As I Had Thought

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Question: From the above picture, is it true that you get about twice as many gallons of gas as diesel for every barrel of oil or .... ????

CarloSW2

BINGO!
This is what I've been trying to point out. Refinaries can vary those proportions by about 1-2% in either direction but for the most part these are fixed numbers. If you increase the energy input dramatically you can extract gasoline from even the heaviest part of crude but that is a very expensive route that most refiners are not equipped to handle. The type of crude oil such as "light sweet crude" or "heavy sour" will also have an influence on the sulfur content as well as the cost of refining it into either diesel fuel or gasoline. The problem remains that the whole world (ex the US) has been replacing gasoline engines with diesels which has driven up the cost of the fuel to the point that any per mile cost advantage as disappeared. The price of diesel fuel will fall when diesel engined cars go out of favor in the rest of the world. I wouldn't bet on it any time soon.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

The bottom line for the EPA is ambient air quality. They have been measuring that since 1970. Establishing a baseline was the logical base line. The air stunk prior to 1970.

Regs began spewing out and big strides were made in ambient air quality during the 70s but the law of diminishing returns hit them hard and improvements sincw the mid-80s has been marginal. Every improvement since then has been small has come at ever-higher prices.

Literally tens of millions of US jobs have been chased offshore because of enviro-regs, and now we see the most powerful technology available for increasing MPG has been foeclosed.

The EPA is just another agency thay has done what it was put there to do but has now gone rogue to maintain its existence.

So, do you have a creditable source to cite for this information?

I know that I'm not going to change the way you view this issue

I simply have a concern that other readers of this thread would be receiving inaccurate information or pure opinion.

RH77

[SuperTrooper]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Literally tens of millions of US jobs have been chased offshore because of enviro-regs,

(Gets up on soapbox)

If you have a solution to dealing with hazardous wastes and chemicals that doesn't cost money I'm sure industry would love to talk to you.

In the late '60s my mom worked in a factory that made mercury vapor lamps. At the end of the day they would sweep up all the loose mercury and flush it down the sink, into the sewer, and out into the Merrimac river. The same river that used to run red from the blood from the meat packing plant. Other times it would run blue or green when they dumped the dyes from the fabric factories. Ah, the good old days.

Now you can actually eat the fish you catch from the river. Because now there ARE fish in the river.

Yes, lots of those jobs left to go overseas, but they weren't great jobs. Those same buildings are now occupied by high tech companies. The lamp plant is still there but they dispose of their haz waste properly and pretreat the wastewater.

In 1959 my family moved from NH to California. My dad drove a bus in L.A. He always told us about his favorite route that ran up into some hills east of the city near UCLA. There was a turnaround that overlooked the city and he almost always saw a blanket of smog with a few tall buildings sticking through it. In 1998 my parents drove all through the western states and visited California and my dad drove up to that turnaround and was amazed. He never knew you could see the Pacific Ocean from there.

I'm willing to pay more for a car if it means that things will continue to get better.

The EPA is far from perfect, (it IS a government agency after all) but they have a constant fight against attitudes like yours.

(Steps down from soapbox)

[Frank Lee]

[Big Dave]

There is no doubt that in its early days the EPA did a lot of good. I remember just how bad the air and water were in the mid-60s.

But somewhere along the line (I ink about 1976) the passed the point of diminishing returns and kept on promulgating job-killing regs long after thewt were on the asymptote of environmental improvement.

ULSD/Tier II are a great example. Even the EPA admits there will be no measurable improvement in overall air quality, but the cost, as we have seen is tremendous.

The US has been robbed of the most powerful technological tool we have for improving MPG but no measurable benefit will come of that robbery.

Bury your strawman. I'm not calling for 1962 regs. Just maybe 1989 regs.

[SuperTrooper]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

There is no doubt that in its early days the EPA did a lot of good. I remember just how bad the air and water were in the mid-60s.

But somewhere along the line (I ink about 1976) the passed the point of diminishing returns and kept on promulgating job-killing regs long after thewt were on the asymptote of environmental improvement.

ULSD/Tier II are a great example. Even the EPA admits there will be no measurable improvement in overall air quality, but the cost, as we have seen is tremendous.

The US has been robbed of the most powerful technological tool we have for improving MPG but no measurable benefit will come of that robbery.

Bury your strawman. I'm not calling for 1962 regs. Just maybe 1989 regs.

I'd love to see this in writing.

[dann_04]

Originally Posted by cfg83

dann_04 -



I think this graphic shows a good comparison :

2008 | NGK News | NGK INSULATORS, LTD.


I don't think you can argue that the US EPA is the e-vile mastermind of ULSD unless you think they control the EPA equivalents of Japan and Europe too.

Changing the subject ...

Diesel Fuel Prices: What Consumers Should Know


Energy Information Administration Brochures
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...intversion.pdf

Question: From the above picture, is it true that you get about twice as many gallons of gas as diesel for every barrel of oil or .... ????

CarloSW2

You're graph quotes grams per kWh which is a different way of measuring engine power, just like hp. So if you wthink about it, typically a u.s. car has alot more horsepower than a typical u.k or japanese car. So lets say you have a u.s. car with 150hp and puts out 2g/hp. It would put out 300g correct(not saying constantly, but just keep reading.) a u.k. car with 70hp and 3g/hp would put out 210g. So on your graph the us car would apear 2/3 cleaner than the uk car, when infact the uk car would be the one putting out about 2/3 the emissions of the us car. Yes the us has stricter per kWh standards, but that's because we have these crazy big cars that have to have tons of horsepower as well as the fact that we have so many freaking cars on the road the per kWh standard has to be tighter to even come close to the uk or japan. That graph is a horrible example and just looks good to people who don't understand what it really means. A g/km or g/mile representation would show better how dirty our cars are in comparison.

[cfg83]

dann_04 -

Originally Posted by dann_04

You're graph quotes grams per kWh which is a different way of measuring engine power, just like hp. So if you wthink about it, typically a u.s. car has alot more horsepower than a typical u.k or japanese car. So lets say you have a u.s. car with 150hp and puts out 2g/hp. It would put out 300g correct(not saying constantly, but just keep reading.) a u.k. car with 70hp and 3g/hp would put out 210g. So on your graph the us car would apear 2/3 cleaner than the uk car, when infact the uk car would be the one putting out about 2/3 the emissions of the us car. Yes the us has stricter per kWh standards, but that's because we have these crazy big cars that have to have tons of horsepower as well as the fact that we have so many freaking cars on the road the per kWh standard has to be tighter to even come close to the uk or japan. That graph is a horrible example and just looks good to people who don't understand what it really means. A g/km or g/mile representation would show better how dirty our cars are in comparison.

Thank you. My main point was to show that the EPA is "not acting alone". But, your distinction makes the USA/EPA 2010 target mild in comparison with other countries.

CarloSW2

[Big Dave]

The EPA does not control the regs of Europe and Japan, but their agencies are dominated by like-minded people.

Regardless of who, the what is the same: Diesel cars are dead in the US and maybe in other nations as their regs bite in.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

The EPA does not control the regs of Europe and Japan, but their agencies are dominated by like-minded people.

Regardless of who, the what is the same: Diesel cars are dead in the US and maybe in other nations as their regs bite in.

...still standing in front of SuperTrooper's soapbox and applauding his speech.


RH77