As crude oil hit $103.98 per barrel, President Bush spoke at the 2008 Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. Although he stressed ethanol a bit too much for my taste and pointed out that the federal government has invested more than $12 billion to research, develop and promotion of alternative energy, he did mention biodiesel in a positive light ...

Biodiesel is the most promising of these fuels. Biodiesel refineries can produce fuel from soybeans, and vegetable oils, and recycled cooking grease, from waste materials. All you out there with waste, you may be in business before you know it as this new technology kicks in. Most Americans -- or, more Americans are beginning to realize the benefits of biodiesel every year.

Last year, we produced 450 million gallons of biodiesel. That's up 80 percent from 2006. Today there are more than 650 biodiesel fueling stations in America. There are hundreds of fleet operators that use biodiesel to fuel their trucks, and that's just the beginning of what is going to be a substantial change in our driving habits.

White House Press Release

 

Talk is cheap. 

old300D:

Talk is cheap. 

Just don't tell Barack Obama that.

So do you really think that the Federal government should be spending more than 18 Billion on renewables? I'm not sure what the correct 'incentive' to develop and produce renewable alternatives needs to be, but 18 billion and using the bully pulpit is a step in the right direction IMHO. There is a point when money is toss too freely in one direction that the business crooks step in because they only want the grants, write-offs, deductions and tax credits.

Well, Bush has a track record of making cheap talk, Obama has yet to be in that position....

 Anyway, Bush talks out of both sides of his mouth.  For all the promotion of biofuels, he subsidizes the petroleum industry.  How much of that $12B went towards petroleum alternatives, and that doesn't include corn ethanol, which is NOT a petroleum alternative?

 To promote biodiesel, we've got to encourage more diesel vehicles.  I understand there were no 2007 model Tdis, and there are very few diesel offerings at all, unless you want a fuel sucking 1 ton truck.  Europe has many many diesel vehicles, why are those not available here?  There is no reason to have such restrictive emissions laws here, those European and Japanese diesels are plenty clean.  I don't know, but I suspect that's all part of the plan to keep the money and power in the hands of the petroleum industry.

Let's try to keep this discussion from having to be forced to be moved to the politics section, mmmmkayyyy?  

Either way, it's good that Bush is talking biodiesel, and it's (IMO) a big deal that he called it the most promising biofuel out there. Biodiesel us usually viewed as ethanol's little sister or something. 

old300D:

 To promote biodiesel, we've got to encourage more diesel vehicles. 

There lies the impossible barrier. No president is responsible for that nor can any president fix that. Currently the US light diesel vehicle fleet makes up less than 1% vs 35% in UK, Germany, and Japan. So until you guys decide to trade in your 1-ton trucks, Hummers, Mini-Vans, and SUV's for a fuel effecient 4-cylinder vehicle, bite your tounge, you are part of the problem.

old300D:

To promote biodiesel, we've got to encourage more diesel vehicles. 

Hey I agree ... but let's not blame the President of the United States for that one. Besides, as I see it, promoting biodiesel using the bully pulpit is realistically all a President should be doing. As for going in the right direction, lets not forget what it was like finding a 'diesel car fuel' pump just a couple decades ago -- now they're easy to find ... and biodiesel pump locations are getting better too.  (sure love seeing states considering  all diesel to contain biodiesel!)

I'm not a conspiracy nut or anything, but it sure seems like diesel cars have had many challenges in the U.S. Remember GM's attempt back in the 80s? Consumers hear diesel and they remember the noise, the smell, the smoke and the poor performance. As for supply, besides trying to find a 'clean non-truck' diesel pump, oil companies didn't voluntarily clean up their high sulfur (500ppm) until regulations forced them to ULSD (15ppm) just last year. CARB states and the EPA have done their part in setting back diesel cars too ... suggesting that they are bad for the environment and banning them from several states. Manufacturers are business oriented and they are reluctant to go out on a limb and market anything but a truck diesel in the U.S. -- even after noticing that nearly 20% of VW sales are TDIs (personally a bad call, but then I'm not paid millions to decided that) [/sarcasm]. As for Volkswagen, they are doing what they can to retool for the new BlueTec world and have hopefully built a new clean and durable engine ... the 2008 Jetta TDI delay was for that reason.

Thankfully things are changing as there are already several MB models available for those with deep pockets and a more consumer friendly priced new Jetta TDI in late summer. There are also a bunch of models for 2009 and 2010 from other European companies as well as a couple from Japan (see the BDNow Blog).

As we wait, the big question is how well will manufacturer warranties support biodiesel use? 

 

Actually presidents could if they chose make something like new biodisel models happen. The HUMVEE would be good example. The initial orders for the military alone were not enough in numbers to bring the cost per unit down. So the post office ordered thousand.  

I think it look about four years before the public could buy a HUMVEE but one of the reasons you can is the government guaranteed the profits to build the assembly lines. I believe it was the Reagan administration that made that happen. 

The US government buys or leases oodles of vehicles every year. So if through presidential leadership and cooperation of the Congress a president could bring alternative vehicles to market.

 

One more thought would be creating GOCO plants. These are Government Owned Corporation Operated manufacturing plants. This is how Tanks were produced and as far as I know they still are.

The government owns the manufacturing plant and I think all of the tooling. Then awards private corporations contracts to produce in this case tanks. The private sector is not burdened by financing plants and tooling.

If I remember back in the mid 70’s interest rates were around 14% and financing a multi billion dollar operation by a corporation was a lot to ask. The US needed what ever tank we have now and this how it happened.

Incidentally those first tanks ran on gasahol. Not sure if that’s still true today.

So in this example you could crank out new models. The Government puts out the infrastructure cost and guarantees an order. The private sector bids on producing them.

 You've got to be a bit more of a socialist to want goverment competing in the automobile business. As for your Hummer example, don't we already have those in diesel ... courtesy of a military contract?  

Rich:

  As crude oil hit $103.98 per barrel, President Bush spoke at the 2008 Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. Although he stressed ethanol a bit too much for my taste and pointed out that the federal government has invested more than $12 billion to research, develop and promotion of alternative energy, he did mention biodiesel in a positive light ... 

The synic in me says 'sure... promote biod and ethanol because they cannot produce a significant amount of fuel. Thus... his and his cronies of oil barrens are ensured profits long into the future. '

dereckbc:

old300D:

 To promote biodiesel, we've got to encourage more diesel vehicles. 

There lies the impossible barrier. No president is responsible for that nor can any president fix that. Currently the US light diesel vehicle fleet makes up less than 1% vs 35% in UK, Germany, and Japan. So until you guys decide to trade in your 1-ton trucks, Hummers, Mini-Vans, and SUV's for a fuel effecient 4-cylinder vehicle, bite your tounge, you are part of the problem.

The President proposes the budgets and sets the agenda, and the results after 7 years speaks volumes.  So I disagree.

On one hand 'green thinkers' wanting renewable fuels (particularly biodiesel) and alternatives to grow see high oil prices helpful in changing our petroleum dependency ... what do they think lower oil prices will do? (just go back a few decades and see what happened to the alternative industries during the last oil crisis)

I don't get it ... if higher oil prices (due to capacity, greed, decrease supplies or increased demands) stimulate energy change (conservation, right-sizing, alternatives) then there should be a big concern over those who are running their business with a profit in mind. Would it be better to have OPEC and big oil cranking out more crude and tapping a bunch of reserves for short term lower prices and collapsing the alternatives to petroleum movement which 'seems' underway?

That said, oil profits are too high (greed) as are CEO and union worker salaries IMHO.  I do my best to have my voice heard throgh proxy votes and product choices -- which is my right. If enough see it this way then things will change ... nice to be in a democracy. It would be wrong to step in and nationalize or dictate a particular industry: the petroleum industry. (minus a national security issue or corporate monopoly) If you believe that non-monopoly capitalist system is the most efficient way to  produce and price products, then accept the fact that those investing in certain businesses at the right time will make better profits.  

old300D:

The President proposes the budgets and sets the agenda, and the results after 7 years speaks volumes.  So I disagree.

Huh? What the heck does the president have to do with deciding what vehicle you or I purchase? Not his job, nor should it ever be. If you want to have a government tell you what, when, and where to buy, go live elsewhere like a communist country.

dereckbc:

old300D:

The President proposes the budgets and sets the agenda, and the results after 7 years speaks volumes.  So I disagree.

Huh? What the heck does the president have to do with deciding what vehicle you or I purchase? Not his job, nor should it ever be. If you want to have a government tell you what, when, and where to buy, go live elsewhere like a communist country.

Hmm, I want a diesel hybrid, what are my choices?  I really could use a light diesel truck, woops, not available.  And please, as natescape suggested, let's leave the politics out of this.

old300D:

Hmm, I want a diesel hybrid, what are my choices?  I really could use a light diesel truck, woops, not available.  And please, as natescape suggested, let's leave the politics out of this.

You started it back in post 2 and 5. I share your frustration with lack of choices, but any POTUS has nothing to do with it. That is called lack of  demand by the US Market, there is none.

Man, I would love a diesel hybrid...

I do think we are going to see honda and toyota sending diesels our way very soon.  Diesel's have gained a new popularity.  Unfortunately, the wheels of auto makers turn slowly...

Now, didnt Bush push forward a bill reference all diesel sold in the U.S. is to contain 2 or 5% biodiesel?   I thought I read about this last year or so....

 I do like that he is talking about it and getting it out into the public eye.   I think he is the first prez to do so.  As an alternative feul, there is also quite a bit of promise for the "gas heads" with ethanol now that they are beginning to use bacteria to break down the cellulose of switchgrass and throw away stuff like corn husks and such...

 

 

mattbatson:

Man, I would love a diesel hybrid...

They are coming.

http://www.google.com/search?q=diesel+hybrids&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

The European auto market is 50% diesel, so diesel will happen in the USA if enough consumers and consumer groups ask loudly enough fot it.

 Just posted this earlier today over at CinciTDI ... what are your thoughts regarding initial cost, longevity and resale?

TDI-hybrid or just TDI

To "diesel-hybrid" or not to diesel-hybrid (and just diesel) ... that is the question.

From a dollar and sense standpoint, the resale sales logic might make buying a plain diesel Volkswagen TDI a 'smarter' financial buy than waiting for the new VW Golf based diesel-hybrid. CNN Money had a less than attractively titled article, but the content is worth reading. Check out the snippet below.

Volkswagen estimates that the 2009 Jetta diesel will cost about $2,000 more than the gas-powered version. Official pricing hasn't been announced yet, though. (The 2006 model year was the last time VW sold diesel cars in the U.S.)

Manufacturers almost always add unrelated equipment to hybrids, so it's difficult to estimate a cost, but hybrids usually cost at least $2,500 more than non-hybrid versions of the same vehicle.

Add those numbers altogether, and a hybrid diesel would be dauntingly expensive, even if federal tax incentives were factored in.

Buyers could also lose another big cost benefit: excellent resale value. Diesel engines last longer than gas engines so diesel cars are worth more after years of driving.

Hybrids, on other hand, generally do worse than other cars in resale value, according to Kelley Blue Book . Combine a hybrid and a diesel, and its resale value is anybody's guess, said Robyn Eckard, a Kelley Blue Book spokeswoman.

Complete article

20 more mpg for $2500 sounds pretty reasonable to me.   At $4.00 a gallon that would pay off in fuel savings in a little over 6 years.