>Come on Keith, et al. > >There ain't no debate over diesel, not unless you want to keep >whackin' your puddin'. > >Todd Swearingen
Not enough debate. More than there was, and a legislative push by John Dingell, but still not enough. US 1%, Germany 37% - which Liedtke says would be the case in the US too if consumers were given a choice. http://www.dieselforum.org/inthenews/boschspeech_080702.html Diesels Are Ready. Why Aren't We? Kurt Liedtke, Chairman, President and CEO Robert Bosch Corporation Thank you Dave. Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be on this panel with 2 prestigious colleagues. I feel a little bit troubled by the theme of this conference - Fast, Fun and Scary. It sounds like the title of a Spaghetti Western Movie - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I guess the expectation is that Tim shall be the fast one, Bill the funny one and I the scary one. So I shall try to stand up to the expectation and talk to you about something really scary - diesel in the United States. My message will be simple this afternoon. I am here to convince you that the diesel engine is absolutely THE most logical solution to today's energy issues in the United States. I believe it with my heart, my soul É and my brain. At the end of my presentation, I hope you will agree that today's diesels are "Good. Clean. Fun." And not scary at all. It is no secret that Bosch has high volume on diesel powertrains. In fact, many in the industry consider us diesel experts. So, you may be thinking "of course Kurt Liedtke wants us to think diesels are greatÉhe stands to make a lot of money from them." Well, we can forget about the money part. After all, Bosch is an auto supplier É and we all have our experiences when it comes to making money in this business. But you are right when you think about competence in powertrain technology. Bosch is a technology leader. The definition of a technology leader means that one is well versed and capable in all areas related to that technology, whether it's antilock brakes (ABS) and vehicle stability control systems (ESP), or diesel and gasoline powertrains. To be a powertrain technology expert therefore, Bosch must have great knowledge in all powertrain options. So, whatever the future holdsÉgasoline-powered, fuel cell, hybrid or diesel É Bosch must provide - and in fact do have - the technology to be part of the solution. For example, we just helped Audi take the top 3 finishing positions at this year's 24 Hours of LeMans with our advanced gasoline direct injection system. This technology is already available in Europe and is coming to the U.S. soon. I will tell you, however, that I am absolutely convinced that diesels hold the very best promise for this nation. Right now. Today. Let me try to explain. For most of my presentation today, I want to clarify that I will compare the U.S. strictly to Europe, for simplicity's sake. In Europe, diesels have quickly gained acceptance. Look at the numbers in the five largest countries in Western Europe. In Germany, diesels accounted for 37 percent of car sales in 2001. In France, that number was 62 percent. The U.K.: 22 percent. Italy: 41 percent. Spain: 55 percent. And the U.SÉ.1 percentÉand that's if we round up. Overall in Western Europe, diesels account for 39 percent of new car sales. And according to a study by Schroder Salomon Smith Barney, that number will reach 45 percent by 2005. And, if you take the new premium luxury sales in Europe, the number is higherÉsubstantially higher at 70 percent. Now, before we jump to conclusions about these numbers, I would like to paint a picture of the United States in the year 2010. Let's assume that the share of new vehicles sold in the U.S. remains 99 gasoline vehicles to every 1 diesel through 2010. Here is what our market might look like in 8 years: * The average sticker price for a new vehicle would be $35,000. * It would cost us approximately $2 per gallon of gas at the pump. * The corporate average fuel economy, or CAFƒ, would be approximately 24 miles to the gallon. * We would consume 9.5 million barrels of oil a day for transportation. * And we would emit nearly 450 million metric tons of greenhouse gases each year. Now, using a model set up by the Department of Energy, let's look at what happens when we add diesels to the market. If we assume, for example, that diesels take a 40 percent market share of new vehicle sales by 2010 like in Europe, the United States looks much different. It is important to note that this assumes a 40 percent share of new car sales only, so we have taken into account the millions of gasoline powered cars already on the road. This makes the results even more impressive. The change in vehicle price is slight, and take notice of these improvements: * Our overall consumption would drop by approximately 300,000 barrels per day, which equates to an annual savings of $9 billion. * The average cost of a gallon of diesel fuel is $1.90. * Our CAFƒ shoots up to 28 miles per gallon... * ...which opens room to sell the larger, high-demand vehicles - the SUVs, wagons, luxuries and minivans. That's a strong business case for diesel. * And just look at greenhouse gas emissions. Since we're using less fuel, our emissions will be directly and positively impacted. Annually, we will decrease our emissions of greenhouse gases by 5 million metric tons. * And the most exciting improvement, at least for me personally, is performance. You do not sacrifice performance with diesels. Quite the contrary. You are gaining performance with clean diesels as compared to gasoline driven vehicles. I will explain this in greater detail later in my talk. Diesels paint a nice picture, don't they? And you should have found more details on diesel's benefits in a handout at your seat. Of course, this just compares them to gasoline powertrains. I did this because, in reality, these are the only options that are available today. It is true that fuel cells have gained attention recently. And it is also true that the technology offers much promise to the industry and consumers in the area of emissions and foreign oil dependency. Fuel cells won't likely gain mass consumer acceptance for at least 2 decades. But can this country really afford to wait? So why are we waiting? I would like to examine the topics of the energy debate, comparing our 5 options: * traditional gasoline * diesel * fuel-cell * electric * hybrid The first topic of the debate is availability. Although I have already mentioned this, it is important to point out that the only options available today - meaning they could be on the roads as a viable solution for the majority of drivers in the U.S. - are gasoline, diesel and possibly hybrid. This eliminates electric and fuel cell. Diesel technology exists, and it requires little change to the design of today's vehicles. Next, performance. Again, fuel cell and electrics are eliminated. Yes, they are both impressive technologies and hold decent promise in 20 to 50 years from now. But today, their performance can not compare to the power of the internal combustion engine. I am not an engineer by trade. But let me briefly explain how diesels work. Unlike a gasoline powerplant, diesel engines do not use a spark plug to ignite fuel in the piston. Instead, diesels draw air into a combustion chamber and compress it to such a high pressure that it gets hot. Fuel then ignites from the heat of the compressed air. As a result, compression ratios in a diesel engine are much higher, which translates directly to greater power and efficiency. For example, let's compare 2 Jeep Grand Cherokees sold in Europe, one with a diesel and the other with a gasoline powertrain. It's the same model, but the displacement is a bit different. The gasoline model has a 6 cylinder, 4.0 liter engine, versus just a 5 cylinder 2.7 liter diesel engine. Listen to these numbers, which are straight out of Grand Cherokee literature: 1. Torque is 295 Newton meters for the gasoline; 400 for the diesel. For those non-engineers in the room, torque loosely translates to power. Which means, even with the smaller engine, the diesel is able to tow equal weight as the gas, but can tow it further and with greater acceleration and power. The diesel model clearly wins. 2. Carbon dioxide emissions are 600 grams per mile for the gasoline; 413 for the diesel. Again, diesel wins. 3. And, in U.S. terms, fuel economy is 15 miles to the gallon for the gasolineÉand 24 miles to the gallon for the diesel. Translated into driving range, the gas vehicle can only travel 300 miles on a tank of gas while a diesel can go 480 miles. That's a 60 percent jump in fuel economy! When it comes to performance, diesels make sense. If you haven't driven a new diesel recently, you should. They are clean. They are fast. And they are fun. In fact, that's why I drove one to this conference. It's a Jeep Grand Cherokee. We also brought a Volvo S80, a BMW 530, and a Chevy Silverado with us to Traverse City. All of these cars are currently in high demand. But aside from the Silverado, you can't purchase any of them in this country. The Jeep Grand Cherokee is parked outside at the end of the hallway to your right as you leave this room. During the break, I invite you to take a look at it. I understand the University of Michigan's solar car will be out there as well. Of course, the biggest topic in the energy debate is emission regulations. The rap on diesels is that they are noisy, smelly and dirty. Let me address each of these quickly. I invite each of you to take the diesel challenge. Take a ride in a clean diesel car and see if you can tell it's a diesel simply by listening to it. The same holds true for smell. Put a diesel and a gasoline vehicle together and you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart based on odor. You may have heard about the 'handkerchief test.' John Horne, chairman of Navistar, and his management team, have been distributing white handkerchiefs to industry and government officials throughout the country, inviting them to touch, feel and smell the cloth. Each handkerchief was held over the exhaust tailpipe of the company's 'Green Diesel Technology' school bus for one minute while the engine's idle was turned up. The handkerchief is clean and odorless - just like the exhaust that comes out of the tailpipe of a clean diesel vehicle. When it comes to noisy, smelly and dirty, today's diesel is not yesterday's diesel. Today's diesel is high tech, in every sense of the word. This includes emissions. The fuel efficiency of the diesel is directly related to lower emissions of carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas and is associated with global warming. The conservative average is that diesels improve fuel economy by 25 to 40 percent. At Bosch, we believe that number is actually between 40 and 50 percent. That means that a diesel vehicle will, on average, use 40 percent less fuel to do the same job as a gasoline É which equates directly to a 40 percent cut in CO2 emissions. Incidentally, the U.S. is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The potential reduction in CO2 emissions through adoption of the diesel in passenger cars is staggering for this country. Two other types of emissions are worth examining. They are particulate matter and nitrogen oxide. The industry has made great strides in both of these areas in the last decade. The EPA's Tier 2 regulations focus on significantly reducing both particulate matter and nitrogen oxide by the year 2007. Currently, there are technologies in place that are assisting the automobile industry in meeting many of these standards - today. In addition, developments are being implemented in two areas - low sulfur fuel which assists in reducing particulate matter É and aftertreatment technologies that filter out NOx. We are not quite there yet with these new NOx advancements, but I am confident they will be ready well in advance of the regulations. So, are diesels dirty? Are they as clean or cleaner than spark-ignition engines? Are we really looking at total emissions, rather than individual particulates? Ultimately, are we better off in the long run with diesels? This is where it gets tricky. No, wait. Let me rephrase that. This is where it's tricky in the United States. In the U.S., we take a very fragmented view of industry, and so is the case with emissions. We look at carbon dioxide OR particulate matter OR fuel efficiency OR noise pollution OR nitrogen oxides. We examine ways to improve quality OR safety OR cost OR performance. Environmental groups, the EPA, the Department of Energy, automakers, suppliers, energy companiesÉwe work independent of - and often against - one another. There is no trust. We negate each other's gains. And we are getting nothing done. Just look at the results. Just look at the state of our industry. We are killing each other! Some of us sat in disbelief last March in the SAE Blue Ribbon Panel session in Detroit. Here we had representatives of the government and the auto and energy industries, all of whom were responsible for examining diesel's potential. It was clear that this session was the first time some of them had met each other. That is amazing, isn't it? Government and industry cannot continue this divided relationship, or complete lack of relationship altogether. We have to change this. I have petitioned Dr. Cole to help us. Dave has agreed to help establish and facilitate a dialogue between the auto industry, the government, and the energy companies. For now, we're calling the initiative the Energy Solutions Dialogue Group. Our goal will be to, at minimum, talk 4 times each year about our energy options. This won't be a public group. It won't have a stance on the issues or create propaganda for one solution over another. Its focus will be simple: to help us all see the big picture. To help us change those 'ORs' I just mentioned into 'ANDs.' We hope to be able to report back here in 12 months on the progress we've made. I would like to change gears slightly now. In addition to emissions, our infrastructure must be examined when determining our near-term vehicle solutions. Infrastructure cost, energy availability and education all need consideration. For example, if we stay with gasoline, no consumer education is necessary, and infrastructure of the roads and fueling system will not change. Gasoline availability could be an issue, but that is dependant on happenings in the world market. Interestingly, Governor John Engler made some points in his 2002 State of the State address concerning this issue. He said that Americans already consume 10 million barrels of foreign oil each day and that the trend line is not good. He added that our growing dependency on foreign oil threatens our national security and our way of life. Diesels will help to reduce that dependence. Plus, consumers will re-fuel in the same manner at the same locations as they do currently. The infrastructure is already in place. My point is that, unlike fuel cells, electrics and many hybrids, consumer habits need not change. Infrastructure is a non-issue with diesels. Again, diesels make sense. Vehicle cost is also a popular topic for debate. Obviously, the near-term cost of fuel cells and electrics price them out of the market. These technologies are important and hold much promise for future generations, but they just aren't an available option today or in the near term. So, again, I will focus my comparison on diesel and gasoline powertrains. We must look at the issue of vehicle cost much like we should examine emissions and regulations - on a big-picture basis. There are elements of diesels that are more expensive, and there are elements of gasolines that are more expensive. Consumers will consider 3 price points when buying a diesel. Purchase price, operating cost and residual value. Purchase price of a new diesel will be higher than a gasoline engine, even if it is just to cover the increase in manufacturing costs. The advantage here is currently with gasolines. But that will definitely change as economies of scale improve for diesels, which has already been proven throughout Europe. Operating costs are an interesting element. In Europe, diesel fuel is much cheaper than gasoline, so fueling the vehicle is noticeably cheaper. In the States, a gallon of diesel fuel is currently $1.30, compared to a gallon of gasoline at $1.40. Plus, because diesels are about 40 percent more fuel efficient, refueling doesn't occur as often. Let's take the Jeep Grand Cherokee example from earlier. Let's assume you drive 15,000 miles per year. That means, with the gas version, you will need 1,000 gallons of gas at $1.40 a gallon, which comes to $1,400 a year in fuel costs. If you drive a diesel, you will only need 625 gallons of fuel at a cost of $1.30 a gallon. Your annual cost is $812. That means you will save nearly $600 on fuel costs every single year if you drive a diesel here in the United States. Now let's look at residual value. Diesel engines are work horses. They will run and run and run. The diesel will have a lot of life left in it at the end of a 2 or 3 year lease or when re-selling the vehicle with 75 or 100 thousand miles on it. Logically, the conclusion is that diesels will hold their value longer. Clearly, if you look at overall operating costs as a consumer, diesels make sense. Combine this characteristic with emission standards, performance and operating costs, and it is clear that diesels will enable a major growth in luxury vehicles, SUVs, minivans and crossovers - the high-demand, high-margin offerings of our industry. Just look at Europe where, as I mentioned before, diesels account for more than 70 percent of all new premium luxury vehicle sales. If you're a manufacturer, diesels make economic sense. And finally, my favorite subject: the image of the diesel. There are 2 perceptions battling each other. The first is the true picture consumers have for diesels. The second is what the industry perceives that picture to be. We seem determined to remind the nation that diesels were once noisy, smelly, dirty and unreliable. That was 25 years ago. Let it go. If consumers today really think diesels are so bad, how do we explain the following facts? First, while the industry sits and debates about whether the market is ready for diesels, Volkswagen went out and proved it is. Volkswagen has offered diesel versions of the Jetta, Golf and Beetle in the U.S. Last year, consumers bought them all. Every last one. Volkswagen dealers were forced to create waiting lists. When's the last time you heard of a waiting list for a car under $25,000? Take GM's Silverado and Sierra diesel pickup as another example. This year, GM will produce well over 100,000 of these vehicles. And they will sell every single one. I am sure everyone in the room would like to say the same. According to studies by both J.D. Power and Associates and the Diesel Technology Forum, roughly one third of Americans would consider a clean diesel, if given the option. The U.S. diesel market is primedÉand that's without any marketing. Consumers aren't dumb. They know something that many in our industry have yet to believe - diesels..make...sense. So, in response to my earlier questions - what is holding diesel back? The answer isÉ nothing. I'm not the only one of this opinion. Other car enthusiasts are right there with me. In a recent issue of Popular Mechanics, Jay Leno, perhaps one of the biggest car junkies in the world, wrote about our fuel options. In one paragraph, he said "I think the best alternative fuel is one we already have, but this country doesn't want to produce: refined diesel fuel. For some reason, we don't want to produce high-quality, commercially available desulphured fuel in this country." In the simplest terms, the technology exists. Fuel economy improvements are for real. Operating costs are lower. Emission levels are in check. Durability is greater. The infrastructure is ready. The economy is ripe. Consumers want them. And it's an answer that's ready today. Earlier, I showed you what the U.S. could look like by 2010 if diesels owned 40 percent market share. What if it had 80 percent? Again, this is 80 percent of new car sales, so there are still millions of gasoline vehicles on our roads. In spite of this, the forecast is exciting: * Our consumption of oil drops by 600,000 barrels a day, representing a savings to this country of $18 billion a year. * Our corporate average fuel economy increases to 31 miles per gallon. * We take 8 million metric tons of emissions out of the environment every year. * And we get all this without losing the thrill of the automobile. Dr. Cole, we do not need to change the theme of this conference from "Fast, Fun and Scary." But perhaps we could modify it to "Fast, Fun and Scarily Clean." It describes diesels perfectly. I look forward to working with Dr. Cole to bring industry, government and academia together to examine the energy debate and get a real dialogue in place. I am optimistic that we will be able to stand up here in 12 months to report on our progress and share a promising forecast. I look forward to your questions later this afternoon. Thank you. >----- Original Message ----- >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> >Cc: <biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com> >Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 3:24 PM >Subject: [biofuel] The Debate Over Diesel > > > > http://www.dieselforum.org/inthenews/WashPost_090602.html > > > > The Debate Over Diesel > > Washington Post > > By Warren Brown > > > > (September 6, 2002) "Still want to pimp diesels for your >industry > > friends whose shortsightedness promotes only modest efficiency > > gains?" --E-mail note from "Optimator," a diesel critic who >prefers > > not to use his/her real name. > > > > This note was attached to a copy of an Associated Press >dispatch > > headlined: "EPA: Diesel Exhaust May Cause Cancer." The story >reported > > the Environmental Protection Agency's findings that diesel >emissions > > from large trucks, school buses, and off-road construction >vehicles > > "probably" contribute to cancer and respiratory illnesses. It > > reiterated demands from environmentalists that the auto and >petroleum > > industries work to clean up diesel exhausts. > > > > It seemed a straightforward story to me. Diesel emissions from >large > > vehicles, primarily those with old-technology diesel engines, >are > > problematic. No one wants to drive or walk behind a bus >billowing > > black smoke. But there is no argument anywhere in the auto >industry > > that more low-sulfur diesel fuels are needed to help bring >cleaner, > > advanced, direct-injection diesel engines to market in the >United > > States. Certainly, no one argues with international automotive >test > > findings that better fuel economy can be had with >diesel/electric > > hybrids than with gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles. > > > > Yet Opimator's missive represents the kind of single-minded >bias that > > hampers the development and introduction of these new diesel >engines > > in this country, while automakers in Europe and Japan rapidly >are > > introducing that technology in their home markets. The >Optimators of > > America seize on any opportunity, including an EPA report that > > specifically cites old diesel technology and high-sulfur diesel >fuel, > > to lambaste anything and everything connected with diesel. Only >pimps > > would advocate using that fuel, eh Optimator? > > > > Environmental groups and public advocates such as the Sierra >Club, > > the Public Interest Research Group, and the Union of Concerned > > Scientists are less adolescent in their condemnation of all >things > > diesel. But they are just as obtuse. > > > > Although advanced-diesel cars have become the vehicles of >choice in > > Europe and Japan, U.S. environmentalists steadfastly oppose >diesel > > technology growth here largely because they want automakers to > > develop zero emission vehicles, otherwise known as pure >electrics. > > > > I want pure electrics, too. But I'd also like a market to go >along > > with them. So far, that hasn't happened in the United States, >Europe > > or Japan. > > > > Indeed, Ford Motor Co. late last month announced that it was >pulling > > the plug on its Norway-based Think electric vehicle division >because > > there were not enough buyers for the cars to support a tiny > > production run of 5,000 vehicles per year. Since Ford took over >Think > > in 1999, the company had managed to roll out only about 1,050 >of the > > little plastic-bodied electric mobiles. > > > > Critics and conspiracy theorists argue that Ford took over >Think as a > > public relations ruse, a gimmick to look green while chasing >red-hot > > profits in sport-utility vehicles. Some kind of a ruse! Ford >paid $23 > > million to take over Think, which was struggling to stay alive >at > > time of purchase. Ford invested another $100 million since then >in > > electric vehicle battery technology. Ruse? I think not. > > > > The problem is that the European market rejected a car that had >a > > driving range of 53 miles before discharging its battery and >that > > needed as many as six hours to recharge, but that cost almost >as much > > as a fuel-efficient, long-range, decidedly more attractive and > > comfortable Volkswagen turbo-diesel. > > > > What needs to occur in the United States is a more open, less > > politically charged discussion of new diesel technology, its >benefits > > and drawbacks. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has introduced a >bill that > > he says will bring cleaner diesel engines to America. But the >bill > > would give tax incentives to oil companies to reduce the sulfur > > content of their diesel fuels. > > > > The Optimators of America are not likely to stand for that kind >of > > tax break, even if it amounts to nothing more than a diversion >of > > some funds from the Bush administration's $4-billion worth of > > subsidies for the development of more politically acceptable >hydrogen > > fuel-cell and gasoline-electric alternative-fuel vehicles. >Instead of > > giving a fair hearing to the Dingell proposal, Ol' Optimator >probably > > would launch a campaign to "Throw the Pimp Out." ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
