Breathe easier: Regulations Cut U.S. Carbon Monoxide Emissions

Environmental News Service ^ | 04/25/2003

[cogitator]

Regulations Cut U.S. Carbon Monoxide Emissions

WASHINGTON, DC, April 25, 2003 (ENS) - The U.S. regulation of carbon monoxide is "one of the great success stories in air pollution control," an independent panel of scientists reported this week. According to the National Academy of Sciences committee, tighter vehicle emissions standards and federal air quality standards have combined to dramatically lower levels of the colorless, odorless but potentially deadly gas across much of the United States.

The panel found that there are a few areas in the Western United States still susceptible to accumulating high levels of the pollutant, but said there is no need to further tighten federal carbon monoxide (CO)emissions standards on motor vehicles.

CO is primarily produced by the incomplete burning of carbon in fuel - motor vehicles produce about 60 percent of the nationwide total, although this could be as high as 95 percent in some cities. CO is also produced by industrial processes, non transportation fuel use and wildfires.

The federal emissions standards for cars and trucks, the panel reports, are the main reason for the drop in levels of the gas and have helped prevent some 11,000 deaths from accidental CO poisoning over the past three decades.

CAPTION Even with strict emissions standards, increasing traffic could begin to lessen the progress made on cutting carbon monoxide emissions. (Photo courtesy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA))

"With the introduction of emissions controls, particularly automotive catalysts, estimated CO emissions from all sources decreased by 21 percent from 1980 to 1999," the panel said. "Average ambient concentrations decreased by about 57 percent over the same period."

New cars and trucks are now capable of emitting 90 percent less CO over their lifetimes than cars built 30 years ago, before the emissions standards were enacted, according to data from the EPA.

The panel detailed how in 1971, when the EPA set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)for carbon monoxide, more than 90 percent of the monitored sites were in violation.

The standards set were nine parts per million (ppm) for an eight hour average and 35 ppm for a one hour average.

The panel found that only the eight hour standard is currently exceeded in a few locations in the country, on a small number of days and mainly in areas with unique meteorological and topographical conditions that can trap CO.

Cities in basins are at risk, as low air circulation and cooler temperatures near the ground keep CO from rising into the atmosphere.

Low temperatures also contribute to higher CO, the panel said, because engines and vehicles emission control equipment operate less efficiently when cold.

Concern over these locations with continued vulnerability to high CO concentrations prompted Congress to request the report, titled "Managing Carbon Monoxide in Meteorological and Topographical Problem Areas." The National Academy of Sciences is a congressionally chartered, private body tasked with providing independent advice on scientific and technological matters.

The panel used Fairbanks, Alaska as a case study because the city's vehicle emissions, meteorology and topography combine to "produce conditions conducive to high ambient CO concentrations."

Fairbanks is cold, experiences strong and long lasting ground level temperature inversions during winter that trap pollutants near the ground and sits in a river valley, which further reduces pollutant dispersion.

CAPTION The long range strategy to keep carbon monoxide levels low involves offering options to get people out of cars and off the roads. (Photo courtesy EPA)

"It is the only serious CO nonattainment area with a population under 100,000 and little industry," according to the panel.

CO limits in Fairbanks were exceeded on more than 100 days per year in the 1970s, but there has not been a violation in the last two years, the panel reported. These improvements, however, do not mean the battle against CO has been won. Meteorological conditions can not be changed and with more and more cars on the road for longer periods of time, jurisdictions must be vigilant if they want to continue to be in compliance, the panel finds.

"Maintaining compliance with the NAAQS for CO will be unlikely without an accurate understanding of cause-effect relationships and will depend on how this understanding is translated into control policies."

Government officials in Fairbanks, and in other areas affected by these conditions, should increase vehicle inspections and maintenance to ensure vehicles in the region are meeting emissions standards, the panel recommended, and should shift toward cleaner burning fuel with less sulfur.

Federal and state assistance should be provided to help implement such countermeasures in communities still at risk of violating CO standards, according to the panel's report.

"In the absence of further federal mandates designed to yield additional emissions reductions in cold climates, enhancement of state or local controls is essential for achieving and maintaining CO concentration standards," the panel wrote.

Other areas in nonattainment for CO must address "unique conditions" that contribute to their own problems.

Continued progress toward meeting the CO standards in these at risk locations will reduce the potential for adverse health effects from CO pollution as well, the report notes.

Studies have correlated heavy exposure to CO pollution with heart disease, childhood development abnormalities, and miscarriages, the panel reported, but there is insufficient evidence to prove that carbon monoxide is the sole cause of these other health problems because other air pollutants, such as particulate matter, are often present as well.

Of the seven areas in serious nonattainment for CO, the report finds, five are in nonattainment for PM10, the standard for harmful particles with diameters of 10 micrometers or less. These are: Anchorage, Alaska; Denver/Boulder, Colorado; Los Angeles, California; Phoenix, Arizona; and Spokane, Washington.

These other pollutants - and the health risks they present - are "a good reason for federal agencies to leave existing carbon monoxide monitors in place, even in areas not expected to violate standards," the panel recommended, because CO can indicate the presence of other pollutants.

[cogitator]

Now about that ground-level ozone...

[RightWhale]

Of the seven areas in serious nonattainment for CO, the report finds, five are in nonattainment for PM10, the standard for harmful particles with diameters of 10 micrometers or less. These are: Anchorage, Alaska

Seriously, one day a year of being out of compliance in Fairbanks is probably too much, but that day there were 3 unregulated ouside burns going on and the smoke drifted over the sensors. One of the sensors is at the main downtown bus terminal. 7000 square miles and they measure a couple of spots where you would expect some readings. Pardon me if I have no confidence in this government anti-pollution business.

[45Auto]

Government emission regulations have nothing to do with lower levels of environmental contaminants; the perfection of electronic fuel injection solved that problem, and the silicon chip gets the credit. One might try to argue that the regulations forced auto manufacturers to invent the technology; but that's like the old "chicken and the egg" nonsense. If anything, the regulations actually lengthed the time-period that it took to lower the level of emissions because the manufacturers spent a lot of time trying to (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) clean up carbureted engines.

[Grampa Dave]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/901977/posts

Go to this site above to read about the Green Nazis and their isms that commit: Mass murder and green ideology!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/901977/posts

[Ff--150]

Government emission regulations have nothing to do with lower levels of environmental contaminants; the perfection of electronic fuel injection solved that problem, and the silicon chip gets the credit.

DEFUND the EPA
REFUND our money

[Grampa Dave]

Here is another prime example of the lies and half truths from the enviral nazis, the so called shortage of Spotted Owls. This was probably bankrolled by the Canadian timber industry.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/901980/posts

The Spotted Owl Fiasco

Hindsight is 20/20, they say, and sometimes we can get mad enough to see spots. The spotted owl fiasco being a case in point.

In February 2003, after completing a 12-month review as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the California spotted owl, a native bird found in forests of the Sierra Nevada, the central coast range, and major mountain ranges of southern California, doesn't warrant ANY protection under the ESA.(1)

The Service concluded, based on the best scientific and commercial information available, that the overall magnitude of current threats to the California spotted owl does not rise to a level requiring Federal protection. The California spotted owl still occurs throughout all or most of its historical range, with approximately 2,200 sites or territories in the Sierra Nevada and southern California where spotted owls have been recently observed.

Due to overregulation which virtually stopped logging in Pacific forests, regulations which the Service now claim were never needed to "save" the spotted owl, forest fires are soaring (see chart). What isn't logged by humans is now burned by Mother Nature. Amazingly, all these fires appear to have not bothered the birds one bit. They simply flew away when threatened, begging the question: If all this fire didn't burn the birds out, why was logging considered such a dire threat?

The Sacramento Bee reported California timber harvest levels slashed by over half over ten years resulting in 70 percent of California's wood fiber now being imported. Timber mills operating in the West plummeted and thousands of families lost their source of income.

The only corporations that actually made out like bandits on the spotted owl fiasco were those in the conflict industry. They produced a steady stream of propaganda which resulted in record profits, on which, of course, they paid zero corporate taxes because their work was considered "charitable" and "for public benefit."

Was this nightmare necessary to "save" the spotted owl? In hindsight? No. If this spotted owl fiasco isn't enough to make you see spots, we don't know what is.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/901980/posts

[F.J. Mitchell]

THis should save the lives of many people who ignore warnings each winter and burn char coal grills in their homes to keep warm, and others who warm up their cars in their garage. If you have not as yet bought a few Carbon monoxide detectors for your home-don't bother! If you own some already-just toss them in the garbage.

Life is good!

CAUTION: CAN YOU SAY SARCASM?? GOOD, THIS IS SARCASM.

[mvpel]

Mission Accomplished - can we close down the EPA now?

*snort*

[Ff--150]

yeah, but..........ain't much talk goin' around about reversing these wacked-out env. policies. Today I heard the counties surrounding us will, as we do, have to go through much more strict, and EXPENSIVE, auto emissions inspections...

[Grampa Dave]

This is one of those wars that we have to fight locally.

It is a tough war.

[brianl703]

They would have invented it anyway. The cold starting, reliability, and throttle response of fuel injection beats carburation.

The emissions benefits are secondary, IMHO.

[cogitator]

One might try to argue that the regulations forced auto manufacturers to invent the technology; but that's like the old "chicken and the egg" nonsense.

I think that's what the panel is arguing. They didn't indicate what technology had to be used, they just set the emissions standards.

"With the introduction of emissions controls, particularly automotive catalysts, estimated CO emissions from all sources decreased by 21 percent from 1980 to 1999," the panel said. "Average ambient concentrations decreased by about 57 percent over the same period."

[supercat]

the perfection of electronic fuel injection solved that problem, and the silicon chip gets the credit

On a fuel-injected engine, how much pollution reduction benefit is obtained by using a catalytic convertor, oxygenated fuel, or both? How much efficiency reduction?

[45Auto]

I don't know, but I suspect that the catalytic convertor has little or no additive effect on electronic fuel injected vehicles. The benefit of oxygentates depends upon who you talk to - those who benefit financially from selling these fuels or those who were made ill or whose water wells were irreversibly contaminated by California's MTBE fiasco. Those who profit by the mandated enviro-nut rules, like the forced use of oxygenated fuels, will say its a good thing; my bet is that the replacement of MTBE with ethanol does little or nothing for air quality but a whole lot for those who produce it.

The next big enviro bug-a-boo is carbon DIoxide emmissions: the California legislature, always keen for some new, worthless, but very expensive project, has already passed laws to mandate lower levels of CO2 emission. The ONLY way to accomplish that is by using much smaller engines, since the only two products of internal combustion left to tamper with are water and carbon dioxide, products of all hydrocarbon combustion. Next they'll tell us that water produced by the automobile is toxic compared to water produced by "nature"! They have already set the stage years ago with the sandle-footed, new age, church of the latter day Hippies saying that "organic" is better than "synthetic"!!! The whole enviro-crap nonsense has always been about one thing: MONEY and how to extract more of it from the sheep. And POWER and how to use it to destroy the foundation of the Republic: private property.

[45Auto]

If there is one word that can describe smog laws, it is FRAUD. The whole basis of the green movement in America has little to do with the the environment and a whole lot to do with installing a Marxist government in which there is no such thing as "private property". It will take the destruction of the Republic to accomplish that. As Mr. Heston said, "From my cold, dead hands." There may come a day when the people with any common sense will have to take things in hand in order to save what's left of liberty.

[45Auto]

The effect of smog laws on engine performance today is not quite as clear as it was back in the late 70's and 80's. Those model years saw the actual disappearence of the muscle car. The catalytic converter on carbureted vehicles probably reduces overall engine performance by 25% or more. The key to understanding peformance vs emissions is to be found in what engineers and professional race engine builders have always told us: Volumetric Efficiency. That is the measure by which we compare how well the engine utilizes fuel/air mixture to produce power. The air pump, EGR system, and spark advance controls probably don't contribute to much of a loss of power/volumetric efficiency; but the catalytic convertor is like stuffing steel wool up your tailpipe! The newer designs, like the C-5 Corvette, has a huge bell-shaped converter hole, so the effective back-pressure is lessened; its kind of a toss-up as to whether the cat. converter actually reduces emissions because if the engine is less efficient, i.e., it has to use more fuel to do the job, then how much have we gained?

I know from personal experience that a well-tuned carbureted engine equipped with exhaust headers and a good intake manifold (thereby facilitating improved volumetric efficiency) will run cleaner and produce more power per unit of fuel consumption than the same with a poorly tuned engine and all the mandated smog crap. But that is a long and sordid story.

[knarf]

I'm probably going to live a few weeks longer .. now that the air drawn through my filtered cigarettes is so much less 'polluted'.

No ... really!

[snopercod]

The federal emissions standards for cars and trucks... have helped prevent some 11,000 deaths from accidental CO poisoning over the past three decades.

Yeah, if I decide to commit suicide in my garage with the car running, I sure hope it's a low-emissions vehicle so it takes a long time...

Does anybody actually believe this BS?

What next, regulations on charcoal grills?

[brianl703]

A catalytic convertor is expected to last much longer in a fuel injected car than in a carbureted car.

I read in one of the auto service trade journals (maybe Motorage) that on a fuel injected car, the catalytic convertor does not show as much difference between the inlet and outlet temperatures (compared to a carbureted car), meaning that it is not catalyzing as much stuff.

Funny that they did not mention the oxygen sensor...probably has done as much if not more than the catalytic convertor to clean up the exhaust. The oxygen sensor is what allows the computer to fine-tune the air/fuel ratio. It's also required for a three-way cat (which does the NOx reduction reaction); apparently the mixture must alternate between slightly rich and slightly lean for the three-way cat to work (it's been a while since I read up on it, so I might be wrong).

I know that if a car fails due to excessive CO, the oxygen sensor is one of the first things to check. (For excessive HC first check would be spark plugs/wires; excessive NOx, first check the EGR valve).

[brianl703]

The difference is that nowadays, automakers have learned to take advantage of fuel injection to produce high-performance engines.

With fuel injection, an intake manifold can be designed for optimum performance without regard for fuel puddling. Intake manifold runner control (IMRC) is a method Ford uses on their Duratec V6 and modular V8 engines to allow for increased VE at higher RPMs without compromising low-end torque (these engines make 75% of their peak torque at 1000RPM). IMRC would not be possible with carburetion.

As far as catalytic convertors, my understanding is that removing the cats on a car like the 87-93 Mustang 5.0 won't give you very much horsepower; perhaps 5-10HP (with 225HP stock).

The very worst, IHMO, were the cars that had computer-controlled carbs. What a mess; even throttle-body injection is better.