TheEEStory.com

TP likes imagining what a better future might look like. I thought I'd join in the fun. :-)

These are diesel lifecycle emissions today:

There are 3.1529736 kg for each gallon of diesel.

3.1529736kg/gallon * 702.55 grams CO2/kg = 2215.12 grams CO2/gallon

+ 10,084 = 12,299 grams CO2 / U.S. gallon of diesel

What might diesel emissions look like in twenty years?

The U.S. EIA expects to continue reducing the percentage of foreign oil consumed in the U.S. (to 50% in ten years) so in 20 years perhaps we could expect 55% of U.S. oil consumed to be produced in the U.S.

Looking at extraction, we can expect foreign exporters to reduce emissions to somewhere around the level the U.S. emits at. So instead of 79 grams for extraction, we might expect 50 grams. Instead of 77 grams for transport we might expect 70 grams.

In terms of diesel transport, we could probably expect similar increases to what Walmart is experiencing. Walmart is well on the way to a 100% increase in fleet efficiency by 2015. Assuming a similar increase in efficiency for diesel transport, and we can expect emissions to be around 109 grams per kg.

We could then expect future emissions from petro-diesel to look something like the following.

There are 3.1529736 kg for each gallon of diesel.

3.1529736kg/gallon * 564.53 grams CO2/kg = 1,779.95 grams CO2/gallon

Adding that to per gallon driving emissions of 10,084 grams and: Future petro-diesel emissions would look something like this

10,084 grams CO2/gallon + 1,779.95 grams CO2/gallon = 11,864 grams CO2/gallon future lifecycle emissions for petro-diesel.

What about farnesene? We know it produces somewhere around 10% of the emissions related to regular diesel, so we can estimate it.

Farnesene lifecycle emissions should look something like this:

12,299 grams CO2/gallon * 0.1 = 1,230 grams CO2/gallon lifecycle emissions for farnesene-diesel

Results using the formula:

(grams CO2 / U.S. gallon of diesel) / (Miles/ U.S. gallon of diesel) / (1.60934km / mile) = grams CO2/km lifecycle emissions

So the VW Jetta BlueMotion that gets 56 mpg U.S.;

Running on petro-diesel in 20 years would emit 132 gCO2/km
- on a 20% farnesene blend it would emit 108 gCO2/km
- on a 44% farnesene blend it would emit 80 gCO2/km
- on a 100% farnesene diesel it would emit 14 gCO2/km

I wonder what the Polo or the Ibiza would emit? And what about vehicles with even further increases in diesel efficiency?

Last edited Tue, 21 Sep 2010, 3:53am by student

Student - Blah Blah Blah

If you can't win - try to confuse them.

BTW - Wal*Mart is about efficiency. US numbers include renewables. So you're confused.

J.H.Student lectures the class.

Student: you are totally wrong about the future of diesel. As light sweet runs out it will be replaced by more and more tar sands, heavy oil and deep water oil. Extraction gets worse, refining gets worse and transportation gets worse ... and don't forget it'll get more expensive too.

ONeil wrote:

Student: you are totally wrong about the future of diesel. As light sweet runs out it will be replaced by more and more tar sands, heavy oil and deep water oil. Extraction gets worse, refining gets worse and transportation gets worse ... and don't forget it'll get more expensive too.

All excellent reasons to switch to synthetic / biodiesel. A car stuffed with batteries is just stupid by comparison.

RmW wrote:

Student - Blah Blah Blah

If you can't win - try to confuse them.

BTW - Wal*Mart is about efficiency. US numbers include renewables. So you're confused.

What is wrong with renewables, my confused fellow poster? Farnesene is a very nice renewable diesel.

Regarding efficiency, if Walmart starts out with 6 mpg efficiency and increases that to 12 mpg efficiency - that is a 100% increase in efficiency and a 50% decrease in emissions.

6 mpg is 1/6 gallons per mile. 12 mpg is 1/12 gallons per mile. Since CO2 emissions are directly related to gallons per mile; cutting 1/6 in half to 1/12 effectively cuts emissions in half. Easy enough.

:-)

Tec wrote:

ONeil wrote:

Student: you are totally wrong about the future of diesel. As light sweet runs out it will be replaced by more and more tar sands, heavy oil and deep water oil. Extraction gets worse, refining gets worse and transportation gets worse ... and don't forget it'll get more expensive too.

All excellent reasons to switch to synthetic / biodiesel. A car stuffed with batteries is just stupid by comparison.

synthetic ... yes ... lovely (not). Let's just make diesel out of coal shall we? as for bio ... sure make some for your PHEVs, but there isn't enough biomass to replace the worlds demand for oil and so far everyone who's tried has failed with algae at a commercial scale. Stupid is breathing diesel fumes and thinking it's perfume.

ONeil wrote:

Tec wrote:

All excellent reasons to switch to synthetic / biodiesel. A car stuffed with batteries is just stupid by comparison.

synthetic ... yes ... lovely (not). Let's just make diesel out of coal shall we?

An excellent proposition which can be achieved at the same level of CO2 emissions oil is currently refined at - for only around $90/barrel. I'm sure the price and perhaps the emissions could be further reduced with further refinement of the process.

ONeil wrote:

Stupid is breathing diesel fumes and thinking it's perfume.

Interesting you should say this. Farnesene is used in perfumes and has the pleasant aroma of apple skins. As for the smell of corn oil, it reminds me of biscuits.

student wrote:

ONeil wrote:

Tec wrote:

All excellent reasons to switch to synthetic / biodiesel. A car stuffed with batteries is just stupid by comparison.

synthetic ... yes ... lovely (not). Let's just make diesel out of coal shall we?

An excellent proposition which can be achieved at the same level of CO2 emissions oil is currently refined at - for only around $90/barrel. I'm sure the price and perhaps the emissions could be further reduced with further refinement of the process.

.. The only way you're going to get CTL to be better than crude is with the employment of CCS, and that adds to the cost. If you're going to go the CCS route then you might as well turn the coal into electricity and eliminate the tailpipe emissions (try to breath in Beijing) for real CO2 savings.

Note: I found a reference suggesting that China may have already started limiting CTL projects (Sasol had to cancel their project) to try and conserve the resource.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarch...

A very sensible plan. The technology is still maturing and it doesn't make sense to invest 10 billion in plants that will be outdated shortly.

The single full production facility is in keeping with Chinese pragmatism - 1) Lead with full-sized demonstration plant 2) Learn how to improve the technology and costs involved 3) Incorporate learned knowledge into plans for the future.

It would be a waste of coal to build out a countrywide network on initial tech. Oil is still cheap.

The facility in question will put out 240,000 barrels a day by 2015 (Link). That's roughly 3.7 billion gallons a year, or about 1% of annual global diesel demand in 2015. Pretty decent for a single facility.

student wrote:

A very sensible plan. The technology is still maturing and it doesn't make sense to invest 10 billion in plants that will be outdated shortly.

The single full production facility is in keeping with Chinese pragmatism - 1) Lead with full-sized demonstration plant 2) Learn how to improve the technology and costs involved 3) Incorporate learned knowledge into plans for the future.

It would be a waste of coal to build out a countrywide network on initial tech. Oil is still cheap.

The facility in question will put out 240,000 barrels a day by 2015 (Link). That's roughly 3.7 billion gallons a year, or about 1% of annual global diesel demand in 2015. Pretty decent for a single facility.

Natural gas is cheaper.