With regard to the recent EPA rules on cars and some of the discussion, there was commentary to the effect of "what gives you the right to pollute my air" and "what problem is it really solving?" and "the EPA doesn't know what it's doing".
This highlights the discussion well, I think:
California Clean Air Board Ignoring Deadly Truck Fires
"California truck and business owners initiated a lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board because of exploding trucks and roadside fires, due to the CARB’s mandatory, faulty diesel particulate filters, they say. Ironically, the filters even fail at cleaning the air."
"But even worse, the Diesel Particulate Filter clogs, causing engine fires. These engine fires erupt, and have caused numerous very serious and even deadly accidents, as well as devastating property damage."
"Prior to passage by the California Legislature of AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, and the basis for all of the CARB regulations, Enstrom was on record with a peer-reviewed study in 2005, which showed that fine particulate matter does not kill California residents—the basis of California’s restrictions on diesel engines because of their contributions to particulate air pollution health effects."
As they say, "read the whole thing."
Even if they don't catch on fire - I know a guy who removed the EGR and DPF systems from his 6.7 Cummins. Fuel economy increased by about 15-20% and if the stories are to be believed, the engine lifespan was increased due to decreased carbon in the intake.
Over 100,000 miles, we're talking about a decrease in fuel usage of around 1000 gallons of diesel for mixed use city driving. It would be more for a truck that's towing on the interstate. Between that and the increased engine lifespan, it looks as if those devices came with a heavy tradeoff.
I'm not sure what to make of that article.
What's the association of 30,000psi head pressure and DPFs? There's no way that the engine is making 30,000 psi in the exhaust- it will pop leaks all over the place before it ever gets that high. Even 300psi in the exhaust seems to be a major stretch- that's 20 atm of pressure. 30k psi in the fuel system- sure. But the implication that it was in the thousands not long ago isn't true, as it's always been very high. Once diesels went to electronic control, then the pressure went from the injector as it's own pump to a rail pressure of 20-30k psi. None the less- how that's related to the DPF is an interesting stretch.
Why do they say that the fires are CARB's fault? The requirement is for trucks of a certain age will require to meet a PM standard with a DPF. If the retrofit is done badly, and fires result- that seems to be the fault of the installer, not the requirement. 31 fires is a lot, but these trucks have been in use like this since 2012, and there are a lot of trucks in California. Again, that seems more of an issue of the ones doing the retrofit, not the regulation- in the 80's, cars were known to start grass fires, that was not the regulations fault, but the fault of the implementation....
As for the emissions claims that PM is not harmful. Well.. I'll just disagree with that. Not sure how one can pretend that's not bad, to the point where it should not be regulated.
Here's the last thing that kind of makes me question this claim. The connection of air quality rules to AB 32- California’s Global Warming Solutions Act. You can read the rule here- http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm No where in that rule is mention of PM, NOx, CO, or HC's that have been regulated for a long time. And, in theory, what this article is supposed to be talking about.
I don't see this lawsuit going forward very far. Unrelated lose ends being put together for a law suit does not make a good case.
Keith Tanner wrote:
Even if they don't catch on fire - I know a guy who removed the EGR and DPF systems from his 6.7 Cummins. Fuel economy increased by about 15-20% and if the stories are to be believed, the engine lifespan was increased due to decreased carbon in the intake.
Over 100,000 miles, we're talking about a decrease in fuel usage of around 1000 gallons of diesel for mixed use city driving. It would be more for a truck that's towing on the interstate. Between that and the increased engine lifespan, it looks as if those devices came with a heavy tradeoff.
That suggests that diesel trucks should not share in the need to keep the air quality good. Should cars be SULEV20 so that trucks can emit at will?
In reply to alfadriver:
The PM effects in question were studied and peer reviewed and noted not to produce the ill-effects that precipitated the legislation to use the filters.
Regardless of the pressures you note or question, there seems to be little doubt that the add on causes fires resulting in damage and death.
Thus the statements in the other articles about "what problem are we solving?". In this case, one that didn't need solved.
Further, the regulations were propagated on studies not peer reviewed, as opposed to prior research which was.
In light of questionable science, at best, resulting in dangerous effects, it's just bad policy.
I'd hardly call property being burned to the ground and serious injury and death "unrelated loose ends".
In reply to OldGray320i:
With that reply, at least I see that I have no reason to pretend that we can have a rational discussion of the faults of that article. You bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Good luck.
My point- the reference a specific law that has nothing to do with the issue, they bring up a pressure number that has nothing to do with the exhaust, and I don't see how the regulation is at fault for failures like this.
We can agree to disagree about the air quality stuff. As an engineer who's task it is to meet these rules, I'm quite fine with them. Heck, I see the possibility of financial advantage to whoever does it the best.
Done.
alfadriver wrote:
Keith Tanner wrote:
Even if they don't catch on fire - I know a guy who removed the EGR and DPF systems from his 6.7 Cummins. Fuel economy increased by about 15-20% and if the stories are to be believed, the engine lifespan was increased due to decreased carbon in the intake.
Over 100,000 miles, we're talking about a decrease in fuel usage of around 1000 gallons of diesel for mixed use city driving. It would be more for a truck that's towing on the interstate. Between that and the increased engine lifespan, it looks as if those devices came with a heavy tradeoff.
That suggests that diesel trucks should not share in the need to keep the air quality good. Should cars be SULEV20 so that trucks can emit at will?
I think the key part of that was 1000 gallons fewer of diesel used.... what does that correlate to in overall outputs?
OldGray320i wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
Keith Tanner wrote:
Even if they don't catch on fire - I know a guy who removed the EGR and DPF systems from his 6.7 Cummins. Fuel economy increased by about 15-20% and if the stories are to be believed, the engine lifespan was increased due to decreased carbon in the intake.
Over 100,000 miles, we're talking about a decrease in fuel usage of around 1000 gallons of diesel for mixed use city driving. It would be more for a truck that's towing on the interstate. Between that and the increased engine lifespan, it looks as if those devices came with a heavy tradeoff.
That suggests that diesel trucks should not share in the need to keep the air quality good. Should cars be SULEV20 so that trucks can emit at will?
I think the key part of that was 1000 gallons fewer of diesel used.... what does that correlate to in overall outputs?
One last post- the requirements are in g/mi. So even with the 1000 fewer gallons used, it would still be far fewer gas emissions. The rules have been that way since '68. And just because the trucks do a dyno cert, that does not change that it's gas mass vs. distance traveled.
I invite you to get involved with policy if this bugs you that much. I'm sure CARB and EPA ar hiring, or you can find a lobbying company to do it to them. That way, you will have a better understanding of the laws, what the intention is, and how they work.
Edit- correction- I just remembered that the HD trucks are in mass per time on.
and if you think that the net emissions are better by using that much less fuel and not the hardware, then the OEM of the truck would not have put them on in the first place.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study
I see your study and raise another that relates 9500 deaths per year dude to particulate matter, N2 and NOx compounds.. I'm not going to aruge it either way, just to say.. I support clean air and the air in LA is cleaner thanks to CARB. Are all their laws perfect, no.. but I'm not throwing out better for best.
Dr. James Enstrom is a big money tobacco shill.. I don't care if he says the sky is blue.. Not listening to him.
Knurled
MegaDork
2/19/16 12:53 p.m.
I thought the Rockies glacial melt and disappearances was traced to Chinese soot changing the ice's albedo, causing it to absorb more sunlight/heat instead of reflecting it.
But particulates aren't harmful.
no... we don't need to control emissions.... we just had the hottest January on record...........
Chuckle. It's worth downloading his paper for reading. http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/IT121505.pdf
alfadriver wrote:
OldGray320i wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
Keith Tanner wrote:
Even if they don't catch on fire - I know a guy who removed the EGR and DPF systems from his 6.7 Cummins. Fuel economy increased by about 15-20% and if the stories are to be believed, the engine lifespan was increased due to decreased carbon in the intake.
Over 100,000 miles, we're talking about a decrease in fuel usage of around 1000 gallons of diesel for mixed use city driving. It would be more for a truck that's towing on the interstate. Between that and the increased engine lifespan, it looks as if those devices came with a heavy tradeoff.
That suggests that diesel trucks should not share in the need to keep the air quality good. Should cars be SULEV20 so that trucks can emit at will?
I think the key part of that was 1000 gallons fewer of diesel used.... what does that correlate to in overall outputs?
One last post- the requirements are in g/mi. So even with the 1000 fewer gallons used, it would still be far fewer gas emissions. The rules have been that way since '68. And just because the trucks do a dyno cert, that does not change that it's gas mass vs. distance traveled.
I invite you to get involved with policy if this bugs you that much. I'm sure CARB and EPA ar hiring, or you can find a lobbying company to do it to them. That way, you will have a better understanding of the laws, what the intention is, and how they work.
Edit- correction- I just remembered that the HD trucks are in mass per time on.
and if you think that the net emissions are better by using that much less fuel and not the hardware, then the OEM of the truck would not have put them on in the first place.
I'm sure all the various hardware is necessary to meet the specific emissions rules. My point was the unintentional tradeoff. A surprising cost in fuel economy and engine lifespan, both of which have effects on pollution - fuel extraction, transport and refining as well as the mess that is involved in rebuilding or repairing a carboned-up engine. I'm looking at a big picture instead of what's spewing out the tailpipe of one vehicle at a given moment.
I don't know if it's a worthwhile tradeoff or not, but I suspect it was a (mostly) unsuspected one. Some fuel economy tradeoff for lower emissions, sure. But not to that extent so quickly.
I have a good anecdote about a guy testing one of the first DPF's and walking around the truck in shorts. Basically he got a free leg wax and the asphalt under the truck was a bit spongy.
Ford a had a bit of an issue with the 6.4.
http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/news/08sdrecall/08sdrecall.html
for what it is worth, didn't we see these same arguments against catalytic converters back in the day too?
Yes, I do remember those gloomy days back in the 70s when not only HP died, but so did efficiency, and even smooth running. It took technology to catch up and fix all those stumbles, which I am sure it will in the next generation or two
In reply to mad_machine:
There are people today who will tell you that modern cars are awful and unsafe and they want the good old days of points and Rochester single-barrel carbs on inline sixes, because they will never leave you stranded, since you can fix them with a matchbook and a pocket knife.
mad_machine wrote:
for what it is worth, didn't we see these same arguments against catalytic converters back in the day too?
Yes, I do remember those gloomy days back in the 70s when not only HP died, but so did efficiency, and even smooth running. It took technology to catch up and fix all those stumbles, which I am sure it will in the next generation or two
The argument I and others have made is not against safer cleaner air, it's a question of what's being regulated at what cost and for what/how much effect.
So, let's protect people from DPM, while at the same time mandating a regulation to install a part which will burn them to death. That's certainly a rational approach.
"Diesel Responsible For Less Than 6% of Particulate Emissions in U.S." (http://www.dieselforum.org/news/advancements-in-clean-diesel-technology-and-fuel-to-continue-major-reductions-in-black-carbon-emissions)
Can I find a non-diesel forum to find such a statistic? Nope - only site after site to state how terrible diesel is, but that for between $5,000 and $10,000 per school bus, I can have somebody improperly install a DPM filter that sets the children on fire.
Ironically, Fueled by Caffeine posts the Ford SD truck DPMs catching on fire (hey Alfa Driver, were those improperly installed at the factory? Sorry, that's irrational of me to say that...)
I hate diesel soot. I do everything I can to avoid being behind any diesel. Car, truck, delivery van, all of them. Can't stand diesels (except that 18 wheelers are cool - except if I'm filling my lungs with their diesel soot).
If they can find a way to make that crappy diesel exhaust soot and all that other crap go away, God bless them I'll love them forever.
But my god, really?
