| Author |
Topic |
|
Autodiesel
Biodiesel nut
43 Posts |
 Posted - 03/14/2003 : 16:20:53
|
You keep talking about PAH emissions.
Here's a tidbit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.northstar.sierraclub.org/ggi_vehicles_&_clean_fuels.htm
Along with particulates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons pose significant health concerns. The EPA reports that the PAH and nitrated PAH compounds are the most toxicologically relevant organic compounds in diesel. Although they may be only 1 percent of the diesel mass, they attach to fine particles, become highly respirable and are known to cause cancer and cell mutations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA reports that the PAH and nitrated PAH compounds are the most toxicologically relevant organic compounds in diesel.
|
Burn The Soybean! |
Edited by - Autodiesel on 03/14/2003 16:22:17 |
 |
|
|
Autodiesel
Biodiesel nut
43 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2003 : 16:30:02
|
http://powergreen.tripod.com/Emmission.htm
Methane Gas - The lobbies at work completely ignore the fact that while particles come from all kind of combustion sources, it is the toxicity of the particulate emissions that should guide prioritising the control of emissions. Across the world, scientific studies have established that particulate matter from diesel exhaust is extremely toxic. It comprises tiny particles coated with extremely toxic chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), some of which are known to be the most potent carcinogens. Compared with diesel vehicles, CNG vehicles emit negligible amount of particles. Moreover, even the little particles that are emitted by CNG vehicles are not as toxic as particles emitted by diesel vehicles as CNG is composed of mainly methane gas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The PAH compounds attach to PM.
And diesels have the hightest rate of PM matter. |
Burn The Soybean! |
|
|
|
NHmike
Moderator
354 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2003 : 18:45:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Autodiesel
You keep talking about PAH emissions.
Here's a tidbit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.northstar.sierraclub.org/ggi_vehicles_&_clean_fuels.htm
Along with particulates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons pose significant health concerns. The EPA reports that the PAH and nitrated PAH compounds are the most toxicologically relevant organic compounds in diesel. Although they may be only 1 percent of the diesel mass, they attach to fine particles, become highly respirable and are known to cause cancer and cell mutations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA reports that the PAH and nitrated PAH compounds are the most toxicologically relevant organic compounds in diesel.
Yes, and they're also found in gasoline. The page you snipped that from is comparing biodiesel to petro diesel, and showing the drastic reductions biodiesel gives in the worst kind of hydrocarbons. It's erroneous to interpret that to say that gasoline does not contain (or emit) PAHs and nPAHs. Gasoline exhaust does contain those - in fact, generally more nPAHs than petro diesel exhaust. |
|
|
|
NHmike
Moderator
354 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2003 : 18:51:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Autodiesel
http://powergreen.tripod.com/Emmission.htm
Methane Gas - The lobbies at work completely ignore the fact that while particles come from all kind of combustion sources, it is the toxicity of the particulate emissions that should guide prioritising the control of emissions. Across the world, scientific studies have established that particulate matter from diesel exhaust is extremely toxic. It comprises tiny particles coated with extremely toxic chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), some of which are known to be the most potent carcinogens. Compared with diesel vehicles, CNG vehicles emit negligible amount of particles. Moreover, even the little particles that are emitted by CNG vehicles are not as toxic as particles emitted by diesel vehicles as CNG is composed of mainly methane gas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The PAH compounds attach to PM.
And diesels have the hightest rate of PM matter.
You seem to think I'm comparing petro diesel to CNG, hybrid gas cars, etc. I'm not. I'm comparing diesel vehicles running on biodiesel. Biodiesel significantly reduces PM, and practically eliminates PAHs and nPAHs.
When comparing biodiesel to CNG, my point was that CNG is a fossil fuel, so burning it still emits CO2 (net). Further, it's not a renewable resource. At present consumption rates, we'll use up our known reserves in 64 years. If CNG starts getting used on a large scale for transportation (which it currently is not), consumption would skyrocket, drastically reducing the time it will take for us to run out. Should we spend billions on switching to vehicles that run on CNG (or hydrogen extracted from CNG), when we'd just run out of CNG in perhaps 10-20 years (at the higher consumption rates)? |
|
|
|
Autodiesel
Biodiesel nut
43 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2003 : 14:50:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by NHmike
It's erroneous to interpret that to say that gasoline does not contain (or emit) PAHs and nPAHs. Gasoline exhaust does contain those - in fact, generally more nPAHs than petro diesel exhaust.
But it is not erroneous to report that since modern catalytic convertors eleminate the majority if not all in modern gassers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (nitroPAHs)
The nitroPAH profile, or the relative quantities of certain “marker” PAHs, is a pointer to the source of formation of the nitroPAH. The most abundant nitro isomers of pyrene, fluorene and fluoranthene observed in diesel exhaust are 1-nitropyrene, 2-nitrofluorene and 3-nitrofluoranthene, whereas the isomers formed from the hydroxyl radical reactions of these PAHs are 2-nitropyrene, 3-nitrofluorene and 2-nitrofluoranthene.
The majority of ambient nitroPAHs are now thought to be formed in the atmosphere from the gas-phase reactions of PAHs with four rings or less.
Many mono- and some di- and trinitroPAH isomers have been identified and quantified in various samples of diesel exhaust, 1-nitropyrene usually being the most abundant. 1-Nitropyrene is the “marker” nitroPAH for diesel exhaust, and its presence in ambient air samples is a sign of pollution by diesel vehicle traffic. Diesel fuel, engine types and catalytic traps are continually being modified, so the various studies of nitroPAHs in diesel exhaust cannot be directly compared. In general, the mass emission of particles, emissions of particle-bound PAHs and nitroPAHs, and mutagenic activity levels generally decreased with the use of either particulate traps or catalytic converters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That is from a report I have from the World Health Organization.
Before n-PAH can be formed there needs to be certain "marker" PAH's.
And the simple fact is that a modern three-way / double O2 sensored catalyst will remove virtually all PAH or nPAH from the exhaust.
This is not true with current diesels. IE TDi's especially.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.htm
One of the main characteristics of diesel exhaust is the release of particles at a markedly greater rate than from gasoline-fueled vehicles, on an equivalent fuel energy basis. The particles are mainly aggregates of spherical carbon particles coated with inorganic and organic substances. The inorganic fraction primarily consists of small solid carbon (or elemental carbon) particles ranging from 0.01 to 0.08 microns in diameter. The organic fraction consists of soluble organic compounds such as aldehydes, alkanes and alkenes, and high-molecular weight PAH and PAH-derivatives, such as nitro-PAHs. Many of these PAHs and PAH-derivatives, especially nitro-PAHs, have been found to be potent mutagens and carcinogens. Nitro-PAH compounds can also be formed during transport through the atmosphere by reactions of adsorbed PAH with nitric acid and by gas-phase radical-initiated reactions in the presence of oxides of nitrogen.
Almost all of the diesel particle mass is in the fine particle range of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). Approximately 94 percent of the mass of these particles are less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Because of their small size, these particles can be inhaled and a portion will eventually become trapped within the small airways and alveolar regions of the lung.
Diesel engine exhaust contains small carbonaceous particles and a large number of chemicals that are adsorbed onto these particles or present as vapors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And if there was a problem with gas, why is it that there is so much study of diesel?
Even in Finland!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.occuphealth.fi/research/2000/eng/e132.html
Objectives: The objectives of the diesel project are to analyse certain PAH and nitro-PAH contents of different diesel exhaust particulates in order to reduce the carcinogenic PAH in diesel emissions.
Materials: An in vitro cell line, CT DNA and animal experiments to test the binding of PAH and nitro-PAH to DNA. Single PAH and nitro-PAH standards will be synthetised and used to characterize PAH-DNA adducts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the worst offenders are nitrofluoranthene and benzo(a)pyrene.
(http://www.chem-tox.com/immunesystem/vehicleexhaust/vehicle_exhaust.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/pahmethod.pdf
Table 1. PAH Emission Factors for Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles (Norbeck et al., 1998, N=20)b
PAH mg/mi Fraction of PM10
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/mi-0.008 / frac. of PM10-0.00010
Fluoranthene mg/mi-0.071 / frac. of PM10-0.00091
Table 2. PAH Emission Factors for Light Duty Diesel Vehicles and Trucks
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/mi-0.025 / frac. of PM10-0.000045
Fluoranthene mg/mi-0.301 / frac. of PM10-0.000536
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are correct in saying gasser have higher PAH or n-PAH, but only if you use a group of "high" emitters. You have to realize the studies are comparing the "worst" offenders that are out there.
If you read the paragraph from the EPA link you'll see that they purposely use "high-emitting" type gas vehicles.
"The gasoline vehicles tested had relatively high particulate matter emission rates. We recommend using the PM fractions for light duty gasoline trucks, heavy duty gasoline vehicles and
motorcycles."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now find me a study showing the emission of PAH's and n-PAH's of any hybrid on the market.
Well, here's is a study of overall emission impact of ICE, electric, and hybrid electric vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ulg.ac.be/cior-fsa/publicat/8lca_ve.pdf
A Simplified LCA for Automotive Sector - Comparison of ICE (diesel and petrol), electric, and hybrid vehicles.
"One of the main conclusions of this study is that the hybrid vehicle studied and the electric on (consuming electricity obtained by the average Belgian production) have nearly the same relatively small global emvironmental load (i.e. global Eco-scores as calculated in EI 95) compared to the ones of ICE vehicles (at least three times less than the diesel ICE vehicle and four times less than the petrol one.)
Table 2 shows that:
- The CO2 emissions are directly linked to the energy consumption of the vehicles and also to the efficiency of the other steps of the "fuel cycle". These results show that the hybrid vehicle needs less energy than the ICE ones.
- The PM10 emissions which are released during the use phase of the diesel vehicle are very high.
- The NOx emissions are usually ocnsidered as one of the weakest points of the diesel vehicles. These emissions are very low in the case of the hybrid vehicle.
Fugure 3 - Results of Valuation.
Figure 3 shows that the hybrid vehicle has the lowest score for three impacts : acidification, winter smog, and eutrophication........Furthermore, it is interesting to attribute weights to these five impacts, even if it seems obvious from now that the new technologies (electric and hybrid vehicles) have a lesser global impact than the conventional ones (diesel and petrol vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It does go on in the conclusions to say further investigation of CNG, fuel cell, biofuels, etc. need to be integrated into the life cycle study.
More large group studies are needed for alternative fuels.
|
Burn The Soybean! |
Edited by - Autodiesel on 03/16/2003 14:58:24 |
|
|
|
NHmike
Moderator
354 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2003 : 15:31:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Autodiesel
quote:
Originally posted by NHmike
It's erroneous to interpret that to say that gasoline does not contain (or emit) PAHs and nPAHs. Gasoline exhaust does contain those - in fact, generally more nPAHs than petro diesel exhaust.
But it is not erroneous to report that since modern catalytic convertors eleminate the majority if not all in modern gassers.
With ultra low sulfur gasoline. The performance of three-way catalysts on gasoline engines are significantly impacted by higher sulfur levels in the gasoline. Look at the tests done on the Prius and others showing very low emissions - they were all done with ULSG (ultra low sulfur gasoline) - which is pretty much only available in California right now. So, it's kind of silly to use emissions from a Prius when it gets to use ULSG, but say it's not fair to consider the emissions of diesels when ULSD gets here. ULSG is only required in California (I think 15 ppm, while the rest of the country is around 300 ppm). See http://www.cleancarcampaign.org/standards.shtml and look at the third bulleted note:
"Achieving the full benefit of SULEV emissions control technologies requires use of low-sulfur fuel, which is required in California but not yet available nationwide. "
Comparing the emissions of gas vehicles with ULSG to diesels with high sulfur fuel is meaningless. Both ULSG and ULSD were initially supposed to be madated in 2004, but ULSD got pushed back to 2006. I'm not positive about the current status of ULSG....
Even with higher sulfur gasoline, the emissions of a gasoline vehicle are a little better than current generation diesels, since the effect of the sulfur isn't as bad on gas catalysts. It kills the diesel catalysts that can remove almost all NOx and PM, but only impairs and degrades the performance of gasoline catalysts.
quote:
Nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (nitroPAHs)
The nitroPAH profile, or the relative quantities of certain “marker” PAHs, is a pointer to the source of formation of the nitroPAH. The most abundant nitro isomers of pyrene, fluorene and fluoranthene observed in diesel exhaust are 1-nitropyrene, 2-nitrofluorene and 3-nitrofluoranthene, whereas the isomers formed from the hydroxyl radical reactions of these PAHs are 2-nitropyrene, 3-nitrofluorene and 2-nitrofluoranthene.
And so on, and so on. Again - my comments on needing to break down the HC analysis to look at the more dangerous ones such as PAHs and n-PAHs were in reference to comparing biodiesel TDI to a Prius. That's what this conversation started out as - getting a Prius or a TDI and running it on biodiesel. I'm not saying the hydrocarbon emissions from a TDI running on petro diesel are cleaner than a Prius - only on biodiesel am I saying that, since the original poster wanted to know how a Prius compared to a TDI on biodiesel.
Biodiesel contains no PAHs or n-PAHs. Both gasoline and petro diesel do. That was what I was getting at as far as the HC comparison between a Prius and a TDI on biodiesel. If you live in California and have ULSG available, the Prius' catalyst is pretty effective at removing PAHs and n-PAHs, but it will still have more than the TDI on biodiesel.
quote:
And if there was a problem with gas, why is it that there is so much study of diesel?
Uh, in case you haven't noticed, there is a lot of study on both. If you just search for studies on diesel emissions, you're going to find studies on diesel emissions.
quote:
Well, here's is a study of overall emission impact of ICE, electric, and hybrid electric vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ulg.ac.be/cior-fsa/publicat/8lca_ve.pdf
A Simplified LCA for Automotive Sector - Comparison of ICE (diesel and petrol), electric, and hybrid vehicles.
"One of the main conclusions of this study is that the hybrid vehicle studied and the electric on (consuming electricity obtained by the average Belgian production) have nearly the same relatively small global emvironmental load (i.e. global Eco-scores as calculated in EI 95) compared to the ones of ICE vehicles (at least three times less than the diesel ICE vehicle and four times less than the petrol one.)
First, again you are comparing a diesel vehicle running on petro diesel. Second, those results are without the new catalysts.
If we are discussing what the original poster asked, it's meaningless to compare a TDI on petro diesel. Biodiesel drastically reduces all emissions except NOx (which it can also reduce if you adjust the timing).
If we are discussing what the country or world should focus on for transportation:
1. It's silly to say "oh, you can't count new catalysts which aren't on the market yet because ULSD isn't yet widely available (particularly if the hybrid emissions specs you're using are based on ULSG, which also isn't widely available).
2. Diesel vehicles can be made as hybrids as well. Hybrid technology just boosts the fuel efficiency. A diesel is always going to be more efficient than a gasoline vehicle. Make them both hybrids, and that's still true (i.e. look at the two concept hybrids I posted links for (which both GM and Dodge decided not to make, since they make so much more profit from SUVs). Both were full size sedans, and got 70-90 mpg - considerably more than the small Prius, or even the tiny Insight. When ULSG and ULSD become widely available, NOx, PM, and HCs will drop significantly for both diesels and gassers. With gassers, you can use better catalysts right now, but they don't perform nearly as well with high sulfur gas. With diesels, the better catalysts can't be used until only ULSD is available. If you're going to count the emissions from a Prius on ULSG, you have to compare that to the emissions from a diesel with ULSD and better catalysts to have a fair comparison of which would be cleaner to focus on.
The biggest advantage of diesels is that biodiesel can be used in them without modification, allowing a seamless transition from petroleum to a clean renewable fuel. No other alternative offers that (except flexible fuel spark ignition engines that can run on ethanol, but ethanol isn't nearly as attractive for wide scale production as biodiesel).
quote:
Table 2 shows that:
- The CO2 emissions are directly linked to the energy consumption of the vehicles and also to the efficiency of the other steps of the "fuel cycle". These results show that the hybrid vehicle needs less energy than the ICE ones.
I disagree with that completely. For one thing, crude oil produces considerably more diesel than gasoline (on average near twice as much diesel). So, if you include the fuel production emissions, gasoline includes far more crude oil emissions than petro diesel. Our TDIs average roughly the same mpg as a Prius (in combination driving). But, roughly twice as much crude oil is required to produce that gasoline for the Prius as the diesel for a TDI (assuming you drive it on diesel instead of biodiesel). |
|
|
|
Autodiesel
Biodiesel nut
43 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2003 : 17:36:51
|
"I disagree with that completely."
That seems to be your standard defence, no offence.
But there are points where you are wrong.
ULSgas
http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_lowsulfur_gas_arrives/
Low-Sulfur Gas Arrives in Big Three's Backyard
WARD'S AUTO WORLD STAFF
Ward's Auto World, Apr 1, 2000
http://www.autoalliance.org/pressreleases/pr102699.htm
Georgia: In May 1999, Georgia Gasoline, a low sulfur content fuel, was introduced in a 25-county area in North Georgia. In August, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division released plans to introduce low sulfur fuel in 45 counties by 2003.
BP Amoco: On July 22, 1999, BP Amoco announced plans to voluntarily provide low sulfur gas (30 parts per million, or ppm) in premium fuel at its 550 gas stations in Atlanta, four years ahead of a Georgia mandate. Earlier, BP Amoco announced it would voluntarily sell cleaner-burning, low sulfur gasoline in 40 cities worldwide with air quality problems. According to news reports, the company intends to provide low sulfur fuel at all its 14,000 U.S. gas stations within 3-5 years. On October 14, BP Amoco announced its low sulfur fuel is now available in premium fuel in Chicago and NW Indiana, and this will be expanded to all grades in the Spring of 2001.
Koch Petroleum: On September 22, 1999, Koch Petroleum Group and Holiday Stationstores unveiled a new low sulfur fuel, called Blue Planet Earth Friendly Gasoline, at 100 Holiday Stationstores in Minneapolis-St. Paul.
http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/05-08-01/2001050801_s03_New.html
Mayor Kirk Watson promotes use of new gasoline
New fuel hailed as ozone-emissions safe
I could keep going on. Many major metropolitan areas have had ULSgas available for up to three years. We have had it in the NW/Puget Sound for about two years.
I can drive down the street and fill a gas tank with ULSgas in almost any major city in the country. I used to do exactly that with my old 93 Sable. Made it run nice.
You can't say that with ULSD or biodiesel and even if you could the emissions equipement required is "future" technology, no what is available today for gassers.
Yes I do want that to change for diesels in the future.
But I'm not holding out any hopes for this country.
quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Biodiesel contains no PAHs or n-PAHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now how can that be?
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/emissions.PDF
PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)** -80% -13% nPAH (nitrated PAH’s)** -90% -50%*** Ozone
Those figures are with B100 and B20 respectively.
Now how can you have "reduction" of PAH or n-PAH if you contest there are "no PAH or n-PAH" in biodiesel?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nedermanusa.com/docs/GeneralDEInfo.pdf
Before catalytic converters on gasoline powered autos, PAH emissions were almost identical for gas powered and diesel powered
vehicles. Catalytic converters reduces gas PAH’s to prox. 5%.
A gas engine with catalytic converter emits prox. 3% PAH’s of a Diesel engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So with B100 you at best would have a reduction of 80% as reported from Biodiesel.org. over regular diesel.
If a gasser has only 3% of regular diesel, that means biodiesel still has 17% more than a modern gasser.
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/pressreleases/gen/090602_cancer_risk.pdf
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and Nitrated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (nPAH) are EPA-targeted compounds thought to cause cancer from diesel engine exhaust. Pure biodiesel reduces most PAH compounds by 80 percent and nPAH compounds by 90 percent.
The findings are the result of two years of independent studies on biodiesel as the fuel completed the Health Effects Testing Requirements of the Clean Air Act. To date, biodiesel is the only fuel to have completed the tests, and the industry submitted the results to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.casadata.org/pollutants/poly_hydrocarbons.asp
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a class of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete combustion of gasoline, diesel, oil, coal, wood, garbage or other organic substances. Tobacco smoke and charbroiled meats are common sources of PAHs. Other outdoor sources of PAHs include vehicle exhaust emissions, wood smoke from fireplaces, smoke from forest fires and industrial facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/polycyclicaromatichydrocarbons.htm
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are made whenever substances are burned. PAHs are also found at former coal-gasification sites. Breathing smoke or coming into contact with contaminated soil exposes people to PAHs. Some PAHs may cause cancer and may affect the eyes, kidneys, and liver.
Other foods that may contain low levels of PAHs include roasted coffee, roasted peanuts, refined vegetable oil, grains, vegetables, and fruits."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Refined vegetable oil"
I wonder what that might be?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
A "reduction" of PAH and n-PAH is much different than "no PAH".
Please do more research about the source of PAH's and n-PAH. |
Burn The Soybean! |
Edited by - Autodiesel on 03/16/2003 17:51:06 |
|
|
|
NHmike
Moderator
354 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 20:43:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Autodiesel
"I disagree with that completely."
That seems to be your standard defence, no offence.
My standard defense? Note that I did not simply state that as my defense - I followed it up with my reasons.
quote:
But there are points where you are wrong.
ULSgas
http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_lowsulfur_gas_arrives/
Low-Sulfur Gas Arrives in Big Three's Backyard
WARD'S AUTO WORLD STAFF
Ward's Auto World, Apr 1, 2000
http://www.autoalliance.org/pressreleases/pr102699.htm
Yes, BP Amoco is one of the few companies selling ULSG. They're aiming at having all 14,000 of their stations in the US having ULSG. There are almost 180,000 filling stations in the US. So, that's less than 8 percent of the filling stations in the US. Irving is the other only company producing a significant amount of ULSG (I live a few miles from their refinery in Portsmouth, NH, which in 2000 was the first refinery in the US to be producing only ULSG (see http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/2002awar.html and search for Irving). But, Irving is a very small time producer though. Are you claiming that since 8% will have ULSG, that that somehow counters my argument that it's silly to count the emissions from a Prius when running on it? Amoco also sells ULSD, by the way.
quote:
Koch Petroleum: On September 22, 1999, Koch Petroleum Group and Holiday Stationstores unveiled a new low sulfur fuel, called Blue Planet Earth Friendly Gasoline, at 100 Holiday Stationstores in Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Koch doesn't make ULSG. They sell "low sulfur" gas, which has 150-175 ppm of sulfur (a little more than half the requirement that goes into effect in 2004). See http://www.kochind.com/newsroom/news_detail.asp?ID=375
A Prius running on Koch's fuel will not meet the emissions specs of it running on ULSG (20 ppm sulfur or less).
Incidentally, one of those pages also mentioned Phillips:
quote:
Phillips: On August 31, 1999, Phillips Petroleum Company unveiled a new technology that significantly lowers sulfur content in gasoline. This process, according to Phillips, costs no more to implement, has little octane loss and very low volume loss
Phillips only has fit one of their refineries with that technology. All the rest are still putting out fuel with sulfur around 300 ppm.
See http://www.phillips66.com/newsroom/NewsReleases/rel398.html
Incidentally, whoever wrote that page for Phillips screwed up on the EPA's sulfur criteria. The limit goes to 300 ppm in 2004, and 80 ppm max in 2006 (30 ppm average). See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/aqfactbk/factbk12.htm
"In December, 1999 EPA announced new engine and gasoline standards commonly known as Tier II. The standards were designed to reduce the emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks, including pickup trucks, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles. Beginning in 2004, the nation's refiners and importers of gasoline will have to manufacture gasoline with sulfur levels capped at 300 parts per million (ppm), approximately a 15 percent reduction from the current industry average of 347 ppm. By 2006, refiners will meet a 30 ppm average sulfur level with a maximum cap of 80 ppm. The Tier II regulations are predicted to decrease NOX emissions by 61 percent, and VOC emissions by 24 percent between 2004 and 2030."
quote:
http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/05-08-01/2001050801_s03_New.html
Mayor Kirk Watson promotes use of new gasoline
New fuel hailed as ozone-emissions safe
Again, that's Koch industries fuel, which is 150-175 ppm, 5-6 times the 30 ppm sulfur fuel used in the Prius tests.
quote:
I could keep going on. Many major metropolitan areas have had ULSgas available for up to three years.
Nope, only two outside of California - Atlanta and Chicago. You really should read the entire articles you're posting. If you read that first one in your last post (the one from wardsauto), you'd notice this:
"BP Amoco says its Crystal Clear Amoco Ultimate and BP Super 93, which contain 30 parts per million sulfur - about one-tenth typical levels, now will be available in the Detroit area. Detroit joins Atlanta and Chicago as the only U.S. markets to offer the fuel."
Only two markets offered the fuel, and only from Amoco stations (and a few Irving stations). And even in those cities, most of the stations still sell high sulfur fuel. Only if you buy Amoco's gas in those cities or California are you getting ULSG.
quote:
We have had it in the NW/Puget Sound for about two years.
What station? Shell has a project in Puget Sound to get their plant there producing ULSG, but it won't be completed until the end of 2003 (http://www.piersystem.com/external/final_View.cfm?cid=480&pressID=9900 ). Also read http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/1999news/99-268a.html
Many of the stations in the area have had ultra low sulfur diesel for a while, but not ultra low sulfur gasoline. A few around the country have been selling "low sulfur gasoline", which is just gasoline that meets the 2004 requirement - 300 ppm. That's a far cry from the ULSG though that is used for the ULEV and SULEV tests, which is 30 ppm.
quote:
I can drive down the street and fill a gas tank with ULSgas in almost any major city in the country.
No, you can't. You can get low sulfur gas (<300 ppm) in most cities, but you can only get ULSG (<30 ppm) in a few.
quote:
You can't say that with ULSD or biodiesel and even if you could the emissions equipement required is "future" technology, no what is available today for gassers.
The technology is marketable today, it just won't be sold in the US until the ULSD requirement goes into effect - 2006, the same date that the ULSG requirement goes into effect.
quote:
quote:
quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Biodiesel contains no PAHs or n-PAHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now how can that be?
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/emissions.PDF
PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)** -80% -13% nPAH (nitrated PAH’s)** -90% -50%*** Ozone
Those figures are with B100 and B20 respectively.
Now how can you have "reduction" of PAH or n-PAH if you contest there are "no PAH or n-PAH" in biodiesel?
Because some PAHs and n-PAHs are created in the combustion process. With both gasoline and diesel engines, running on petroleum, the bulk of the PAH and n-PAH emissions are from those molecules that already existed in the fuel before combustion, and a small percentage of the PAHs and n-PAHs emitted were created during the combustion process. With biodiesel (and CNG), the fuels contain no PAHs or n-PAHs but some are created in the combustion process. With biodiesel, that amount is far smaller (80% less and 90% for nPAHs). With CNG though, the combustion actually yields a higher percent (by mass) of PAHs than petro diesel. See http://www.greendieseltechnology.com/news72.html
The last paragraph:
"University of California at Riverside published data two years ago analyzing CNG vehicle exhaust and found it contains PAH's. CNG PM has carcinogens. That's a scary thing, because for a given weight of a particle -- one microgram of diesel PM and one microgram of CNG PM -- CNG has a higher percentage of PAH on a weight basis than diesel PM. So if we've comparing the two vehicles on an emissions weight basis, the CNG vehicle will have more carcinogens attached to PM than the diesel vehicle. This data has been there for two years and it's being ignored."
The overall amount of HCs from CNG is quite low - but a very high percent of PAHs.
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nedermanusa.com/docs/GeneralDEInfo.pdf
Before catalytic converters on gasoline powered autos, PAH emissions were almost identical for gas powered and diesel powered
vehicles. Catalytic converters reduces gas PAH’s to prox. 5%.
A gas engine with catalytic converter emits prox. 3% PAH’s of a Diesel engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So with B100 you at best would have a reduction of 80% as reported from Biodiesel.org. over regular diesel.
If a gasser has only 3% of regular diesel, that means biodiesel still has 17% more than a modern gasser.
Until you put on the better catalytic converters that biodiesel would allow to be used. The small amount of PAHs that are created when biodiesel is burned are primarily in larger particles - the ones that are almost completely removed with the newer particulate filters, leaving a tiny amount of PAHs.
quote:
A "reduction" of PAH and n-PAH is much different than "no PAH".
Yup, and no viable option can claim "no PAHs". Fuel cells, if the hydrogen were made from wind power could, but again, that would cost orders of magnitude more than biodiesel, and take orders of magnitude longer. In the 50-100 years it will take to get there, why not use biodiesel?
quote:
Please do more research about the source of PAH's and n-PAH.
Ditto.
Please also decide what you are actually arguing for. You seem to be arguing that we should focus on fuel cells because the diesel vehicles that are on the road right now aren't as clean as hybrid gas cars? Apparently it's fine to ignore the fact that in 2006, the diesels will be far cleaner, and fuel cells will still be years away, and when they do finally become available, they'll run on hydrogen from fossil fuels.
If you think diesels (even running on biodiesel) are so dirty, why aren't you driving a hybrid? Or a fuel cell powered by hydrogen from wind power? Oh, that's right, they won't be available for a long time.
Also, perhaps you should let EPA know that you have decided that diesels cannot be clean. They apparently haven't realized it yet. http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/v33_3_00/emissions.htm
quote:
Diesel fuel is used mostly in trucks, but demand for it is expected to rise. Because they are 40% more efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles and produce less carbon dioxide, light-duty diesel vehicles, including sedans and sport utility vehicles, are being developed for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). By combining the diesel engine with an electric motor in a hybrid car, the PNGV goal of 80 miles per gallon for a family-sized sedan might be met.
Advanced emissions control devices are being designed for these diesel vehicles, to reduce their emissions of NOx and particulate matter (PM) to regulated levels. According to the EPA, the combination of advanced emissions control devices and ultra-low-sulfur fuel in both gasoline and diesel engines could greatly reduce air pollution, which has been blamed for respiratory health problems, crop damage, acid rain, and low visibility.
|
|
|
|
Autodiesel
Biodiesel nut
43 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 02:54:34
|
"Nope, only two outside of California - Atlanta and Chicago."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are asking for it, aren't you!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"What station?"
"Many of the stations in the area have had ultra low sulfur diesel for a while, but not ultra low sulfur gasoline."
"No, you can't. You can get low sulfur gas (<300 ppm) in most cities, but you can only get ULSG (<30 ppm) in a few."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OK! HERE IT COMES!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.arco.com/gas/sulfur.html
"ARCO's new low-sulfur premium gasoline is now available at all ARCO stations across Washington. Lower Sulfur ARCO Premium Gasoline has also been made available at stations in selected areas of Oregon including Portland and Salem metro markets."
How low is the sulfur content of New Lower Sulfur ARCO Premium?
New Lower Sulfur ARCO Premium has an average sulfur content of only 30 parts per million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'VE BEEN ABLE TO BUY THIS FOR OVER TWO YEARS NOW! I EVEN FOUND IT AT A STATION ON THE COAST OF OREGON.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I'll say, California everywhere.
Then............
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.blueplanetgas.com
"Introduced six years ahead of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum sulfur standard, proposed for the year 2006"
Max. Spec / 80 Sulfur, PPM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, this is the max spec. / testing usually shows less because it has to remain below the max. standard.
Not as good as our ARCO 30 ppm, but still good.
YEAR 2000!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.whitingrefinery.com/News/detroit.htm
"The premium gasoline for Amoco and BP stations in Detroit is made here in Whiting. This means we are now supplying Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee and Northwest Indiana with low sulfur premium gasoline!"
"We are very pleased to be lowering the sulfur content of our premium grades of BP and Amoco gasolines sold in metro-Detroit to 30 parts-per-million (ppm), which is four years ahead of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2004 standard,"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
30 PPM LOW SULPHUR IN YEAR 2000!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bp.com/centres/press/p_r_detail.asp?id=902
BP Brings Cleaner Gasoline To Colorado
10th June 2002
"Colorado residents can breathe easier today thanks to an announcement by BP that it has selected the Denver metropolitan area, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins and Boulder as the latest U.S. cities to receive lower sulphur gasoline as part of BP's global Clean Cities initiative"
"BP's new lower sulfur Amoco Ultimate contains 85 percent less sulfur (less than 30 parts per million) than previous Amoco Ultimate blends. This new lower sulfur fuel is being introduced six years ahead of EPA requirements for the greater Denver area and at no added cost to consumers."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
LESS THAN 30PPM SULPHUR IN MAJOR METROPOLATAN AREAS OF COLORADO!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd keep going on but I won't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"With CNG though, the combustion actually yields a higher percent (by mass) of PAHs than petro diesel"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO'S TAKING ABOUT CNG, THE THREAD IS BIODIESEL AND GASOLINE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yup, and no viable option can claim "no PAHs". Fuel cells, if the hydrogen were made from wind power could, but again, that would cost orders of magnitude more than biodiesel, and take orders of magnitude longer."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/14921/story.htm
LONDON - Anglo-Dutch Energy giant Shell is poised for three years' of rapid growth in wind power as part of a billion dollar push into green energy, a senior executive told Reuters this week.
Shell aims to have in place a thousand megawatts of wind generating capacity by 2005, up from an existing capacity of 140 megawatts, as it sinks cash into joint venture projects across Europe and the U.S.
"We are looking at a whole raft of projects," said Robert Kleiburg, vice president strategy & planning at Shell International Renewables.
"Our plan is to invest $0.5 billion to $1 billion in new energy technologies over five years to the end of 2005, subject to ongoing review," he said in an interview.
"Compared to annual expenditure at Shell of $12 billion to $13 billion, this is a sizeable investment," he added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ge.com/stories/en/10557.html
GE's Wind Power Business Brings Major Growth and Technology Opportunities
GE has expanded into one of the fastest-growing segments of the global energy industry with the addition of its new wind energy business. Last year, a record 6,500 megawatts of new wind power generating capacity, enough to provide electricity to roughly 1.5 million homes, were added worldwide. This growth trajectory is expected to continue for some time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7180
Since the '70s and '80s, renewable technologies have improved significantly in both performance and cost. Some are experiencing rates of growth and technology advancement comparable only to the electronics industry. Global clean energy markets exceeded $10 billion in 2001 and are expected to surpass $82 billion by 2010, and major corporations are entering the renewables marketplace -- including Royal Dutch/Shell, BP, and General Electric. Technical progress of many renewables -- particularly wind power -- has been faster than was anticipated even a few years ago, and this trend is expected to continue.
Charting A New Energy Future
Excerpts From World Watch Institute's State Of The World 2003
Since the '70s and '80s, renewable technologies have improved significantly in both performance and cost. Some are experiencing rates of growth and technology advancement comparable only to the electronics industry. Global clean energy markets exceeded $10 billion in 2001 and are expected to surpass $82 billion by 2010, and major corporations are entering the renewables marketplace -- including Royal Dutch/Shell, BP, and General Electric. Technical progress of many renewables -- particularly wind power -- has been faster than was anticipated even a few years ago, and this trend is expected to continue.
While costs are still a concern with some technologies, these are falling rapidly due to technological advances, learning by doing, automated manufacturing and economies of scale through increased production volumes.
Solar and wind are the most commonly known renewables, but inexhaustible energy supplies are also offered by biomass, geothermal, hydropower, ocean energy (from the tides, currents and waves) and ocean thermal energy.
During the past 15 to 20 years, wind-energy technology has evolved to the point where it competes with most conventional forms of power generation. In many instances, wind is now the cheapest option on a per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) basis. The main trends in wind energy development are toward lighter, more flexible blades, variable speed operation, direct-drive generators, and taller machines with greater capacity. The average turbine size has increased from 100 to 200 kilowatts (kW) in the early '90s to more than 900 kW today, making it possible to produce more power with fewer machines. (One 900 kW machine can provide the electricity needed for about 540 European homes.) Turbines with capacity ratings of 2,000 to 5,000 kW (two to five MW) are being manufactured for use offshore. At the same time, small wind machines that can be installed close to the point of demand -- atop buildings, for example -- are also under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
" In many instances, wind is now the cheapest option on a per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) basis."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WIND POWER KEEPS GROWING AND GETTING CHEAPER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you think diesels (even running on biodiesel) are so dirty, why aren't you driving a hybrid?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Insight is only a two-seater and we wanted a four door. The Prius at the time had a three-month waiting list.
I never said a modern, up to date, clean diesel vehicle even running on biodiesel (B100) couldn't match a hybrid.
I just said it is not going to happen because the the possibility of clean diesels in 2006 is slim. And I'm not the one saying that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=4731
"But Ford does not plan to make any kind of capital investment in the diesel for the North American market without more signs that regulators and consumers are willing to accept diesel engines, Scheele said. "We're not going to put in capital on [that] basis," added Scheele. "We don't have the capital to invest in all kinds of programs and our ability to forecast has been minimal," he added."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19322/story.htm
"
GM is expanding capacity for its diesel engines on its full-size pickup trucks sold in North America, and could also offer them on their large sport utility vehicles to consumers wishing to save money on fuel, said Gary Cowger, head of GM's North American operations.
But U.S. clean air laws could prevent their widespread use in passenger cars unless the laws are rewritten, he said"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUCKS, YES. CARS, NO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webreprints.djreprints.com/664821451209.html
"Other auto makers are less bullish. General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Rick Wagoner said the 2007 clean-air rules will effectively bar current diesel technology in the U.S. market. He also said GM doesn't want to commit the money needed to retool factories for diesel production without certainty that diesels could be used in the U.S. long term."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW CHECK AND SEE WHERE THE MAJORITY OF US MANUFACTURES ARE PUTTING THEIR MONEY FOR CARS. HINT, IT'S NOT DIESELS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Incidentally, whoever wrote that page for Phillips screwed up on the EPA's sulfur criteria. The limit goes to 300 ppm in 2004, and 80 ppm max in 2006 (30 ppm average)."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE EPA SAYS, PHILLIPS HAS IT CORRECT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f99010.pdf
Proposed Sulfur Levels in Gasoline
"• The nation's refiners would meet an average
sulfur level of 30 parts per million (ppm) by
2004, down from the current average of
more than 300 ppm. The maximum amount
of sulfur in gasoline, for purposes of averaging,
would be capped at 80 ppm, after a
three-year phase-in."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE A 30PPM AVERAGE. IT IS THE CAP THAT CHANGES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never said future diesels couldn't be clean. I've said it is not likely light-duty passenger diesels will be around by the time the new regs go into full effect for light duty diesels.
You just aren't going to see biodiesel from any source in mixes more than B20 if it were to be mandated by the government. To dream about what could be is wonderfull, but the reality is otherwise.
It would be wonderful to have more choices and to have a HO PD clean TDi or a another brand of clean diesel, but who is going to do it?
We have heard zip from VW concerning light duty diesels and if they bring in the Touareg Tdi it has been reported in trade magazines that will probably be short lived.
Mercedes has said the same thing. The Jeep Liberty is a test run and so are their cars.
The Big Two, GM & Ford is only interested in light-duty (over 8500lbs by 2006) diesel trucks and the Japanese car makers are putting everything into hybrids and fuel cells with the expectation they will be the dominant players by 2007 to 2012. Don't discount what they have planned.
Who else is there?
|
Burn The Soybean! |
|
|
|
NHmike
Moderator
354 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 20:03:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Autodiesel
http://www.arco.com/gas/sulfur.html
"ARCO's new low-sulfur premium gasoline is now available at all ARCO stations across Washington. Lower Sulfur ARCO Premium Gasoline has also been made available at stations in selected areas of Oregon including Portland and Salem metro markets."
How low is the sulfur content of New Lower Sulfur ARCO Premium?
New Lower Sulfur ARCO Premium has an average sulfur content of only 30 parts per million.
I stand corrected. The information I had read previously from ARCO (and the others making ULSG for a few areas) made no mention of the pacific northwest.
quote:
"With CNG though, the combustion actually yields a higher percent (by mass) of PAHs than petro diesel"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO'S TAKING ABOUT CNG, THE THREAD IS BIODIESEL AND GASOLINE.
It was just a reference point, since you had claimed that biodiesel must contain PAHs since the exhaust contains some. I was merely pointing out that CNG exhaust also contains PAHs, while CNG itself contains none, to illustrate the point that some PAHs are created in combustion (while when burning petro gasoline or diesel, the majority of the PAHs are actually in the fuel itself).
quote:
"Yup, and no viable option can claim "no PAHs". Fuel cells, if the hydrogen were made from wind power could, but again, that would cost orders of magnitude more than biodiesel, and take orders of magnitude longer."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/14921/story.htm
LONDON - Anglo-Dutch Energy giant Shell is poised for three years' of rapid growth in wind power as part of a billion dollar push into green energy, a senior executive told Reuters this week.
Shell aims to have in place a thousand megawatts of wind generating capacity by 2005, up from an existing capacity of 140 megawatts, as it sinks cash into joint venture projects across Europe and the U.S.
"We are looking at a whole raft of projects," said Robert Kleiburg, vice president strategy & planning at Shell International Renewables.
Your point being? Did you think I was completely unaware of wind farms or something? Read my post again, and look at the cost analysis I did calculated from the information from the link that you posted. Providing the energy for producing hydrogen to fuel our cars would cost a few trillion dollars, compared to roughly $160 billion ((revised my calculations) for producing the oil we'd need for making biodiesel. That's an order of magnitude difference. Add to that that the biodiesel can be used in the existing fuel distirbution infrastructure, and in existing vehicles (already 1/3 of the fuel we use is diesel, so it could start making a difference immediately - no need to wait decades for fuel cells to hopefully become affordable (which will require their costs coming down by at least a factor of 30 or more, since they're 50-100 times more expensive). As wind farms are gradually being built, should they be used to replace coal plants (where each kWh generated does 1 kWh of work), or used for transportation in a system that wastes almost 3/4 of the energy, when a far cheaper and more readily available alternative could be used?
Let's see, Shell is aiming at putting up one thousand MW of wind power - and how much would we need to produce all the electricity needed in the US? 12 MILLION MW (your own link). We should work towards that - but to also produce hydrogen for fuel cell transportation, we'd need at least another ~2.5 MILLION MW, in addition to that first 12 Miillion MW. How soon do you envision that materializing? I'm being optimistic and hoping we'll get there in 50 years - most likely though it will be decades beyond that. In the meantime, if we go with fuel cells, we'll be running them on fossil fuels. We could instead be driving diesels on biodiesel, emitting no net CO2, with no fossil dependence.
quote:
http://www.ge.com/stories/en/10557.html
GE's Wind Power Business Brings Major Growth and Technology Opportunities
GE has expanded into one of the fastest-growing segments of the global energy industry with the addition of its new wind energy business. Last year, a record 6,500 megawatts of new wind power generating capacity, enough to provide electricity to roughly 1.5 million homes, were added worldwide. This growth trajectory is expected to continue for some time.
6,500 MW worldwide is great - the problem is, just to produce the hydrogen we'd need for transportation, we'd need 2.5 MILLION MW. So even if all that 6,500 MW were installed in the US (rather than worldwide), that would have only been 0.26% of what we'd need (that's right, just more than 1/4 of one percent). If we install 6,500 MW in the US every year (remember - that was 6,500 MW worldwide, so I'm saying if all that gets installed in the US), it would take 400 years just to generate enough electricity for electrolyzing water for hydrogen for fuel cell transportation. And if we devote all that wind power to that end, none of it would be getting used for actual electricity use, so we'd still be using primarily coal. Is that what you want? Or as wind farms get built, should we instead use them to replace coal, and use biodiesel to replace petroleum for transportation (which could be completed in perhaps 10 years, as compared to 400 years for wind generated hydrogen (if the current rate of worldwide growth were instead put into the US only).
quote:
Solar and wind are the most commonly known renewables, but inexhaustible energy supplies are also offered by biomass, geothermal, hydropower, ocean energy (from the tides, currents and waves) and ocean thermal energy.
What exactly is your point with all this? I'm a big advocate of renewable power, and am well aware of the market. The reality is that there's no way we'd be generating enough renewable power anytime soon to produce hydrogen for fuel cell transportation. It should be a long-term goal (i.e. 50 years optimistically), but people are being duped if they think fuel cells will be running on "clean" hydrogen anytime soon. Since we can build algae farms far quicker (and cheaper), we should do that first, so we can be running on domestically produced, clean (no net CO2 emission) biodiesel in the several decades (minimum) while we're building wind farms.
quote:
I never said a modern, up to date, clean diesel vehicle even running on biodiesel (B100) couldn't match a hybrid.
I just said it is not going to happen because the the possibility of clean diesels in 2006 is slim. And I'm not the one saying that.
The US automakers are saying it - the others aren't.
quote:
"Incidentally, whoever wrote that page for Phillips screwed up on the EPA's sulfur criteria. The limit goes to 300 ppm in 2004, and 80 ppm max in 2006 (30 ppm average)."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE EPA SAYS, PHILLIPS HAS IT CORRECT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f99010.pdf
Proposed Sulfur Levels in Gasoline
"• The nation's refiners would meet an average
sulfur level of 30 parts per million (ppm) by
2004, down from the current average of
more than 300 ppm. The maximum amount
of sulfur in gasoline, for purposes of averaging,
would be capped at 80 ppm, after a
three-year phase-in."
Look at the top of that document - it's the Proposed ... Gasoline sulfur standards, from back in May 1999. What was actually passed was as I said. Have a look: http://www.npradc.org/issues/fuels/pdf/gasoline.pdf
Look at page 2. The 30/80 limit goes into effect January 1, 2006. A 30/300 limit goes into effect in 2005, but with various credits and such.
quote:
I've never said future diesels couldn't be clean. I've said it is not likely light-duty passenger diesels will be around by the time the new regs go into full effect for light duty diesels.
Sure they will. Even US automakers are making light-duty diesels (like Ford's Focus) - but they're only selling them in Europe right now. As VW's continued success demonstrates that Americans like modern diesels, even the idiots in charge of the Big Three (US makers) will wake up.
quote:
You just aren't going to see biodiesel from any source in mixes more than B20 if it were to be mandated by the government. To dream about what could be is wonderfull, but the reality is otherwise.
I've never said it will happen with the current bozo's in charge. What I've said is that it SHOULD happen, as it's a much better way to go. The same is true of practically all facets of life now in the US - what SHOULD happen won't happen, because our country is run by lobbyists.
quote:
It would be wonderful to have more choices and to have a HO PD clean TDi or a another brand of clean diesel, but who is going to do it?
VW/Audi.
quote:
We have heard zip from VW concerning light duty diesels and if they bring in the Touareg Tdi it has been reported in trade magazines that will probably be short lived.
Mercedes has said the same thing. The Jeep Liberty is a test run and so are their cars.
Huh? Where have you been? Both the Passat and Touareg will have TDI versions starting this year. Mercedes is reintroducing diesel sedans this year. Those will all be available in 2004-2005 in only the 45 states that don't use CA emissions, since until 2006 (when the ULSD standard goes into effect) they won't be able to use the new catalysts.
quote:
The Big Two, GM & Ford is only interested in light-duty (over 8500lbs by 2006) diesel trucks and the Japanese car makers are putting everything into hybrids and fuel cells with the expectation they will be the dominant players by 2007 to 2012.
Toyota is putting everything into hybrids - but that includes diesel hybrids. They've been spending a good deal of money developing their own clean common rail diesel engine. As for GM & Ford (and Dodge) - they're only interested diesel trucks and SUVs, since they're only interested in trucks and SUVs - period. That's where their huge profits are. They're not going to invest much money in development or factory retooling for cars since the profits are so much larger with the larger vehicles. Americans are finally starting to move away from those gas guzzlers - and when Americans start coming back from the middle east in bodybags, that effect will be amplified immensely. The US automakers will remain behind the curve though, of course.
|
|
|
|
Autodiesel
Biodiesel nut
43 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 04:31:45
|
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/tier-2/frm/f99051.pdf
Gasoline Sulfur Standards
Beginning in 2004, the nation’s refiners and importers of gasoline will have the flexibility to manufacture gasoline with a range of sulfur levels as long as all of their production is capped at 300 parts per million (ppm) and their annual corporate average sulfur levels are 120 ppm. In 2005, the refinery average will be set at 30 ppm, with a corporate average of 90 ppm and a cap of 300 ppm. Both of the average standards can be met with use of credits generated by other refiners who reduce sulfur levels early. Finally, in 2006, refiners will meet a 30 ppm average sulfur level with a maximum cap of 80 ppm. Gasoline produced for sale in parts of the Western U.S. will be allowed to meet a 150 ppm refinery average and a 300 ppm cap through 2006 but will have to meet the 30 ppm average/80 ppm cap by 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, let's quite quibbling about limits.
But to reach the averages they are going to have to offer the 30ppm fuel now even before the law goes into effect.
And as I posted, they are. By 2004 you'll see at least one of the grade of gas offered everywhere at 30ppm. And like ARCO, it will probably be the premium grade.
Where have I been?
Watching what the industry says about diesels.
http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&content_code=05839970&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1084060&record=10
Upcoming diesel Jeep Liberty may not last long in U.S. due to emissions issues
DETROIT -- The upcoming diesel-powered version of the Jeep Liberty sport-utility could have a short life in the United States.
The vehicle arrives next year as a 2005 model but can be sold only until 2007 unless Chrysler group engineers come up with a breakthrough in technology that reduces emissions.
The technology does not exist to enable diesel engines affordably to meet tougher upcoming emissions standards in the United States, commonly referred to as Tier 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited to 5000 units.
And listen to what they said.
"The technology does not exist to enable diesel engines affordably to meet tougher upcoming emissions standards in the United States...."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Said Chrysler's Robertson: "Our long-term view is everything has to be capable of getting to bin 5. For diesel to be a viable technology, it has to get to bin 5, and that's a hell of a challenge. We expect to get there eventually."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A "hell of a challenge".
Expect to get there? Eventually? Maybe?
Affordably?
A $2000 to $3000 dollar vehicle that gets less mileage on fuel that costs more. Now that's a winner!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&content_code=08207529&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1084076&record=7
While both dealers and company officials want the diesel here, according to a VW spokesman, there are still factors that are emission technology-related that could, potentially, hamper the timing of bringing the TDI to the States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a sure thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to Mercedes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=longtermtests&loc_code=index&content_code=05282088
"After nine months and 22,000 miles, we’re still in love with the dynamics, but there have been too many faults."
"A car many expected to be bulletproof has been anything but."
"We can’t complain about the service we’ve received from our local dealership; it has handled every problem quickly and painlessly, all under warranty. Which is good, since we’ll probably be heading back soon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5855&sid=175&n=156
Consumer Reports Likes Hyundai
Chevy also on the “it” list, while Ford, Benz and VW make the other list.
"Germans falling"
"The Germans are increasingly taking it on the chin in quality rankings."
"Dealership woes and continued nettlesome and annoying problems are killing Volkswagen and Audi’s quality rankings."
"CR noted that Golf and Jetta’s reliability “has fallen off.” "
"They have declining quality in cars in their fifth year of manufacture when all the bugs ought to be out."
"Mercedes spokesman Fred Heiler, on the other hand, defending the declining quality scores of Mercedes — not a single Mercedes is recommended by CR — on both CR and Power, noted that the questions asked of owners are vague and don’t make a “distinction between a squeak or a rattle or an engine or transmission falling out on the road.” Mr. Heiler believes Mercedes’ poor reliability results often are linked to added technology that the German-U.S. automaker has included in the vehicle that owners often don’t know how to use, so they assume it is flawed. Mercedes had the third worst reliability scores. Mercedes quality slipping? Must be the customer’s fault? That’s a good strategy. Learn that one from Audi?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are the same excuses VW used when they almost pulled out of the market about ten or so years ago.
Now Mercedes is saying the same thing.
Even my dentist got rid of his SL500 and bought a Honda Accord Coupe!
The last three out of four people I knew that had Mercedes:
Dentist - switched to Honda
Friend - switched to BMW
Friend - switched to BMW
Boss - switched to Chevrolet ("stupid computerized systems that never worked" in his S-Class)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the person who is probably the most powerfull exec. in Detroit....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&content_code=05867443&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1084076&record=3
Diesels are nonstarters for U.S., Lutz says, cites upcoming emissions standards as hurdle
"GENEVA -- Forget all the hype about diesels, Robert Lutz advises.
U.S. clean-air standards that take effect this year will nullify the advantages everyone thinks the engines will bring to the U.S. market, the General Motors vice chairman and product czar said in an interview at the Geneva auto show.
"We would like diesels," Lutz said. "We think diesels are a major part of the solution for better fuel economy and cleaner emissions.
"But Europe has been very intelligent in setting (emissions) standards at a level where diesels are still feasible. In the U.S., we've done the opposite. Starting in '05, we enter a tier of standards so severe that even the cleanest of European diesels with the technology known today are not going to pass."
Diesels account for upward of 40 percent of all new-vehicle sales in Europe, where fuel prices of $4 a gallon and above dictate the need for highly fuel-efficient vehicles. Reflecting their huge investment in the technology, European auto executives (and many journalists) have been loudly pushing diesels as a clean-air and fuel-efficient cure-all for the American market.
But even working with cleaner fuel, Lutz said, the industry will not be able to meet Tier 2 tailpipe standards without expensive exhaust add-ons, such as particulate traps.
"Even if achieved, we estimate the fixes would add $2,000 to $3,000 in cost per vehicle in (exhaust treatment), plus some significant loss of improved fuel economy that the diesel is supposed to give you," Lutz said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The truth is, we don't know how to get the kind of fuel-economy increases that some people call for through CAFE. There is no technology available to get it."
(Now that crap I don't agree with one bit. But he is one of the movers and shakers in Detroit and what he says goes a long ways.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford? (i.e. Focus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=4731
"Scheele declined to say whether Ford was actually prepared to expand its use of clean diesels in future product programs. So far the company has not committed to using diesel engines in any future vehicles in the United States.
"We're sitting on the fence. We are developing diesels in Europe that could find a home in this country," he said.
But Ford does not plan to make any kind of capital investment in the diesel for the North American market without more signs that regulators and consumers are willing to accept diesel engines, Scheele said. "We're not going to put in capital on [that] basis," added Scheele. "We don't have the capital to invest in all kinds of programs and our ability to forecast has been minimal," he added.
Moreover, California Air Resources Board, which is not friendly to diesel power, still wields enormous influence over the auto industry's decision makers, Scheele observed."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So that leaves VW again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=vw&cat_code=v_home&loc_code=index&content_code=01960774
Recall woe for VW: Fixes will strain service bays; dealers seek $1,000 discounts
"I am a 73-year-old widow now towed three times. Last Friday I waited one hour in freezing cold for a tow," wrote one reader. "VW America says no replacement of the fourth coil until it fails. I'd like to join in a class-action suit - if I don't die of exposure or in an accident when the fourth coil fails."
Wrote another female reader: "I have cried myself off the road and sworn at my car too many times. I hate my VW more than words can express. I will never buy another VW again."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The way you win converts is to provide a quality product that doesn't break. And so far VW and Mercedes have fallen off the wagon.
|
Burn The Soybean! |
|
|
|
C-Dog
Biodiesel enthusiast
9 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 10:21:13
|
My next vehicle purchase probably won't be a VW either. With the mechanical problems I (and others I know with there Jettas and Passats)have had with my Jetta TDI and the terible service I have recieved from the dealers service departments I am pretty much fed up.
I do love my TDI (espeacially since I started running BD), but it has been more of a headache than I anticpated.
Problems to date:
Fuel Filter - stopped on highway in -4 F weather in the middle of Mass. Took the dealer 4 days to even look at he car - eventually fixed the problem under warrenty with a new part design.
MAF - after the warrenty experation.
Brake Light switch - the dealer did not instal it properly; the brakes would not release; could have gotten killed!
Window falling off track in rain storm - fixed under warrenty, after my car got flooded.
Dealer putting too much oil in during change - this one seems easy to do, but on 3 occasions, I have had them drain the oil and refill to the proper level.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
biodiesel vs gasoline
