ShinerBock wrote:John & Angela wrote:
I get the DPF thing. I know our 2003 Cummins is stinkier than the new pushers.
People need to live in cities. Otherwise they have to commute which brings the problem full circle.
Interesting info on the size of the particles. Didn’t know that. Kinda comes down to lesser of two evils I suppose.
But I think leaving it up to the manufacturers is not an option. They just won’t do anything. It is governments role to regulate this kind of thing. Now we just need to find good politicians. :).
Cheers.
John.
People don't need to live in the city. If health was an issue for someone then they can take measures to either commute or live in a less populated area. Most don't want to do that because they are not willing to sacrifice the conveniences of city living or their city job. In those regards, the conveniences trumps everything else and it is just easier to make other people change then change yourself for things you want. I commute 40+ miles one way and I gladly spend that extra money and time to live away from the city.
Also, manufacturers only do as their customers demand with their money. If the customers demand lower emissions then believe me, the manufacturers will change to meet that demand. So this is not solely the fault of the manufacturers when they are mostly giving people what they want.
Some regulation can be good, but most of the time the politician doesn't know that he doesn't know enough and just makes matters worse by caving in to enviro groups that don't know enough about engines either. Most of the time they just focus on meeting some "feel good" number to keep the enviro groups happy and do not even look at the cause and effect of meeting that number or whether it will make matters worse or not.
Case in point is whether going from 2.5 g/bhp-hr 2004 NOx standard to the .2g/bhp-hr 2010 NOx standard worth the 15-30% drop in fuel for every diesel on the road(which consumes ore fuel requiring more to be pumped from the ground), the creation of the DEF industry along with its factories, the fleets created transport DEF to pumps & warehouses, and the landfill pollution of all of these 2.5 gallon jugs. Would going to maybe a 1.5 g/bhp-hr be better since it would eliminate DEF and the pollution from its industry? Don't know, but it would be worth to find out. Instead these politicians just worried about hitting a number back in 2006 when they created the 2010 standard not knowing that meeting that number would crate a whole new DEF industry and more pollution along with decreased fuel mileage.
ShinerBock wrote:John & Angela wrote:
I get the DPF thing. I know our 2003 Cummins is stinkier than the new pushers.
People need to live in cities. Otherwise they have to commute which brings the problem full circle.
Interesting info on the size of the particles. Didn’t know that. Kinda comes down to lesser of two evils I suppose.
But I think leaving it up to the manufacturers is not an option. They just won’t do anything. It is governments role to regulate this kind of thing. Now we just need to find good politicians. :).
Cheers.
John.
People don't need to live in the city. If health was an issue for someone then they can take measures to either commute or live in a less populated area. Most don't want to do that because they are not willing to sacrifice the conveniences of city living or their city job. In those regards, the conveniences trumps everything else and it is just easier to make other people change then change yourself for things you want. I commute 40+ miles one way and I gladly spend that extra money and time to live away from the city.
Also, manufacturers only do as their customers demand with their money. If the customers demand lower emissions then believe me, the manufacturers will change to meet that demand. So this is not solely the fault of the manufacturers when they are mostly giving people what they want.
Some regulation can be good, but most of the time the politician doesn't know that he doesn't know enough and just makes matters worse by caving in to enviro groups that don't know enough about engines either. Most of the time they just focus on meeting some \"feel good\" number to keep the enviro groups happy and do not even look at the cause and effect of meeting that number or whether it will make matters worse or not.
Case in point is whether going from 2.5 g/bhp-hr 2004 NOx standard to the .2g/bhp-hr 2010 NOx standard worth the 15-30% drop in fuel for every diesel on the road(which consumes ore fuel requiring more to be pumped from the ground), the creation of the DEF industry along with its factories, the fleets created transport DEF to pumps & warehouses, and the landfill pollution of all of these 2.5 gallon jugs. Would going to maybe a 1.5 g/bhp-hr be better since it would eliminate DEF and the pollution from its industry? Don't know, but it would be worth to find out. Instead these politicians just worried about hitting a number back in 2006 when they created the 2010 standard not knowing that meeting that number would crate a whole new DEF industry and more pollution along with decreased fuel mileage.
ShinerBock wrote:John & Angela wrote:
I get the DPF thing. I know our 2003 Cummins is stinkier than the new pushers.
People need to live in cities. Otherwise they have to commute which brings the problem full circle.
Interesting info on the size of the particles. Didn’t know that. Kinda comes down to lesser of two evils I suppose.
But I think leaving it up to the manufacturers is not an option. They just won’t do anything. It is governments role to regulate this kind of thing. Now we just need to find good politicians. :).
Cheers.
John.
People don't need to live in the city. If health was an issue for someone then they can take measures to either commute or live in a less populated area. Most don't want to do that because they are not willing to sacrifice the conveniences of city living or their city job. In those regards, the conveniences trumps everything else and it is just easier to make other people change then change yourself for things you want. I commute 40+ miles one way and I gladly spend that extra money and time to live away from the city.
Also, manufacturers only do as their customers demand with their money. If the customers demand lower emissions then believe me, the manufacturers will change to meet that demand. So this is not solely the fault of the manufacturers when they are mostly giving people what they want.
Some regulation can be good, but most of the time the politician doesn't know that he doesn't know enough and just makes matters worse by caving in to enviro groups that don't know enough about engines either. Most of the time they just focus on meeting some \"feel good\" number to keep the enviro groups happy and do not even look at the cause and effect of meeting that number or whether it will make matters worse or not.
Case in point is whether going from 2.5 g/bhp-hr 2004 NOx standard to the .2g/bhp-hr 2010 NOx standard worth the 15-30% drop in fuel for every diesel on the road(which consumes ore fuel requiring more to be pumped from the ground), the creation of the DEF industry along with its factories, the fleets created transport DEF to pumps & warehouses, and the landfill pollution of all of these 2.5 gallon jugs. Would going to maybe a 1.5 g/bhp-hr be better since it would eliminate DEF and the pollution from its industry? Don't know, but it would be worth to find out. Instead these politicians just worried about hitting a number back in 2006 when they created the 2010 standard not knowing that meeting that number would crate a whole new DEF industry and more pollution along with decreased fuel mileage.
