[mbarker12474]

How does burning fuel more efficiently lead to anything greener or cleaner? Doesn’t this simply change the proportion of different waste products?

The new technology is desirable because you get more energy out of a given amount of fuel. It’s less clear that it is cleaner.

[bigbob]

All emissions reduction is based on creating more complete combustion, fewer waste pruducts.

[11th Commandment]

..... a laser ignites the fuel in the middle of the chamber instead, burning more of the fuel and improving combustion efficiency by 27 per cent. Laser ignition could boost the fuel efficiency of a car from 40 kilometres per litre up to around 50, for example. The more complete burn also emits fewer polluting by-products such as nitrogen dioxide.

If nitrates can be reduced, then remediation in the exhaust emission could be scaled back. This would also boost efficiency.

[Squawk 8888]

If nothing else, it will burn less fuel, ergo less waste. Also, the worst pollutants from IC engines are unburned and partially-burned hydrocarbons, so anything that makes the fuel burn more completely will be cleaner.

[Dad was my hero]

How does burning fuel more efficiently lead to anything greener or cleaner? Doesn’t this simply change the proportion of different waste products?

If I was guessing, I'd say that to produce the same propulsion or "work" you could do it on less fuel. If it creates a certain amount of output based on inefficient burning, then you increase the burning and you would be able to do the same output on less fuel.

[Red Badger]

The more complete burn also emits fewer polluting by-products such as nitrogen dioxide.

[ckilmer]

The new technology is desirable because you get more energy out of a given amount of fuel. It’s less clear that it is cleaner.
............
The more complete the burn the smaller the pollution.

[Arthur McGowan]

If you get more energy out of the fuel, then presumably you need to burn less fuel to drive a given distance. No?

[Freeport]

Doesn’t this simply change the proportion of different waste products?

Yes and no. If one can burn the fuel/air mixture at a lower temperature, but faster, less NO2 is formed, but you get an increase in overall thermal efficiency from the shorter burn time.

Even in current generation engines, the single point ignition at the to of a cylinder is the least efficient way to burn fuel.

For maximum efficiency, one wants to burn all the fuel at the same instant. This generates the greatest thermal efficiency.

A plug initiated burn takes quite a while, relative to the piston cycle time.

So initiating burning over a larger volume does two things:

1) Reduces the burn time to increase thermal efficiency

2) Burns more of the available fuel that would otherwise go out the tailpipe unburned.

So yes, I believe the fuel efficiency numbers. What I have an issue with is keeping the laser path free of post combustion products over the life of the engine. Gunk & carbon buildup will kill this system if they are not addressed.

[NorthMountain]

More miles per gallon == less gallons per mile == less emissions per mile.

[WayneS]

Why is it unclear? Byproducts of inefficient combustion make up a large portion of the pollutants emitted from internal combustion engines. More complete combustion results in lower emissions, not higher.

If your car uses 20 gallons of fuel a week, it is both more efficient and cleaner than if it requires 25 gallons for the same amount of driving. And combustion efficiency aside, 5 gallons of gas NOT being burned is cleaner than 5 gallons of gas being burned.

[TexasGator]

“How does burning fuel more efficiently lead to anything greener or cleaner? Doesn’t this simply change the proportion of different waste products?”

You get fewer ‘dirty’ pollutants.

[taxcontrol]

More efficient combustion means less fuel for the same power out. Less fuel means less waste products.