A twist on Dieselgate aka The VW disaster.

[mwilson]

I will PM you.

 

[Wayne M.]

I can't give you figures but I order endless DPF's, SCR's, Sensors, Harnesses, DEF pumps, etc.....when these puppies are out of warranty a common man will not be able to afford the upkeep. That applies to ALL makes of engines and trucks.....Then toss some road chemicals into the mix........one green terminal somewhere can cost thousands of dollars to find.

We (The USA) are doing our part but at a very high cost.

It's a fact that in the DEF pump/ dosing unit Volvo/Mack uses, there's a known creep of green that travels through the connector and into the harness. Planned obsolescence. Cracking/ breached DPF's are a normal fact of life.

 

[Motorhead]

Just wait..... If Hiliary gets in, the VW diesel issue will be the least of our issues! I got the two $500 cards from VW One was a spend anywhere and the other was a spend at the dealer parts and or service. The VW dealer is also a Ford dealer. I bought $494.00 worth of high quality 15/40 oil for my Dodge. The cards expire January of 2017. Use them or loose them.

 

[BigPapa]

View attachment 97187
That's a recent picture btw. The US is one of the very few places on earth that doesn't have unhealthy levels of smog. They didn't get there by doing nothing.

Looks just like that in the hollows around me on a foggy morning.

 

[JR]

Looks just like that in the hollows around me on a foggy morning.

LOL, we had some good fog (not smog) here the other morning too. Didn't lift until almost noon.

No doubt EVs/hybrids aren't the end all solution. Battery production is a "dirty" process and one that doesn't happen state side. I do know they've made alot of progress in reman battery packs so most are repurposed unless something catastrophic happened. I am acquaintances with the owner of a local salvage yard, the few that he gets in he gets good money for. Sends em to Ca on the companies dime. I do believe once the tech comes around it will be a viable alternative and will need little if any subsidies to survive. Remember, big corporate swoons like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell get billions in subsidies every single year. What Musk gets is peanuts in comparison.

Another thing that needs to be noted, VW is ordered to fund the "infrastructure, access and education to support and advance zero emission vehicles." (Copied from the EPA website). VW has been in the EV game for several years and their R&D program has already been accepted as a viable investment. So most of their fines will go towards the advancement of their own tech.

 

[JR]

Hey Scott, remember the atc 250r? I had one, that thing almost killed me a few times. Being 16 and invincible didn't help....:-laf it was a ball of fun. Ended up wadding it up into a tree and destroyed the frame. The motor went into a trx I bought on the cheap with a blown engine. Those were some fun times. Now I'm on a Renegade 800xxc. If I had this bike 20 years ago I probly wouldn't be here. It's a serious hill climbing machine.

 

[jhenderson]

You're confusing tax breaks with subsidies. A tax break means the Govt confiscates less of my money. A subsidy means they give me cash. In order to get a tax break you need a profit. Tesla gets subsidies to pay the bills. Big difference.

 

[JR]

You're confusing tax breaks with subsidies.

Not likely.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/

Look, I love my oil burners as much as the next guy if not more. Lord knows I have more than most. But let's not get confused where the money is really going. Think the fracking boom just happened on its own? It certainly did not.

 

[cojhl2]

I have a question: Are the emmissions measured per total exhaust output volume, per time, or per mile??

 

[Wayne M.]

I have a question: Are the emmissions measured per total exhaust output volume, per time, or per mile??

The units I've seen are volume like PPM (parts per million) or percent, or over distance like grams per mile.

 

[jhenderson]

C

Not likely.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/

Look, I love my oil burners as much as the next guy if not more. Lord knows I have more than most. But let's not get confused where the money is really going. Think the fracking boom just happened on its own? It certainly did not.

When and if you go to your link, then continue on to the database, surprise, surprise, surprise! The USA is conspicuously absent from the list of countries that subsidies the industry. I'll stand by my statement.

 

[JR]

The point is the industry has been heavily subsidized since the beginning. The US has been leading the way in reducing fossil fuel subsidies but only because they are directing that money toward renewables. At one time we were one of the highest subsidized countries in the world to artificially lower oil prices. As infrastructure and drilling tech improved the need has become less and less.

"A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[32] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Yes I realize big oil (and small oil, IE percentage depletion allowances) gets alot of tax breaks but to say there is NO subsidizing is incorrect.

And more on my fracking comment


The increase in shale oil and gas production in the United States follows many years of investment and research carried out by the federal government. Between 1978 and 1992, DOE invested about $137 million in the Eastern Gas Shale Program, which helped demonstrate and commercialize many of the technologies in use today.

http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/shale-gas-rd

If you read the article there are several mentions of money invested, projects funded, etc. These were not tax breaks. They were handouts. 137 million dollars was was a sizable investment for the time and is no different than what is being handed over to fund both renewable and "green" energies. Same game, just different players.

 

[cojhl2]

The units I've seen are volume like PPM (parts per million) or percent, or over distance like grams per mile.

But Wayne there is a big difference, if the miles moved per some PPM output is great the effect overall of the environment is less than a low milage vehicle.

 

[jhenderson]

The point is the industry has been heavily subsidized since the beginning. The US has been leading the way in reducing fossil fuel subsidies but only because they are directing that money toward renewables. At one time we were one of the highest subsidized countries in the world to artificially lower oil prices. As infrastructure and drilling tech improved the need has become less and less.

"A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[32] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Yes I realize big oil (and small oil, IE percentage depletion allowances) gets alot of tax breaks but to say there is NO subsidizing is incorrect.

And more on my fracking comment


The increase in shale oil and gas production in the United States follows many years of investment and research carried out by the federal government. Between 1978 and 1992, DOE invested about $137 million in the Eastern Gas Shale Program, which helped demonstrate and commercialize many of the technologies in use today.

http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/shale-gas-rd

If you read the article there are several mentions of money invested, projects funded, etc. These were not tax breaks. They were handouts. 137 million dollars was was a sizable investment for the time and is no different than what is being handed over to fund both renewable and "green" energies. Same game, just different players.

i read the article. Most of the money spent went to environmental studies pertaining to hydro fracking. Earth quake probabilities and pollution from water injection and oil extraction etc. The Govt chose which universities were used and how far the studies went. The money wasn't given to any oil company directly. When the wildlife biologist forces me to do a study of the diamond back terrapin habitat before a logging job can begin on private land and tells me who I must hire for the study but says the state will pay 1/2 of the bill I don't consider a subsidy. I consider that that charging me for 1/2 of their job.