If the diesel A3 in the U.S. came with a true manual transmission, I'd be giving it very serious thought.
Last I heard, it doesn't.
Next July it'll be nine years since I drove exactly that car in Germany. I came home from the trip wanting one. Couldn't get one then, and I can't get one now.
I have never given up on my assessment that CARB is a corrupt agency. Of course I took a lot of flack from the goodie two shoes posters that believe all government agencies are honest and above board.
Follow the money. I still believe that High officials in CARB get piles of cash from the Oil Companies that DO NOT WANT US TO HAVE more diesel cars and small trucks. Diesel is a BIG loser for the oil companies.
This scandal could have cost them millions. And no regulatory body should get away with falsifying data that would prevent free trade practices without retribution.
Aw, darn, they forced diesel exhaust to be cleaner.
Shucks.
I wanted the DIRTY kind dangit !!!!!
Seriously, though, there are "bad minor ethics violations" and there are "not-so-bad minor ethics violations."
This one definitely qualifies as the latter, at least until we have more information as to "what actually happened."
If it turns out that the board members WERE BRIBED by someone or some entity trying to stifle diesel car sales, then the diesel carmakers might have a case.
Right now, there is no smoking gun to do anything serious to anyone at CARB.
This is a question of "did the ends justify the means?" and that question is not yet fully answered.
This is a question of "did the ends justify the means?" and that question is not yet fully answered.
Some day you will learn the truth and the truth will set you free from all your misconceptions. First you have to realize who is running the gas vs diesel show. It is the oil companies. They want a balance of product that the EU does not have. Gas is now and has always been an inconvenient waste product. If we all go to the much more efficient diesel what will they do with the gasoline? Right now we are getting all of the UKs excess as they have a gas glut. If you and millions of Americans that have been drinking the gas is good koolaid ever learned the truth the oil companies would have to dump their gas for even less than they do now. A diesel engine running on ULSD with a PM filter is plenty clean. The added waste of money gains so little it is negligible to the breathing public. Which by the way your exhaling is causing me great harm according to the EPA. And your milk cow is worse than my big honkin' SUV. :P
" the lead scientist and coordinator of a study used to justify the stringent diesel rules had lied about holding a Ph.D. in statistics."
And the board knew the individual wasn't qualified.
You call:
"We're going to go ahead and vote on data from our scientist that we know lied about actually being a scientist."
a minor ethics violation? It illigitimizes the entire board and its purpose. I agree with the ATA representative that says towards the bottom that the vote should be nullified.
They had no intention of letting a little things like... you know... the scientist not actually being one... stand in their way of passing their pre-determined decision.
Just because he was a "fake" PHD did not mean he was not educated on the subject matter.
Sure, they abused the process.
But why? Did money change hands under the table?
I need to know "motive" before I pass judgment. Were they doing it just to keep the air clean? If so, I give them a PASS and so should you.
Were they doing it to keep diesel cars from making headway because the oil companies paid them off? ( That of course is what all the "diesel conspiracy theorists" want to believe. )
Seriously, though, there are "bad minor ethics violations" and there are "not-so-bad minor ethics violations."
quote- Soon afterward, a Union-Tribune editorial writer confirmed allegations that Hien T. Tran – the lead scientist and coordinator of the study used to justify the stringent new diesel regulations – had lied about holding a Ph.D. in statistics from the University of California Davis. Instead, it turned out, Tran had a mail-order Ph.D. sent to him from a “university” based at a mailbox at a UPS office in New York City – and that senior air board officials knew this before the Dec. 12 vote. -end quote
Basing public policy on scientifice evidence backed by fraudulent credentials is not a minor violation, it is a very serious violation of duty, trust and integrity.
The cover up is a complete violation of ethics.
No research performed by someone who deliberately decieved and lied about their credentials would have any credible scientific value.
Aw, darn, they forced diesel exhaust to be cleaner.
Shucks.
I wanted the DIRTY kind dangit !!!!!
CARB has jeopardized the enacting of regulations that would have cleaned up the diesel exhaust that posed the greatest potential for harm.
And, all previous regulations are now being questioned, "Are they based on scientifically credible evidence?".
Most importantly, high efficiency, personal passenger vehicles have been negatively impacted by CARB regulations while at the same time low mpg gasoline SUV's, trucks and large cars burning MTBE did wonders for California.
Educated on the subject matter and being a subject matter expert are very different.
Now I'm sorry if I get worked up about him faking a statistics PhD, but I feel this is an insult for this person to be consulted over all the people in this country getting REAL degrees.
Its not difficult to find a PhD in statistics. It would have been very simple to get a true subject matter expert to validate the data they were going to 'view'... unless they approved of what he was going to say.
I can darned certain that if they were trying to be objective, they themselves should have been skeptical of his data. Instead, they covered it up.
I don't care if it was money or personal reasons. If they pre-meditated their decision, and then built up all their data to support this pre-meditated decision, that is the biggest ethics violation this board could possibly come up with.
This board isn't responsible for AIDS in Africa, or nuclear disarmament. I can't figure out what you think a major ethics violation is for this group.
No, they are responsible for air in California. Therefore, they ONLY thing they are charged with doing, they did unethically, possibly illegally.
A rigged election in an accrediting 'board' is not a minor ethics violation. They faked their entire purpose for existence.
If they're going to ramrod through legislation with no regards to a true scientific study, there is no purpose for a resources board.
They get no pass from me because they shouldn't be employed. Period.
I don't care if there's more to the story or not. Thus far, this is too far.
That's like the jury in a courtroom pretending they didn't hear when the defense asked the state's 'forensic scientist' if he had a fake degree in forensic science.
I know you wouldn't care WHY a jury covered up the fact that they know the state's forensic scientist wasn't a real scientist...
I know you wouldn't care WHY a jury had any agreement with the prosecution...
All that matter is, if it's YOUR criminal trial, you don't want the jury and the prosecution to have ANY agreements whatsoever.
And that's what happened to the businesses affected by CARB's decision. They did not get the right to fair decision making affecting their livelihoods.
... It not that much of a surprise. CARB and EPA are ignorant and fail to see many real world problems. The resulting poor running transportation industry and the fact that they have specked content of exhaust gas with no attention to the amount of exhaust gas, for 35 plus years, has resulted in the wasting of billions of gallons of fuel.
Scores of diesel rigs with angry drivers at the wheels rumbled their way around the California Statehouse on Wednesday as the California Air Resources Board decided that now is a good time to avoid enforcing a rule requiring tighter controls on truck exhaust.
Instead, CARB is calling for a new health report and has told its staff to explore regulatory flexibility for small businesses on the diesel truck rule.
The state's “Truck and Bus Rule” was adopted in December of last year.
The delay is due in part to the recession's effect on California’s trucking industry, CARB says.
The down economy has reduced the amount of time trucks have operated, thus reducing harmful diesel emissions that would have occurred during normal economic times, the board says.
The board also directed staff to withdraw and redo the health report that carried Hien Tran's name since it was learned last year that he falsely claimed he held a PhD in statistics from UC Davis.
The board rejected a motion by member John Telles, who wanted to repeal the diesel rule after learning of the Tran incident.
"We take the employee misconduct very seriously but it should not affect an extremely important public health measure that has been extensively reviewed throughout the scientific community. We have tightened up our procedures to ensure an incident like this never happens again,” says CARB Chairman Mary Nichols.
CARB passed the diesel truck and bus rule last December that requires truck owners to install diesel exhaust filters on their rigs by Jan. 1, 2011, with nearly all vehicles upgraded by 2014. The regulation is estimated to prevent 9,400 premature deaths over its lifetime.
So CARB has done the right thing.
Did they only do it because they got caught using an phony expert? Who knows?
Did they only do it because they got caught using an phony expert? Who knows?
Why else? They knew all along and only suspended the ruling when people found out they were crooked. These guys are just like the global warming jokers. Here's looking forward to some heads rolling.
Saying someone is just a little bit crooked is like saying someone is just a little bit pregnant. In either case they either or, or they're not. A lying crook is a lying crook.
This whole thing is like stealing something and then giving it back....after you get caught. Now that is what I call stepping up.
A cat burglar is not the same "degree" of criminal as a child molester.
Do you slam CARB as an entity because THESE SPECIFIC CARB MEMBERS made a mistake?
I think no. I think CARB should stand up and take the heat for the mistake made by it's members and take the required action. But I don't think CARB needs to go away because of this particular incident.
Like other things in life, people make mistakes. People make honest ones, and dishonest ones. All mistakes are not alike.
I think CARB should go away because it is totally redundant and un-needed. We pay the yahoos at EPA and CARB to do the same job. All CARB does is screw up any real chance at standardization. We should have set standards with the EU to save US all money. Automakers cannot be expected to build 50 different variations because each state has their own phony PHD setting up a kingdom.
And I would like you to give us a link to these so called 50 year old studies of ULSD. The first diesels ran on peanut oil if memory serves me. It had no sulfur to cause pollution. Again if we had joined forces with the leaders in diesel technology we could have solved the problems years ago and saved billions of barrels of fuel. Send the waste gas to So America or Africa. Oh, I forgot they all use the much better fuel, diesel.
CARB should try to clean up their own messes first. I was behind a Metro bus this morning spewing black smoke. I guess the cities don't have to use ULSD.
Gary, your bias against CARB makes it impossible for you to have objectivity.
CARB has done a lot of good things for California.
You have already said yourself that the air is much cleaner now than the 70s and early 80s, and I know that to be true also, because I was there back then and today.
Your main beef with them is that they don't stand with a red cape and "TORO!" every allowable diesel car into the state.
They have a job to do, and just because you don't like the way they do it, you want them to go away.
I said the air is much cleaner than the 1960s and 70s by the 1980s the EPA mandate on leaded gas was in place and that made all the difference in the World I don't see any real changes since then. I can breathe fine. In the early 1970s when I flew back to LA from Alaska I could hardly breathe from the GASOLINE exhaust. I can drive my tractor all day with cheapo red dye high sulfur diesel and it does not cause me any discomfort. So I have to question the dubious claims by CARB. And now we know the rest of the story. Billions of wasted barrels of oil too late.
You happen to belong to the group of enviros that nothing is clean enough until we are all in caves riding bikes. With a CO2 exhaust filter over our mouth and nose.
gary says, "You happen to belong to the group of enviros that nothing is clean enough until we are all in caves riding bikes. With a CO2 exhaust filter over our mouth and nose."
That is very far from true about me.
You actually thinking I think that points out the limitations of this media format, these forums. We cannot know one another just from reading one another's words on these forums. There is too much "translation" going on between the words that falls through the cracks of reality.
I'm not an "enviro" either. Not in the crazy, overboard group. Don't give them my money. Don't go to rallies. Don't like the idea of vegans and vegetarians who protest "animals are people TOO" and who don't eat meat because of that silly view.
I believe that people should not pollute the Earf any more than is necessary, and that recycling is a wonderful thing, and that clean air and water are important for the safety of humans.
I conserve and re-use to make sure I don't waste money I could be spending on fun things like family vacations and Kobe steaks.
While I agree with much of what you are saying, I part company when you get on your PZEV high horse. I just think that is a total waste of resources. We know that MPG are lost when we carry the emissions thing too far. PZEV/SULEV II is TOO FAR. The difference in air quality is not detectable in most parts of the USA. There is so much dust and other pollutants that carrying auto emissions to those extremes is just plain wasteful. And you like to say you are not wasteful.
CARB passed the diesel truck and bus rule last December that requires truck owners to install diesel exhaust filters on their rigs by Jan. 1, 2011, with nearly all vehicles upgraded by 2014. The regulation is estimated to prevent 9,400 premature deaths over its lifetime.
This is yet another example of the specious justifications typical of the enviro-acolytes. The cost to the trucking industry is yet another drag on the US economy. The place from which the figure 9,400 was extracted is a very dark place indeed. And how a premature death can be connected specifically to a lack of diesel exhaust filters would be an interesting piece of science (or magic).
The Jetta TDI is not only as clean as many PZEV vehicles, it is cleaner. emitting less of the now deadly CO2. Also less HC and CO. You are drinking the oil companies koolaid via the EPA and CARB.
... The Progressive Insurance Automotive "X" Prize, "PIAXP", has a ten million dollar prize offered for vehicles exceeding 100 MPG. There are several classes and the formula is complicated. The emission regs favor MPG. How they do this is interesting and is something that I have been harping about for quite some time. It is also very contradictory to CARB and EPA. The scale covers all the significant tailpipe output including Diesel particulate, CO, CO2, NOx, and HC; BUT there are obvious advantages to less output per mile, a CARB and EPA omission, of staggering proportions, for 35 plus years. In fact PIAXP's formula is biased towards obtaining the least carbon output / greenhouse gas, with a corresponding allowance in other emissions. An incentive program like this might even revive a struggling industry. A TDI owner should not be burdened with inevitable weight and failure prone equipment that has to be carried by huge trucks obtaining ten percent the fuel economy of moderate Diesel sedans.
A new engine designed in Germany reduces the pollutants in diesel exhaust emissions to barely measurable levels. The motor relies on extremely high fuel-injection and combustion pressures to burn fuel more completely--dramatically reducing both soot and nitrogen-oxide emissions.
Why is it the Germans and the Japanese companies doing all the innovation in automotive? That new engine gets at the heart of most of the diesel pollution in this country. Buses and Trucks. I just find it sad that we waste billions on research and have little to show for it outside of space and military equipment.
Yes, it is sad for the USA but Japan,Germany and other EU countries have chanelled their efforts in this direction whilst America has chanelled it's resources into warfare and space, (which I think your powers-that-be believe to be inextricably linked). The military suppliers seem to hold undue sway in your decision-making and, until that changes, everything else will lag. Of course, there are spin-offs from military and space technology and the rest of the world is happy to adopt those, where appropriate..............once you've paid for the research and short-term lead - but your automotive guys seem to be stuck in the past and unwilling to learn; even when their European arms' show the way. :confuse:
The EU governments have shrunk their military forces, (I like to think that they have seen the folly of war, but I'm not that naieve, whilst USA still seems to believe in huge standing armies and being the sole military mega-power - to combat an enemy who no longer exists - if it ever did. UK government has, yet, to come to terms with our reduced influence on the world stage; hence we still posture and waste lives and money sending troops to places we shouldn't).
America used to be the world's biggest market but now it's been overhauled by the EU and India and China are each potentially bigger than either.
This is, of course, is the simplistic view of one Brit and there are doubtless holes in my reasoning but that's what makes life interesting.
It is always good to get the perspective of those not in the USA. There are some huge challenges ahead and I am not optimistic about the world leadership and their games, such as the Climate Hoax in Copenhagen.
We still don't have any real choice in Automobiles as you have. Some of it is our unwillingness to pay the higher prices you have in the UK. If I had to pay what you do for a diesel vehicle I may just keep what I have.I may anyway.
... It is my belief that higher pressures in the compression and better atomization of the fuel will make for less particulate, but more pressure and heat in the combustion reaction always (as far as I know) results in increased NOx. Do you think CARB and EPA would grant an exception, in NOx regs, if this engine resulted in a TDI, Focus, Colbolt that obtained 75 MPG ?
Yes, it is sad for the USA but Japan,Germany and other EU countries have chanelled their efforts in this direction whilst America has chanelled it's resources into warfare and space
I wouldn't go that far in the comparison. Those other countries invest in diesel because they have to... they're not oil-producing nations like the US. They have higher fuel efficiency than the US. We didn't care a lick until gas spiked to $4 - then we went with our celebrity worship and political correctness. Combined with the 30-year-old unfounded attitude that diesels are still like those Oldsmobile conversions, the Detroit 3 has opted to look elsewhere for fuel and emission efficiency, even though modern diesel can do the job right now.
No reason to argue with you. That was just a view from 3000 miles away and based on the (biased) media we get to see, tempered with a smidgin' of common sense. Maybe not enough. We are still oil-producers but the North Sea reserves are past their best.
Guess the huge tax elements of our road-fuel pricing has played a big part in our conversion to diesel and the rest spins off that. Similar thing to your $4 Gallon, but worse and over a protracted timespan.
Show me a hybrid whose spark ignition engine that will run on 100% biofuel without the degradation in fuel economy and in performance that commonly occurs in E85 powered vehicles. If such exists that I can purchase now, I would consider geting it.
I believe the compression ratio of the engine will be less. Increasing boost puts more air into the combustion chamber providing more oxygen. The increase in compression will be similar to the compression in today's diesels. The higher pressure used in atomizing the fuel can be easily and reliably attained by the Bosch CP3 pump used on most common rail diesels these days.
As to the NOx question, I think the use of SCR and DEF is here to stay for now.
Daimler is bringing a new diesel to the States in 2010. It is a four cylinder that displaces 2.1 liters, is twin turbocharged, makes 201 HP and 369 ft-lbs of torque. Car and Drive wrote about it recently. The dropped this engine into an older MB 190E that had been originally equipped with a gasser six cylinder. In EU testing, the car yielded 48 MPG. Daimler intends to use this engine in the C class and a few other models.
... Generally speaking engineers lower the static compression ratio when better turbos make more boost; however increased boost raises the dynamic (effective) pressure ratio. Thirty thousand pounds of fuel pressure used to be state of the common rail art, but some systems are reaching close to forty thousand pounds today. I think the reg makers should wake up and reward engine manufacturers that build these fantastic MPG (and thus generate less GHG) machines with a small allowance in NOx and particulate regulation. This would then help get rid of EGR, SCR, and even better (crisp) injection would lower particulate. This should result in another ten percent gain in MPG and lower GHG emission.
Also the misleading mileage estimates from the EPA are off on the CO2 and GHG emissions as well. The Average TDI driver is putting out about 1 ton less CO2 per year than the EPA estimate. With some VW TDI owners getting as much as 40% better than the EPA estimate. 40% less GHG is significant. The more I look at the situation the more I am convinced we are not only fighting CARB and the EPA, we are bucking the Oil industry. They do not want the same mess they have in the EU with diesel taking over the auto industry. With the choices over there a person would have to be loony to buy anything that burns regular gas.
... G. ,,, yes, my ten percent improvement estimate is very conservative (we know better). We also now have another few institutions to buck. The engine manufacturers, auto companies, and some chemical companies now have a lead pipe, legislative, revenue stream (river), in SCR. None of the previous, the oil companies, CARB and EPA ever mentions how much GHG that causes.
Sounds like a rather desperate argument. So what if there is a degradation? If it still significantly exceeds MPG of the non-hybrid, there's still a benefit anyway. That's the point.
Of course, I'd be intrigued to see a 100% biodiesel vehicle here. How much of a blend can be used this time of year? .
We can use b100 year round in CA. That would be about 40 million less vehicles running on dangerous gasoline. They would all be considered carbon neutral. It should be mandated instead of wasting money and fossil fuel on Corn Ethanol.
Changing focus by providing a CA only solution says much. Let's try it again, how much of a blend can be used elsewhere... the large population in the northern half of the country?
As for corn ethanol, that's old news. The shift to bio-waste as a source ethanol production is underway. .
A friend that lives in Brookings SD has been using B20 in his Ford Super Duty for at least 5 years. And unlike ethanol tainted gas B20 does not hurt mileage. Remember if not for the CA market for the Prius it would be a non starter in the market place. Probably half of all Prius sold are in CA. So if we could wean those folks off of gas onto B100 we would all be better off.
Bio waste ethanol is still a dream and not viable. Show me where it is being produced for sale. Same as Hydrogen it is a "pie in the sky" solution that drains tax dollars. Show me any ethanol produced in the USA without subsidies and more fossil fuel used than replaced by BTU content.
The argument is not as desperate as you make it out to be. Twenty plus percent degradation in FE is significant so if your hybrid say gets fifty MPG average, then what you are telling is that a ten+ MPG loss in FE would not bother you. I find that difficult to believe.
Diesels that run on 100% biofuel already exist. I have tried as high as B40 in my Jeep Liberty CRD and know of people who run their Jeeps on B100, without any modification or any degradation in FE. IN Hawaii, there is a rental company or taxi company that runs their VW diesels on B100.
So you ask, is there a diesel that will run on B100? They are here and have been here for a number of years.
Comments
And I had the impression that Scott did not like anything imported.
* 3.0-litre TFSI Supercharged DOHC V6 (Audi S4)
* 3.0-litre DOHC inline 6 Turbodiesel (BMW 335d)
* 2.5-litre DOHC inline 4 Hybrid (Ford Fusion Hybrid)
* 3.5-litre EcoBoost Turbocharged DOHC V6 (Ford Taurus SHO)
* 2.4-litre Ecotec DOHC inline4 (Chevrolet Equinox)
* 4.6-litre Tau DOHC V8 (Hyundai Genesis)
* 2.5-litre Turbocharged DOHC boxer 4 (Subaru Legacy 2.5GT)
* 1.8-litre DOHC inline 4 Hybrid (Toyota Prius)
* 2.0-litre SOHC inline 4 Turbodiesel (Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI)
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
Last I heard, it doesn't.
Next July it'll be nine years since I drove exactly that car in Germany. I came home from the trip wanting one. Couldn't get one then, and I can't get one now.
The agency responsible for shaping our diesel emissions regulations demonstrates a lack of ethics.
I'm not surprised. Not at all.
The air board’s shame / Staff never revealed internal scandal before crucial vote
So what else did they cover up, withhold or possibly lie about?
Follow the money. I still believe that High officials in CARB get piles of cash from the Oil Companies that DO NOT WANT US TO HAVE more diesel cars and small trucks. Diesel is a BIG loser for the oil companies.
This scandal could have cost them millions. And no regulatory body should get away with falsifying data that would prevent free trade practices without retribution.
Shucks.
I wanted the DIRTY kind dangit !!!!!
Seriously, though, there are "bad minor ethics violations" and there are "not-so-bad minor ethics violations."
This one definitely qualifies as the latter, at least until we have more information as to "what actually happened."
If it turns out that the board members WERE BRIBED by someone or some entity trying to stifle diesel car sales, then the diesel carmakers might have a case.
Right now, there is no smoking gun to do anything serious to anyone at CARB.
This is a question of "did the ends justify the means?" and that question is not yet fully answered.
Some day you will learn the truth and the truth will set you free from all your misconceptions. First you have to realize who is running the gas vs diesel show. It is the oil companies. They want a balance of product that the EU does not have. Gas is now and has always been an inconvenient waste product. If we all go to the much more efficient diesel what will they do with the gasoline? Right now we are getting all of the UKs excess as they have a gas glut. If you and millions of Americans that have been drinking the gas is good koolaid ever learned the truth the oil companies would have to dump their gas for even less than they do now. A diesel engine running on ULSD with a PM filter is plenty clean. The added waste of money gains so little it is negligible to the breathing public. Which by the way your exhaling is causing me great harm according to the EPA. And your milk cow is worse than my big honkin' SUV. :P
And the board knew the individual wasn't qualified.
You call:
"We're going to go ahead and vote on data from our scientist that we know lied about actually being a scientist."
a minor ethics violation? It illigitimizes the entire board and its purpose. I agree with the ATA representative that says towards the bottom that the vote should be nullified.
They had no intention of letting a little things like... you know... the scientist not actually being one... stand in their way of passing their pre-determined decision.
Sure, they abused the process.
But why? Did money change hands under the table?
I need to know "motive" before I pass judgment. Were they doing it just to keep the air clean? If so, I give them a PASS and so should you.
Were they doing it to keep diesel cars from making headway because the oil companies paid them off? ( That of course is what all the "diesel conspiracy theorists" want to believe. )
What was behind such a bonehead decision?
quote-
Soon afterward, a Union-Tribune editorial writer confirmed allegations that Hien T. Tran – the lead scientist and coordinator of the study used to justify the stringent new diesel regulations – had lied about holding a Ph.D. in statistics from the University of California Davis. Instead, it turned out, Tran had a mail-order Ph.D. sent to him from a “university” based at a mailbox at a UPS office in New York City – and that senior air board officials knew this before the Dec. 12 vote. -end quote
Basing public policy on scientifice evidence backed by fraudulent credentials is not a minor violation, it is a very serious violation of duty, trust and integrity.
The cover up is a complete violation of ethics.
No research performed by someone who deliberately decieved and lied about their credentials would have any credible scientific value.
Aw, darn, they forced diesel exhaust to be cleaner.
Shucks.
I wanted the DIRTY kind dangit !!!!!
CARB has jeopardized the enacting of regulations that would have cleaned up the diesel exhaust that posed the greatest potential for harm.
And, all previous regulations are now being questioned, "Are they based on scientifically credible evidence?".
Most importantly, high efficiency, personal passenger vehicles have been negatively impacted by CARB regulations while at the same time low mpg gasoline SUV's, trucks and large cars burning MTBE did wonders for California.
Don't waste your valuable time on questioning THAT aspect of the story.
I'd just want to know WHY they felt they had to put a phony PHD up there? They must be complete idiots.
I sense there is MORE to this story. I wonder who might get to the bottom of it?
Now I'm sorry if I get worked up about him faking a statistics PhD, but I feel this is an insult for this person to be consulted over all the people in this country getting REAL degrees.
Its not difficult to find a PhD in statistics. It would have been very simple to get a true subject matter expert to validate the data they were going to 'view'... unless they approved of what he was going to say.
I can darned certain that if they were trying to be objective, they themselves should have been skeptical of his data. Instead, they covered it up.
I don't care if it was money or personal reasons. If they pre-meditated their decision, and then built up all their data to support this pre-meditated decision, that is the biggest ethics violation this board could possibly come up with.
This board isn't responsible for AIDS in Africa, or nuclear disarmament. I can't figure out what you think a major ethics violation is for this group.
No, they are responsible for air in California. Therefore, they ONLY thing they are charged with doing, they did unethically, possibly illegally.
A rigged election in an accrediting 'board' is not a minor ethics violation. They faked their entire purpose for existence.
If they're going to ramrod through legislation with no regards to a true scientific study, there is no purpose for a resources board.
They get no pass from me because they shouldn't be employed. Period.
That's like the jury in a courtroom pretending they didn't hear when the defense asked the state's 'forensic scientist' if he had a fake degree in forensic science.
I know you wouldn't care WHY a jury covered up the fact that they know the state's forensic scientist wasn't a real scientist...
I know you wouldn't care WHY a jury had any agreement with the prosecution...
All that matter is, if it's YOUR criminal trial, you don't want the jury and the prosecution to have ANY agreements whatsoever.
And that's what happened to the businesses affected by CARB's decision. They did not get the right to fair decision making affecting their livelihoods.
Mistrial.
But since you brought up the "trial" aspect, we gotta go "innocent until proven guilty" on this one.
All we have so far is a news report.
Hold it pardner
Scores of diesel rigs with angry drivers at the wheels rumbled their way around the California Statehouse on Wednesday as the California Air Resources Board decided that now is a good time to avoid enforcing a rule requiring tighter controls on truck exhaust.
Instead, CARB is calling for a new health report and has told its staff to explore regulatory flexibility for small businesses on the diesel truck rule.
The state's “Truck and Bus Rule” was adopted in December of last year.
The delay is due in part to the recession's effect on California’s trucking industry, CARB says.
The down economy has reduced the amount of time trucks have operated, thus reducing harmful diesel emissions that would have occurred during normal economic times, the board says.
The board also directed staff to withdraw and redo the health report that carried Hien Tran's name since it was learned last year that he falsely claimed he held a PhD in statistics from UC Davis.
The board rejected a motion by member John Telles, who wanted to repeal the diesel rule after learning of the Tran incident.
"We take the employee misconduct very seriously but it should not affect an extremely important public health measure that has been extensively reviewed throughout the scientific community. We have tightened up our procedures to ensure an incident like this never happens again,” says CARB Chairman Mary Nichols.
CARB passed the diesel truck and bus rule last December that requires truck owners to install diesel exhaust filters on their rigs by Jan. 1, 2011, with nearly all vehicles upgraded by 2014. The regulation is estimated to prevent 9,400 premature deaths over its lifetime.
So CARB has done the right thing.
Did they only do it because they got caught using an phony expert? Who knows?
Why else? They knew all along and only suspended the ruling when people found out they were crooked. These guys are just like the global warming jokers. Here's looking forward to some heads rolling.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Well, no, not at all. There is a major difference.
We KNOW for certain that unfiltered, dirty diesel exhaust is a killer - worse than gasoline exhaust. That is not even debatable.
We don't KNOW for certain that man is causing the planet to warm up.
There is the difference.
This whole thing is like stealing something and then giving it back....after you get caught. Now that is what I call stepping up.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
A cat burglar is not the same "degree" of criminal as a child molester.
Do you slam CARB as an entity because THESE SPECIFIC CARB MEMBERS made a mistake?
I think no. I think CARB should stand up and take the heat for the mistake made by it's members and take the required action. But I don't think CARB needs to go away because of this particular incident.
Like other things in life, people make mistakes. People make honest ones, and dishonest ones. All mistakes are not alike.
And I would like you to give us a link to these so called 50 year old studies of ULSD. The first diesels ran on peanut oil if memory serves me. It had no sulfur to cause pollution. Again if we had joined forces with the leaders in diesel technology we could have solved the problems years ago and saved billions of barrels of fuel. Send the waste gas to So America or Africa. Oh, I forgot they all use the much better fuel, diesel.
CARB should try to clean up their own messes first. I was behind a Metro bus this morning spewing black smoke. I guess the cities don't have to use ULSD.
CARB has done a lot of good things for California.
You have already said yourself that the air is much cleaner now than the 70s and early 80s, and I know that to be true also, because I was there back then and today.
Your main beef with them is that they don't stand with a red cape and "TORO!" every allowable diesel car into the state.
They have a job to do, and just because you don't like the way they do it, you want them to go away.
We could say the same thing about Congress.
You happen to belong to the group of enviros that nothing is clean enough until we are all in caves riding bikes. With a CO2 exhaust filter over our mouth and nose.
PS
I agree vote ever incumbent out of Congress.
That is very far from true about me.
You actually thinking I think that points out the limitations of this media format, these forums. We cannot know one another just from reading one another's words on these forums. There is too much "translation" going on between the words that falls through the cracks of reality.
I'm not an "enviro" either. Not in the crazy, overboard group. Don't give them my money. Don't go to rallies. Don't like the idea of vegans and vegetarians who protest "animals are people TOO" and who don't eat meat because of that silly view.
I believe that people should not pollute the Earf any more than is necessary, and that recycling is a wonderful thing, and that clean air and water are important for the safety of humans.
I conserve and re-use to make sure I don't waste money I could be spending on fun things like family vacations and Kobe steaks.
This is yet another example of the specious justifications typical of the enviro-acolytes. The cost to the trucking industry is yet another drag on the US economy. The place from which the figure 9,400 was extracted is a very dark place indeed. And how a premature death can be connected specifically to a lack of diesel exhaust filters would be an interesting piece of science (or magic).
Regards, DQ
Old age is also a killer. Water is also a killer. Gasoline vehicle emissions are a killer.
Risk has to be weighed against benefit.
T2B2 is not enough.
Show me a diesel for sale that is as clean as a common gas vehicle.
ULEV would be nice.
.
New Diesel Engine Emits Cleaner Fumes
A new engine designed in Germany reduces the pollutants in diesel exhaust emissions to barely measurable levels. The motor relies on extremely high fuel-injection and combustion pressures to burn fuel more completely--dramatically reducing both soot and nitrogen-oxide emissions.
The EU governments have shrunk their military forces, (I like to think that they have seen the folly of war, but I'm not that naieve, whilst USA still seems to believe in huge standing armies and being the sole military mega-power - to combat an enemy who no longer exists - if it ever did. UK government has, yet, to come to terms with our reduced influence on the world stage; hence we still posture and waste lives and money sending troops to places we shouldn't).
America used to be the world's biggest market but now it's been overhauled by the EU and India and China are each potentially bigger than either.
This is, of course, is the simplistic view of one Brit and there are doubtless holes in my reasoning but that's what makes life interesting.
We still don't have any real choice in Automobiles as you have. Some of it is our unwillingness to pay the higher prices you have in the UK. If I had to pay what you do for a diesel vehicle I may just keep what I have.I may anyway.
I wouldn't go that far in the comparison. Those other countries invest in diesel because they have to... they're not oil-producing nations like the US. They have higher fuel efficiency than the US. We didn't care a lick until gas spiked to $4 - then we went with our celebrity worship and political correctness. Combined with the 30-year-old unfounded attitude that diesels are still like those Oldsmobile conversions, the Detroit 3 has opted to look elsewhere for fuel and emission efficiency, even though modern diesel can do the job right now.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
Guess the huge tax elements of our road-fuel pricing has played a big part in our conversion to diesel and the rest spins off that. Similar thing to your $4 Gallon, but worse and over a protracted timespan.
As to the NOx question, I think the use of SCR and DEF is here to stay for now.
Daimler is bringing a new diesel to the States in 2010. It is a four cylinder that displaces 2.1 liters, is twin turbocharged, makes 201 HP and 369 ft-lbs of torque. Car and Drive wrote about it recently. The dropped this engine into an older MB 190E that had been originally equipped with a gasser six cylinder. In EU testing, the car yielded 48 MPG. Daimler intends to use this engine in the C class and a few other models.
Of course, I'd be intrigued to see a 100% biodiesel vehicle here. How much of a blend can be used this time of year?
.
As for corn ethanol, that's old news. The shift to bio-waste as a source ethanol production is underway.
.
Bio waste ethanol is still a dream and not viable. Show me where it is being produced for sale. Same as Hydrogen it is a "pie in the sky" solution that drains tax dollars. Show me any ethanol produced in the USA without subsidies and more fossil fuel used than replaced by BTU content.
Diesels that run on 100% biofuel already exist. I have tried as high as B40 in my Jeep Liberty CRD and know of people who run their Jeeps on B100, without any modification or any degradation in FE. IN Hawaii, there is a rental company or taxi company that runs their VW diesels on B100.
So you ask, is there a diesel that will run on B100? They are here and have been here for a number of years.