4 ms·

Instead of trickery of tax credits, you get trickery of rigged emissions tests. Because when you regard air quality, it is not just carbon dioxide, but various

by Decade 10y ago

Instead of trickery of tax credits, you get trickery of rigged emissions tests. Because when you regard air quality, it is not just carbon dioxide, but various nitrous oxides. Also, most diesels are noisier, and diesel fueling stations are further apart, and the federal tax is higher, and gasoline-electric hybrids have much better consumer branding. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/automobiles/as-the-world-embraces-diesels-americans-still-play-hard-to-get.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/automobiles/as-the-world-e... http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a4567/4330313/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a4567/4330313/

DannyBee 10y ago
" most diesels are noisier, and diesel fueling stations are further apart, " Both of these are myth. Having driven a Q5 and Q5 TDI, they are totally and completely indistinguishable, noise level wise. Same with BMW/Mercedes, if you prefer people passing newly stringent emissions tests (IE EPA gave them a special proctology exam in 2017 before approving those models). "further apart" is also certainly not true, unless you live in a very very weird area. Yes, not literally every gas station has diesel. But that's about it. To whit: Over 55% of gas stations in north america offer diesel. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094908_fewer-gas-stations-but-more-diesel-pumps-as-diesel-sales-rise http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094908_fewer-gas-statio... As for air quality, in the US, we seem very happy to require things that are better in the air for the environment but much worse in the air for people[1], so i'm going to reserve judgement as to whether it's truly better in the relative scheme of things [1] As a random example: low-voc regulations have pushed coatings manufacturers towards 2k isocyanate based polyurethanes. Previously, the solvents used in wood coatings and auto coatings and what have you were not great for people, or the environment, but not often horribly toxic either (in a relative scale). By contrast Isocyanates are horribly toxic to people, and by the time you can smell them, you are many times over the PEL. Thus, spraying them requires supplied air. They easily cause permanent asthma, etc. However, in the amounts being used, they are better for the environment. So yeah, worse for people, better for "air quality". Meanwhile, tens of thousands of workers end up with serious overexposure issues. (and if you read the studies they use to justify doing this, the level of emissions wasn't really that high in the first place. Now they are finally going back and saying "hey, we also think you should get rid of isocyanates, too". At some point, at least they'll run out of chemicals to regulate)
- Decade 10y ago
  I don’t see how you are disproving those points. Especially since I weasel-worded it with “most.” I had quickly fact-checked, and discovered that modern diesels can be quiet. So a 2017 diesel SUV is as quiet as the gasoline model. That really doesn’t override the common experience of diesel in connection with either trucks and buses, or ancient Volkswagens. All of which are much more common, and much louder, than modern TDI vehicles. Also, only 55% offering diesel automatically, mathematically, makes diesel fueling stations farther apart than gasoline. Exactly how much farther is something I don’t care to model at this time of the night. Except to say that that there do seem to be about twice as many gasoline-only stations as diesel stations in San Francisco, and the only Costcos vaguely in the Bay Area that sell diesel are in Concord and Santa Cruz. As for the air quality, that was one thing that drove me to my current general anti-fossil-fuel sentiment. I was raised in a conservative family, and back in the late 90’s it was fashionable to be suspicious of the fuel, because of the oxygenation requirements satisfied by MTBE and ethanol. And then Al Gore did his spiel, and the Heartland Institute got into global warming denial, and conservatives here are positive about buying and burning fossil fuels again. I feel it is most consistent to simply be against emitting poisonous pollutants near population centers. Whatever the case, there is certainly a difference in air quality between gasoline-congested Los Angeles and diesel-congested Paris. Which is also partly because of the tough California emissions standards, which severely cut into the fuel efficiency and hassle-free operation that made diesel attractive in the first place. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-summer-smog-20160805-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-summer-smog-2016... http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-smog-problem-2016-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-smog-problem-2016-12

by Decade 10y ago

DannyBee 10y ago

" most diesels are noisier, and diesel fueling stations are further apart, " Both of these are myth. Having driven a Q5 and Q5 TDI, they are totally and completely indistinguishable, noise level wise. Same with BMW/Mercedes, if you prefer people passing newly stringent emissions tests (IE EPA gave them a special proctology exam in 2017 before approving those models). "further apart" is also certainly not true, unless you live in a very very weird area. Yes, not literally every gas station has diesel. But that's about it. To whit: Over 55% of gas stations in north america offer diesel. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094908_fewer-gas-stations-but-more-diesel-pumps-as-diesel-sales-rise http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094908_fewer-gas-statio... As for air quality, in the US, we seem very happy to require things that are better in the air for the environment but much worse in the air for people[1], so i'm going to reserve judgement as to whether it's truly better in the relative scheme of things [1] As a random example: low-voc regulations have pushed coatings manufacturers towards 2k isocyanate based polyurethanes. Previously, the solvents used in wood coatings and auto coatings and what have you were not great for people, or the environment, but not often horribly toxic either (in a relative scale). By contrast Isocyanates are horribly toxic to people, and by the time you can smell them, you are many times over the PEL. Thus, spraying them requires supplied air. They easily cause permanent asthma, etc. However, in the amounts being used, they are better for the environment. So yeah, worse for people, better for "air quality". Meanwhile, tens of thousands of workers end up with serious overexposure issues. (and if you read the studies they use to justify doing this, the level of emissions wasn't really that high in the first place. Now they are finally going back and saying "hey, we also think you should get rid of isocyanates, too". At some point, at least they'll run out of chemicals to regulate)

Decade 10y ago
I don’t see how you are disproving those points. Especially since I weasel-worded it with “most.” I had quickly fact-checked, and discovered that modern diesels can be quiet. So a 2017 diesel SUV is as quiet as the gasoline model. That really doesn’t override the common experience of diesel in connection with either trucks and buses, or ancient Volkswagens. All of which are much more common, and much louder, than modern TDI vehicles. Also, only 55% offering diesel automatically, mathematically, makes diesel fueling stations farther apart than gasoline. Exactly how much farther is something I don’t care to model at this time of the night. Except to say that that there do seem to be about twice as many gasoline-only stations as diesel stations in San Francisco, and the only Costcos vaguely in the Bay Area that sell diesel are in Concord and Santa Cruz. As for the air quality, that was one thing that drove me to my current general anti-fossil-fuel sentiment. I was raised in a conservative family, and back in the late 90’s it was fashionable to be suspicious of the fuel, because of the oxygenation requirements satisfied by MTBE and ethanol. And then Al Gore did his spiel, and the Heartland Institute got into global warming denial, and conservatives here are positive about buying and burning fossil fuels again. I feel it is most consistent to simply be against emitting poisonous pollutants near population centers. Whatever the case, there is certainly a difference in air quality between gasoline-congested Los Angeles and diesel-congested Paris. Which is also partly because of the tough California emissions standards, which severely cut into the fuel efficiency and hassle-free operation that made diesel attractive in the first place. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-summer-smog-20160805-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-summer-smog-2016... http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-smog-problem-2016-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-smog-problem-2016-12