🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article, hetzel@slc7.INS.CWRU.Edu (Bob Hetzel) says:

>In article <51d2i3$l9n@csu-b.csuohio.edu>,
>drsoran <drsoran@ni.cba.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>Lou Duchez (ljduchez@en.com) wrote:
>>: A. J. Smith (aa4880@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu) wrote:
>>: : 
>>: : I consider myself an environmentalist and I oppose Ohio's E-Check.
>>: : I oppose E-Check because it is very little more effective than the current
>>: : system and it diverts attention from new technologies which can produce
>>: : automobiles which will not require E-Check.
>>
>>: It's purely a revenue-garnering endeavor, yet another expense put on the
>>: peoples' tab while business lives it up.  Why else would commercial
>>: vehicles, the heaviest-polluting vehicles out there, be E-Check exempt? 
>>
>>	Because the billowing black smoke that they release into the air 
>>is "E-Check Certified Clean"... "It won't pollute the environment like 
>>those nasty cars will..."  Naw.. it doesn't pollute the environment.. I 
>>just LOVE riding behind a <cough><cough><gag><cough> bus.. they're so 
>>ecologically friendly to the gentle balance of man and nature.  Yea, right.
>>
>
>You may think it's not environmentally friendly, but diesel engine's
>waste products are more safe than the by products of most gasoline
>powered automobiles.  They get better mileage because they do a
>more "complete/ideal" combustion, I believe.  (I'm sure a chemistry 
>type will correct me if I'm wrong on this one).
>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel engines are more efficient because they have a higher (greater)
compression ratio.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


>The real reason commercial vehicles are exempt is because your
>(as well as my) representatives are in favor of being cozy with
>businesses, despite the problems they might cause.  It boils down
>to campaign contributions, allies, formed during the campaings, etc.
>
>As for taking attention away from newer technologies, California
>is a perfect example of this.  They legislated zero emission
>vehicles.  BMW, for instance is nearing perfection on a Hydrogen
>engine system that produces water as basically it's sole product
>of combustion.  I'd have to call that extremely friendly, but
>since it's not "zero emission" (meaning nothing given off, no
>matter what) it doesn't qualify.  They've even got equipment
>researched to allow you to split water into hydrogen and oxygen
>using solar energy.  This is far superior to electric transportation
>where the energy is produced by burning coal.  This is due to
>heavy utility lobying and misguided politicians.
>

--