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

By EricMartello on 3/9/2014 4:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
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.

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 allowing fake "problems" like man-made climate change to be treated as "real" only opens the door for more corruption.

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.

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. :/

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

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki