Archives

I'm not sure where to stand on this next regulation round, so I offer this subject up because I'll get some reasoned and informed discussion.

Are we experiencing diminishing returns at monumental expense? What will we gain, in real numbers, when these regs. take effect? Is EURO V more realistic, or was EURO IV enough? The More is Better mentality of regulation seems to have run amuk, and stifles more systemic approaches to our oil based economy and emissions problem.

Example: Since heavy duty truck engines are measured by horsepower output, we have no way of knowing if we have emissions reduction on a per mile basis. Of course, when I see less smoke coming out the stacks I know that we have made gains. But will that trend really continue with the next round, or would we have been better off emphasizing FE to reduce emissions (FE in HD trucks has remained stagnant for 10 years).

Are high mpg diesel cars just going to be too difficult to own?

My pedigree is anti-regulatory, so I know I run the risk of dismissing the benefits too quickly.

Keith

Kieth, what are some of the regulation stipulations? These seems a hot topic as of late and maybe it would be useful to debate the merits with some of the actual guidelines posted directly in this thread?

For trucks:

2004 regulations:
NMHC + NOx: 2.5g/bhp-hr

2007 regulations:
PM—0.01 g/bhp-hr
NOx—0.20 g/bhp-hr
NMHC—0.14 g/bhp-hr

Euro 4: (Oct 2005)
PM: .015 g/bhp-hr
NOx: 2.6 g/bhp-hr
HC: 1.1 g/bhp-hr

Euro 5: (Oct 2008)
PM: .015 g/bhp-hr
NOx: 1.5 g/bhp-hr
HC: 1.1 g/bhp-hr

EPA 2010:
PM: .01 g/bhp-hr
NOx: .07 g/bhp-hr
HCHO: .018 g/bhp-hr

Hi Keith:

___I have a pic showing NOx and PM of the EPA’s Tier2/Bin5 vs. the various Euro III, IV, V and VI emissions specs. I cannot find it right now unfortunately so here is a re-construction via table w/ the Euro specs converted into g/mi from g/km.

Emissions standards

Federal Bin|50,000 miles||120,000 miles|
|NOx (g/mi)|PM(g/mi)|NOx(g/mi)|PM(g/mi)
Tier 2/Bin5|.05|.01|.07|.01
Tier 2/Bin4|.04|.01|.04|.01
Tier 2/Bin3|.03|.01|.03|.01
Tier 2/Bin2|.02|.01|.02|.01
||||
Euro Spec|No Mileage Limits|||
|NOx (g/mi)|PM(g/mi)||
Euro III|.8|.08||
Euro IV|.4|.04||
Euro V|.3|.008||
EPA Tier II/Bin X effective 2007. Euro III, IV and V effective 2000, 2006 and 2009 respectively.

PM and NOx effects

___As taken from the following: Design of a Selective Catalytic Reduction System to Reduce NOx Emissions of the 2003 West Virginia University FutureTruck (https://eidr.wvu.edu/files/5031/King_Russell_thesis.pdf)
2.2.3.1 Ground level Ozone

A reaction between Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and NOx forms ground level Ozone (O3). This reaction is driven by high ambient temperatures and sunlight. VOC’s come from gasoline combustion, evaporation of liquid fuels and other solvents such as paint, nail polish and cleaners. The amount of ozone created depends on the ratio of VOC to NOx. If the amount of VOC’s available is limited, the amount of ozone created will depend on the amount of NOx available. Ozone is associated with several health effects. Ozone irritates the respiratory system. It causes throat irritation, reduces lung function and increases a person’s susceptibility to respiratory infections. In people with asthma, this irritation can trigger asthma attacks. In animal studies, ozone has been shown to cause damage to the cell lining of the lungs. These cells will shed and be replaced if exposure is minimal. However, if repeated exposure to ozone occurs, this will
cause permanent scaring in the lungs which will lead to permanent loss of lung function. Ozone can also negatively effect the environment. Ozone enters a plant through the leaf. Once in the leaf, ozone damages the cells that produce food for the plant. This impairs the plants growth and increases the plants susceptibility to disease. Studies conducted on soybean crops have shown a reduction of 15-25% in yield due to ozone exposure.

2.2.3.2 Acid Deposition

Acid deposition occurs when NOx combines with water vapor and oxidants in the air to create an acidic substance. Acid deposition can occur in wet or dry form. In wet form, water and NOx combine to form acid rain, snow or fog. In dry form, particulates from NOx combine with ammonia to form ammonium nitrate. Ammonium nitrate is harmful because it is acidic, but this dry substance also contributes to the amount of particulate matter present in the air. The harmful effects of particulate matter are reviewed in section 2.2.3.6. The acidic molecules created from NOx emissions can travel hundred of miles from the source of the pollution. Acid deposition can make soil and water acidic which is harmful for plants and animals. In the spring, acidic snowfall which accumulates over winter months can cause surges of acidic water into an ecosystem. This surge will kill plants and fish. Acid deposition also soaks into the soil which causes it to become acidic. Acid deposition in the air can come into contact with plant leaves causing damage. This reduces a plants ability to grow and increases the plants susceptibility to disease. Acid deposition will also deteriorate cars, buildings, monuments, and other structures.

2.2.3.3 Nitrates in Drinking Water

NOx deposition can increase nitrates in drinking water. Increased nitrates can cause Blue Baby Syndrome. This syndrome can cause brain damage and death in infants. The added acidity of nitrogen in water can also allow toxic metals such as mercury to more easily dissolve in water, which could lead to human consumption.

2.2.3.4 Eutrophication

NOx can increase the level of nitrogen in water, which can upset the natural balance of nutrients in an ecosystem. Nitrogen deposition on water surfaces has been shown to contribute from 12-44% of the total nitrogen loading on U.S. coastal water bodies. Eutrophication is the process in which excess nitrogen in an ecosystem causes rapid growth of algae. The large amount of algae in an ecosystem leads to oxygen depletion. Lack of oxygen will kill fish and other animals in the ecosystem. This increase of nitrogen in the water will also change the biological structure of an ecosystem. For example, on the New England Coast, excess nitrogen in the water has increased the number of shellfish and also resulted in large blooms of plankton. Studies conducted by the national oceanic and atmospheric administration found that 65 percent of all major estuaries in the U.S. have moderate to high algae levels due to eutrophication.

2.2.3.5 Increased Green House Gases

NOx is referred to as an indirect green house gas. Nitrous oxide (N2O), a direct green house gas, is formed from excess nitrogen in soil. Increased NOx levels will increase nitrogen deposition in soil. N2O emissions contribute to 2% of all greenhouse gases.

2.2.3.6 Particulate Matter

NOx can react with other compounds in the air to form nitrate particles and acid aerosol. These small particles have a long life time and can penetrate deep into lungs. These particles also contribute to visible haze that can be seen in polluted areas.
___Are we promoting miniscule returns for great expense? You bet. However, if you have seen pics of LA during its SMOG laydened heyday back in the late 60’s and early 70’s, there are millions of inhabitants in that area in particular thankful that NOx and PM emissions on a per vehicle basis have been reduced by almost 2 orders of magnitude. Chinese cities are in this same predicament today due to lax regulation wrt emissions from their coal fired plants AND automobiles.

___Remember also that smoke is PM, not NOx.

___High FE diesel vehicles are going to be great once the Tier II/Bin 5 reg hurdles have been cleared. Whether the US populace will pay $2 - $3K more for a vehicle whose fuel is a few cents cheaper in the late spring vs. many cents higher in the winter is anyone’s guess?

___And some hope. Nissan has a 3.0L diesel and emissions package rated as an SULEV where the US is still heading. If they can do it over the short haul, I am sure everybody else can including holding SULEV status out to 120K?

___We need these emissions specs but with CO2 output and $’s at the pump becoming the financial issues they are today, the EPA may have to slow the train down a touch. That seems unlikely and I am not sure I would like them to do this myself.

___What will probably happen is the Europeans and Asian’s will embarrass the US manufacturers so severely with small diesels that destroy the FE capability of all but the Prius and HCH-II. What will Ford, Chrysler and GM do when the Diesel Accord arrives with a city/highway combined that comes close to that of a Prius? How about an Audi A4 w/ the 2.0 from the VW TDI? BMW with one their own 3.0L that would kill a Focus or Aveo’s FE capability as well as take on the lux makes with performance to boot? I doubt Ford or GM will get away with ads telling everyone how they have 7 models that get over 30 mpg again when the European’s and Asian’s have clean enough diesels eating their lunch with higher FE and far better performance.

___As for trucks, the HP wars are still continuing but sales are heading south due to gasoline and eventually diesel pricing. At some point, the rancher that used to haul horses to a show or the construction worker with tools that could fit in the back of a Ranger I4 or small hatch says filling the 7.4, 6.0 or 6.4L PowerStroke is just not worth it anymore :rolleyes:

___There is 2 hours of my life I will not get back ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Lets hope all that comes true Wayne.

I think one thing that will happen in the construction/farmer markets is going to be more and more of them keep their older trucks, especially the diesels. The old Dodge diesels got great mileage, the new ones, not so much.

Wayne
Thank you for the info.

-Yes, I've seen the drastic change in the LA area. From measures that yielded drastic results in the 70's and 80's. What improvements can we expect to see due to NOx emission reduction of 2007 vs NOx emission reduction of 2010?

-PM reduction was a more obvious result (exhuast stacks). Why the immediate reduction in PM emissions allowance, but the gradual reduction in NOx allowance? Euro V allows twice as much, or 4x's as much according to your source. Do they not see the priorty we see it needs, or is something else at play?

-Remember the truck anti-lock brake debacle of 1976- the feds mandated the technology before it was reliable- for 2 years trucks were running over families because the brakes would fail, until the feds ok'd replacing them. It was 20 years before we saw anti-lock brakes in trucks again, because the trucking industry resisted them after the last go around. My point is if the technology can't keep up with the mandates- cars will perform badly. People will reject small diesels- and the development of a possibly superior solution will be delayed. I do believe the notion that GM's arrogance destroyed diesel for the 80's and 90's. The big three can be innovative, but my sense is they won't touch anything that has been publicly rejected, for whatever reason. Now they are caught with their pants down because they don't have diesel figured out. If these VW's, etc, get rejected because of fledgling emissions technology, diesels will get pushed back another 20 years. Think of the potential fuel savings loss then.

-I'm referring to big truck HP. A typical semi uses 17,000 gallons per year, at 102,000 miles. A 10% improvement in mileage in one truck is worth a 10% improvement in how many cars. Again, at what cost emission control?

-On the flip side- I understand that sometimes the environmental science hasn't caught up to the damage we are doing. I remember when diesels were generally considered fine, because although they belched soot, their exhaust was supposedly less dangerous than gasoline motors.

-I don't think the issue is as obvious as you might think. I really do appreciate the time you spent responding.

Keith

Perhaps I'm too combative- let me address this subject a different way-

Many posts inferring (some w/o knowing) that the EPA standards are keeping diesels from US. Would it be more appropriate to match the Euro or Japenese standards to ease engineering pressure on US and overseas manufacturers, allowing more diesels to be sold here now, allowing the perfection of broader technology solutions? OR Is the risk/ damage to the environment too great and we need to stick to the current plan?

Honestly- if this was presented in a poll, I don't know which way I would vote.

Keith

Hi Keith:

___I have seen numbers wrt NOx that it is a GHG with over 40 X’s the heat trapping capability of CO2 so that one we have to be careful with although it is emitted in such a small amount by comparison to CO2 that it may not matter. We know it is a huge SMOG precursor and that is an issue we are seeing less of by comparison to days gone by even with far more automobiles and trucks on the road.

___PM is a direct health risk emission although I have read gasoline has its detractors with yet smaller particles not tracked like diesel exhaust. We do know diesel PM is a cancer agent deep in the lungs so whether or not the EPA over ran technology advances remains to be seen.

___One thing I do know is Europe even with the latest Euro IV has soot buildup on windows in the cities like I have never seen in the US even in the past?

___And why the US diesel is so out of step with gasoline. A BBl of oil can only be split so many ways and IIRC, I thought the trucking industry along with the Northeast’s insatiable demand for heating oil in the winter months is at the limit with the rest going to gasoline for the rest of us. Diesel costs less to refine because it is a less refined product but if you are the supplier and demand is skewed even a smidgeon, wouldn’t you take the profits? During Katrina, the Europeans were sending over all the gasoline they could possibly make because it made sense with the shortages here (huge windfall profits for the European gasoline refiners) and I believe this is still continuing as Europe’s thirst for diesel has left a semi glut of gasoline over there. Fortunately, the US consumes all of that and more :(

___I will have to do some more research on the last paragraph above because it has been a while since I was engaged with that type of supply demand scenario?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Thanks for asking the question -

Yes, I do believe T2B5 might be a bit too much - The real air pollutors are 1970's and 1980's cars which pollute 5x - 10x more than recent models. In 10 years, these cars will dissapear from the highways. Here are my alternatives:

1) Impose a steeply graded tax on the weight of a vechicle - say $1 per pound at time of purchase. The loser driving a 10,000 pound SUV would think twice before paying an additional 10 grand for it. Sell it as some sort of highway maintenance fee - heavier cars destroy roads and highways much faster.

2) Start imposing a serious gas tax, incrementally increase the federal gas tax over the course of, say, 7 years until the price of gas is $10 per gallon (yes $10 !!! ). A 7 year phase in would allow people time to transition relatively gradually. Sell the tax as reflecting the true cost of a gallon of gasoline, it reflects the cost of the military necessary to secure the oilfields, it reflects the subsidiaries needed to promote oil exploration, and it reflects the health care costs of the air pollution & 35,000 killed annually w/ cars.



$1 per pound fee to buy a car
and a
$10 per gallon gasoline

will do far more to diminish air pollution in this country than Tier2Bin5

Did I say 1980's cars pollute 10x more than Tier II cars - wrong

My Car will produce at 120,000 miles 0.07 g/mile NOx

a 1993 Pick-up Truck = 1.2 g/mile NOx



That's FIFTEEN TIMES MORE POLLUTION !!!!!



These massively polluting pre-1993 cars and light trucks are going to be scrapped over the next decade - Therefore, let's not focus on further improvement in EPC/ARB standards - let's get people to consume less fuel.

Consuming less fuel = less pollution

Vooch posted:
"These massively polluting pre-1993 cars and light trucks are going to be scrapped over the next decade ..."

Dave sez:
Maybe. Maybe not. When the EPA promulgated New Source Review (40 CFR 52.21) back in 1977, they thought the same thing of old industrial facilities. But over-aggressive BACT determinations and the hideously long process of permit review (fifteen years for an oil refinery) made ancient steel mills, power plants, and oil refineries essentially irreplaceable. You could not build a new plant or increase their capacity without the excessive costs and delays due to BACT, so companies made do with what they have or if they couldn't, they moved offshore.

Comparing 2007 T2B5 to Euro 5 we see that the Europeans (famed for their green preferences) allow 50% more PM and seven and half times as much NOx. Those differences mean US diesels have to have efficiency-robbing barrier filters and urea injection where Euro-spec engines do not. The additional cost, both initial purchase and increased material and maintenance will lill diesels in the US for smaller engines.

So ancient 6.2 GMs, first generation Cummins, VW TDIs, and 7.3 Powerstrokes will be worth maintaining and keeping is service long after they should have been scrapped.

Big Dave,

hey I agree w. you T2B5 is a bit of overkill - I'd rather see $10 gas gradually phased in, plus a weight base fee for new cars ( say $1 per lb) to cover excess road wear and tear.


the comparison w/ pre-1977 industrial plants isn't quite reasonable - industrial plants are designed to have 30-40 year lifespans, plus the cost of replacing versus maintaining is huge.

pre-1993 cars on the other hand - have a design lifespan of some 10-15 years and the cost of maintaining a 15 year old car is usually much higher than buying new. Trust me - there will be very few 1993 cars on the road in ten years (aka when they are at least 24 years old)

I was at a career day this past week at a local high school talking to the kids there about career's in the fire service. In the booth beside me was a represenative of the NC truckers assocaition.

I had a LOOOOOONG converstation with him about various things. Most about trucks and their interaction with people around them on the road and fuel prices.

Basically he said... Truckers don't really care if you draft behind them. I found that hard to believe but he said, I've got 60 feet between you and me and if you draft, your the one thats going to get hurt, not me. He went on to claim that drafting really doesn't increase FE all that much anyway and he doesn't understand why people would want to do it. I filled him in on how much of a difference it actually makes in my car but that I don't do close drafts anymore because of a certain experience with a blow-out and nice chucks of rubber flying on my car ;) enough to scare me out of the practice.

Anyway, he said the only place truckers don't really want you to drive in is beside them and to the right. He said their ability to see there is so much more limited that often times they have no clue whats over there.


Anyway, to the point about the converstation. He was talking about the recent increases in emissions standards and its effect on the trucking industry. He said that with the increases in the standards that their trucks are seeing decreases in their FE on the order of 1-2 MPG's. Thats pretty signifigant. I wonder how much of what he said was true, but if even he is embellishing a bit, a loss in FE isn't such a great thing considering that our diesel standards are more stringent that europe. Odd indeed

pre-1993 cars on the other hand - have a design lifespan of some 10-15 years and the cost of maintaining a 15 year old car is usually much higher than buying new. Trust me - there will be very few 1993 cars on the road in ten years (aka when they are at least 24 years old)


I've got two pontiac fiero's that would say the opposite ;)

I've got an 1986 fiero SE that has cost me practically nothing to maintain and drive occasionally... but then again its only got around 65,000 miles on it :D

I can't support a weight tax. Weight is already a factor in fuel tax- more weight generally means higher fuel consumption, thus more tax per mile, but its not the only factor.
A family that buys an Odyssey would pay $1000 more in tax that a purchaser of a BMW 335- yet both get virtually the same mpg. And if the BMW is driven 20000 miles vs 10000 miles, the inequity is even more lopsided. 1000 extra lbs has a miniscule impact on road wear.

also... what are the chances that the BMW is going to consistantly carry more than one person where stereotypically minivan owners/drivers use them to carry around several people. Carpooling is much more effective a measure of saving gas than increasing FE. Maybe I'm off base though.

I believe the gentleman was exaggerating a bit regarding 1-2 mpg decrease. The worse I've seen reported in the trade magazines has been close to 1 mpg. Most report a .25-.75 decrease in the model year after a regulation change, with slight improvement trend until the next regulation change. It's hard to pinpoint because of other improvements in aeros, tires, etc. But .5 mpg is huge given the 6 mpg industry avg and the amount of fuel used per unit per year.

The brand new diesel pickups with all the emissions are reporting pretty bad mileage compared to previous years. The older 12V Cummins get good mileage, on the order of 20-25mpg.

As for older cars, unless the vehicle in question is a complete POS it is NEVER cheaper to own a brand new car than it is to own a paid off older car. It is rarely cheaper to maintain a brand new car, and brand new cars cost more. Also think about how much of an impact it is to build a new car, materials, energy, transportation, labor, labor transportation, etc. Now think about all the waste involved in destroying that older car. Keeping that older car running and recycling parts from totaled cars is better. The only cases where this is not true would be were an incredibly polluting in-efficient car is replaced with an incredibly clean and efficient car or if the old car is a complete POS.

To replace my 6 year old truck would cost me $50,000 for a brand new one, and that would be a truck that gets worse mileage, not much better emissions, and has NO track record on reliability. With 239K on it I fully expect this truck to reach 400K before it needs a new engine, and I fully expect to have it on the road in 10 years.

Some people may think otherwise but buying a new car every 2-5 years is INCREDIBLY wasteful.

1000 extra lbs has a miniscule impact on road wear.

Road wear is proportional to the 4th power of the axle weight of a vehicle. (http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/1997/lw/lorryweightsaconsultationdoc1695) (scroll to #8)

With the same # of axles, a difference of 1000 extra lbs (say from 3000 to 4000) isn't exactly miniscule:

(4000/3000)^4 = 3.16x more road damage.

Caryfd227 posted:
“Truckers don't really care if you draft behind them….”

Big Dave sez:
That is reasonable. From an aerodynamic standpoint, you as a drafter, are just filling in that huge low-pressure area behind his truck and if anything, reducing his coefficient of drag a little. If you react slowly and hit him, you are at fault and if you cannot stop faster than an eighteen-wheeler, maybe its just Darwin in action.

Yes, a 0.75 MPG increase, just to cover some bureaucrat’s tail, is a bit much for truckers to bear. How would you like to have a regulation come along and knock you mileage down by 10%?

I am opposed to any tax increase of any description.

Ah yes, the famous AASHO 4th power rule. Established on study done ending in 1962, with spring suspension trucks. The 4th power applies to flexible pavement, rigid pavement is less, almost half. The baseline is #18,000 per axle. AND, there is much discussion and debate around the accuracy of this rule. The intent was to give a quick and dirty formula to a very complex problem. AND, few pay attention to it until real weight (truck axle weight) is involved.

I do appreciate the challenge though, as it illustrates the necessity to use numbers with caution when making policy decisions, whether emissions or weight, and that there probably are no easy solutions.

Ah yes, the famous AASHO 4th power rule. Established on study done ending in 1962, with spring suspension trucks. The 4th power applies to flexible pavement, rigid pavement is less, almost half. The baseline is #18,000 per axle. AND, there is much discussion and debate around the accuracy of this rule. The intent was to give a quick and dirty formula to a very complex problem. AND, few pay attention to it until real weight (truck axle weight) is involved.

I do appreciate the challenge though, as it illustrates the necessity to use numbers with caution when making policy decisions, whether emissions or weight, and that there probably are no easy solutions.

Per my post in other thread: the exponent on weight vs. road use varies. Axle Weight and tire spacing are the real killers. With a properly designed truck, up to ~ 15k lb really doesn't do much damage.

Anybody wants a fun exercise, compute the max damage done by a B777 at max wt vs. 2/3 wt. Also, find the stress distribution for a C-5 Main Gear.

Thanks for asking the question -

Yes, I do believe T2B5 might be a bit too much - The real air pollutors are 1970's and 1980's cars which pollute 5x - 10x more than recent models. In 10 years, these cars will dissapear from the highways. Here are my alternatives:

1) Impose a steeply graded tax on the weight of a vechicle - say $1 per pound at time of purchase. The loser driving a 10,000 pound SUV would think twice before paying an additional 10 grand for it. Sell it as some sort of highway maintenance fee - heavier cars destroy roads and highways much faster.

2) Start imposing a serious gas tax, incrementally increase the federal gas tax over the course of, say, 7 years until the price of gas is $10 per gallon (yes $10 !!! ). A 7 year phase in would allow people time to transition relatively gradually. Sell the tax as reflecting the true cost of a gallon of gasoline, it reflects the cost of the military necessary to secure the oilfields, it reflects the subsidiaries needed to promote oil exploration, and it reflects the health care costs of the air pollution & 35,000 killed annually w/ cars.



$1 per pound fee to buy a car
and a
$10 per gallon gasoline

will do far more to diminish air pollution in this country than Tier2Bin5


Here we go. Tax everybody to death!

We already do that here in Oklahoma. You go buy a SUV you pay more in tax than you do on a Focus.

Fuel tax is already to **** high. You want to give more money to government to mis manage?

Plus we have Billary on the stump. We can't afford that socialist witch as is. We will end up like Great Britain with no gross national product if things go this way. And be a huge lazy country.

Remember,,,, the USA was founded to get away form people like you!