>Keith: Take a look at the following article by Chuck Lapin. I have known
>that natural gas and MTBE were bad since about 1980. Do we get heard? No!
>Only the extreme environmentalists and their partners in the government.
>Richard
Thankyou Richard, I'm glad to have that report, good ammo. Another
one below, from Harvard ("Diesel or Natural Gas?").
I don't think it applies to most environmental groups, only some of
the big ones. I don't know that I'd call them extreme
environmentalists - they call themselves environmentalists, and they
used to be environmentalists, sometimes or often they still are, but
not always, and it seems not at all on certain issues, including this
one.
They seem to have their own agenda, and they seem to have become
rather like some of the corporations they've been countering for so
long. Thus they're not above using spin in their campaigns, with many
cases of twisted science, and rather a large proportion of their
efforts seems to be devoted more to fundraising rather than promoting
change. Some of their top execs get *really* fancy salaries. It's
gospel to these folks that diesels are dirty, they go into denial in
the face of anything to the contrary. So they're anti-biodiesel,
which is insane, and dishonest, IMO, and, similarly, anti-ethanol,
referring to dreadful junk-science studies like those of David
Pimental. Actually that's not junk science, it's twisted science. Or
not science at all.
A look in Martin's list archives for "Sierra Club" (aka "Club
Sierra") is most revealing. Also "Pimental".
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Info-Archive at NNYTech
The main points of attack in the California schoolbus article are
soot, smog and greenhouse gases. It's just BS that "natural" gas will
cut carbon emissions, it's virtually the same as other fossil fuels.
Smog means NOx, which is not a problem with biodiesel, but they go
into denial over that. I'm a bit suspicious of recent reports on soot
and its climate effects. There's this:
... Ramanathan, who also coauthored the "Science" paper, warned that
both studies must be backed up with further observations. "While this
is an important finding, we should recognize that it is a theoretical
model calculation which must be tested against actual measurements.
Much additional field work remains to be completed," he said.
- Climate Warms as Black Soot Traps Sun's Heat
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2000/2000L-05-15-06.html
Fine, and that article doesn't mention diesels except in a caption,
but others immediately used it to bash diesels:
Drive on soot "could slow global warming"
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13691/story.htm
Are diesels THE major source of soot? I think coal plants and
incinerators are worse, let alone volcanoes. Anyway, clean diesels
don't emit soot, and biodiesel cuts right down on soot even with
dirty diesels. And, like the push for "natural" gas, it all
conveniently distracts from the real issue, which is finding and
using alternatives to fossil fuels.
Best wishes
Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Osaka, Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/
Diesel or Natural Gas?
New Harvard Study Finds Environmental Pros and Cons with Both
For immediate release: Monday, January 10, 2000
Boston, MA, Janaury 10, 2000 -- Which fuel is the right choice for
heavy trucks and buses? It's a decision facing policymakers in
California, at the EPA, and at government agencies around the world,
as well as executives at automakers and corporations that operate
fleets of buses or trucks. Phase 1 of a study comparing the two
fuels, by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) at Harvard
School of Public Health, finds that there are advantages and
disadvantages to each. Environmentally, natural gas is better at
reducing particulate and NOx pollution. Diesel is better for reducing
greenhouse gasses.
Diesel is the fuel of choice now, but concerns about particulate
pollution in diesel exhaust have prompted a move toward alternatives.
The HCRA analysis finds that natural gas reduces emissions of fine
particulates, those smaller than 2.5 microns. But natural gas may
generate more ultra fine particles than diesel. Those are less than
.1 micron. Several studies indicate that ultrafine particles may have
an even more dramatic impact on health than those in the fine
category.
The study finds that because natural gas is primarily methane, a
relatively simple molecule, it combusts more completely than many
fuels, producing fewer emissions of several types, particularly NOx,
an important contributor to ground level ozone and the formation of
fine particulates.
The advantages of diesel come from its efficiency. Diesel engines
convert a large fraction of the available energy into useable work.
As a result, diesel engines consume less fuel overall than if they
were converted to natural gas. The HCRA study suggests that
converting heavy trucks and buses from diesel to natural gas would
increase emissions of C02, a significant greenhouse gas. In addition,
the study finds that more widespread use of natural gas would likely
increase the escape of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is
approximately 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
The study finds that European regulators seem to be favoring diesel
fuel as part of their effort to comply with the Kyoto agreements to
stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. They are using tax
incentives and emissions standards to encourage the use of new
cleaner-burning diesel fuels. European vehicle manufacturers appear
to be increasing their application of "green" diesel technology that
captures significant amounts of particulates.
The study finds that diesel has safety advantages over natural gas,
which is a more flammable and explosive fuel to handle and store. It
finds that diesel has a short-term cost advantage, but that natural
gas might end up with roughly the same costs if engines and refueling
infrastructure become common.
For a complete copy of the report, please view the December 1999
issue of Risk in Perspective (PDF, 205 KB, PDF information).
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/hcra/diesel/diesel.pdf
The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis promotes a more reasoned
response to health, safety, and environmental risks.
For further information, please contact:
Edmond Toy, lead author, 617-432-1566, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Ropeik, Director of Risk Communications, 617-432-6011,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press1102000.html
>TOXICOLOGIST 'APPALLED' AT IGNORING CNG RISK.
>Diesel Fuel News, April 16, 2001
>By: Jack Peckham
>One of California's top industry toxicologists who has been involved in the
>diesel "toxic emissions" issues for more than a decade says he's "appalled"
>by a recent green-group study that selectively attacks diesel emissions for
>supposed school bus "cancer threats."
>Charles Lapin, former Arco Senior Toxicologist, now a private consultant to
>various clean-diesel technology promoters including International Truck &
>Engine, points out that the NRDC/CCA study (see Diesel Fuel News 2/19/2001,
>p7) used only one of the four test buses for health-risk calculations,
>instead of averaging the emissions.
>The worst-case 1986 bus used for the calculation "showed signs of disrepair
>and should not have been used to calculate risks," Lapin said. What's more,
>the risk estimates used methodologies not recognized by U.S. E.P.A.
>"This is a political rehash of earlier NRDC dump-diesel statements," Lapin
>told Diesel Fuel News. "As a toxicologist, the part I find troubling is not
>just the health effects calculation per se. The main thing that concerns me
>is that when you present data, then you don't call something a 'significant
>risk' unless it's statistically significant."
>"Even using the study's PM exposure calculation for this obsolete-technology,
>possibly defective school bus -- two hours/day, 180/days/year, for 10 years
>--that adds up to less than 0.6% of a child's assumed 70-year, 600,000 hour
>lifetime," Lapin points out.
>"That's really just a background risk" for cancer, he said, rather than a
>statistically significant risk.
>"Even if there's a tiny but potential risk, then the 'greens' are very
>selective in employing the 'precautionary principle' often used by
>environmental advocates, regulatory agencies and many industries," he said.
>Revoking Principals
>"It's been revoked in their minds for CNG," (Compressed Natural Gas) Lapin
>said. "University of California at Riverside published data two years ago
>analyzing CNG vehicle exhaust and found it contains PAH's (Poly Aromatic
>Hydrocarbons). CNG PM has carcinogens. That's a scary thing, because for a
>given weight of a particle -- one microgram of diesel PM and one microgram of
>CNG PM -- CNG has a higher percentage of PAH on a weight basis than diesel
>PM. So if we're comparing the two vehicles on an emissions weight basis, the
>CNG vehicle will have more carcinogens attached to PM than the diesel
>vehicle. The data has been there for two years and its being ignored."
>While some scientists suspect that lube oil PM could be a key source of PAH
>in CNG exhaust, other PAH's are formed by condensation of lighter CNG
>combustion products, "so maybe it's not [just] lubes," Lapin said. By
>contrast, a lot of the diesel soot PM is inert elemental carbon.
>The typically smaller size of CNG PM also ought to bother the "greens,"
>because "the finer the [emissions] mist, the greater the surface area [of PM]
>and the greater the chance for a carcinogen to travel into the cell," he
>said.
>"People in the business of promoting and protecting public health should
>investigate that first before tilting toward one technology," he said. "I'm
>just appalled by the CNG tilt, and I'm not the only one."
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
