EPA & CNG Conversion
We need to get the restrictive EPA regulations regarding CNG conversion eliminated.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Smith on -
Why is The Drive America on Natural Gas Act important?
Even with the incentives, the cost of a conversion is too high. The rules in place today have no scientific reasoning supporting them and this is unacceptable. The regulations for certification must be reduced so it is acceptable to the public. Even with incentives, an older car would have difficulty with a reasonable payback period.
Currently a 2,000.00 to 4,500.00 dollar conversion cost and average of 12,000.00 dollars in the United States. It is time to do away with the regulations that caused this debacle.
The cost of a conversion (retrofit) must become lower for market acceptability. Only fleet operations can afford the cost at the present rate. Support Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma as he Introduces Drive America on Natural Gas Act and reduce these cost of conversions for everyone.. - Attachments:
-
-
The Drive America on Natural Gas Act of 2008 .pdf, 40 KB -
0,,id=175456,00[1].html, 166 KB -
EPA OBDII exceptionpdf.pdf, 100 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Reynolds on -
The EPA has only cost the country money and energy since it was founded only because of the backward thinking of trying to cut emissions buy adding on gadgets instead of making cleaner burning fuel. The same with all energy policy. Government regulations are put on the wrong end of the spectrum (protecting the oil producers) which makes all outsiders that aren't grandfathered in to expensive because of the regulations they have to pass.
The reason I am a member of Pickens Plan is to help make these changes affordable to normal working people that are willing to make a difference by saving energy and converting to clean renewable sources.
I encourage every member to hang in there doing what ever they can in what ever part of the Pickens Plan they are interested in. Every effort helps no matter how small!
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on -
One thing the nice guys at the Nazi storm trooper EPA has done has given us Super clean burning Gasoline whith so many new additives that gas was $4 bucks at the pump and breaking the backs of the middle class , McCain and Obama have not a clue of whats wrong with this country and no idea how to help the people . Nader always has been for everyday people and he would have to run down Main street in his birthday suit to get on the Network News for 15 seconds . By the way Gasoline is no better now than it was 20 years ago in fact it will not give as many mpg with a mix of even 5% corn pure grain and all the extras that are clamed to be oxidizers .Its vodoo science . And thats the way Big Oil and the Car makers want it and they are now picking up their marbles and quiting . 2 million layoff to come before the end of the year ,The Big shots are packing their loot on their personal jets and moving out to the Swiss Alps to party on .God save youall
-
Permalink Reply by MIKE SUNDSTROM on -
A chemistry professor I had in college said that things happen in nature because it is easier for them to happen than for them not to happen (he was talking about chemical bonds).
This is also true when it comes to alternative energy. Most people will not start using alternative fuel until it is easier them to than not to. Sure, some people do it because it is the right thing to do and some people will do it because it is the 'IN' thing to do but, society, as a whole will not change to alternative fuel until it is easier to change than not to change.
We need to make it easier for this country to use alternative fuels than it is to use foreign oil. This is the most important thing we can do for our national defense, the economy, and the environment.
-
Permalink Reply by Conrad Haas Jr. on -
As an auto technician (BMW for over 20 years), I know the importantance of correctly installed components on engines and the highly technical computer systems for controling emmisions and fuel economy. I have seen many cars towed in wth attempted repairs and a box of parts. First point is propoer installation of components for reliability and safety(i.e. fires). Only compitent, traded individuals should attemp installation. This is not as simple as rebuilding a carburator. Secondly, conversions should only be done on well mantained engines, not an old oil burning engine or the conversion will not produce the power and mpg disired. I do agree that the companies doing the conversions should be deregulated more to allow for competition to lower costs to individuals. Fleet conversion is the first priority and then it should be more common place for individuals to have their vehicles converted economically. I feel the conversions should be certified to meet the standards for fuel efficientcy.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on -
For those new to the issue, it's important they understand the Federal EPA requires manufacturers of CNG conversion kits to obtain EPA "certification" for each kit to be used on each vehicle and model year of that vehicle. The cost of doing this is what makes these kits cost prohibitive. The EPA needs to justify these certification regulations to our legislators and us. If they can't, we must keep the EPA's and or legislator's feet to the fire; pushing them to enact a more common sense regulatory change.
-
Permalink Reply by David Smith on
-
I would like to see the science used to justify the EPA regulations. I have been looking for the scientific justification for years, and I do not think it exists. If anyone has found the justifications leading up to the current regulations please post it here.
-
Permalink Reply by DubleDeuce on -
There is no scientific basis for the regulations. It is a combination of arbitrary and "yeah, I think we can do this."
The FIRST requirement for tailpipe emissions (this is ALL the EPA regulates is the tailpipe emissions. How you arrive at the requirement is YOUR business) was in 1968. You may remember these as those pesky little "limiter screw caps" in the idle adjuster screws on the carb. They required a shop to "set" the idle mixture to a particular tailpipe measurement of CO2 and than 'LOCKED that adjustment to a very narrow degree of screw adjustment. Anyone caught "tampering" with these screws was subject to a an EPA fine.
As the years went by, the tailpipe emissions got more and more strict. They went from idle CO2 limits in 1968 to NOx in 1974. To get around this problem car manufacturers had to reduce the compression ratio and add an exhaust recirculation valve to the engine to get maximum cylinder temperatures down to prevent the production of NOx in the combustion chamber. Now, if your not familiar with the Otto Cycle engine technology, higher compression ratios were the holy grail of power. The more you squeeze the air/fuel mixture the more power you could get from the engine. For years, the motoring public was used to "high compression engines" and ethyl gas to make them run. It was a badge of honor to pull up to a gas pump and get the "high test". even if you didn't need it. After all, WHO was going to look under the hood of your car to see if it was a 4 bbl V=8 or just a whimpy inline flathead six.
Now we were told that all that high compression stuff was out the door...in favor of cleaner air-AND less power and MORE fuel consumption. Still, the EPA insisted on further tinkering with the tailpipe emissions. This time they wanted control over unburned hydrocarbons. To get this type of control, car makers turned to the science of the catalytic converter. At first there were single bed and then dual bed technology coupled with upper and lower bed conditioning, all driven by a 1915 invention we came to know as the air pump. Ford had single pumps, dual pumps, chug valves, Erch and Erv valves, check valves, vacuume lines running all over the engine compartment, and generally driving an old school tuneup mechanic mad.
Then we come to feed back carbs and the first addition of the engine computer. Of course, electronic ignition systems had made their way onto the cars by 1974 as a way to help in the fight against spark plug misfire and its accompanied cousin "excess hydrocarbons"
Once the college Professor and his students found out that a certain ceramic and metal combination could be assembled and it would put out a low voltage signal consistant with the amount of oxygen in the air, the O2 sensor was born and EPA really got into tailpipe emission control. ECM's (Engine Computer Management) systems soon came online and emissions levels were driven to 2% of those levels in 1968.
So you see, it is NOT a matter of scientific validation that makes the current EPA mandate of tailpipe emissions justified, but rather an arbitrary level coupled with "what can you really do for us".
And NOW that that we are wanting to change the fuel that goes into the engine , a fuel that is over 50% cleaner that that of current levels of tailpipe emissions, the EPA laws say that we have to g through the SAME process to get certification as the original car manufacturers did.
Government bureaucracies. Ya gotta love 'em.
The Deuceman
-
Permalink Reply by Dyno Dave on -
You have just touched the tip of the EPA iceberg. Vehicle emissions are extremely tough. The "shed test" which is an evaporative emissions test which can take up to 3 days to complete. The tires, paint, plastics and rustproofing all contribute to evaporative emissions that can cause a vehicle to fail. The EPA is costing us a ton of money and for what? We have more emissions floating over from China than we make ourselves. We need an emission tax on imported goods from countries that don't meet our standards.
-
Permalink Reply by DubleDeuce on
-
Actually Pat, the EPA does NOT have anything to do with the "cost" to certify an engine/model application. Other than the filing fee (I do not know even IF there is a filing fee) for the certification, the $225,000 "cost" to certify is the price charged by independant laborotories to run the proposed test through a particular cycle, RECORD the results for posterity, send copies (in quadriplicate) to the EPA and stand ultimately responsible for ANY errors that they may have commited or permitted, to enter into the data that could cause an untrue reading.
Once an auto manufacture has that certificate of compliance issued by the testing facility, he is HOME free unless the EPA wishes to open an investigation into the matter (on their OWN dime)
As to WHO <<they set the record>> sets the record on EPA emisions, that my friend is ultimately the purview of the radical left and tree huggers. Go to Washngton, DC and ask yourself THIS question, WHAT is the most important function that this government should be attending to on a daily bassi. My answer ould be the enforcement of the law.To that end, you would think that the real estate afforded that process would be the dominant lay of the land in DC. WRONG!!
The LARGEST (by far) structure in DC is devoted to housing the Environmental Protection Agency. Even the Temple devoted to the lavish display of the Red Skins football team PALES in size to the the EPA building. If your going to DC to take on the EPA, DON'T take dynamite. There ain't enough of in in the world to take them out. See if you can find a stone eating emzyme or termite. It may take a while, but they MIGHT be able to crunch their way through the majestic marble columns.
The Deuceman
Featured Discussion
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
