California trying to get rid of diesels?

[ak diesel driver]

Talked to a friend today who told that California thinks the urea from diesel engines is killing birds so they want to get rid of that system. Anyone heard anything about this?

 

[Stoney]

No but Cali is a whole different world so it wouldn't shock me...they do have a no idle law for diesels ( most states do) although most states only apply it to 18 wheelers...and we have to pass there emisions standerds upon entering there state if running commercial from what I understand..I don't go that far west though.

 

[Stoney]

Be interesting to see how that plays out

 

[FellowTraveler]

Talked to a friend today who told that California thinks the urea from diesel engines is killing birds so they want to get rid of that system. Anyone heard anything about this?

Every environmental ill aside from natural events can be traced back to corporate greed and bought off legislators.

It was many decades ago the Swedish discovered compounded turbocharging was the way to cleaner burning diesels but before that they tested the low sulfur diesel fuels and told all concerned the fuel would cause major pollution because seals in the fuel systems would fail and they did so much so Mercedes had a global back order for diesel system seals that led to many a good vehicles being taken off the road by owners who needed vehicles they could get parts for.

I suspect those who designed the systems that cause such damage knew before of the impact and that in of itself would warrant more restrictions and even bans on diesel. Then those who regulate invest into the newer tech they legislate to bring forth lest we forget prohibition and how it came to be and exactly who profited from it, the same with ban on drugs that is how usurpers roll.

 

[BIGR]

Ok I have a suggestion. Stop running the big Diesel Trucks and not transport any goods for just a few days and see how that works out.

Oh yea there would be some inconveniences and issues. I would hate it for the good common sense people that live there, but some of those leaders and the stupid people need a wake up call. That state has always thought it knew best on how to protect the environment, restrict and tax people. Truth is most of the leaders there couldn't find their way out of a big cardboard box.

Ever notice every dang thing you look at had Prop65 warning on it, thanks to California. I know a lot of those things might harm you or kill you but I really don't give a flip what California thinks..........

 

[btfarm]

Every environmental ill aside from natural events can be traced back to corporate greed and bought off legislators.

It was many decades ago the Swedish discovered compounded turbocharging was the way to cleaner burning diesels but before that they tested the low sulfur diesel fuels and told all concerned the fuel would cause major pollution because seals in the fuel systems would fail and they did so much so Mercedes had a global back order for diesel system seals that led to many a good vehicles being taken off the road by owners who needed vehicles they could get parts for.

I suspect those who designed the systems that cause such damage knew before of the impact and that in of itself would warrant more restrictions and even bans on diesel. Then those who regulate invest into the newer tech they legislate to bring forth lest we forget prohibition and how it came to be and exactly who profited from it, the same with ban on drugs that is how usurpers roll.

As always, follow the money...

 

[JayTheCPA]

Ok, diesels are bad and California might want to ban them. Not a surprise if it is true as we can read commentaries of individuals whom go through California's inspection process where the State does not strictly follow its own procedures on how to smog test a diesel which makes it look more like an attempt to annoy the owner rather than protect the environment. Enough about that one as we have bashed it plenty.

Lets pretend that California does ban diesels. The better question is whether they are ready for that boomerang. The OTR and rail one, right? Nope, that 'renewable fuels' one. Actually, all States are open targets for this boomerang.

So wait . . . What?!?!?!? The renewable fuels thing is bad????? No and Yes. From an environmental standpoint, there is little argument that renewable's can help the environment and lower energy costs when compared to fossil fuels. The open target is infrastructure maintenance.

Here is the boomerang, and will admit that I am open to some help with my education on this as it is based on my local and not national knowledge . . . Each of those renewable fuels takes advantage of infrastructure where the easy examples are roads and electric grid. At the moment, I am not aware of any scenarios where the renewable's contribute (or fully contribute) toward maintenance of the infrastructure in which it relies.


Examples:
Automotive: carbon fuel vehicles contribute toward road maintenance via fuel tax. How are electric vehicles contributing to road maintenance when they do not purchase gasoline, diesel, or (in the rare case) CNG / Hydrogen fuel?

Residential Solar / Wind Generation: Homes connect to the grid and, as far as I am aware, pay for maintenance of the grid as part of their monthly consumption (bill) which is completely based on how much electricity the meter measures each month. When a home installs solar / wind to generate their own electricity, chances are good that the house still has the same amperage connection to the grid for when the solar / wind system cannot meet demands. The question with residential solar / wind generation is how does the house contribute its full cost of grid maintenance when its monthly consumption goes down compared to a non-solar / wind house? Sure, the difference in the buy / sell rates will account for some of this, but am not seeing it as wholly funding grid maintenance.


Unless I am missing something, this boomerang is a hidden tax on all *but* the people using renewable's where the common approaches to dealing with it are to either defer repairs due to lack of funds, or (eventually) start raising the taxes / fees on everybody else to compensate.

For clarity, I actually am looking forward to renewable energy sources and feel that at the moment we are at the beginnings of what they can do in terms of helping benefit both the economy and ecology. What I am also seeing is that people whom take advantage of renewable's are getting a free ride that everybody else subsidizes. The more people whom jump on renewable's under the current infrastructure funding models, the larger the deficit of maintenance funds will grow and the more it will cost for everybody else.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Stoney]

No jay you are not missing anything.. you are actually dead on the money...and that is one of the big reasons they are having a problem with it...they're trying to develop something that is not self-sustainable.. (although to look at the roads in New York you wouldn't think the present system is either) . My question is this how come all of these environmentalists and people that are against diesels, whether it be 18 wheelers ,trains , heavy equipment, farm equipment, hot shot trucks such as mine , huge diesel generators on top of hospitals and such etc etc... these people complain about all of it but they walk into Walmart and buy everything that we haul for them, they live in the buildings we use the equipment to build for them , they work in in the buildings that those machines power for them.. etc etc... In the trucking industry we have a saying "without trucks America stops" likewise "thank a trucker cuz if you bought it we brought it" ..BUT. even though it is true if the trucking industry shuts down America will shut down... Theres a little glitch ..with out diesel fuel we can't move the trucks.. without diesel fuel construction workers can't move the cranes ,bulldozers .etc..Farmers can't move the tractors, trains can't move etc,..
I'm not against renewable energy.. up where I live we have wind turbines up on The ridges in some areas and they're working on moving them through the state to make New York more green friendly.. which is great.. electric cars great for people who need a grocery getter... Solar-powered house awesome idea... Overtime yes I think we can move our country over to a lot of solar and wind power.... But I don't see us ever not needing diesel fuel..I don't see us ever finding at least in our lifetimes away to power all that equipment without diesel... so if California wants us to shut our trucks down and shut our equipment down ....gladly.... Just don't want to hear them bitch when their shelves are empty and there gas stations don't have any gas.

 

[FellowTraveler]

Ok I have a suggestion. Stop running the big Diesel Trucks and not transport any goods for just a few days and see how that works out.

Oh yea there would be some inconveniences and issues. I would hate it for the good common sense people that live there, but some of those leaders and the stupid people need a wake up call. That state has always thought it knew best on how to protect the environment, restrict and tax people. Truth is most of the leaders there couldn't find their way out of a big cardboard box.

Ever notice every dang thing you look at had Prop65 warning on it, thanks to California. I know a lot of those things might harm you or kill you but I really don't give a flip what California thinks..........

We need legislators on that Prop65 list of bad things too.

 

[FellowTraveler]

Ok, diesels are bad and California might want to ban them. Not a surprise if it is true as we can read commentaries of individuals whom go through California's inspection process where the State does not strictly follow its own procedures on how to smog test a diesel which makes it look more like an attempt to annoy the owner rather than protect the environment. Enough about that one as we have bashed it plenty.

Lets pretend that California does ban diesels. The better question is whether they are ready for that boomerang. The OTR and rail one, right? Nope, that 'renewable fuels' one. Actually, all States are open targets for this boomerang.

So wait . . . What?!?!?!? The renewable fuels thing is bad????? No and Yes. From an environmental standpoint, there is little argument that renewable's can help the environment and lower energy costs when compared to fossil fuels. The open target is infrastructure maintenance.

Here is the boomerang, and will admit that I am open to some help with my education on this as it is based on my local and not national knowledge . . . Each of those renewable fuels takes advantage of infrastructure where the easy examples are roads and electric grid. At the moment, I am not aware of any scenarios where the renewable's contribute (or fully contribute) toward maintenance of the infrastructure in which it relies.


Examples:
Automotive: carbon fuel vehicles contribute toward road maintenance via fuel tax. How are electric vehicles contributing to road maintenance when they do not purchase gasoline, diesel, or (in the rare case) CNG / Hydrogen fuel?

Residential Solar / Wind Generation: Homes connect to the grid and, as far as I am aware, pay for maintenance of the grid as part of their monthly consumption (bill) which is completely based on how much electricity the meter measures each month. When a home installs solar / wind to generate their own electricity, chances are good that the house still has the same amperage connection to the grid for when the solar / wind system cannot meet demands. The question with residential solar / wind generation is how does the house contribute its full cost of grid maintenance when its monthly consumption goes down compared to a non-solar / wind house? Sure, the difference in the buy / sell rates will account for some of this, but am not seeing it as wholly funding grid maintenance.


Unless I am missing something, this boomerang is a hidden tax on all *but* the people using renewable's where the common approaches to dealing with it are to either defer repairs due to lack of funds, or (eventually) start raising the taxes / fees on everybody else to compensate.

For clarity, I actually am looking forward to renewable energy sources and feel that at the moment we are at the beginnings of what they can do in terms of helping benefit both the economy and ecology. What I am also seeing is that people whom take advantage of renewable's are getting a free ride that everybody else subsidizes. The more people whom jump on renewable's under the current infrastructure funding models, the larger the deficit of maintenance funds will grow and the more it will cost for everybody else.

Am I missing something here?

NOPE you covered it!

 

[FellowTraveler]

This will better present what the problem really is!

 

[JayTheCPA]

Yes, we are currently dependent on diesel for many things which drive the global economy and make life as we know it possible. Depending on how somebody wants to look at it, this is a near term factor.

Can see where, over time, renewable's eat into the diesel footprint. The current challenge is storage of the energy. When (if) technology advances to allow a storage method for electricity that is logically / functionally the same as a gas / diesel tank, renewable's will stand in a much better position to push diesel aside. From that point, it is a matter of economics and availability of raw materials as to which way the marketplace moves.

Presuming we solve the storage challenge, the next question I have is whether we solve the heat generation topic. While solar and wind energy generation does not create exhaust gasses, they do create heat. I am simply not smart enough to think through whether we are trading one ecological impact for another.

 

[Stoney]

So wouldn't that just cause global warming in a different way..although considering some of the winters we get here in New York I'm not sure I believe in global warming

 

[FellowTraveler]

Yes, we are currently dependent on diesel for many things which drive the global economy and make life as we know it possible. Depending on how somebody wants to look at it, this is a near term factor.

Can see where, over time, renewable's eat into the diesel footprint. The current challenge is storage of the energy. When (if) technology advances to allow a storage method for electricity that is logically / functionally the same as a gas / diesel tank, renewable's will stand in a much better position to push diesel aside. From that point, it is a matter of economics and availability of raw materials as to which way the marketplace moves.

Presuming we solve the storage challenge, the next question I have is whether we solve the heat generation topic. While solar and wind energy generation does not create exhaust gasses, they do create heat. I am simply not smart enough to think through whether we are trading one ecological impact for another.

The ideal source is hydrogen an yes storage is the issue on demand generators do work however; the consumables are expensive which makes on demand costly.

Then there is nuclear where a small system can be armored against collision damage and used to power all types of vehicles this is the most cost effective. however; as long as the greed of madmen (women) give someone an excuse to become dealers in massive death as the means to an end we face that ever constant threat.

Heat along with UV radiation magnetic storms and most other off world impacts to earth are directly related to solar activity. This is why "Chem trails" are being used to cloud the skies however; a well known crop failure adjuster in California exposed the more imminent danger and terminal impact to the planets eco system and all its inhabitants from the compounds used in the "Chem Trails."

Space Weather by SolarHam

www.solarham.net

 

[FellowTraveler]

CHEM TRAILS

 

[Big T]

Already registered my '99 Suburban in Montana under my wife's name, as she is working towards establishing residency. So if someone reports me as a vehicle registration cheater, I have the explanation: wife's truck, establishing residence in Montana, here to pick up materials to move up to Montana. Oh and the move could take a couple years.

 

[Stoney]

Lol..good thinking..you know trucks can only hold just so much weight so you can only hold just so much material at a time maybe only a two by four or two here and there... Takes a long time to move all the stuff you need for a house..lol

 

[Big T]

Past misinformation on diesel emissions by California Air Resource Board:
(10-07) 16:36 PDT Sacramento – —
California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.

The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.
The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates in the Air Board’s work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation – not the economic downturn.
The overestimate, which comes after another bad calculation by the Air Board on diesel-related deaths that made headlines in 2009, prompted the board to suspend the regulation earlier this year while officials decided whether to weaken the rule.
Today, after months of work, the Air Board and construction industry officials announced they agreed on a major scale-back of the rule – a proposal that includes delaying the start of the requirements until 2014 and exempting more vehicles from the rule. The announcement was made as The Chronicle was preparing to publish this report, which had been in the works for several weeks.
The setbacks in the Air Board’s research – and the proposed softening of a landmark regulation – raise questions about the performance of the agency as it is in the midst of implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 – or AB32 as it is commonly called, one of the state’s and nation’s most ambitious environmental policies to date.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11iqEfuN9

 

[Big T]

Found the article:

Diesel trucks would be nearly eliminated in California under proposed law

A Bay Area legislator has proposed a law requiring a 40 percent reduction in diesel...

www.sfchronicle.com

 

[FellowTraveler]

Found the article:

Diesel trucks would be nearly eliminated in California under proposed law

A Bay Area legislator has proposed a law requiring a 40 percent reduction in diesel...

www.sfchronicle.com

Every bit of it is driven by the UNITED NATIONS as NGO sanctioned by the UN lobby & propose these measures be undertaken the video I posted above spells it out. ow I'm sure everyone must be asking how is this even possible? SIMPLE ANSWER: The treasonous UNITED STATES UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION ACT enacted into law in DEC 1945 "yes America was surrendered to the non-sovereign UNITED NATIONS then by a cabal of OLD WORLD ORDER socialist ☭ scum embedded with the seat of government in DC.