Gary C
Rose Hill, MS
Senior Member
Joined: 01/20/2004
View Profile
|
Ductape wrote:
An incorrect assumption I'm afraid. CO2 is a function of how much fuel is burned... no existing emission control captures CO2.
The original poster poses a valid question; in the quest for "clean" emissions we are in fact producing more emissions volume in total. We've traded less particles, NOX, etc. for more CO2.
True. If an engine burns more fuel then it produces more CO2. The EPA has decided that more CO2 produced is an acceptable cost to pay for a reduction in NOX and particulate emissions. In other words, it's okay to raise pollution of one substance in order to reduce another type of pollutant. I disagree with their decision but that's what we get for having our regulatory agency ran by radical leftists. Even europe disagrees with our thinking because their environmental regulations are focused more upon reducing C02 emissions. Our approach is more akin to cutting off one's foot in order to cure athlete's foot.
|
Turtle n Peeps
California
Full Member
Joined: 06/23/2008
View Profile
 Offline
|
Quote:True. If an engine burns more fuel then it produces more CO2. The EPA has decided that more CO2 produced is an acceptable cost to pay for a reduction in NOX and particulate emissions. In other words, it's okay to raise pollution of one substance in order to reduce another type of pollutant. I disagree with their decision but that's what we get for having our regulatory agency ran by radical leftists. Even europe disagrees with our thinking because their environmental regulations are focused more upon reducing C02 emissions. Our approach is more akin to cutting off one's foot in order to cure athlete's foot.
Very, very well said Gary!! Right on the money.
~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~
"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"
|
Skid Row Joe
On the road in America
Senior Member
Joined: 04/26/2006
View Profile
|
Diesel particulates are the first cousin to dirt.
It's gasoline emissons which are impossible to completely be eliminated, unlike diesels, which are now turned into water, from diesel engines like the Mercedes-Benz Bluetec diesel.
I have a sweet tender nature, however I enjoy sharing my thoughts and opinions. 
|
Ductape
On the Road
Senior Member
Joined: 11/15/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
Skid Row Joe wrote:
~
Diesel particulates are the first cousin to dirt.
It's gasoline emissons which are impossible to completely be eliminated, unlike diesels, which are now turned into water, from diesel engines like the Mercedes-Benz Bluetec diesel.
So you believe Bluetec makes diesels emit just water, not CO2?
Not at all. Blutec is just about getting diesels to burn as clean as gasoline engines already do.
Bluetec link
Excerpt: "In the ongoing debate on current and future emissions standards for vehicles, one frequently overlooked fact is that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are not covered by conventional exhaust emissions limits. A car’s CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption. A reading such as 140 g CO2/km, for example, is nothing other than an alternative fuel consumption figure, equating to fuel consumption of around 5.3 l/100 km in diesel engines or 5.9 l/100 km for petrol models. The same figure would also be recorded by equivalent cars which pumped out their exhaust gases into the environment unfiltered – i.e. without being treated though catalytic converters or systems minimising particulate output.
In contrast to CO2 emissions, exhaust components like nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and combustion residue in the form of particulates can all be reduced through exhaust gas treatment – in some cases to the point where they are barely detectable. This is where the innovative, modular exhaust gas purification system BLUETEC comes into its own."
Surveyor SV-234 >Equalizer> H3
Previously a fiver crew.
|
Tinbender1
Lincoln, Nebraska
Full Member
Joined: 11/12/2004
View Profile
|
Yeah, it is like planting lots of trees that are supposed to capture carbon to reduce supposed global warming. Problem is that when the trees die, they rot and release all that carbon. So it is like social security - put off the calamity until our grandchildren have to deal with it.
Myself and Dear Wife 
Two daughters flown from the nest
Three grandkids  
2004 F-250 SC XLT 4x4 PSD
2004 Salem T22FDL
|
|
|
Powerdude
Arizona
Senior Member
Joined: 08/31/2004
View Profile
Offline
|
Nitrates are FAR more damaging to the environment than CO2. Nitrates combine with oxygen and water to form Nitric acid, which will corrode just about anything. So the EPA is, surprisingly, probably right on this one.
CO2 combines with water to form carbonic acid, which you drink every day in your Coke or Pepsi, and you haven't died yet.
As for particulates, the major cause of particulates used to be the sulfur in the old diesel fuel, which tended to clump together with longer chain hydrocarbons, creating soot due to incomplete combustion. Extremely bad for sensitive tissues like lungs and mucous membranes.
Besides, CO2 doesn't do anything. There is no such thing as global warming, because 60% of global weather is governed by the sun's output.
Anybody that tells you otherwise is a complete sellout and has grant money coming from from the EPA/NSF, or from a liberal think tank.
|
byronlj
Loveland, CO/Lake Havasu City, AZ
Senior Member
Joined: 11/30/2002
View Profile
|
Turtle n peeps
That is a great attitude to say something is wrong with the 04. Was it the first thing that popped into your mind. Before you make statements you ought to take into consideration things like more torque/horsepower while pulling a large load and oh yeah, how about that extra gear I have now. I can travel highway speeds now easily saving a few hundred RPM's. And the 04 averaged the same as all my buddies who own a DAs.
Dave
byronlj
07.5 Silverado LTZ Ex. Cab 3500HD dually 4X4 duramax LMM/allison 6spd
07 HR Presidential Suite 37RLQ
|
Rob_NC
Walnut Cove, NC
Senior Member
Joined: 04/17/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
Powerdude wrote:Nitrates are FAR more damaging to the environment than CO2. Nitrates combine with oxygen and water to form Nitric acid, which will corrode just about anything. So the EPA is, surprisingly, probably right on this one.
CO2 combines with water to form carbonic acid, which you drink every day in your Coke or Pepsi, and you haven't died yet.
As for particulates, the major cause of particulates used to be the sulfur in the old diesel fuel, which tended to clump together with longer chain hydrocarbons, creating soot due to incomplete combustion. Extremely bad for sensitive tissues like lungs and mucous membranes.
Besides, CO2 doesn't do anything. There is no such thing as global warming, because 60% of global weather is governed by the sun's output.
Anybody that tells you otherwise is a complete sellout and has grant money coming from from the EPA/NSF, or from a liberal think tank.
Thank you!
BTW~ CO2 in diesel emissions will be dealt with in 2013.
|
04superduty
Michigan
Senior Member
Joined: 08/22/2004
View Profile
|
byronlj wrote:Turtle n peeps
That is a great attitude to say something is wrong with the 04. Was it the first thing that popped into your mind. Before you make statements you ought to take into consideration things like more torque/horsepower while pulling a large load and oh yeah, how about that extra gear I have now. I can travel highway speeds now easily saving a few hundred RPM's. And the 04 averaged the same as all my buddies who own a DAs.
Dave
you never said anything was differtent between your 2 trucks. just that your 04 got worse mileage. considering all new trucks with DPF get worse millage than previous years models i think he was making a very accurate assumption.
04 F350 6.0PSD/TS EC SB
07 Outback Sydney edition
|
Tvov
CT
Senior Member
Joined: 07/19/2003
View Profile
|
I have been wondering... if ALL "emissions" regulations were removed from engines, gas especially... With all the new technology we have now, what kind of fuel mileage would engines be able to get? Yes, they may "pollute" more per gallon, but how would they compare "polluting" per mile?
Just thinking out loud on a Monday morning, trying to put off getting up and getting the work day started...
_________________________________________________________
2008 F-250 CrewCab 5.4L,
2004 21' Forest River Surveyor
|
|
|
