diesel

I know this subject has been discussed here already to some degree but I wanted to revist it. I have an 89 22RE pickup with 200k miles. It gets
about 25mpg highway without any load up here at 7000' elevation. It's not too bad on the mountain passes but it still dogs out and I have to rev up and shift down to 3rd gear.
I just bought a 2003 VW Jetta TDI with 30k miles. It gets 48mpg highway without pampering. This little puppy kicks butt on the passes and doesn't hesitate to pass even when loaded with people and stuff. Coolest car I've had.
Then I went to the Toyota Australia website and admired the new Hilux (Tacoma) 3L Turbo Diesel pickups. Those lucky ducks down under! Now why is it, again, that we aren't allowed to have the ultimate small truck with light duty diesel here in the USA???? Can I just order one from Oz and have it delivered here?
Chuck
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The way the price of gasoline (petrol for Australians) is going I suggest that everyone convert their Toyotas to diesel as they are more:
fuel efficient higher torque waterproof simpler reliable safer can idle all day long less overheat episodes can burn bio diesel or vegetable oil (without glycerin)
Well to help everyone dismiss the myth that Toyota diesel pickups & SUV's are rare in USA & Canada I have included below a list of very resourcefull links that contain places to buy diesel engines/parts and complete rigs.
Toyota diesel engines models: 2L's, 2L-T's, 3L's and 5L 's for sale in the greater Los Angeles area:
Engine Trend Inc George 4515 S.Soto Street Los Angeles,CA 90058 USA Ph:1-800-939-3295 Ph:(323) 589-2844 http://www.enginetrend.com
Spector Offroad Marv 21600 Nordhoff St Chatsworth,CA 91311 USA Ph:(818) 882-1238 http://www.sor.com
Reseda Engines in Northridge Danny 8644 Darby Ave Northridge,CA 91325 USA Ph:(818) 349-7472
Jarco USA 194 Gateway Dr Canton,Georgia 30115 USA Ph:(770) 479-4942 Fax:(770) 479-4948 Operator:James Stettler http://www.jarcoinc.com E-mail: snipped-for-privacy@jarcoinc.com E-mail: snipped-for-privacy@jarcoinc.com E-mail: snipped-for-privacy@jarcoinc.com E-mail: snipped-for-privacy@jarcoinc.com [url]http://www.asapmotors.com/services/toyota-diesel-engine.htm
For Japanese imported diesel Toyota SUV's & pickup trucks:
http://www.uniqueautoimports.com http://www.mustang.bc.ca/lc.htm http://www.outbackimports.ca/index.html http://www.luxuryimports.ca/vehicles/toyotaforsale.php http://www.risingsunimports.ca / http://www.hj61.com / http://www.jns-imports.com/importinfo / http://www.batfa.com/usedvehicles-toyota-stock.html http://www.geocities.jp/kktrading_aurora /
These are 11 Toyota DIESEL 4-Runner/pickup sites:
http://www.sr5.net/bbs/index.sht http://www.toyotadiesel.com/phpBB2 http://www.toyotadiesel.com / http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/toyotadieselclub http://pub12.ezboard.com/btoyotasurfdownunder http://www.toyotasurf.asn.au/forum http://groups.msn.com/toyotasurf/shoebox.msnw http://www.yotasurf.com/forums/index.php ? http://www.yotasurf.co.uk/forums/index.php http://www.offroadpakistan.com/forums/viewforum.php?id=8 http://clean4x4.com / http://jplan.com/cgi-bin/tractor/forum.pl?category=TOY&catname=Toyota%20Pickup%20Trucks
Sidneyฎ ™ Repairs tv's,vcr's,home/car audio out of my home E-mail: snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com Dartmouth,Nova Scotia Canada 1985 Toyota 4-Runner,solid front straight axle,factory cruise control,sunroof,22R-E,W56,RN60LV-MSEK,rusted rear step/towing chrome bumper with 245 000 KM
O |\ __O _|_| \
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JensenC wrote:

I agree, My first vehicle was a 1981 FJ40 Diesel landcruiser (which I never should have sold as it would likely be running fine today). And that was the best vehicle I have ever had for reliability. Today I have a 4X4 Tundra double cab TRD offroad. And it sure would be nice to have had that diesel option!
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My company has 12 Toyota Landcruiser Series 79 and one old series 75. In canada they are used underground as personnel vehicles and are quite easy to obtain for about 93K CAD. These particular models come equiped with all the provisions for underground. Depending on how much you want to spend for just an engine I do believe that some of my suppliers may have just that, I'll have to get the info and post it on here tomorrow. The engine running in those particular model are the 1HZ my master mechanic says it's the same bolt pattern as my tacoma, i have yet to actually test that.
Cheers,
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd be very interested in finding out more about getting a diesel engine in Canada. I've been scouring the web for any resources on converting my 91 pickup from its 3VZE to a Diesel possibly the 1HZ, as with my rudimentary research I thought it would be the most likely to fit. Please post any info or relevant links.
Thank, -Andrew
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This one is our number one supplier of Land Cruisers http://www.acces-industriel.ca /
but they are also available from these ppl: http://www.millertechnology.com / actually buy stuff from this company too http://www.mobileparts.com /
Hope that helps Cheers
"> I'd be very interested in finding out more about getting a diesel engine in

info
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, there is a serious issue with crude oil-derived diesel that has long- range impacts, namely, the substantial particulate emissions with the numerous compounds that are deemed carcinogenic (some are mutagenic and teratogenic, too). Breathing those particulates, namely in the so-called PM-5 range delievers that load right down to the aveola for rapid uptake. Because of the sheer numbers of vehicles and the substantial amount of chemical processes that contribute to air emissions, greater control methodologies are put into force. Pollution is, of course, inevitable but the amount can be reduced to keep pace with the increasing number of emitters. Overall reduction is impossible, the reality is that there is a growing amount overall in the world everywhere. Now in the US there is regulatory action to address particulate emissions from diesel engines whatever their size being argued out as we speak in rulemaking, but since air pollution respects no boundaries, it's an integrated effort in the developed nations. Simliar regulatory actions are being implemented in Japan and by the EU, to be implemented in tiers. That said, expect long-term impacts, maybe something along the lines of some kind of effluent control measures being required for the car or truck diesels. Of course, bio-diesel including "diesel" derived from thermal decomposition plants for the most part do not have those concerns. I know that in EPA Region 9 substantial grants and rulemaking was put into effect to make the transition lucrative for the large landfills to implement waste diversion into available plant systems but alas, that effort went nowhere dealing with the states agencies within Region 9. I ought to know, I oversaw Region 9 for 12 years. Landfill= waste stream + heat (from methane from the thermal decompisition plus some from the buried wastes) + electricity (from methane burned at the co-gens) + room (landfills take up lots of room) = bio-diesel. It was a no-brainer except that we were dealing with people and empires... Arnolod Swarzenegger came along after my time but from what I understand, he's gung-ho for bio-diesel and alternate fuels and technologies. I remember the day when the head of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) was canned. Was that great news! Anyway, now you have some information on diesel emissions in the future to ponder. After all, fate favors the prepared mind. Personally, I wouldn't convert if you were in the US or Europe. Canada has a serious disconnect in the collective mindset on the pollution that nation generates, though there are so many issues and factors and foriegn investors that, well, it's a mess. Australia and New Zealand, you bet convert, the population density is so low that nature can handle and remediate the effluent. Japan, have a diesel there and you have a huge tax and penalty yearly on the emissions. China...just download images from NASA's Visible Earth of that country seen through the Terra sensor onboard SeaWIFS and you'll see what gross particulate pollution looks like, same with Mexico. Want to know about the chemistry of what diesel is and the by-products are and it's effect in humans and the environement in general? Just ask, my doctorate was in atmospheric chemistry. Makes for great reading if you're having problems getting to sleep.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd be very interested to read any info you have on Bio-Diesel as well as how it relates to Crude derived Diesel. I'm also curious as to what you meant by

-Andrew
--Just watched "The Corporation" and highly recommend it. Downoad it as it's widely available.--
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew, sorry for the delay, just back from a sail trip.
First, crude derived diesel contains numerous elements from the incomplete combustion process of diesel producing a zillion variations of the aromatics among others, a full list will be forthcoming. Bio-diesels do not have the aromatics just from the nature of the feedstock and the process seperation. In other words, decaying planktonic masses slow-cooked under the specific range of heat and pressure over the several million + years stay contained together in the same location, producing a plethora of complex hydrocarbons complexed with other elements like sulfur, etc. Anaerobic thermal decomposition process is too fast for the complex hydrocarbons to form- mainly various lengthed saturated hydrocarbons (alkanes) are formed with a low percentage of double bonds and essentialy no triple bonds (depending on residence time, feedstock and temperature) Second, diesel engines are big polluters just by the nature of the design. This does not mean diesels are a poor designs, they are very good at what industry uses them for-and that diesel is a safer fuel then gasoline, or like our sailboat has-hydrogen. And in terms of gasoline versus crude- derived diesel, crude-derived diesel is relatively less harmful to the environment. But that's not the point. Of concern in the US (only) are the PM10 and PM 5 emissions for tiered regulatory action. PM 5 means particulates of 5 microns, likewise PM 10 is particulates of 10 microns. Diesels spew out a huge load of these, the products of the combustion process. Those particulates themselves are made up of numerous hydrocarbons, some of which are strongly associated with cancer- carcinogens, or substances known to cause mutations-mutagens. Periodically new compounds are added to the lists. There's some debate right now about a compound being a teratogen. Anyway, some of those compounds in the particulates are also are persistent in the environment. Third, those particulates are mostly coated with volatiles that have shorter-term persistence, but are nasty. For instance, you might have read about the poly-nuclear aromatics? Fourth, those particulates are of the right size to deposit into the aveolar sacs and either stay (PM10) or are exhaled (PM5 and smaller). In all cases those particulates and the "coatings" are in contact and readily absorbed into the bloodstream.
So, this is the issue at hand and the reason of the regulatory attention. Granted, the US is one of the biggest generators of particulate pollution- our coal plants in the right atmospheric conditions produce a haze that rivals China visually from space (Look at the SeaWIFS imagery to see what I'm referring to). Outdated plant designs and lack of government support in providing incebntives to add pollution control systems is one reason, as well as the limited advancement of technology, and most of all, the US is a very big and heavily populated place unlike Canada. That said, the US is the only nation looking at limiting particulate emissions. Japan heavily penalizes generators so that all those low mile gas engines show up elsewhere in the world. Diesels on the other hand are limited to trucks, and are subject to a carbon tax. The US is wallowing about on the direction it wants to go. Diesels as mentioned earlier are very good at what they do, but the environmental and public health issues outweigh the benefits-more so as the population grows and densification increases.
A word on what diesel is. When a crude oil is processed-be it an asphaltic crude (like from Alaska, California, or Alberta to name a few areas) or a paraffin based crude (like Libyan "honey" crude or some of Pensylvanian crudes to cite some examples), the first major step is distillation. Crude oil is heated to take advantage of the broad range of boiling points for various hydrocarbon consituents. During the distillation process, crude oil is heated to the boiling point and directed to distillation tower(s), where the various petroleum fractions condense at different levels as their vapors ascend thorugh the tower. For simplicity of the process description, I'll present the products as straight-run distillates . In reality, most petroleum distillation products require secondary refining operations, such as cracking, alkylation, condensation, reforming and blending. The conventional terminology, Cn, the 'n' represents the total number of carbon atoms present in a particular hygrocarbon molecule. That said: gasolines, C5-C10 (25-210 degrees C) naphta, C8-C12, (65-210 C) kerosene and jet fuels, C11-C13, (150-250 C) diesels and fuel oils, C14-C18, (160-400 C) heavy fuel oils, C19-C25, (315-540 C) lubricating oils, C20-C45, (425-540 C) So you can see that diesel fuel is a range of hydrocarbon molecules with each molecule having 14 to 18 carbons. These can be single bonded to hydrogen, or with double bonds or triple bonds. The carbon range is moslty what's there, anything heavier doesn't burn but spew out. Likewise, the double and triple bonded carbons in the chain burn differently dependent on numerous factors. make that carbon molecule a ringed hydrocarbon with sidechains and there are even more and totally different products of combustion. More so that the air mixture is somewhat starved in combustion is a big reason why so mucgh effluent is produced.
A little more on crude oil. Crude oil is unrefined liquid petroleum. It ranges in gravity from 9 degrees to 55 degrees API, and in color from yellow to black, and it may be a paraffin, asphlat or a mixed base. If a crude oil contains a sizeable amount of sulfur or sulfur compounds, it is called a sour crude; if it has little or no sulfur, it is a sweet crude. Just to make sense when reading about crude oils, crudes may be referred to as heavy or light according to ther American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity, the LIGHTER oils having a HIGHER gravities (stressing a very common mistake among many in the field of experts). The big division mentioned above was that crudes were were either asphaltics, or naphthene-based, and paraffins. Though this is useful for the most part as a crude description of crude, it is not alltogther true. More on that in a bit. First, naphthene-based crude oil. It is a crude charaterized by a low API gravity (meaning it's a heavy oil) and a low yield of lubricating oils having a low pour-point and a low viscosity index (compared to paraffin- based crude oils). It is often called asphaltic or asphaltบsed oil because the residue from its distillation contains asphaltic materials but little or no paraffin wax. Naphthene hydrocarbons can be expressed with the general formula, CnH2n (ethylene or ethene, C2H4, etc) Paraffin-based crude oils are characterized by a high API gravity, a high yeld of low octane gasoline, and a high yield of lubricating oil with a high pour-point and high viscosity index. Likewise, a paraffin based crude contains little or no asphalt and whose residue from distillation contains paraffin wax. Paraffin hydrocarbons are saturated with the formula CnH2n + 2 (methane, CH4, ethane, C2H6, etc). heavier paraffin hydrcarbons, those of C18H38 and heavier, form the waxlike substance called paraffin. Now in chemical terms, crude oils from which petroleum products are produced are incredibly complex, composed of several thousand constituents. However, the majority of hydrocarbon constituents can be grouped into five basic categories: paraffins, isopraffins, aromatics, napthenes and asphaltics. Following is an example of each: Paraffins. An example of paraffins is hexane (C6H12) with a boiling point of 69 degrees C. Isoparaffins. An example of isopraffins is 2,2,4 trimethypentane (C8H18) with a boiling point of 99 degrees C. Napthenes. An example of napthenes is cyclohexane, a single-bonded ring of six carbons (C6H12) with a boiling point of 80 degrees C. Another is decalin, two six sides single-bond carbon rings (C10H18) with a boiling point of 187 degrees C. Aromatics. An example of aromatics is benzene, a six-carbon, alternating single- and double-bonded carbon ring (C6H6). This is the "benzene ring" of which thousands of complex aromatics have within their structure. Benzene has a boiling point of 80 degrees C. Benzene is one of the first hydrocarbons strongly associated with cancer and thusly a carcinogen. It is also a suspected mutagen (causing mutation) and teratogen (kills the fetus are very low levels). Another is xylene, an alternating single- and double- bonded carbon ring with two side chains of carbon, (C8H10) with a boiling point of 144 degrees C. Xylene is a strongly suspected carcinogen, mutagen and teratogen. Asphaltics. An example of an asphaltics is carbazole, two alternating single- and double-bonded carbon rings (benzene rings) joined on eith side to a five-sided sible-bonded carbon ring with one carbon replaced by a single-boned nitrogen (C12H9N)
Okay, enough of that for now...my better half wants to go to bed. More tomorrow morning.

Your wish is my command. I'll do that. Sounds good right off. I'll describe some enforcement actions we did on my watch sometime, it's amazing what corporations do in the name of the all-mighty buck.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hi there, Thanks very much for the in depth response. It will take me a bit to wrap my head around it but I've read it twice now and it is comin into focus. I'm still unclear on how Bio-D compares emmisions wise. Are you saying it's less polluting because it lacks the aromatics/ogens like benzene. I do not beleive it to be a viable alternative to Crude at our current and future energy consumption levels mainly because a friend of mine said that the entire surface of the earth would have to be devoted to growing plants to make the oil. One other note, did I understand you right when you said that PM5 emissions despite being exhaled are still taken into the bloodstream?
-Thanks, Andrew

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew
Basically, it's like this: bio-diesel is a more intensive process that produces a "crude" that lends itself to easier/cheaper/"cleaner" processing to the final product. Key point is this: bio-diesel just doesn't have the hundreds of complex hydrocarbons to start with. Crude oil is just nasty stuff (though there are some paraffin crudes that are unbelievably sweet in more ways then what "sweet" means in the petro biz. The best sweet paraffins come from Libya (honey crude). BTW: If you get into following the petro biz you'll also hear about crude oil "blends." This is a way to up the value of a crude.
About PM5: the particulate does not enter the bloodstream, just the soluble "load," that is, the gunk on the particulate which either absorbs, adsorbs or causes some biochemical interaction. Entering the bloodstream isn't the only effect. For PM10, this tend to remain in the aveolar sac causing effects from both the mechanical contact and the slower interaction of the particulate's chemnical make-up to the lung tissue. PM5 tends to come and go, though with hydrocarbon particulates, the evidence is that these actually remain behind, too. Again, the products of combustion are myriad.
Before I forget, refining crude into diesel is at best, crude. To subject the crude to the processes needed to refine to a higher degree of "purity" (a term I use very loosely), requires a huge investment of money. For instance, just distilling to a range of carbon with contaminants would require construction of huge distillation columns where a more precise fraction is possible. Then there's the numerous additional processes required. There's just a limited amount of refinery space and process time with making a gallon cost something so high as to kill the market. As an analogy. It's cheaper to make steel from steel scrap then from iron ore. So the same is true in refining a specific target carbon fraction from a feedstock that limits the possible hydrocarbons to around 110-140 possile chemicals versus the thousands from a napthene based crude. Refiners make "diesel" which is really a carbon fraction with a specific carbon "weight" and flashpoint, not from what is actually in it. In fact, "disel" varies from batch to batch, and fron the crude in which it is derived from, and from the process time.
I hope I'm not sounding negative aboput petrochemistry, I confess I have a deep and passionate interest in the whole affair. Environmentally, we must do something about global warming or it will do something to us as entities on the closed environment that this planet is. But I don't see this as anywhere the threat as human population is truly is. That said, the oil is still there and is mightily useful for a myriad of products. Geologically, vast hydrocarbon emissions have occurred in the past that have tremendously affected lifeforms, from methane hydrates that have released from intense subsea volcanism and bolide impacts, to the huge release of natural gas from the "redrocks" within the US. Why not capture it and use it? While I'm at it, I should also say I consult for BP from time to time and have consulted for ExxonMobil. I have an interest is decarbonizing natural gas, reinjecting the carbon into formation for storage.
Remind me to chat about our solar and fuel celled boat and electric home sometime.

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
1 of the Masses wrote: <snip>
Canada has a serious disconnect

<snip>
I am curious about what you mean here. Are you referring to Canada's commitment to decrease greenhouse gas, through targeted reductions in emissions; as evidenced by being a signing member of the Kyoto agreement? (which was notably not signed by the USA) Or are you suggesting that since we are one of the larger net producers of oil and gas in the world that we are somehow collectively environmentally challenged? Or what?
I read some where that even though gasoline engines produce fewer particulates than diesels they produce more in the way of Nox and other smog forming compounds than diesel.
Further I was recently reading re. the manufacture of biodiesel and wondering why more people don't do it?
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
notmyrealname wrote:

What we really need is to get third-world nations to sign and follow the Kyoto treaty. It's my understanding that when, say, Mexico produces rampant pollution, and Canada and the United States reduce their pollution, those pesky air currents carry the Mexican pollution over here anyway.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoAFLCIO.html
Watch the count up: http://www.junkscience.com /
--
Tom - Vista, CA

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TOM wrote:

Given the opportunity, even my wife couldn't spend money this fast. :-) davidj92
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
davidj92 wrote:

I remember a joke about a fellow asks the difference between one million and one billion. His friend told him that if he gave him a million dollars, and the guy spent $3,000 a day, he'd be back in less than a year. But if he gave him a billion dollars, he wouldn't be back for almost 1,000 years... :>))
"I'll take 'Money that starts with a B', Art!"
--
Tom - Vista, CA

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom
Well, about Kyoto. First, I was in a senior position in EPA for 12 years and was canned by George W. Bush, so I have no political affiliation with the current administration. I'm just one of the masses so to speak now. That said, I spoke in defense of the US's resolve to not honor the Kyoto agreements for several reasons, mostly in light of recent discoveries as to what the threats are to the atmosphere. During the rulemaking, carbon dioxide was the big culprit and the West the big baddie. Granted, it is indeed a serious issue with fundamental impacts to everything in the biosphere yet the Third World remained blameless to the disasters they were making. The US was right to walk out on the talks. Methane emissions and the effects on the atmosphere and the ozone is far more threatening then carbon dioxide production, all things being equal. Methane is 0,76 the density of air at standard temperature and pressure (STP). This means it rises in the air column. A fraction of that total amount is oxidized via several pathways however the majority rises into the upper atmosphere where several fundamental impacts occur: 1. methane reacts with ozone-a highly reactive oxidizer- to create water vapor and carbon dioxide (both directly and indirectly via carbon monoxide as a intermediate step). In other words, methane is delievered to the upper atmosphere to cause numerous impacts. 2. methane is 25 times more effective as a greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide 3. water vapor is 6 times more effective as a greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide 4. water vapor isn't found in the upper atmosphere, meaning the stratosphec and troposphe, normally except for large volcanic eruptions, nuclear weapon detonation, and chance atmospheric conditions that lofts water vapor up into the upper atmosphere. Jet transport was thought to be the primary pathway for increased water vapor in the stratosphere until several recent satellite programs found the culprit. The first sensor was part of my doctoral thesis in 2000. 5. The water vapor in the upper atmosphere is broken down slowly by UV into hydrogen which appears to leak away to space and oxygen O2. O2 is transparent to UV. 6. modeling the generation rate of ozone from oxygen in lab conditions on Earth reveals a very slow process to regenerate ozone, somewhere in the order of 8-10,000 years. As I understand it, it's an evolving niche in the world of atmospheric chemistry. More work is needed to answer the many questions. 7. the culprit of all the methane production comes from rice production, overwhelmingly from the Third World nations. Contrary to everything heard, domestic cattle do not produce worldwide more then 3-6% though actual quantification is ongoing using population counts and sampling in regions worldwide. 8. estuaries at one time before human destruction was responsible for somewhere around an estimated 15-20% though, of course, actual amounts are impossible to determine now since they are gone. 9. overall methane levels in the lower atmosphere has increased to 1-3 ppm in many areas of the world around or downwind of rice growing areas.
In the developed countries methane's effects was generally understood by the early Nineties, at least for the most part. For instance, methane emissions are controlled at sewage treatment facilities, or public owned treatment works-POTWs-to use the regulatory lingo. Municipal landfills have gas extraction systems in place to extract and burn the methane-in large landfills, to generate electricity. Of course, everyone drives interanl combustion vehicles around which geenrate phenomenal amounts of carbon dioxide and significant portion of the carbon monoxide. However, emission control systems are constantly evolving and effectively reducing CO2 and CO, as well as cooling down combustion temperatures to limit NOX. However, and this is exceedingly important for everyone to understand, carbon dioxide emissions at the Earth's surface does not rise into the upper atmosphere for the most part! Carbon dioxide is a heavy molecule, and sinks to low areas in the air column. Again, that carbon dioxide is far more effective as a greenhouse gas in the upper strata of the atmosphere! This is the fundamental point of the US walking out on Kyoto.
Since the recent earth monitoring sensors have been lofted to analyze emissions in defense of the US stand another ozone depletion pathway was discovered. In fact, this country rivals the rice producing nations collectively for ozone depletion: Brazil. It seems that slash-and-burn practiced at the enormous levels in that country creates such a plume that upper atmosphere injection of particulates and gasses converts ozone to oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide. Thge process pathway is still poorly understood, having been quantified earlier his year.
About NOX. Actually, poorly maintained cars and older cars are big generators of NOX. NOX is created by the burning of nitrogen which is 78% of the Earth's atmosphere, mostly by combustion temperatures above 1870 degrees F. This has been a debate in the US, since this country manufactures (meaning owning the companies that builds cars and trucks) and uses most of the cars out there. The US is a big country with a big population that is growing rapidly. So, of course, the EPA has been wrapped around the idea of what to do about older cars and trucks, pursuant to the Clean Air Act. To be clear on this, a few dirty cars in a small area is less an impact it seems then a lot of moderately dirty cars in a huge area. Hence, this regulatory push and incentives to the Big Three. One side it's unfair to competition and other tax payers, but on the other hand the sales of new cars with new and better emission control devices continues to reduce ooverall air emissions. Now the problem is that all those older cars are still on the road, and far, far worse, ending up in third world countries. On of the aims of NAFTA was that Mexico would benefit from industry and commerce shifting to Mexico if that country, and Central and South America acively stops the flow of immigrants into the north, and to get busy on environmental protection. Well, Mexico violated the first condition while the ink was still wet. Part two was the continuing degradation of the environment; to the remaining estuaries, to marine mammal protection, protecting ceratin fisheries, to sewage outfalls and most telling of all in the world environment, air pollution. Back to NAFTA, recently Vincente Fox violated the terms of NAFTA again with the recent decision to allow and register cars and trucks from the US and elsewhere that were illegal or in bad running order. The terms of NAFTA specified that emissions control systems must be funtioning, and cars before a certain age not allowed in. So all those wrecks that were expected to be recycled in the US now look to be the new transportation source in Mexico. The US governemnt has declined to act on this. That is a very big mistake with long term consequences, both legally (the Environmental Justices Act) and environmentally, in that one, single badly running car produces more pollutants then AT LEAST several hundred well-operating cars. The actual number vary, the latest California Emissions requirements might make that ratio twice as high.
Now is there NOX emissions in diesel engines? Yes, there is, depending on several factors. What makes diesels bad is that aside from the particulates, there's the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide emissions, and NOX. The problem is that the emission control devices on gasoline engines cannot work well or for long for diesel engines. Hence the discussion in the US on tiered enforcement to phase out diesels in cars and light trucks within the next decade or so. I worry how that might roll up the trucking and shipping industry, power plants, etc. Anyway, in California several air basins (San Diego, Los Angeles-Ventura, Santa Barbara, Riverside-San Bernardino, and the Central Valley are all impacted by vehicle emissions (LA-Ventura and the Central Valley by particulates, too) and the State of California might once again lead the nation by enacting tougher standards.
The real issue is population. Everyone wants a pice and it all affects the environment. It's like when we were kids running down a steep hill, if you stop you'll fall and tumble, so we run even faster to stay upright, knowing full well that at the bottom of the hill we'll crash and it will really hurt.
You linked to a site referring to Kyoto. I know of that reference from reading over the years the rebound for and against.
Anyway, another point o be made is the confounding effects of poor countries. For instance, landfills in the west, specifically in the developed nations do not emit methane. Dumps in Third World countries are real belchers. The other sources of methane, natural emissions from underlying oil, gas and coal fields is surprisingly low. There's something very positive to be said about oil and gas extraction. Wild ruminants in Africa-wildebeest, zebra, giraffe, etc., emit little methane-mostly carbon dioxide.
I referred to an issue with Canada about coal plant emissions. For some strange reason, the Canadian government denies Canadian emissions on talks with the US about reducing stack emissions. Mining practices are pretty bad still. You'd think the Candians would learn from the huge disasters made by the US and other nations. I don't get that denial thing...it's too much like the US! Of course, I truly cannot understand why the other EPA region heads don;t get active to reduce stack emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act and other enabling bodies of law. I would think that action speaks louder then words, and the effects to Canadian water bodies and air quality is very clear.
Anyway, it's down to the boat to plan on where the back-up fuel cell goes. More later on the diesel / bio-diesel.

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks 1 for the very informative posts on this diesel thread. One question that would arise when considering the restriction of small diesel vehicles on roadways is how is it that German automakers (Mercedes & VW) seem to sell many diesel cars here in USA? It's just hard to imagine that small 2 litre turbo diesels would cause much of a problem for the regulatory aspect when I look around me on these southwest colorado roads and see so many 3/4 and 1 ton pickups that say cummins, power-stroke, or dura-max. Why are the Big 3 allowed to put so many of these mid size diesels on the road? There's got to be some twist. Chuck
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Weight of vehicle - over 6000 pounds and they don't have to meet the more stringent regs.
--
David Caudill

I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RefineryDog wrote:

<snip>
True, but the reg's are getting tighter. I think a lot of these trucks are being fitted with cats (for one of several type controls) now due to this. Also, many of the diesel engine manufactures for the Class 5 and up are having to meet tighter emissions reg's. I'm not completely informed on these any more but the last I read some are meeting emissions without using cats and making more power too.

<snip>
I'm like Chuck and wonder how VW and especially Mercedes who's been selling diesel passenger vehicles in the U.S. for quite a few years make emissions reg's. GM built a diesel for several years as well in passenger vehicles. It was a 350 C.I. gas engine converted to diesel, it had good performance and fuel savings but reliability was bad. There have been others as well I'd guess but gas was cheap then so people wouldn't tolerate the noise and etc. I'm sure with the cost of fuel now it would be different. davidj92
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.