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.

If gasoline was free, I'd still hypermile to the best of my ability. I am affected when gas goes up and the economy falters. It is true that I live such an ascetic life that I wouldn't be as affected as most, but I am as reliant on the economy as the average citizen.

It is just a philosophical path I've chosen to follow: take what I need, leave what I don't. It's a hell of a balancing act that requires self-honesty, but I like a challenge...:)

I like to believe I'm not one to force my ideals on others, but I think it would be for humanity's benefit if the costs of things were put into perspective.

- LostCause

the best cure for high prices is high prices
i know that price rationing will sway the non-ecomodders.

the low pH rain in Vt. didn't come from wood stoves, it came from somewhere else.

wars use a lot of diesel fuel

i conserve because that is the way i have always been.

Thanks EPA :thumbup:

I can breathe a little easier today with all these new people on the road spewing out more crap reducing my human thermal efficiency :thumbup:

You're not alone :p And does big GDP really mean quality? Rather, is quality a feature of a high GDP - especially for a primarily service based economy... Or am I just reading too far into those couple sentences :p

In any case, I've been saying it for awhile.... We have the ability to regulate ourselves... We can do that, or let nature do it. It doesn't matter who does it - but it's going to happen. The major difference is, the nature option isn't a pleasant one...

Duffman -

I'm glad we have ULSD, especially if the goal is to make clean-diesel viable in the USA. If we want to have *more* diesel engines running around, I think clean diesel is the way to go.

CarloSW2

My only complaint is the price spread, I have no issue with 5~7$ a gallon Diesel as long as Gasoline is Similar in price.

My "theory" Lots of Manufacturers ( Honda, Ford, VW +++) are introducing new Diesels this year (saves lots of fuel!!) but Oil companies love gasoline and love SUV's; so run up the price of Diesel and people will stick to their SUV's.

Rant # 2
How about emissions rated as per mile traveled? I know my 50+ MPG TDI isn't polluting as much as the LEV rated V10 (5~7 mpg) Excursion 4x4 my neighbor drives.

Naw, this happens every winter... Diesel is very similar to heating oil. So in the winter, demand goes way up while supply doesn't change too much due to refinery capacity (also keep in mind that only a certain amount of diesel comes out of a barrel of oil - they can't just make it all diesel).

In the summer, gasoline prices will go up and diesel prices will come down a little... But perhaps not much if the value of the dollar goes down...

Diesel
http://www.attrucktax.com/dieselfuel...graphjan06.gif

Gasoline
http://tickersense.typepad.com/photo..._vs_sp_500.jpg

It's not collusion - it's economy. Print more money, drop the fed, etc... inflation goes up, value of dollar sinks but the value of resources remains constant - so we pay "more." We're not paying any more (value wise) than we were - we just don't have the value....

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...raphic_nyt.gif

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.

I meant quality as in a characteristic/feature :p (i.e. a quality of this wound is gangrene). :o

Using the whole "means/ends" analogy, I think the GDP is a means that became accepted as an ends. Logically, the ends should be human well-being. Ofcourse, that is hard to define. While material possessions seem to be an aspect of human well-being, I think most could tell you it isn't the only component. So...why do we treat it that way? :confused:

As far as self-regulation, I don't think any path will be particularly pleasant. :D Try to get any "king" to live like a "commoner," most won't go without a fight. But you are right, I bet Nature will be particularly unpleasant.

I see it as an analogy. Two different areas of the nation, each with a lake and a pay-outhouse.

Area 1, with 250 people, will easily agree defecating into the lake is better then spending their hard-earned salary on a pay-toilet.

Area 2, with 14 million people, will easily agree defecating into the late is a bad idea compared to spending 25 cents for sanitation.

As America's population grows, I see us approxiamating Area 2. In that respect, I support clean diesel. I'd be pissed if my ancestors left me a cesspool because they lived purely for themselves. I'm sure people in the future will be mad at the way I lived, and I'm arguing in their favor. :p

Also, while the air quality may be the "best" it has been it recent memory, it still downright sucks. I can see brown skies outside my window now. I remember as a kid staying in class all day because the air was too bad. Didn't Bush recently talk about the war on pollution? Oh that's right:

:p
http://thefulcrum.blogspot.com/Bush-...complished.jpg

Montreal Protocol
I don't want to knock this off on a tangent, but when was the Montreal Protocol a failure?

Small economic hit to ban CFC's, stabilize the ozone layer, and prevent thousands of medical cases of skin cancer/cataracts a year. Sounds like a nice investment to me. :thumbup: Not to mention ozone thinning was occuring over some areas least responsible for its cause. :(

- LostCause

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?

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 :rolleyes:

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.

trebuchet03 -

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

"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.

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.

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


CFC's

HFC's
And if the next mpg costs your health?

In any case....
http://www.shell.com/static/enviroso...xide_chart.gif

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....

http://www.ehponline.org/members/199...enturafig2.GIF

Maybe those who die prematurely aren't noticeable to you, but they are to others, which is what it was considered worthwhile.From here and here. Majority rules and minority rights.

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?

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 :p 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 :p

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...

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.

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.And the fact that these are the most vulnerable impacts the situation how?Those that aren't considered carcinogenic and/or aren't linked to specific cancers.One could try, but they'd probably be laughed out of whatever institution they're associated with.Search for, find, and read the papers yourself if you would like to find more info about your questions.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.

If diesel emissions aren't a health risk, would you mind taking a big whiff of your exhaust? Take a couple big whiffs every hour of every day for the next 5 years and we'll see if there are any effects. You say no cancer. I say cancer. It'll be fun, we can see whose right! :rolleyes:

Increased price of diesel coupled with decreased efficiency will lead to a decrease in CO2 emissions. How? Logically, people are going to use more thriftness on that which costs more. If diesel costs more and you need more of it to drive, you'll probably put more thought into your driving habits...

- LostCause

Trebuchet posted:
“You're set in your ways…”

Big Dave says:
That hardly qualifies me as the Lone Ranger on this board. I notice a lot of people set in their way of accepting what the EPA puts out at face value.


Trebuchet posted:
“And yes, curse the poor countries for needing extra time to reach the rich country's level of compliance.”

Big Dave says:
Did you just admit that the ban on CFCs were done more to satisfy a redistributionist agenda than a scientific and health-oriented agenda? If there were a real scientific health threat, would one not want “all hands on deck” to combat the problem? As it is the US will wind up taking a 40 year hit before enough reduction in emission is mandated (assuming any meaningful compliance in the favored “developing nations”) to maybe do something about reducing the ozone hole.


Roflwaffle posted:
“The risks of diesel exhaust are based on epidemiological studies…”

Big Dave says:
Yeah. Epidemiological studies sponsored by the EPA or other organizations with a bias toward more regulation. Research is highly sensitive to the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Do a study that undermines the EPA and you never get another grant from them.


Frank Lee posted:
“...and we all know how much big dave loves human lives!”

Big Dave says:

Real identifiable or measureable ones I do. Imaginary and unquantifiable ones – I don’t give a rip.


Lost Cause posted:
“If diesel emissions aren't a health risk, would you mind taking a big whiff of your exhaust? Take a couple big whiffs every hour of every day for the next 5 years and we'll see if there are any effects. You say no cancer. I say cancer. It'll be fun, we can see whose right!”

Big Dave posted:
No problem. I have been exposed to more diesel smoke than you can imagine ever since 1969. My professional life has had me around locomotives, diesel trucks, emergency generators, ships and boats, and mining equipment for at least 4 hours a day since Nixon was still popular. No cancer after 39 years. How do you like your crow cooked?

Wow Dave... wow...

It's not worth it - you're so hard set that you'll go as far as putting words/thoughts in other people's mouths... I'm not going to even respond to any of that - feel free to waste your time with a response to this though, I'll enjoy another laugh :)

X2... If you wanna put a hole in the epidemiological studies, feel free, but bring something besides idle speculation.

you guys are starting to worry me, i drove a 730D with no cab, for 32 years and the stack was about 5 feet in front of my face... :eek:



'You have some exposure, but unless you're exposed to elevated levels ~24/7/365'

that's good it was only one month a year

You have some exposure, but unless you're exposed to elevated levels ~24/7/365 it isn't as much of a concern as living by, for instance, the LA harbor, with the emissions from ships, equipment, and thousands or trucks coming through every day, that tends to sit there thanks to local weather. Statistically speaking living in the most polluted areas is like having everyone smoke a quarter of a pack per day for most of the year or something.

You don’t think there is an elevated level at ready tracks, or in truck stops, or in mines, or on test stands?

If it were going to cause cancer don’t you think it would in a 39 year period?

The fact of the matter is that this eco-mindless EPA policy is driving people away from the most powerful tool there is for increasing MPG.

These types of discussions can never be won. I was a participant in a 200+ post topic on ULSD, DPFs, EPA and Global warming over on FTE. Big use of time and nobody changed thier views.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/50...d-the-epa.html

You deserve a beer :thumbup:

And this thread needs more lolcats

http://icanhascheezburger.files.word...at-machine.jpg

Sure there is, although maybe not as much since the worst areas are like a combination of a few truck stops, mines, and maybe a track or two. The difference is that the people at tracks, truck stops, or mines, for the most part people are there willingly, and aren't exposed to it 24/7/365. The people who live in and around, for instance, the port of LA, don't have a choice and can be exposed 24/7/365, from thousands of diesels, hundreds of ships, and who nkows what construction equipment, in an area where said pollution can sit. It also won't cause cancer in everyone, it just elevates the risk for everyone, which is seen in higher rates of lung cancer and other pulmonary trouble in specific areas.

Maybe if emissions systems didn't result in a negligible decrease in mileage over their lifespans, I suppose the cost would be greater, but as it stands even the economy angle is kinda moot.