Bad Diesels - Bad - Check out this recent attack.....

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

Diesel exposure article

I did a little surfing and found this article regarding health effects of diesel exhaust exposure. It is kinda heavy reading but well worth it. This article basically concludes:



--There is a lack of real good data to clearly indicate there are any significant health affects from diesel exhaust

--Diesel exhaust has changed a lot over the last couple of decades and continues to change which makes it very difficult to analyze health effects of diesel emissions.

--In the early '80s in the LA area only 3% of the total particulate matter in the air was the result of diesel exhaust.

--The article discusses studies done on animals (rats, mice, etc. ) While some developed tumors when exposed to very highly elevated exposure to diesel soot, others did not. Also, the lungs were the only organ affected by the soot.

--The article suggested these animal studies are extrapolated to mean diesel exhaust is harmful in humans.



Here is the link. Notice it actually has a few references at the bottom!! http://www.dieselnet.com/papers/9710nauss.html Also read the information about the agency that published the article and what they are about (Health Effects Institute or HEI).



It is pretty clear these beaurocrats and diesel bashers are basing their arguements on shaky science



Vaughn

 

[wxman]

Re: Diesel exposure article

Originally posted by Vaughn MacKenzie

It is pretty clear these beaurocrats and diesel bashers are basing their arguements on shaky science



Vaughn

I completely agree. Here's a Department of Energy web site that also challenges some common misconceptions about diesel emissions:





http://www.trucks. doe.gov/plain-talk/index.html

 

[Wheaties]

I have to admit, this subject really gets me going. First off, there's a big difference between the science, the measurements made and the information collected, and the interpretation of the collected facts. Maybe this is putting too fine a point on it, but if you interpret things to support your preconceived conclusions then you get just what you deserve. I agree emphatically with what was said earlier about adjusting the numbers. Divide the pollution made by a bus or car by the number of passengers and the mileage and get a real number "pollution per passenger mile", then tell me all about it! They do the same for airline fatalities, why not do the same here?



Here's what really get's me going: My home state senator, you know the one who ran for VP?, was recently quoted as saying that we really should be investing in fuel cell technology... nothing wrong with that in itself. Except, hmmm... it's expensive, there's no infrastructure anywhere to support it, there isn't a lot of energy in hydrogen, hydrogen is hard to handle and store safely. Okay, it is 100% non polluting, producing pure water out of the tailpipe.



Now go look at a biodiesel page, and you'll find that it pollutes very little, you take a small hit on the energy per unit and pay a little more for it, but by and large, it is very clean, less soot, less NO2, no sulfer... and you recover 80% of the CO2 you created by growing a new crop of soy (or cottonseed, or rapeseed, etc) to make more oil. The infrastructure is in place to bring it to the consumer. The fuel itself is less toxic than salt. You can pour it into a fishtank and the marine life couldn't care less!



Is anyone jumping on this? Not really... folks this is probably the best way to go to get a renewable fuel source. Don't quote me, but my guess is that it's better than ethanol.



You could put a lot of those polluting diesel buses on the road and let'em stink like french fries running down the road--problem solved.



Matt

 

[wxman]

Regarding fuel cells, even though they're hyped as being the idea power source of the future, I guess I'm not convinced. Until hydrogen can be produced using wind power or solar power or some other renewable resource, the overall energy efficiency is not that impressive.



There was a recent Swedish study which ranked diesel/hybrid powertrains higher than fuel cells (both direct and hybrid) when taking the energy required to produce the fuel into account. The link to the study follows (caution-this is a link to a 1. 5 mb pdf file):





Swedish Study

... the ranking between drive systems is (with one exception) the same independent of

motor fuel type, namely:

-hybrid with diesel-engine

-hybrid with fuel cell

-direct operation with fuel cell

-hybrid with otto-engine

-conventional diesel-engine

-(hybrid with direct-methanol fuel cell)

-conventional otto-engine.

 

[Steve Roseman]

wxman, You're 100% correct about energy used to create hydrogen. The only problem is, the feds are pushing this to consumers in large metropolitan areas. Most of those people don't even know where their electricity comes from anyway. They aren't worried about polluting some remote area so they can produce their hydrogen, they can only see what's right in front of them.

Until the public and politicians see the big picture, we will be caught in this trap, right where big oil money wants us.

 

[RPetersen]

Almost 30 years ago I was in one of the first classes at Huxley College of Environmental Studies (they actually gave me a sheepskin!). Ladies and gentlemen, we had to study economics, and not just a class or two. We really got into that stuff, BECAUSE (are you listening concerned scientists?) environmental degradation is an economic problem. You have to look at the issue from start to finish. Gee hydrogen fuel cell cars are nifty... just don't be anywhere near the manufacturing or disposal sites of the cells. That goes for batteries as well. Gasoline is a relatively high fraction of dino juice, requiring a hell of a lot more energy input and resulting pollution from the manufacturing process than diesel requires. Here's the big plus... a few of us can drive down the street and fill up with biodiesel, and be carbon neutral. So, our loud smelly diesels have the ability to instantly become very very green, with no requirement to replace billions of bucks worth of equipment. Hmmm, isn't Econ 101 still required in most colleges?... even for science majors?

 

[Wheaties]

Thank you RPetersen!



I think the economics gets lost in the sound bites, Hydrogen Fuel cells sounds a lot sexier than putting farmers to work on a renewable resource that works in existing engines and is distributed through normal channels...



No one seems to be interested in actually improving anything so long as the 'appearance' of doing something is preserved.



Matt

 

[hammersley]

Thanks WXMAN

You folks should take a look at the site WAXMAN cited - especially go to the 3dr question under issues and answers:



Does diesel provide any fuel economy advantages relative to gasoline that can help offset the upward trend in fuel prices? (ANSWER)



The last portion of that document states:If all gasoline-powered trucks and SUVs were powered by diesel instead of gasoline, the following changes would result:





1. For the same number of miles driven, those vehicles would use less energy, resulting in a savings of 26,000 barrels of oil per day.



2. Since diesel is more efficient, emissions of an important greenhouse gas, CO2, would be reduced by 150 tons per day nationwide



WHY ARE THESE INCONVIENT FACTS IGNORED! Folks - this is the exact data we need to hammer our politicians, and use in letters to the editors - and this is from a DOE (Dept of Energy) Site. Instead of harm - Diesels are a great benefit - and using 26,000 less barrels of MIDEAST DYNO DAILY is about as Patriotic as it can get! How do you ignore these facts?