Unpopular Opinion: Diesel Emissions Systems are Awesome

Anyway, what is your point? Can you prove me wrong…

My point is that having no actual clue if what you're saying is correct, by your own testament, while asserting nary considered beliefs as facts and then asking others to “prove you wrong” is as intellectually lazy as it gets.
 
My point is that having no actual clue if what you're saying is correct, by your own testament, while asserting nary considered beliefs as facts and then asking others to “prove you wrong” is as intellectually lazy as it gets.
I am voicing my opinion. I never said I had "factual" data. That is your misunderstanding, not mine. The things that are "fact" is that more pollution is being generated from adding these systems since the factories and plastic bottles didn't exist before, and that cruise and transport ships don't run ultra low sulfur diesel. So they put out a ton of emissions. Other than that, it is my opinion based on my observations and articles I've read about the technology in various non-political tech magazines.
 
We wont know the impact electric vehicles have on the planet until we are completely reliant on china and russia for Lithium batteries and they are discarded in landfills like everything else.
 
I am voicing my opinion. I never said I had "factual" data. That is your misunderstanding, not mine. The things that are "fact" is that more pollution is being generated from adding these systems since the factories and plastic bottles didn't exist before, and that cruise and transport ships don't run ultra low sulfur diesel. So they put out a ton of emissions. Other than that, it is my opinion based on my observations and articles I've read about the technology in various non-political tech magazines.

Those externalities sound ominous.

Are they actually worse than the positive first order effects of this technology?

Are they even direct effects?

Do DEF factories pollute? More so than they offset? Blue Sky makes a reasonable case for the environmental consciousness of their products: http://blueskydefna.com/about-blue-sky-def/ (recycled and recyclable materials, etc.)

How much pollution do they create? How much do they offset?

Are there more “cruise and transport” ships on the sea because of demand for DEF? What do cruise ships even have to do with it? How much do we even import by sea?
 
I respect everyone's opinions, even if I disagree. The OP's opinion was based on a certain aspect, which was that his truck didn't expose those around him to that big black cloud. I understand that. Unfortunately, the big black cloud that your vehicle doesn't blow out is just transferred to hundreds of smaller black clouds here in the USA and abroad to create every aspect of those DPF components and materials. I don't know how to do the exact math, but those ships alone that carry those components and parts actually burn dirty diesel like the cruise ships burn because they are exempt from being required to purchase the more expensive ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. Every part of creating and shipping that DPF introduces more and in some cases, dirtier pollution than that guys big black cloud created.

I also agree that electric vehicles are more efficient. I don't agree that they are better for the planet. Until we use electric equipment from mining to completion, and all the electric is produced without coal or nuclear, then we are just shifting pollution around, not eliminating it. Green electric tech cannot support our current needs. Hell, look at California, electric, coal, and nuclear combined right now cannot provide the needed electric, this the rolling brownouts or blackouts. Think of the draw when they are forced to add 100 percent electric vehicles. There is no way our existing power grid is ready for that kind of added draw, and no increase in green tech is going to fix that. We are going to have to build more coal burning or nuclear electric generation plants if we hope to supply the required infrastructure to support a nationwide electric car charging infrastructure. Especially in the densely populated areas where the current grid is already struggling. Battery tech isn't where it needs to be and I don't see it changing in my lifetime. I'm 51, btw...lol

I appreciate your balanced and reasonable approach. Robust studies have been done surrounding this theory, and it has been definitively proven that lifecycle emissions of, say an EV vehicle versus a comparable-class internal combustion vehicle do show that even when considering manufacturing and shipping to destination, EV vehicles produce far less emissions over their life.

The same is true for solar panels - although the exact number vary depending on the solar manufacturer. The primary points of pollution for solar technologies is mining the raw materials and then purifying the quartz into silicon wafers. The acid they use to convert to silicon can be recycled. Solar panels usually have a 30+ year lifespan, and in that time offset far more emissions than are produced to manufacture and distribute them. Additionally, they can be recycled, further improving the net gain in reduced emissions and other pollution over time. To be fair solar is not widely used enough to justify large-scale recycling, but the ability exists (just need an economic justification, like anything else).

So while I agree with your point that manufacturing these technologies utilizes old, polluting technologies, the same can be said for extracting and refining oil, which is comparable to the pollutants caused by mining and manufacturing lithium batteries, solar wafers, and other renewables.

Eventually the technology will get there - and while I love the sound and feel of a big old V8, there is something really cool about driving an EV, pressing the throttle at 95mph, and still getting what feels like 100% acceleration... instantly.
 
<snip>

Eventually the technology will get there - and while I love the sound and feel of a big old V8, there is something really cool about driving an EV, pressing the throttle at 95mph, and still getting what feels like 100% acceleration... instantly.

They'll just pipe the sound of the v8 over your speakers. Maybe with an extra rumble pack.
 
Those externalities sound ominous.

Are they actually worse than the positive first order effects of this technology?

Are they even direct effects?

Do DEF factories pollute? More so than they offset? Blue Sky makes a reasonable case for the environmental consciousness of their products: http://blueskydefna.com/about-blue-sky-def/ (recycled and recyclable materials, etc.)

How much pollution do they create? How much do they offset?

Are there more “cruise and transport” ships on the sea because of demand for DEF? What do cruise ships even have to do with it? How much do we even import by sea?
Again, your opinion vs mine. We are both allowed to have them and share them. I'm not going to argue with you about things that are speculative. I'm not here for that. I voiced my opinion and if you don't like it, that is on you. I don't care. If you want someone to argue with, go find your radical Rt wing friend, you all seem to love it. You can continue to post all the articles you want, go f oi r it. You posing your opinion on a truck forum won't change my opinions.

Sorry for the distraction OP. Some people just cannot accept opinions that vary from their own. I've voiced mine without trying to take away anyone else's opinion. Some people just cannot pass up an opportunity to troll.
 
Again, your opinion vs mine. We are both allowed to have them and share them. I'm not going to argue with you about things that are speculative. I'm not here for that. I voiced my opinion and if you don't like it, that is on you. I don't care. If you want someone to argue with, go find your radical Rt wing friend, you all seem to love it. You can continue to post all the articles you want, go f oi r it. You posing your opinion on a truck forum won't change my opinions.

Sorry for the distraction OP. Some people just cannot accept opinions that vary from their own. I've voiced mine without trying to take away anyone else's opinion. Some people just cannot pass up an opportunity to troll.

I DEFinitely realize I've stirred the hornet's nest here, and that was not my intention.

There is some good info though. I need to learn more about how emissions systems lessen the lifespan of a diesel engine. Diesel engine longevity is legendary. If they truly are getting 1/3 the life, that is messed up! What causes that? Can it be fixed?
 
I need to learn more about how emissions systems lessen the lifespan of a diesel engine. Diesel engine longevity is legendary. If they truly are getting 1/3 the life, that is messed up! What causes that? Can it be fixed?

I've not aware of any evidence of these systems reducing engine lifespan. They simply add more parts that will need repair eventually. I've read to budget ~$2k every 100k, or 2 cents per mile, towards emissions system maintenance. Seems like a drop in the bucket if reasonably accurate.
 
I appreciate your balanced and reasonable approach. Robust studies have been done surrounding this theory, and it has been definitively proven that lifecycle emissions of, say an EV vehicle versus a comparable-class internal combustion vehicle do show that even when considering manufacturing and shipping to destination, EV vehicles produce far less emissions over their life.

The same is true for solar panels - although the exact number vary depending on the solar manufacturer. The primary points of pollution for solar technologies is mining the raw materials and then purifying the quartz into silicon wafers. The acid they use to convert to silicon can be recycled. Solar panels usually have a 30+ year lifespan, and in that time offset far more emissions than are produced to manufacture and distribute them. Additionally, they can be recycled, further improving the net gain in reduced emissions and other pollution over time. To be fair solar is not widely used enough to justify large-scale recycling, but the ability exists (just need an economic justification, like anything else).

So while I agree with your point that manufacturing these technologies utilizes old, polluting technologies, the same can be said for extracting and refining oil, which is comparable to the pollutants caused by mining and manufacturing lithium batteries, solar wafers, and other renewables.

Eventually the technology will get there - and while I love the sound and feel of a big old V8, there is something really cool about driving an EV, pressing the throttle at 95mph, and still getting what feels like 100% acceleration... instantly.
I agree, my point is that I feel they are putting the cart before the horse. Get the technology there, build the infrastructure, then push the technology out to the masses. Right now, there isn't an infrastructure that will allow me to tow my boat to the ramp, charge my vehicle while I fish, then return home. I would have to pray that u can make it to a charging station on my way home before the battery dies, since most of the lakes I fish are accessed by rural roads and not interstates and near populated cities. If I can make it to the populated city, I have to weight 45 min yo an hour before I can finish driving home. So a trip that requires 2.5 hours drive time in my fossil fuel vehicle, would take me 3.5 hours of time, including that hour of sitting there waiting, and that is if the charging station can be accessible with pulling a 23 foot long boat trailer.


As for solar, it has a place and is a viable option, but my understanding is that it isn't cheap to buy or maintain either. I can see a future where green energy can carry the brunt, and fossil fuels supplement, but it will take a long time to build the needed infrastructure to make that happen. There is more than putting some charging stations in cities and saying, ok, everyone has to go electric. Charging stations need to be installed in places that no one thinks about, including boat ramp parking lots, rural streets and highways, and battery tech needs to allow for more than 300 to 400 miles between charging. I can make Destin, FL from my home in 10 hours. I can drive straight through with 3 stops, 15 min each. So 45 min total down time to fuel up. With current technology, that same trip will require me to stay over night somewhere, or charge the vehicle several hours during the trip if I chose to drive straight through. Longer if I pull my boat. I won't willingly give up my fossil fuel engine until they have a replacement that allows me to cover the same ground in the same or similar time.

Once the vehicle battery tech and infrastructure are there, I will gladly convert. I am not against EV tech, I am against having it shoved down my throat and being called evil for not willingly converting when it is impractical for my purposes due to the lack of infrastructure and battery range technology. Just like the movie says, "If you build it, they will come". You have to build the green tech first and it has to work. Right now, the tech isn't there and what we do have, only works for some.
 
I DEFinitely realize I've stirred the hornet's nest here, and that was not my intention.

There is some good info though. I need to learn more about how emissions systems lessen the lifespan of a diesel engine. Diesel engine longevity is legendary. If they truly are getting 1/3 the life, that is messed up! What causes that? Can it be fixed?

I think a lot of it came from the initial introduction of emissions systems. Back when they were first attached, it was an afterthought to the engine. It was the first time they were ever incorporated into diesels. It also doesn't help that the big diesel makers have never used those components before. So granted some things have been around a while (such as the EGR), those manufacturers have next to no experience with them on diesels. Needless to say, those initial offerings didn't go over so well.

Fast forward to today. Manufacturers, Ford included, have had time to hammer out the kinks, and now our 3rd gen Powerstrokes were designed to have emissions installed. The whole system works together as one. The emissions torpedo is designed for the motor, and the motor is designed to run with the emissions torpedo. If you delete, you'll have less maintenance costs because you no longer have to service the torpedo or the EGR, but I doubt the engine will last any longer. It might actually die sooner because it was never intended to breathe so well. More torque, more power, more stress on the components.
 
I've not aware of any evidence of these systems reducing engine lifespan. They simply add more parts that will need repair eventually. I've read to budget ~$2k every 100k, or 2 cents per mile, towards emissions system maintenance. Seems like a drop in the bucket if reasonably accurate.
They don't lessen the lifespan of the engine, they add expensive components that when they fail, will render the vehicle useless until replaced or removed. Unfortunately, the EPA is attacking all businesses that sell or install delete kits, but they are not going after those that actually manufacture it. So in the USA, you won't have any option but to pay the small fortune to fix or replace it. I personally feel that since the EPA is mandating these emission systems, the EPA should be responsible for repairs and replacement. If the EPA isn't willing to do that, then I should be able to remove the system. But when has our government ever mandated anything and accepted responsibility for the burden placed on us?
 
They don't lessen the lifespan of the engine, they add expensive components that when they fail, will render the vehicle useless until replaced or removed. Unfortunately, the EPA is attacking all businesses that sell or install delete kits, but they are not going after those that actually manufacture it. So in the USA, you won't have any option but to pay the small fortune to fix or replace it. I personally feel that since the EPA is mandating these emission systems, the EPA should be responsible for repairs and replacement. If the EPA isn't willing to do that, then I should be able to remove the system. But when has our government ever mandated anything and accepted responsibility for the burden placed on us?

Should the government also cover the repair cost of your airbags, headlights, brakes, and other miscellaneous safety equipment required by law?

Should government cover your liability insurance too?

I suppose that could come out of a government managed fund.

Paid in by our collective taxes.

Oh wait…
 
Once the vehicle battery tech and infrastructure are there, I will gladly convert. I am not against EV tech, I am against having it shoved down my throat and being called evil for not willingly converting when it is impractical for my purposes due to the lack of infrastructure and battery range technology. Just like the movie says, "If you build it, they will come". You have to build the green tech first and it has to work. Right now, the tech isn't there and what we do have, only works for some.
This sort of subtlety is lost in a lot of discourse today, unfortunately.

break break, the rest is this isn’t at Big Ed specifically

Right now Rivian is selling every truck they make before they even make it, so even if you wanted an EV pickup it’s not coming anytime soon. An Adaptive Steering Tremor will show up much sooner.

I also don’t like the idea of rushing it. The technology can sell itself. Unsupportable currently to have everyone on EV anyway. If we pull some numbers out of our asses and say it takes 5 minutes to refuel a vehicle, and right now good electric cars are taking roughly 30 minutes for a quick charge, you already need 6 times as many outlets as you do pump handles. Granted, an EV charging station can be much more space efficient, but I’m not sure even sure our grid in its current state can support it.

It’ll probably be the way to go one day, but for now I’d rather see manufactures focusing on making the best of what we have now, and right now I have a nearly 500 horsepower car that’ll do over 30mpg on the highway, and in waiting on a heavy duty, nearly 500 horsepower truck that allegedly will do close to or over 20 on the freeway. More of this while tech develops is fine by me.
 
I've not aware of any evidence of these systems reducing engine lifespan. They simply add more parts that will need repair eventually. I've read to budget ~$2k every 100k, or 2 cents per mile, towards emissions system maintenance. Seems like a drop in the bucket if reasonably accurate

Seems accurate.
 
Boy, howdy, does this thread need Shrike or what? It’s waaay too civilized! Oh, wait, maybe it was posted in the Adult Discussion forum?

Sorry, somebody had to drag it down into the personalized attack muck. I’ll go to my corner now.
 
Back
Top