backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by CZroe.. on Apr 8 at 2:42 PM

The petroleum industry opposes the EPA's sulfur reduction plans

Typically when we we're talking about the Environmental Protection Agency and gasoline, we're talking about the EPA's push to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline used around the country or its efforts to increase fuel efficiency. However, the ethanol mandate isn't the only fuel agenda that the EPA is pursuing. The EPA is now proposing rules for cleaner gasoline that would go into effect by 2017.

This time around, automotive manufacturers are backing the new clean gasoline rules. The EPA has reportedly been working on the new rules for over 18 months and the rules would eventually require a two-thirds reduction of sulfur in gasoline by 2017.

According to the EPA, that sort of reduction in sulfur content in gasoline would be the equivalent of removing 33 million cars from the highways around the country. Automotive manufacturers also say that reducing the level sulfur in gasoline will improve vehicle performance.

Automaker associations supporting the new rules said in a meeting concerning the proposed regulations, "Reducing sulfur yields immediate and future public benefits. Ultra-low sulfur gasoline is already available; costs to implement nationwide are overstated."

Sulfur byproducts in gasoline reduce the effectiveness of catalytic converters and increase tailpipe emissions according automakers. The rules would also boost the durability of catalytic converters.
 
Refineries are already producing ultra-low sulfur fuel for use in California, the European Union, and Japan.

Predictably, the oil industry is opposing the proposed rules. Industry officials say that these changes would require capital investments of between $10 billion and $17 billion and would result in recurring annual costs of between $5 billion and $13 billion. The net effect according to the petroleum industry would be an increase in the cost of fuel per gallon of between $.12 and $.25.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

A Quarter a Gallon?
By dsx724 on 3/29/2013 11:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
I think BMW owners have paid more for high pressure fuel pump replacements than a month's worth of gas cost for the entire country. I welcome this legislation.




RE: A Quarter a Gallon?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 11:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
Just swap them out with the GM units and you won't have anymore problems. :) Jokes aside, is the sulfur content that problem with the BMW HPFP's?


RE: A Quarter a Gallon?
By dsx724 on 3/29/2013 2:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
Sulfur content in fuel causes all kinds of corrosion between fuel intake and exhaust pipe. All the major manufacturers have problems with sulfur content but the BMW HPFP failures were probably the best known one. It also is a problem when it enters the environment. Sulfur content should be reduced to levels that optimizes societal cost/benefit.


RE: A Quarter a Gallon?
By ammaross on 3/29/2013 7:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
So, basically, refineries should continue removing sulfur out of gas as they already do, since it is technically already optimized for cost/benefit (or they'd do more/less).


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki