Today I passed an auto parts store advertising "diesel exhaust fluid".
Does anyone know what that is?

"Gary H" wrote in message
m...
Today I passed an auto parts store advertising "diesel exhaust fluid".
Does anyone know what that is?

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S. must
produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently two methods. One
method requires a wicked expensive filter, which, if it goes bad will cost
the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3 thousand dollars, plus it jacks
up the initial cost of the vehicle. The other method uses a separate tank of
liquid urea, DEF, and injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a chemical
reaction with the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them. Currently
it's really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank should last
for around 16000 miles.

RBM wrote:

"Gary H" wrote in message
m...
Today I passed an auto parts store advertising "diesel exhaust fluid".
Does anyone know what that is?

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S. must
produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently two methods. One
method requires a wicked expensive filter, which, if it goes bad will cost
the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3 thousand dollars, plus it jacks
up the initial cost of the vehicle. The other method uses a separate tank of
liquid urea, DEF, and injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a chemical
reaction with the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them. Currently
it's really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank should last
for around 16000 miles.

Slight correction, 2007+ diesels have diesel particulate filters (DPF),
2010+ diesels have the UREA injection and selective catalyst reduction
*in addition* to the DPF. The UREA injection and SCR is supposed to also
help reduce the particulate generation so the DPF doesn't fill up and
require regeneration as often, but the DPF is still there. The DPFs are
also more like $1200 or so, not $3k, and the UREA is under $3/gal
already.

On 2010-11-13, Pete C. wrote:

RBM wrote:

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S. must
produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently two methods. One
method requires a wicked expensive filter, which, if it goes bad will cost
the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3 thousand dollars, plus it jacks
up the initial cost of the vehicle. The other method uses a separate tank of
liquid urea, DEF, and injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a chemical
reaction with the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them. Currently
it's really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank should last
for around 16000 miles.

Slight correction, 2007+ diesels have diesel particulate filters (DPF),
2010+ diesels have the UREA injection and selective catalyst reduction
*in addition* to the DPF. The UREA injection and SCR is supposed to also
help reduce the particulate generation so the DPF doesn't fill up and
require regeneration as often, but the DPF is still there. The DPFs are
also more like $1200 or so, not $3k, and the UREA is under $3/gal
already.

WOW! Anything to prevent wholesale adoption of a clean fuel
alternative.

BTW, what ever happened to BMWs promise to have a hydrogen powered car
on showroom floors in 2 yrs .....3 years ago!?

nb

notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, Pete C. wrote:

RBM wrote:

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S.
must produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently
two methods. One method requires a wicked expensive filter, which,
if it goes bad will cost the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3
thousand dollars, plus it jacks up the initial cost of the vehicle.
The other method uses a separate tank of liquid urea, DEF, and
injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a chemical reaction with
the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them. Currently it's
really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank
should last for around 16000 miles.

Slight correction, 2007+ diesels have diesel particulate filters
(DPF), 2010+ diesels have the UREA injection and selective catalyst
reduction *in addition* to the DPF. The UREA injection and SCR is
supposed to also help reduce the particulate generation so the DPF
doesn't fill up and require regeneration as often, but the DPF is
still there. The DPFs are also more like $1200 or so, not $3k, and
the UREA is under $3/gal already.

WOW! Anything to prevent wholesale adoption of a clean fuel
alternative.

BTW, what ever happened to BMWs promise to have a hydrogen powered car
on showroom floors in 2 yrs .....3 years ago!?

Maybe they realized how impractical hydrogen is.

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2010-11-13, Pete C. wrote:

RBM wrote:

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S. must
produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently two methods.
One
method requires a wicked expensive filter, which, if it goes bad will
cost
the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3 thousand dollars, plus it
jacks
up the initial cost of the vehicle. The other method uses a separate
tank of
liquid urea, DEF, and injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a
chemical
reaction with the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them. Currently
it's really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank should
last
for around 16000 miles.

Slight correction, 2007+ diesels have diesel particulate filters (DPF),
2010+ diesels have the UREA injection and selective catalyst reduction
*in addition* to the DPF. The UREA injection and SCR is supposed to also
help reduce the particulate generation so the DPF doesn't fill up and
require regeneration as often, but the DPF is still there. The DPFs are
also more like $1200 or so, not $3k, and the UREA is under $3/gal
already.

WOW! Anything to prevent wholesale adoption of a clean fuel
alternative.

BTW, what ever happened to BMWs promise to have a hydrogen powered car
on showroom floors in 2 yrs .....3 years ago!?

nb


If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

On 2010-11-13, RBM wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. You get three guesses why it's
not available. The first 2 don't count.

nb

On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? DUH!

nb

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBM wrote:

"Gary H" wrote in message
m...
Today I passed an auto parts store advertising "diesel exhaust fluid".
Does anyone know what that is?

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S. must
produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently two methods.
One
method requires a wicked expensive filter, which, if it goes bad will
cost
the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3 thousand dollars, plus it
jacks
up the initial cost of the vehicle. The other method uses a separate tank
of
liquid urea, DEF, and injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a chemical
reaction with the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them. Currently
it's really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank should last
for around 16000 miles.

Slight correction, 2007+ diesels have diesel particulate filters (DPF),
2010+ diesels have the UREA injection and selective catalyst reduction
*in addition* to the DPF. The UREA injection and SCR is supposed to also
help reduce the particulate generation so the DPF doesn't fill up and
require regeneration as often, but the DPF is still there. The DPFs are
also more like $1200 or so, not $3k, and the UREA is under $3/gal
already.

I'm not sure how other manufacturers are doing it, but Sprinters have two
separate types of systems. The earlier 2007-2009 use particulate filters,
and the 2010 began using Adblu urea and don't have particulate filters. In
the Sprinter blog there are several posts from members that have paid $3000
for particulate filter replacement. They also talk about having them cleaned
for $500. As far as the price of Def, two weeks ago I needed some and the
best I was able to get it for was $10 a gallon. I'm told Mercedes gets $20,
so I didn't feel too bad. Here's a site that explains the Sprinter systems:
http://www.ourexcellentadventures.co...inter-engines/

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2010-11-13, RBM wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. You get three guesses why it's
not available. The first 2 don't count.

nb

When there's a practical vehicle that uses "clean fuel alternatives" we'll
all be buying them

In article ,
notbob wrote:
...snipped...

WOW! Anything to prevent wholesale adoption of a clean fuel
alternative.

BTW, what ever happened to BMWs promise to have a hydrogen powered car
on showroom floors in 2 yrs .....3 years ago!?

Probably they decided they could not make a profit selling a car that
runs on a fuel that is not available.


--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

In article ,
notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, RBM wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. You get three guesses why it's
not available. The first 2 don't count.

nb

Hydrogen makes a fine fuel but where will it come from? Except for a very
miniscule naturally occurring amount, the only way to produce it is by
using some other energy source or from a "cracking" process during
oil refining.


--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

On 11/12/2010 9:28 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. You get three guesses why it's
not available. The first 2 don't count.

nb

Perhaps there is no infrastructure for the distribution of hydrogen fuel
for vehicles? 8-)

TDD

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 03:34:54 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? DUH!

Yeah- but what do you do with the byproduct of breaking the H2 off
those water molecules. Don't want the kids breathing in that gassy
by-product.

Jim

On Nov 12, 11:22*pm, (Larry W) wrote:
In article ,

notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, RBM wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. *You get three guesses why it's
not available. *The first 2 don't count.

nb

Hydrogen makes a fine fuel but where will it come from? Except for a very
miniscule naturally occurring amount, the only way to produce it is by
using some other energy source or from a "cracking" process during
oil refining.

--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box..

* * *Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

Guys like notbob like to point to the ocean and say "It's full of
hydrogen!" Which of course ignores that fact that it's
inconveniently bonded to oxygen and we know from basic chemistry that
it takes as much energy to seperate that bond as you get out of it
when it later is recombined again. In other words, hydrogen is more
of an energy transport mechanism than a fuel. The easiest and most
cost effective solution to generate the hydrogen would be to use
nuclear power, but somehow I doubt notbob would call that clean.
It's kind of like the folks that keep saying electric cars are zero
emission, as if electricity you could ever want just comes out of the
wall outlet.

I believe in the case of hydrogen, there is also the issue of how to
safely store enough of it in a car.

On Nov 12, 10:34*pm, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. *Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. *Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. *Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? *DUH!

nb

I suppose you also believe that the oil companies, in a vast
conspiracy, bought up the mythical carburetor that we've heard about
for decades that got 100MPG. Let's do a bit of critical thinking.
We have car manufacturers worldwide in dire straights. GM and
Chrysler went bankrupt. Yet, we have this miracle hydrogen solution
and not one of them in the entire world is commercializing a great
solution that would not only keep them in business, but make them
billions. I can think of two reasons for that:

1 - Some vast conspiracy against hydrogen cars.

2 - Hydrogen isn't nearly as practical and cheap a solution as you
believe it to be.

As for anyone with a solar panel or wind turbine being able to produce
it, that's true. Now tell us how you produce enough of it, how many
solar panels are required, how you get it into a form that can be
stored safely in a car to give a reasonable driving range, etc. List
all the equipment required, it's cost, and show us that hydrogen is a
viable solution.

If all this is so readily doable, why don't YOU start the company to
do it and you'll be the next Bill Gates.

On 11/12/2010 10:28 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. You get three guesses why it's
not available. The first 2 don't count.

nb

I follow this area pretty closely and I don't remember seeing the proof
you mentioned. Do you have any references?

wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 10:34 pm, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? DUH!

nb

I suppose you also believe that the oil companies, in a vast
conspiracy, bought up the mythical carburetor that we've heard about
for decades that got 100MPG. Let's do a bit of critical thinking.
We have car manufacturers worldwide in dire straights. GM and
Chrysler went bankrupt. Yet, we have this miracle hydrogen solution
and not one of them in the entire world is commercializing a great
solution that would not only keep them in business, but make them
billions. I can think of two reasons for that:

1 - Some vast conspiracy against hydrogen cars.

2 - Hydrogen isn't nearly as practical and cheap a solution as you
believe it to be.

As for anyone with a solar panel or wind turbine being able to produce
it, that's true. Now tell us how you produce enough of it, how many
solar panels are required, how you get it into a form that can be
stored safely in a car to give a reasonable driving range, etc. List
all the equipment required, it's cost, and show us that hydrogen is a
viable solution.

If all this is so readily doable, why don't YOU start the company to
do it and you'll be the next Bill Gates.

Like I said, when they build a "practical solution" we will buy it. Any
practical solution would have to stand on it's own legs, unlike this current
electric car stupidity, which without govt subsidizing wouldn't sell a
single unit.

On 11/12/2010 9:16 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, Pete wrote:

RBM wrote:

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S. must
produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently two methods. One
method requires a wicked expensive filter, which, if it goes bad will cost
the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3 thousand dollars, plus it jacks
up the initial cost of the vehicle. The other method uses a separate tank of
liquid urea, DEF, and injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a chemical
reaction with the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them. Currently
it's really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank should last
for around 16000 miles.

Slight correction, 2007+ diesels have diesel particulate filters (DPF),
2010+ diesels have the UREA injection and selective catalyst reduction
*in addition* to the DPF. The UREA injection and SCR is supposed to also
help reduce the particulate generation so the DPF doesn't fill up and
require regeneration as often, but the DPF is still there. The DPFs are
also more like $1200 or so, not $3k, and the UREA is under $3/gal
already.

WOW! Anything to prevent wholesale adoption of a clean fuel
alternative.

BTW, what ever happened to BMWs promise to have a hydrogen powered car
on showroom floors in 2 yrs .....3 years ago!?

nb

Likely they noticed all of the non trivial issues related to using
hydrogen.

On 11/13/2010 7:17 AM, wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:22 pm, (Larry W) wrote:
In ,

wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. You get three guesses why it's
not available. The first 2 don't count.

nb

Hydrogen makes a fine fuel but where will it come from? Except for a very
miniscule naturally occurring amount, the only way to produce it is by
using some other energy source or from a "cracking" process during
oil refining.

--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

Guys like notbob like to point to the ocean and say "It's full of
hydrogen!" Which of course ignores that fact that it's
inconveniently bonded to oxygen and we know from basic chemistry that
it takes as much energy to seperate that bond as you get out of it
when it later is recombined again. In other words, hydrogen is more
of an energy transport mechanism than a fuel. The easiest and most
cost effective solution to generate the hydrogen would be to use
nuclear power, but somehow I doubt notbob would call that clean.
It's kind of like the folks that keep saying electric cars are zero
emission, as if electricity you could ever want just comes out of the
wall outlet.

I believe in the case of hydrogen, there is also the issue of how to
safely store enough of it in a car.

Exactly, I follow this stuff pretty closely and as you noted there are
non trivial issues concerning use of hydrogen to fuel a car.

On Nov 13, 7:30*am, wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:34*pm, notbob wrote:

On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. *Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. *Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. *Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? *DUH!

nb

I suppose you also believe that the oil companies, in a vast
conspiracy, bought up the mythical carburetor that we've heard about
for decades that got 100MPG. * Let's do a bit of critical thinking.
We have car manufacturers worldwide in dire straights. * GM and
Chrysler went bankrupt. * Yet, we have this miracle hydrogen solution
and not one of them in the entire world is commercializing a great
solution that would not only keep them in business, but make them
billions. * I can think of two reasons for that:

1 - Some vast conspiracy against hydrogen cars.

2 - Hydrogen isn't nearly as practical and cheap a solution as you
believe it to be.

As for anyone with a solar panel or wind turbine being able to produce
it, that's true. * *Now tell us how you produce enough of it, how many
solar panels are required, how you get it into a form that can be
stored safely in a car to give a reasonable driving range, etc. * List
all the equipment required, it's cost, and show us that hydrogen is a
viable solution.

If all this is so readily doable, why don't YOU start the company to
do it and you'll be the next Bill Gates.

GM spenty boatloads of money before giving up on hydrogen for now and
building the chevy volt.

Few would of been willing to spend a $100,000 for a car with limited
fuel avability.

On 11/13/2010 2:19 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 11/12/2010 9:28 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. You get three guesses why it's
not available. The first 2 don't count.

nb

Perhaps there is no infrastructure for the distribution of hydrogen fuel
for vehicles? 8-)

TDD

Likely because there is no efficient way to produce it. A distribution
system would be the easy part.

On 11/12/2010 10:34 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? DUH!

nb

Did you think about what you just wrote? If anyone can do it with their
windmill can do it why aren't they? Did the oil companies hire saboteurs
to loosen the bolts on all of the windmills?

On 11/13/2010 7:30 AM, wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:34 pm, wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? DUH!

nb

I suppose you also believe that the oil companies, in a vast
conspiracy, bought up the mythical carburetor that we've heard about
for decades that got 100MPG. Let's do a bit of critical thinking.
We have car manufacturers worldwide in dire straights. GM and
Chrysler went bankrupt. Yet, we have this miracle hydrogen solution
and not one of them in the entire world is commercializing a great
solution that would not only keep them in business, but make them
billions. I can think of two reasons for that:

1 - Some vast conspiracy against hydrogen cars.

2 - Hydrogen isn't nearly as practical and cheap a solution as you
believe it to be.

As for anyone with a solar panel or wind turbine being able to produce
it, that's true. Now tell us how you produce enough of it, how many
solar panels are required, how you get it into a form that can be
stored safely in a car to give a reasonable driving range, etc. List
all the equipment required, it's cost, and show us that hydrogen is a
viable solution.


Those pesky details again.. It is just so much easier to make claims
without considering them..

If all this is so readily doable, why don't YOU start the company to
do it and you'll be the next Bill Gates.

RBM wrote:

I'm not sure how other manufacturers are doing it, but Sprinters have two
separate types of systems. The earlier 2007-2009 use particulate filters,
and the 2010 began using Adblu urea and don't have particulate filters. In
the Sprinter blog there are several posts from members that have paid $3000
for particulate filter replacement. They also talk about having them cleaned
for $500. As far as the price of Def, two weeks ago I needed some and the
best I was able to get it for was $10 a gallon. I'm told Mercedes gets $20,
so I didn't feel too bad. Here's a site that explains the Sprinter systems:
http://www.ourexcellentadventures.co...inter-engines/


It's under $3/gallon if you happen to be close to a Pilot Travel
Center or Flying J.

"George" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/2010 9:16 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, Pete wrote:

RBM wrote:

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S. must
produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently two
methods. One
method requires a wicked expensive filter, which, if it goes bad will
cost
the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3 thousand dollars, plus it
jacks
up the initial cost of the vehicle. The other method uses a separate
tank of
liquid urea, DEF, and injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a
chemical
reaction with the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them.
Currently
it's really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank should
last
for around 16000 miles.

Slight correction, 2007+ diesels have diesel particulate filters (DPF),
2010+ diesels have the UREA injection and selective catalyst reduction
*in addition* to the DPF. The UREA injection and SCR is supposed to also
help reduce the particulate generation so the DPF doesn't fill up and
require regeneration as often, but the DPF is still there. The DPFs are
also more like $1200 or so, not $3k, and the UREA is under $3/gal
already.

WOW! Anything to prevent wholesale adoption of a clean fuel
alternative.

BTW, what ever happened to BMWs promise to have a hydrogen powered car
on showroom floors in 2 yrs .....3 years ago!?

nb

Likely they noticed all of the non trivial issues related to using
hydrogen.

Hey, it worked fine for Zeppelins, well maybe with a few exceptions

On 11/12/2010 10:34 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it.


I costs too much and it always will because you have to generate the
electricity. When we have cheap electricity then that is doable. Wind
generators are expensive and solar too.


Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? DUH!

Duh yerself!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#In_practice

There are a lot of people pursuing practical solutions as well as
working on the pure science.

Jeff


nb

"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
...
RBM wrote:

I'm not sure how other manufacturers are doing it, but Sprinters have two
separate types of systems. The earlier 2007-2009 use particulate filters,
and the 2010 began using Adblu urea and don't have particulate filters.
In the Sprinter blog there are several posts from members that have paid
$3000 for particulate filter replacement. They also talk about having
them cleaned for $500. As far as the price of Def, two weeks ago I needed
some and the best I was able to get it for was $10 a gallon. I'm told
Mercedes gets $20, so I didn't feel too bad. Here's a site that explains
the Sprinter systems:
http://www.ourexcellentadventures.co...inter-engines/
It's under $3/gallon if you happen to be close to a Pilot Travel
Center or Flying J.

I have read that Pilot and TA truckstops have it at the pump for $3, but I
don't have either near me. I'm sure, like any other fertilizer, if you buy
it in bulk, it's dirt cheap. The problem with Def is that it has a two year
shelf life, so you can't even stock up

"Jeff Thies" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/2010 10:34 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it.


I costs too much and it always will because you have to generate the
electricity. When we have cheap electricity then that is doable. Wind
generators are expensive and solar too.


Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? DUH!

Duh yerself!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#In_practice

There are a lot of people pursuing practical solutions as well as working
on the pure science.

Of course there are, and there should be, and hopefully one day some
genius will find a way to make a practical clean fuel, but the idea that
some people have, that it's all sitting right in front of us and but for
the EVIL powers we'd be able to tap into it, is just ridiculous

On Nov 13, 8:24*am, "RBM" wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message

...

RBM wrote:

I'm not sure how other manufacturers are doing it, but Sprinters have two
separate types of systems. The earlier 2007-2009 use particulate filters,
and the 2010 began using Adblu urea and don't have particulate filters..
In the Sprinter blog there are several posts from members that have paid
$3000 for particulate filter replacement. They also talk about having
them cleaned for $500. As far as the price of Def, two weeks ago I needed
some and the best I was able to get it for was $10 a gallon. I'm told
Mercedes gets $20, so I didn't feel too bad. Here's a site that explains
the Sprinter systems:
http://www.ourexcellentadventures.co...r-def-nox-dpf-....
* * It's under $3/gallon if you happen to be close to a Pilot Travel
Center or Flying J.

I have read that Pilot and TA truckstops have it at the pump for $3, but I
don't have either near me. I'm sure, like any other fertilizer, if you buy
it in bulk, it's dirt cheap. The problem with Def is that it has a two year
shelf life, so you can't even stock up

So I take it that the urea solution is being used in a lot of
diesels. I was aware that Mercedes was using it in their Bluetec
diesel cars, at least to meet the requirements of CA and states with
similar tougher requirements. Is it now being used in new trucks, 18
wheelers too? The fact that Pilot has the urea would suggest it is.

On Nov 13, 8:09*am, " wrote:
On Nov 13, 7:30*am, wrote:





On Nov 12, 10:34*pm, notbob wrote:

On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. *Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. *Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. *Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? *DUH!

nb

I suppose you also believe that the oil companies, in a vast
conspiracy, bought up the mythical carburetor that we've heard about
for decades that got 100MPG. * Let's do a bit of critical thinking.
We have car manufacturers worldwide in dire straights. * GM and
Chrysler went bankrupt. * Yet, we have this miracle hydrogen solution
and not one of them in the entire world is commercializing a great
solution that would not only keep them in business, but make them
billions. * I can think of two reasons for that:

1 - Some vast conspiracy against hydrogen cars.

2 - Hydrogen isn't nearly as practical and cheap a solution as you
believe it to be.

As for anyone with a solar panel or wind turbine being able to produce
it, that's true. * *Now tell us how you produce enough of it, how many
solar panels are required, how you get it into a form that can be
stored safely in a car to give a reasonable driving range, etc. * List
all the equipment required, it's cost, and show us that hydrogen is a
viable solution.

If all this is so readily doable, why don't YOU start the company to
do it and you'll be the next Bill Gates.

GM spenty boatloads of money before giving up on hydrogen for now and
building the chevy volt.

Few would of been willing to spend a $100,000 for a car with limited
fuel avability.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I'm waiting to see what happens with the Volt. While not costing
$100K, it still seems mighty dubious to me. It costs $40K+ and has an
electric range of about 100 miles. After that, the small gas
generator kicks in. Even with the FED tax credit of $12K, which comes
out of the taxpayers pocket, you're still paying $28K for it. And
it's in a compact car that has parts and similar size features to cars
costing $17K. Combine that with very limited recharge locations and
that to recharge any electric car in your garage in a reasonable time
requires a 240V, 50A+ circuit, it doesn't sound very practical to
me. Anyone here want to buy one?

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:07:59 -0500, "RBM" wrote Re
diesel exhaust fluid:

snip

Like I said, when they build a "practical solution" we will buy it. Any
practical solution would have to stand on it's own legs, unlike this current
electric car stupidity, which without govt subsidizing wouldn't sell a
single unit.

Excellent post.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

"George" wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

I believe in the case of hydrogen, there is also the issue of how to
safely store enough of it in a car.

Exactly, I follow this stuff pretty closely and as you noted there are
non trivial issues concerning use of hydrogen to fuel a car.

Does that mean I should cancel my deposit on the new Chrysler Von
Hindenburg? (-:

--
Bobby G.

notbob wrote:

On 2010-11-13, Pete C. wrote:

RBM wrote:

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S. must
produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently two methods. One
method requires a wicked expensive filter, which, if it goes bad will cost
the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3 thousand dollars, plus it jacks
up the initial cost of the vehicle. The other method uses a separate tank of
liquid urea, DEF, and injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a chemical
reaction with the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them. Currently
it's really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank should last
for around 16000 miles.

Slight correction, 2007+ diesels have diesel particulate filters (DPF),
2010+ diesels have the UREA injection and selective catalyst reduction
*in addition* to the DPF. The UREA injection and SCR is supposed to also
help reduce the particulate generation so the DPF doesn't fill up and
require regeneration as often, but the DPF is still there. The DPFs are
also more like $1200 or so, not $3k, and the UREA is under $3/gal
already.

WOW! Anything to prevent wholesale adoption of a clean fuel
alternative.

Not really, the technology works reasonably well. The DEF tanks on most
of these vehicles hold enough for about 5,000mi, so it's not really any
more difficult than filling up your washer fluid.

I have a 2009 diesel with just the DPF and it works just fine, and I'm
ok with it not blowing clouds of black soot everywhere.


BTW, what ever happened to BMWs promise to have a hydrogen powered car
on showroom floors in 2 yrs .....3 years ago!?

Dunno on that, but of course Hydrogen isn't an energy source, just a
carrier and isn't "green" unless the hydrogen is produced from a "green"
energy source like nuclear, wind, solar or hydro.

I recall BMW did/does have a diesel car that utilized a DPF and possibly
DEF/SCR.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 13, 8:24 am, "RBM" wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message

...

RBM wrote:

I'm not sure how other manufacturers are doing it, but Sprinters have
two
separate types of systems. The earlier 2007-2009 use particulate
filters,
and the 2010 began using Adblu urea and don't have particulate filters.
In the Sprinter blog there are several posts from members that have
paid
$3000 for particulate filter replacement. They also talk about having
them cleaned for $500. As far as the price of Def, two weeks ago I
needed
some and the best I was able to get it for was $10 a gallon. I'm told
Mercedes gets $20, so I didn't feel too bad. Here's a site that
explains
the Sprinter systems:
http://www.ourexcellentadventures.co...r-def-nox-dpf-...
It's under $3/gallon if you happen to be close to a Pilot Travel
Center or Flying J.

I have read that Pilot and TA truckstops have it at the pump for $3, but I
don't have either near me. I'm sure, like any other fertilizer, if you buy
it in bulk, it's dirt cheap. The problem with Def is that it has a two
year
shelf life, so you can't even stock up

So I take it that the urea solution is being used in a lot of
diesels. I was aware that Mercedes was using it in their Bluetec
diesel cars, at least to meet the requirements of CA and states with
similar tougher requirements. Is it now being used in new trucks, 18
wheelers too? The fact that Pilot has the urea would suggest it is.

That is my understanding. Every over the road vehicle as of 2010 has to meet
emissions standards, which I think they call tier 3.5. It is also my
understanding that many, most, diesel manufacturers are opting to use the
Def method, although I don't believe Cummins is among them

notbob wrote:

On 2010-11-13, RBM wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. You get three guesses why it's
not available. The first 2 don't count.

Sorry, you are incorrect. Hydrogen was proved to be *useable* as a motor
fuel 30 years ago, useable and viable are not the same thing. While an
engine will run just fine on hydrogen gas and produce essentially no
emissions, that does not mean in any way that hydrogen is viable,
practical or "green" as a motor vehicle fuel.

Key problems with the "miracle" hyrdogen fuel:

1. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is only a carrier, essentially a
battery. The hydrogen has to be produced using an actual energy source.

2. If the energy source used to produce hydrogen isn't "green" the
hydrogen isn't "green". This applies to hydrogen produced from natural
gas, and hydrogen produced using electricity from coal fired electric
plants. Only hydrogen produced from "green" sources such as nuclear,
solar, wind, hydroelectric and the like can actually be called "green".

3. Hydrogen is impractical to fill and transport in meaningful
quantities for a motor vehicle. There are basically two ways to store it
at a useable density, either at very high pressure, or as a cryogenic
liquid, both of which require a lot of energy to get to that state, have
dangers associated with transport, and in the case of hydrogen as a
cryogenic liquid, they have to continuously vent hydrogen as it boils
off whether it is used in the engine or not.

Assuming you produce the hydrogen from a "green" source, you still have
a similar problem to pure electric vehicles, the issue of range and the
ability to refuel in a reasonable amount of time comparable to the
10min to fuel a liquid fueled vehicle.

The only practical solution to this issue is to use standardized fuel
"containers" and to have an automated process to swap that fuel
container with a "filled" one at the fueling station vs. trying to
"fill" a "container" permanently mounted in the vehicle.

This essentially means a standardized bottom access port in the vehicle
where you can pull it into position at the fueling station and an
automated mechanism would remove your EV battery or hydrogen fuel
canister and replace it with a filled/charged one in a matter of a few
minutes comparable to fueling a liquid fueled vehicle. Otherwise fueling
is an impractically long process and few people will tolerate that
limitation.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 13, 8:09 am, " wrote:
On Nov 13, 7:30 am, wrote:





On Nov 12, 10:34 pm, notbob wrote:

On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? DUH!

nb

I suppose you also believe that the oil companies, in a vast
conspiracy, bought up the mythical carburetor that we've heard about
for decades that got 100MPG. Let's do a bit of critical thinking.
We have car manufacturers worldwide in dire straights. GM and
Chrysler went bankrupt. Yet, we have this miracle hydrogen solution
and not one of them in the entire world is commercializing a great
solution that would not only keep them in business, but make them
billions. I can think of two reasons for that:

1 - Some vast conspiracy against hydrogen cars.

2 - Hydrogen isn't nearly as practical and cheap a solution as you
believe it to be.

As for anyone with a solar panel or wind turbine being able to produce
it, that's true. Now tell us how you produce enough of it, how many
solar panels are required, how you get it into a form that can be
stored safely in a car to give a reasonable driving range, etc. List
all the equipment required, it's cost, and show us that hydrogen is a
viable solution.

If all this is so readily doable, why don't YOU start the company to
do it and you'll be the next Bill Gates.

GM spenty boatloads of money before giving up on hydrogen for now and
building the chevy volt.

Few would of been willing to spend a $100,000 for a car with limited
fuel avability.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I'm waiting to see what happens with the Volt. While not costing
$100K, it still seems mighty dubious to me. It costs $40K+ and has an
electric range of about 100 miles. After that, the small gas
generator kicks in. Even with the FED tax credit of $12K, which comes
out of the taxpayers pocket, you're still paying $28K for it. And
it's in a compact car that has parts and similar size features to cars
costing $17K. Combine that with very limited recharge locations and
that to recharge any electric car in your garage in a reasonable time
requires a 240V, 50A+ circuit, it doesn't sound very practical to
me. Anyone here want to buy one?

I heard that in California, the state and local govts are also subsidizing
the volt, so the car winds up costing those environmentally concerned a mere
$17K, which is about what your garden variety gasoline go cart costs. and I
thought California was broke already

George wrote:

On 11/13/2010 2:19 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 11/12/2010 9:28 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, wrote:

If we had a practical "clean fuel alternative" we'd all be buying them

Hydrogen was proved viable 30 yrs ago. You get three guesses why it's
not available. The first 2 don't count.

nb

Perhaps there is no infrastructure for the distribution of hydrogen fuel
for vehicles? 8-)

TDD

Likely because there is no efficient way to produce it. A distribution
system would be the easy part.

Neither is easy.

Hydrogen can be produced "greenly" and efficiently only from a "green"
energy source that is very abundant to overcome the inefficiency of the
production process. Practically this means that nuclear and
hydroelectric (tidal and conventional) are the only "green" sources with
enough energy density to be viable.

Distribution is the next difficult part, you can ship hydrogen in
gaseous state through pipelines ok, and in cryogenic liquid form in
tankers ok, so getting it to fueling stations isn't too difficult.

Getting the hydrogen into motor vehicles that will use it is the problem
since it has to be filled either at very high pressure (6,000 PSI+) to
store a useable amount which really requires qualified fill station
personnel and requires a slow fill rate for safety, or has to be filled
and stored as a cryogenic liquid which also requires qualified fill
station personnel and has the additional problem of the vehicle having
to vent off hydrogen whether it's running or not, something common to
all cryogenic gasses.

notbob wrote:

On 2010-11-13, wrote:

reasonable source. Most comes from natural gas.

?????

Hydrogen comes from a simple electrical process. Anyone with a solar
panel or wind turbine can produce it. Slowly, but indefinitely, from
renewable energy sources. Why do you think this is not technology no
one is pursuing? DUH!

nb

It's not being pursued due to both the extreme ineffficiency of
electrical hydrogen production which makes only high energy density
"green" electricity sources such as nuclear and hydroelectric (tidal and
conventional) the only practical energy sources to produce hydrogen
"greenly", and the huge issues with storing enough hydrogen in a motor
vehicle to give it a useable range and the long refill time required
which makes it that much more impractical.

You really need to research beyond the hype and understand the science
and the limitations.

RBM wrote:

"George" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/2010 9:16 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-11-13, Pete wrote:

RBM wrote:

It is liquid urea. All 2010 and newer diesel engines in the U.S. must
produce near zero emissions. To do this there are currently two
methods. One
method requires a wicked expensive filter, which, if it goes bad will
cost
the vehicle owner in the neighborhood of 3 thousand dollars, plus it
jacks
up the initial cost of the vehicle. The other method uses a separate
tank of
liquid urea, DEF, and injects it into the exhaust pipe causing a
chemical
reaction with the exhaust gases effectively neutralizing them.
Currently
it's really expensive, but ultimately It'll probably cost around $3 per
gallon. On an average sized vehicle a five or six gallon tank should
last
for around 16000 miles.

Slight correction, 2007+ diesels have diesel particulate filters (DPF),
2010+ diesels have the UREA injection and selective catalyst reduction
*in addition* to the DPF. The UREA injection and SCR is supposed to also
help reduce the particulate generation so the DPF doesn't fill up and
require regeneration as often, but the DPF is still there. The DPFs are
also more like $1200 or so, not $3k, and the UREA is under $3/gal
already.

WOW! Anything to prevent wholesale adoption of a clean fuel
alternative.

BTW, what ever happened to BMWs promise to have a hydrogen powered car
on showroom floors in 2 yrs .....3 years ago!?

nb

Likely they noticed all of the non trivial issues related to using
hydrogen.

Hey, it worked fine for Zeppelins, well maybe with a few exceptions

It also wasn't being used as a fuel for them, it was used as an
essentially non-consumable so they didn't have to find a continuous
source.