Skip to comments.
EPA Cuts Off-Road Diesel Emissions by 90%
Engineering News Record ^
| 5-11-04 issue
| Tudor Hampton
Posted on 05/13/2004 2:55:12 PM PDT by snopercod
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
To: snopercod
will cost producers and consumers about $2 billion annually. But the agency says the enormous benefits will prevent thousands of premature deaths, including an estimated total of $805 billion in public-health costs over the next 30 years.IF that is the case, eeexcellent. So now prove it. Studies, scientific data?
I don't believe the ravings of an EPA houseplant.
21
posted on
05/13/2004 5:10:35 PM PDT
by
muleskinner
(Oh, when the Krauts go marching in....)
To: .38sw
Sorry, no generators for you.
22
posted on
05/13/2004 5:12:14 PM PDT
by
snopercod
(I used to be disgusted. Then I became amused. Now I'm disgusted again.)
To: dufekin
Would you mind telling me specifically what "pollution" you are concerned about.
23
posted on
05/13/2004 5:13:54 PM PDT
by
snopercod
(I used to be disgusted. Then I became amused. Now I'm disgusted again.)
To: snopercod
24
posted on
05/13/2004 5:14:51 PM PDT
by
.38sw
To: !1776!
No fights here. We are all trying to arrive at the truth, right?
The "science" upon which the EPA rules on diesel emissions are based have proven to be false.
Does that concern you?
IOW, do you think that the government should have to have some logic behind forcing individuals and companies to change what they are doing, or do you think that it's OK for America to be a fascist state with the government controlling industry?
25
posted on
05/13/2004 5:19:21 PM PDT
by
snopercod
(I used to be disgusted. Then I became amused. Now I'm disgusted again.)
To: Cicero
The air will be real pleasant in NYC (and the real world, too) when AlGore's dream of a world without internal combustion engines comes true.
But you must remember, the environMENTALists have repeatedly proved that they could care less about the environment; All they want is power over YOU.
26
posted on
05/13/2004 5:23:02 PM PDT
by
snopercod
(I used to be disgusted. Then I became amused. Now I'm disgusted again.)
To: !1776!
I didn't look at the web site...As your friend, I advise you to reconsider. Mark's ideas as described in his book are the way of the future.
27
posted on
05/13/2004 5:25:34 PM PDT
by
snopercod
(I used to be disgusted. Then I became amused. Now I'm disgusted again.)
To: snopercod
No fights here. We are all trying to arrive at the truth, right? I hope so, or else I'm in the wrong place...
The "science" upon which the EPA rules on diesel emissions are based have proven to be false.
While I am certainly willing to entertain that idea, you must understand that I can not simply assume that "science" is wrong based on your statement. If you have specific examples I would be more than happy to discuss them further. You never know - I might be able to back your assertion up.
Does that concern you?
Not yet, but you have an opportunity to change my mind.
IOW, do you think that the government should have to have some logic behind forcing individuals and companies to change what they are doing,
Yes, I do. I would like to discuss the details of you assertions further however. I assume that you have some logic behind your assertation that would be much more useful in this discussion than generalizations. or do you think that it's OK for America to be a fascist state with the government controlling industry?
Nope. I do think however that responsibility is the key to conservatism.
28
posted on
05/13/2004 5:26:21 PM PDT
by
!1776!
To: snopercod
Then those environmentalists need to be replaced by sensible ones.
I can remember when the Audubon society was run by suburban Republican ladies. And the Sierra Club was concerned about preserving nature, not aborting babies. The correct solution is to take back control of environmental matters from the leftists and do it responsibly and rationally.
29
posted on
05/13/2004 5:38:52 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: dufekin
To: snopercod
The main air pollution problems of concern today are (tropospheric) ozone and particulates (soot and dust). Ozone is one of the major hazardous components of photochemical smog. As a secondary pollutant, ozone is not emitted directly from sources; rather, it forms in chemical reactions between various pollutants and non-pollutants in the atmosphere under certain conditions. Therefore, ozone is not easy to control because we must control the myriad source chemicals. And the chemistry isn't simple; cutting some precursor pollutants (e.g. nitrates) can enhance ozone production before reducing it. In addition, the demise of the chestnut tree and the changing composition and extent of American forests has changed the biogenic emissions profile of volatile organic compounds.
Sulfurous smog is also of concern and can be fatal, especially in some of the concentrations commonplace in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and in the developing world. It rarely presents an issue in America today.
31
posted on
05/13/2004 5:54:24 PM PDT
by
dufekin
(John F. Kerry. Irrational, improvident, backward, seditious.)
To: !1776!
Projected costs 4 cents means actual costs are at least a dime.
Even then, I think it seems like a pretty good idea.
32
posted on
05/13/2004 5:58:08 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
To: !1776!
33
posted on
05/13/2004 5:58:37 PM PDT
by
snopercod
(I used to be disgusted. Then I became amused. Now I'm disgusted again.)
To: snopercod
Why didn't the article mention farm tractors? Interesting. I believe CA is again ahead of the game. They have already gone after the tractors.
34
posted on
05/13/2004 5:58:46 PM PDT
by
farmfriend
( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
To: snopercod; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
35
posted on
05/13/2004 5:59:23 PM PDT
by
farmfriend
( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
To: dufekin
I live near the Blue Ridge parkway in WNC. As they have for millenia, the trees here emit terpenes and monoprenes, which combine with NO
x and sunlight to make ozone in the spring and especially the summer months.
The local politicians, of course, blame the haze on industry (even though we no longer have any) and George W. Bush.
36
posted on
05/13/2004 6:03:28 PM PDT
by
snopercod
(I used to be disgusted. Then I became amused. Now I'm disgusted again.)
To: Carry_Okie
I have an online magazine and forum planned by which to validate findings by repeated experiments...Give me a PING when you get it up and running.
37
posted on
05/13/2004 6:33:05 PM PDT
by
uglybiker
(I misspell ekxentric on purpose just to be different)
To: !1776!
"This rule will simply add costs to food production, and the consumer will pay those costs."
In the 50s or 60s when wheat was about $2/bushel, it was determined that there was about $0.04 worth of wheat in a loaf of bread. Don't know right off what wheat is today, but its cost versus the cost of the bread is insignificant. Also there is no way a farmer can pass along an increase in the cost of production. He sells his product at the market price on which an individual producer has no influence.
To: farmfriend
The ultimate solution is to go back to mules and horses, of course they will have to be feed a special food to insure they don't fart while pulling a plow. Already the green house gasses are rising due to cow farts.
39
posted on
05/13/2004 6:37:15 PM PDT
by
U S Army EOD
(John Kerry, the mother of all flip floppers.)
To: Cicero
As a long time designer of electronic Diesel engine controllers, I can tell you that the reduction in emissions from Diesels during the 70's and early 80's has been phenomenal.
You will NEVER see black smoke from the stack of a properly running modern Diesel engine.
The problem now is that to get to Tier 4 emissions levels will take exotic technology that translates into big $$$ for the consumer.
The real agenda here is to kill the Diesel engine in North America.
If you actually look at pollution per MILE driven, Diesels are probably the most cost efficient, cleanest engines currently available.
That's why Europe is making so many of it's on road vehicles with Diesel engines.
40
posted on
05/13/2004 6:39:39 PM PDT
by
EEDUDE
(Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson