>> that convinced Dingell that that was not true. A big part of getting >> diesels to start becoming more mainstream will just be the public >learning >> that there have been advances in diesel engine technology, and when >run on >> ULSD (or preferably biodiesel), they don't have the "big black >cloud" >> effect anymore. >> >> Mike > > Just my personal opinion, but I think Diesels will become much more >acceptable when we have better fuel to run in them. >I don't know what incentive may be needed to get that to happen. >Heavy trucks are using all that the refineries can produce now. There >is no incentive to clean up the fuel and expand the demand for it, >unless there is an acceptably higher price to be made from it. > It all comes down to money!
If it can be shown that more widespread use of diesel and diesel engines decreases petroleum dependency and improves access to a domestic alt-fuel (biodiesel), then it becomes a war issue and a matter of greater urgency. The Bush Administration's lack of urgent action on a dozen fronts on reducing foreign petroleum dependencies, insofar as it is an obvious and critical economic and military strategic issue, is *stunning*. It is unethical. It is a political advantage over him waiting to be exploited. Never mind whether one likes him, dislikes him,.... I'm not trying to fish for an excuse on either side. I'm saying: What have they done? What *could* they have done? If they took up four or five of these issues and really put an effort into them, I don't think they'd have all that much trouble getting into ANWR. Their refusal to abandon their mentally-challenged one-sidedness in seeking to change energy policy has been their undoing. Let's say that Bush really challenged Detroit to behave as though the nation really is at war against folks who have expropriated what were arguably some of our own oil assets and who can never be defeated if we continue to pay so much money for foreign oil. Let's say he got tough on the matter (this would probably have to involve transferring Andrew Card to some foreign embassy if he's still at the White House) and demanded several thousand EV's per year from each of the makers... no excuses, immediate action on low-sulfur diesel, much more urgent commitment to better-mileage vehicles with some eye to grid-chargeability, etc., in the name of trying everything possible (even if some of it didn't work) to cease and desist exporting billions to murderers. I also think they should do more about a national commitment to power grid issues and net metering, but I do think they're trying (FERC recently talking about trying to come up with some sort of national policy). I think that would be a good thing. Failure to do this has not only become bizarre. It's become a sign of a lack of a total commitment to winning the war. The Bush administration has been very strong on planning military campaigns and on planning some hard-nosed diplomacy. They've been weak on other war "fronts", particularly on Energy Policy. I've been beating this drum for years, and I thought it would come across as "I told you so" to keep talking about energy policy and its relation to security. But what have they done while some of us have let it go for a year or so? Not nearly enough. I won't say they've done nothing, but they're not doing everything possible. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/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/
