VW Jetta TDI racing series - "clean diesel"?

That so called clean diesel is only 5% bio-diesel, with the other 95% conventional diesel, so this seems more like a case of "clean coal", then an actually clean fuel source. Indy race cars, now running ethanol should be considered more "green", even though the milage is much worse.

"jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:06wJm.4792$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> That so called clean diesel is only 5% bio-diesel, with the other > 95% conventional diesel, so this seems more like a case of "clean > coal", then an actually clean fuel source. > > Indy race cars, now running ethanol should be considered more > "green", even though the milage is much worse. >

There is nothing green about ethanol. It costs more in conventional gasoline to produce and transport than it delivers, and is still a hydrocarbon so produces the same sort of exaust as gasoline. Bring back the hydrogen burning car!.

"APLer" wrote...

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> "jeffareid" wrote >> That so called clean diesel is only 5% bio-diesel, with the >> other 95% conventional diesel, so this seems more like a >> case of "clean coal", then an actually clean fuel source. >> >> Indy race cars, now running ethanol should be considered >> more "green", even though the milage is much worse. >> > There is nothing green about ethanol. It costs more in > conventional gasoline to produce and transport than > it delivers, and is still a hydrocarbon so produces the same > sort of exaust as gasoline.

It's renewable, though, whereas fossil fuels aren't.

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:r0IJm.19597$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "APLer" wrote... >>> "jeffareid" wrote >>> That so called clean diesel is only 5% bio-diesel, with the >>> other 95% conventional diesel, so this seems more like a >>> case of "clean coal", then an actually clean fuel source. >>> >>> Indy race cars, now running ethanol should be considered >>> more "green", even though the milage is much worse. >>> >> There is nothing green about ethanol. It costs more in >> conventional gasoline to produce and transport than >> it delivers, and is still a hydrocarbon so produces the same >> sort of exaust as gasoline. > > It's renewable, though, whereas fossil fuels aren't. >

How you figure if it a) consumes more fossil fuels in production than it gives and b) there is no way fror the US (as an example) to replace all it's fossil fuels (or even a large chunk) with bio-ethanol? There *is* some talk about ethanol from corn stalks as opposed to just the kernels, but it still doesn't generate enough. All it is is PC marketing. Nothing more. However Hydrogen is in *every* organic molecule and storage of it is already used for the boring fuel cells. Good for NASA, but for cars just makes them less desirable.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> That so called clean diesel is only 5% bio-diesel, with the other >> 95% conventional diesel, so this seems more like a case of "clean >> coal", then an actually clean fuel source. >> Indy race cars, now running ethanol should be considered more >> "green", even though the milage is much worse. > There is nothing green about ethanol. It costs more in conventional > gasoline to produce and transport than it delivers, and is still a > hydrocarbon so produces the same sort of exaust as gasoline.

I don't think that was the point. IRL isn't claiming to be green, but the VW series is making that claim, even though it's only 5% bio-diesel. Personally, I don't see the excitement of driving 175hp FWD sedans or why there was any interest in this series when there are already established series for SCCA beginners. I don't understand why iRacing chose to get involved with that series either. I don't know how the participant cost of $60,000 plus repair of any damage compares to the cost to compete in other series, but it seem high (Perhaps the high cost is what it has in common with iRacing?). >hydrogen With current technology, most hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuel sources. It's clean burning, but it's not clean to produce it.

jeffareid wrote: > That so called clean diesel is only 5% bio-diesel, with the other > 95% conventional diesel, so this seems more like a case of "clean > coal", then an actually clean fuel source. > > Indy race cars, now running ethanol should be considered more > "green", even though the milage is much worse. The "clean" in clean diesel refers to the tailpipe, rather than the fuel source. http://www.clean-diesel.org/ Ian -- Ian Riches Bedford, UK

"APLer" wrote... >> "Jan Verschueren" >> <snip> >> It's renewable, though, whereas fossil fuels aren't. >> > How you figure if it a) consumes more fossil fuels in > production than it gives The energy used in the production of ethanol doesn't have to come from fossil fuels. It does now, but in future it could come from renewable sources too. > b) there is no way fror the US (as an example) to > replace all it's fossil fuels (or even a large chunk) > with bio-ethanol? There *is* some talk about > ethanol from corn stalks as opposed to just the > kernels, but it still doesn't generate enough. True, in years to come we're going to need to make drastic lifestyle and economic changes to reduce our dependance on fuels, period, because alternatives are neither cheap nor plentifull enough. Fossil fuels will run out, it's no use refusing alternatives because "they're unpractical". ;-p > However Hydrogen is in *every* organic > molecule and storage of it is already used > for the boring fuel cells. Good for NASA, > but for cars just makes them less desirable. Hydrogen is an option, but it comes with a lot of safety headaches which makes the technology too expensive for the moment. There is work being done and progess being made in that area, though.

"rcgldr" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:RuPJm.6592$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (27 lines)

>>> That so called clean diesel is only 5% bio-diesel, with the other >>> 95% conventional diesel, so this seems more like a case of "clean >>> coal", then an actually clean fuel source. > >>> Indy race cars, now running ethanol should be considered more >>> "green", even though the milage is much worse. > >> There is nothing green about ethanol. It costs more in conventional >> gasoline to produce and transport than it delivers, and is still a >> hydrocarbon so produces the same sort of exaust as gasoline. > > I don't think that was the point. IRL isn't claiming to be green, but > the VW series is making that claim, even though it's only 5% bio-diesel. > > Personally, I don't see the excitement of driving 175hp FWD sedans or > why there was any interest in this series when there are already > established series for SCCA beginners. I don't understand why iRacing > chose to get involved with that series either. I don't know how > the participant cost of $60,000 plus repair of any damage compares to > the cost to compete in other series, but it seem high (Perhaps the > high cost is what it has in common with iRacing?). > >>hydrogen > > With current technology, most hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuel > sources. It's clean burning, but it's not clean to produce it. >

Where is the "dirt" then? You chemically extract it from natural gas or oil, there is no combustion involved. I do hope you're not comparing "clean" with "renewable" as they are completely different things. Even in PC language. It is in Iceland at least - or was. I have no idea if the severe effect the depression had on Iceland stopped their hydrogen project or not.