The Villian In The Diesel Fuel Price Disparity
 

Diesel fuel is currently about 70 cents a gallon higher than unleaded gasoline.

The case against the usual suspect - the EPA- is airtight.

The government knew as far back as 2001 that the EPA’s ULSD and Tier II regulations would have a catastrophic effect on diesel fuel prices. Here’s May 2001 study on the subject.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/ser...iaf2001-01.pdf

If you don’t have the time to chop through nearly 200 pages, this is the long and the short of it.

Regulation 6.7 cents
Capital investment costs 7.6 cents
Revamp costs 6.9 cents
10% down grade costs 7.1 cents (some ULSD will be downgraded to LSD)
Efficiency loss 6.7 cents
Energy loss 7.0 cents
Imports not meeting new spec 8.1 cents

Total 50.1 cents per gallon

And these figures (as the link explains) are in 1999 dollars. This is why diesel now costs 60 cents a gallon more than unleaded.

All this is over and above price increases due to the cost of crude, now sitting at about $2.60/gallon.

Add on top of that the fact that Tier II robbed diesels of about 4% of their efficiency.

Thank the EPA.

I've seen 1-2% less energy on ULSD, but not 4%, any sources?

I would honestly rather have higher diesel prices and less efficient fuel if removing sulfur is the counterpoint. Sulfur emissions lead to acid rain which can absolutely destroy the land. If you live near mountains, where the clouds float past/around they can become complete dead zones. Certain areas will only be able to grow some crops without even more fertilizer. And the additional fertilizer goes into the ground water AND the acid rain goes into the ground water and it makes it expensive or impossible to drink from. Give me clean air, water, and natural habitat over slightly cheaper diesel fuel any day. It's our own fault we rely on personal cars and freight for too much, anyways.

I've heard that the price increase was due to surging demand for diesel globally. Who knows whose rhetoric to believe, though.

Personally, I'd like to see diesel @ $10/gallon. It would give the nation the kick in the *** it needs to think beyond constant expansion, land degradation, and exploitation of cheap commodities. Then again, my car doesn't take diesel...

I think I'm a strange American in those regards, though. I'll breathe a sigh of relief when the United States no longer holds the title of biggest GDP. I see that quality becoming more of a liability than an honor.

- LostCause

Roflwaffle posted:
“I've seen 1-2% less energy on ULSD, but not 4%, any sources?”

Big Dave sez:
That isn’’t 4% less heating value in the fuel. What that 4% refers to is the EPA’s underestimation of the loss of thermal efficiency of the engine compliant with Tier II engine requirements. Tier II and ULSD go together. As usual, the EPA has (deliberately I believe) underestimated the efficiency penalty of Tier II. 2008 model IH 6.4 (Ford) and Cummins (Dodge) 6.7 diesels are showing 10% lower MPG than the same 2007 model 6.0 IH and 5.9 Cummins engines.


Vehicular sulfur emissions are miniscule compared to those from fossil fuel power generation. If sulfur in the air is a problem for you (ambient concentrations are down 70% from the early 70s levels) you should be a huge fan of nuclear power. Zero sulfur emissions.

Dirty little secret: All rain is acidic. Rain falling through the air reacts with the carbon dioxide in the air to form carbonic acid. On remote Pacific islands, far from any source of sulfur dioxide) the pH of the rain is about 5.6.

Keep in mind that prior to the advent of ULSD and Tier II, the EPA reported to Congress that air quality was the best in living memory. Not only was SO2 ambient concentration down 70% form the early 70s (when the EPA began monitoring air quality) but particulates were down by 80%. Lead and carbon monoxide had almost disappeared and tropospheric ozone (the surrogate for LA-type smog) was down 50%.

The problem is that the improvement curves have all flattened. We have hit the asymptote. All improvements will be very, very small and witll come at very high cost. This is exactly what we are seeing with ULSD/Tier II. The promised improvement in measureable air quality will be miniscule, but the costs will be enormous. At this point, until there is a massive embrace of nuclear (zero air emissions) power, all improvements in air quality come at an unacceptable price.

If you fell as you do, Lost Cause, why are you here? Anything done to improve efficiency acts to defeat your agenda.

If diesel was 10 bucks a gallon. Imagine what i'd cost in shipping to get stuff off the internet :EEK!: It'd probably cost more than the product itself to get it to you. Not to mention the even more truckers being below the poverty line. More recession in the US, then we get (another) depression because the cost of food goes up, and living, and eventually the US dollar is worthless, and gas is now 100 bucks a gallon, and bread is 35 bucks a loaf.

I'm not talking about slightly acidic rain, I am talking about real acidic rain that has literally destroyed thousands of acres of plants in some areas around me, in the past. The emissions from Detroit actually affected New England's rain so much that there are records of rain as acidic as 2.6 in my home town alone. In some other places records fall around 1.9. It's not a dirty secret that many plants like a slightly acidic soil. It's like saying because humans need a few parts per a billion of iodine to be healthy that we should all go drink buckets of it.

If diesel were $10 a gallon we could go back to local production and local farming. How is that a bad thing? The implications of expensive fuel are only terrible if we refuse to try and consume less of it and just try and pay the new prices.

OIC! Makes sense.I doubt that. After looking at CARB's 2007 emissions standards for heavy duty diesels, I was surprised to see they were roughly equivalent to CARB's early 80s/late 70s emissions standards for passenger car diesels, such as IDI VWs, per horsepower*hour. Since the EPA tends to be behind CARB in terms of emissions regs, I think saying that requiring larger diesels to comply with the same emissions standards diesel car manufacturers had to comply with nearly three decades ago (in the case of semis) results in minuscule AQ improvements is a bit of a stretch. The same goes to diesel pickups since they have had relatively relaxed emissions regulations as well, but the difference isn't as pronounced.

Hate to burst your bubble but in Canada ALL ON ROAD DIESEL since mid 2006 has been ULSD, we have not had the option. All last summer diesel was around $0.15/L cheaper than gas (thats $0.57/US Gal). We are now taking the same **** kicking that you Yanks are on diesel (we did the winter before too). We are just in a odd swing where diesel is unnaturally high, a similar situation happened back in 2002 as well.

Saw the biggest spread here today, and up until recently diesel has been somewhat cheaper although less of the weekly price games like gasoline.

Regular was $1.030/Litre and diesel was $1.199/Litre.

That's $3.90 vs $4.54 a gallon and the Canadian peso is about on par these days...

That's a 64 cent premium but still under 20% which is about how many more BTUs there are in diesel compared to gasoline, especially winter blends.