More emissions in a burger than diesel these days

[PepperElf]

http://wardsauto.com/blog/charbroile...esel-prospects

An 18-wheeler would have to drive 143 miles (230 km) on the freeway to generate as many particulate emissions as one 1/3-lb. (0.15-kg) flame-broiled hamburger patty, according to University of California-Riverside researchers.

Pretty fascinating really. I mean who'd have thunk diesel was that clean? But really it's come a long way since the 70s & 80s.

[wolfie]

This might seem nitpicky, but "18 wheeler would have to drive 143 miles" to generate the same particulate emissions is not a fixed quantity.

First of all, does the 18 wheeler have a pre-2004 (acutally, unless it's a Cat which paid the fines, or an MBE4000 which wasn't subject to the consent decree, a pre-October 2002)engine, a 2004-2006 engine, a 2007-2009 engine, or a 2010 and later engine? I can guarantee that, all other factors being equal, a 2010 and later engine will produce FAR less particulate matter than a 2004-2006 engine.

Second, where is the 18 wheeler being driven? All other factors being equal, an 18 wheeler being driven over the Rockies will generate more particulates than one being driven on I80 across the salt flats in Utah, for the simple reason that going up long steep grades requires far more power than driving along a dead-flat road.

Third, what kind of trailer, and what kind of load? All other factors being equal, a truck pulling dry van loaded with empty water bottles will generate less particulate matter than if it were pulling a flatbed loaded with 40,000 pounds of farm machinery (better aerodynamics and less weight means less power needed).

Still, it's good that someone is pointing out the uselessnes of further tightening of emission controls (along with the added cost, both to purchase the newer equipment and the added fuel due to "clean" engines being less efficient). After all, what's the point of tighter standards on the engine if the majority of the "life cycle" particulate emissions for a particular trip come from cooking the driver's lunch?

[PepperElf]

personally i was just wondering if the diesel used was regular, or that new piss-laced stuff.

http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/8896

although it looks like the study focused a lot more on the stuff in the burger vs the stuff in the car.

[wolfie]

personally i was just wondering if the diesel used was regular, or that new piss-laced stuff.

The new diesel isn't piss-laced - engines manufactured starting in 2010 (except for International, and they'll be doing it too starting next year) get an aftertreatment device to get rid of oxides of nitrogen. This aftertreatment device uses a separate (not mixed with the fuel) ultra-pure urea solution that reacts with the oxides of nitrogen to produce nitrogen gas and water vapour. Urea (in a much less pure form) is a fairly common fertilizer.

[PepperElf]

The new diesel isn't piss-laced - engines manufactured starting in 2010 (except for International, and they'll be doing it too starting next year) get an aftertreatment device to get rid of oxides of nitrogen. This aftertreatment device uses a separate (not mixed with the fuel) ultra-pure urea solution that reacts with the oxides of nitrogen to produce nitrogen gas and water vapour. Urea (in a much less pure form) is a fairly common fertilizer.

ooo so ... the stuff in diesel is already cleaner than burger emissions without killing the mpg with urea additives?


dang

[wolfie]

ooo so ... the stuff in diesel is already cleaner than burger emissions without killing the mpg with urea additives?


dang

Actually, the engines that use urea get BETTER mileage than the previous (2007-2009) generation. The reason for this is that there are 2 regulated pollutants for diesels: particulates and oxides of nitrogen. The Diesel Particulate Filter added for 2007 engines (assuming Canada and U.S., heavy-duty diesels) traps and burns off particulates. Oxides of nitrogen are handled by 2 methods: Exhaust Gas Recirculation (also used for this purpose on gasoline engines) and Selective Catalyst Reduction (the urea system).

EGR (either brought in, or increased - conflicting sources) for 2004 (most engines, actually October 2002 due to an issue with cheating on tests) hurts fuel economy. Most of the engine manufacturers figured they wouldn't be able to handle the 2010 standards by EGR alone (International thought they could, but they've backtracked), and added the SCR. With SCR in place, they were able to cut back on the percentage of recirculated exhaust, letting the aftertreatment deal with it. By cutting back on EGR, they improved the fuel economy (and the Diesel Exhaust Fluid is cheaper per gallon than diesel).

Even with the 2007-2009 generation of engines, in highly polluted areas (like Los Angeles), the exhaust was cleaner than the intake air.

From what I've seen in the trade press, this is what happened with fuel economy:

2004 emissions: increased fuel consumption
2007 emissions: increased fuel consumption
2010 emissions: decreased fuel consumption, although I haven't seen any conclusive evidence as to how far it's decreased (whether to 2004 levels, pre-2004 levels, or some intermediate level).

[PepperElf]

o i thought you had just said they hadn't started using it yet. my bad