And certain liberal environmentalists told me that I was "nuts" to think it was possible to make a SULEV or PZEV diesel-powered cars for California highways. "Diesel is Dirty!" is what they yelled at me, followed by various privately emailed insults like "idiot" or "troll".

Well, take a look for yourself. I was right. I didn't deserve to be insulted.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?sect...ue&newsid=7395

troy

Sorry you got insulted, but diesel hybrid "cars" are at least 5 years away from California. They are too costly to build, and thus are only available in fleet buses and large trucks, where cost can be absorbed by the fleet experience.

And regardless of what tricks and filters are used, diesel is inherently dirtier than gasoline. That will not change, ever, never ever. Did I mention "Never?"

And additionally, diesel has HUGE hurdles to overcome before USA will accept it as a viable alternative.

If you think gasoline Hybrids have "taken off slowly," you just wait and see how slowly the first diesel Hybrids take off.

Something that would help immensely is if companies other than VW (bad reliability reputation) and Mercedes (too expensive for most people) start to offer USA diesel sedans.

"Too costly"??? Now you sound like the anti-hybrid crowd. Don't be like that close-minded bunch. Besides.... when gasoline rises to $10/gallon by 2020, people will be willing to pay the ~$1000 extra dollars to get ultra-high MPGs.


Then how did this Ford diesel-electric pass SULEV/PZEV California regulations? It wouldn't pass the test if the car were dirty. Your statement that a "PZEV diesel is dirty" makes no sense. It's as clean as any other PZEV car, including the Prius or Civic Hybrid.

troy

I'm just repeating what I have read in countless articles, reviews, and industry documents in the past year or so. I don't have a crystal ball, but I think those people who say that probably know what they are talking about.

"A Toyota diesel hybrid truck that went on sale in November 2003, for instance, costs around $10,000 more than its diesel-only version, a third more. Whether consumers are ready to pay that kind of premium for super-efficient cars remains open. Toyota doesn't produce a passenger-car version of the diesel hybrid."

Entire article here:

http://www.mixedpower.com/modules.ph...=print&sid=185

"So why are diesel hybrids taking so long to appear on the roads? Hybrid diesels impose a double price premium, explains Lindsay Brooke, an analyst at CSM Worldwide. Combining a diesel engine, (which costs around $2,000 more than a petrol engine) with a hybrid powertrain (which adds another $3,000 or so) would make for an expensive proposition. Systems to treat the exhaust would impose further costs. The prospects for diesels and diesel hybrids are particularly dim in America, where regulations in California (and, from 2007, nationwide) require diesels to be as clean as petrol-driven cars. Some progress has been made: particulate filters can now eliminate more than 90% of diesel soot. But traps for nitrogen oxides remain a challenge. "

Entire article here:

http://www.mixedpower.com/modules.ph...rticle&sid=277

So for now, all the "experts" say diesel hybrid sedans are too costly to make. Who are we to disagree?

As far as clean, yes you are completely correct that a PZEV is a PZEV is a PZEV. The problem REMAINS, HOWEVER, that that small amount of diesel particulates which DO GET EMITTED EVEN AT PZEV LEVELS is STILL more harmful (carcinogens) than comparable PZEV gasoline engine emissions. That's what I mean when I say diesel is inherently dirtier.

And I'm not alone - why have five states outlawed diesel cars? For solid scientific health reasons, that's why.....

Those 5 California-emission-regulated states have NOT outlawed diesels. You can still buy plenty of diesel trucks & SUVs, even in California. And this PZEV Ford Diesel Car is also allowed, because it's a PZEV. Please stop passing along false info. You are wrong. Diesel PMs (soot) can get sucked into lungs and cause lung cancer. 100% true.

But gasoline PMs/soot are smaller and FAR more dangerous, because they don't stop at the lung. Gasoline Soot infiltrates the bloodstream and lymph nodes, and causes serious long-term internal damage, like heart disease (source Science News - multiple articles during the last 3 years).

I'd rather breathe Diesel soot than Gasoline soot. Gasoline soot is far more deadly.

troy

ASIDE : I think the whole soot issue is rather silly. You go outside to where farmers or construction workers are plowing the ground, kicking up clouds of dust, and you breathe in several pounds of dirt..... and then turn around and freak out about the 1 gram of Car Soot?!?!? Personally, I'm more concerned about the pounds of farmers/construction dirt I just breathed in.

We went through this conversation a few months ago, and I did a lot of research pointing out the harmful effects of diesel exhaust, and I don't feel like doing a lot of work again, so I will make this shorter.

Fifty years of research has UNDENIABLY PROVEN that diesel exhaust is more dangerous in ESPECIALLY the short term but also in the long term health effects of humans who have ingested it. There has been no relationship between gasoline exhaust and lung cancer proven, yet diesel exhaust has been proven to cause lung cancer. Asthma is worsened by diesel exhaust. I am now stating KNOWN SCIENTIFIC FACTS, not conjecture or hypothesis.

"(OSHA) states that: "Workers exposed to diesel exhaust face the risk of adverse health effects ranging from headaches to nausea to cancer and respiratory disease. On the basis of overwhelming animal and human evidence, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that diesel exhaust be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen."

More:

"STUDIES OF THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF DIESEL EXHAUST EXPOSURE ON RAILROAD WORKERS

Various studies over the years have demonstrated that exposure to diesel exhaust has resulted in significant health risks to workers such as those in the railroad industry who are routinely exposed to such risks while at work. In fact, as recently as 1993, one study reported three independent occurring cases of Reactive Airways Disease (RADS) following acute, heavy exposure to diesel exhaust. The study suggested that the exposure was associated with the disconnecting of cabooses and the resultant placing of the crew and/or"deadheading" crew into a trailing unit behind the head unit and exposing them to the continual blowing of exhaust into the cab in which they were riding. As stated previously, studies and medical literature have suggested that exposure to diesel exhaust may cause a host of more serious medical problems such as lung or bladder cancer since carcinogenic compounds can be easily inhaled into the lungs or even swallowed and thereby drawn into the gastrointestinal tract and lymphatic system. Other studies have additionally demonstrated that exposure can adversely affect the internal organs such as one's heart."

That is just a SMIDGEON of the available stuff on the web. I am not making anything up. Facts are Facts and cannot be challenged after being proven hundreds of times over.

And gasoline soot is ALSO dangerous.

I don't know how you can sit there and say it is not???


troy

I didn't say it is not. I said "Both exhausts are not good for you: diesel is worse" and science backs that up.

No... science studies show the gasoline soot is worse. Diesel Soot (PM25) stops at the lungs, but gasoline soot is smaller (PM5/PM10) and gets sucked into the bloodstream and poisons the human body.

Source: Many, many articles from Science News. Here's one "Gasoline particulates may trigger heart attacks (11/13/2004)"

troy

Google search on "gasoline particulates" + "health" returns 29 hits.

Google search on "diesel particulates" + "health" returns 6,700 hits.

So which one is more discussed/studied/causing more worry?