ride_a_hd

Wow... didn't know we were so dangerous...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148403,00.html

IA_James

http://www.catf.us/

This is their website. Thank these folks for the particulate traps and other emissions garbage coming up.

Hemi Cat

Polution is a major problem all over the world. The diesel emmissions is only a small part of the overall picture. I think the biggest reason for the concern now is that people can see the smoke from diesels and can easily blame them for polution. What they are seeing is carbon particulates that are heavier than air and will settel down to the ground. The biggest poluters are industry. ie oil refineries, coal fired power plants, Dow chemical, city incinerators, paper mills, manufacturing plants, etc, etc. Diesel engines are way down on the list. I believe if the smoke is cleaned up on diesels that the people would find another small poluter to pick on. Remember, the biggest poluters provide resources we need on a daily basis, and we can not shut them down or force them to do a major clean up without causing major devastation to us or the economy. So lets pick on the small poluters that we can see and identify with, like diesels.
The health concerns are real. but it is just as real from gas engines, and all the other poluters that we can not stop. Our country is the worlds super power, second to NONE. The cost of this is polution in many forms. To stop it would stop progress and technology, and that would be the end to our world super power status, and some other country would take charge of the world, probably a country like Iraq or Iran or corea, and we would become subjects and answer to them.
No I do not like polution and have some illnesses from it, but I think it is better to stay the worlds super power and leader.My quality of life may not be the greatest, but what kind of life would I/we have if we were not Number 1?
Sorry to be so long winded, but that is my opinion.

Howard.

ride_a_hd

Well said, Howard.

BTW, in case anyone took me seriously, I was only being facitious. Howard hit the nail on the head.

I thought I remember hearing at some point in the distant past, that other than the visible particles, diesels actually were more efficient at completely burning the fuel, ie, less CO2 was produced. Does anyone have any facts to back up the environmental benefits of diesel over gas?

Dave

Hemi Cat

I have some generic graphs from when I worked at GM in the Dyno labs somewhere. Diesels produce low NOX, low HC, I don't remember CO levels, most conditions have more O2 than gassers. The down side to diesels is the particulates (smoke) and the smell. The manufacturers add egr to lower nox even more, and the smoke will increase a little, retard the timing lowers nox but increases HC and exh temps and the catalyst works more efficiently to burn up HC and particulates from the increased exh temps. So it is a trade off balance to keep a diesel cleaner and produce power and maintain efficiency. The engines are packing more air in (turbo) to add more fuel to make power but keep the A/F higher to minimize smoke and let the cat keep the smoke at lower levels. The electronic engines can have a pilot injection to help reduce smoke and emmissions levels. Pilot injection is a small injection that is injected early to have an early ignition that heats up the compression so when the main injection is delivered, it will ignite quicker and more complete and prevents fuel impingement, which lowers the emmissions output.
Hope this helps

Howard

infidel

As usual the Fox story isn't news but rather it's brand of sensationalized infotainment.
They barely touch on the fact that EPA emissions reduction laws for diesels that will reduce pollution by 90% that will come into effect over the next ten years have already been implemented.
Whenever Fox reports something I have to wonder what special interest group is paying them.

BoostdCTD

Nice way to take the dependability of a diesel and try to turn it around as a bad thing.

I thought the NOx from a diesel is higher than a gasser since there is excess air at times and the combustion temperatures are higher in a compression ignition than in a spark. Other than that I agree with what you said completely, furthermore on the particulate matter, the size of the particulates are large enough that the nose will filter almost all of it out anyway. Gasser exhaust on the other hand has pollution which is much finer and nearly impossible to filter out.

Hemi Cat

NOX is produced from heat and pressure. The more advanced the timing, the more NOX you produce. Holds true for diesel or gassers. A/F ratio changes NOX. Diesels run mostly real lean A/F ratios, so the NOX will be lower at those conditions. When you pour the fuel and boost to it, everything starts to change. It's been a long time since I ran dynos and if you want specific numbers, I would have to try to find some of my old data and graphs.
The combustion temps on a gasser are usually higher than a diesel. Gassers control their power output by throtteling the intake air and maintaining 14.7:1 A/F. A diesel takes in as much air as it can and controls the power output by controlling the amount of fuel injected into the eng, and can run at 70:1 A/F. Most gassers run bad above 19:1 A/F and produce massive amounts of bad emmissions. Gassers all use EGR to reduce NOX. It does this by slowing down the burn rate. This means lower burn temps and lower peak combustion pressures. EGR accomplishes this by reducing the intake O2 and putting aproximately 10% burnt gasses into the intake charge(CO2). This changes the way the gas is burnt in the cylinder, and when everything is calibrated correctly the emmissions are reduced. Dielel engines don't like EGR, but it will reduce the NOX levels. EGR in a diesel tends to gum up the rings and valves and drastically reduce the engine life. A good example of that is the GM 5.7 feasco in the ponts and chevs from the late 70's and early 80's. I haven't kept up on who uses EGR and who does not on recent diesel engines.
A gas engine exhaust will kill you a lot quicker than diesel exhaust. Look at the idiots that kill themselves. It's always a gasser. A diesel will probably make you throw up long before it kills you. But on the cancer issue, I think the diesel particulates are higher carcinogens than gassers. The oil and car companies have played around with a lot of different additives in the fuels. First it was to replace the lead, then to change emmissions. Some of the additives were more leathal than the lead ever was. but lead has a long slow build up in your system and takes a long time to get rid of and has a lot of real bad side affects on people. Now the gasoline needs to be pressureized to maintain stability, like PFI, and carburated engines mix fuel with vacuum and the fuels are unstabil and boil, causing the carbed engines to run bad. So now you have the groups trying to get rid of the old cars because they are poluters!!! DUH!!! I wonder why???? This is why carbed engines stink so bad and run lousy and start hard and have low power, Just put in about 20% turbo blue and see the difference!!! No more stink, better power, starts and runs smoother.
Sorry for the long post. Hope it helps answer and explain your questions.

Howard

crobtex

Study: Diesel exhaust blamed for deaths
DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Emissions from old diesel engines cause more than 20,000 Americans a year to die sooner than they would have otherwise, an environmental group estimated Tuesday.

An industry group criticized the findings as outdated and misleading.

The metropolitan areas with the highest number of early deaths from diesel engines were New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force. The study included the surrounding suburbs, so New York's estimated total of 2,729 deaths included parts of New Jersey and Connecticut.

The states with the most deaths were New York with 2,332, California with 1,784, and Pennsylvania with 1,170, according to the group.

The group said it based its figures on the most recent government emissions data - from 1999 - and from public health studies of the effects of various types of air pollutants.

Conrad Schneider, co-author of the report, said regulations designed to make new diesel engines cleaner don't affect millions of older trucks, buses and construction engines.

"Those are great rules, they will hold new engines to higher standards. ... In the meantime, we're stuck with a legacy of dirty diesel engines," said Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force, a coalition of regional and local groups.

The Environmental Protection Agency last year required new diesel engines on trucks and buses to cut in half the amount of nitrogen oxides produced. In 2007 emissions are to be cut further.

Since many older diesel engines can run for 30 years, more action is needed by federal, state, and local governments to retrofit existing diesel engines to run more cleanly, the group said.

Retrofits for a typical transit bus can cost about $5,000 to $7,000.

The head of a Washington-based industry group criticized the report's assumptions and conclusions.

"I think they have overstated the risk here using data that's six years old," said Allan Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum.

Schaeffer said it takes eight modern tractor trailer engines to produce the same amount of pollution generated by one such engine made twelve years ago, and that diesel exhaust comprises just 4.4 percent of fine particle pollution.

"Our industry is getting cleaner faster than most other industries out there," Schaeffer said.

Diesel pollution is blamed for contributing to asthma, respiratory diseases, and heart attacks. The study estimates the risk of health complications from diesel exhaust for people living in cities is three times higher than the risk for those in rural areas.

BIG MIKE

Mornin,
Sounds like the facts lean towards a cleaner fuel. Could it be Biodiesel?

BIG MIKE

I PASS GAS

I don't smoke...can't stand the smell of burning tobacco, and don't care for the health risks either.

But I'll take the hit on life expectancy for the smell of burning #2!

It is normal to start your truck in the morning and run to the tailpipe and take a whif....right?!?!

67HotRod

Where's the scientific proof? ASSumptions.

cumminsbanshee

There is none they are just a bunch of environmental hippies that need something to <edit> about. They would <edit> at a free beer party. These people are insane and I can not stand them.

Commatoze

As normal as a daily glass of OJ . I find the raw stuff on a really cold morning has a heady piquant with a tangy aftertaste.

BoostdCTD

Interesting, so is the gas going through the venturi in a carb the biggest reason for their inefficency then?

My MB came with a factory EGR and at 190k I opened it up to find the 1" hole into the intake was nearly clogged with some real thick crud.

I don't know ethanol's hand in pollution reduction but imagine if diesels standardized B5 or B10, the outcome would be a drastic reduction in pollution. I suppose once they make it ULSD the effect won't be as much but I'm sure it'd still help a bit even then.