Impact of fuel price on hunting/testing/trialing

[Sorno]

I get to walk everywhere I hunt.

I am extremely lucky.

[dan v]

I've got a couple of things to add here:


The second point I'd like to mention is the ridiculous absence in American markets of fuel efficient diesels that are readily available in literally every single other global market used by major auto manufacturers. Anyone that likes can go on line and check out what is sold to other countries whose fuel prices have been higher than ours for years. (check out a forum like Toyota Diesel Madness if you don't believe me -- lots of folks in places like New Zealand have factory trucks that get 28-32 and much, much higher). I know it's no Ford or Chevy, depending on your persuasion, but it's a d@#n sight better than trying to make out in a Prius. And this goes for small cars too. heck, the new diesel Mini Cooper puts out better than 60mpg, but isn't slated for North American markets. Honda has tested a european model of it's accord that does this and still hits 60mph quicker than 6 sec. and tops out over 180kph.

As I understand it, those european diesels can't meet the US emission standards......the reason the US doesn't see them.

[ezzy333]

These posts all sound good but do not support the facts when you get involved.

Making your own Biodiesel is good but if everyone did it there wouldn't be anything to make it from.

Ethanol is not scheap to produce as gasoline has been but it does help solve some problems short term and as we learn it will become a more efficient source of energy than it is today. And it won't be made from corn.

We have an almost endless supply of coal but we can't use it because it burns too dirty. There are many other sources of energy but none will supply the energy we need to feed the world as well as our selves.

When you read things about cars and energy in other parts of the world but not here you know there is a reason and almost without exception it is because of an environmental problem.

Explain why environmentalist don't want us to drill here in this country with strong environmental laws but think it is OK to buy from the mideast where there is no concern for the environment? Does that make sense?

I don't think it is the governments job to provide alternatives for us anymore than it is the job of private business to provide alternatives. The answer is if there are people wanting to buy something it will be made available in a free society. But change has to come from the consumer and not be forced on any one. When something becomes cost effective it will be here and will be bought.

Ezzy

[Ruffshooter]

It may not be the Governments place to provide alternatives for fuel or any other free market enterprise, however it is there job to stay clear and keep the paths open. Which at this time they are not doing a very good job at.

Ethanol is more hazordus to habitat (eliminating it) , and to water supplies. More so than gasoline or diesel.

I was watching Discovery (Future Cars). One vehicle fuel that I thought was quite interesting.

A small company takes all the non metal shreading from vehicle reclamation and puts it into a (pressure cooker) at 600 or 6000psi under heat and creates diesle fuel in fifteen minutes. Ready to burn. It supposedly burns cleaner. If office furninture, furniture, all plastic, foam, recylce products. I wonder how much demand could be met if this were done on a grand scale?

For the countries security and independence long into the future we need to get moving and find the proper alteratives that make finacial and efficieant sense.

[nj gsp]

http://www.changingworldtech.com

[jwenorthpark]

BEWARE -- Lots of preachy sounding IMHO blabber to follow. Nothing personal ever intended.

Making your own Biodiesel is good but if everyone did it there wouldn't be anything to make it from.

Biodiesel is potentially viable on any scale we want to use it -- if we needed more of it, we could simply reduce the massive (and foolish) scale of corn production, plant crops whose yields are capable of being synthesized into a form of biodiesel, and the supply problem is solved. Sure, there's some R&D that needs to take place, but it's nothing the scientific community couldn't handle.
Second, (and in response to another post on here) it's not that European vehicle emission standards are beneath ours. Instead, until the new lower-sulfur emission standards the US has passed are completely enacted and retroacted, our FUEL standards are too low to permit safe use in European/South American/Asian marketed cars produced with a need for a higher purity of fuel mixture. And, for the record, homemade AND station-bought bio can be run in cars from any continent right now.

Ethanol is not scheap to produce as gasoline has been but it does help solve some problems short term and as we learn it will become a more efficient source of energy than it is today. And it won't be made from corn.

Agreed on the ethanol cost of production. And agreed that it's a viable mid-level stopgap (Brazil's entire fleet of domestic and national vehicles is running on homegrown stuff right now. In fact, they're the only country in the world, as I understand it, that is self-sufficient in this right without being a major oil producer). And agreed on the corn.

We have an almost endless supply of coal but we can't use it because it burns too dirty. There are many other sources of energy but none will supply the energy we need to feed the world as well as our selves.

There are already techniques in place, developed and ready for application, that can improve the cleanliness of coal emissions to almost obscene levels (MIT has done some of the best work I've seen on this). Coal companies don't want to pay to modify their existing plants. And we already have what it would take to supply ourselves with energy is the single, final driving factor behind any alternative approach isn't always assumed to be its cost.

When you read things about cars and energy in other parts of the world but not here you know there is a reason and almost without exception it is because of an environmental problem.

This is a blanket statement that is simply untrue. Any good examination of the energy standards and attitudes towards use in Western Europe, parts of South America, and Australia/New Zealand especially will prove otherwise quickly and with ease.

Explain why environmentalist don't want us to drill here in this country with strong environmental laws but think it is OK to buy from the mideast where there is no concern for the environment? Does that make sense?

I think the point of this discussion from my angle is largely that many of us tree huggers don't think it's ok to buy from the middle east at all.

I don't think it is the governments job to provide alternatives for us anymore than it is the job of private business to provide alternatives. The answer is if there are people wanting to buy something it will be made available in a free society. But change has to come from the consumer and not be forced on any one. When something becomes cost effective it will be here and will be bought.

This assertion is one I hear a lot these days. Frankly, I'm starting to feel like a blind reliance on market forces in the American mindset is unwittingly hampered by our normally exploitative modes of operation. In other words, we're at a place in time when it's no longer OK to squeeze every last drop of whatever resource we're using, for many, many reasons. Sure, in a perfect world, where nothing could ever be irrevocably destroyed and you could in general count on a good person on the other side of any good handshake, the free market system would work like a charm, and in 40 years we'd have some new energy options for our cars, homes, and jobs. I don't see our world that way now, and I'm starting to think that it's time we got out from under responsibility-shuffling arguments that say, "I'll do it when it's cheaper", "this won't work forever", etc... and start to at least consider the possibility that individuals might should choose to sacrifice as a means to larger ends. Take a risk, try something new, for crying out loud. It's already cost effective to have solar panels plastered all over your roof in Germany, where the government gives generous energy credits to people who put their home-grown voltage back into the grid, and several US states are considering (on and off) offering the same sort of incentive. I mean, the whole reason we don't use nuclear power in the good ol' US of A is that we're scared to death of taking that risk, in spite of the fact that waste storage solutions are extremely safe, the power is otherwise perfectly clean, and the incidence of contaminating disasters is lower than it is with oil. France, Germany, and Argentina have been running reactors since the rest of the world got cold feet after Chernobyl without incident! Sure, the government will have to get out of the way in a lot of places and maybe in the way in others, but it's gonna do that anyway.
I guess my bottom line is that pure "market forces" don't work when there are organizations with the power to literally ruin entire countries' environmental resources with irresponsible use, or when there are economic and political connections that can literally control market forces.

And I really don't mean to come on like I'm picking on Ezzy here -- I just thought that post synthesized a lot of the opinions I hear around, and this just kinda bubbled out this morning.

[dan v]

Second, (and in response to another post on here) it's not that European vehicle emission standards are beneath ours. Instead, until the new lower-sulfur emission standards the US has passed are completely enacted and retroacted, our FUEL standards are too low to permit safe use in European/South American/Asian marketed cars produced with a need for a higher purity of fuel mixture.

Could you post a link to that?...Thanks.

[jwenorthpark]

well, i used to have a document from a fellow at the University of Idaho (a great research center for biofuels) describing all this stuff in detail as it relates to the EU's and EPA's mandates for sulphur content in fuels, but i can't find it on the new computer. it's particularly relevant because emission reduction systems are often hampered by higher sulphur content in US fuels, reducing our American ability to produce lower-emission diesels.

so i did a quick search and found this on wikipedia. it's external sources are linked at the bottom of the page. you'll have to read through the article to find the whole story, but it's there.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel

from the article, if you don't want to spend too much time on it:

The EPA mandated the use of ULSD fuel in model year 2007 and newer highway diesel fuel engines equipped with advanced emission control systems that require the new fuel. These advanced emission control technologies will be required for marine diesel engines in 2014 and for locomotives in 2015.

The allowable sulfur content for ULSD (15 ppm) is much lower than the previous U.S. on-highway standard for low sulfur diesel (LSD, 500 ppm), which not only reduces emissions of sulfur compounds (blamed for acid rain), but also allows advanced emission control systems to be fitted that would otherwise be poisoned by these compounds. These systems can greatly reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter.

Because this grade of fuel is comparable to European grades and engines will no longer have to be redesigned to cope with higher sulfur content and may use advanced emissions control systems which can be damaged by sulfur, the standard may increase the availability of diesel-fueled passenger cars in the U.S.. European diesels are much more popular with buyers than those available in the U.S.

Additionally, the EPA is assisting manufacturers with the transition to tougher emissions regulations by loosening them for model year 2007 to 2009 light-duty diesel engines.[1] As a result, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Toyota, and others are expecting to begin producing diesel vehicles for the U.S. market to join those from Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen.

Note also that, in spite of this article's rather optimistic perspective on the future availability of biofuels in American markets, only one of the companies above (Subaru) has currently committed to bringing anything like this across the pond in the foreseeable future.

[dan v]

Thanks...good reading.

I did a little surfing about the new emission regs. Noted that Mercedes, forget which platform in the diesel, was only 42 state compliant with emissions. But with the new urea injection technology (called Bluetec), it would be 50 state compliant. Same which VW diesels, not for sale in all 50 states....yet.

So it seems with the new ULSD and particulate filters on the exhuast, coupled with urea injection, diesel technology will be able to stay compliant with the ever changing EPA requirements.

But it will cost $$$.

[markerdown]

My dodge 4x4 is a gas pig. I've had to scale back my trips afield for both hunting and dog training. I truckpool when ever possible with huntin/dog training buddies. We're all gettin screwed by politicians and big oil.
I've been looking at a hybrid ford escape, but I really don't want car payments again. My dodge is paid off and is a very comfortable gas hog that fits all my gear and dogs markerdown