Posted on 05/13/2004 2:55:12 PM PDT by snopercod
On May 11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unleashed a new clean-air rule that further cuts diesel emissions from off-road vehicles, generators, locomotives and marine vessels. The new “Tier 4” mandate is EPA’s fourth step since introducing off-road standards in 1996, and it lowers such pollution by 90% (ENR 6/23/03 p. 13).
The rule varies across engine sizes, but most producers will reduce nitrogen-oxide levels in new engines to 0.3 grams per brake-horsepower-hour and particulates to 0.01 g/bhp-hr by 2014. Under the new rule, EPA is not requiring pollution controls on existing machines in the field.
Off-road fuel also is discussed. Refiners will need to lower previously-unregulated sulfur content in off-road fuel to 500 ppm by 2007, and again to 15 ppm by 2010. Industry observers say this sulfur requirement is feasible, but it will require capital investment, including control-equipment retrofits, on some existing plants.
According to EPA, the entire move, which helps to align air-quality standards for on-road and off-road machinery, 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.
I like your tag line.
True statement.
The miniscule amount of sulfur in diesel fuel provides the primary lubricant for all those dellicate pump and injector surfaces.
Of course, the enviro-nazis couldn't be less interested in that.
The end result will be the cost of diesel (along with other fuels) will be over $10/gallon (when you can get it at all) and business as we know it will be severely cramped.
Again, the enviro-nazis couldn't be less interested in that. It just ties in with their long-range program in the first place.
I'll take your word for it. If so, then Bush needs to clean out the EPA and staff it with sensible people.
I don't disagree and while we debate the impacts of that single dime, our attention is shifted from the 4-5 dimes that are already there in terms of taxes...
Plus the companies that refine the fuel get taxed...
Plus the car I put it in gets taxed...
Plus the garage I keep that car in gets taxed...
Plus the wages of everyone involved gets taxed...
A person can't have too many.
Thanks for the link - I vaguely remember that discussion when it surfaced, though the details are missing from at least my mind. One thing to note in that article is that the focus appears to be on particulate matter less than 10 microns in size. The rule at the center of our discussion is more focused on particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (which is also the basis of the EPA's most recent revisions to the particulate matter health standards - not to mention ozone, but that is a standard EPA head fake in my opinion).
Apparently, and I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, the smaller particulate has an increased effect on health since it can be respired more deeply, and more easily become lodged in the lungs.
That aside, the thing that impresses me the most about this rule is actually found from the effected businesses perspective:
National Petrochemical & Refiners Associaiton:
“NPRA worked closely with EPA and all stakeholders as it finalized the non-road diesel rule. Although the rule is stringent and costly, we support its major aspects. We appreciate EPA’s cooperative approach in developing the two-step program and the designate and track compliance program. These will provide the U.S. refining industry much needed flexibility, especially coming on the heels of the implementation of the demanding highway diesel sulfur rule effective in 2006. We remain concerned, however, that this rule and its additional expenditures will place further burdens on the already strained supply situation. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to handle any downstream implementation issues that may arise in an attempt to minimize any adverse impacts on total supply.
Even the environmentalists are, for once, at least partially at a loss for words...
“It’s remarkable that these strong rules come from the same administration that has otherwise turned back the clock on 30 years of environmental progress,” said Emily Figdor of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a grass-roots environmental advocacy group.
Though they can't handle it without getting a jab in there...
My opinion, which ain't worth much, is that this is one of those no-brainer issues. Small particulate matter has a health effect, a software glith may change the numbers a bit, but the case is pretty strong. Improvements can be made effectively, efficiently, and responsibly by working hand in hand with the business affected, which it appears is how this worked. Excitement on the part of the regulatees, probably not (who would), but there doesn't seem to be much of a fight at hand which, to me, implies that it is a workable solution to a real problem.
It may have crappy parts, but overall it must have merit or else there would be litigation already (or soon to) be on file - and the businesses most affected don't seem to be posturing that way.
In general, I think conservatives need to stand by responsibility in all aspects, even environmental. I know it is hard, "environmentalism" has played conservatives like a violin for so long, that they own the discussion - and it is costing everyone, not only in wasted money and resources for nonsense programs, but also in not establishing responsible solutions where necessary.
Remove the environuts from the equation, sit down with those that will be footing the bill come up with real workable solutions. The current EPA head calls his appoach enlibra (worth looking up). It appears this rule was polished that way. I'll bet that with the businesses buy-off the cost will be less and the results will be greater than the old command and control system.
Once command and control, which punished responsiiblity with fines and beauracracy, is replaced with free market incentives and genuine responsibility, environmentalism will finally get its seat at the table of irrelevance while real conservation efforts fix the problems.
My thoughts...
If you want a real treat, know that that "haze" is the subject of completely seperate federal regulations. In theory, that natural "haze" gets to stay (i.e., no need to cut down the trees) but all manmade haze must be eliminated under current federal regulations by 2064.
All. No exceptions.
In essence, it is a regulation to clean the air in the most pristine places in the nation. Granted, there is value to those places and the views, but the goal is to eliminate all manmade visibility problems. Period. Not health issues, visibility.
Either I have exceptional vision or there is a serious glut of improperly running diesel engines around here. The black puff on take off is standard, on high power needs (uphill in town) many times continuous.
I don't disagree with your assertion that improvements have been made. I also agree that Tier 4 will cost. Big, concerning cost, is open for debate in my humble opinion.
As for Europes standards - I'd rather rely on our home grown electronic Diesel engine controller designers ingenuity than their socialist systems. I would also be interested in knowing what their fuel sulfur requirements are (since it is at the heart of the matter).
Diesel engines are inherently more efficient that standard gasoline powered engines. For some reason that hasn't caught on in the US at the passenger vehicle level.
But I trust that you and your colleagues can make this workable. Did you hear about the diesel "bypass" systems - turn it on during testing to get low emission rating, turn it off otherwise?
I'd be interested to know more background on that if you have an info.
That must be why the National Petroluem and Refiners Association appears to at least generally be on board with these regs. At $10/gallon, those evil oil companies stand to make gazzillions...
I'll bet this is all Cheney's doing, so Halliburton can boost profits and make him and all of his oil fiend buddies super rich.
Okay, maybe there is a little sarcasm in there.
I hope you're being sarcastic. The refiners have to spend exponentially more for every incremental amount of sulfur removed from their product until at the asymptotic "zero" point they wouldn't have any product left to sell at all.
The Klaus process would be multiplied until most of the product was used up in running it.
Isn't it interesting how the heavy-handed gubmint can impose strict numbers on the manufacturers, like "...reduce nitrogen-oxide levels in new engines to 0.3 grams per brake-horsepower-hour and particulates to 0.01 g/bhp-hr by 2014." but only say "enormous" benefits will result.
We should make the gubmint either quantify their "enormous benefits" or get the hell out of the manufacturers' hair.
The combustion process that an engine uses is defined by nature. There is very little that can be done to change NOx emissions. You run the process hot and efficient, you get oxides of nitrogen, you run the process cool and wasteful, you get less oxides of nitrogen.
Pick your operating point, but tell the gubmint to go do something useful like legislate when the leaves fall off the trees!
BTTT!!!!!!
I passed through the lower San Joaquin valley from Maricopa to Arvin a couple of months back. I was surprised to see the area more hazy than LA on a bad smog day.
I'm not sure why, but it seems like they really do have an air-quality problem in Kalifornia farm country. (I really doubt that it was due to emissions from tractors.)
Carry, as usual, has some interesting ideas on that. I'd be a heck of a lot smarter if I had half his brains.
Take a look at their website to see their comments. I cut and pasted a chunk in an earlier post also...
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.