[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

I didn't. LD50 measurements are taken over the lifetime of an animal.

Incorrect
LD50: The size of a single dose of a chemical necessary to kill 50 percent of the organisms in a specific test situation. Cite

LD is not reliable for long term effects and ignores secondary illness.

1800 grams In a single dose will not kill you right away. 1800 grams is just the point at which the lifespan is shortened.

Incorrect... LD50 is mean lethal does... 50% of all subjects died.

the .5 figure is the marked up number that refineries generate per gallon(which compared to avg mpg of diesel cars/small trucks does not meet the new emissions policies) was an estimate. Nevertheless that's minutiae, because even if it produces 10 grams per gallon there is still vastly more CO2 damage than NOx. original requirements were less than 1 gram per mile?(average was 23 mpg for diesels) so 23 grams per gallon average. Still more CO2 using diesel from the 80s. Diesel today is refined further to ensure that less pollutants are emitted if you just burn it in open air. Nevertheless since I am apparently not capable to calculate that number maybe you should tell me and we'll go from there.

Can you please cite?

Clean Air Fleets | Emissions Standards

So heavy duty diesels (which as Deelzer pointed are showing mpg reductions) and I think they're the largest consumer of diesel fuel... The first standard was 10.7 g/bhp-hr... Unfortunately, not the same unit... But, I imagine it's safe to assume that emissions just prior were either greater or matched.

So lets say a tractor trailer requires 50hp to maintain 65mph on the road (if you can find documentation for an actual number, I'd appreciate it). So in one hour, it produces 535g... Lets say 10mpg - that's 53.5g/mi * 295 = 15782GWP
CO2 would be 20lb = 9071g = 907g/mi * 1 = 907GWP Those number seem grossly far apart - but the standards of yore are vastly far from the standards today....

And where you quoted me. . . my first answer was not scrub CO2. It was to reclaim it. Reclaim means to rescue from an undesirable state. C02 emissions are undesirable states and changing them to something else could easily be construed as reclaiming them. So any emissions policies taken towards CO2 would be reclaiming them. I also addressed the idea of using bacteria or algae to convert it to something either not harmful or something useful.

My apologies But even that said - why not put forward higher mpg standards? CO2 is purely a symptom of a problem. Increase efficiency and reclamation won't be necessary. Having both would be awesome - but if I had to pick one, it would be higher FE but I'm not willing to release other emissions standards as a result.

Really, we both want the same thing here - lower systemic emissions.... But, we disagree on how to do it (which is fine and I'm happy the discussion has been allowed thus far). I want higher goals for emissions quality for both cars and refineries. But honestly, I'm having a hard time nailing down exactly what it is you want (I can see what you don't want, however).