backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by Hoser McMoose.. on Jul 13 at 2:47 PM


Honda Odyssey

Honda Pilot

Honda Ridgeline
Honda to introduce a new 3.5 liter V6 diesel by 2010

While many domestic and foreign automakers are looking to hybrid technology to improve fuel efficiency across their auto lines, Honda is looking towards the tried and true: diesel engines.

It was reported last month that the next generation Honda Accord would forgo its slow-selling and poor-performing Accord Hybrid with a diesel variant. The oil-burning Honda Accord will feature a 2.2 liter i-CTDi Tier 2 Bin 5 diesel engine along with an ammonia-filled catalytic converter to reduce NOx emissions.

Honda is also poised to make a new 3.5 liter V6 diesel engine available for its larger vehicles including the Odyssey minivan, Pilot mid-sized SUV and the Ridgeline mid-sized pickup truck. The new Tier 2 Bin 5 diesel will first be available in 2010 according to the Japanese Nikkei newspaper.

The engine is said to be 30 percent more fuel efficient than Honda's current 3.5 liter V6 gasoline engine (rated at 17/24, 15/20 and 15/20 respectively in the Odyssey, Pilot and Ridgeline based on 2008 EPA estimates). The new motor is also said to produce 20 percent less carbon dioxide as the 3.5 liter V6 gasoline engine.

Honda's new diesels likely won't come under as much scrutiny for failure to achieve EPA estimates as has been the case with hybrids. Honda knows this first-hand as it recently became the target of a class-action lawsuit regarding poor fuel economy on the Civic Hybrid.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Typo + comment
By Hoser McMoose on 7/11/2007 3:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
There are three big reasons why ethanol from corn is a bust:

1. Cost. It just isn't cost competitive without the $10B/year in corn subsidies plus the additional billions in actual ethanol subsidies vs. gasoline which is TAXED instead of being subsidized.

2. It's does next to nothing to reduce foreign fuel dependency. Producing ethanol from corn requires a LOT of natural gas (to the point that it's only BARELY energy positive, ie it takes nearly as much energy to make as you get back), and natural gas supplies in North America are in decline. The major suppliers of the world are Russia and Iran.

3. It's extremely damaging to the environment. Farming corn not only has the high energy requirement mentioned above and uses lots of natural gas, but it also requires lots off fertilizers which can leach into the water. And this is all BEFORE you try to burn it in your car!

Ethanol from feed crops other then corn does hold some potential. Same goes for biodiesel, but for right now ethanol from corn is PURELY vote-buying among farmers and a feel-good idea for people who aren't interested in the reality of things.


RE: Typo + comment
By SandmanWN on 7/11/2007 3:54:36 PM , Rating: 3
Its bad because its grown from corn but OK by any other means. So, you denounce it as terrible??? Makes no sense man.

I watched a very recent special on producing algae from a waste byproduct that in turn generated biodiesel. Was the damnedest thing I've ever seen.

1. Your accusation about ethanol not being competitive is the only bust here. Its being subsidized to increase the growth of the technology at a faster rate than it would on its own accord. It was there before subsidies and would have continued on a growth pattern regardless of subsidies. At this point any and all technologies that will rival gasoline will need heavy subsidies in order to make up ground, so your point is really invalid.

2. The US has very large natural gas reserves. Canada, US, and Mexico hold 46% of the worlds estimated natural gas reserves so your argument is baseless. Check out naturalgas.org

3. You've already pointed out that there are alternatives to producing ethanol other than corn so you've already invalidated your entire argument here. One of the newest discoveries is that algae is capable of producing biodiesel and its only side effect is producing oxygen and did not require the use of natural gas in the process.

Most cars produced today are capable of using E85 and it would be stupid to not take advantage of this rather than giving money to the psychotic region that is the middle east.


RE: Typo + comment
By Hoser McMoose on 7/11/2007 5:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
Biodiesel from algae is a VERY different thing than ethanol. Ethanol from other feedstocks does hold some promise, but unfortunately it is not being widely explored while governments are very literally pumping billions of dollars into ethanol from corn.

quote:
The US has very large natural gas reserves. Canada, US, and Mexico hold 46% of the worlds estimated natural gas reserves so your argument is baseless.

I don't know where you're getting that 46% number, but the link you provided states that North America has 5% of the world's proven reserves. The US government numbers are slightly worse:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves...

Beyond that though North American reserves are in decline while demand has increased. That is why there are so many Natural Gas ports being proposed. Of course, NIMBYism has reared it's ugly head here and MANY of those proposed ports are being blocked.


RE: Typo + comment
By SandmanWN on 7/11/2007 5:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
It hasn't been widely explored because it is practically brand spanking new. They just got one small plant in operation and as small as it is (size of a mobile home) fuels their entire fleet of vehicles. In any means you are equating the short span of ethanol to the 100+ years of gasoline production and trying to draw a meaningful conclusion and time frames. Its simply isn't a practical argument.

And the 46% number is the total of North America.


RE: Typo + comment
By Hoser McMoose on 7/13/2007 1:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the late reply, been busy at work.

quote:
And the 46% number is the total of North America.


Uhh, unless you're "North America" includes Russia, then you're 46% figure is totally wrong. The US has about 3% of the world's reserves and Mexico and Canada have about 1% each.

See the link I provided above for more details.


RE: Typo + comment
By dluther on 7/11/2007 10:30:13 PM , Rating: 3
Ethanol, especially from corn has a negative (or neutral, depending on who you talk to) energy footprint because the amount of energy used to produce it in terms of growing, harvesting, and distilling is either less than or equal to what you get out of it. There's also only one crop per season, which immediately makes this fuel source reliant on extreme weather conditions like floods and drought.

Additionally, corn products and other products that rely on corn products are now more expensive because the very corn that would normally be used in these products is being diverted to ethanol production. So things like the ubiquitous corn syrup we use as sweeteners in everything, animal feed (cows, chickens, turkeys, fish), corn meal, and even shampoo has a reciprocal increase in price because generally speaking, more corn isn't being planted, and in the specific instances that it is, corn is replacing other crops.

Simply put, ethanol is a bust, with a capital 'B'. We currently have much better and more adaptable technologies such as biodiesel from waste oil to actually making light crude from thermal depolymerization of all the nasty parts of produce, poultry and livestock (heads, feet, guts -- you know, the things that get put into hot dogs) which have a much higher energy footprint and immediately available end product.

Just because it's "renewable" doesn't make it good, logical, or even green. I can't understand why that concept is so hard to understand.


RE: Typo + comment
By SandmanWN on 7/12/2007 10:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
we moved past corn yesterday. get with the program.


RE: Typo + comment
By TomZ on 7/12/2007 1:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
Practically all the ethanol produced in the U.S. is made from corn. Get with the program!


RE: Typo + comment
By SandmanWN on 7/12/2007 1:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
and tomorrow it might be made mostly by something else. do you have a point or are you intent on pointing out the obvious.


RE: Typo + comment
By SandmanWN on 7/12/2007 10:17:16 AM , Rating: 2
Using any of the other sources of ethanol that were stated numerous times in this conversation simply puts your argument to rest. We don't have to use corn. Get it already???

It's only a bust if you look at it with the blind and stupid argument that corn is the only source of ethanol. Try to keep up with the rest of us here ok?

Biodiesel from waste oil is ludicrous. I sincerely hope you realize that the raising of livestock has a much higher energy consumption than growing corn/switch grass/algae and all the other forms of ethanol.

You really need to go look at this algae study and try to use any of your arguments against it. They will all fail horrendously.

Whatever we choose as a new fuel has to be first and foremost renewable. Otherwise its a dead end. We have to start there and move outward. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


RE: Typo + comment
By dluther on 7/12/2007 4:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
No, we don't have to use corn, but that's what we use. It's why all our flex-fuel cars and gas stations have a BIG PICTURE OF AN EAR OF CORN. Get it already???

Do some research and stop regurgitating your daytime talking points; you'd be surprised what you find out when you do even the most rudimentary research.

quote:
Biodiesel from waste oil is ludicrous.


Tell that to the thousand-some-odd people who are already making this stuff themselves.

That pretty much shows your bias. You'd rather stand and advocate the devotion of enormous resources, expense, and time into producing an end product that *could* be generated from waste products, while at the same time shortchanging the rest of the economy by using a product that is needed elsewhere.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic...

"...139 million metric tons of corn will be needed for ethanol by the 2008 harvest season, or roughly half of the nation's crop, according to US Agriculture Department estimates."

If ethanol were primarily produced from algae, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it's not, and never will be because the USDA doesn't subsidize algae farming.

Ethanol production, the way we do it, is a Bust. The price effect of ethanol (E85) production is already in effect. Poultry, beef, dairy products, eggs, HFCS -- all are already between 9% and 17% higher this year than last, directly as a result of ethanol production. It will be worse next year.

Is the point I'm trying to make clear enough now?


RE: Typo + comment
By SandmanWN on 7/12/2007 5:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
blah blah blah

the algae farming is brand new. If it gains traction it will be subsidized. If its subsidized quickly and is easy enough to produce then it will take the place of corn based ethanol.. We've been here before... You can regurgitate the corn argument all you want but the rest of us are moving on to other resources. We'll talk when you catch up to the newer innovations.

thousand some odd people??? I think there may be a few billion cars on this little chunk of rock we call earth. I'm pretty sure we will run out of left over cooking oil before then.


RE: Typo + comment
By dluther on 7/12/2007 10:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
blah blah blah

Well, at least you're consistent...

quote:
the algae farming is brand new.

But ethanol production isn't. Mankind has been distilling alcohol since the middle ages, getting drunk off ethanol from fructose yield in grains, wood, fruit, or any other thing that has some kind of fermentable component. The first combustion engines burned ethanol, because gasoline hadn't been around at the time.

quote:
You can regurgitate the corn argument all you want but the rest of us are moving on to other resources.

The point I'm trying to make, the point you can't seem to get through that thick skull of yours, the point that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge even in the face of an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, is that you're NOT moving on to other resources.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on ethanol -- it's a great idea in both theory and practice. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and reduces emissions. I've never argued this point.

But, ethanol from CORN is a BAD IDEA . You have literally no grasp on how dependent our society is on the corn we produce, and now we're about to use half of that crop to produce ethanol, and there's literally nothing we can do to stop it. I want you to take a few minutes to try and digest what it is I'm trying to tell you here. Go and pull any product out of your refrigerator or pantry and look at the ingredients; 99% of the time you'll find corn .

We're about to face a crisis that will make hurricane Katrina look like a fart in a bathtub because nobody wants to use common sense and look two steps ahead at what will happen when we run out of corn to make all this other stuff.

quote:
thousand some odd people?

And growing every day.

I like ethanol. I really do. But for all of its good points, it's simply not as efficient as gasoline, which, if we just concentrated on foreign oil, and took into account the energy it takes to ship it from the other side of the world, refine it, and truck it to your gas station, has a 94% energy yield. Nothing else can say that.

Which is why I advocate thermal depolymerization over ethanol production. It takes a variety of abundantly available waste resources and with very little processing, produces a refinable light crude. It's still crappy for the environment, but it fits nicely into our existing infrastructure, and won't cause a global catastrophe in two years.


RE: Typo + comment
By SandmanWN on 7/13/2007 11:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
what an idiot.

quote:
is that you're NOT moving on to other resources.

Cant move on till you actually have something to move on to. DEE DEE DEE

quote:
Which is why I advocate thermal depolymerization over ethanol production.

Sorry man but you are going to run out of things to break down before you are even close to powering the billion or so cars on the face of the planet. Your idea is novel but a bust.

The solution needs to be abundant and renewable. Your solution is lacking.


RE: Typo + comment
By SandmanWN on 7/13/2007 11:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
Your entire argument about corn is that we will somehow not be able to use corn for our daily needs. This can be solved with simple legislation stating that food and other items that currently depend on corn production gets first dibs on the corn supply. All the excess with then be funneled into the fuel system. Your entire argument goes out the window at that point.

And don't be naive. It took a very long time to get the energy yields of gasoline to the efficiency levels they are today. If you don't think efficiency can be brought up to higher levels over time with ethanol then you are just plain fooling yourself.

And what difference does it make if we start with corn, one of the easiest and most readily ways to get ethanol, and transition to something else later? Big friggin' whoop. Boo Hoo our price of corn goes up a little. It's a drop in the bucket compared to oil prices.

quote:
Which is why I advocate thermal depolymerization over ethanol production. It takes a variety of abundantly available waste resources and with very little processing, produces a refinable light crude. It's still crappy for the environment, but it fits nicely into our existing infrastructure, and won't cause a global catastrophe in two years.

Yeah thats great man. Trade one problem for an even worse one. Great technology you decided to back there. And how the hell is ethanol going to cause some major catastrophe. You surpassed sipping the kool aid and went straight to sucking down the whole bottle.


RE: Typo + comment
By dluther on 7/13/2007 1:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
It appears to me that you have a finely developed "all or nothing" mentality regarding alternative energy sources. Why is that? I fully support alternative energy sources, especially ones that are clean and renewable. Honestly, I really like the concept of ethanol, it's just that our current source is, well, no need to rehash that conversation.

quote:
This can be solved with simple legislation

Okay. "Simple legislation" is an oxymoron -- there's no such thing as simple legislation, especially when you are neglecting the concept that these markets aren't regulated, merely subsidized It's called a free market economy, and a legislation that says someone can call "dibs" sounds logical, it just never will happen. It's obvious to me that you don't have a grasp of how futures, spot markets, independent sources, and farmer coalitions work to determine crop prices. You need to do some research on this. The farmer gets to sell his corn to the highest bidder. If the ethanol manufacturer wants to pay more than the feedlots, guess who's going to get the corn?

quote:
Big friggin' whoop. Boo Hoo our price of corn goes up a little. It's a drop in the bucket compared to oil prices.

Oil and gasoline prices are already at historic highs, with no relief in sight, which already has a deleterious price effect of almost everything else because transportation and manufacturing costs are tied to these costs. That you don't care about raising the prices of other items independently tells me that you are either stupid, heartless, or are simply unaffected by the changes that are happening.

quote:
Trade one problem for an even worse one.

How can augmenting our crude supplies with a cheaper supplement even remotely to be considered 'worse'? If crude oil is priced at $72/bbl, and TDP crude can be priced at $56/bbl, where is the problem? How in anyone's mind can a process that takes almost every organic waste we produce, and turn it into crude oil be considered bad?

Ultimately, I envy you -- I really do. You seem to live in a dream world where everything is possible, unaffected by the vagaries of political and economic downturns, and the effects those cause. If I were in that position, I'd stay there for as long as I could. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we have to live and work in the real world.


RE: Typo + comment
By Hoser McMoose on 7/13/2007 2:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This can be solved with simple legislation stating that food and other items that currently depend on corn production gets first dibs on the corn supply.

Ouch, there's a plan that's absolutely doomed to failure before it even gets out of the gate! If you truly believe that this sort of thing can be legislated then you are being VERY naive!

Every time governments have tried to force such things they have failed miserable.
quote:
It took a very long time to get the energy yields of gasoline to the efficiency levels they are today.

We've been making ethanol for about a thousand years. We've only been making gasoline for about a hundred years. There really isn't much new technology that is going to significantly improve the energy yield we're going to get for producing ethanol from corn because it's an extremely well understood process.

Genetic engineering of the corn crops themselves is the only area that we're likely to have good payback on this, though we'd still be better off genetically engineering OTHER crops then corn.

quote:
It's a drop in the bucket compared to oil prices.

That's only because ethanol currently amounts to about 1% of the world's fossil fuel energy use (not counting the rather direct use of it as a 'fuel' when we drink the stuff!). If it were to make up a larger percentage of the fuel use in the world then the price would go up SIGNIFICANTLY and would become much more volatile.

Besides, corn is so thoroughly integrated into our food system that any small increases get passed along to the consumer in nearly every food-based product we buy.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki