I wonder what torque ratings they get, or if this would be limited simply to passenger cars... Looks like cool tech either way.

Give engineers a bit more time and the waste and pollutants of coal will be lower than natgas.

Yes, and there are catalysts that improve that today by 10-20% while cutting emissions by 20-60% (depending on the pollutant measured.) Torque makes diesel ideal for sport performance at a lower fuel cost per ton-mile.

I disagree, with all due respect. When it comes to the GW evidence, that means no respect at all.

You would be right! We have had been ~30 submarines and a few aircraft carriers cruising around on nuclear power for >40 years.

Let's switch and make the middle east irrelevant again.

I respectfully disagree. -- j

I ran a diesel VW for 109,000 miles, and tracked the
fuel -- 47 mpg lifetime average. -- j

Guess that depends on how much faith you put into the future predictions of unvalidated climate models. I live on an Atlantic Ocean barrier island... so my feet are in the sand, not my head.

Preponderance of ranting does not equate to evidence.

"Go nuclear!"
Yes! I saw a cartoon with a nuclear plant making a face at a coal-fired plant: "Yeah, but there's no safe place to store _your_ waste either!"
I think people's fear of nuclear is much higher than the actual risk.

It is speculative, but it seems like it ought to be calculatable to reasonable tolerance. What I want to understand is how much we spend reducing the CO2 vs what we would have spent mitigating its effects. My non-expert intuition is it's a drop in the bucket. We need some game-changing solution.

The enormity of the problem makes people want to put their heads in the sand and wish it away.

Diesel fuel used to be cheaper than gasoline -- now it's much more because of the punitive taxes deliberately added to discriminate against it.

Isn't it odd how they blatantly leave all that out. It's as if the electricity is magically available for charging with absolutely no regard for what it takes to produce it and make it available to the PC cars.

"don't listen to CO2 justifications,"
That's the rub. The preponderance of the evidence is CO2 is the biggest environmental threat. It possibly puts other threats in the noise.

No one has walked me through the calculations, but my questioin is how does CO2 reduction solve the problem. If we had something to go to zero carbon emissions, it would make sense to me. That seems impossible to me. And even if we did go to zero emissions, we'd still have to deal with the costs of non-anthropogenic climate change. So if we go to these hard-to-refill options and eventually they get more mature, that's great, but my question is how much of the problem does that solve. It seems like a large effort for something that doesn't nail the problem.

Very true. At present I plan for a diesel in my next vehicle (possiby a Mazda), but I am flexible and in no hurry for another vehicle.

I have no support for the eco terrorists... I can however see that much of the US military efforts year in and year out are to keep oil from the Middle East flowing to us and our friends... I do not dislike lefty billionaires because they are rich any more than I dislike righty billionaires because they are rich...or libertarian billionaires for that matter.

if we were to compare apples to apples, the entire
life cycle cost plus support systems costs are
required. this includes everything from iron ore to
disposal, from locating and digging coal for the
power plants for the electricity, from locating and
drilling for oil -- well, you get my drift.

the free market does this for us, if we remove
forcible influences like government. . no such
opportunity exists, in the "hauling people + groceries"
world -- too much cronyism.

absent that, wouldn't you prefer to carry an easily
refillable 6.5-hour-range tank of fuel, instead of
a hard-to-refill bank of batteries good for 3.5 hours
at highway speeds?

I'm just one engineer out here in the weeds. -- j

p.s. don't listen to CO2 justifications, IMHO.

actually they are counting on the hybrids to go by the wayside by then and then they will have a gas powered vehicle that meets or surpasses the government rules and regs. I personally believe that hybrids are doomed as they were from the beginning.

grab your salt shaker;;; most of these kinds of car
engine ads are fluffy. -- j

The US military has never fought a war for oil (or they'd have at least tried to take possession of Iraq's oil after that war). But even if they did, that is not a cost of oil use -- it is a cost imposed by the eco-nut movement, which crippled American efforts to drill our own oil until about 2010 and is still blocking things like the Keystone pipeline and drilling in California's coastal waters.

The eco-nut movement are simply a bunch of lying Communists who want to destroy the rich world. See:
* the true story of the global warming/climate change hoax -- http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illus...
* all about their hero Al Gore -- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/01...
* the billionaires who fund them -- http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=9424
* and their real agenda -- http://www.green-agenda.com/

One of the advantages of electric/hybrid cars is that, given a method of producing electricity locally (eg solar cells), one can continue to fuel one's car irrespective of the controls enacted on petroleum products.

(Trying to get to that point)

Jan

If only the companies that use nearly all the diesel fuel in vehicles and equipment were open minded enough to try new products, and stopped listening to their fuel supplier (who has a vested interest in using more fuel) as the expert.

Lots of expensive research to reduce unintended consequences?

I'm not sure electric (or hybrid) cars ever were cleaner than regular gasoline engines. All the enthusiasm I've seen for them boils down to one or both of these rosy expectations:

(1) US taxpayers can be tricked into paying huge subsidies to their buyers, even though nearly all of those people are so rich they are willing to pay $30,000 or more for a car.

(2) If a significant fraction of the people in (for instance) metro Los Angeles start driving them, the result will be to move some of the pollution they produce out of the LA basin to the remote areas where the power plants are located -- thus giving Los Angeles voters cleaner air at the expense of rural dwellers. (Remember, selfishness is only wrong when someone on the Right does it.)

The bottom line is first, how much weight needs to be moved under what conditions. Not as in a hill, since what goes up usually comes down so it balances out. Rather stop and go vs. continuous momentum and at what speed. Then it’s a matter of ecological and cost factors necessary for creation of the energy to complete the work.
This seems obvious, but it is the really overlooked key for meaningful efficiency, thus pollution abatement. The answer to dwindling fossil fuels and pollution reduction is not a silver bullet. But instead it’s a number of smaller silver bullets. This priority needs to be called what it is, laid out for all to see. Yes, make engines more efficient, but first match energy use to realistic needs. Eliminate any form of excess weight and size, such as a trunk and passenger space that are seldom used. Don’t over power automotive engines or other things for that matter like home air-conditioners and etc. Use little bullet conservation and renewable resources whenever possible, a ten percent utility reduction from each home in America would be a staggering total reduction and that’s achievable.
Well that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it