Emissions... there has to be a better way

[CuddaWuddaShuda]

Recently, some projects I have been working on recently have really made me think about the way we deal with auto emissions. The basic approach seems to be to make very small reductions in the emissions released by brand new cars, at the expense of maintainability and simplicity, and without regard to other options.

I don't think this is very worthwhile in the long run. The EPA is focusing on the difference between, say, a brand new '69 Mustang GT and a brand new '04 GT. But is that difference anywhere near as large as the difference between a properly running '04 GT and one that is belching smoke because it's broken? I'm not sure it is. Isn't keeping cars running properly (according to their original design) the key factor in emission level? Instead, we make cars so complicated that people can't maintain them. After 5-10 years, they either drive them in a poorly tuned state, or throw them away and buy something new (which clogs junkyards and creates other environmental problems).

Also, the way we achieve reductions in emissions is nonsensical. An air pump pumps air into the exhaust manifold. An EGR device pumps smoke into the intake manifold. Am I some kind of deviant for thinking that exhaust fumes should go into the exhaust and air should go into the intake, not vice-versa? Our emissions control philosophy seems to have a weird kinship with sodomy: everything ends up in the wrong hole.

When I bought my '01 GT, the salesman thought I was crazy because I got down on the ground to make sure the car didn't have an air pump. I just can't see myself paying good money for a device that robs power to pump air down a tailpipe.

And what about cataltyic convertors? Every new car has one or more of these $1000+ emissions control devices, which supposedly produce a decrease in emissions of hydrocarbons and of nitrogen. What if we took that $1000-per-car and spent it on some other environmental effort? Ford makes something like 250,000 Mustangs per year... that's about $250,000,000 spent on catalytic converters for one specialty model alone! There's no better use for that money??? How about tuning up 250,000 smoke-belching older cars at $1000 each?

Personally, I have a hard time getting worked up over emissions I can't see with the naked eye, when there are plenty of problems which I can see with the naked eye that are not being addressed. Looking at the tailpipe of an '01 Mustang and a '69 Mustang (and assuming both are in good working order), I can't perceive a difference. Is what I cannot see really worth $250,000,000 a year? Should I be worried about hypothetical emissions at which we are throwing massive sums of money, or obvious environmental problems thatt are going unaddressed? By obvious problems, I am refering to smoke belching autos, land-hungry strip malls, junkyards, and so on.

Ultimately, I think the problem here is a systematic tendency toward authoritarianism in American society. We make a lot of noise about freedom. But when it comes time to make policy, we tend to favor centralized, one-size-fits-all policies with no allowance for critical thinking by people outside the inner regulatory circle. I think that if the massive sums we are spending on catalytic converters, tailpipe tests, EPA lawsuits against electric utilities, etc. were somehow allowed to trickle down to rank-and-file car owners and mechanics, the environment (and society as a whole) would be better off.

I will get off my soapbox now...

 

[FallenPhoenix]

I tend to agree with you on your stance on emissions. I think the reason American's like politics like that, is we're lazy and it's simpler for the average Joe to let someone else do it all and not worry about it. I'm all for a law that would take smoke belching cars off the road or have them fixed.

 

[trinity_gt]

Recently, some projects I have been working on recently have really made me think about the way we deal with auto emissions. The basic approach seems to be to make very small reductions in the emissions released by brand new cars, at the expense of maintainability and simplicity, and without regard to other options.

The continuous incremental improvements made to cars since the 1960s has resulted in that 04 GT, driving down the highway and emitting less pollutants than that 69 sitting in the garage. I've also read that a recent test of a Saab showed that the air quality being emitted from the tailpipe was actually cleaner than the air entering the engine.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1993/97/97p19b.htm

"Exhaust fumes cleaner than London air?
LONDON -- The following advertisement was displayed in the April 17 Guardian newspaper:

“This Saab refreshes the air other cars leave behind.

“Incredible but true.

“Proved by government scientists, no less, when they conducted tests in the City of London last autumn. Thanks to its unique Trionic engine management system, exhaust emissions from a Saab 900CS 2.3 litre Turbo were found to have lower levels of both hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides than were found in the surrounding air.” "

Also, the way we achieve reductions in emissions is nonsensical. An air pump pumps air into the exhaust manifold. An EGR device pumps smoke into the intake manifold. Am I some kind of deviant for thinking that exhaust fumes should go into the exhaust and air should go into the intake, not vice-versa? Our emissions control philosophy seems to have a weird kinship with sodomy: everything ends up in the wrong hole.

I think it's just a misunderstanding as to the mechanics of combustion and catalytic reactions. In the case of EGR, the recirculated inert (very important) exhaust lowers the peak combustion temperatures...temps at which NOx (oxides of nitrogen) form. The pumping of air into the exhaust also provides oxygen into the exhaust stream to oxidize unburned hydrocarbons and to help in the conversion of toxic carbon monoxide to greenhouse-but-otherwise comparatively innocuous carbon dioxide.

And what about cataltyic convertors? Every new car has one or more of these $1000+ emissions control devices, which supposedly produce a decrease in emissions of hydrocarbons and of nitrogen. What if we took that $1000-per-car and spent it on some other environmental effort? Ford makes something like 250,000 Mustangs per year... that's about $250,000,000 spent on catalytic converters for one specialty model alone! There's no better use for that money??? How about tuning up 250,000 smoke-belching older cars at $1000 each?

Cats are here to stay. They work very well when the engine is tuned and run properly.

Personally, I have a hard time getting worked up over emissions I can't see with the naked eye, when there are plenty of problems which I can see with the naked eye that are not being addressed. Looking at the tailpipe of an '01 Mustang and a '69 Mustang (and assuming both are in good working order), I can't perceive a difference.

Soot is only one form of pollution. And FWIW, my 02 GT with 27,000KMs on it has only the slightest hint of blackness - soot deposits - after all those miles. That 69 was probably soot-coated before it left the factory.

Ever driven behind an older, pre-emissions control car? Even one in good tune emits odours enough to nausiate now from unburnt hydrocarbons alone; imagine if every car on the road polluted like that? Well...look for some old footage of Eastern Europe before the fall of the Wall, specifically look for Trabants and what they did to the planet.

Ultimately, I think the problem here is a systematic tendency toward authoritarianism in American society.

I think it's a pragmatic approach to not killing millions each year through air pollution. Cars are a big part of urban air quality...

 

[CuddaWuddaShuda]

Trinity:

I do understand the science behind the emission control currently in use. I do not doubt the physics and chemistry behind them. I doubt the economics, especially when it comes to catalytic converters. Take another look at the math I originally posted... if Mustang owners alone are spending about $250,000,000 per year on catalytic converters, don't we owe it to ourselves to consider the alternative uses of that (huge) sum? We do, but that's not the approach taken in the U.S. The approach we take is this: pick a pollutant, make up a "safe" or "target" level for it, and then enforce that level.

I own a car with no EGR and no cats. It is not soot-covered, it does not have an odor, and it does not make visible smoke. If you really think a 1960s gasoline passenger car emitted nauseating odors, you must have a real problem with diesels, which are basically allowed to emit whatever they want. I can't imagine that all of the money Saab is spending making their cars emit cleaner air out of the exhaust than goes into the intake wouldn't be better spent cleaning up diesels.

I think we should go after the "low-hanging fruit" here. I would be willing to bet that the point of diminishing returns in adding emissions controls to an internal combustion engine is reached well before you turn the engine into a "scrubber" that cleans the air. That seems like an awfully circuitous way to clean the air, compared to alternatives like putting new piston rings on an oil-burner (which costs a lot less than a Saab) or planting a tree.

Again, I am not making the argument that our emissions controls are ineffective. I am arguing that all of the resources devoted to them would be better spent cleaning the environment in other ways, if we could somehow get past our societal biases to 1) handing down heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all regulations and 2) simply deciding a risk is unacceptable and blindly resolving to eliminate it at all costs.

This is similar to the situation in Iraq. For the $60B we are going to spend "rebuiling" Iraq in our image (which may or may not work), we could build something like 100 gigawatts of commerical nuclear power plants (which would almost certainly work)... about 15% of the TOTAL energy needs of the whole country. Then we really wouldn't need to worry about oil or Iraq or pollution. But (oops, I forgot) Americans don't understand economics. They only understand nail-biting and getting their panties in a wad.

 

[CuddaWuddaShuda]

Trinity:

I do understand the science behind the emission control currently in use. I do not doubt the physics and chemistry behind them. I doubt the economics, especially when it comes to catalytic converters. Take another look at the math I originally posted... if Mustang owners alone are spending about $250,000,000 per year on catalytic converters, don't we owe it to ourselves to consider the alternative uses of that (huge) sum? We do, but that's not the approach taken in the U.S. The approach we take is this: pick a pollutant, make up a "safe" or "target" level for it, and then enforce that level.

I own a car with no EGR and no cats. It is not soot-covered, it does not have an odor, and it does not make visible smoke. If you really think a 1960s gasoline passenger car emitted nauseating odors, you must have a real problem with diesels, which are basically allowed to emit whatever they want. I can't imagine that all of the money Saab is spending making their cars emit cleaner air out of the exhaust than goes into the intake wouldn't be better spent cleaning up diesels.

I think we should go after the "low-hanging fruit" here. I would be willing to bet that the point of diminishing returns in adding emissions controls to an internal combustion engine is reached well before you turn the engine into a "scrubber" that cleans the air. That seems like an awfully circuitous way to clean the air, compared to alternatives like putting new piston rings on an oil-burner (which costs a lot less than a Saab) or planting a tree.

Again, I am not making the argument that our emissions controls are ineffective. I am arguing that all of the resources devoted to them would be better spent cleaning the environment in other ways, if we could somehow get past our societal biases to 1) handing down heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all regulations and 2) simply deciding a risk is unacceptable and blindly resolving to eliminate it at all costs.

This is similar to the situation in Iraq. For the $60B we are going to spend "rebuiling" Iraq in our image (which may or may not work), we could build something like 100 gigawatts of commerical nuclear power plants (which would almost certainly work)... about 15% of the TOTAL energy needs of the whole country, electrical or otherwise. Then we really wouldn't need to worry about oil or Iraq or pollution. But (oops, I forgot) Americans don't understand economics. They only understand nail-biting and getting their panties in a wad.

 

[FallenPhoenix]

couldn't be nuclear, might meltdown

 

[Sam98]

The continuous incremental improvements made to cars since the 1960s has resulted in that 04 GT, driving down the highway and emitting less pollutants than that 69 sitting in the garage. I've also read that a recent test of a Saab showed that the air quality being emitted from the tailpipe was actually cleaner than the air entering the engine.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1993/97/97p19b.htm

"Exhaust fumes cleaner than London air?
LONDON -- The following advertisement was displayed in the April 17 Guardian newspaper:

“This Saab refreshes the air other cars leave behind.

“Incredible but true.

“Proved by government scientists, no less, when they conducted tests in the City of London last autumn. Thanks to its unique Trionic engine management system, exhaust emissions from a Saab 900CS 2.3 litre Turbo were found to have lower levels of both hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides than were found in the surrounding air.” "



I think it's just a misunderstanding as to the mechanics of combustion and catalytic reactions. In the case of EGR, the recirculated inert (very important) exhaust lowers the peak combustion temperatures...temps at which NOx (oxides of nitrogen) form. The pumping of air into the exhaust also provides oxygen into the exhaust stream to oxidize unburned hydrocarbons and to help in the conversion of toxic carbon monoxide to greenhouse-but-otherwise comparatively innocuous carbon dioxide.



Cats are here to stay. They work very well when the engine is tuned and run properly.



Soot is only one form of pollution. And FWIW, my 02 GT with 27,000KMs on it has only the slightest hint of blackness - soot deposits - after all those miles. That 69 was probably soot-coated before it left the factory.

Ever driven behind an older, pre-emissions control car? Even one in good tune emits odours enough to nausiate now from unburnt hydrocarbons alone; imagine if every car on the road polluted like that? Well...look for some old footage of Eastern Europe before the fall of the Wall, specifically look for Trabants and what they did to the planet.



I think it's a pragmatic approach to not killing millions each year through air pollution. Cars are a big part of urban air quality...

I have to agree with Trinity on this one...

 

[GinoGT]

The EGR system shuts down when at WOT.

And where's this $1,000 for a catalytic coverter come from? Then why does a Magnaflow X-pipe with cats only cost like 300-some dollars?