By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
That's how life goes..... :shades:
Ban all jet airplanes!
Ban all large diesel trucks!
Ban all diesel construction equipment!
Ban all diesel trains!
Allow only clean diesel cars and trucks!
After these measures are immediately implemented, the air will be cleaned up! :surprise: :sick: :confuse: :P
We need economically feasible options....
That's how life goes.....
So, let's discuss the article you posted.....
Since light duty diesel vehicles are currently not sold in the state of New York what is the source of the diesel emissions?
quote-Legislators in New York have acted to ensure that major contributors to soot pollution, including school buses, public transit vehicles, and construction equipment are using modern control technology to reduce their emissions by 85 percent, and legislators in other states are joining them. The North Carolina groups endorse similar policies in North Carolina. -end
I have no objection to cleaning up school buses, public transit vehicles and construction equipment.
My objection is to the irrational action of CARB to prevent the sale of clean diesel vehicles through legislation while continuing to allow major contributors to soot pollution, including school buses, public transit vehicles, and construction equipment. :sick:
CARB is not "in charge of" and neither is tasked with controlling or regulating EVERYTHING related to diesel exhaust from ANY and ALL sources.
The California Air Resources Board is a state agency that is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency. CARB reports directly to the Governor’s Office in the Executive Branch of the California State government. The California Air Resources Board’s mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare and ecological resources through the effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the state.
CARB duties are to set health-based air quality standards, set and enforce emission standards for motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products, conduct research, monitor air quality, identify and set control measures for toxic air contaminants, oversee and assist local air quality districts that regulate many non-vehicular sources of air pollution, produce education programs and materials, and provide compliance assistance for businesses.
Here are some of CARB’s Programs. For a full list go to: www.arb.ca.gov/html/programs.htm
* Air Quality and Transportation Planning: Develops clean air and transportation plans to meet federal and state air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, plus visibility requirements.
* Community Health: This program identifies air pollution’s health effects on children, assesses the public risks in California communities, and reduces these public health risks.
* Consumer Products: Information on CARB’s regulatory activity, both historical and current, for consumer products.
* Mobile Sources: If you are planning to buy a new or recent-model vehicle, check out the Buyer’s Guide to Cleaner Cars. Also includes information on low and zero emission vehicles, the heavy-duty vehicle inspection program, on-board diagnostics, off-road emission reductions, the scrappage program, and the smoking vehicle complaint hot lines throughout California.
* Research Activities: CARB sponsors a comprehensive program of research into the causes, effects, and possible solutions to the air pollution problem in California.
* Clearing California's Skies: CARB also has a video called "Clearing California’s Skies" on its web site that explains the history of fighting pollution in California.
* State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter to develop plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs detail how they will attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB forwards SIP revisions to the U.S. EPA for approval.
They (CARB) can only regulate and suggest action items over what they have control over regulating. This article I posted was in New York mostly, so CARB has no effect there. New York I'm sure has their own clean air board.
The problem with my objection is your lack of information and understanding of CARB and NESCAUM and their relationship.
You posted on NY and then stated CARB has no effect in NY.
NY has adopted CARB emissions limits for diesel passenger vehicles.
However it has been swagged that 60% of the so called Asian imports comes throught the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Gary, your response is similar to the one which generated my answer last time, so here is that response since we are going over old data AGAIN:
Same response insert here
We cannot go back to 1970 and require ULSD.
We cannot (unless you have a fantastic master plan which can bypass the political problems that move might generate ) stop the cargo ships from burning whatever diesel fuel they want to burn.
Right now, the best thing that could happen to the clean air movement in the USA is to immediately require all automakers who sell cars in the USA to build ALL gasoline-powered 6-cylinder and smaller cars as PZEV cars. That is possible and would only cost $300-$500 per vehicle, which the carmakers can pass on to the buyers. That could be done IMMEDIATELY and would clean the air immensely in regard to gasoline exhaust.
Second would be to outlaw all non-ULSD fuel - FORCE anyone who wants to use a diesel powered device use ULSD or park it. That could also be accomplished.
Third would be to force automakers to offer all diesels which are available in other countries to make those cars (including your Ranger truck) available to US buyers.
Those are things we could likely DO instead of just complaining about how things are backwards. You can't magically reverse those things, but we can and SHOULD do some things.
YET
ULSD just became the mandated fuel in October 2006 , my Gosh Man, give it TIME to have an effect !!
Are you trying to say that the lower sulfur makes NO DIFFERENCE in the level of pollution?
Because if that's what you are are saying, then you are completely mistaken.
You want to start a diatribe on the benefits of lowered sulfur in fuel? 'Cause I got my Googlin' Fingers ready my friend..... :shades:
I already started without you:
Reducing sulfur levels to 15 ppm will enable the use of filtering technologies to reduce particulate soot by 90 percent and the use of advanced catalytic and other technologies to reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 95 percent, beginning with the 2007 model year.
When fully implemented, achieving these emission levels will yield the most significant emissions reductions in the U.S. since the elimination of lead from American gasoline. Achieving these emission levels will be environmentally equivalent to removing 13 million (i.e., 90 percent) of today's trucks from American roads.
The point I am making is that steps are being taken, more CAN be done, and the situation WILL get better.
Guaranteed.
Did you not read that using ULSD will be like removing 13 million diesel cars and trucks from the USA roads?
Is that not making the situation better?
You are in effect advocating the most severe restrictions on the product causing the least effect/affect.
And I'm not advocating ULSD - it has already been mandated.
I guess it's my history as a former Marine to not stand around and wring my hands about problems, but actually go DO something about it.... :shades:
But in regards to the very small number for shipping and aero etc etc. your SWAG is extremely way off. Again it has been stated a few times. Just because you ignore it, really does not make it go away.
I have no issue with ULSD. It is actually being used in mine! I have actually wanted it to run (for me anyway) since 2003 and 88,000 miles ago.
Again it was a massive strategic mistake not to have ULSD mandated it in the 1970's when unleaded regular/premium was mandated. The structural mistake is the continued use of higher sulfur 3000/4000 ppm fuel oils. The other massive strategic mistake is to NOT mitigate higher type ppm pollution generators such as 3000/4000 shipping, farm, manufacturing, industry, construction, etc etc. fuel oil.
I'll second that! I enjoy driving 750HP diesel firetrucks with USAF on the sides!
Toyota may be trying reduce the weight of the hybrid drive system and I am sure they will eventually do it but they will need exotic alloys and exotic battery designs to do this neither of which will lessen the cost of the car.
I read an article about putting a lean burn turbocharged engine in the Gen III Prius. Article states that Toyota is doing this so the engine will not need to run so much. Also, the engine displacement for the Gen III is going up to 1.8L. If I recall correctly, lean burn has issues and if not carefully controlled, can lead to very high emissions.
As to diesel engines being porky, the 2.8L in my Jeep Liberty weights 484 pounds. In the early 1980's the 1.8L diesel in my Isuzu weighed 675 pounds. The VW diesels weigh only a few more pounds than their gasolene counterparts. Hybrids have a long way to go.
Still better than putting all those people on the road in cars.
I said "every vehicle with a v-6 and smaller should be PZEV" but I did not intend to kill off V8 and larger engines.
I just have never heard of a V8 being rated PZEV so I'm not sure if it is possible.
Again this is a low profile way for oems to BACK out of the issue I raised and you probably would also agree: that vehicles need to be kept (much) longer than the current auto salvage figures. OEM's want LESS not more.
I currently monitor three cars that are approaching 15 years 1991,1994,1996, 16 years,13,11 years. While CA state says they RANDOMLY select cars in those categories for "smog only testing" it is not reflected in my 100% gotcha or inspection rate: i.e., appears compulsory to me!?
To make a long story short: ALL pass with "like new " smog emissions: ie, total waste of time and money to do the smog only testing. Of course to them literally FREE money while accomplishing nothing of value to the environment to which they claim it is really for.
Economics in the way of true environmental green-ness.
Have I not mentioned that over and over as one of the major problems?
As to your question, "why would they want to do that?" the answer would have to be legislation forcing them to make a certain percentage of their cars PZEV.
Charge $1000 more and you'll still make your profit and have a clean car also.
Most of those cars are never going to see 150K miles or 15 years anyway - so what is the REAL cost to the automakers? Not much really. Drop in the bucket.
Indeed if it passes, the most logical thing TO do is to buy a used vehicle.
EPA Proposes Rule to Cut Diesel Locomotive and Marine Pollution
shows that the EPA isn't completely out of their mind.
Diesel is just another word for nothing left to lose!
Carry on oh brave ones!
I am surprised most folks either ignore or can not or do not see that just going to ULSD would structually remove a HUGE percentage and volume of pollution due to higher/lower ppm. Indeed as we have seen during the recent change over of LSD to ULSD, it was (almost) literally seamless to the consumer. Much of the difficulty was to prevent fraud activity on purity issues, this really points to or is more than apparent, they can be mixed.
Mitigation is of course the next step, which would further drive down the percentage and volume of pollution when using the lower 15 ppm #2 diesel.
Four more diesels!
The agents informed the Wetzels that they were interested in their car, a 1986 Volkswagen Golf, that David Wetzel converted to run primarily from vegetable oil but also partly on diesel.
Wetzel uses recycled vegetable oil, which he picks up weekly from an organization that uses it for frying food at its dining facility.
"They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay a motor fuel tax," David Wetzel recalled. "Mr. May also told me the tax would be retroactive."
Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple, who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and threatened with felony charges.
taxing veggie oii
Of all the hot air rising around this global warming etc etc. The only thing they are dead serious and real about is the revenue.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
A brand new first time squad, unit leader, crew chief knows to CYA 24/7.
These guys/girls get to General Officer positions and act like the three monkeys 1. see 2. hear 3. speak NADA!!?? OH PLEASEEEEEEEE!!!! Actually that is HOW they get to (and how to stay at) General Officer positions!!! I am willing to bet that if you took the media to look at those general officers who so called worked across the street from Walter Reed, the offices they were in are like palaces in comparison.
It is who that controls the budget who is at fault. You can write up civil engineering work orders (which get deferred anyway) till you can paper the walls with the work orders!!! Push too hard and you can wind up stationed in the antarctic circle during the winter without a snorkel parka!! ??
70 MPG!
quote-
VW's central claim for its new baby is an even greener performance than the hybrids.
The Bluemotion is said to emit 102 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.
This is below the Toyota Prius at 104g/km and the Honda Civic hybrid at 109.
end quote-
One practical issue comes up as a consequence in comparison to a like gasser. If one uses the gasser 25 mpg/diesel 49 mpg, VW Jetta over 250,000 miles, 14 gals, the must fill up is 715 times/365 times. This would mean that you would HAVE make HALF as many trips to the fuel station, if you had the diesel (actually 1.95589041 x)
Still pretty good, but not amazingly good.
As far as emmissions, let's see the EPA test before we have cows.
They put a hybrid drivetrain with that and they might have my money.
PS No I looked further into the car and it's too small for my family, even in a diesel/hybrid configuration.
Waiting to see the 94 MPG Prius in two years.