Is the reign of the ICE ending?
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
So it is EPA regulations that allow me to buy a Suburban that gets 8-12mpg with gasoline and not a small diesel car that gets 50mpg?
Not really surprised there. Lets get some regs changed so we can see the forest through the trees.
Or maybe the fed and state governments realize that they will lose TONS of money if people are buying more efficient cars and lose revenue.
I've been to Europe many times and never seen a diesel that was even the slightest bit smoky.
One of the large Diesel engine manufacturers for big rigs, Navistar bet their company on selling a non SCR equipped diesel in the US. I don't know how it was resolved but the engines were practically un-drivable and If I remember correctly they owed the Fed a bundle in fines. Small European Diesels (as VW found out) have a choice install SCR or cheat. Fundamentally ideal fuel ratio is a balance of CO vs NOx production. Get rid of CO by running hot which ups NOx or run cold and get CO. In both cases there are catalysts that can be installed downstream of the engine to deal with both but they are costly (usually rare earth) relative to the cost of the vehicle and they extract power. It made sense that VW would have cheated on their low cost vehicles but a lot less so on the Touregs, Audis and Porsches.
The reasons small diesels are coming to the US is the corporate average fuel standards for trucks and SUVs. Even with catalysts diesels can be more efficient than gas engines and they tend to put out more torque. I don't see a lot of them being sold unless the manufacturers discount them to raise the fleet gas mileage. Ford and GM does it with their small cars, they sell them at or near a loss and force them on dealers in order to get them into the overall fleet mileage
Note that the Obama administration did substantially increase the fuel economy standards for large trucks, the current administration has stated that they are going to roll back those standards.
The reasons small diesels are coming to the US is the corporate average fuel standards for trucks and SUVs. Even with catalysts diesels can be more efficient than gas engines and they tend to put out more torque. I don't see a lot of them being sold unless the manufacturers discount them to raise the fleet gas mileage. Ford and GM does it with their small cars, they sell them at or near a loss and force them on dealers in order to get them into the overall fleet mileage
Note that the Obama administration did substantially increase the fuel economy standards for large trucks, the current administration has stated that they are going to roll back those standards.
Last edited:
Yes and because of that we drive many more miles. I have no issue with deisels but they should not take the place of developing alternatives. No electric vehicles wont work for everyone but they already will for many and they keep getting better.
Well I do have a problem when people take a perfectly good relativly clean burning truck and pump tons of extra fuel in making it blow huge clouds of smoke for no reason. You can make big power without doing that. It is just rediculous.
Went to dinner with a fellow the other day from the NIH. He recounted a study (from thirty years ago) that correlated local air pollution levels with hospital admits for cardiovascular events. They were expecting a small correlation that might be hard to see. Instead they found that nearly all the heart attacks occurred on days with poor air quality. This study (replicated several times by others) was the rationale for the clean air act, and tightening it up later on.
Other studies have shown that many cancers are caused by gasoline vapors, something like 2x the lifetime cancer risk if you live within 500 yards of a gas station. They **think** its the benzene component, so the EPA has been reducing allowed benzene levels.
Nowadays, people are studying the correlation between Parkinson's and Alzheimers and air pollution....also a fairly clear signal, but more difficult to study with the 20-30 year latency (people move around). And a lot of people in rural areas get more particulate exposure (due to diesel equipment, obsolete wood burners, etc)...and they are at elevated risk compared to some urban folks.
And yet people still think that pesticide residues are killing them...when it's the air around them.
Other studies have shown that many cancers are caused by gasoline vapors, something like 2x the lifetime cancer risk if you live within 500 yards of a gas station. They **think** its the benzene component, so the EPA has been reducing allowed benzene levels.
Nowadays, people are studying the correlation between Parkinson's and Alzheimers and air pollution....also a fairly clear signal, but more difficult to study with the 20-30 year latency (people move around). And a lot of people in rural areas get more particulate exposure (due to diesel equipment, obsolete wood burners, etc)...and they are at elevated risk compared to some urban folks.
And yet people still think that pesticide residues are killing them...when it's the air around them.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm fairly certain even non-modified diesel engines have been getting worse lately due to the NOx restrictions. They're nowhere near as bad as the utterly senseless practice of "rolling coal,"* but I swear trucks built in the last 5 years or so produce more visible soot under load than those from the 10 years before that. Our farm trucks growing up included Cummins engines from the early 90's and early 2000's. I don't recall ever noticing visible smoke from either, and since I was usually the one stacking the hay on the trailer, right behind the truck, under the low speed, high load conditions that are conducive to soot formation, I should have noticed. I would have been the one breathing it in.
The CO production peakbagger mentioned is due to partial combustion. Even worse partial combustion results in soot (aka, particulate matter). Designing for lower peak temperatures to avoid NOx formation results in worse partial combustion.
* Even if they think they're making some kind of vague political statement, I hear a much more clear statement, "I'm foolish enough to purposely coat my valves and injectors in carbon deposits and potentially increase cylinder abrasion, while reducing engine performance and wasting money on excess fuel use."
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
It's illegal too. A good discussion about diesel engines as part of a transportation system would not include the criminals that do this. It's like condemning all wood burners because some of them burn plastic milk jugs.
I know that those that do this do not at all reflect what diesels can and should run like I was not saying that at all.
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
Pollution is relative. In no way would I defend those that purposefully blow huge clouds of smoke into the air just to see the smoke and look macho...at the same time, I'd ride my motorcycle around the southern states for 8 days straight and rack up 3000 miles...just for fun. I'm polluting too..likely much more. One is just more socially acceptable.
no one is polluting for the sake of polluting nothing more. The other is riding your bike for pleasure which yes does pollute some yes but you are not doing it for the sole purpose creating pollution.
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
I've been known to "crop dust" my daughters for no reason other than to pollute their air space!
Easy Livin’ 3000
Minister of Fire
Easy Livin’ 3000
Minister of Fire
I guess this is good preparation for what they can expect from the boys they date when that time arises. Boys will be boys.
What, are we expected to hold it in?
Lloyd the redneck
Feeling the Heat
Heavy trucks were on the cusp of 13mpg. Then emissions came into play. And we are back to 1980. Later 90's engines were million mile engines and got 8-10mpg. 2007.5 went into effect and we wound back up in the 6-8 mpg and rebuilds at 300-500k. It's sad. We have the technology to be efficient. A million mile motor that gets 10 , much better than 8 plus 3 overhauls and atleast 2 catalyst systems made with rare earth heavy metals.
Yes but give them a couple years and they will be back up over 10 and close to the same durability all while reducing emissions. The same things happened with cars the first reduced emissions cars had problems now they are better than ever. And look at wood stoves every time the standards are tightened everyone freaks out but it ends up making better stoves.
jebatty
Minister of Fire
Efficient in terms of mpg does not mean necessarily free from emissions harmful to the health of humans and other living things. Other than water, is there any emission from combustion in ICE that is not contributing to the degradation of the environment?
You are absolutly correct a vehicle can be very fuel efficient while still emitting a lot of polution. But fuel efficiency should not be overlooked in the name of reduced emissions.
jebatty
Minister of Fire
Agreed. The focus on mpg likely has to do with the pump pricing of the fuel, which doesn't take into account all of the social, health, environmental and other external costs. The emission standards are partly an attempt to force the pricing to account for at least some of these external costs. I suspect that the pricing still does not account for all of the external costs, which then are borne by those who have to pay all of these other costs, either directly through suffering, sickness, death and loss of quality of life, or indirectly by increased costs of health insurance, water treatment, and taxes, etc., to pay these same costs.
There is some correlation between emissions and fuel efficiency. Most modern cars have achieved greatly reduced emissions while improving gas mileage. The Corvette is an example of an amazing improvement in both areas.
Yes that is usually the case but not always. Right now heavy trucks like loyd said are down pretty much in fuel efficiency. But i have little doubt that will change before long.
With respect to efficiency versus emissions, its actually not that simple. The main pollutants are particulate, Carbon Monoxide and NOx (nitrogen oxides). CO2 is primarily related to fuel input, make a more efficient engine and you get less CO2.
Carbon Monoxide is definitely a sign of inefficiency, it partially combusted fuel. CO out means more fuel in. NOx is the tricky one, NOx generation is related to a mix of fuel bound nitrogen that comes in with the fuel and thermal NOx which is generated in the engine if the combustion temp exceeds 2800 F. The problem is the best way to reduce CO is to maintain the combustion temps as high as possible and that leads to thermal NOX. Diesels operate at higher combustion temps ( which are primarily related to a compression ratio) then a gas engine. Its up to the manufacturer to make a choice, optimize CO removal or NOx removal. The non catalyst way to do that is exhaust gas recirculation. Exhaust gas is routed out of the exhaust manifold and metered back into the engine, this cools the peak combustion temps it unfortunately also increases the pumping losses of the engine as effectively inert gas is being moved through the engine twice. The EGR is fighting against highly efficient combustion so CO could go up. Most cars have O2 sensors in the exhaust, the main goal of this sensor is to ensure that the engine is running at the ideal air fuel ratio, too little air and the engine doesn't fully combust the fuel leading to CO, too much air and the engine is working harder to pump extra air. Many firms played the EGR game with diesel and EGR systems are still are in place on most cars but most firms have bit the bullet and installed CO and NOx catalysts. A CO catalyst is pretty simple and most woodburners know that they cause the CO to burn at a lower temperature, in theory the catalyst promotes this lower temp but there is no required additive to the catalyst. A NOx catalyst lowers a reaction temp where the NOx is broken back into its constituents. The chemistry is trickier as the reaction temp needs to be in range of temps, too low and the NOx doesn't react, too high and the catalyst can actually form more NOx. This reaction requires ammonia to work. Gaseous ammonia could be used but due to potential hazards with ammonia, most firms use urea, which when heated up forms ammonia. Urea is diluted with water to make it easy to handle so somewhere there has to be enough heat to evaporate out the water and additional heat to break down the urea into ammonia.
Particulate is generally a mix of various combustion reaction products mostly related to other compounds along for the ride with diesel. It also can be unburned carbon if the engine is not tuned efficiently. The only real fix is optimized combustion design and higher combustion temps but as discussed that can mean thermal NOx. The particulates usually are dealt with in particulate trap which captures the particulate in ceramic filter, that filter is regenerated on occasion by running the engine at higher temp. It unfortunately works like "cork" in the tailpipe and the engine has to work harder to move gases through the engine.
It is interesting to note that Diesel engines that run on plant based biodiesels generally put out far less particulate as the chemistry of the incoming fuel is lot cleaner. Unfortunately plant based diesel does tend to increase NOx (I haven't spent a lot of time researching this.
Add it all up and then let the politicians weigh in. Europe tends to have lot more low speed urban driving, they lack any significant liquid fossil fuels production and they have been through a series of oil shocks. Thus the policy was oriented to maximum fuel efficiency which is obtainable by a diesel and smaller displacement engines to maximize the urban cycle and then a turbo and possibly charge air cooling to get enough power for highway use. Unfortunately that has bit them in the butt as in order to maximize efficiency they didn't regulate NOx, now they are coming to conclusion that urban NOx is significant issue so they are stuck with the same issues that US firms have. The emission controls dont scale well, on a 50 K truck they are just a small percentage of the vehicle cost but add it to a small car and it's a much bigger percentage.
Carbon Monoxide is definitely a sign of inefficiency, it partially combusted fuel. CO out means more fuel in. NOx is the tricky one, NOx generation is related to a mix of fuel bound nitrogen that comes in with the fuel and thermal NOx which is generated in the engine if the combustion temp exceeds 2800 F. The problem is the best way to reduce CO is to maintain the combustion temps as high as possible and that leads to thermal NOX. Diesels operate at higher combustion temps ( which are primarily related to a compression ratio) then a gas engine. Its up to the manufacturer to make a choice, optimize CO removal or NOx removal. The non catalyst way to do that is exhaust gas recirculation. Exhaust gas is routed out of the exhaust manifold and metered back into the engine, this cools the peak combustion temps it unfortunately also increases the pumping losses of the engine as effectively inert gas is being moved through the engine twice. The EGR is fighting against highly efficient combustion so CO could go up. Most cars have O2 sensors in the exhaust, the main goal of this sensor is to ensure that the engine is running at the ideal air fuel ratio, too little air and the engine doesn't fully combust the fuel leading to CO, too much air and the engine is working harder to pump extra air. Many firms played the EGR game with diesel and EGR systems are still are in place on most cars but most firms have bit the bullet and installed CO and NOx catalysts. A CO catalyst is pretty simple and most woodburners know that they cause the CO to burn at a lower temperature, in theory the catalyst promotes this lower temp but there is no required additive to the catalyst. A NOx catalyst lowers a reaction temp where the NOx is broken back into its constituents. The chemistry is trickier as the reaction temp needs to be in range of temps, too low and the NOx doesn't react, too high and the catalyst can actually form more NOx. This reaction requires ammonia to work. Gaseous ammonia could be used but due to potential hazards with ammonia, most firms use urea, which when heated up forms ammonia. Urea is diluted with water to make it easy to handle so somewhere there has to be enough heat to evaporate out the water and additional heat to break down the urea into ammonia.
Particulate is generally a mix of various combustion reaction products mostly related to other compounds along for the ride with diesel. It also can be unburned carbon if the engine is not tuned efficiently. The only real fix is optimized combustion design and higher combustion temps but as discussed that can mean thermal NOx. The particulates usually are dealt with in particulate trap which captures the particulate in ceramic filter, that filter is regenerated on occasion by running the engine at higher temp. It unfortunately works like "cork" in the tailpipe and the engine has to work harder to move gases through the engine.
It is interesting to note that Diesel engines that run on plant based biodiesels generally put out far less particulate as the chemistry of the incoming fuel is lot cleaner. Unfortunately plant based diesel does tend to increase NOx (I haven't spent a lot of time researching this.
Add it all up and then let the politicians weigh in. Europe tends to have lot more low speed urban driving, they lack any significant liquid fossil fuels production and they have been through a series of oil shocks. Thus the policy was oriented to maximum fuel efficiency which is obtainable by a diesel and smaller displacement engines to maximize the urban cycle and then a turbo and possibly charge air cooling to get enough power for highway use. Unfortunately that has bit them in the butt as in order to maximize efficiency they didn't regulate NOx, now they are coming to conclusion that urban NOx is significant issue so they are stuck with the same issues that US firms have. The emission controls dont scale well, on a 50 K truck they are just a small percentage of the vehicle cost but add it to a small car and it's a much bigger percentage.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last fall Germany passed a law that bans the ICE by 2030. That's only 13 years away. Germany's auto industry is the world's 4th largest. Wondering if the EU will follow.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertel...d-of-internal-combustion-engine/#4ee7074c60bd
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertel...d-of-internal-combustion-engine/#4ee7074c60bd
gregbesia
Feeling the Heat
- Status
