I attended the recent conference at UC Riverside at which several parties made brief presentations summarizing their work to clean up engine emissions, mostly gasoline. Honda, Texaco, etc.
Not for the first time, I watched as both parties sort of confirmed that *both* fuel and engine improvements are necessary to get the best possible results. Honda made clear that, although some of their results seemed astounding to outsiders, those results would *not* have been possible without California's special fuel, apparently not available at this time in other places. It seems clear enough to me, even without the knowledge of others here, that real improvements in diesel emissions here in the states need both fuel and engine improvement, perhaps with an emphasis on the former?, though I get the sense that the engine improvements are not likely to take place without the fuel improvements. It also looks to me that the petroleum diesel makers have been fighting diesel fuel improvements here in the states tooth and nail, that they've already done a lot of needless damage by delaying for so long, and that they have exploited and will continue to exploit this engine-vs.-fuel bickering for as long as legally possible. Yes, I'm sure it would cost some to clean up the fuel. But everything I've read seems to take it as clear that it's needed and that, when done, will help make a serious case for *prolonging* the use of the fuel until substitutes are more widely available. I'd ask why they don't care about this, but I already know, they just don't want improvements. Maybe 76, which seems to have perceived some slight PR value in their "NO MTBE" signs (very promiment!) would be able to look into also implementing a "cleaner diesel" campaign? On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:48:09 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > >I recall reading that article as well. The main problem with is is that it >does not distinguis between diesel ENGINES, and diesel FUELS. > The exhausts from a diesel engine are only carcinogenic when >burning normal petro diesel. Modern engines reduce that somewhat, as well >as low sulfur petro diesel. Biodiesel, on the other hand, is a completely >different matter. > The article is essentially saying "diesel engines are bad because >the exhaust from burning concentional (high sulfur) petro diesel in them >is carcinogenic". But, that's a characteristic of the fuel more than the >engine. > >Mike > >------------------------------------------------------------- >Michael S. Briggs "Never judge a man until you've >UNH Physics Department walked a mile in his shoes. Then >(603) 862-2828 when you do judge him, you'll be > a mile away and you'll have > his shoes." >--------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >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/ > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
