EPA Going a Little Too Far? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #16 09-13-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

Now with that as a backdrop I've got to say I'm a huge believer in getting the government out of things but in this case I'll admit that government regulations were a prime mover in creating technologies that have had a very beneficial effect on our environment. Well done EPA.

Past Tense used. Why? Because it was in the PAST. As they say "What have you done for me LATELY?". Just like unions. Yes, they WERE great in the past. Today, no so good. Horse and buggy. Same thing.

cmac2012 · #17 09-14-2010, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

I agree with the spirit of your post but your numbers are a bit off, its much worse than you state.

I don't think most people realize how clean today's modern cars are compared to vehicles of even 10-15 years ago, compared to vehicles of the 1960's the reductions in emissions are absolutely astounding.

Now with that as a backdrop I've got to say I'm a huge believer in getting the government out of things but in this case I'll admit that government regulations were a prime mover in creating technologies that have had a very beneficial effect on our environment. Well done EPA.

But here is the problem...... We've now reduced emission well over 99% from the days of the 1960's, rational people would say that at some point (and on Diesel technology I'd say we are there) that cost/benefit curve starts to reach a point where the rational person would say "Maybe enough, at least for awhile"

But of course at the EPA that would mean the bureaucracy would have nothing to do - so they mindlessly proceed to try to get the next 1/100th of a percent of a reduction.

The EPA doesn't give a damn about how much it costs or what the users have to do to live with the consequences of their emission new regulations. I'm actually surprised the military was able to get a waiver.

I'm guessing EPA will still have plenty to do. But I do agree with most of your remarks (except I doubt they're quibbling over a 1/100% reduction). I've heard a lot about particulate matter from diesels, I mean maybe I'm wrong, it has happened before, but I'd have to see more info before I conclude they're just wasting our time.

Govt. does have a place in these things and much improvement has been made. I recall the kicking and screaming in the early days so it probably wouldn't have happened w/o some coercion.

They've got to fix this and I'm thinking FDs can bring enough weight to bear from their Congress-folk to change this in a hurry.

cmac2012 · #18 09-14-2010, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

the EPA has been out of control for years. they recently shelved plans to ban lead bullets. that is just a for instance. they are hard core greenies who don't give a s#$t about Joe everyman's wishes

Lead buckshot has a pretty big toxic impact on some areas. It is going to be near impossible to convince good ol' boys to give up lead shot, I'll admit.

10fords · #19 09-14-2010, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Lead buckshot has a pretty big toxic impact on some areas. It is going to be near impossible to convince good ol' boys to give up lead shot, I'll admit.

Can you show any evidence or study that backs that up? I have not been able to find any. Even though lead has been banned in the Condor range- guess what? The Condors are still dying! It's called evolution.

aklim · #20 09-14-2010, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It is going to be near impossible to convince good ol' boys to give up lead shot, I'll admit.

Of course, if YOU were paying the difference, it might be easier. After all, it is easy to advocate but harder when you are having to foot the bill.

Makes me think of the James Bond Movie "Never say Never again". When he was playing in the casino with the bad guy, they had a game. As the stakes increased, the pain went up. Reason was because the generals in the war games often didn't feel the pain of the soldier.

TimFreeh · #21 09-14-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

....(except I doubt they're quibbling over a 1/100% reduction)..... I've heard a lot about particulate matter from diesels, I mean maybe I'm wrong, it has happened before, but I'd have to see more info before I conclude they're just wasting our time.

Here's a table that shows the historical reductions in automotive NOx emissions from 1975 to 2009.

http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm

We are now at 7/100ths of a gram of NOx per mile, the last reduction went from 30/100ths to 7/100ths. That's a 77% decrease from the previous standard that was itself an over 90% reduction from the original 1975 standard.

How much cleaner do you want to get it?

I'm sure there are plans at the EPA to reduce it another 77% to 1/100th of a gram per mile - and of course you will need 3 new exhaust catalysts, a 50 gallon tank of urea, 2 particulate traps that will have to be changed every 3rd tank of fuel and these changes will only add another $1,000 to the sticker price of the car.

cmac2012 · #22 09-14-2010, 07:53 PM

And the problem with that is?

HAH! Had you for a minute. You make a good point - past the point of diminishing returns.

rscurtis · #23 09-17-2010, 05:53 PM

These pictures are from a 2003 Dodge with the HO engine option for that year, 305HP, 555 torque. It has no emission controls whatsoever. Look at the exhaust stain on the bumper, can't get too much cleaner than that. The oil (Amsoil HDD 5/30) has 14,000 miles on it, with a filter change 5000 miles ago.

Pooka · #24 09-17-2010, 08:21 PM

I once lived near an inspection station in Texas. I could see what looked like something from the 1930's in the bay they used for tail pipe tests one day, so later I asked the owners about it.

So... Some guy had just rebuilt his 1938 Ford and was tooling around in it and pulled in for some gas. They had just installed a new sniffer or upgraded the software or something so they asked him if they could try their new sniffer on the Ford. Since these guys were a bunch of gearheads they had often wondered just how dirty the old cars were.

The Ford passed the state of Texas emissions test for new cars, and I think this was in 1992 or so. The station owners contacted the state to see if something was wrong with their machine and they were told that due to the long stroke of engines from the 1930's and 40's that many cars from that era could pass the test.

The problem was that they could not develop much power. Having owned a 1938 Dodge at one time I can attest to the fact that the power in these engines is not what you would expect today.

It's a vicious cycle. More power comes from higher compression and that needs higher octane gas and that causes more... Anyway, I am glad that the auto industry has been able to provide us clean engines that put out the power they do. Sadly, it took the EPA holding their feet to the fire to make them do it as fast as they have.

An executive with a well known diesel engine maker told me they had cleaner engines ready to sell, but until their competitors came out with one why should they sell theirs? "Why change the hook if you are still catching fish?", was the way he put it.

That was in 1965. Yeah, I know. I'm old.