Come on Keith, et al. There ain't no debate over diesel, not unless you want to keep whackin' your puddin'.
Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Cc: <biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 3:24 PM Subject: [biofuel] The Debate Over Diesel > http://www.dieselforum.org/inthenews/WashPost_090602.html > > The Debate Over Diesel > Washington Post > By Warren Brown > > (September 6, 2002) "Still want to pimp diesels for your industry > friends whose shortsightedness promotes only modest efficiency > gains?" --E-mail note from "Optimator," a diesel critic who prefers > not to use his/her real name. > > This note was attached to a copy of an Associated Press dispatch > headlined: "EPA: Diesel Exhaust May Cause Cancer." The story reported > the Environmental Protection Agency's findings that diesel emissions > from large trucks, school buses, and off-road construction vehicles > "probably" contribute to cancer and respiratory illnesses. It > reiterated demands from environmentalists that the auto and petroleum > industries work to clean up diesel exhausts. > > It seemed a straightforward story to me. Diesel emissions from large > vehicles, primarily those with old-technology diesel engines, are > problematic. No one wants to drive or walk behind a bus billowing > black smoke. But there is no argument anywhere in the auto industry > that more low-sulfur diesel fuels are needed to help bring cleaner, > advanced, direct-injection diesel engines to market in the United > States. Certainly, no one argues with international automotive test > findings that better fuel economy can be had with diesel/electric > hybrids than with gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles. > > Yet Opimator's missive represents the kind of single-minded bias that > hampers the development and introduction of these new diesel engines > in this country, while automakers in Europe and Japan rapidly are > introducing that technology in their home markets. The Optimators of > America seize on any opportunity, including an EPA report that > specifically cites old diesel technology and high-sulfur diesel fuel, > to lambaste anything and everything connected with diesel. Only pimps > would advocate using that fuel, eh Optimator? > > Environmental groups and public advocates such as the Sierra Club, > the Public Interest Research Group, and the Union of Concerned > Scientists are less adolescent in their condemnation of all things > diesel. But they are just as obtuse. > > Although advanced-diesel cars have become the vehicles of choice in > Europe and Japan, U.S. environmentalists steadfastly oppose diesel > technology growth here largely because they want automakers to > develop zero emission vehicles, otherwise known as pure electrics. > > I want pure electrics, too. But I'd also like a market to go along > with them. So far, that hasn't happened in the United States, Europe > or Japan. > > Indeed, Ford Motor Co. late last month announced that it was pulling > the plug on its Norway-based Think electric vehicle division because > there were not enough buyers for the cars to support a tiny > production run of 5,000 vehicles per year. Since Ford took over Think > in 1999, the company had managed to roll out only about 1,050 of the > little plastic-bodied electric mobiles. > > Critics and conspiracy theorists argue that Ford took over Think as a > public relations ruse, a gimmick to look green while chasing red-hot > profits in sport-utility vehicles. Some kind of a ruse! Ford paid $23 > million to take over Think, which was struggling to stay alive at > time of purchase. Ford invested another $100 million since then in > electric vehicle battery technology. Ruse? I think not. > > The problem is that the European market rejected a car that had a > driving range of 53 miles before discharging its battery and that > needed as many as six hours to recharge, but that cost almost as much > as a fuel-efficient, long-range, decidedly more attractive and > comfortable Volkswagen turbo-diesel. > > What needs to occur in the United States is a more open, less > politically charged discussion of new diesel technology, its benefits > and drawbacks. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has introduced a bill that > he says will bring cleaner diesel engines to America. But the bill > would give tax incentives to oil companies to reduce the sulfur > content of their diesel fuels. > > The Optimators of America are not likely to stand for that kind of > tax break, even if it amounts to nothing more than a diversion of > some funds from the Bush administration's $4-billion worth of > subsidies for the development of more politically acceptable hydrogen > fuel-cell and gasoline-electric alternative-fuel vehicles. Instead of > giving a fair hearing to the Dingell proposal, Ol' Optimator probably > would launch a campaign to "Throw the Pimp Out." > > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/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/
