Hi Steven,
Great sites, diesel is a hundred times dirtier than gasoline.
From:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...fm?pageID=1307
"Gasoline vehicles are more cost effective than diesel for reducing oil
use and lowering global warming pollution.
From:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...cfm?pageID=230
"While increasing the number of diesel vehicles on the road offer only a
modest potential reductions in global warming pollution, it poses a
significant rick to air quality. Under current emission standards for
cars and trucks, diesels are allowed to pollute over twice as much
nitrogen oxides as gasoline vehicles, and 10 to 100 times more
particulate matter. Nitrogen oxides are a main precursor to smog (urban
ozone), and particulate aggravate respiratory problems, including
asthma, and have been associated with premature death."
That's enough for me.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Steve wrote:
>
> Diesel has got significantly cleaner in the last 20 years and it
> generates less greenhouse gases than gasoline, but with respect to
> particulates and nitrogen oxides (smog) it is still 4-5 times dirtier
> than today's worst gas burner.
>
> If you have an open mind, the Union of Concerned Scientists lay out the
> diesel issues rather well:
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...fm?pageID=1307
> http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...cfm?pageID=230
>
> As for Bill, an otherwise vocal opponent of greenies and lefty enviros,
> I suspect that the true source of his disdain for the diesel engine is
> not so much pollution as it is that it was invented by a Paris-born
> Bavarian. ;)
>
> Steve

 

> Have you forgotten? Batteries must be charged. Usually by the
>cheapest energy we have, fossil fuel.

Actually on a cost per kwh, hydro electric is by far the cheepest
method over time, it does however have draw backs such as
huge initial costs, environment concerns, and the availiblity of
a suitable location..

>money, until we take a more direct route and finally release the atom
>allowing us to convert water to hydrogen.

Ahh yes the nuclear option.. cheap, relativley safe.. can have
disasterous outcomes, allthough it's highyly unlikely that the
reactors that would be built will be of a design that is not dual
use..after all who can really be trusted?... Then there is the down
side on what to do with waste that will last for very likely the
entire life span of our speices.. waste that will only continue to
build up.. waste we can't do anything about ... And what about
cleaning up contaiminted sites from old plants....? And what
about accidents..they will happen again... Personally I'd rather
have the area that I live continue to remain nuclear free.

 

> Have you forgotten? Batteries must be charged. Usually by the
>cheapest energy we have, fossil fuel.

Actually on a cost per kwh, hydro electric is by far the cheepest
method over time, it does however have draw backs such as
huge initial costs, environment concerns, and the availiblity of
a suitable location..

>money, until we take a more direct route and finally release the atom
>allowing us to convert water to hydrogen.

Ahh yes the nuclear option.. cheap, relativley safe.. can have
disasterous outcomes, allthough it's highyly unlikely that the
reactors that would be built will be of a design that is not dual
use..after all who can really be trusted?... Then there is the down
side on what to do with waste that will last for very likely the
entire life span of our speices.. waste that will only continue to
build up.. waste we can't do anything about ... And what about
cleaning up contaiminted sites from old plants....? And what
about accidents..they will happen again... Personally I'd rather
have the area that I live continue to remain nuclear free.

 

> Have you forgotten? Batteries must be charged. Usually by the
>cheapest energy we have, fossil fuel.

Actually on a cost per kwh, hydro electric is by far the cheepest
method over time, it does however have draw backs such as
huge initial costs, environment concerns, and the availiblity of
a suitable location..

>money, until we take a more direct route and finally release the atom
>allowing us to convert water to hydrogen.

Ahh yes the nuclear option.. cheap, relativley safe.. can have
disasterous outcomes, allthough it's highyly unlikely that the
reactors that would be built will be of a design that is not dual
use..after all who can really be trusted?... Then there is the down
side on what to do with waste that will last for very likely the
entire life span of our speices.. waste that will only continue to
build up.. waste we can't do anything about ... And what about
cleaning up contaiminted sites from old plants....? And what
about accidents..they will happen again... Personally I'd rather
have the area that I live continue to remain nuclear free.

 

> Have you forgotten? Batteries must be charged. Usually by the
>cheapest energy we have, fossil fuel.

Actually on a cost per kwh, hydro electric is by far the cheepest
method over time, it does however have draw backs such as
huge initial costs, environment concerns, and the availiblity of
a suitable location..

>money, until we take a more direct route and finally release the atom
>allowing us to convert water to hydrogen.

Ahh yes the nuclear option.. cheap, relativley safe.. can have
disasterous outcomes, allthough it's highyly unlikely that the
reactors that would be built will be of a design that is not dual
use..after all who can really be trusted?... Then there is the down
side on what to do with waste that will last for very likely the
entire life span of our speices.. waste that will only continue to
build up.. waste we can't do anything about ... And what about
cleaning up contaiminted sites from old plants....? And what
about accidents..they will happen again... Personally I'd rather
have the area that I live continue to remain nuclear free.

 

> It's not going to pass the visual, but at full operating
>temperature, retard the spark a little to keep the burning fuel in the
>combustion chamber longer and of course stick a catalytic convert on and
>watch it do it's job turning carbon monoxide (CO) unburned hydrocarbons
>(HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into harmless water. Sure I'd be
>cleaner than any new car test. You're so interested must mean you see a
>problem with your car?

Translation: No it would not meet today's fuel economy\emissions
standards..

Summary: Ironic how he who complains about the emissions from
a diesel, himself drives a vehicle that would not pass anywhere
close to todays emission standards.. Kinda hypocritical...

And no I don't have a problem with my Jeep.. It's in perfect
mechanical condition, and in virtual mint condition other then
a few rock chips in the windshield which will soon be replaced..
It would very easily pass an emissions test.. if there actually was
a requirment here..which isn't very likely to happen any time in
the forseeable future..

 

> It's not going to pass the visual, but at full operating
>temperature, retard the spark a little to keep the burning fuel in the
>combustion chamber longer and of course stick a catalytic convert on and
>watch it do it's job turning carbon monoxide (CO) unburned hydrocarbons
>(HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into harmless water. Sure I'd be
>cleaner than any new car test. You're so interested must mean you see a
>problem with your car?

Translation: No it would not meet today's fuel economy\emissions
standards..

Summary: Ironic how he who complains about the emissions from
a diesel, himself drives a vehicle that would not pass anywhere
close to todays emission standards.. Kinda hypocritical...

And no I don't have a problem with my Jeep.. It's in perfect
mechanical condition, and in virtual mint condition other then
a few rock chips in the windshield which will soon be replaced..
It would very easily pass an emissions test.. if there actually was
a requirment here..which isn't very likely to happen any time in
the forseeable future..

 

> It's not going to pass the visual, but at full operating
>temperature, retard the spark a little to keep the burning fuel in the
>combustion chamber longer and of course stick a catalytic convert on and
>watch it do it's job turning carbon monoxide (CO) unburned hydrocarbons
>(HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into harmless water. Sure I'd be
>cleaner than any new car test. You're so interested must mean you see a
>problem with your car?

Translation: No it would not meet today's fuel economy\emissions
standards..

Summary: Ironic how he who complains about the emissions from
a diesel, himself drives a vehicle that would not pass anywhere
close to todays emission standards.. Kinda hypocritical...

And no I don't have a problem with my Jeep.. It's in perfect
mechanical condition, and in virtual mint condition other then
a few rock chips in the windshield which will soon be replaced..
It would very easily pass an emissions test.. if there actually was
a requirment here..which isn't very likely to happen any time in
the forseeable future..

 

> It's not going to pass the visual, but at full operating
>temperature, retard the spark a little to keep the burning fuel in the
>combustion chamber longer and of course stick a catalytic convert on and
>watch it do it's job turning carbon monoxide (CO) unburned hydrocarbons
>(HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into harmless water. Sure I'd be
>cleaner than any new car test. You're so interested must mean you see a
>problem with your car?

Translation: No it would not meet today's fuel economy\emissions
standards..

Summary: Ironic how he who complains about the emissions from
a diesel, himself drives a vehicle that would not pass anywhere
close to todays emission standards.. Kinda hypocritical...

And no I don't have a problem with my Jeep.. It's in perfect
mechanical condition, and in virtual mint condition other then
a few rock chips in the windshield which will soon be replaced..
It would very easily pass an emissions test.. if there actually was
a requirment here..which isn't very likely to happen any time in
the forseeable future..

 

You don't know a thing about the combustion engine, do you?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bill wrote:
>
> Translation: No it would not meet today's fuel economy\emissions
> standards..
>
> Summary: Ironic how he who complains about the emissions from
> a diesel, himself drives a vehicle that would not pass anywhere
> close to todays emission standards.. Kinda hypocritical...
>
> And no I don't have a problem with my Jeep.. It's in perfect
> mechanical condition, and in virtual mint condition other then
> a few rock chips in the windshield which will soon be replaced..
> It would very easily pass an emissions test.. if there actually was
> a requirment here..which isn't very likely to happen any time in
> the forseeable future..