EPA2010 - Myths and Realities: Part 1

As January 2010 draws near, fleet managers and owner/operators will have to decide between two competing technologies to meet EPA2010 emissions standards. By now, most will know that Navistar is going to ramp up exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) levels in order to become EPA2010-compliant, while all other manufacturers are employing the exhaust aftertreatment system known as Selective Catalytic Reduction(SCR).

Each solution has its advantages and each also presents some concerns. Both camps are ramping up their PR campaigns and will undoubtedly be disseminating some information in the coming months that will be challenged and debated. The PR war is already underway, and will only intensify in the weeks and months ahead. There’s a lot at stake here for all truck and engine manufacturers.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll post a series of blogs that will address some concerns and/or myths about EPA2010 emissions standards and both of the solutions that will be presented to the market. These blogs will be comprised of information obtained through many interviews I’ve conducted on the subject and plenty of additional research.

If you’re a stakeholder in this debate, and wish to comment on any of the points below, feel free to post a comment.

Today, I’ll start by addressing the concern that with only 344 days to go, there’s still no urea (DEF) infrastructure network in place.

EPA2010 MYTH: There’s not enough time to develop the urea distribution network required for SCR

Ever since SCR was first discussed as a potential solution for EPA2010 emissions standards, concerns were expressed about the ability to develop a comprehensive North America-wisave money policy for the bridesmaid dressde distribution network for urea. Urea (now referred to as Diesel Exhaust Fluid – DEF) is the required additive for SCR systems. Housed in a separate tank, the fluid is injected in small doses into the exhaust stream. It then causes a chemical reaction in the SCR catalyst where NOx is broken down into harmless water and nitrogen.

SCR’s detractors initially voiced doubts that DEF would be widely available by 2010, citing the need for massive infrastructure investments. Those concerns may have been valid, if you were envisioning the need for a DEF pump at every truck stop and cardlock across North America. That’s not going to be the case by January 2010, but fortunately for SCR backers, that level of availability will not be required.

DEF wildifferent dress patterns different personalitiesl be consumed at the relatively slow rate of 2-3% compared to diesel, engine manufacturers claim. DEF tank sizes will range from about 13-20 gallons, so a truck will likely only require a DEF top-up every 4,000-6,000 miles.

To put it in perspective, a highway truck with a 13-gallon DEF tank averaging 6.5 mpg will be able to travel from New York to Los Angeles and then back to Denver before requiring a DEF top-up, according to Mack Trucks’ David McKenna.

So while you may not find a DEF pump at every filling station by January 2010, it’s hardly a cause for concern. There will be plenty of places along a 4,000-6,000 mile run to find DEF, including all truck and engine dealers that offer SCR engines, many truck stops and other DEF distributors.

The DEF distribution network has begun to take form, and most notably Pilot Travel Centers has committed to offering the fluid ‘at-the-pump’ and in a variety of other sizes. Undoubtedly, as the opportunity to profit from the sale of DEF draws closer, more truck stops will announce their intentions to carry the fluid. Many suppliers have already announced their intentdressing your bridesmaids in perfect bridesmaid dressesion to produce and distribute DEF. Drivers will be able to carry a spare tote jug of DEF along with them, to ensure they don’t run out of the fluid en-route.

As Michael Delaney, senior vice-president of marketing with Daimler Trucks North America points out, “One would have to work pretty hard to run out of DEF.”

Even the harshest critics of SCR seem to have backed off claims that DEF won’t be widely available by 2010 and have turned their attention to other factors, such as its price. But that’s the subject for another blog entry in this series.

The Problem of Evil: III. Why Can't Evil be Stopped?

Part II looked at Where Evil Came From - with the conclusion that we, as moral creatures, are the cause of evil through the actions taken by our free will. We are therefore responsible - as moral creatures - for our actions and the good, and bad, results of thosdressing your bridesmaids in perfect dress 2e actions.

The next question Geisler and Brooks approach in Chapter 4 of When Skeptics Ask is


Why Can't Evil be Stopped?

I conclude that the existence of evil was the byproduct of some other condition that God desired to bring about in creation. The work of theology then would be to attempt to develop an understanding of what that desired condition was, and how it was that the existence of evil was a necessary byproduct thereof. -- Starwoman

I quoted that in Part I - and Geisler now presents his idea of what that greater good is:

The classic form of the question has been rattling around the halls of college campuses for hundreds of years

1. If God is all-good, he would destroy evil
2. If God is all-powerful, he could destroy evil
3. But evil is not destroyed
4. Hence, there is no such God

Why hasn't God done something about evil? If he could and would do something, why do we still have evil? Why is it so persistent? And it doesn't even seem to be slowing down!

There are two answers for this questdressing your bridesmaids in perfect bridesmaid dressesion. First, evil cannot be destroyed without destroying freedom. As we said before, free beings are the cause of evil, and freedom was given to us so that we could love. Love is the greatest good for all free creatures [Matt. 22:36], but love is impossible without freedom. So if freedom were destroyed, which is the only way to end evil, that would be evil in itself --because it would deprive free creatures of their greatest good. Hence, to destroy evil would actually be evil. If evil is to be overcome, we need to talk about it being defeated, not destroyed.

I think that is absolutely right - our ability to love is the greatest good and offsets our use of our freedom to do evil. However, is God done?

The argument against God from evil makes some arrogant assumptions. Just because evil is not destroyed right now does not mean that it never will bedressing your bridesmaids in perfect bridesmaid dress 3. The argument implies that if God hasn't done anything as of today, then it won't ever happen. But this assumes that the person making the argument has some inside information about the future. If we restate the argument to correct this oversight in temporal perspective, it turns out to be an argument that vindicates God.

1. If God is all-good, then he will defeat evil
2. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil
3. Evil is not yet defeated
4. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil

Now, for the vast majority of Christians the major battle in God's struggle to defeat evil was the Cross. Geisler continues:

. . . There is no question here that if it has not yet happened and God is as we suppose Him to be, that we simply haven't waited long enough. God isn't finished yet . . . Apparently God would rather wrestle with our rebellious wills than to reign supreme over rocks and trees. Those who want a quicker resolution to the conflict will have to wait.

What are the social/political implications here? We too, as imago dei are just as incapable of destroying evil without destroying freedom - we too have to work to defeat it. We also have to struggle with rebellious wills (our own and other's); and will have to wait for a resolution that may be a long time coming.

However, it is pretty clear from scripture that all things (even evil) work together for the good under God's direction. So, . . .

Next Question: What is the purpose of Evil?
Series Link