backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Mar 12 at 6:24 PM

The goal is to help automakers meet new emissions standards, increase vehicle performance and improve public health

Gasoline is about to get a whole lot cleaner as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) looks to reduce the amount of sulfur in fuel with a new regulation. 
 
According to the EPA, it's finalizing new rules that will cut the amount of sulfur in gasoline by two-thirds starting in 2017. The goal is to help automakers meet new emissions standards, increase vehicle performance and improve public health.
 
A vehicle's catalytic converter primarily controls emissions, but over time, sulfur in fuel can disable auto technologies that work to eliminate emissions. 
 
Sulfur took a massive hit in 2000 when the EPA required the amount be lowered from an average of 300 ppm (parts per million) to 30 ppm. When these new rules are finalized, that number will drop further to 10ppm nationwide by 2017. 
 
The EPA estimates an 80 percent reduction in emissions for cars and trucks from today’s fleet average, and a 60 percent reduction for heavy-duty vehicles.


[SOURCE: Automobile Magazine]

"These standards are a win for public health, a win for our environment, and a win for our pocketbooks," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. "By working with the auto industry, health groups, and other stakeholders, we're continuing to build on the Obama Administration's broader clean fuels and vehicles efforts that cut carbon pollution, clean the air we breathe, and save families money at the pump."
 
Automakers like the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers -- a trade group representing Detroit’s Big Three automakers, Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen AG and others -- have welcomed the rules because it lowers the cost of technologies needed to improve fuel economy and meet emissions standards. The auto industry will spend about $200 billion to double the efficiency of the fleet by 2025 to 54.5 MPG.
 
The program is estimated to cost less than a penny per gallon of gasoline, and about $72 per vehicle. The annual cost of the overall program in 2030 is estimated to be about $1.5 billion. 
 
Putting these new rules in place would also improve public health. According to the EPA, the rules will annually prevent up to 30,000 cases of respiratory ailments in children; 2,200 hospital admissions and asthma-related emergency room visits; 2,000 premature deaths, and 1.4 million lost school days and work days. 
 
Total health-related benefits in 2030 are estimated to be between $8 billion and $23 billion annually.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By flyingpants1 on 3/4/2014 7:19:54 PM , Rating: 5
NOOOOOOOO!! GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS!!!

I DEMAND THAT YOU STOP SAVING MY LIFE!!!

We live in a FREE society, I should be allowed to burn as much sulfur as I feel like. Everyone should be responsible for buying and maintaining their own gas mask!




RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By AlurianNighthawk on 3/4/2014 7:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm kinda curious as to why they haven't done this before if its so easy...maybe they were too busy trying to put more corn in my gas?

But yea, bad government! :P


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By TacticalTrading on 3/4/2014 7:53:55 PM , Rating: 3
Notice how there is no mention about how those EVIL Oil companies feel about this one.

One single penny per gallon, that is all the government says it will cost. And if you like your car, you can keep your car, and it will only cost you ONE Penny more per gallon.

So who you going to believe? The Obama Administration? They have established a solid reputation on matters of this nature (I don't think it is a very good reputation...)

OR, the Oil companies? who are probably stretching the truth a bit. Let's split the difference and call it a likely 4 to 6 cent hike (Depending on the state you are in)

But hey, the corn is clean... isn't it?

"...But the U.S. oil industry says that the new regulations will likely increase its costs. Investing in new, expensive technology to remove sulfur will translate to an extra nine cents per gallon, heads of the oil industry claim, according to USA Today. The EPA makes a more conservative estimate: the agency claims that drivers will see a only a one penny per gallon spike in prices at the pump...."

Read more: New EPA Sulfur Emission Rules May Hike Gas Prices But Could Save Lives | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2014/03/03/epas-new-emiss...


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By NovoRei on 3/4/2014 9:58:34 PM , Rating: 3
It costs to remove sulfur from Gas. The price hike will be higher than 1 cent.

On the other hand expect engines to last longer. Both due to lower oil contamination and due to cleaner internal components. Direct injection is heavily affected by sulfur.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By ammaross on 3/4/2014 10:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
300 to 30 was a big deal. 30 to 10 is not so much. Anyway, the 1 penny per gallon likely is the estimated cost of the desulferization unit itself, not the cost to design, implement, and maintain said unit. Also, it's likely scaled for large oil refineries, and will likely put unfair strain on low-volume refineries who have to buy the same type of unit at the same price. Expect price hikes to vary depending on refineries in the area.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By StevoLincolnite on 3/4/2014 11:58:26 PM , Rating: 1
On the flip side... Sulfur helps add to the oils volume, so should be interesting to see what it does to supply/demand and whether prices will increase because of that factor. (And compounded by the cost of removing the sulfur.)


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Mint on 3/5/2014 4:29:17 AM , Rating: 3
Do you know what 30 ppm means? No, it doesn't add to volume in any significant way.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By StevoLincolnite on 3/10/2014 6:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
It *still* adds to the volume.

30 ppm is 0.003% of the volume.
However, when we start talking in billions of barrels... It would probably start to add up over a several year period.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2014 12:19:02 AM , Rating: 1
Oh didn't you hear, this will prevent some twenty thousand deaths a year. A slight reduction in sulfur, that's all it takes to prevent death!

Ugh, pretty much anything coming from this Administration is horse hockey.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By flyingpants1 on 3/5/14, Rating: 0
RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Mint on 3/5/2014 4:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you so doggedly anti-science?

First of all, learn how to read. It's two thousand lives a year, not 20k. These are not wild claims of health impact. The US is a nation of over 300M people, with 2.5M people dying per year, and 20M living with asthma. They're claiming ~0.1% impact in the long run.

We make tradeoffs between costs and lives/health all the time in everyday life. This is simply another one.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2014 7:17:12 AM , Rating: 1
Anti-science?

Dude wake up! This is just a political move.

Are you dumb enough to believe this will impact our health in any significant way? We already have the best air quality of any first world nation.

Just another way Obama can make fuel less affordable and alternatives more attractive.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By BRB29 on 3/5/2014 12:10:47 PM , Rating: 1
AFAIK, fuel prices are cheaper now than in 2008.

quote:
Just another way Obama can make fuel less affordable and alternatives more attractive.


Don't be so biased that facts starts disagreeing with you.
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

The US has been exporting refined fuel for several years now. We're actually one of the largest exporter. Prices has steadily decrease. People think that fuel prices should drop back down to $2 like it was in 2004. It can't and it won't unless the energy industry will take a massive hit and millions lose their jobs. Are there anything that has declined in prices over a decade besides old tech gadgets?


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2014 12:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Using the 2008 spike is pretty dishonest. Why not use the low 2008 prices at the end of the Bush term?
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/web_us_average_gas_pr...

Gas cheaper now? You must be joking.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2014 8:20:23 AM , Rating: 1
If I'm anti-science you're anti-critical thinking!

You just blindly accept anything the Government does. Not once have I seen you be against, or even question, a Government plan or action. No matter how half-baked or Unconstitutional or wrong. Hell I bet deep down you think the NSA is just a-okay.

Here you are again blindly following your Federal masters without question. And flaming down anyone who questions them.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Mint on 3/6/2014 3:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
I've publicly expressed my dismay with gov't funded wind and solar power on DT and elsewhere. I think defense spending is ludicrously high.

I've been against the Patriot Act's section 215 (the part enabling the NSA's activities) since the beginning, but what am I going to do? Society is a flock of gutless sheep that is pathetically scared of the tiniest chance of terrorism. The best I can hope for is that the NSA doesn't let anyone access this data, like we see from corporations repeatedly.

There was a bill to end bulk collection in 2008:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bulk+collection+fe...
Did you give any of those senators hell for voting it down? Or praise those that supported it?

It's a complete joke that you accuse me of "anti-critical thinking". You blindly cheer completely bunk attempts at science if they support your views:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29884...
You haven't had a critical thought in your life.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2014 7:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
Mint I hate to shatter your world, but you are NOT a scientist. You are NOT Daily Techs arbiter of science, or science consultant.

Is there a peer reviewed paper of yours somewhere I can read? Oh there isn't? Then kindly shut the F up :)

quote:
You blindly cheer completely bunk attempts at science if they support your views:


Yup I did :) Hell I barely even read his post. It just went against the prevailing Liberal suckfest I'm apposed to, so I supported it. Proudly.

Besides, it was just one post you keep bringing up like a sick obsessed person. Do you have that bookmarked or something? Get a life! Your ENTIRE post history is you being a biased green party apologist and Musk PR spokesman. Not to mention Obama's nut huger.

Also TSS is a good guy and his heart is in the right place. You and your ilk? Go play in front of a bus.

Besides, who's to say he was wrong? You? Again, you aren't the arbiter of all science on Daily Tech.

So look, you keep carrying the water for the Obama Administration on every pie in the sky nonsense "green" idea, and I'll just keep fighting you on it. And all will be right with the universe.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Mint on 3/7/2014 1:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is there a peer reviewed paper of yours somewhere I can read?

Yes there is, and DT even happened to write an article about it:
http://www.dailytech.com/Cranking+it+up+to+11+Prov...

quote:
Yup I did :) Hell I barely even read his post. It just went against the prevailing Liberal suckfest I'm apposed to, so I supported it. Proudly.

Reclaimer in a self described, anti-critical-thought nutshell. I rest my case.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By EricMartello on 3/7/2014 5:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why are you so doggedly anti-science?


Science is not making a baseless claim, paying some group to conduct open-ended "studies" that produce results in line with a left-wing political agenda, finalized by imposing additional regulations on citizens and industry.

Science is a process for gaining understanding. You have no clue what constitutes science...and you are no different than the priests of the middle ages who committed atrocities claiming they are doing so 'in the name of god'. Quite pathetic, actually.

quote:
These are not wild claims of health impact. The US is a nation of over 300M people, with 2.5M people dying per year, and 20M living with asthma. They're claiming ~0.1% impact in the long run.


Show me the objective science that has concluded that SO2 emissions from cars is even close to levels that would be dangerous to humans.

Secondly, show me the documents where doctors have DIRECTLY cited and attributed SO2 inhalation from passing vehicles as the cause of any of these lung problems.

Surely you have access to these documents, because that's what the EPA is claiming it's doing by passing these laws.

quote:
We make tradeoffs between costs and lives/health all the time in everyday life. This is simply another one.


Sorry bro, there is no justification for this law. There isn't a shred of evidence to definitively support the claim that SO2 emissions from cars are a significant (or even minor) cause of lung problems in any person.

You probably believe that global warming is real too, and you want to lecture others about science. lol


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By pandemonium on 3/8/2014 5:24:39 AM , Rating: 2
I love your delusional, hypocritical rantings. They're delightful.

Can you possibly answer the following:

If man-made Global warming is a myth, and we make steps to do something about it, what do we lose?

If man-made Global warming is real, and we make steps to do something about it, what do we gain?


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By EricMartello on 3/9/2014 4:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love your delusional, hypocritical rantings. They're delightful.


When you use words like "delusional" and "hypocritical" to refer to something we all know is true, it make you look like a fool.

quote:
Can you possibly answer the following:

If man-made Global warming is a myth, and we make steps to do something about it, what do we lose?


We undermine actual problems facing the USA and the world at large. We allow legislation to be passed in the name of protecting us from a mythical, non-existent problem. The same legislation is then used by politicians to gate access to certain sectors of the economy, allowing only those who support their campaigns to play ball. Pay to play, in other words.

America is not a country where the government exists to pass laws to benefit itself and/or its supporters...so allowing fake "problems" like man-made climate change to be treated as "real" only opens the door for more corruption.

quote:
If man-made Global warming is real, and we make steps to do something about it, what do we gain?


First, you would have to convince me that a warmer climate is a bad thing. Most life on this planet THRIVES in warmer weather. Contrary to the myths and lies of the left, if our ice caps melted entirely and the coldest regions of the planet averaged 50 degrees, that would be fine for humans and 99% of the life on here.

I'd be a lot more concerned with man-made global cooling - again, not a real thing, but that would be an actual problem if it existed. Warming? Not so much...I'd welcome it.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By pandemonium on 3/11/2014 4:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
You didn't answer the questions and you know it. Because you're so scared of aligning yourself with even entertaining the thought that there may be something there, that you're pained to answer 2 simple questions without running off on tangents of political bereavement.

Your world must be terrible. If only someone could help you out of your paranoid state. :/


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By EricMartello on 3/12/2014 6:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
Your questions were answered.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By donxvi on 3/9/2014 5:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
This requirement isn't about preventing deaths from SO2 poisoning of humans, it's about preventing human deaths caused by SO2 poisoning of catalytic converters.

Sulfur in the exhaust reduces the effectiveness of catalytic converters. Reducing the sulfur flowing over the catalyst substrate keeps the converter working better, longer, keeping smog out of the air.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By EricMartello on 3/9/2014 5:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This requirement isn't about preventing deaths from SO2 poisoning of humans, it's about preventing human deaths caused by SO2 poisoning of catalytic converters.

Sulfur in the exhaust reduces the effectiveness of catalytic converters. Reducing the sulfur flowing over the catalyst substrate keeps the converter working better, longer, keeping smog out of the air.


Considering that catalytic converters have typically outlasted the useful service life of the vehicles themselves, this is little more than another phony justification.

All that this law seeks to do is to artificially increase the price of gasoline to make electric cars seem more appealing...instead of developing tech that would make EVs stand on their own merits they are trying to manipulate the market with laws like this and countless others passed in the same vein under the same false pretenses.

Nobody, and I guarantee you this, is getting sick from or dying of SO2 inhalation from cars due to faulty catalytic converters. It's just not happening.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By donxvi on 3/9/2014 5:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of people in localities with regular exhaust system testing can tell you from firsthand experience that catalysts don't necessarily outlast the vehicle.

But this isn't even exclusively about ruining your cat like Zinc from oil did; sulfur will occupy the same reaction sites on the cat as the other pollutants we're trying to control, making those sites unavailable, reducing the efficiency of the catalyst until it kicks the sulfur off. As the catalyst ages, and sites become inactive, you need all hands on deck, without sulfur sitting there in the way.

In case my statement wasn't clear enough, I agree with you that nobody is dying from excessive SO2 inhalation from cars. Occasionally people complain about the smell. SO2 isn't the pollutant being blamed for deaths, but controlling it is the key to the claimed health benefits of this change. It's that tricky catalytic chemistry, so you have to be knowledgeable and think your way through it.

P.S.- there's a subtext here for someone that hates Obama and green regulations and unions and Government Motors to pick up on if you're clever enough to spot it...... ;)
P.P.S.- All of these words are mine and do not represent the opinions of my employer.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By EricMartello on 3/12/2014 6:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lots of people in localities with regular exhaust system testing can tell you from firsthand experience that catalysts don't necessarily outlast the vehicle.


It's definitely a wear item whose effectiveness will degrade over time, but it's not a widespread issue - certainly not one that justifies the new SO2 legislation.

quote:
In case my statement wasn't clear enough, I agree with you that nobody is dying from excessive SO2 inhalation from cars. Occasionally people complain about the smell. SO2 isn't the pollutant being blamed for deaths, but controlling it is the key to the claimed health benefits of this change. It's that tricky catalytic chemistry, so you have to be knowledgeable and think your way through it.


Nobody is denying that catalytic converters eventually wear out, but they typically last well over 100K miles even with mediocre maintenance practices.

The problem I have is more general, that legislation is being passed under false premises - actually, just lies - with the result of expanding government control over a critical resource (fossil fuels).

As I said in another post, it allows the govt to set up a "pay to play" scam, where these fake "public health" or "global warming" laws which were sold as being "for the people and the planet" are used to limit access to energy production, effectively controlling the price we all pay for fuel. Either to continue cronyism and/or to artificially drive up prices of fossil fuels in an effort to make "green energy" seem financially practical.

quote:
P.S.- there's a subtext here for someone that hates Obama and green regulations and unions and Government Motors to pick up on if you're clever enough to spot it...... ;)


If this comment was directed at me, then it's a stretch to say that someone who finds obama to be incompetent and a terrible president equates to "hate".

My issues with obama are purely practical - hate is an emotion and I do not like mixing emotion into areas that should be limited to fact and objectivity. The other things you mentioned are all cogs in the machine of big government, the oppression engine.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By FITCamaro on 3/5/2014 7:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
They want to cut from 30 parts per million down to 10 parts per million. 30 parts per million. Can you imagine trying to find and remove 20 of 30 grains of light colored sand from 999,970 grains of dark colored sand?

I like how there was no mention of the opposing side of this in the article. Let me copy and paste from the New York Times.

quote:
Charles T. Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, which lobbies for the oil refining industry, said that the rule comes on top of a series of other burdensome regulations. A decade ago, American gasoline contained 300 parts per million of sulfur, but earlier rules required refiners to cut the sulfur content by 90 percent, down to the current 30 parts per million. Mr. Drevna said it was easier to comply with the earlier regulations because removing the first 90 percent of sulfur molecules from gasoline can be done without difficulty. Wringing the last 10 percent of those molecules is harder. “They’re tough little buggers that don’t want to come out,” Mr. Drevna said. “It’s like getting the last little bit of red wine stain out of a white blouse.” Asked about the E.P.A.’s estimate that the rule would raise prices at the pump by less than a penny a gallon, Mr. Drevna laughed out loud. “I don’t know what model E.P.A. uses,” he said. “The math doesn’t add up.” His industry’s estimate that the rule could raise gasoline prices by up to 9 cents a gallon comes from a study by the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for oil companies.


And if you haven't started to question the supposed "health benefits" of things the government likes to talk about, then you need to start. How exactly will cutting sulfur reduce soot and smog. By stopping catalytic converter clogging? Please. You're supposed to replace the converter every so often anyway. Going from 30 parts per million to 10 is hardly a noticeable reduction.

Besides you can have plenty of other issues that could also ruin the converter. If you're not one to maintain your exhaust system you're probably also not one to maintain seals in your engine. Silicone from anti-freeze can ruin a catalytic converter if it seeps out through a bad seal.

Or if you don't keep your engine clean enough and you're just running less efficiently to start with, that can cause more pollutants and cause the converter to overheat and be damaged. There are so many other things that could be potential problems towards making a converter be damaged or clogged, that 20 parts per million of sulfur isn't going to make any real world difference.

All it will do is drive up costs for consumers as oil companies pay to implement this new rule.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By marvdmartian on 3/5/2014 7:47:02 AM , Rating: 4
Doesn't matter. The Chinese will just burn more of our high sulfur coal for electricity, and make up the difference!


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Dr of crap on 3/5/2014 8:45:21 AM , Rating: 3
Where did you get this? -

"You're supposed to replace the converter every so often anyway"

There is no PM on a converter, or a change interval.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By spamreader1 on 3/5/2014 9:59:12 AM , Rating: 3
No but they do have an average expected life of 100k to 150k miles. Granted they can last longer than that, the only way to tell is to have your emissions tested like many larger counties, and some states require.

The precious metals that are used as catalyzers do eventually break down over time from other contaminants.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Nutzo on 3/5/2014 12:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they do have an average expected life of 100k to 150k miles


Even less if you spend most your time driving in heavy/slow city traffic. If you live in a state that requires smog checks, and you keep your cars for a long time, look at the results over 5-10 years. You will see a gradual increase in the emissions, and eventually you will fail.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Dr of crap on 3/5/2014 3:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
So glad we don't have to get inspected any longer.

And I've not heard of needing a new converter after 100k. Wouldn't that still be under warranty?

Usually they need replacing after they get plugged up, but not failing after so many miles. Not that I couldn't see that happening.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By pandemonium on 3/8/2014 6:19:49 AM , Rating: 2
Do the warranty companies get subsidies from the government for replacing catalytic converters? No.

Warranties don't cover wearable parts. Catalytic converters are wearable.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By donxvi on 3/9/2014 5:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
Catalytic converters are considered emissions components and are covered under your emissions warranty. Depending on model year and emissions certification, that warranty is required to last typically something like 8 years/80,000 miles.
http://www.ford.com/cars/fusion/2013/warranty/emis...


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By FITCamaro on 3/5/2014 1:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
As another already pointed out. Cats don't last forever. You have to replace it eventually just like anything else. Same goes for mufflers.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2014 4:09:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You have to replace it eventually just like anything else.


Well WE don't Fit :) Now that our state got rid of that stupid inspection scam BS.

Yeah that's right Mint. One of my cars has a catless exhaust. Suck my sulfur, tool!! MUhahahaha!


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2014 8:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
Well yeah my first car I ran without cats as well. But I try to comply with stuff when and where I can. Besides your exhaust note is a lot raspier without cats on the car. A good high flow cat ultimately only costs you a few horsepower.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2014 8:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides your exhaust note is a lot raspier without cats on the car.


Not on a Boxer engine with unequal-length headers. Oh man, it sounds sweet! Not like those fart can muffler Honda ricer kids.

Plus you gotta use an exhaust system designed for catless use. A lot of guys just take their existing one and remove the cat, yeah, that sounds bad.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By EricMartello on 3/9/2014 5:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
Back in the day I had a C5 vette, and I removed the stock cats as part of an exhaust upgrade. It made the car smell like an 80s beater with strong exhaust fumes in the cabin and around pthe car. I Probably would not have minded if it was just a car I took out on the weekends but I used it quite often, so I went with a pair of 3" cats made by magnaflow. The end result was no more exhaust fumes and only a slight reduction in power...I was able to retain about 75% of the gains I saw with no cats.

You can get around the power loss of cats by going with ones that have a higher diameter than your exhaust piping, assuming you can fit them. If you had 2.5 inch piping you could go with 3 inch cats, and if you 3 inch piping you could go with 3.5 to 4 inch cats.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Mint on 3/5/2014 8:45:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Can you imagine trying to find and remove 20 of 30 grains of light colored sand from 999,970 grains of dark colored sand?


Sulfur differs from carbon in much more meaningfully ways than color. I have to question if you even passed highschool when you're making such a ludicrous analogy. Chemical methods can eliminate impurities to less than 1 ppm in many different materials.

As an example, most diesel sold in western countries is ULSD (ultra low sulphur), where it's defined as 15 ppm. Now that the US has sulfur similar standards, diesel engines don't have to be redesigned to enter the US (hence more models becoming available).

Unless you've done extensive research in the field, you have no basis for saying a 10 ppm standard is unduly burdensome.

quote:
How exactly will cutting sulfur reduce soot and smog. By stopping catalytic converter clogging? Please. You're supposed to replace the converter every so often anyway. Going from 30 parts per million to 10 is hardly a noticeable reduction.

Reducing a clogging agent by a factor of three is hardly a noticeable reduction? WTF are you smoking? Even before clogging happens, cats work better with low sulfur.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2014 9:07:12 AM , Rating: 1
We're talking a 0.002% reduction in sulfur. And you're making it out to be some gigantic deal.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Etsp on 3/5/2014 10:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're talking a 0.002% reduction in sulfur
It's a 66% reduction in sulfur.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2014 11:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
Argh poorly phrased. I meant the percentage of sulfer in parts per million. Not mean.

66% sounds like a lot until you see what a tiny amount that ends up being.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Mint on 3/6/2014 3:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
So what? You can't dismiss a 66% reduction just because it's a tiny number.

Do you know how bad your water would taste if it had 30 ppm hydrogen sulfide? It smells like rotten egg and corrodes your pipes at only 2 ppm:
http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/pages/publicationD.jsp...


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2014 8:39:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can't dismiss a 66% reduction just because it's a tiny number.


I can, will, and did. Why can't I?

quote:
Do you know how bad your water would taste if it had 30 ppm hydrogen sulfide?


That has nothing to do with this topic, irrelevant.

You really need to see the big picture here pal. This new mandate is unnecessary, will have little benefit, and is ultimately redundant. New CAFE standards will ensure much less sulfur gets released into the air already.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By EricMartello on 3/9/2014 5:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what? You can't dismiss a 66% reduction just because it's a tiny number.


Yes you can dismiss it, because you can't just list a percentage without telling us the original number. Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase, but if you were talking about 1 PPM to 2 PPM it's not a big deal even though you could sensationalize it by saying that some harmful element is being doubled under a relaxed standard.

Going from 300 PPM to 30 PPM was already good enough, and going from 30 to 10 PPM is not going to make any appreciable difference on emissions or extend the life of catalytic converters...but it is going to drive up the cost per gallon of gasoline.

quote:
Do you know how bad your water would taste if it had 30 ppm hydrogen sulfide? It smells like rotten egg and corrodes your pipes at only 2 ppm:


And yet in the case of gasoline burning vehicles the 30 PPM of sulfur in gasoline has no significant negative effects. The EV thing is failing and the left-wing nutsacks are looking for more ways to drive up costs of gasoline with laws like these.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By FITCamaro on 3/5/2014 2:00:25 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not making the case that it can't be done. I'm making the case that it is expensive because there's so little already.

Higher sulfur content of our fuel wasn't why diesels couldn't come here without redesign. It was because of emissions standards that are ridiculously high. The engines would run fine, just produce slightly more emissions. In our quest to make cars produce less emissions for a given amount of fuel, we've instead made them just use more fuel in many cases.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Mint on 3/6/2014 3:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
What's your basis for saying they're ridiculously high? The famed TDI engines from VW get very average emissions (Tier 2 Bin 5) compared to gas engines.

Yes, particulate emission standards were a hurdle for diesel cars coming to the US. But high sulfur content of US fuel was also a problem for Euro emission systems.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2014 7:22:23 AM , Rating: 2
We have the highest emissions standards in the world, while also having the highest fuel economy standards in the world.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to engineer engines to meet these standards, not to mention costly? Especially small diesel engines?


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2014 8:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
It all depends on what they're looking at. Our standards treat gas and diesel the same but gas and diesel don't burn the same. We should be letting engineers design engines to burn as efficiently as possible, not setting some arbitrary emission standard that might not allow that to happen.

My basis is that they have been higher than even European standards. But I think even Europe's are out of control. Instead of just saying "this standard is good enough", they are constantly pushing it higher and higher. To where eventually it is either enormously expensive to meet the standard or can't be met at all. All in an effort to push us onto electrics or other alternatives.

If we keep going down this road of ever higher regulations, eventually we will be pushed onto electrics. To where if they aren't ready we'll be paying through the nose and be severly constrained in what we can do with our vehicles and how far we can go. Maybe that's something you want, but its not what I want. America is a big place. And I like to be able to drive across large portions of it in a single day. And not only where Elon Musk has built supercharger stations. Nor can I afford a Tesla now or anytime soon.

As demand for electrics rises, prices on rare earth metals will only similarly rise. Meaning we'll switch from one rare resource (that we actually can create alternatives out of through nature and genetic engineering) to another rare resource which we don't have a lot of.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By JediJeb on 3/6/2014 5:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's your basis for saying they're ridiculously high? The famed TDI engines from VW get very average emissions (Tier 2 Bin 5) compared to gas engines. Yes, particulate emission standards were a hurdle for diesel cars coming to the US. But high sulfur content of US fuel was also a problem for Euro emission systems.


VW stopped importing diesels for a while because they were designed for the higher sulfur fuels. They claimed it would damage the engine as it was designed then if you ran low sulfur fuel in them. I knew someone who had one of the older models and had to go to a truck stop to fuel up because it still sold the higher sulfur fuel.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By JediJeb on 3/6/2014 5:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As an example, most diesel sold in western countries is ULSD (ultra low sulphur), where it's defined as 15 ppm. Now that the US has sulfur similar standards, diesel engines don't have to be redesigned to enter the US (hence more models becoming available). Unless you've done extensive research in the field, you have no basis for saying a 10 ppm standard is unduly burdensome.


If it costs so little then why did Diesel go from being about 80% the cost of regular gasoline to about 120% or more versus the cost of regular gasoline when they lowered the sulfur content limits? Here regular gasoline costs $3.38 while diesel costs $4.10 before the regulation diesel would have been less than $3.00 in comparison.

The 1 cent per gallon cost is a joke. It is different between removing elemental and ionic sulfur versus removing organic sulfur. The last remaining sulfur in gasoline is organic sulfur and organic sulfur is a lot more similar in behavior to organic carbon in gasoline than the elemental sulfur is, making it hard to separate as what removes sulfur also tends to want to remove organic carbon molecules. I did my gradate thesis on coal chemistry and sulfur removal was part of that. Coal is chemically similar to petroleum and removing the organic sulfur is not easy in either.

quote:
Sulfur differs from carbon in much more meaningfully ways than color. I have to question if you even passed highschool when you're making such a ludicrous analogy. Chemical methods can eliminate impurities to less than 1 ppm in many different materials.


The comment still stands as a comparison and description of just what a small amount versus the whole 30ppm is. Also once sulfur is covalently bonded to carbon it no longer behaves that differently from the organic molecule it is a part of. Ionic sulfur like what is in sulfate is vastly different and easily removed, organosulfur compounds( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organosulfur_compound... ) are not so easily removed since the sulfur is imbedded in the compounds that actually make up gasoline.



RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By 1prophet on 3/5/2014 7:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
NOOOOOOOO!!

but it's OK to buy products from companies that outsource to countries with no regulation/pollution controls so Americans can enjoy their cheap priced throwaway junk.

We live in a hypocritical society were we point fingers at domestic pollution but think nothing of the pollution we help cause by buying products from countries that look like 1950-1960 LA during the smog days,

all so that we can be smug and pay low prices too.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By JediJeb on 3/6/2014 5:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I buck the system because I prefer to spend a little or a lot more for something that will last me a long time than to go cheap for something I will have to replace in a few months.


By Solandri on 3/4/2014 7:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
Although oil is mostly treated as a commodity, there are slight differences. Light crude refers to oil with a higher gasoline/kerosine content and thus lighter composition. Sweet crude refers to oil with a lower sulfur content (and thus tastes sweet, from back in the day when they tested oil quality by tasting it). Stricter sulfur regulations will make sweet crude more valuable, since you need to do less work during refining to remove the sulfur. If you look at which fields produce sweet crude oil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_crude_oil

The big ones are the North Sea (off Europe) and Louisiana/Texas. Missing are the Middle East and Venezuela - most of their oil has a high sulfur content.




By TacticalTrading on 3/4/2014 7:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The big ones are the North Sea (off Europe) and Louisiana/Texas. Missing are the Middle East and Venezuela - most of their oil has a high sulfur content.


You forgot to mention Iran. We don't get much oil from Iran, but theirs is very heavy.

So is Canada's tar sands "Heavy Crude"
(Is this a dig at Keystone XL?)


By coburn_c on 3/5/2014 1:39:24 AM , Rating: 1
Canada's tar sand is the dirtiest, least efficient oil in the business. You could almost call it junk oil. It wasn't even considered an oil reserve until prices were inflated under the Bush administration.


By jbeenemd on 3/5/2014 2:09:37 AM , Rating: 1
I call BS on this. You can say the same thing about the Obama administration. Prices were never as high as they are now under Bush. The price of oil is based on more than just the current administration be it Democrat or Republican. Jezzz just chill out on the "blame Bush thing".


By Mint on 3/5/2014 4:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
Prices were higher at a point during Bush's admin, but that only confirms the underlying point you're making: we can't do jack about oil prices even if we wanted to.

Oil price is controlled by OPEC. Oil is an inelastic good, and therefore price is heavily impacted by the largest supplier's output. When the world economy tanked and consumption went down, prices plummeted (as expected), but then rose again even without a real economic recovery. Why? Because OPEC intentionally cut production.

Oil is NOT a free market. Its price is targeted by a cartel, which is illegal in any other industry, but we accept it because there's no other choice.


By superflex on 3/5/2014 12:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we can't do jack about oil prices even if we wanted to.

You might want to study global economic history and US price controls in the 80's designed to break the Soviet Union.
The FED helped Ronnie RayGun by instituting these controls.
$20/barrel oil was a major financial disaster for the former Soviet Union.


By Mint on 3/5/2014 5:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
It'll hardly be a noticeable difference, because we're only talking about a few cents per gallon (so maybe $1 per barrel max impact), and only for US demand as opposed to global.

On top of that, we don't know how much sulfur content affects the cost to remove it. For example, desalinating 4% salt (Red Sea) may not cost much less than desalinating 2% salt (Black Sea), as both need to get below 0.1% to be drinkable.

At most we'll see a slight tweaking of which fuel goes where.


By wookie1 on 3/5/2014 12:50:52 PM , Rating: 1
"we're continuing to build on the Obama Administration's broader clean fuels and vehicles efforts that cut carbon pollution"

First of all, carbon is not pollution but an element essential to all life on earth. Second, how does reducing sulfur reduce carbon emissions?




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki