today's wsj//page d7
 

headline reads:study links soot to heart disease - low-grade inflamations trigger defense mechanisms that tend to clog arteries .....

and yes. diesel engines are identified as major emmiters.

so are you suggesting that all diesel engines be sentenced to the junk yard ?

Gasoline engines produce as much or more breathable particulates, just less visible. Breathable particulates are 1 micron or less, diesel soot is usually larger. Nasty stuff, though.

The fun thing is that decent fuel reduces the diesel soot to levels below gas engine particulates.....Biodiesel to the rescue!

Peter

sounds good to me, peter. maybe we could just a put a soot grabber on each diesel engine and be way ahead of the game.

Mine has one, a trap catalyst in the downpipe. The Volvo and 220D, alas, make LOTS of smoke.

Peter

Sounds like CARB propaganda to me !

So, why don't we get rid of all the high fat junkfood venders such as McDonalds et al. and use that mega-supply of oil and resources to foster a steady , inexpensive and renewable supply of enviro-friendly bio- fuel and cut the incidence of HEART DISEASE to nil. :p

ULSD in 2006 should go a long way in solving this problem. We`re not waiting though, got the bean in our tanks.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." (John Stuart Mill) :D

I’m not sure – always seem to have a minority view – I think I’m one of the loyal opposition = no offence intended

I didn't realize there was a big anti-diesel movment from the "Green" side

Is it not true that one cannot buy a new diesel automobile in California these days, but you can buy all the Lincoln Naviguzzlers you want ? :rolleyes:

I believe that there is a larger group than we may realize that would like to crush every diesel vehicle in the USA if they could !:eek:

lots of 'green' minded people are looking at diesels for a few reasons:
1. a new car is not needed- used cars are recycled...
2. diesels will run on environmentally friendly fuels, which can decrease all of those emissions concerns greatly.
3. landfill waste decreased by biofuel use.
4. much more....

only ignorant think gassers are better for environment. even hybrids pollute more when the cycle of the vehicle is taken into consideration.

Yes, the environmental nuts threw a fit about deisels due to the soot (particulate) emissions. Turns out the vast majority is from old (pre 70's) trucks and off-road equipment. Newer diesels dont' produce anywhere near as much soot.

Diesel soot is, however, nasty stuff, full of aromatic compounds known to cause cancer.

The good thing is that US diesel fuel is crap -- add some oxygenating compounds (like biodiesel), and both the soot and the carcinogens drop dramatically.

Peter

Re: Re: today's wsj//page d7
 

As a far left libertarian tree-hugger (and occasional tree-pruner, -grafter, and planter) from the Republic of Vermont (none of this 14th state of the union c$#p); I suspected that that article originated with the rather LARGE lobby of so-called "natural gas" (makes it sound so 'healthy', doesn't it?) producers....most of whom are owned by the oil companies. It makes use of a lot of equipment they already have and requires mechanical retrofiting of busses and the like with an engine that is only good for that fuel. Unlike a Diesel engine which can run on a variety of oils, both truly "natural" and petroleum-based.

Given how much money converting stuff to natural gas would cost, it makes sense to me that some big business would be in on it. We'd still be dependent on The Very Big Corp., Inc.

The Union of Concerned Scientists was pushing for this Natural Gas conversion of school buses .... which would cost school districts a bundle ..... when the buses already have the engines for putting in Canola (or whatever). That would solve the particulate and sulfur problems. I wrote to them telling them that politely. I did get a response, but it was worded in such a way that I suspected someone was a schill for some industry guys in there. (Long time ago I worked in a PR firm that shall remain nameless. I have a massively overactive Corporate Bulls*$t Detector.)

The primary pollutant in diesel fuel is the sulfur. However last time they lowered the sulfur content there were many IPs and lift pumps that couldn't take it anymore.

I'm sure everyone here has heard of the conservation of mass, well as you well know mass cannot be destroyed or created (other than nuclear stuff :)) so that gas which weighs in around 7lb/gal doesn't just disappear. If your car gets 30mpg then you're emitting .23lb/ mile. I read in a book somewhere that for every gallon of gas burnt 5lbs of pure carbon (like those grill bricks) is emitted with the other two being in other forms. Now if you drive a gas hog like the Navigator getting about 15mpg then go ahead and double that to .46lb/mile.

As for diesels they pollute visually much more but the gases aren't nearly as bad as gassers. Also since we are talking about pollution here it takes much more energy to refine a gallon of gas than diesel, diesel is the byproduct of refined gas. Because of this it contains more energy per gallon than gas which yields better mileage. If you get more miles to the gallon then you are polluting less. :)

if diesel fuel is a by-product of refining gasoline, why does it cost as much as or more than regular gas?