Diesel going up 100%?

[MrGoodwrench]

Originally Posted by Solo_RV_Guy

Mark Twain is attributed with this gem: "There are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."

LOL. I can still recall the very first day of my Statistics class in college.

The professor told us in no uncertain terms that statistics can ALWAYS, ALWAYS be manipulated in some way to show the results that a person expects to see.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by Gary RVRoamer

...Lot's of evidence that various forms of pollution have probably shortened a lifespan, though.

Isn't this just a polite way of saying dying from pollution? What's the difference between dying from something and having a shortened lifespan from it?

Here's a quote I found online while researching this topic:
U.S. Air Pollution Deaths Nearly Halved Over Two Decades. The number of deaths related to air pollution in the United States shrank by 47 percent between 1990 and 2010, dropping from 135,000 per year to 71,000, according to new research published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

So yes, we've made good progress in the recent decades. Apparently there is still lots more work to do.

[followingsea]

Originally Posted by Gary RVRoamer

Coal miners might disagree about dying from air pollution. Some other industries as well. But dying solely from breathing the outside air? Probably not. Lot's of evidence that various forms of pollution have probably shortened a lifespan, though.

Good point Gary. Statistics are very useful tools for improving industrial health and safety.

Now if we could get people to stop smoking, drinking, using drugs, and over eating.

We use statistics to identify levels of toxic substances that result in no harm.

This is very useful information for protecting workers.


So when people claim air pollution below the level of harm is causing harm i can only think they are wrong.

I am currently drinking a beverage with ethanol above the threshold of harm. I enjoy the side effects.

Just today I saw a woman who has the same cardiac condition as my wife had smoking. She did not drop dead.

The way statistics are misused is by not providing a number for risk.

The good news is we have good air quality that is not harming us. The bad news is diesel is more expensive without benefit thanks to the fear mongering industry.

[fagnaml]

After reading through the posts, please allow the Refinery / Chemical Engineer in the group to add some additional thoughts. Anytime something is burned -- gasoline, diesel, wood, charcoal, etc. -- the combustion products are CO (carbon monoxide), CO2, NOx (NO, NO2, etc.), soot (uncombusted carbon) and if sulfur is present in the fuel SOx is produced. Anytime the air we breath, which is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen is exposed to high temperatures (such as the high temperatures associated with burning anything), the nitrogen and oxygen will combine to produce NOx. NOx, in the presence of sun light, reacts with other contaminants in the atmosphere (volatile organic compounds, freon, etc.) to form ozone which is the "brown cloud" that can be seen in many metropolitan areas.


We all have had catalytic converts on our gasoline powered vehicles for many years to reduce CO and some NOx emissions and combust any hydrocarbons that did not burn in the engine. Catalytic converters have no capability to reduce SOx products thus EPA implement the ultra low sulfur gasoline (10 ppm max sulfur content) requirement for all gasoline engines. Additionally, to reduce NOx, SOx and soot emissions from diesel engines, the EPA established requirements for soot filters and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems for diesel engines and implemented ULSD (15 ppm sulfur content) specifications for diesel fuel.


For the Marine Industry, the EPA along with state governments could only required the use of ULSD inside US waters and ports. In international waters, ship owners could burn high sulfur fuels which they did for economic reasons. During the last few years, the International Maritime Organization (IMO, which is an entity under the United Nations, has worked with member countries to establish emissions standards for the marine industry. Ship owners have two choices to meet the new emissions regulations which take effect on 1/1/20 -- 1) fuel ships with low sulfur (0.5% max sulfur content fuel) or install scrubber/SCR systems and continue to burn high sulfur fuel oil (the scrubber system removes SOx and soot while the SCR system removes NOx).


As usual, the "economics" of owning and operating a ship will decide which emissions control option ship owners will use -- burn low sulfur fuel oil or spend capital monies to install scrubber / SCR systems. Initially ship owners will burn low sulfur fuel oil until the global market determines the price difference between low and high sulfur fuel oils. If the price difference is very substantial, ship owners may elect to invest capital monies to install scrubbers and SCRs.


In the end, reducing emissions from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, trains and ships is good for all of us. The Refiner I am pleased to work for is fully supportive of these efforts to reduce emissions from the fuels we provide.

[Jake21]

^^^. Thanks for this post

[RVPioneer]

What’s the topic? Oh yeah, “Diesel going up 100%”

That’s pure misinformation. A fuel tax in one state is doubling from 10 cents to 20 cents. Yes, that is a 100% increase in the tax. It will create approximately a 3% increase in the price of fuel.

Someone put this thread out of its misery.

[followingsea]

Originally Posted by fagnaml

In the end, reducing emissions from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, trains and ships is good for all of us. The Refiner I am pleased to work for is fully supportive of these efforts to reduce emissions from the fuels we provide.

Not true! Here is a case of an engineer in one field thinking he has expertise in another field. When Leading hazard analysts team I would have a chemical engineer to identify possible hazards. There would also be an industrial safety expert providing the safe levels of exposure.

I am trying to keep a complex subject simple. It is the dose that makes the poison. Nitrogen gas is 78% of our atmosphere. Nitrogen gas is also a common industrial gas. Nothing will kill you faster. You are dead before hitting the ground. However, if CPR is administered there is no lasting harm. This was the case for an engineer I worked with. A coworker heard his hard hat hit the ground and saved him.

Some things have no lower threshold of harm. Nuclear radiation for example. One theory says small does are beneficial and another says all exposure is harmful. Neither is proven and mas be both are true. As a radiation worker my exposure is carefully monitored and minimized.

However, many if not all Americans receive high does of radiation for because the medical benefits are huge compared to risk.

The benefits of electricity and transportation fuel are huge. Technology has resulted in the health and environmental risk are insignificant. This was achieved 30 years ago.

It is a clear case of diminishing returns. We no longer heat houses with coal and the cost increase was worth the cleaner house,

So while further reducing emissions does not provide a benefit, the cost is huge.

So if you think making energy more expensive benefits us all, I suggest that you need to get out and visit a place in the world that does not have safe drinking water.

Many of us see the world from the vantage of privileged RV owners. Many years ago I had the good fortune of working for a visionary that I first read about when he was working on an environmental project in Central America. I was looking at using the same technology for some local environmental problems. His team came out west and we started working on the problems.

Later I asked about the project I read about. Our company canceled it because workers could not be protected from drug violence.

So there is still a huge opportunity to apply science and technology to solve environmental problems. It is a matter of applying resources that are diverted in the wrong direction.

[VP Chianese]

Originally Posted by followingsea

Not true! Here is a case of an engineer in one field thinking he has expertise in another field.

Sounds to me like you have described yourself in you very first sentence. Oh you mean everyone else. Sorry.

Some of us do leave our RV and travel the world as well. I have been to several parts of China that after a day my throat was sore and my eyes itched. They still use coal to heat homes in some parts of China. Beijing or Guangzhou and many other cities in China have extreme smog problems. They cleaned up Beijing for the Olympics but that only lasted a few years as the corruption has won out once again. Now they will try again so that they can bid for the games once more.

So yes your methods will help other countries but unless we do more here we will fall back to where we were. Greed will overcome common sense every time. The automobile manufacturers will always bitch that they are being held to too high of standards but none of them would have done what we have now if the bad Government hadn't forced them to comply. We would still have cars getting 10 mpg and polluting the air. Yes the Government asks for what are thought of as unreasonable numbers but so do regional sales mangers ask for unreasonable goals that we some time obtain in spite of ourselves. That's the way it works.

[hillbilly3]

Originally Posted by VP Chianese

Sounds to me like you have described yourself in you very first sentence. Oh you mean everyone else. Sorry.



Some of us do leave our RV and travel the world as well. I have been to several parts of China that after a day my throat was sore and my eyes itched. They still use coal to heat homes in some parts of China. Beijing or Guangzhou and many other cities in China have extreme smog problems. They cleaned up Beijing for the Olympics but that only lasted a few years as the corruption has won out once again. Now they will try again so that they can bid for the games once more.



So yes your methods will help other countries but unless we do more here we will fall back to where we were. Greed will overcome common sense every time. The automobile manufacturers will always bitch that they are being held to too high of standards but none of them would have done what we have now if the bad Government hadn't forced them to comply. We would still have cars getting 10 mpg and polluting the air. Yes the Government asks for what are thought of as unreasonable numbers but so do regional sales mangers ask for unreasonable goals that we some time obtain in spite of ourselves. That's the way it works.

Everybody is for being good stewards of the earth, but thats not the actual goal with a lot of the regulations, follow the money. You could take x amount of money, and clean the air, say 5%, but the regulation says it must clean the air 5.000001 %, but will cost 10 times x. Thats where the rub is. I have installed hundreds of public EV charging stations that virtually nobody uses, especially once they are no longer free to use. The only ones I see used is where the are free to the employees of large corporations as a perk. That defeats the idea that the chargers are only used during off peak hours and would not require more generating capacity. You are correct, greed overcomes common sense, but it's just a different set of people that have the greed.

[followingsea]

Originally Posted by VP Chianese

....I have been to several parts of China ....

My last job was at a nuke plant in China. If I wanted to know the air quality I would go to the local US consulate web page.

There is no technical reason that China could not enjoy the same air quality as the US. It is just a matter of leadership. Leadership is not fixing a problem after others have.

I think China is going in the right direction.

[followingsea]

Originally Posted by hillbilly3

... I have installed hundreds of public EV charging stations that virtually nobody uses, especially once they are no longer free to use.

In some cases there are multiple problems to solve. There was concern 20 years ago about dependence on imported oil.

EV and biofules were experiments to find solutions. I filled up the TOAD with regular today in Oregon. B20 was 50 cents cheaper. #2 diesel was about 20 cents cheaper when I filled the MH in a different city in Oregon two weeks ago.

[eddndee]

Rivian builds electric trucks in America. 400 miles to a battery charge, 750 bhp. Ford just invested $500 million for them to build electric Ford pick-ups. An electric RV? Interesting!