Exhaust rules to become tougher

Sacramento Bee (SacBee.com) ^ | September 25, 2004 | Edie Lau

[RayChuang88]

California became the first state in the nation Friday to adopt a rule clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, a historic move that signals growing public resolve to combat global warming.

The state Air Resources Board unanimously approved a regulation designed to cut by 30 percent carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases emitted from passenger cars and light trucks. Automakers must begin making reductions in 2009 and meet the standard fully by 2016.

Auto industry groups vigorously opposed the rule and threatened a lawsuit.

[RayChuang88]

What's interesting is that a simple change in the formulation of motor fuels (namely reducing sulfur compound levels to 15 parts per million--it will be phased in starting next year with full US compliance by latest September 2006) may just make the goal of reducing CO2 output by 30% well within reach.

Because there are no longer any harmful sulfur compounds that can turn into something akin to sulfuric acid to damage engine components, we can do the following:

For gasoline engines, it means the wide adoption of direct fuel injection, which means the fuel is directly injected into the combustion chamber. That right there can improve fuel efficiency as much as 15-20% over today's gasoline engines where the air and fuel is mixed before the mixture is drawn into the combustion chamber.

For diesel engines, it means we can apply the very latest in fuel-delivery and exhaust emission control systems to reduce exhaust pollutants to Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) levels AND remove harmful diesel particulates easily. It also means we could start a large-scale switch of all light trucks, minivans and SUV's to be powered by these cleaner-burning diesel engines, with fuel efficiency improvements around 35-45% compared to gasoline engines of similar power and dramatic reductions in CO2 output because of diesel engines needing less fuel for combustion to start with.

Isn't it wonderful what technology can do?

[OlBlue]

California was the first to mandate that the automakers produce electric cars, and also mandated electric car "refueling" ports all over the place. Where are the electric cars now? On the scrap heap, because battery technology has not yet gotten to the point where it is practical. Who paid for this experiment? We all did in terms of higher car costs, and lower tech cars since the automaker's R&D budgets were essentially taxed by having to create a completely different type of car.

This looks like the same deal to me. Unproven technology hoist on the automakers so some politios can implement a "feel good" solution.

For those interested in an alternative view of "Global Warming" I suggest the
following:

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/

http://www.co2science.org/

and the best is

http://www.sepp.org/index.html

[boris]

My letter to the editor of the L.A. Daily News:

------------------------

Dr. Fran Pavley, whose Ph.D in thermodynamics from Cal Tech uniquely qualifies her to legislate the workings of the internal combustion engne, is a Democrat, a "friend of the poor".

Strangely, she never received her degree in Economics, which tells us that the Governor will not mind the $3000 extra cost of a Hummer, but a poor gardener will certainly notice the increased cost of a low-end pickup.

How wonderful it must be to know everything and rule in a state of ignoramuses. Why don't the Democrats just repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics and be done with it?

--Boris

[RayChuang88]

Where are the electric cars now? On the scrap heap, because battery technology has not yet gotten to the point where it is practical.

No, what happened was the development of the revolutionary Toyota Prius. The arrival of hybrid drivetrains resulted in vehicles with many of the advantages of electric vehicles, but with a travel range measured in several hundred miles when the vehicle is driven at reasonable speeds (under 70 mph).

[Vince Ferrer]

Isn't it wonderful what technology can do?

Not if the result is to increase the price of driving for no good reason.

[Carry_Okie]

No, what happened was the development of the revolutionary Toyota Prius.

First, there is not that much that is revolutionary about the Prius. Diesel electric drive systems have been around for a long time. Second, the Prius was not a ZEV and thus did not meet California's stupid law. Third, the Prius' batteries are technically, environmentally, and financially problematic and will so remain for the foreseeable future.

[RayChuang88]

In regard to the Toyota Prius:

1. You have to remember until the arrival of the Prius, hybrid drive systems were huge monsters (literally); even the diesel-electric drive system of a small yard switcher locomotive was a large unit that took up most of the space of the locomotive. It took Toyota five years of research to reduce the gasoline-electric hybrid drivetrain into something small enough for an automobile.

2. The success of the Prius showed that you can create a vehicle with near-zero emissions, yet won't have the downside of pure-electric vehicles with its limited range and long recharging times. Why do you think CARB finally abandoned its requirement for pure-electric vehicles by 2003?

3. Fortunately, disposing of the battery on the Prius is not as big an issue as you think. The batteries on the first-generation Prius are nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) units, which are easily recycled given the huge number of NiMH batteries used since the early 1990's and the current knowledge of how to recycle them.

[Carry_Okie]

Why do you think CARB finally abandoned its requirement for pure-electric vehicles by 2003?

Two reasons. They were sued and the cars they were getting were an expensive joke.

It took Toyota five years of research to reduce the gasoline-electric hybrid drivetrain into something small enough for an automobile.

Still not a major technical leap. I was predicting that move in 1984, albeit with diesel (which I still think a preferable alternative). In fact, I would be more interested in a hybrid car that ran on a turbine.

The success of the Prius showed that you can create a vehicle with near-zero emissions, yet won't have the downside of pure-electric vehicles with its limited range and long recharging times.

Don't get me wrong, I think hybrids are the way to go and have said so many times on this board. I just don't think the Prius is there yet.

Fortunately, disposing of the battery on the Prius is not as big an issue as you think.

Have you PAID for a set? They're very pricey. Although the car represents a real reduction in emissions, its total operating cost challenges diminishing returns for the capital expense. The car does not get the mileage that is touted by the manufacturer either.

[chipengineer]

>...dramatic reductions in CO2 output because of diesel engines needing less fuel for combustion to start with.

Are you sure about that? Diesel fuel contains more carbon by volume than gasoline, so I doubt it produces much less CO2, even considering higher mileage per volume.

[boris]

"No, what happened was the development of the revolutionary Toyota Prius. The arrival of hybrid drivetrains resulted in vehicles with many of the advantages of electric vehicles, but with a travel range measured in several hundred miles when the vehicle is driven at reasonable speeds (under 70 mph)."

Never buy version 1.0 of a software package. Never buy version 1.0 of a hybrid car. The media is filled with stories of failures, owner dismay, etc.

If one of those things collides with a hummer it will be a colorful smear on the road. They are made of aluminum foil or something to keep the weight down.

--Boris

[nightdriver]

"What's interesting is that a simple change in the formulation of motor fuels.....may just make the goal of reducing CO2 output by 30% well within reach."

Uhmmm, no.

Not unless your "simple change in the formulation of motor fuels" removes the carbon content of the hydrocarbon-based fuel. If it did, it could hardly be classed as a "simple reformulation."

Also, this 30% business is based on the percent CO2 content in the exhaust stream, not on the total amount of CO2 produced. It's about as realistic as eliminating the CO2 content of your breath when you exhale.