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

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.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer











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