Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Conversion

[LightmanE300]

Ok guys, I know some have discussed this before, but here is the official word from the EPA regarding the 2006 conversion. I personally can't wait, the reduction in emissions, less sooting of engine parts and oil, and the ability to import some of those cool european diesels we've been denied all these years is sure gonna be sweet! Can you say MB S class with 330hp twin turbo diesel? OH my! (not that I can afford one, but I would like the ability to drool on one in the good ol USA!)



I can't wait for ULSD! You can certainly bet that the sales of lubricity additives will go through the roof when this happens, as the process used

to remove sulfur from diesel also strips some of the lubricity of the fuel. NO , sulfur itself is not a lubricant.



Here's a quick blurb from the FINAL rule of the EPA.



"2. Fuel Quality Standards

This rule specifies that, beginning June 1, 2006, refiners must begin producing highway diesel fuel that meets a maximum sulfur

standard of 15 parts per million (ppm). All 2007 and later model year diesel-fueled vehicles must be refueled with this new low sulfur diesel

fuel. This sulfur standard is based on our assessment of the impact of sulfur on advanced exhaust emission control technologies, and a

corresponding assessment of the feasibility of low sulfur fuel production and distribution.

Today's program includes a combination of flexibilities available to refiners to ensure a smooth transition to low sulfur highway diesel

fuel. First, refiners can take advantage of a temporary compliance option, including an averaging, banking and trading component,

beginning in June 2006 and lasting through 2009, with credit given for early compliance before June 2006. Under this temporary compliance

option, up to 20 percent of highway diesel fuel may continue to be produced at the existing 500 ppm sulfur maximum standard. Highway

diesel fuel marketed as complying with the 500 ppm sulfur standard must be segregated from 15 ppm fuel in the distribution system, and may only

be used in pre-2007 model year heavy-duty vehicles. Second, we are providing additional hardship provisions for small refiners to minimize

their economic burden in complying with the 15 ppm sulfur standard. Third, we are providing additional flexibility to refiners subject to

the Geographic Phase-in Area (GPA) provisions of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program, which will allow them the option of staggering their

gasoline and diesel investments. Finally, we are adopting a general hardship provision for which any refiner may apply on a case-by-case

basis under certain conditions. These hardship provisions, coupled with the temporary compliance option, will provide a ``safety valve''

allowing up to 25 percent of highway diesel fuel produced to remain at 500 ppm for these transitional years to minimize any potential for

highway diesel fuel supply problems.

In addition, today's program includes unique provisions for implementing the low sulfur diesel fuel program in the State of Alaska, given that it is exempt from the current 500 ppm standard. Certain U. S. territories are excluded from both the new engine standards and highway

diesel fuel standards. The compliance provisions for ensuring diesel fuel quality are

essentially consistent with those that have been in effect since 1993 under the existing 500 ppm sulfur standard (55 FR 34120, August 21,

1990). Additional compliance provisions have been established primarily during the transition years of the program to verify refiners' compliance with the temporary compliance option to ensure the two grades of highway diesel fuel remain segregated, and to discourage misfueling of model year 2007 and later diesel vehicles. "

 

[illflem]

So far as sulfur levels have dropped the lubricity has remained the same, I have no doubt that it will continue. The refiners are no dummies, they realize what low lubricity does to an engine and have been adding back oil to keep the lubricity the same.

 

[LightmanE300]

I would love to have as much trust as you do in the refineries , as to putting in lubricity additives. I prefer to not rely on them though, and add my own fuel additives... of course, thats the perrogative of any diesel owner =]



The bigger picture point is, ULSD will be a major bonus in our country's respiratory health, helping asthma sufferers, bronchitis, reducing lung cancer, etc... . no more trucks with huge black clouds... =]

 

[illflem]

I can totally relate to your distrust of the mega oil companies, but once the word that the lack of lubricity is out and ruining engines one refiner will add a fraction of a cent of oil to bring it back up, the others would be forced to follow suit if they want to sell any product.

 

[LightmanE300]

Well I hope so. ULSD has been available through ARCO for quite some time in California, and some ppl have complained already of it being 'dry'... . however, the lubricity of a fuel is something that's relatively hard/impossible for a consumer to actually measure until it's too late. As cheap as additives are, I personally will run them every tank now and when ULSD comes. At just 2. 7 cents more per treated gallon, I could care less. . why not. .

 

[Rman]

Lightman where were you when i was getting railed for thinking diesel exhaust was "dirty" down on the "other" forum. Man it was like i said something about their mom.



Anyhow, I'm with ya on the low sulphur diesel. It will open the door to a new market for high performance diesel. It's hard to get across the benefit because the lubricity issue erks everyone into thinking its a EPA plot to ruin the industry when in fact it allows better engines into the market. That new VW diesel would sure be snazzy to see in person instead of just reading about it.

 

[LightmanE300]

Excessive smoke and pollution is not cool. Sure it may be fun to look at a black cloud, but thats simply picking the low hanging fruit, and not thinking about the people who will be suffering from asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, lung cancer, etc... the fact is most people that are all about smoke either lack the intelligence/perspective to realize the consequences of their little smoke parties, or simply lack the maturity to care about their fellow citizens. They all jump on the 'you're a tree hugger' brigade and feel like they're just exercising their american right to do whatever the F they want. Don't expect to change their thoughts, but at least the EPA has the good sense to force them.



I'm not sure ULSD will have an incredible impact on the performance diesel industry in a positive way. As the smoke is reduced, we can surely increase fueling etc , however as emissions restrictions also increase and undoubtedly more testing requirements will increase, that extra performance gap is shortened. There will be a balance that I'm guessing won't be much different than the attainable power of today.



Getting other diesels though will be cool. BMW 330D is sure a sweet ride I'd love to have. 3 series body, 40mpg, 200hp and 400 torque... Bring on the ULSD!

 

[MCummings]

I'm curous,,



When you decrease sulfer, will the BTU also decrease? From a high performance perspective, will it take even larer injjectors, and higher flowing injection pumps to make the same power we are now? Is the burn rate different? Does low sulfer fuel burn hotter/colder?



Thanks,

Merrick Cummings Jr



BTW, rhickman, hopefully you don't feel like I was attacking you on the other thread, I really was just curious.

 

[illflem]

The performance of ULSD is the same.

Sulfur is an unneeded fuel contaminate.

 

[Sregorb]

What lubricator do they input rather than sulfer then? What's effect of this on the engine (hopefully no difference).



Brian

 

[illflem]

I'd imagine that additives used to regain the lost lubricity will be trade secrets with the refiners, doubt if you'll ever find out exactly what they are.



Good Q&A on ULSD here http://www.pscleanair.org/dieselsolutions/ds_fuel.shtml

 

[wxman]

While I fully support the introduction of ULSD fuel and all of the aftertreatment devices that can be used with this fuel, I (as an atmospheric scientist) remain unconvinced that diesel exhaust is “filthy” while gasoline engine exhaust is “squeaky clean” even with our currently available, relatively low quality diesel fuel. The problem as I see it is that most people equate “visible emissions” with “dirty”, and “non-visible emissions” as “clean” or “non-existent”. The gasoline that is currently being used has essentially the same sulfur content as diesel fuel. Those sulfate emissions have to go somewhere when the sulfur in the fuel is combusted! And the mandated reduction in the sulfur content of ULS gasoline will only be 30 ppm (max) vs. 15 ppm (max) for ULS diesel.



Particulate matter (PM) emissions are currently regulated solely by mass (e. g. , grams/mile or grams/bhp). Unfortunately, this probably is not the best way based on the latest studies. While the PM mass emission of gasoline engines is very low, they emit massive amounts of extremely tiny particles called “nanoparticulates” or “ultrafine” PM under some conditions (e. g. , high speed/heavy load). These particles are so small that they can’t be seen (i. e. , no visible emissions) and have trivial mass, so gasoline engines appear to be extremely clean even under these conditions. However, recent studies have suggested that these extremely small particles are more harmful to health that the relatively larger particles typically found in diesel exhaust. Other studies have shown that gasoline PM is more toxic to lung tissue than diesel PM per unit mass. Actually, it appear that diesel engines running on ULSD fuel and equipped with particulate filters will have a significant advantage over gasoline engines as far as PM emissions are concerned. Maybe gasoline engines will need particulate filters in the future?



On top of this, gasoline engines emit much higher levels of carbon monoxide, widely known as an acutely toxic substance, and many studies have shown that gasoline engines typically emit higher levels of many unregulated “toxic” emissions like benzene and formaldehyde.



Again, I’m not suggesting that diesel emissions shouldn’t be “cleaned up”, but the notion that diesel engines are “dirtier” than gasoline engines isn’t supported by current science, in my professional opinion.

 

[LightmanE300]

Mcummings - yes the BTU content of ULSD is a tad bit lower, due to the reduction of aromatics, although not much. ULSD is already available in California, made by Arco, or occasionally BP ECD-1. Users have reported at most a 1mpg drop, but haven't really noted any change in performance in the people I've talked to. The BTU difference is very slight.



Sulfur is NOT a lubricant. People very often make that mistake. In fact, sulfur IS an unneeded contaminant, and the process that is used to remove sulfur is what simultaneously strips some of the fuel's lubricity. Refineries/terminals that distribute ULSD will and do additize the fuel to restore needed lubricity. Trusting them to do so is another story, which is why I said I will continue to use additives when ULSD rolls around



Sulfur almost directly = soot. People with current diesels, especially 3rd gen without EGR, will really enjoy super long oil drain intervals once ULSD comes. The oil and engine contamination will be reduced by some 90%. For a little while, say January 2004 till 2006 when ULSD comes, EGR equipped engines will have oil drain intervals of probably half that of current engines, more like California models. . the reason being that the sulfur and soot harms the catalyst, soots the engine oil, etc. Once we get 15ppm ULSD, those engines will likely shift to longer interval. Those of us without egr will be REALLY clean. It all comes back to the balance though, it's likely as fuel cleans up, they will add more and more emissions equipment to even further clean up exhaust. How mad would the auto repair industry be if we were all going 25K between changes?:-laf



Either way, ULSD will have little if any performance reduction, and will have hugely positive societal impacts. If you guys have the time or capacity to read this document, which isn't kid level reading, it's a good one and explains a lot about ulsd and it's projected impacts. At the current rate of pollution, ozone is increasing a LOT. What does this mean to you? It means in 10 years, the amount of asthma sufferers in this country will virtually double. Right now 5% of america suffers from asthma. Think about your future kids or current kids and decide what is more important, black smoke or your kids reaching for an inhaler... serious stuff. Here's the link to the final rule of the EPA on ULSD.



http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2001/January/Day-18/a01a.htm

 

[FATCAT]

Originally posted by LightmanE300

... They all jump on the 'you're a tree hugger' brigade and feel like they're just exercising their American right to do whatever the F they want. Don't expect to change their thoughts, but at least the EPA has the good sense to force them.

...

Ya Vol Heir LightmanE300 I'm so glad your a good little gov't stooge.



I'm sure you won't mind the $3. 50+ / gal. cost of the LSD due to all the new restrictions and new refining processes.



Yup, we stupid Americans don't know whats good for us and need the EPA to tell us what to do, what to drive, where to live, and what to do with the land we "think" we own.



I'm sure the gov't studies about the "bad" effects of diesel/gas emissions on the health of the country are not tilted toward doom and gloom predictions ... otherwise there would be no reason for the EPA to step in and enforce their will on the public.

(I'm sure the gov't studies are on the up and up).



I don't understand why the EPA does'nt have the good sense to ban diesel pickup trucks - what possible reason do we need them for! Or for that matter; backhoes, bulldozers, etc... have people with shovels do the digging ... it will be good for them to get out and exercise.



Tell me ... what flavor koolaid is the EPA serving these days?

 

[Rman]

Originally posted by FATCAT

Ya Vol Heir LightmanE300 I'm so glad your a good little gov't stooge.



I'm sure you won't mind the $3. 50+ / gal. cost of the LSD due to all the new restrictions and new refining processes.



Yup, we stupid Americans don't know whats good for us and need the EPA to tell us what to do, what to drive, where to live, and what to do with the land we "think" we own.



I'm sure the gov't studies about the "bad" effects of diesel/gas emissions on the health of the country are not tilted toward doom and gloom predictions ... otherwise there would be no reason for the EPA to step in and enforce their will on the public.

(I'm sure the gov't studies are on the up and up).



I don't understand why the EPA does'nt have the good sense to ban diesel pickup trucks - what possible reason do we need them for! Or for that matter; backhoes, bulldozers, etc... have people with shovels do the digging ... it will be good for them to get out and exercise.



Tell me ... what flavor koolaid is the EPA serving these days?

eloquent ignorance, pretty funny

 

[curatchko]

Lets not be too quick to rush on the 'pro' EPA bandwagon.



I hear that incredible sucking sound coming from my bank account so they can justify their existance... .



Afterall, there's holes in the ozone layer and the globe is overheating... . don't ya know?? Worlds coming to an end and Amerika is responsible for it.

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

Here's my spin/opinion on this diesel emissions subject . . .



1) There is no hard evidence or correalation between diesel soot and asthma, lung cancer or other health maladies. While studies and evidence show there is a possible connection, it is not proven. Read this (it's heavy reading but worth it) Diesel Exhaust: Critical Analysis of Health Effects . . .



2) I am all for cleaner, more effient engines, but IMO we have reached or surpassed the point of diminished returns. If we were to remain at the 2003 standards for emissions and sulfur content of fuel indefinitely, air pollution and particulate matter would drop measurably in the decades following as older diesels are phased out and retired. I believe the difference 20 years from now between staying at our current levels versus following through with the 2006 standards would be miniscule.



3) Gasser emission controls wear out and fail quickly, yet these vehicles remain on the road for years. O2 sensors fail. Catalytic converters plug up. MAS sensors die, throwing off Air/Fuel ratio. While a gasser may have lower initial emissions, over the life of the vehicle I would bet that the total harmful emissions producted would be far, far greater than that of our current diesels, which have no emissions control equipment to fail. Once we cross over into exhaust aftertreament for diesels, we'll be in the same category as the gassers, with limited-lifespan emission control equipment.



4) I believe the most harmful emission from a diesel is NOx (oxides of nitrogen produced by high combustion temps, which are a known carcinogen, unlike soot, which MIGHT be a carcinogen). This is what EGR is for. I would think given more time and with technological advancement, methods could be found to reduce this emission without EGR, catalytic converters or other failure-prone aftertreatment components.



Well, that's my $. 02 on the subject!

 

[LightmanE300]

Fatcat you're clearly uninformed, as evidenced by your post. ULSD is only about 10 to 15 cents more per gallon as it is now, with small scale production. When it becomes more large scale, it will be even less of a cost difference.



Rhickman, not sure if you're talking about fatcat's ignorance, but I wouldn't call it eloquent... If you're referring to my posts, I'll say thanks for the compliment and note your lack of knowledge on the subject respectfully, unlike some certain little felines around here



Vaughn, some good points. While there is no proven connection between diesel exhaust and asthma, there IS a proven connection between diesel exhaust and ozone production, and a clear one between ozone and asthma The difference between current levels and 2006 levels over 20 years is something like 109,000 tons of particulates, some ungodly amount... some 90% reduction in nox due to ULSD etc... Not near the point of diminishing returns yet. You are quite correct however about gasser emissions degrading over time. Diesels will produce their emissions at a relatively stable level over the life of the vehicle as compared to gassers.



As I said, the uninformed and naturally resistant folks will jump on the 'call him a treehugger/epa loving' bandwagon. I am far from an environmentalist, don't support any of the groups, or read any of their 'green' publications. I simply am a diesel enthusiast who sees the benefit of this change. Anyone who's owned a sooted up TDI understands, thats for sure. The amount of sulfur and aromatics in our fuel causes it. Less sulfur means less smoke and smell. This will also help to combat the american perception that diesels are smoky and smelly, and will benefit US, by paving a path to more diesel vehicles, which in turn means more fuel availability, more trained diesel techs, etc etc. If you guys are too cheap to pay 10-15 cents more per gallon... get yourselves a geo metro and be done with it... My . 25 cents

 

[MCummings]

Originally posted by LightmanE300

Fatcat you're clearly uninformed,

Wow,, Did you stoop that low?



Merrick Cummings Jr



BTW, I think rhickman knows what he's talking about.

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

Lightman, don't worry, I'm not lumping you in the Treehugger category, not just yet!



I should clarify what I meant about 2003 vs 2006 standards and difference in totaly particulates, NOx, etc. I am talking about the total emissions picture (factories, cars, power plants, etc. ) not just the diesel or pickup segment. I don't know what percentage diesel vehicles make to the total emissions. I do know the enviro whackos are descending bigtime on diesel locomotives in north-central California (don't recall just where) but freight trains only contribute 3% of the total particulate emissions in that area. Plus, since all locomotives but switchers travel nationwide, it's impossible to impose local emissions regulations on them. For now it appears this one's dead in its tracks, for now.



Vaughn