due speculation on the oil futures market - how else would one explain a price dip of 80% over the cause of a few months (including recovery) after a decade of steadily rising price? That can't be due to change in demand or supply. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...peculating-oilPart of the cost now is due to political uncertainty.
And part due to running out of the stuff. Theoretically something can be done about the former two causes, but not the latter.
Order of Kilopi
Whatever you want to believe.
And my argument is that it is looking like we are before peak oil. We're now seeing production ramp up rapidly.I've replied separately to that post, specifically to this: "So, if they're right, peak oil has been delayed again."
My argument being that we are 'on the peak', not before it.
It's great to look for alternatives, but don't be surprised if people won't buy them, unless they are at comparable or lower prices, and with similar practicality.In conclusion: there's no good reason not to look very hard for alternatives, which probably should involves electric cars whether swappable or not.
Well, certainly, part is due to speculation.And part is due speculation on the oil futures market - how else would one explain a price dip of 80% over the cause of a few months (including recovery) after a decade of steadily rising price?
Actually, we can, up to a point. Economics, technology and exploration affect the amount of extractable oil. Nobody is arguing there will be a peak oil point, but there are questions about how it will play out, and why.And part due to running out of the stuff. Theoretically something can be done about the former two causes, but not the latter.
ETA: Should be a "not" up there . . . put another way, everybody accepts there will be some point of peak oil production.
Last edited by Van Rijn; 2012-Jul-03 at 05:31 PM. Reason: ETA
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
Is Peak Oil being confused with Oil Depletion? When you try to combine different resource peaks into a single system, a clear peak is less likely to be visible, especially if they use much of the same infrastructure. As a system not only would the peaks mask each other, they would extend into a lower rate of rise toward the peak. This is because the alternative sources take some of the pressure off of the other system to raise production to meet demand
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Also, it might be helpful to examine external factors, such as subsidies and criminal activities that reduce costs. Chesapeake Energy and others receive subsidies for the wells they drill. That made sense back in 1916 when 80% were dry wells, but these days the technology to find and exploit wells makes dry wells only .4% of total wells. They are also being investigated for collusion with Encana to reduce costs for bidding on land auctions. I could be wrong, but I thought the Hubbert Curve assumed legitimate market activity.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
In the other thread i posted data on which i base my conclusion that we are on a plateau.
And as i pointed out, the IEA thinks we are on a plateau.
Imo such qualitative statements have little value.We're now seeing production ramp up rapidly.
The graphs show that any rise in production globally is nowhere near where it was before we hit the plateau.
Order of Kilopi
Yep, and for several of those resources the peak has already been passed, which is part of what has driven the price so high that using the other resources have become economically viable.
As for Van Rijn's "production is ramping up" argument, peak oil isn't peak production, it's peak consumption.
It's where the cost has become high enough that it's hurting enough to be a limiter on consumption.
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Order of Kilopi
I doubt we're at peak production or peak consumption.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote