[biofuels-biz] (fwd) (fwd) news-release: School Bus Idling ATCM
Some in the biofuel groups and elsewhere may look askance at the CARB instituting such seeming common-sense measures for slightly decreasing emissions and improving air quality near school-children, but then seeming to fail to implement biofuel and other clean-air technologies. I'm not sure if CARB has made any headway in researching benefits of using biofuels as against dino fuels in school busses. Remember that not only is CARB limited to emissions debates (NOT mileage debates) but they weaken or even destroy their entire footing sometimes when they venture into mileage and other areas (I think there's recently been a lawsuit from the enviro-hostile Federal government against some of the CARB-related activities or rulings because of their alleged straying from clean-air-related concerns.) Anyway, I'd love to see CARB evaluate some pilot school-bus biofuel programs (such as I think SSPC was running?) for some very specific measureable changes in school bus emissions and perhaps for some changes in overall community emissions if they were able to attach numbers to the benefits (or damages or harms) of reprocessing waste grease rather than allowing it to be thrown away and emit-gosh-knows-what from its resting hole (if I understand correctly what happens to some of it?). Two more strategizing notes: Since so much of the school system is publicly owned, (governmentally-owned-and-run), this means IMO that an agency like CARB has a much more clear-cut legitimate ability to mandate, incontrovertibly, how the fleet of busses serving those public schools should be run. They are part of ownership, part of the management team. I am not a fan of government-involvement in the education business, but this is one instance where the issue plays in favor of some progress, IMO. Second, busses, in particular, seem to be focus points for some of the alternative fuel efforts at advanced research. You hear about this or that pilot program by this or that manufacture, major and minor, to research super-advanced batteries, fuel cells, hybrids including ultracaps, etc., in busses. EFCX, for example where their semi-battery-fuel-cell (whatever the hell it is) technology I think has done some bus work (with GE?) and Maxwell was going on about GM putting some ultracaps in busses or large trucks for a sort of initial effort. So, although I'm very much in favor of a simple straightforward gaining of knowledge and promulgation of a 100%-biodiesel-in-busses concept, biofuel advocates may wish to be aware of the compatibilities with other alt-fuel efforts. MM On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:09:11 -0800, Gennet Paauwe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please find the following California Air Resources Board news release on today's approval of an air toxic control measure for idling school buses. You may view it at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr121202.htm Thanks, Gennet Paauwe Office of Communications California Air Reosurces Board ++ California Environmental Protection Agency NEWS RELEASE Air Resources Board Release 02-46 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 12, 2002 CONTACT: Jerry Martin Gennet Paauwe (916) 322-2990 www.arb.ca.gov Air Board Adopts Measure to Reduce Pollution from School Bus Idling SACRAMENTO -- A measure adopted today by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) eliminates unnecessary idling for school buses and other heavy-duty vehicles, protecting children from unhealthful exhaust emissions. The main purpose of the measure is to reduce localized exposure to air toxics and other harmful air pollutants at and near schools. ãRestricted idling times at schools will not only protect our children from toxic air contaminants, but improve air quality in the surrounding area,ä said ARB Chairman Alan C. Lloyd. In addition to protecting childrensâ health, reducing motor vehicle emissions will benefit teachers, parents, bus maintenance workers and drivers, and people who live or work near schools. The measure is expected to save school districts and other operators up to $800,000 in fuel costs. More than 26,000 school buses operate in California. Emissions from individual school buses and heavy-duty vehicles vary, depending on vehicle type, age, maintenance and amount of time spent idling. Health impacts from exhaust exposure include: eye and respiratory irritation, enhanced respiratory allergic reactions, asthma exacerbation, increased cancer risk, and immune system degradation. The measure, part of Californiaâs Diesel Particulate Matter Risk Reduction Plan, but expanded to include other bus types, requires the driver of a school bus or other heavy-duty vehicle not to idle at schools. Additional unnecessary idling restrictions are imposed for such vehicles stopping within 100 feet of a school. Exemptions are provided for idling that is necessary for safety or operational purposes. The measure does not affect private passenger vehicles. The measure also requires the motor
Re: [biofuels-biz] (fwd) (fwd) news-release: School Bus Idling ATCM
Yeah, it's kinda interesting the article on SF busses being forced to go to CNG or some other alterna-petrol proposal, due to CARB emmision guidelines. Good that the Fleet manager was fighting back for Diesel, although absolutely NO mention was made of B100 or even B20 for that matter. It just shocks me how little the Muni planners (and fleet managers) know about such things. It would be a great opportunity for someone to do a Broker type of thing for them for B100, thus they wouldn't have to get rid of their capital cost that already has been realized on the present busses. If someone doesn't do it, I might just call up Graham N. and broker it myself ;-) Sheesh!!! James Slayden On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, murdoch wrote: Some in the biofuel groups and elsewhere may look askance at the CARB instituting such seeming common-sense measures for slightly decreasing emissions and improving air quality near school-children, but then seeming to fail to implement biofuel and other clean-air technologies. I'm not sure if CARB has made any headway in researching benefits of using biofuels as against dino fuels in school busses. Remember that not only is CARB limited to emissions debates (NOT mileage debates) but they weaken or even destroy their entire footing sometimes when they venture into mileage and other areas (I think there's recently been a lawsuit from the enviro-hostile Federal government against some of the CARB-related activities or rulings because of their alleged straying from clean-air-related concerns.) Anyway, I'd love to see CARB evaluate some pilot school-bus biofuel programs (such as I think SSPC was running?) for some very specific measureable changes in school bus emissions and perhaps for some changes in overall community emissions if they were able to attach numbers to the benefits (or damages or harms) of reprocessing waste grease rather than allowing it to be thrown away and emit-gosh-knows-what from its resting hole (if I understand correctly what happens to some of it?). Two more strategizing notes: Since so much of the school system is publicly owned, (governmentally-owned-and-run), this means IMO that an agency like CARB has a much more clear-cut legitimate ability to mandate, incontrovertibly, how the fleet of busses serving those public schools should be run. They are part of ownership, part of the management team. I am not a fan of government-involvement in the education business, but this is one instance where the issue plays in favor of some progress, IMO. Second, busses, in particular, seem to be focus points for some of the alternative fuel efforts at advanced research. You hear about this or that pilot program by this or that manufacture, major and minor, to research super-advanced batteries, fuel cells, hybrids including ultracaps, etc., in busses. EFCX, for example where their semi-battery-fuel-cell (whatever the hell it is) technology I think has done some bus work (with GE?) and Maxwell was going on about GM putting some ultracaps in busses or large trucks for a sort of initial effort. So, although I'm very much in favor of a simple straightforward gaining of knowledge and promulgation of a 100%-biodiesel-in-busses concept, biofuel advocates may wish to be aware of the compatibilities with other alt-fuel efforts. MM On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:09:11 -0800, Gennet Paauwe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please find the following California Air Resources Board news release on today's approval of an air toxic control measure for idling school buses. You may view it at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr121202.htm Thanks, Gennet Paauwe Office of Communications California Air Reosurces Board ++ California Environmental Protection Agency NEWS RELEASE Air Resources Board Release 02-46 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 12, 2002 CONTACT: Jerry Martin Gennet Paauwe (916) 322-2990 www.arb.ca.gov Air Board Adopts Measure to Reduce Pollution from School Bus Idling SACRAMENTO -- A measure adopted today by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) eliminates unnecessary idling for school buses and other heavy-duty vehicles, protecting children from unhealthful exhaust emissions. The main purpose of the measure is to reduce localized exposure to air toxics and other harmful air pollutants at and near schools. Restricted idling times at schools will not only protect our children from toxic air contaminants, but improve air quality in the surrounding area, said ARB Chairman Alan C. Lloyd. In addition to protecting childrens health, reducing motor vehicle emissions will benefit teachers, parents, bus maintenance workers and drivers, and people who live or work near schools. The measure is expected to save school districts and other operators up to $800,000 in fuel costs. More than 26,000 school buses operate in California.
[biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] (fwd) (fwd) news-release: School Bus Idling ATCM
Yeah, it's kinda interesting the article on SF busses being forced to go to CNG or some other alterna-petrol proposal, due to CARB emmision guidelines. Good that the Fleet manager was fighting back for Diesel, although absolutely NO mention was made of B100 or even B20 for that matter. It just shocks me how little the Muni planners (and fleet managers) know about such things. It would be a great opportunity for someone to do a Broker type of thing for them for B100, thus they wouldn't have to get rid of their capital cost that already has been realized on the present busses. If someone doesn't do it, I might just call up Graham N. and broker it myself ;-) Sheesh!!! James Slayden On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, murdoch wrote: Some in the biofuel groups and elsewhere may look askance at the CARB instituting such seeming common-sense measures for slightly decreasing emissions and improving air quality near school-children, but then seeming to fail to implement biofuel and other clean-air technologies. I'm not sure if CARB has made any headway in researching benefits of using biofuels as against dino fuels in school busses. Remember that not only is CARB limited to emissions debates (NOT mileage debates) but they weaken or even destroy their entire footing sometimes when they venture into mileage and other areas (I think there's recently been a lawsuit from the enviro-hostile Federal government against some of the CARB-related activities or rulings because of their alleged straying from clean-air-related concerns.) Anyway, I'd love to see CARB evaluate some pilot school-bus biofuel programs (such as I think SSPC was running?) for some very specific measureable changes in school bus emissions and perhaps for some changes in overall community emissions if they were able to attach numbers to the benefits (or damages or harms) of reprocessing waste grease rather than allowing it to be thrown away and emit-gosh-knows-what from its resting hole (if I understand correctly what happens to some of it?). Two more strategizing notes: Since so much of the school system is publicly owned, (governmentally-owned-and-run), this means IMO that an agency like CARB has a much more clear-cut legitimate ability to mandate, incontrovertibly, how the fleet of busses serving those public schools should be run. They are part of ownership, part of the management team. I am not a fan of government-involvement in the education business, but this is one instance where the issue plays in favor of some progress, IMO. Second, busses, in particular, seem to be focus points for some of the alternative fuel efforts at advanced research. You hear about this or that pilot program by this or that manufacture, major and minor, to research super-advanced batteries, fuel cells, hybrids including ultracaps, etc., in busses. EFCX, for example where their semi-battery-fuel-cell (whatever the hell it is) technology I think has done some bus work (with GE?) and Maxwell was going on about GM putting some ultracaps in busses or large trucks for a sort of initial effort. So, although I'm very much in favor of a simple straightforward gaining of knowledge and promulgation of a 100%-biodiesel-in-busses concept, biofuel advocates may wish to be aware of the compatibilities with other alt-fuel efforts. MM On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:09:11 -0800, Gennet Paauwe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please find the following California Air Resources Board news release on today's approval of an air toxic control measure for idling school buses. You may view it at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr121202.htm Thanks, Gennet Paauwe Office of Communications California Air Reosurces Board ++ California Environmental Protection Agency NEWS RELEASE Air Resources Board Release 02-46 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 12, 2002 CONTACT: Jerry Martin Gennet Paauwe (916) 322-2990 www.arb.ca.gov Air Board Adopts Measure to Reduce Pollution from School Bus Idling SACRAMENTO -- A measure adopted today by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) eliminates unnecessary idling for school buses and other heavy-duty vehicles, protecting children from unhealthful exhaust emissions. The main purpose of the measure is to reduce localized exposure to air toxics and other harmful air pollutants at and near schools. Restricted idling times at schools will not only protect our children from toxic air contaminants, but improve air quality in the surrounding area, said ARB Chairman Alan C. Lloyd. In addition to protecting childrens health, reducing motor vehicle emissions will benefit teachers, parents, bus maintenance workers and drivers, and people who live or work near schools. The measure is expected to save school districts and other operators up to $800,000 in fuel costs. More than 26,000 school buses operate in California.
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] (fwd) (fwd) news-release: School Bus Idling ATCM
Please do it If someone doesn't do it, I might just call up Graham N. and broker it myself ;-) Sheesh!!! James Slayden On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, murdoch wrote: Some in the biofuel groups and elsewhere may look askance at the CARB instituting such seeming common-sense measures for slightly decreasing emissions and improving air quality near school-children, but then seeming to fail to implement biofuel and other clean-air technologies. I'm not sure if CARB has made any headway in researching benefits of using biofuels as against dino fuels in school busses. Remember that not only is CARB limited to emissions debates (NOT mileage debates) but they weaken or even destroy their entire footing sometimes when they venture into mileage and other areas (I think there's recently been a lawsuit from the enviro-hostile Federal government against some of the CARB-related activities or rulings because of their alleged straying from clean-air-related concerns.) Anyway, I'd love to see CARB evaluate some pilot school-bus biofuel programs (such as I think SSPC was running?) for some very specific measureable changes in school bus emissions and perhaps for some changes in overall community emissions if they were able to attach numbers to the benefits (or damages or harms) of reprocessing waste grease rather than allowing it to be thrown away and emit-gosh-knows-what from its resting hole (if I understand correctly what happens to some of it?). Two more strategizing notes: Since so much of the school system is publicly owned, (governmentally-owned-and-run), this means IMO that an agency like CARB has a much more clear-cut legitimate ability to mandate, incontrovertibly, how the fleet of busses serving those public schools should be run. They are part of ownership, part of the management team. I am not a fan of government-involvement in the education business, but this is one instance where the issue plays in favor of some progress, IMO. Second, busses, in particular, seem to be focus points for some of the alternative fuel efforts at advanced research. You hear about this or that pilot program by this or that manufacture, major and minor, to research super-advanced batteries, fuel cells, hybrids including ultracaps, etc., in busses. EFCX, for example where their semi-battery-fuel-cell (whatever the hell it is) technology I think has done some bus work (with GE?) and Maxwell was going on about GM putting some ultracaps in busses or large trucks for a sort of initial effort. So, although I'm very much in favor of a simple straightforward gaining of knowledge and promulgation of a 100%-biodiesel-in-busses concept, biofuel advocates may wish to be aware of the compatibilities with other alt-fuel efforts. MM On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:09:11 -0800, Gennet Paauwe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please find the following California Air Resources Board news release on today's approval of an air toxic control measure for idling school buses. You may view it at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr121202.htm Thanks, Gennet Paauwe Office of Communications California Air Reosurces Board ++ California Environmental Protection Agency NEWS RELEASE Air Resources Board Release 02-46 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 12, 2002 CONTACT: Jerry Martin Gennet Paauwe (916) 322-2990 www.arb.ca.gov Air Board Adopts Measure to Reduce Pollution from School Bus Idling SACRAMENTO -- A measure adopted today by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) eliminates unnecessary idling for school buses and other heavy-duty vehicles, protecting children from unhealthful exhaust emissions. The main purpose of the measure is to reduce localized exposure to air toxics and other harmful air pollutants at and near schools. Restricted idling times at schools will not only protect our children from toxic air contaminants, but improve air quality in the surrounding area, said ARB Chairman Alan C. Lloyd. In addition to protecting childrens' health, reducing motor vehicle emissions will benefit teachers, parents, bus maintenance workers and drivers, and people who live or work near schools. The measure is expected to save school districts and other operators up to $800,000 in fuel costs. More than 26,000 school buses operate in California. Emissions from individual school buses and heavy-duty vehicles vary, depending on vehicle type, age, maintenance and amount of time spent idling. Health impacts from exhaust exposure include: eye and respiratory irritation, enhanced respiratory allergic reactions, asthma exacerbation, increased cancer risk, and immune system degradation. The measure, part of California's Diesel Particulate Matter Risk Reduction Plan, but expanded to include
