|
According to that NRDC article, we the public are to commend the CARB and EPA for adjusting their numbers after observation, rather than condemn them for wanting the usage numbers to be spoon-fed to them from the industry?
Sorry, that is counter to a primary tenet of being a scientist - Theorize, RESEARCH, investigate, TEST the theory, adjust theory according to results... Repeat.
They want to know how much diesels are being used on an average construction site? Then GO AND RESEARCH. Expecting data like that to be produced from an industry is unrealistic, and smacks of wanting others to do your job for you.
I also take issue with the obvious and continuing bias against diesel engines that the CARB and (by extension because they usually accept and 50-state Carb's regulations) the EPA continue to have.
"diesel pollution remains a potent health hazard, contributing to asthma and heart attacks, stunted lung growth in children, birth defects, more emergency room visits and higher death rates."
Oh, and the gasoline engine produces only fine spring air? How about the simple economy of scale, that there are EASILY 3 gas engines for every diesel in California? Gas engines are not that different from diesels. (I know, heresy for this board, but follow me on this) Both are internal combustion engines. Both consume a fuel that has the same basic elements. ANY FORM OF COMBUSTION PRODUCES THE SAME RESULTANT EMISSIONS - NOx, COx, SOx, and particulate matter.
Want proof that a gas engine produces soot too? Take any gas engine (a lawnmower or generator is an easy option for this experiment) and remove the muffler for a moment. Run the engine, and place a piece of clean white paper into the exhaust path. Notice how it isn't clean and white anymore? That soot is smaller and lighter than the particles from a diesel, which means several things:
The soot is more difficult to see from the tailpipe, but IT IS THERE ALL THE SAME.
The soot is much lighter, meaning that when carried aloft by the hot exhaust, it can remain airborne for much longer. Days are possible, versus minutes for diesel soot.
Because it can remain aloft longer, the cumulative effect over days can be obvious - smog.
Because the particles are so much smaller, the human body has a harder time filtering them out. The lungs are capable filters, down to about 5 microns in size. This is why dust and mold are such problems for respiratory systems - Those particles are smaller than 5 microns, and can pass the body's natural defenses and cause mayhem. Ditto for gasoline soot. Diesel soot, by its very nature of being VISIBLE, is closer to campfire soot than it is to gasoline soot. The average size is 15+ microns. To the filters in the lungs, this size particle would be like trying to put a fully inflated basketball into your mouth. Not happening.
By being so much larger, gravity pulls the diesel soot out of the air much faster, and the soot ends up as carbon dust on the ground - Dirt.
Do I think that soot is good for the environment? Not especially. HOWEVER, I still have to point out that diesel emissions are less hazardous (sulfur fuel content excepted) than gasoline. The "weekend smog effect" shows that having diesels on the road during the week can actually pull MORE gasoline soot out of the air than on the weekends. For the chemical emissions, I think that both engines can benefit from some treatments, but changing / treating the underlying FUEL will have a much stronger effect than trying to adapt the engine after the fact.
The best way to prevent a pollutant from being emitted is to NOT HAVE IT IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is what the oil companies don't want you to believe or push for. Remember all the complaints about removing the lead from gasoline? I don't, I'm not old enough - it happened before my time. BUT, I do remember the whining about removing the sulfur from diesel. Nobody's engines have blown up, the main problem I have seen (and experienced myself) is that a rubber seal within my injection pump that had been expanded by the sulfur, shrank, cracked and failed with ULSD. Running BIODIESEL is better for the engine anyway, and doesn't have ANY of the harmful stuff that is in oil and oil emissions. How about ZERO sulfur, instead of 15ppm?
CO2 is not a pollutant per-se, but in high enough concentrations it can be bad. I agree with this. However, I have to point out that China and India are BOTH dumping FAR MORE CO2 into the air than the USA transportation sector is, so CARB and their focus on CO2 is pishing into the ocean. Besides, each of their aftertreatments just causes the engine to use MORE fuel, which creates MORE emissions! Use less fuel... You make less emissions. Period. Gas engines produce more harmful chemicals than diesels do, by the very nature of how they operate - Stoich. Diesels can super-lean out their mix when not working hard (low demand or idling) while a gas engine has to maintain that stoich ratio to avoid burning the top of a piston off. Ever heard of anyone committing suicide by idling a diesel in a closed garage? Doubtful - A diesel does produce CO, but nowhere near the level of a gas engine, even a small one! Every storm season there is a story of some moron running a generator in their garage and waking up dead. The lucky ones figure it out when they get a headache first. With a diesel, (don't try this at home!) the likely results would stop with just that headache, the levels are so low.
The people at CARB need to be held accountable to ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC RESULTS and an equal application of their goals. This constant boogeyman demonizing of diesels is counter-productive, unless you believe that they are on the take from the oil companies. If diesel had a larger penetration, there is a very good chance that a LOT LESS OIL would be needed... Which would nicely fit with CARB's ultimate goal - Reduction in emissions. For the people that have been shown on CARB's payroll to both falsify their science (and credentials) AND the board members who KNEW about the bogus information before key votes BASED on that information... JAILTIME. These people need to be held accountable to the public for the fraud they have been part of. GOOD SCIENCE has a peer review process for a reason. WHY is CARB allowed to bypass this process with something that will effect the lives of 300 million people?
_________________
Proud supporting vendor of LOST Jeeps
TRAVELING CRD TECH. I come to you!
Need help? Just ask! I've taken it apart more than most.
Email jeep [at] maincomputer [dot] com - BOARD MESSAGING IS BROKEN
Over 225 CRDs currently driving with my valves, timing belt, rockers, or ARP Studs.
Bad noises = REALLY bad things.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
