2007 diesel fuel

[Jeremiah]

Everyone knows about the 2007 diesel fuel requirements. I thought I would post something I saw in the news this morning. I clipped it from a much longer article featuring a new "scrubber" that allows older fleet trucks to burn dirty fuel. Here's the clip: "Not only is the new fuel more expensive, it's hard on older engines. Maintenance goes up and engine life goes down. Even the EPA now knows it created a nightmare. "

The point in this quote is to find a way, perhaps working through our elected representatives, to prevent the EPA from issuing edicts simply because they think something might be a good idea. They need to realize it's not O. K. to come down with a ruling affecting tens of thousands of people and costing millions of dollars that hasn't been thoroughly vetted and exposed to a replicatable cost/benefit analysis. The EPA might know it created a nightmare, but that won't change future behavior until it costs them the same way it costs us when we make a mistake: in the pocketbook.

 

[MAllen1]

I hate to admit this, but, every tankfull, if I have any fuel in a can at the house after filling up the tractor, i'll put about 5 gallons of off road fuel in my truck. I know it's not legal, but, I don't put but 500 miles on my truck a month (about a tank full), so, I don't think the government is going to lose THAT MUCH money on fuel

 

[Jeremiah]

Never admit to breaking the law; it gives the fuel police a reason to justify their existence. Five hundred miles a month, huh? Wanna sell your truck?

 

[KKohagen]

The point in this quote is to find a way, perhaps working through our elected representatives, to prevent the EPA from issuing edicts simply because they think something might be a good idea. They need to realize it's not O. K. to come down with a ruling affecting tens of thousands of people and costing millions of dollars that hasn't been thoroughly vetted and exposed to a replicatable cost/benefit analysis. The EPA might know it created a nightmare, but that won't change future behavior until it costs them the same way it costs us when we make a mistake: in the pocketbook.

This same kind of (thought) process is what brought us a lovely chemical by the name of Methyl-Tertiary Butyl-Ether, MTBE. A chemical that a few of the oil companies said they could make the gaoline cleaner while not needing MTBE if the laws were changed to remove the requirement of an oxygenate. EPA said no. MTBE was chosen as the oxygenate of choice, and oil companies were forced to invest in teratment/manufacturing facilities to include MTBE in gasoline.
EPA finally discovered that MTBE was leaking into the groundwater and now became a serious threat to the health and wellfare of everyone. Let's force the oil companies to change over to ethanol and remove MTBE. Once again oil companies had to invest in treatment/manufacturing/transportation facilities to handle the different gasoline.
Bottom line i feel that a lot of the price increases have been directly caused by the EPA and their search for the right chemical to use for everyone.
I'm off my soap box, but I share your concern. We all want cleaner air, but their are often ways to do it without regulation, laws, etc...

 

[jakprince]

For only 500 miles a month why take the risk man.

 

[MAllen1]

Don't let me fool you, for 5. 5 years it was a daily driver and it has over 200k on it. I can't complain, though, mechanically it's the best truck i've ever had. As for the EPA, i'm in full agreement. What is the point in improving the the fuel for cleaner emissions, but, the trucks and cars that use this fuel get and average of 1-2 miles less per gallon. WOW, what cleaner cars the EPA is putting out.