Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:51:07 -0400
Reply-To:     Michael Townsend <townsend@RTP.ERICSSON.SE>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Michael Townsend <townsend@RTP.ERICSSON.SE>
Subject:      Re: clean air again
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Uhhhhhh,

Here are my $.02:


>From: Stuart <stuart@cobaltgroup.com>
>(Nitrogen oxides form the typical
>brown haze found over polluted cities, cats do not help this at all.)
>Cats do not create a clean exhaust, just one with a different
>composition.

Agreed.

>This is why California is mandating that a certain
>percentage of cars be "zero" pollution (electric cars, and we know how
>pollution free the generation of electricity is) by some date in the
>future.  (This makes sense??!)
>

Agreed -- electric cars just move the pollution around.  We need to find
something  better for the mean time.

>I also read recently that the EPA now wants to ban MBTE, the oxygenating
>additive use in gas in the most polluted areas of the country because it
>gets into the ground water and stays there!  Concentrations in some
>areas of California are rising to dangerous levels.  The people who
>promoted MBTE now admit that not enough research was done before it was
>mandated (!!!) (Methanol is used in its production, and this benefits
>farmers who grow corn so it was viewed as a win-win solution without
>being given much though.
>
Agreed.  When I lived in Annapolis MD, my carbureted cars ran like cr*p
every winter with the oxygenated gas, so my pollution per mile was probaby
worse than the normal gas.  I don't think thought through this very well.

> Our impact on the environment is much less
>than the person who buys a new car every two or three years, with or
>without a cat!

Agreed

>(Not to mention outboard motors, diesel engines, and the
>trend towards bigger and bigger SUV's.)
>

Agreed, strongly disagree, agree.

Two-cycle outboard (and jet ski) motors pollute much more than anyone gives
them blame for.

You listed the diesel engine in your groupings of negatives, where I think
it does not belong.  I think the modern diesels are the near term solution
to the problem until fuel cells and other futuristic techniques are
available.  To your first point, my 97 Passat TDI produces almost no brown
haze-forming Nitrous oxides and it gets 48 mpg.  I believe the carbon
particulates that fall to the ground are no worse than the tire particles
that get washed off the road as well.  (I know there is the debate now about
if the solid particulates are more damaging to high-risk people than the
greenhouse gasses produced by gasoline cars.  By the time they get it
settled, I'm sure particulate traps will be available on small diesels.)  My
TDI is not a charter bus with a 500000 mile detroit diesel billowing smoke
as it ascends a hill, which is where diesels get their bad image in America.
However, have you ever thought about how bad the air would be if all
dumptrucks, busses, trains, etc. would be if they all had to be gasoline?
What about the landfill cost of replacing engines more often?
Please join: diesel@vwfans.com, vw-tdi@onelist.com, and
Audi-VW-Diesels@onelist.com

Bigger SUV's, well, I won't buy one.  However, a Ford Excursion with a
Powerstroke Diesel probably gets better economy and has lower pollution than
my Vanagon.  Of course, it is an absurd vehicle that most people that buy
won't really need.

>My $.02.
>


Mine too.

>Stuart
>
>'65 MGB, no smog test required
>'74 MGB GT, no cat required
>'84 Westy (oil smoke when cold will soon kill its cat!)
>

Michael
90 Carat (wish it was a TDI)
97 Passat TDI
84 Honda Accord (Which still passes the smog tests by more than an order of
magnitude margin)


>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Congratulations COUNTRYSIDE-ELIST. Our latest ONElist of the week.
>For full story and to submit yours,
><a href=" http://www.onelist.com/info/ootw_20.html ">Click Here</A>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------