×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
The following thoughts are always present whenever I am driving my truck taking my young cowboy to summer rodeos, at about $0.60 per mile for fuel.
Gee, I have a fairly new truck with an almost state of the art diesel engine.
I have dual sequential turbo chargers to improve efficiency.
But don't those turbos work be extracting heat from the exhaust gasses?
Don't those BTUs extracted from the exhaust then show up as higher temperatures in the combustion chamber.
Good for efficiency, right.
But what about NOx?
Doesn't higher combustion chamber temperature mean more NOx?
How do we get rig of NOx?
Lower the temperature in the combustion chamber, right?
We can do that by introducing exhaust gasses that will not support combustion.
It seems that even after losing some heat in the turbo, the exhaust gasses may still be too hot.
Well we can cool the exhaust before introducing it into the combustion chamber.
Have we just lost some of the efficiency gained by the operation of the turbo? I don't know, I'm asking.
Now the other side of the compromise.
Is it correct that lower combustion chamber temperatures promote the production of more soot in the exhaust?
No problem, we can use a Diesel Particulate Filter to trap the soot. Hot exhaust can promote the combustion of the carbon in the DPF.
Great idea. Wait, didn't the twin sequential turbos just cool the exhaust by extracting as much energy and BTUs as possible in the quest for efficiency?
Dang, the exhaust isn't hot enough to effectively burn the soot/carbon out of the filter. It will soon plug up.
There must be a solution.
Hey let's make the exhaust hotter. Great idea. How can we do that? We can add fuel to the exhaust to promote burning in the filter. That will keep the filter burned clean.
Considering the load that I am pulling and compared to older engines, I may be dumping as much fuel into the exhaust as I am burning to pull the load down the highway.

I understand the need for cleaner air in the cities, but is it feasible to allow a little higher levels of polutants out on the highways away from population centers? Not really a suggestion, more a question.

Is it time to move away from diesel power to lighter fuels such as LNGs?
How much pollution could be avoided by using propane instead of diesel?
Can NOx in a propane powered engine be reduced economically by using larger displacements per HP and less EGR rather than having an EGR system working against the turbo system?
Given the very great ratio between the first cost of an engine and the cost of fuel over the lifetime of the engine, I am not much concerned about a heavier, larger more expensive engine block.
Can anyone fill in some actual numbers here?

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

"...dual sequential turbo chargers..."

Are those stock? Or added afterwards?

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

No names, no pack drill, that has been implemented in the past and when the regulators found out they were rather annoyed. What happens if you have a freeway or interstate that goes through a built up area?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
Maybe I should have said just "sequential turbo chargers". Dual may imply two sets for a total of four.
No.
Just one set of two turbos.
Stock.
6.4 Power Strokes and later Maxxforce 7s.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

It seems to be a practice in the service industry to have a blank spacer fitted into the EGR to get better fuel economy and stop the cloging

A tidy mind not intelligent as it ignors the random opportunities of total chaos. Thats my excuse anyway
Malbeare
www.sixstroke.com

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Turbocharging shouldn't really bump peak combustion temperature much once you consider intercooling.

The peak combustion temperature is right next to the surface of each individual droplet, right in the diffusion zone between rich (at the droplet surface) and lean (in the bulk of the chamber). EGR adds dilution right there. It has some effect on thermal efficiency but applied within reason, not much. Maybe a percent or two.

Keeping the exhaust hot enough for the emission control systems to operate does indeed kill efficiency during light load puttering around and idling. The most modern diesel engines (which the 6.4 is not) have the emission control components attached directly to the engine with the shortest possible path between the cylinder and the DPF, and the DPF and SCR are one and the same part (by coating the DPF internal matrix with the SCR catalyst and putting the AdBlue injector ahead of it). In fact the most modern designs have the oxidizing catalyst followed directly by the SCR injector and the DPF/SCR catalyst in one housing (it can be a bolt together or clamp together assembly) attached directly to the turbocharger outlet.

The best designs are addressing the EGR clogging by using low pressure EGR with the exhaust taken from after the DPF so that there's no particulates in it. This also means the recirculated exhaust is going through the intercooler, and the best designs nowadays use liquid cooling so that the temperature in the intercooler doesn't drop below freezing. Volkswagen learned that one the hard way.

Yes, this is complicated. And this is why, after years of driving VW diesels, I have gone back to modern spark ignition engines, no turbo, no direct injection, no EGR, but with variable valve timing and with modern high compression combustion chambers. The efficiency still does not match that of a diesel but there is a whole lot less Rube Goldberg involved.

In the trucking industry, I don't think natural gas or propane would be viable for long haul. Lots of city buses and short run trucks around here use natural gas, so it's already in use. Control of nitrogen oxides in a nat gas engine is the same as for a gasoline engine ... throttled stoichiometric operation, regulated with a lambda sensor, and a 3 way catalyst. Thermal efficiency is still no match for a diesel on account of the throttled operation, but the fuel is cheaper and particulate emissions are way down, no need for a particulate filter.

Minor tweaks such as fiddling with engine size etc don't make enough difference in engine out emissions to get the job done. You need the catalyst, and once you have that, the upstream fiddling (which is what screws up thermal efficiency) doesn't matter as much.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
Thank you for the explanation Brian. I was thinking of propane more than natural gas.
LNG may be more viable for some uses if you can live with the "Use it or Lose it." factor.

Quote (Brian)

Thermal efficiency is still no match for a diesel on account of the throttled operation, but the fuel is cheaper and particulate emissions are way down, no need for a particulate filter.
If you add in the fuel that is dumped into the DPF the overall efficiency numbers may change.
Is there anything that can be legally done to help a 6.4 short of a trade in?
EGR and DPF deletes are still legal in Canada. I should have said Alberta. Many of the other provinces have apparently stepped up enforcement. They must be installed new but there was a loophole in the enforcement or lack of it.
That is due to change in January. Rumour has it that the enforcers will be checking emissions and non-compliant vehicles may be towed. Seeing your living quarters and three horses on the hook is something to avoid.




Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

I'm with Brian. My most recent drive was chosen by selecting from the VVT NA gasoline vehicles in my size and price range. Diesel tech for today's emissions legislation is just too complex and unreliable - nowhere near mature.

Steve

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
I have been hearing good things about the new GM Duramax.
I am starting to think more about a suggestion made in another thread.
Trade the truck off.
Running around 20,000 lb. GVW, how do the GM gas engines compare to the GM diesel engine for miles per dollar?

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Quote:

I may be dumping as much fuel into the exhaust as I am burning to pull the load down the highway.


So your new truck is getting 1/2 the mileage of the old truck when pulling the same trailer?

Fuel efficiency data for diesel trucks over the years would say your continued arguments about burning 2X the fuel because so much is being dumped into the exhaust are wrong.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Quote (waross)

I understand the need for cleaner air in the cities, but is it feasible to allow a little higher levels of polutants out on the highways away from population centers? Not really a suggestion, more a question.

That's been done more than once and the EPA has taken the offending parties to court. A good friend of mine spent the last couple of years of his career providing expert testimony against the EPA. A big factor in his taking early retirement. The HD trucking industry had algorithms that detected interstate driving based on steady speeds and lack of shifting. It would advance the injection timing to improve fuel economy. During city driving and of course, the EPA emissions cycle, it would retard the timing and meet all the requirements. Not that different from VW dieselgate but I think those would exceed emissions in city driving too.

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

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
Hi Lionel; Fuel efficiency data may be based on a hard working engine.
Most of my driving is at the legal limit on flat roads on cruise control.
My engine seldom works hard.
It doesn't work hard enough to keep the DPF up to temperature.
It is often in regen (dumping fuel) while cruising under my normal driving conditions.
Beware of applying overall averages to specific cases.
A google search brings up the following data on https://cartreatments.com/fuel-economy-duramax-die...
A comparable truck:
GMC Sierra 3500HD – The average fuel economy was determined to be 13.6 miles per gallon. You can get up to 19.3 miles per gallon on the interstate.
That agrees with figures that I have heard from mechanics.
I'm getting about 8.33 Miles per US gallon.
The truck was recently serviced by a dealer including a cylinder drop test and found to be in good shape.
Maybe it's time to trade.
All it takes is money.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

IMO for the newer diesel pickup trucks Cummins > Duramax > Powerstroke.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

You're averaging ~8 MPG all the time?

Or is that 8 MPG during regen (which should happen roughly once every tank of fuel unless your truck spends a lot of time idling or in traffic)

Or is that 8 MPG while towing a trailer, in which case why are we even talking about it?

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

You have very well described the idiocy of it all in your first post.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Now you're saying that because of the lighter duty use the fuel economy is worse compared to working the engine harder all the time?

Comparing your mileage to a Duramax didn't address the point I posted. You're claiming that fuel efficiency has drastically dropped due to the emissions equipment. I don't believe it's true or that you have any data which supports that claim. I do agree that it was found the fuel economy did drop in the first years the newer filter systems were installed, but it wasn't by around 1/2 or drastically ("I may be dumping as much fuel into the exhaust as I am burning to pull the load down the highway.") and the manufacturers have figured out how to get it back and then some since that time.

It's often in regen towing a trailer? As jgKRI pointed out, there should only be a regen cycle around every tank of fuel for a truck that is towing or working and on the highway. Certainly not often or most of the time.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)

Quote:

Or is that 8 MPG during regen (which should happen roughly once every tank of fuel unless your truck spends a lot of time idling or in traffic)
I wish. I only get an indication that the pig is in regen when I pull off for a coffee and the hot exhaust warning comes on as I take it out of gear.
It goes into regen many times during normal highway driving.
My driving is normally at the legal limit here,100 kph (62.5 MPH) on flat roads with little traffic. Typically a couple of hundred miles per trip with almost no idling and few stop signs. That's part of the problem. The engine may not be working hard enough to burn off the DPF.
Yes, pulling a trailer but similar trucks pulling similar loads are getting 60% to 80% better mileage.
Thank you everyone for your input.
I think that the consensus is that there is really nothing that can be done to improve this truck.
Thanks for your information in regards to EGR and regen, Brian.
Thanks also for the engine priorities.
My choice is between the Cummins and the Duramax. To many serious issues with past Powerstrokes to trust Ford for a few years.
I have always preferred GM over Dodge for truck quality, but the new GM 4500HDs will be built by Navistar with GM engines. I am presently driving a Navistar product am not impressed with the tinny body nor with the flakey Body Control Computer.
Too many glitches and false warnings.
I guess that I will be looking at both Cummins and Duramax.
Time to trade.
Thanks for the informative discussion. friends.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)

Quote:

Now you're saying that because of the lighter duty use the fuel economy is worse compared to working the engine harder all the time?
Not quite. But at lighter loads the efficiency drops because of more regen cycles.
At heavier loads, I expect that the truck will burn more fuel, but a greater percentage of the fuel will be pushing the truck down the road and a smaller percentage will be dumped in the exhaust.

Quote:

the manufacturers have figured out how to get it back and then some since that time.
Maybe so, but that doesn't help those of us with older trucks.
And the improvements that have been made point out the poor performance and poor mileage of earlier systems.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Waross,

The increased heat from turbochargers is reduced by use of intercoolers. In the end, the improved volumetric efficiency resulting from recovery of work from exhaust is positive, particularly in throttled engines.

EGR gasses are often cooled reduce their impact on intake temperature (https://www.cambustion.com/products/egr).

Low Temperature Combustion (LTC) using Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) is a well known (if not yet mature) strategy to clean up soot and NOx. You can get a sense of how much work is being done in this area by entering "HCCI LTC site:www.energy.gov" (sans quotes) into Google.

Here's a chart showing the relations between equivalency (a value of one indicates stoichiometric). Note that NOx results from high temperature while soot results from running rich (which is unavoidable when fuel is injected into hot air).


I agree with others here that the current system of contraptions used to improve efficiency and reduce emissions is too complex. I've spent a good deal of time working to devise a simple form of HCCI LTC. It's not yet clear if I have been successful.


As for alternate fuels, I think the front runner in the race to save internal combustion has to be those that employ existing delivery infrastructure such as higher ethanol and biodiesel blends. Anything else requires a huge rebuild of infrastructure, and if a huge investment in infrastructure is required, we may as well go all-electic IMHO.

Rod


RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
Thank you everyone for your explanations and for the contributions to my continuing education.
Is it safe to say that the EPA DOES not believe in the effects of carbon dioxide on possible global warming?
I have often wondered about the economics of a system using renewable energy to supply both the energy to upgrade heavier fuels to propane and to extract hydrogen from water.
This would have the effect of adding hydrogen rather than dropping out carbon. This will result in more fuel out than fuel in.
The byproduct will be O2
This would also have the effect of working towards making renewable energy portable.

As far as HCCI, I understand that diesel engines have been run successfully on propane or natural gas by the simple expedient of introducing the gaseous fuel into the intake manifold. A small charge of diesel fuel was injected to ignite the charge.
Is this a step on the way to a poor man's HCCI? Not the best but an improvement. Possibly a step in a proof of concept project to combine LTC with gaseous fuels.
Rod; When a diesel engine is operated with a light load does that tend to produce even more soot?
Thanks

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

waross,

I hadn't heard of injecting propane or natural gas into diesel intakes, but this article from Engine Professional magazine says it does in fact reduce particulartes (soot): www.dieselperformanceproducts.com/images/news/engi... . That being said, I'm pretty sure wide adoption of this strategy would still require large changes to infrastructure.

Another possibility to improve diesel involves use of dimethyl ether which, I believe, is compatible with existing infrastructure. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether#Fuel . Also see the great overview of alternative fuels at www.energy.gov/downloads/chapter-7-advancing-syste...

I'm not 100% positive, but I think the culprit in particulate (soot) emissions is the rich blend at the boundary between the fuel spray and hot air, not the load. This view is supported by the chart below (from www.dieselnet.com/tech/emissions_idle.php) indicating 20 grams of particulates from 11.6 kg of fuel at idle (1.7 grams of particulates per kg of fuel) versus 197 grams of particulates from 197 kg of fuel while cruising (2 grams of particulates per kg of fuel). I have seen data indicating particulates jump during transient conditions, but I suspect that's due more to a fuel injection strategy (overly rich to maximize power during acceleration) than the inherent process.


Rod




RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
Is it feasible to allow higher combustion temperatures and more compensate with SCR or are we hitting the point of diminishing returns?

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
Anecdotally; back in the late 70s there was a surge in installations of propane systems and some natural gas systems.
Compressed natural gas systems were available but went nowhere. I saw a demonstration vehicle with high pressure natural gas storage tanks filling the trunk that had the equivalent capacity of about 3 gallons of gasoline.
There were a few niches for LNG.
My neighbour worked for the gas utility and drove a 3/4 ton van with an LNG conversion.
It worked well as long as he was using it but the LNG systems used the evaporation of the fuel as it was drawn off to keep the remainder cold enough to stay liquid.
If the vehicle was parked for a time, the temp in the tank would rise and the gas would start to vaporize and escape slowly through the pressure relief valve.
It was a slow process, it took about a week to lose all your liquid.
Another niche was occupied by Greyhound lines.
Back then a large part of Greyhounds business model was parcel express. It was reported that on many runs the express revenue paid the bills and passenger revenue was a bonus.
Due to the volume of parcel express moving between Vancouver BC Canada and Seattle Washington, about 150 miles, the parcel express was transported on semi trailer trucks.
They were reported to be using LNG for economy. The "Use it or Lose it" aspect was not an issue on the relatively short and easily planned haul.
Does anyone see any issues with adding propane to existing engines and using the dual fuel option.
Will a dual fuel system satisfy the EPA?
Will there be any mechanical issues with adding propane to a modern engine?



Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

waross.

If the major engine manufacturers thought they could get higher efficiencies by simply improving SCR, I imagine they would have done so already. I'm of the opinion there aren't any easy opportunities to improve emissions or efficiency remaining within the current paradigm. After DFI and/or HCCI, the only areas remaining are in new fuels (which is where study is now turning), and those may be slow in coming due (due to infrastructure costs and economies of production scale).

Rod

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Quote:

Does anyone see any issues with adding propane to existing engines and using the dual fuel option.
Will a dual fuel system satisfy the EPA?
Will there be any mechanical issues with adding propane to a modern engine?

Like anything else, properly engineered systems work great and are offered by any number of companies, poorly engineered solutions OTOH can cause all manner of issues. From a technical standpoint there a number of considerations that need to be kept in mind regarding existing (assuming you meant stock) engines. At higher blend ratios you have diesel/gasoline/kero/etc flow rates so low that many stock injectors may struggle to control. Intake manifolds, ducting, turbo/SC/boost systems for direct injection engines usually aren't optimized for the necessary equal cylinder-cylinder fuel distribution when running higher blend ratios. Onroad gaseous fuel system design whether it be CNG, LNG, or propane is an entire series of challenges unto themselves, not overly complex but involving a ton of tribal knowledge developed through experience and testing. Calibration is much the same, there's a ton of tribal knowledge involved with tuning two complete fuel systems that need to interact while acting independently. One good example of this is that compression-ignition engines will actually knock at higher blend ratios and may suffer preignition problems as well.

Regarding onroad non-blended CNG/LNG/other gaseous systems, there are a number of manufacturers building certified engine systems and/or complete vehicles and I'm sure a few certified kits as well. I lived in this world for an OE for a number of years in the recent past but never paid much attention to the kit builders as many of them at the time were rather homeshop'ey. In a nutshell, onroad gaseous systems are pretty mainstream today. In rural Indiana I regularly saw CNG semis hauling milk as I see them hauling cars and parts here in Detroit today. CNG stations are fairly commonplace here in the Midwest and LNG occasionally found in denser city populations. Personally I don't have the desire to own a gaseous fueled vehicle but have had colleagues who have without too much fuss.

Edit: I forgot to address the question regarding the EPA and blended/dual fuel engines. Yes, these engines are held to the diesel standard by the EPA.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
Rod;
"If the major engine manufacturers thought they could get higher efficiencies by simply improving SCR, I imagine they would have done so already. " Makes a lot of sense.
CWB1 Thanks for the heads up.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

If the fuel rate is not increased, the addition of a turbocharger or an increase in boost will reduce combustion temperatures. The extra mass shares the same heat input.

CNG is not very good as a supplementary fuel (fumigation). CNG/Air ratios much above about 1.3 (lambda) do not support a consistent flame front. Its Octane rating is very high so it can often work quite well as a primary fuel with about 5% pilot injection of diesel fuel for ignition. A reduction in boost is needed to maintain pre-conversion power levels and throttling to maintain part load mixtures below 1.3

je suis charlie

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

SCR isn't customer-friendly. It feels like having to add 2-stroke oil to your tank. (Car) manufacturers hoped that the alternative (highly complex) systems not requiring any user-intervention might be viable. They weren't. This experiment died when VW were caught out. Now that SCR is effectively required for all diesel cars, the systems might get better. As will the aftermarket options to delete them without detection. We still don't have anything purely passive for diesel NOx, like the (massively fortuitous) TWC that's standard on all gasoline vehicles.

Steve

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

spark ignition engines are per definition easier to clean up them compression ignition engines. a modern spark ignition engine runs on a fixed air/fuel ratio and the pollutants can be controlled by a TWC and eventually a additional filter for very small dust particles.

getting a diesel clean is much more difficult, given the fact that it runs on a varying air/fuel ratio and that given a specific combustion temperature you may end up with either high HC or high NOx. thus you are dealing with a lot more variables. to control the output you need rather complicated equipment that in itself, although cleaning up certain unwanted exhaust gas components, also can have a negative influence on specific fuel consumption.

apart from cleaning up exhaust gases comes the requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. that can only be achieved by burning less fuel - either through a lower power output and reduced speed or by making lighter vehicles. the latter is not that easy because we also want all kinds of comfort gadgets, airbags, crass protection structures etc. in fact the weight has come up quite a bit in a lot of vehicle types over the last 20 or so years....

for heavy vehicles it will be hard to stop using diesel engines, because in terms of mileage diesel still is superior. in terms of the optimal fuel in terms of cost and cleanliness there is the added problem that taxation of the various fuels is not equal and also varies tremendously from country to country. the end user probably decides on the basis of cost per km. it would be a good idea to tax the various fuels on the basis of actual pollution - where the taxation thus is in line with the contribution of the vehicle to pollution of the environment. unfortunately we are still a long way away from taxing the polluter for the dangers he causes to the health of all mankind.....

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

apart from cleaning up exhaust gases comes the requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. that can only be achieved by burning less fuel

Or fuel with lower carbon content eg methane or hydrogen.

je suis charlie

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Quote: it would be a good idea to tax the various fuels on the basis of actual pollution - where the taxation thus is in line with the contribution of the vehicle to pollution of the environment. unfortunately we are still a long way away from taxing the polluter for the dangers he causes to the health of all mankind..... /quote

Okay then, shall we park every truck in the world, and you can farm your own food? Make your own clothes and items?
It's not such a simple problem.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

(OP)
We are now paying a carbon tax. Both fuels and natural gas are taxed. Wait for it.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

China has instituted price controls aimed at keeping natural gas prices permanently below diesel on an equivalent gallon basis. They are also banning diesel trucks inside a lot of the most polluted cities. We are tripling our sales of natural gas fuel injectors in China despite USA tariffs on steels we are buying from Europe and Chinese tariffs on the injectors causing large price increases.

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

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Quote:

it would be a good idea to tax the various fuels on the basis of actual pollution

Quote:

It's not such a simple problem.

Not the least of which is the fact that "scientists" cant seem to agree on which exhaust compounds are the most harmful to nature, nvm the extent to which they are harmful. China's regulation creating an artificial demand for natural gas to the detriment of diesel assumes that excess methane emissions are preferable to excess soot, yet many folks argue otherwise. Stateside the EPA has done similar to a lesser extent, yet modern diesels are in many cases actually removing more manmade compounds from urban areas than they are emitting.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

I understand the fact that the Chinese have developed a liking for beef is producing a *lot* of methane (it turns out Ronald Reagan was right when he commented on "bovine flatulence" even though he took a lot of flack for it at the time). China is the elephant in the room when it comes to emissions; the western economies are mature and their emissions are in decline while China is responsible for most emissions and isn't even close to full economic maturity. On the plus side, they are the only ones moving forward with some of the more modern nuclear reactor designs; they have a high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) comin on line soon (see http://www.energy.sc.gov/files/gnac/NGNP_HTGR_Tech... for details).

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Methane is invisible to people; twilight-noon from soot isn't. Neither are brown horizons from NOx concentrations. I recall flying back from Los Angeles, CA, and looking down at the vast city as the plane headed East. When the terrain went from flat to foothills it was eerie to see a brown stain leaking in the shallow valleys towards the desert and realize that all of LA was hundreds of feet deep in that.

RE: Fuel Consumption versus Polution Abatement.

Methane is given a CO2 equivalence of 25. Way too much methane is released while drilling and fracking. The Obama admin EPA was about to put in tighter controls on oil field methane emissions but of course the tRump EPA nixed it.

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

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources

White Paper: Industrial Control Basics: Contactors
A contactor is an electrical device used for switching an electrical circuit on or off. Considered to be a special type of relay, contactors are used in applications with higher current carrying capacity, while relays are used for lower current applications. Download Now
Research Report: State of IoT Adoption in Product Development 2019
This research report, based on a survey of 234 product development professionals, examines the current state of Internet of Things (IoT) adoption by product design teams, its perceived importance, and what features and capabilities teams consider important when making decision about adding IoT functionality to their products. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close