|
|
06-26-2019, 10:47 PM
|
#29
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 2,656
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by grindstone01
Bunker fuel is used in most ships and it is almost like a crude oil consistency and it pollutes some very harmful toxins. The Great lakes have passed regulations to require ships to install air scrubbers on them and outlaw the use of bunker fuel. Ocean ships still can switch over to burn bunker fuel on the open seas with no consequences. Keep in mind, these ships run their engines 24/7.
|
I am wondering when the last time you operated a marine propulsion unit?
Last time I operated a marine boiler was was 1971 in the USN.
I did run my gas engine yesterday on my sail boat. So I suppose you could get your telephoto lens and catch that puff of smoke and water vapor at my scrubbed exhaust. Then you could talk about toxins.
That is if your job was misleading the public by fear mongering.
Yes combustion produces toxins. So does cooking food. After running my boat engine I grilled burgers. After consuming all those PAH I am still alive to write about.
The point is there is no problem. Government issued regulations is not how you measure a problem.
You measure the toxins in the air or water and compare them to a threshold of harm. When the measured air quality is below the threshold of harm with a safety margin we call the air quality 'good'.
My ship in 1971 was home ported in Long Beach. Air quality was very bad. I was there earlier this year and the air quality was very good.
It cost me a lot on money to run low sulfur diesel but I am spared the cost of DEF.
So clearly there was a time when we needed engineering solution to improve air quality.
While I would like to say that we live in a rich country and can afford unnecessary regulations. However every time the cost of energy go up jobs go to places like China without the pollution controls.
__________________
Kit & Rita (in memory)
37 foot ‘98 HolidayRambler Endeavor diesel pusher
|
|
|
|
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
06-27-2019, 06:27 AM
|
#30
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,078
|
Last night showed how many uninformed people there are in this country
Fuel and energy should evolve outside government control
Less taxes not more benefits everyone, not just the deep state
RV'S are probably the least potential problem the US faces for energy sources and use
Wake up Americans
I know away goes my post
|
|
|
06-27-2019, 08:00 AM
|
#31
|
Senior Member
Tiffin Owners Club
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
Posts: 2,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by followingsea
Do you have a references for that?
It is called brainwashing. I watched a video of grade school children in San Francisco taking about dirty coal fired power plants.
There are no coal fired power plants in California so why are grade school children talking about them?
I used to sail in SF Bay. Marine diesel is not terrible polluting.
I am old enough to remember when pollution was a problem in North America. Based on measurement air quality it has not been a problem in 30 years.
So if you buying DEF for your diesel pusher you have to ask why?
There are many expensive engineering solutions looking for a problem.
|
First, a reference to the pollution. There are dozens in a quick google search, but here is one from The Economist (not a liberal source) emphasizing the cost impacts. It is behind a soft paywall, but the main points are visible without signing up. https://www.economist.com/finance-an...or-dirty-ships
Second, the diesel in your personal vessel is not the same fuel the container ships use. Indicated in the article.
Third, how on earth do you think the pollution has improved over the last 30 years? It was because of mandating greener fuels, better gas mileage, and things like DEF. I recently lived in a high pollution area, Salt Lake City. There were numerous red air quality days the year I left, and it is a major reason I left Utah.
|
|
|
06-27-2019, 08:30 AM
|
#32
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,920
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTTransplant
Third, how on earth do you think the pollution has improved over the last 30 years? It was because of mandating greener fuels, better gas mileage, and things like DEF. I recently lived in a high pollution area, Salt Lake City. There were numerous red air quality days the year I left, and it is a major reason I left Utah.
|
^^^ This.
I grew up in SoCal with air pollution so bad we couldn't have P.E. outside (or even see the other end of the school track oval).
Since that time the number of vehicles, people, homes, etc have significantly grown in Southern California (almost double the number of vehicle miles) but pollution has gone down. How did that happen? Lower emission standards.
Without those, the Los Angeles basin air would look like the pictures we've seen from China.
And as to topicality... I'd suggest that this thread regarding marine fuel regulations is not significantly topical to RV use. The impact of these changes on the price of #2 diesel in the USA is likely to be minimal.
For those who can't let go of this I suggest using the link in an up-thread post to read the previous excursion into stuff that will only minimally affect a small portion of RV owners.
As to what anyone thinks of the candidate debate, that's likely political discussion if voiced here and does not add anything to *this* discussion.
__________________
2005 Four Winds Majestic 23A
“To the world you may be one person; but to one person you may be the world.” - Dr Suess
|
|
|
06-27-2019, 03:35 PM
|
#33
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 2,656
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTTransplant
...
Third, how on earth do you think the pollution has improved over the last 30 years? ....
|
First of all I now how we cleaned up the air.
Your time line is wrong. By 30 years ago the task of cleaning up the air was pretty much done.
Did we declare victory have a marching band and eat cake? No the fear mongers invented new theories about the PM 2.5 and global warming. Thirty years latter those theories have yet to be validated.
As far as references go, let me tell a story. In 2006 I started a new job with my company designing new nuclear reactors. Working next to me was a new hire with a masters degree in nuclear engineering fresh from one of our leading propaganda mills of higher education.
He was shocked to find out I was not a global warning 'believer'. He emailed my 35 links to things like USA today and came over to gloat. I asked him how many times he referenced USA Today in his master thesis. Then I opened the cabinet door that contained by text books including those when working on my masters in environmental engineering.
I have used google to search for references to support engineering work. It is a lot faster than digging through micro fiche. Linking something on the internet is not the same as having a reference.
When I joined the navy in 1970 nuclear was a growth field. If you believed the Clinton Administration nuclear was dead. Environmental studies was a growth area but by the mid 90 the field was saturated with eager students who did not recognize that most of the problems had been fixed.
By the early 70s it had become clear that we needed better ways of protecting people and the environment. We got the EPA and OSHA for example.
Many beneficial products got banned because of junk science excluded regulation that would have controlled there use. For example PCB oil use in electrical transformers. No it is not cooking oil.
One example of a problem is lead in the environment. The CDC studies by random testing of children. Not using lead in gasoline and paint has resulted in a steady decrease. A CDC study could be referenced to justify new regulation or not needed new regulations.
Another source of information is EPA air sampling. Notice the poster who complained about Salt Lake did not reference it.
The EPA predicts bad air quality like like the NWS predicts thunderstorms. does not mean it actually happened. My wife was in the sensitive population for bad air days. She sheltered in place. In other words on a hot summer day I made sure she had air conditioning. The cause was 100% wildfires and 0% diesel exhaust.
One posters justifies a very expensive solution that affects all American because where he lived did or did not have a local problem. I suspect there was no problem because there is an easy solution.
Ban non essential driving and require carpooling. Air quality fixed, traffic congestion fixed.
The sad part is my solution sounds absurd. How dare I suggest that the people responsible for a problem actually take responsibility for solving using proven methods that are only slightly inconvenient and cost effective.
In summary, low sulfur diesel is a very expensive solution to a non problem.
I do understand the motivation. Between sailing and RVing I have enjoyed our beautiful environment. I have spent as little time as possible in big cities. Enough time to understand that if all you know is a concrete cesspool then you think the environment is in trouble.
It is fine.
__________________
Kit & Rita (in memory)
37 foot ‘98 HolidayRambler Endeavor diesel pusher
|
|
|
06-28-2019, 08:35 AM
|
#34
|
Senior Member
Thor Owners Club Newmar Owners Club Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: FL
Posts: 1,286
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by followingsea
First of all I now how we cleaned up the air.
Your time line is wrong. By 30 years ago the task of cleaning up the air was pretty much done.
Did we declare victory have a marching band and eat cake? No the fear mongers invented new theories about the PM 2.5 and global warming. Thirty years latter those theories have yet to be validated.
As far as references go, let me tell a story. In 2006 I started a new job with my company designing new nuclear reactors. Working next to me was a new hire with a masters degree in nuclear engineering fresh from one of our leading propaganda mills of higher education.
He was shocked to find out I was not a global warning 'believer'. He emailed my 35 links to things like USA today and came over to gloat. I asked him how many times he referenced USA Today in his master thesis. Then I opened the cabinet door that contained by text books including those when working on my masters in environmental engineering.
I have used google to search for references to support engineering work. It is a lot faster than digging through micro fiche. Linking something on the internet is not the same as having a reference.
When I joined the navy in 1970 nuclear was a growth field. If you believed the Clinton Administration nuclear was dead. Environmental studies was a growth area but by the mid 90 the field was saturated with eager students who did not recognize that most of the problems had been fixed.
By the early 70s it had become clear that we needed better ways of protecting people and the environment. We got the EPA and OSHA for example.
Many beneficial products got banned because of junk science excluded regulation that would have controlled there use. For example PCB oil use in electrical transformers. No it is not cooking oil.
One example of a problem is lead in the environment. The CDC studies by random testing of children. Not using lead in gasoline and paint has resulted in a steady decrease. A CDC study could be referenced to justify new regulation or not needed new regulations.
Another source of information is EPA air sampling. Notice the poster who complained about Salt Lake did not reference it.
The EPA predicts bad air quality like like the NWS predicts thunderstorms. does not mean it actually happened. My wife was in the sensitive population for bad air days. She sheltered in place. In other words on a hot summer day I made sure she had air conditioning. The cause was 100% wildfires and 0% diesel exhaust.
One posters justifies a very expensive solution that affects all American because where he lived did or did not have a local problem. I suspect there was no problem because there is an easy solution.
Ban non essential driving and require carpooling. Air quality fixed, traffic congestion fixed.
The sad part is my solution sounds absurd. How dare I suggest that the people responsible for a problem actually take responsibility for solving using proven methods that are only slightly inconvenient and cost effective.
In summary, low sulfur diesel is a very expensive solution to a non problem.
I do understand the motivation. Between sailing and RVing I have enjoyed our beautiful environment. I have spent as little time as possible in big cities. Enough time to understand that if all you know is a concrete cesspool then you think the environment is in trouble.
It is fine.
|
"Ban non essential driving and require carpooling. Air quality fixed, traffic congestion fixed."
Thinking that car pools, buses and light rail will cure the emissions and smog problem is just living in La La Land. Speaking of which have you been to LA or San Francisco or Atlanta or Dallas or Houston, Miami, Raleigh or any city of any size within the last ten years? They all have Rapid Transit of some kind, Bus Lanes, Car Pool Lanes and bumper to bumper traffic everyday. Yet the Emissions within those cities has decreased. To think that the Emissions Rules have not helped the air quality is unbelievable.
It really doesn't make any difference as to what methods the EPA rates the air quality. The facts are they do and the facts are it is better than before 1970 in many large cities in the US.
I also thought Nuclear Power was going to be the where all to many things. But that has not come to pass. 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and 2 incidents at Tokaimura (97 & 99) and Fukushima in 2011 have kind of put the brakes on that.
Wind and Solar are both free and as the engineering catches up safer and capable of doing the job. In South Florida we have four plants on line. One is in St. Lucie County near our winter home. Here is a direct quote from FPL where we have the "The solar plant in St. Lucie County contains 300,000 solar panels and is able to power 15,000 homes without creating any greenhouse gas emissions." Our rate is 12th lowest in the US and five or six of the ones lower are just pennies lower per kwh so no real difference.
__________________
Vinny, Sandy, JD (10.01.13 - 06.20.20) and our present Portuguese Water Dog "Viking"
2016 Dutch Star 4018 Newmar #605899
|
|
|
06-28-2019, 11:58 AM
|
#35
|
Senior Member
Newmar Owners Club
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 841
|
Let the Refinery in the group opine. I don't know the source of Reuters' information but the Energy Information Association (EIA's) most recent price forecast (6/11/19) shows ULSD price increasing 15-20 cents per gallon in 2020 due to the new lower sulfur content specification for marine fuel oil --> https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/ma...etproducts.php The price increase is due to marine fuel oil providers purchasing ULSD to blend with current high sulfur fuel oil to produce the new low sulfur marine fuel oil.
For those that enjoy cruise ships, you will notice a visible change due to the use of lower sulfur content marine fuel oil. Today, cruise ships burn fuel oil with a 3 weight % sulfur content. When "out to sea", the exhaust from the engines produces a blue-gray color "plume" as the sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the exhaust mixes with moisture in the air to form sulfurous acid (H2SO3) which then cools (condenses) to form into small sulfurous acid droplets which physically appears as a blue-gray color exhaust "cloud".
If you've ever observed the engine exhaust stacks as a cruise ship enters a port the blue-gray exhaust cloud is gone because all ports in the U.S. and many international ports required cruise ships (other ships) to burn ULSD.
When the new low sulfur (0.5 weight %) specification for marine fuel oil goes into effect on 1/1/20, your favorite cruise ship will no longer produce a blue-gray exhaust plume while "out to sea" as the SO2 amount in the engine exhaust will be greatly reduced. The cost for the new 0.5% sulfur marine fuel oil is expected to be 1.5 times the cost of today's 3% sulfur fuel oil. That higher fuel oil cost will be passed on to cruise ship customers.
Hope this info helps!
__________________
Mike & Cindy in Katy, TX
2016 Newmar Ventana LE 4037
2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara
|
|
|
06-28-2019, 12:06 PM
|
#36
|
Senior Member
Winnebago Owners Club Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,718
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwmcguire
Last night showed how many uninformed people there are in this country
Fuel and energy should evolve outside government control
Less taxes not more benefits everyone, not just the deep state
RV'S are probably the least potential problem the US faces for energy sources and use
Wake up Americans
I know away goes my post
|
Evidently the moderators agree that your post is ok, even though you admit it isnt. I reported your post as "political" yesterday, and the response I got was "we will take a look at it". Evidently they did and deemed it not political. Looks like they are giving you the green light for more of your "non-political" posts.
__________________
Paul J Stough Iowa
2005 Winnebago Voyage 38J
|
|
|
06-28-2019, 01:30 PM
|
#37
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,183
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDGoose
Has not for years. I am the fellow that looks at what makes up the statistics folks and agencies quote. Most of the time I have found the stats are selected to produce desired results.
|
I agree 100 %
|
|
|
06-28-2019, 01:39 PM
|
#38
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,183
|
And I always have some
XOM stock .
|
|
|
06-28-2019, 01:45 PM
|
#39
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 942
|
I love it when city dwellers and those who live in densely populated areas tell folk in rural areas how to live.
__________________
2020 Ram 3500 Tradesman HO Diesel Aisen CC LWB Dually
2008 Cherokee WolfPack 295WP
|
|
|
06-28-2019, 01:45 PM
|
#40
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,984
|
If diesel goes up 100% (it won't), it would still be under $6/gallon around here. If that is catastrophic for your RV life, you probably should reconsider your choices.
Government regulations and taxes are more likely to get prices that high than bunker oil demand...
__________________
'04 Newmar Mountain Aire 4016
400ISL/Freightliner
|
|
|
06-28-2019, 05:45 PM
|
#41
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,296
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fagnaml
Let the Refinery in the group opine. I don't know the source of Reuters' information but the Energy Information Association (EIA's) most recent price forecast (6/11/19) shows ULSD price increasing 15-20 cents per gallon in 2020 due to the new lower sulfur content specification for marine fuel oil --> https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/ma...etproducts.php The price increase is due to marine fuel oil providers purchasing ULSD to blend with current high sulfur fuel oil to produce the new low sulfur marine fuel oil.
For those that enjoy cruise ships, you will notice a visible change due to the use of lower sulfur content marine fuel oil. Today, cruise ships burn fuel oil with a 3 weight % sulfur content. When "out to sea", the exhaust from the engines produces a blue-gray color "plume" as the sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the exhaust mixes with moisture in the air to form sulfurous acid (H2SO3) which then cools (condenses) to form into small sulfurous acid droplets which physically appears as a blue-gray color exhaust "cloud".
If you've ever observed the engine exhaust stacks as a cruise ship enters a port the blue-gray exhaust cloud is gone because all ports in the U.S. and many international ports required cruise ships (other ships) to burn ULSD.
When the new low sulfur (0.5 weight %) specification for marine fuel oil goes into effect on 1/1/20, your favorite cruise ship will no longer produce a blue-gray exhaust plume while "out to sea" as the SO2 amount in the engine exhaust will be greatly reduced. The cost for the new 0.5% sulfur marine fuel oil is expected to be 1.5 times the cost of today's 3% sulfur fuel oil. That higher fuel oil cost will be passed on to cruise ship customers.
Hope this info helps!
|
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
06-28-2019, 10:17 PM
|
#42
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,812
|
Retired 6 years ago and have bought several motorhomes, have $50000 more in my retirement account than I had then, hope things don't change.
__________________
Foretravel tag axle 40 ft. 500 hp/1550 ft/lbs ism 1455 watts on the roof. 600 a/h's lithium down below.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|