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

RE: 12 cents?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 11:54:24 AM , Rating: 0
Yeah but it won't be what they say it is. Liar is the governments middle name. My guess is that they're overstating it by some large amount. Still, even if it's say 15 million actual cars, it's still an improvement.


RE: 12 cents?
By Dorkyman on 3/29/2013 1:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
Another article stated that refiners have already over the years taken out 90% of the sulfur. To take out a small percentage more will cost just as much as it did to get to the 90% level.

I trust NOTHING the EPA says, since to them this stuff is religion and thus not subject to logic and analysis. Keep in mind that Messiah Himself is riding on the EPA's back. He has stated numerous times that since he can't get what he wants through new legislation he will steer the EPA to deliver essentially the same goods. So logic is out the window as long as this president is in office.


RE: 12 cents?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 2:21:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Another article stated that refiners have already over the years taken out 90% of the sulfur. To take out a small percentage more will cost just as much as it did to get to the 90% level.
Didn't know this. They ALWAYS make it sound like nothing is being done unless it's mandated. Assholes.


RE: 12 cents?
By Mint on 3/31/2013 11:10:47 AM , Rating: 1
LOL you think they lowered sulphur content out of the goodness of their heart?

Sulphur regulations have put lower limits all over the world. Canada first had a 500ppm limit, then 15ppm. Europe is mostly 10-15ppm. The US is 50-80ppm.

And while Reclaimer will whine about the EPA making diesel more expensive due to emission standards, diesels in Europe also can't handle the higher sulfur content of US diesel because there is a lack of strong mandate. That's why they're on the side of the EPA here, as mentioned in the article.

Why would the free market have any incentive to reduce sulphur content by itself? You think consumers are going to bring their car's gas to the lab and get it tested and keep checking up for the various stations they frequent?


RE: 12 cents?
By Mint on 3/31/13, Rating: 0
RE: 12 cents?
By piroroadkill on 3/31/2013 11:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
It's too cheap in the US anyway..


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













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