I am still confused about what appears to be an important issue, as to the different "grades" of cleaner diesel and what would be best and what not best in the transition to the cleanest diesel. It sounded like, from the post of one person a few weeks ago, that the sudden rush to the absolute cleanest diesel would *not* be for the best because this could cause problems in transitioning the hardware to run that fuel? This sort of came out of nowhere, even though it of course is not a completely foreign idea. I mean, as one changes a fuel, one can always run up against the problem of whether older engines can run it. Then what?
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 04:21:47 +0900, you wrote: >>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20021030-1438-cleandiesel.html > >Thankyou MM. Progress - with this and the story that CARB has changed >its tune on diesels maybe we're getting somewhere at last. ULSD only >in 2006, and the oil industry's still carping about distribution >problems and wants concessions, but it'll happen, and there's room >for biodiesel to fill the gap in the meantime - and to fill the >lubrication gap for older diesels even after ULSD. CARB's statement >should generally weaken thediesel-bashing lobby, maybe there'll be >less knee-jerk opposition to diesels now. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Looking for a more powerful website? Try GeoCities for $8.95 per month. Register your domain name (http://your-name.com). More storage! No ads! http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info http://us.click.yahoo.com/auyVXB/KJoEAA/jd3IAA/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/
