Interesting concept for Diesel owners
Submitted: Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 00:50
ThreadID:
15277
Views:
2642
Replies:
6
FollowUps:
6
This Thread has been Archived
Muddy 'doe (SA)
Hi Forumites,
At the risk of being shot down for a crappy post......... I saw a very interesting article today on www.drive.com.au which might interest and possibly amuse owners of diesel engines.
Quote:
Pollution slash
If you see a truck driver peeing into his tank, don't be alarmed: he's saving the planet.
Truck drivers in Europe will soon be able to fill up with urea along with regular diesel, as truck manufacturers race to meet European Union rules being introduced in 2007 designed to reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxides and soot. Such pollutants are linked to about 200,000 deaths a year in EU countries.
London's Financial Times says catalytic converters supplied with urea can cut out as much as 60 percent of the pollutants emitted by even the cleanest diesel engines, transforming most of the nitrous oxide in the exhaust into harmless nitrogen and water.
The cost of the urea solution, marketed as AdBlue, combined with diesel will increase fuel prices by about 2 percent. The chief executive of Volvo trucks, Leif Johansson, says that many truck companies won't pay the extra.
"As running costs are the biggest factor in profitability for freight transport companies, [more efficient] engines will appeal, but the cost of urea will not."
End of article quote.
Has anyone heard of this sort of thing before? The article seems serious and it is not April 1 today. I'm not suggesting that we all rush outside and fill the tanks up but who knows what is possible in future??? Mind you, it may not work for those of us with a fuel filler cap more than 3' off the ground!
Cheers
Muddy 'doe
Reply By: ExplorOz Team - Michelle - Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:49
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:49
HI Muddy 'doe - much as I doubt this is seriously going to become a viable option of course I am happy to keep this post. Any discussion on fuel, particulary one that looks at making it cheaper has a place here to be discussed - we all use it, and we all hate how much it costs and how bad it is on our depletion of natural resources. Urea eh? Just as long as I don't have to drink it!
AnswerID:
71191
Reply By: Member - Wim (Bris) - Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 07:55
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 07:55
Muddy 'doe.
I guess as a general discussion related to fuel cost. It would seem reasonable that the cost fo fuel will only continue to rise.
My question is this. Will the ever increasing cost of fuel effect both the sale of large vehicles (4wd) and the number of people able to afford the fuel cost related to the travel in the outback?
regards
AnswerID:
71197
Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:42
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:42
I think no matter what the fuel cost people will travel.
Compare now prices of $1.00+ to that of 20 yr ago when the prices really started climbing from 20-40cent mark.
Wages are now more than before, but I see the older people having more issues than they ever did with pensions and prices which I think stinks. Ya spend 40-50yrs workin, then get shafted by the Gov killing off pensions. or super, which is just another scam IMO.
YMMV
FollowupID:
331409
Follow Up By: Member - Alan- Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:22
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:22
I couldn't agree more Truckster. The much maligned "baby boomers" and other older people have spent a lifetimes work being ripped off by all the different levels of government, only to be told there's no money for a decent retirement!
Of course they've made sure that they are nicely looked after thankyou very much to the taxpayers. These same scum would love to shove the price of fuel to British/European prices, all in the name of conservation of supplies of course, while they constantly jet around the world in the biggest fuel guzzlers of the lot!
Anyway, getting back to the fuel additive, I thought urea was a fertilizer, but urine is what the subject seems to be what the writer was on about.
Can't see what urine would do except add water which contains some hydrogen to the tank.
Have I got something wrong somewhere?
FollowupID:
331450
Reply By: duncs - Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:43
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:43
I was concerned about the idea of urinating into the fuel tank, especially during cold European winters. One would have to be careful not too touch things for fear of getting stuck.
Tehn there is the issue of water in the fuel to contend with.
Duncs
AnswerID:
71230
Reply By: Member - Bradley- Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 15:08
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 15:08
Post combustion urea treatment is one of the big developments being looked at as a way of meeting the upcoming pollution targets for diesel engines. The urea will be in seperate tanks and linked to the engine ecu, ie- fill with diesel but not urea as
well, and the truck will not start. Similar to the onboard load cells that will not allow the truck to start if it is overloaded. The forecast for the next 5 - 10 years is pretty daunting. it will make the current CI-4 oil we are using now redundant very quickly. Already we are experiencing issues with the heavy fleets meeting their drain targets with the sulphur levels dropping in the fuel, and it looks like the next generation of diesel oils will almost certainly be semi-syn at a minimum. As the exhaust gas gets cleaner, the oil gets a lot dirtier and has a lot more demand on it. The boys and girls who dont like spending on servicing will be in for a shock !!
cheerio, Brad
AnswerID:
71275
Reply By: Utemad - Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 16:24
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 16:24
This is fine for the male gender but what about ............. RAOFLMAO!!!!!
Utemad
AnswerID:
71290
Follow Up By: bbuzz - Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 21:29
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 21:29
OK, I'll bite. What is a RAOFLMAO ? Do I have one?
FollowupID:
331522
Follow Up By: Muddy 'doe (SA) - Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 21:56
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 21:56
shorthand (shorttype?) for Rollin' around on floor laughin' my ass off!
See the link to Abbreviations at the bottom of the page...
Cheers
Muddy 'doe
FollowupID:
331527
Reply By: Nomad - Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 22:20
Wednesday, Aug 04, 2004 at 22:20
I don't know about peeing in the fuel tank, but once again Truckster is on the ball. I haven't done the sums, I'm sure someone might, but yeh compare the cost of fuel 20 years ago as a percentage of the weekly wage, and then do the same against todays wage. Reckon you might be suprised as you would with many other things we buy.
And yes the poor old pensioner who never had a real chance of providing for their future gets it in the kneck once again. At today's prices I have worked out that a pensioner couple can still travel around Oz as
grey nomads, in their efficient 4bie, with trailer. However, they would have to limit their travel to about 500k a day and then
camp for a couple of weeks or more. At least it's still possible at the moment. But as Truckster says, it's getting harder all the time particularly with fuel and no
real increase in pension.
No Cheer
Nomad
AnswerID:
71346
Follow Up By: phil - Thursday, Aug 05, 2004 at 10:55
Thursday, Aug 05, 2004 at 10:55
In inflation adjusted prices a barrel of oil in 1992 was about $60 and in 1982 about $100 compared with todays $42.
We are not so badly off yet!
Phil I
FollowupID:
331561
Follow Up By: Nomad - Thursday, Aug 05, 2004 at 17:38
Thursday, Aug 05, 2004 at 17:38
Phil
I guess that's what I was getting at. Sorry just my silly way of putting it. Problem is that it would appear that while the general populous is better off, I feel the pension has not kept pace so they are feeling the squeeze.
Trouble with people today, and why they winge, is that they have a lot more material belongings todays than when I was growing up. When we moved into a house it was bare boards and a couple of boxes for chairs and tables. Imagine that today.
Nomad
FollowupID:
331595