US EPA Finalizes Low Sulfur Gasoline

[kschachn]

So you think the air pollution problems in Bejing are due to automobile emissions? And even if they were, you think that we are headed there if we don't reduce the sulfur in gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 ppm nationwide?

The thing is, they already have these new limits in California. Why does Cheyenne or Austin need them, or Milwaukee for that matter?

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Thing is, I completely agree that we should have stricter emission standards.
Some do not, I think it is right way to go, since photos from Beijing are not that pleasant to see.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The thing is, they already have these new limits in California. Why does Cheyenne or Austin need them, or Milwaukee for that matter?

Given Cheyenne's size, would it have mattered at all in the grand scheme of things if they were given a permanent exemption to sell leaded gasoline to locals? The same basic arguments have been trotted out every time anything is done with respect to emissions rules.

No matter what the proposal is, it's either going to jack up the price of fuel by some dastardly amount, it's going to flush reliability irrevocably down the toilet, or it's going to relegate us all to 60 hp engines, or some combination of all three.

 

[Coprolite]

I personally like the "cars practically clean the air as you drive" chain of thought. I'm going to go sleep in my garage with the car running.

 

[Bamaro]

Originally Posted By: Coprolite
I personally like the "cars practically clean the air as you drive" chain of thought. I'm going to go sleep in my garage with the car running.

You can also skip the Ambien if you do that.

 

[Hyde244]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
So you think the air pollution problems in Bejing are due to automobile emissions? And even if they were, you think that we are headed there if we don't reduce the sulfur in gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 ppm nationwide?
It is very well documented that auto emissions are a big contributor to poor air quality.

http://english.cri.cn/7146/2014/01/02/2361s806264.htm

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The thing is, they already have these new limits in California. Why does Cheyenne or Austin need them, or Milwaukee for that matter?
The concern for the US EPA isn't public health/air quality in California, but the entire country. That's how federal agencies work.

Originally Posted By: Garak
No matter what the proposal is, it's either going to jack up the price of fuel by some dastardly amount, it's going to flush reliability irrevocably down the toilet, or it's going to relegate us all to 60 hp engines, or some combination of all three.
Again I'll restate, the opponents of the new standard are projecting a 9 cent increase in gallon cost. As for concern of a loss of power with regulation of emissions, might I introduce you to the Porsche 918 Hybrid. 887 HP, 940 lb-ft of torque, 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, and fewer emissions than a Prius.

http://press.porsche.com/news/release.php?id=787

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
So you think the air pollution problems in Bejing are due to automobile emissions? And even if they were, you think that we are headed there if we don't reduce the sulfur in gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 ppm nationwide?

The thing is, they already have these new limits in California. Why does Cheyenne or Austin need them, or Milwaukee for that matter?

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Thing is, I completely agree that we should have stricter emission standards.
Some do not, I think it is right way to go, since photos from Beijing are not that pleasant to see.

Partly, big problem is coal, which I would also get rid of in the U.S. Luckily, EPA is already doing it.
Garak already answered for me.

 

[Trav]

I can see the benefits of it but the price increase is going to hurt a lot of people.
Historically claims of small price increases for anything have been less than accurate. I fear 5 or 6c will be more like 50 or 60c.

 

[Hyde244]

^ Again, just to be clear. The EPA projects the increase in standards will raise gasoline prices by 1 cent per gallon. The gravest project by the American Petroleum Institute, which has led the opposition to increasing standards, projects a 9 cent increase in price.

To date, there is not a single credible report that projects an increase in pricing above 9 cents. You can still be afraid of the impact new standards will have on pricing, but I encourage folks to be rational and accept the analysis that has been done thus far by both sides of the argument.

 

[hatt]

Who projected ULSD to be $.60+ higher than LSD? Real life numbers > made up numbers.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: Bamaro
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
I personally like the "cars practically clean the air as you drive" chain of thought. I'm going to go sleep in my garage with the car running.

You can also skip the Ambien if you do that.

It is true that in the LA basin, the particulate emission of a modern car is less than the ambient concentration.

Ed

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
I personally like the "cars practically clean the air as you drive" chain of thought. I'm going to go sleep in my garage with the car running.

You can also skip the Ambien if you do that.

It is true that in the LA basin, the particulate emission of a modern car is less than the ambient concentration.

Ed



Thanks, Ed.

Indeed, it is. Modern cars are far past the point of diminishing returns.

Micro incremental decreases in emissions at the expense of the citizenry should be carefully evaluated for cost versus benefits.

And the comment was entirely of the 'tongue in cheek' variety, but that hardly matters when you are snipping out little bits of a post and attempting to prove something right or wrong.

Just as the greenies get all testy about anyone denying them their right to declare we are all stupid if we do not agree with their plans. To dissent is simply wrong, as they know BEST and we should all roll over and just go along or we get hit with the "they want dirty air and water" baloney.

It's a tired old refrain, and as for the "get out and vote" comment, the EPA is an Agency, no one is elected. Just as the IRS has been misused to defraud folks of their legal rights to express their opinions, the EPA is being used to circumvent the will of the folks as represented by Congress. Read the emails, they are for real.

See ya in November!

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Hyde244
I encourage folks to be rational and accept the analysis that has been done thus far by both sides of the argument.


I accept the fact that everything they tell me is a bald faced lie.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Hyde244
Again I'll restate, the opponents of the new standard are projecting a 9 cent increase in gallon cost. As for concern of a loss of power with regulation of emissions, might I introduce you to the Porsche 918 Hybrid. 887 HP, 940 lb-ft of torque, 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, and fewer emissions than a Prius.

That's my point. The reality is that it always works out in the end. People who fondly remember "yesterday's" gas prices and technology conveniently forget breaker points, 1000 mile OCIs, tire tubes, deadly vehicle interiors, generators, etc., etc., ad infinitum. The complaints have been made with every big environmental or technological change, and they've been exaggerated, to say the least.

People complained (and still complain) about GDI. Yet, when something is proposed to mitigate some of the issues, that's another thing to complain about. The sky was supposed to fall when leaded gas was yanked. Cats and other emissions controls were supposed to bankrupt us and leave us driving low HP vehicles.

As Trav points out, the price increase will be more than some predict, but I don't think it's going to be the end of the world, as some would have us believe. Oil companies won't miss out the chance to profit, but that's what companies do.

Coal, of course, is another issue, as edyww indicated. The only thing saving this province, environmentally speaking with respect to coal power, is that we have a rather low population spread out over a large geographical area.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Garak
The complaints have been made with every big environmental or technological change, and they've been exaggerated, to say the least.


Many people were against air bags before they came out. Not smart.

 

[Garak]

Oh yes, I forgot how much of a nightmare fuel injection and electronic ignition were supposed to be. They've sure caused cars to go downhill in general.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Oh yes, I forgot how much of a nightmare fuel injection and electronic ignition were supposed to be. They've sure caused cars to go downhill in general.

To be fair those people were talking about those when they weren't nearly as good as now. If Henry had started off putting coyotes in Model Ts you wouldn't have heard complaining.

 

[dave1251]

OK to produce a Low Sulfur gasoline it will take more energy and resources. How is that environmentally friendly? And to the proponents stating that API is projecting only a 6-9 per gallon increase of course API is going to state the lowest possible price increase. API represents the oil and natural gas industry.

To the ones that state driving is a pleasure of course it can be. But are you going to front the bill for the increase cost to me? Because driving is how I make my living. Not to mention each of us will pay more because the cost of food will increase along with other goods that are essential.

The most irritating part of this subject most people are just going lie down and take it. Show me data. Because there are other developed parts of the world that have quite a bit cleaner air than California yet cancer diagnosis rates per capita are higher. But all is well because we will be lemmings and not question anything in the world.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
So the point is?
We are already driving cars that are technologically more advanced then the fuel is.


You really shouldn't say things like this because people will think you don't know how the auto business works. Cars and fuels are designed to work together. The SAE has a Fuels & Lubes Committee where oil company representatives get together with auto manufacturer representatives years before new cars are introduced to make sure the proper fuels are available. This is how unleaded gas became available at the same time that cars with catalytic converters were introduced. This is how ULSD became available at the same time that DPF's were introduced.

When the EPA writes a new regulation, the auto manufacturers and oil companies have to spend BILLIONS of dollars and undertake years of R & D to comply. Then the cost of their products go up, which represents the hidden tax of regulation. So if you're willing to pay more for clean air, that's how it happens. In this case, I don't think that changing sulfur concentration from 30 ppm to 10 ppm is going to make a measurable difference in air quality over and above natural background pollution, but since the increase in fuel cost will only be ~2.5% I'll find something else to get stressed-out about.

 

[Hyde244]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
And to the proponents stating that API is projecting only a 6-9 per gallon increase of course API is going to state the lowest possible price increase. API represents the oil and natural gas industry.
No, the API doesn't like the new standard at all, as it equals $10 billion of capital cost for the oil industry. The API does not want Tier 3 gasoline - they are an opponent.

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/10/api-urges-epa-to-withdraw-its-tier-3-gasoline-regulations.html

 

[Coprolite]

Steve,

My quote of your statement was in the same spirit as yours tongue in cheek.

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
I personally like the "cars practically clean the air as you drive" chain of thought. I'm going to go sleep in my garage with the car running.

You can also skip the Ambien if you do that.

It is true that in the LA basin, the particulate emission of a modern car is less than the ambient concentration.

Ed



Thanks, Ed.

Indeed, it is. Modern cars are far past the point of diminishing returns.

Micro incremental decreases in emissions at the expense of the citizenry should be carefully evaluated for cost versus benefits.

And the comment was entirely of the 'tongue in cheek' variety, but that hardly matters when you are snipping out little bits of a post and attempting to prove something right or wrong.

Just as the greenies get all testy about anyone denying them their right to declare we are all stupid if we do not agree with their plans. To dissent is simply wrong, as they know BEST and we should all roll over and just go along or we get hit with the "they want dirty air and water" baloney.

It's a tired old refrain, and as for the "get out and vote" comment, the EPA is an Agency, no one is elected. Just as the IRS has been misused to defraud folks of their legal rights to express their opinions, the EPA is being used to circumvent the will of the folks as represented by Congress. Read the emails, they are for real.

See ya in November!