One of them sleepy Wednesdays

[Hoss 350]

So......What does this mean for us?

What this all means to us is the following:

1.) We will have much cleaner air. At 2.5 microns, these filters will actually make the exhaust air more particulate free than the intake air. I can go on for days about how truly harmful particulate matter is (no one has shown any direct coorelation between particulate matter and adverse health effects, just very basic associations. They use these associations to “prove” that so many people die early every year as a result, and that it costs us “X” amount of dollars as a result of these early deaths, but it is a bulls*** designed to scare us into compliance). However, the net effect of these filters is that our trucks will actually produce cleaner air than they take in (on a PM basis only).

2.) Our tailpipe NOx levels will go down, but not really that much. One has to consider the source when a 90% reduction is discussed. You have to ask the question “90% of what?” Current diesel technology (ie, 03-on 6 liters, LLY and on Duramaxs, and 3rd Gen Cummins) already has VERY low levels of NOx emissions due to EGRs and catalysts and such. So, a 90% reduction of a very small amount is an even smaller amount. Current EGR technology pretty much already surpasses the ’07 requirements, according to what I’ve read. So, this means very little to us, as we already have EGRs and are pretty much already compliant.

3.) Our fuel economy will go down. No matter what the article says, when you take a 5.9 and make it a 6.7, or you take a 6.0 and make it a 6.4, or take a 6.6 and make it a 6.9 (the displacements discussed by all three manufacturers to meet requirements) you reduce the fuel economy of that engine. Also, to reduce NOx, which is created by hot air, they have reduced the compression ratios of the engines, which will also reduce fuel economy. The kicker is the particulate filter. To fit a 2.5 mocrin filter that has to pass the volume of gas that a 6 liter diesel engine creates under a truck, means the filter is going to be very restrictive (because it will be too small due to space constraints). As we all know, exhaust restriction in a turbocharged engine is BAD. Some have warned that it will be similar to running with your EBPV partially on all the time.

4.) The cost of fuel will go up. Since home heating fuel will not have to be ULS, the pipelines carrying the fuel will be contaminated by sulphur, and as a result, the choice is to build new pipelines specifically for ULSD, ship the ULSD via alternative methods (ie truck haul it) or to just figure that a large portion of the ULSD will no longer meet EPA requirements once it reaches it’s destination, and sell it as home heating oil or for industrial (off-road) purposes. Any one of these three options is going to be very expensive to the oil companies, and you can bet your last penny that they are going to pass ever single cent of that cost on to the end user (which I would expect them to do).

5.) The benefit of a diesel will no longer be as great. The days of 20 MPG diesels in pickups are over, gents. Additionally, the cost of the particulate filters and stuff will probably add a couple grand to the option, which is already pretty big. So, you will be driving a similarly powered, similarly fuel-economied rig down the road (as compared to a gasser) which cost you 7K more to buy, and costs 0.75 more a gallon to fill up, and a whole bunch more to repair and maintain….


It seems to me that the heyday of oil-burners in America is drying up. Pity, too, because efficient diesel technology exists that allows clean-burning diesels to get very good fuel economy. I read somewhere that if everybody got 25% better fuel economy, we could virtually eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. You could achieve this with a diesel in every garage. But our EPA is too concerned with justifying their existence by cleaning up air that is already pretty darned clean, of a pollutant that I have yet to see any compelling evidence of it’s harm (PM) to see that there are bigger problems than dust in the air.

Clean air is a good thing, but the costs outweigh the benefits in this particular case.

 

[bartman]

As long as it's not retroactive, I'll drive my cat-free 2000 (with rebuilds) to the grave. And when i go, they can transport the coffin in my 8' bed, so their powerless filtered hearse doesn't have to burn it's own fuel.

 

[powerboatr]

and with grown fuels we could be like brazil...... clean air and on track to be non dependant on foriegn oil imports.

 

[Hoss 350]

Want to go in together on a sulfur additve company? Kind of like the lead additive you have to put in some of the older cars?

I am not sure your company would do very well, Bryan. Diesel engines don't need sulfur like the old gassers needed lead (to prevent detonation). Sulfur is just a contaminant in the petroleum that serves no purpose whatsoever in the operation of a diesel engine. It costs so much to get it out, that no one ever really cared to, so they just turned loose the diesel fuel with the sulfur in it. Now that they HAVE to get it out, they are doing so, but it never served a purpose while it was in there (other than to aid in the creation of black smoke, which I guess is a noble enough purpose).

The reason most people assume that diesel engines need sulfur is because of several things, all of which add up to create the fallacy:
1.) The first is that many of us were around to see the rule outlawing leaded fuel, and saw the results of that (pinging, rattling, and burned up valves). The lead was in there for a reason, it served a purpose, and thus, it was an added to the fuel. This has carried itself over to ULSD because people assume that the sulfur is in there because the engines need it, just like lead. This is not true. The sulfur is in there because no one bothered to take it out.
2.) Second, the current, cheapest process to remove the sulfur from the fuel ALSO removes some of the lubricity of the fuel. People commit an ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here, where they assume that because taking the sulfur out reduces the lubricity of the fuel, that the sulfur provides lubricity in the fuel. This is not true. Sulfur provides zero lubricity in a diesel engine. It is true that the process of removing supfur also removes some lubricating qualities, but that is being taken care of at the refinery, where they are adding a lubricity additive back in after the sulfur removal process. Or, you can take care of it yourself by adding a Stanadyne lube additive, or a gallon of veggie oil at every fill-up.
3.) Third, the previous process, implemented back in 1992, which brought about the currently-used LOW sulfur diesel fuel, caused the fuel to be more reactant with natural rubber, which caused some trouble in older rigs that had natural rubber components in the fuel system. So, people already have a negative outlook on sulfur removal, because of the big scare that every old diesel on the road was going to be leaking fuel by months end. It never really came true, but it was still a big deal, which poisoned a lot of people to the idea of removing sulfur fromt eh fuel. To this day, you can read the LSD warnings on the sides of fuel pumps, warning that “The diesel at this pump meets 1992 low-sulfur diesel standards, which means that some fittings in older diesel vehicles may be destroyed, causing fuel leaks” or something like that.

So in sum, a sulfur additive would accomplish nothing beyond creating Sulfur dioxide and more particulate pollution at the tailpipe (which would be VERY bad on particulate filter equipped vehicles, since they would clog up and be overcome by all the crap being spewed by a high-sulfur fuel).

If you already knew this and were just being funny, sorry to regale you with a bunch of stuff you already knew. Maybe someone else will find it useful, though.

 

[Hoss 350]

and with grown fuels we could be like brazil...... clean air and on track to be non dependant on foriegn oil imports.

Brazil has so few vehicles and so much land per vehicle, they can manage. We, on the other hand, cannot do so with current technology.

Lets all hope that the algae farms that "they" are looking into come to fruition, because then we will all be driving oil-burners, with ZERO sulfur fuel and ZERO dependence on foreign oil. Life will be good...

 

[Hoss 350]

75 cents was just a guesstimate. You have to keep in mind that a large portion of that cost has already been levied into the cost of diesel. That is why it is so much more expensive than unleaded now, when it never has been in the past. Fuel companies are, and have been, spending money on upgrades to facialites, R&D, new pipelines, etc for ULSD. They have already pushed a large portion of that cost off on diesel fuels. I have no idea how much more it will be once it is released, but I've heard rumors anywhere from a couple cents to 25 cents. Diesel is already 50 cents more per gallon here than unleaded, so i figured a worst case scenario in my guess. (Total of 75 cents). You won't see a 75 cent a gallon increase solely from the implementation of ULSD, according to what I've seen, it will just be 75 cents total...

 

[draftlover]

75 cents was just a guesstimate. You have to keep in mind that a large portion of that cost has already been levied into the cost of diesel. That is why it is so much more expensive than unleaded now, when it never has been in the past. Fuel companies are, and have been, spending money on upgrades to facialites, R&D, new pipelines, etc for ULSD. They have already pushed a large portion of that cost off on diesel fuels.

Is this fact or rumor? I was wondering why diesel was so much more expensive than 3 years ago. This explains it, and I'm guessing that this ULSD is a definite "GO". (I'm out of the fuel price loop. I just think it's waaaaaaay to expensive!-mad ) I do know that diesel is less refined than unleaded, hence the 1/2 price of unleaded in the past. Does anyone see a price drop in the next...say...2 years?

 

[Hoss 350]

Is this fact or rumor? I was wondering why diesel was so much more expensive than 3 years ago. This explains it, and I'm guessing that this ULSD is a definite "GO". (I'm out of the fuel price loop. I just think it's waaaaaaay to expensive!-mad ) I do know that diesel is less refined than unleaded, hence the 1/2 price of unleaded in the past. Does anyone see a price drop in the next...say...2 years?

Rumor. I am not sure that there is such a thing as "fact" when you are talking fuel prices. I do not recall where I learned or read this. It does seem to make logical sense, but in labeling it a fact based on the logic only, I would certainly be presumptuous, to say the least.

You are correct in your statement that currently, diesel fuel IS cheaper to refine than unleaded. In fact, it is almost a byproduct of refining unleaded (as I understand it). However, the new ULSD rules have made it more expensive to make, and also more expensive to transport. Is it still cheaper than unleaded, even after all that? I guess I don't know. I don't foresee diesel going down in price anytime soon.