Video: One year of low-sulfur diesel in the US
October 15th, 2006 is the date when the US started to sell low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) nationwide. According to the Diesel Technology Forum (DTF), the change happened seamlessly and no incidents have been reported. More ULSD is being refined, 93 million barrels in July 2007, which is almost double what was refined the same period from last year (54 million). This number will increase as the U.S. heads towards full ULSD use in 2010.
Availability has also exceeded expectations. The target was to have at least 80 percent of diesel stations pumping ULSD, currently 90 percent of them offer this fuel. Nevertheless, about 25 percent of the diesel in the U.S. is non-ULSD, although very little of it goes to road vehicles.
The EPA estimates that SOx emissions have been lowered significantly thanks to this measure, by approximately 100,000 tons. CO pollution has gone down 70,000 tons as well. According to Diesel Forum, a 2007 diesel truck emits just one-sixtieth of the soot exhaust of one produced in 1988. Nevertheless, not until the complete US truck fleet is renewed by 2020 will the full effects be fully noticeable, since new trucks will have fine particullater matter filters which were impossible to fit before.
The good news is that the new fuel allows owners of current vehicles to retrofit particullate filters. Congress is currently considering appropriations for the national clean diesel retrofit program and could provide up to $200 million this year to modernize existing vehicles and equipment.
Related:
[Source: Diesel Forum]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
eckre 7:01PM (10/12/2007)
just make the engines B100 ready and go to biodiesel. it will cut it by 75%.
Reply
NickTDI 11:21PM (10/12/2007)
Amen brother! Lots of soy/canola B99 stations in Seattle and PNW.
Reply
rgseidl 9:15AM (10/13/2007)
There's not nearly enough biodiesel available to replace all dino-diesel consumed in the US, never mind Europe. Importing additional feedstock from tropical countries merely invites more clear-cutting of virgin rainforest, which is highly detrimental in a number of ways.
Besides, first-gen biofuels, incl. biodiesel, require the use of soils and water that would otherwise be used for food and feed production. Granted, biodiesel has a much higher EROEI than corn ethanol, but still. Second-gen alternatives, produced using TDP (WTL) or F-T (BTL), will be better still but it's early days yet.
Also, biodiesel (FAME), DME and xTL all substantially reduce PM but engine-out NOx is still too high to meet EPA/CARB emissions standards. Switching fuels is not a magic bullet, you need advanced engine and exhaust gas aftertreatment as well.
Reply
GreyFlcn 11:20PM (10/13/2007)
Bullsh*t.
BioDiesel OFTEN has more sulfur than 15ppm sulfur diesel.
_
Furthermore biodiesel is a fricken nightmare in Total Lifecycle Emissions. (And no the USDA is not a reliable source on this)
Soy and Canola in particular are just unbelievably bad for the environment.
It's kind of pathetic that you've been tricked into believing otherwise.
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy
http://greyfalcon.net/soy
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://greyfalcon.net/ran
Reply