The Villian In The Diesel Fuel Price Disparity

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Well, we all make our own value judgments (mine is MPG uber alles), but ULSD/Tier II better show a noticeable improvement in air quality and public health or there will be a backlash. You cannot expect to impose such a huge economic penalty without seeing a proportional benefit or people will start asking: “Is it worth it?” This will be like the failure of the Montreal Protocol, but writ very large and affecting a very large number of people.

In the face of the best ambient air quality in living memory, it will be very difficult for anybody to show any improvement at all from these regs.

Keeping status quo while increasing consumption is a hefty task in itself...

In any case.... my values... I value the quality of air we breathe - but I'm not afraid to say that economics plays a role in my decisions... college debt

The ozone hole has not decreased in size one iota. This treaty has been in place for twenty years and nothing positive has come of it.

There's no instant gratification here... If we switch over to completely environmentally friendly practices today - we're not going to see things restore to the "before we screwed them up state" tomorrow.

CFC's came into use in the 1920's - Ozone depletion hole was discovered in 1985 IIRC (maybe it was early 70's - or that might have been when the hypothesis started gaining traction)... So lets say 1970... It took ~50 years to start making the hole - and you expect it to be better in less than half of that time?<- that despite the fact that some places are still using them.... It's probably going to stay somewhat crappy for awhile due to the poison fed to it 10 - 20+ years ago.

[cfg83]

trebuchet03 -

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

...

CFC's came into use in the 1920's - Ozone depletion hole was discovered in 1985 IIRC (maybe it was early 70's - or that might have been when the hypothesis started gaining traction)... So lets say 1970... It took ~50 years to start making the hole - and you expect it to be better in less than half of that time?<- that despite the fact that some places are still using them.... It's probably going to stay somewhat crappy for awhile due to the poison fed to it 10 - 20+ years ago.

We have stopped CFC's, but I don't think we have been doing anything to pro-actively replenish the ozone.

We need a rogain program for the earth, .

CarloSW2

[Gone4]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

The Montreal Protocol got to be a failure when it imposed huge costs and failed to reduce the ozone hole.

When you banned the CFCs you also forced people to replace their refrigeration equipment. This imposed a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. The equipment that uses CFC substitutes is not as efficient, thus causing an increase in electrical power consumption. Likewise the A/C in you car uses R-134a and is 11% less efficient than R-12 machine that preceded it. Hence your MPG is lower with the R-134a machine than the R-12 machine.

The ozone hole has not decreased in size one iota. This treaty has been in place for twenty years and nothing positve has come of it.

If that ain't a failure, just what is?

"Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes."

I don't know what you need for evidence to show that banning CFC's has had a positive impact. It's seems rather rudimentary that it was a good thing. In 30+ more years we can actually measure self-regeneration. It's attitudes like yours in other nations, ignoring the simple chemistry involved, that are still setting this planet back. Anyways, efforts have been made to re-seed the layer on an experimental basis and shown them to be extremely positive.

[Big Dave]

GenKreton posted:
"...CFCs used by nations which have not banned them..."

Dave sez:
We are on to something here. what is the good of banning CFCs and forcing everyone to replace all their refrigeration equipment when other countries proceed along merrily as before. BTW, DuPont (the big winner in all this) has several plants in India, China, Taiwan, and Indonesia still producing R-12 and Halon.

It is mentally lazy to be an absolutist. As much as I like improving my MPG, if I thought the next MPG would cost me $100,000 Iwould certainly stop modding. In the early 70s there was lots of "low hanging fruit" but that "fruit" has been harvested decades ago. All that is left are extremely expensive measures that will not result in noticeable improvement. For all its vast cost, ULSD/Tier II will not result in a reduction of so much as 1 microgram per cubic meter of either PM2.5 or sulfur dioxide, but it does wonders for the instituional health of the EPA.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

GenKreton posted:
"...CFCs used by nations which have not banned them..."

Dave sez:
We are on to something here. what is the good of banning CFCs and forcing everyone to replace all their refrigeration equipment when other countries proceed along merrily as before. BTW, DuPont (the big winner in all this) has several plants in India, China, Taiwan, and Indonesia still producing R-12 and Halon.

C'mon.... It's not that hard to do the research on this....


CFC's

China has moved to ban the production of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), according to a statement from the country's environmental protection agency. The action is in accordance with the 1987 Montreal Protocol to phase out the use of ozone layer-depleting products . China, which signed the agreement in 1991, says it will end all CFC production by 2010.

Originally Posted by The Times of India

After successfully phasing out ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from air-conditioners and refrigerators, India is now moving on to environment-friendly inhalers, used by asthma and bronchitis patients.

Originally Posted by www.gio.gov.tw

In compliance with governmental policies, the Formosa Plastics Corporation, which was the only company producing CFCs and HCFCs in Taiwan, has stopped its production of CFCs since January 1, 1996. Earlier than that, the Formosa Plastics Corporation also constructed a CFC incinerator with capacity of handling up to 7 tonnes daily by the technology assistance from Japan. Construction was completed in August 1994. The incinerator is used to handle the contaminated CFCs that cannot be recovered and the illegal CFCs from the customs.

HFC's

On September 21, 2007, approximately 200 countries agreed to accelerate the elimination of hydrochlorofluorocarbons entirely by 2020 in a United Nations-sponsored Montreal summit. Developing nations were given until 2030. Many nations, such as the United States and China, who had previously resisted such efforts, signed the treaty.

Originally Posted by Big Dave

It is mentally lazy to be an absolutist. As much as I like improving my MPG, if I thought the next MPG would cost me $100,000 Iwould certainly stop modding. In the early 70s there was lots of "low hanging fruit" but that "fruit" has been harvested decades ago. All that is left are extremely expensive measures that will not result in noticeable improvement. For all its vast cost, ULSD/Tier II will not result in a reduction of so much as 1 microgram per cubic meter of either PM2.5 or sulfur dioxide, but it does wonders for the instituional health of the EPA.

And if the next mpg costs your health?

In any case....


So dumping all that into the air is just doing nothing?

Despite all this... the same exact resistance came when the proposal to phase out leaded fuel (1973)... zomg! it costs too much and won't do anything... Except, over time, lead levels went down even though some countries continued to use it (and some still do today). There's even data showing lead levels in people's blood dropping corresponding with removing lead from fuel....

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

All that is left are extremely expensive measures that will not result in noticeable improvement.

Maybe those who die prematurely aren't noticeable to you, but they are to others, which is what it was considered worthwhile.

Increased Cancer Risk from Diesel Exhaust More than 30 human epidemiological studies have found that diesel exhaust increases cancer risk. One major study examined the effects of diesel exhaust exposure on more than 56,000 railroad workers over a 22-year period.10 Calculations based on this study showed that chronic exposure to just one microgram per cubic meter of diesel exhaust particles—roughly the level found in many suburban areas far distant from trucking routes or ports—would result in an additional risk of 1.3 to 15 cancer cases per 10,000 exposed individuals. Using that finding as a benchmark, the South Coast Air Quality Management District in California calculated that fully 71 percent of the cancer risk due to air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin is attributable to diesel particulate pollution. Agencies in a number of other areas have reached similar conclusions.

Dozens of studies have shown that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust significantly increases the risk of lung cancer. In fact, workers exposed to diesel exhaust over the long term generally face an increase in lung cancer risks of between 50 and 300 percent.13 Studies have also reported links between diesel exposure and other cancers, including cancer of the bladder, kidney, stomach, blood (including multiple myeloma, leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx. A number of federal and international agencies have listed diesel exhaust as a probable or likely lung carcinogen, and in 1990, the state of California listed diesel exhaust as a known cause of lung cancer.

Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as or PM. In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems. Diesel engines also contribute to California's fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality problems. Those most vulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. Based on year 2000 emissions in California, diesel PM contributes each year to 2000 premature deaths and thousands of hospital admissions, asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms, and lost workdays. Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California's known cancer risk from outdoor air pollutants. In addition, diesel soot causes visibility reduction and is a potent global warmer.

From here and here. Majority rules and minority rights.

[Big Dave]

Trebuchet’s link stated:
“China … says it will end all CFC production by 2010.”

Big Dave sez:
You believe what the Chinese say? Even in the remotely possible case they are speaking the truth, that means the US took an economic penalty for nearly two decades before any progress could be made at all – if indeed banning CFCs does anything at all beneficial for the ozone layer.


Trebuchet’s links also stated;
“On September 21, 2007, approximately 200 countries agreed to accelerate the elimination of hydrochlorofluorocarbons entirely by 2020 in a United Nations-sponsored Montreal summit. Developing nations were given until 2030.”

Big Dave says;
Great. The US takes yet another economic hit and the “developing nations” get another decade of a free ride and the “healing of the ozone layer” is deferred for another 22 years.


Trebuchet asked:
“And if the next mpg costs your health?”

Big Dave asks:
Will one microgram per cubic meter of either sulfur dioxide or PM2.5 ruin your health? I might note the air quality is the best it has been in living memory and life expectancy in the US is at an all-time high, so it rather appears that any claims about threats to public health from air pollution are more than a bit exaggerated.



Trebuchet posted a graph but failed to tell us how much of that sulfur dioxide emission could be attributed to diesel engines.


The reduction of lead was indeed an EPA success story. It took nearly two decades to restore the performance of gasoline engines.


I would ask roflwaffle: Do you really believe the pronouncements of CARB and SCAQMD? Have you ever worked with bureaucrats? I have. I was one for a few years and got a real close look at them. Have you ever noticed that they tend to be people who could not get real jobs? Why do you attribute veracity to the pronouncements of the incompetent?

How about this for the obvious: “Those most vulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems.” Please tell me one health situation where children and the elderly are not most vulnerable?

How about this one: “Studies have also reported links between diesel exposure and other cancers, including cancer of the bladder, kidney, stomach, blood (including multiple myeloma, leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx.” How did they miss mesothelioma? Just what substance in the world is not “linked” to some form of cancer? One could make the negative case that water and oxygen are linked to cancer. How strong are these “links?” At what concentrations does PM2.5 trigger cancer? Do they have a clue? You know that the dosage makes the toxin. Is there a published confidence factor for them? Or are they nebulous scare tactics?

What is the metric for the health payoff of these regulations? Reduced hospitalizations? A longer life expectancy? What are the American people getting in exchange for diesel fuel costing 70 to 90 cents a gallon more than unleaded and diesel vehicles being robbed of 4% of their efficiency. (If you are a fan of Al Gore, et al, this reduction in efficiency reads out in greater CO2 emissions, so that is another price of these regulations.) Is there a metric of the benefit like we had with lead, or is this like the ozone thing where the payoff is uncertain and many decades into the future, or is it (as I suspect) a sacrifice without payoff?

[trebuchet03]

You believe what china says? They say they are currently producing CFC's and you believe it?!?! If the truth is the opposite of what they say - there's no way they are or have even been producing them Really, why profit off alternatives like every other country that has a ban in place?

Well... It's not even worth it anymore... You're set in your ways, but luckily that doesn't change that the switch has already happened.... If it makes you feel better claw at it as much as you want <- it's just not going to change anything and I really don't care what you suspect

And yes, curse the poor countries for needing extra time to reach the rich country's level of compliance. Those same rich countries that took the economic "hit" while increasing annual GDP...

And for the record, the SO2 is for road vehicles only (which does not include off road) - as according to Shell If you don't think that's much - you wouldn't mind me dumping a tonne of sand in your kitchen and then tell you: it's nothing, it won't change anything about your living space...

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Big Dave says;
Great. The US takes yet another economic hit and the “developing nations” get another decade of a free ride and the “healing of the ozone layer” is deferred for another 22 years.

The reduction of lead was indeed an EPA success story. It took nearly two decades to restore the performance of gasoline engines.

Question to you, Bill gates probably pays a couple million in Income tax every year, is it fair that you and I dont pay as much as him in taxes? Or is it fair to say that he pays more because he has a higher capacity to pay (vertical equity).

It took two decades to restore the performance of gasoline engines. That had nothing to do with the removal of lead and more to do with the limits on NOx emmisions.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

I would ask roflwaffle: Do you really believe the pronouncements of CARB and SCAQMD? Have you ever worked with bureaucrats? I have. I was one for a few years and got a real close look at them. Have you ever noticed that they tend to be people who could not get real jobs? Why do you attribute veracity to the pronouncements of the incompetent?

The risks of diesel exhaust are based on epidemiological studies AFAIK, not research by bureaucrats. The bureaucrats use said research to shape policy. If you have a problem with bureaucrats, that's fine, but it really doesn't impact whether or not diesel pollution is a health risk.

Originally Posted by Big Dave

How about this for the obvious: “Those most vulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems.” Please tell me one health situation where children and the elderly are not most vulnerable?

And the fact that these are the most vulnerable impacts the situation how?

Originally Posted by Big Dave

How about this one: “Studies have also reported links between diesel exposure and other cancers, including cancer of the bladder, kidney, stomach, blood (including multiple myeloma, leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx.” How did they miss mesothelioma? Just what substance in the world is not “linked” to some form of cancer?

Those that aren't considered carcinogenic and/or aren't linked to specific cancers.

Originally Posted by Big Dave

One could make the negative case that water and oxygen are linked to cancer.

One could try, but they'd probably be laughed out of whatever institution they're associated with.

Originally Posted by Big Dave

How strong are these “links?” At what concentrations does PM2.5 trigger cancer? Do they have a clue? You know that the dosage makes the toxin. Is there a published confidence factor for them? Or are they nebulous scare tactics?

Search for, find, and read the papers yourself if you would like to find more info about your questions.

Originally Posted by Big Dave

What is the metric for the health payoff of these regulations? Reduced hospitalizations? A longer life expectancy? What are the American people getting in exchange for diesel fuel costing 70 to 90 cents a gallon more than unleaded and diesel vehicles being robbed of 4% of their efficiency. (If you are a fan of Al Gore, et al, this reduction in efficiency reads out in greater CO2 emissions, so that is another price of these regulations.) Is there a metric of the benefit like we had with lead, or is this like the ozone thing where the payoff is uncertain and many decades into the future, or is it (as I suspect) a sacrifice without payoff?

The differential in price is temporary and related to strong worldwide distillate demand as well as a drop in temperature leading to increased demand for heating oil as well as the switch to ULSD for offroad equipment during this high demand period, as well as relatively low demand for gasoline. I'm not sure what the metric for payoff is however I'm sure you could locate it with some searching. That being said, since it's human lives we're talking about, I wonder how one can accurately put a metric on those.