This is the group that want's to take your Diesel?????

[hammersley]

Here's the group that wants to kill your Diesel???????



http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/trucks_and_buses/index.cfm?pageID=14

 

[nickleinonen]

just ask them why people use gasoline engines to kill them selves [suicide] and not diesels?... ok diesel might kill you in the long run, but a gasoline engine will do it in 10min or less... which would you perfer

 

[Prairie Dog]

The article sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Are these people trying to tell me you wont get cancer by breathing exhaust from a gasser under the same conditions? Also, I wonder if they're taking into account the new more rigid emissions requirements diesels employ these days or are they using a sample from a 25 year old puffer of a school bus. I noticed they quickly dismiss the fact that we get twice the MPG and I'd bet most of these whiners have a garage full of portly SUV's that go through gas like Oprah goes through a baked ham!

Thanks for the chance to micro-rant guys.



Scotty Oo.

 

[MCummings]

Somebody writing this isn't what gets me mad,, but the large amount of people that BELIEVE IT!

What they are not saying is that diesel-powered engine exhaust contains high concentrations of particulates --

Just happens to be that Particulates are the ONLY Emission that a newer diesel has more than a brand new gasoline motor.



If they are testing old diesel motors,, why don't they test old gasoline motors also? As Diesel motors get older emissions don't change much, but a gasoline motor's emission go up significantly after just a few years.



Merrick Cummings Jr

 

[Pit Bull]

Don't worry about this stuff the commies won't get their way. $$$ are what count and diesels are more economical than gas. We will end up just like Europe with more diesels than gassers in the long run. $$$ talk and tree huggers walk, literally

 

[RBrush]

Diesel Jeep.

Hay guys, I thought you'd like to know that jeep is due to produce a diesel jeep Liberty for 2004. That ought to bring up the mileage about 30%, and really pi$$ off the anti oil commies.

Have a great day, and a better tomorrow.



Rich

 

[Dennis Garrett]

I've got a couple of million miles in running locomotives, I wonder how much longer I can last?

 

[RonaldLarson]

Trust me

Those kinds of people fit into a sterotypical description.

Female

Blond

Driving a gasser Volvo full of Sierra Club and earth day stickers while talking on their cell phone and twirlling their hair with the other hand as they try to see through frosted up windshields.

I've seen it! Oh, and don't forget the "profit is obscene" sticker!

HEHEHEHEHE. Aren't the Public Universities doing a swell job with YOUR money?

Ron

 

[illflem]

Stop Global Whining

 

[wxman]

These "environmental groups" are famous for ignoring studies that don't support their positions. On one of the links to the referenced web page ( http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/trucks_and_buses/page.cfm?pageID=244 ):

Aren't new diesel school buses as clean as natural gas buses?



Diesel is inherently dirtier than natural gas. Even the cleanest diesel bus on the road today releases about five times more soot and twice the amount of smog-forming pollutants as a natural gas bus. In addition, the soot released from a diesel bus is more toxic than natural gas emissions. The State of California has listed over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust as toxic air contaminants. Numerous studies have linked diesel exhaust with cancer, asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory illnesses. There have been no studies linking natural gas combustion and cancer, despite the widespread use of natural gas in home heating and cooking.



One school bus manufacturer has installed emission controls for soot in its buses and is marketing a “cleaner” diesel in California. In order for emission controls to function, diesel buses must use low sulfur fuel, which will not be nationally accessible until required by federal law in 2006. In addition, the long-term durability of these devices has not been tested. Diesel buses release toxics such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene that natural gas buses do not. According to the U. S. Department of Energy, natural gas buses will always have soot and toxic emission benefits over diesel buses because natural gas combustion inherently produces lower levels of these emissions.

This is refuted by at least three recent studies (two of which are from CARB, certainly NOT a pro-diesel agency!):

Findings in a research project conducted at Southwest Research Institute challenge the assertions by some that exhaust emissions from natural gas buses are inherently “cleaner” than those from diesel buses. Natural gas and diesel school buses were tested in three configurations (conventional natural gas and both conventional diesel and new, low-emitting diesel technology, such as that now used in California school buses). Overall, the results demonstrate that low-emitting diesel technology has the lowest emissions of most criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants [TACs]. Natural gas exhaust had higher levels of six TACs - acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, formaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde - and did not have lower emissions of any TAC, as compared to low-emitting diesel. The low-emitting diesel technology now utilized in California school buses produced much lower emissions than the conventional diesel school bus configuration; it also produced lower emissions than the natural gas bus configuration.



Presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers International Truck & Bus Meeting & Exhibition, November 18, 2002, Cobo Center, Detroit, Michigan, by Charles A. Lapin, Ph. D. , D. A. B. T. , Toxicology Consultant, co-author of a forthcoming SAE paper on the research.

However, the filter-equipped diesel bus still outperformed the catalyst-equipped natural gas buses in major emission categories, and was roughly equal in others. For instance:

• Non-methane hydrocarbon emissions from the catalyst-equipped natural gas buses were extremely low, but the filter-equipped diesel’s emissions were even lower.

• Particulate emissions of the catalyst-equipped natural gas buses were one and one-half to two times higher than those of the filter-equipped diesel bus.

• Emissions of nanoparticles (the smallest particles) from the catalyst-equipped natural gas buses were higher than those from the filter-equipped diesel bus; in fact, one catalyst-equipped natural gas bus produced very high nanoparticle concentrations at idle.

• Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from the catalyst-equipped buses and the filter-equipped diesel bus were roughly equivalent.

Measurement of emissions of benzene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde showed that the diesel bus emissions were one half to one fifth those of the catalyst-equipped natural gas bus.



Source:



http://www.greendieseltechnology.com/news153.html

On top of that:

Orange County [CA] continues to face difficulties with its fleet of LNG buses. The buses themselves have had mechanical problems and have cost the agency $1 million in repairs, forcing the return of diesel buses to the fleet. Now two fuel stations that cost $4. 5 million each and supply LNG to the diesel buses to the county have been deemed “inadequate and undependable” by regional air quality regulators (“O. C. 's Bus-Fuel Tanks Cause Hassles; Underground Natural-Gas System Is A Headache For The Transit Authority,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 31).

The DPF diesel bus also obtained 46% better fuel mileage (per diesel equivalent gallon) than the CNG bus. These studies would suggest an environmental and efficiency DISBENEFIT from CNG school buses!