« DOE Announces Hydrogen Storage Funding Opportunity | Main | Hymotion Delivers Converted Plug-in Prius to Car-Sharing Service »
Prospects for Light-Duty Diesels in the US
23 August 2006
On paper, clean advanced technology diesel passenger cars and light-duty trucks should be charging into the US market. The changeover to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel that takes affect this year—a profound change akin to the removal of lead from gasoline, according to the EPA—opens the door to advanced emissions aftertreatment controls that can meet tough US emissions regulations.
The torque and power of diesels should appeal to US drivers, and the increased fuel economy of diesels compared to current gasoline counterparts should appeal to drivers as well.
But while acknowledging all of the above and stating that they are planning diesel introductions into the US market, a panel at DEER 2006 comprising GM, DaimlerChrysler, BMW, Honda, Volkswagen the EPA and the Martec Group also noted some major hurdles to a rapid proliferation of diesel models in the US.
A common worry shared by the automakers is that the costs associated with overcoming some of the issues will further increase the price of diesels, reducing the economic incentive for buyers. Should the price of oil collapse, they worry about the potential for a repeat of the diesel boom and bust of the 1980s.
The technical hurdles can be grouped into two basic categories which are inter-related:
- Emissions compliance, specifically the NOx limits; and
- Fuel quality.
Emissions. The US Tier 2 regulations—which are converging with California LEV regulations—are the toughest in the world. A future Euro-5 diesel passenger car won’t qualify for Tier 2 Bin 5. Automakers are developing advanced combustion regimes with associated reductions in engine-out NOx and aftertreatment systems to hit the target.
On the NOx front, Lean NOx traps (LNT) and urea SCR systems are the leading approaches automakers are exploring. LNT has limitations in efficiency that make it less suited for larger vehicles and in durability, and urea SCR faces the fundamental issue of getting the EPA on board with its use, given potential issues with compliance. (How, in other words, do you ensure that drivers replenish the urea to ensure that the emissions aftertreatment system continues to work?)
Fuel quality. The variable range and threshold of some properties of US diesel fuel raises a number of issues for the automakers. For example, US diesel cetane numbers range from 38-58; European numbers range from 50-60. US aromatics can range from 13% to 50%.
The wide range and lower threshold of centane numbers drives a need for a variety of engine modifications, including more EGR, and more cold starting aids on the engine, according to Ford’s Brien Fulton in a separate presentation at DEER. High aromatics also increase engine deposits, EGR deposits and exhaust system deposits. These, and other factors, limit the synergies with European diesel powertrain technologies for the US.
The automakers. Of the automakers participating in the panel, GM was the least committal toward a product direction.
Diesel powertrains satisfy unique vehicle requirements in utility and large vehicles, but the economic payback diminishes as you go down in vehicle class...the proportion of the financial improvement diminishes, and it becomes more of a challenge to bear the cost of powertrain additions that go along with the diesel technology.
Not seeing a clear solution to meeting Tier 2 Bin 5 requirements, GM has been reluctant to introduce a vehicle.
In principle, if diesel is ever going to be widely accepted as a fuel solution in North America, it needs to be seen as comparable to its gasoline counterparts [in terms of emissions]. That ultimately is where we need to be. As long as there is a perception that diesel is an exception, it will never be widely accepted by the regulatory community or consumers.
—Michael Potter, Chief Engineer, Diesel Technology, GM Powertrain-Europe
DaimlerChrysler, which is outspoken about its BLUETEC technology framework as being the “Tier 2 Bin 5” enabler (earlier post), is nonetheless primarily relying on Bin 8-compliant introductions over the next year. A big consumer factor for DaimlerChrysler is the image of diesel.
For an expanded diesel market, the image has to be right. If we are going to go into the mainstream, we’re looking at regular sedans and SUVs...it’s very important to get the image right.
—Simon Godwin, DaimlerChrysler Manager for Regulatory Affairs
BMW is planning on diesels in both its sedans and SUVs for North America, and has sketched out a Tier 2 Bin 5 approach that relies on modified combustion, an advanced EGR system, an adapted fuel injection system, new control devices, additional sensors, OBD functions, a DPF and urea SCR system.
Wolfgang Mattes, BMW’s director of functional development, was particularly concerned about the problem of On-Board Diagnostics that meet US requirements.
We need some compromises to get diesel in [to the US market], such as the phase-in period for OBD.
—Wolfgang Mattes
Honda, given its recently announced strategic direction to use diesel powertrains for fuel-efficiency in its larger vehicles, was very bullish about its technical approach (earlier post) as well as on the potential benefits of diesel.
We want to contribute for clean diesel technology as we have for the gasoline engine.
—Yasuyuki Sando, Honda Senior Manager Advanced Powertrain
Volkswagen has been selling diesels in the US for more than 25 years. Diesels currently constitute about 15% of its US sales.
[Diesel] will succeed by delivering increased efficiency, reduced CO2 emissions, high levels of performance, and being the best platform for renewable fuels including biodiesel, sunfuel and sundiesel.
—Klaus-Peter Schindler, Volkswagen
Schindler noted that diesels will compete against and have to coexist with other technologies, including advances in gasoline engine technology, the success of hydrogen, and the potential public focus on long-term solutions, such as hydrogen.
August 23, 2006 in Conferences and other events, Diesel, Emissions, Engines, Market Background | Permalink | Comments (47) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/5770041
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prospects for Light-Duty Diesels in the US:
Comments
Mike - thanks for providing updates on presentations from the DEER conference.
Posted by: Carl | Aug 23, 2006 9:47:47 AM
"Honda...was very bullish about its technical approach as well as on the potential benefits of diesel."
..."bullish"
?????
Posted by: John W. | Aug 23, 2006 9:54:39 AM
Should the price of oil collapse? LOL!!!! Everyone start shorting the oil market!!! :)
Posted by: Chingy | Aug 23, 2006 10:11:00 AM
A price collapse is still in the realm of possiblity. But I think it's unlikely to fall very far.
And "bullish" means "positive". They think the market will grow. I'd buy a Honda diesel, myself. And probably will once it's on the market.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 23, 2006 11:00:20 AM
"For example, US diesel cetane numbers range from 38-58; European numbers range from 50-60. US aromatics can range from 13% to 50%."
_Perhaps the large profits oil companies (specifically those with refinery ops) have been racking up should be spent on rectifying this issue. It should also go towards getting 15ppm ULSD in place sooner, and <10ppm ULSD online quickly afterwards. More refinery capacity and the activation, enlargement, update and upgrade of closed down refineries is a further place to spend their cash. After all, we are lacking reinery capacity.
_
___Biodiesel and various blends of it may be the ticket for less particulates, though NOX will have to be dealt with.
Posted by: allen Z | Aug 23, 2006 11:28:20 AM
<15ppm sulpher is here already. It's at many pumps right now and mandated for something like 50% adoption by October. The article states the problem is the wild variance in cetane and aromatics. Agreed with others to take some of those tens of billions in profits and reinvest in properly refining it to a tight cetane window, like +/- 5% of 55 cetane, and a fixed aromatics figure like 15%.
Posted by: Sid Hoffman | Aug 23, 2006 12:13:19 PM
My dream car (as a replacement for my wife's Accord): The new, still-unnamed, 2009 hybrid-only Honda is a plug-in clean diesel hybrid that gets about 120MPG.
Right now that sounds like it's bordering on SciFi, but all the pieces are here or will be very soon.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Aug 23, 2006 12:17:22 PM
"Should the price of oil collapse, they worry about the potential for a repeat of the diesel boom and bust of the 1980s."
That's BS. Diesels went bust in the 1980s because GM put too much trash on the market. We are still living with the consequences today.
I want a small turbocharged diesel driving a hybrid.
Posted by: Lucas | Aug 23, 2006 2:32:24 PM
Lucas, it's not BS about diesels going bust in the 80's. Yes, GM's 350 V8 wasn't developed properly, and it created a PR problem. But what about all the other manufacturers who were selling lots of diesels in the late 70's early 80's? Mercedes was almost all diesel then, and by 85 had almost none. VW, Peugeot,etc. had been selling lots of diesels during the high fuel price era, but when oil went bust and prices came down, their buyers almost all evaporated. Let's face it, all diesels were noisy, smelly and slow then. In the face of cheap gas prices, interest in diesels evaporated. The GM issue was just another nail in the coffin.
Posted by: pauln | Aug 23, 2006 3:09:35 PM
Who knows what will happen with the price of oil? But what I want to know is the image of diesels that consumers have in the USA. Many remember the smelly, noisy, and dirty diesels of the 80s. Can automakers overcome this image?
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr. | Aug 23, 2006 3:18:47 PM
In 1981 I bought a 1981 Isuzu Diesel Pickup. According to the mpg sticker and the salesman I was supposed to get 41 mpg. Never even got close.
Neigbor was a lawyer. He bought two GM diesels. Left one in California when it blew up. Gave the other one back to GM. His threat to file suit got him a full refund.
You couldn't get him to even think about a GM or diesel now.
It's a lot more than image.
Posted by: Lucas | Aug 23, 2006 6:50:06 PM
The GM Diesels from the early 80's were half baked and total garbage. Then again that was 25 years ago and so I would say that those incidents have anything to do with modern diesels except they were diesels. Gail Banks makes big reliable power out of GM's Duramax diesels so I guess they've come a long way.
Posted by: Tim Russell | Aug 23, 2006 7:36:36 PM
Sid and Lou, I seldom hear anyone advocating a plug-in diesel-electric hybrid. That is also my dream car. It would work perfectly for my nice short commute to work. I would love to scrap my brake rotors and add regenertive braking.
I also agree that it is time to employ the existing technology for 100+ mpg diesels.
Credible people are forcasting that crude oil will approach $30/ barrel before $100/barrel. I am not in the industry so I don't know.
Even if oil prices decline it would still be nice to get 100 mpg. I really don't like sending all that money to the middle east every time I buy fuel.
I would not be at all surprised if Honda figures out a good solution to NOX polution and then gobbles up market share with an Accord type diesel.
I think consumers realize that the diesel automobiles that are being sold now are better than the ones in the 1980s. The gasoline powered cars were not exactly reliable back then either, but people still buy gas cars. Millions of people buy diesel pick-up trucks. They all know the benefits of diesel.
Posted by: Jon | Aug 23, 2006 7:44:10 PM
Actually right before the end of production, the GM V8 diesel had been developed into one hell of a good engine. In its final form it displaced about 396 cubic inches, and it was fitted with a special injection pump whose wearing surfaces were coated with teflon. The horsepower was derated to enhance its long term reliability. It was called the Fuel Miser Diesel, which when fitted in a 7 ton chassis(the kind they use in bread delivery trucks; etc,) with a 4 speed Allison Automatic transmission and a differential gear ratio of over 6:1 was rated to get 39 M.P.G.!
It quite simply was utterly revolutionary.
Unfortunately, the emission control legislation mandated by the good old Clean Air Act of 1991 (with the support of all the good enviromentalists, of course) doomed it. This is just another good example of E.P.A. emission controls screwing up diesel fuel economy, and causing this country to import much, much more oil than is necessary.
Posted by: Dave Zeller | Aug 23, 2006 7:57:44 PM
Dave, the engine you are refering to was a completely different engine. The lemon diesel was based on the Olds 350 engine (5.7 liter). The truck engine was designed from scratch to be a light truck engine, and the later turbo-charged version is what every miltary Humvee and other light trucks uses. It wasn't doomed by the EPA; it was sold in Chevy/GMC light trucks until it was replaced by the much more advanced and powerful direct-injection Duramax engine. The older engine is still being installed for military Humvees. By the way this engine was never installed in passenger cars. GM did make a 4.3 liter V6 diesel that had (to my knowledge) a good rep, but by then GM had vlown it with the 5.7. For what it's worth, if fuel prices had stayed high in the 80's, GM would likely have developed the 5.7 car diesel to become reliable too. But dropping gas prices made it irrelevant.
Posted by: pauln | Aug 23, 2006 9:33:30 PM
Dave Zeller wrote:
Unfortunately, the emission control legislation mandated by the good old Clean Air Act of 1991 (with the support of all the good enviromentalists, of course) doomed it. This is just another good example of E.P.A. emission controls screwing up diesel fuel economy, and causing this country to import much, much more oil than is necessary.
Dave, are you proposing that we should breathe dirtier air, and all be driving these great diesels? There are plenty of cars today that get great mileage and have clean engines. You sound pretty dismissive of the EPA and "all the good environmentalists". Are you one of those guys who don't care how many children grow up with scarred lungs as long as you can save a few bucks on fuel? The name of this blog is Green Car Congress, I might point out.
Posted by: George | Aug 23, 2006 10:01:28 PM
Are you one of those guys who don't care how many children grow up with scarred lungs as long as you can save a few bucks on fuel?
This question is akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" And it's an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy. At some point the costs associated with emissions reductions outstrip the benefits in reduced risk of health problems. You will never be able to reduce the health risks to zero, nor will you remove every last particle of soot from diesel exhaust. It's not a perfect world.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 23, 2006 10:59:01 PM
At some point the costs associated with emissions reductions outstrip the benefits in reduced risk of health problems.
Really? What point is that? Tell us where it is.
It's not a perfect world.
Speaking of logical fallacies... yeah, it's not a perfect world. I think everyone knows that. That doesn't mean we then don't try to make improvements.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2006 12:20:15 AM
"Are you one of those guys who don't care how many children grow up with scarred lungs as long as you can save a few bucks on fuel?"
Hmmmm, these pollution controls constitute an improvement in our health? I'll try to explain it like this using a comparison.
A 7 ton class Mitsubishi truck (previously discussed on the website a few months back) using a 2.8L diesel equipped with the latest EPA mandated pollution controls will only achieve around 11 m.p.g.
An obsolete 7 ton GM Fuel Miser will achieve 39 mpg. It does this whilst producing pretty much the same horsepower as the Mitsubishi.
The Mitsubishi, per mile, burns fuel at a rate 3.54X that of the "polluting" Fuel Miser. In other words, if both commercial vehicles are driven 100,000 miles per year, the GM would burn 2564 gallons of fuel, and the Mitsubishi will go through 9090 gallons of that nasty sulfur-laden stuff!
Could someone here tell me how in the hell an engine that pukes out the exhaust resulting from the combustion of 3.54X the fuel than is really necessary is considered more healthy and "green" than that which burns the least?
Shall we refer to this as "The Death of Common Sense"?
Posted by: Dave Zeller | Aug 24, 2006 3:22:30 AM
US diesel fuel quality will hopefully be addressed as more diesels penetrate the US auto market. We need to address poor fuel quality in order to reduce the cost of using diesels. The lower the quality of fuel, the more sensors are going to be needed to adjust engine electronics to optimize emissions. Why not improve the fuel quality and reduce the cost of usage and purchase (less post combustion treatment needed). An ultra premium grade can be refined by GTL (no sulfur and high cetane) from natural gas. Unfortunately, it appears we still look at diesel in the US as a tractor fuel.
Posted by: Craig | Aug 24, 2006 5:14:35 AM
George, et al, if diesel engines are so bad for air quality, why doesn’t the air quality statistically improve on weekends (yes, I’m bringing up that pesky weekend ozone effect again) when diesel truck traffic has been shown to decrease by as much as 80% (http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2005/lawson.pdf)? Not only don’t ambient ozone levels improve, but I see no evidence that ambient PM2.5 levels improve significantly. This is based on EPA monitoring data (see http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.archives&RegionID=0). And this pre-dates the upcoming much-cleaner-diesels mandated for both light-duty (Tier 2) and heavy-duty (2007 HD regs).
I don’t share everyone else’s assumption that the latest regs (Tier 2/LEV II) are some “magic bullet” with respect to clean air. They’re very strict WRT NOx emissions, but not strict at all WRT carbon monoxide emissions (CO emission limits have changed virtually none from Tier 1 - http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html). The same Tier 1 4.2 grams/mile FUL limit is retained for Tier 2 (down to Bin 5). Yet CO is not only an ozone precursor, there are still areas of the country that are in “serious” non-attainment with the CO NAAQS (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/mapco.html).
Posted by: Carl | Aug 24, 2006 6:26:02 AM
Shall we refer to this as "The Death of Common Sense"?
I would refer to it as someone stating a lot of things anecdotally without providing any evidence.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2006 7:58:44 AM
George, et al, if diesel engines are so bad for air quality, why doesn’t the air quality statistically improve on weekends (yes, I’m bringing up that pesky weekend ozone effect again) when diesel truck traffic has been shown to decrease by as much as 80%
This has already been covered before. First of all, no one has the certain answers. Second of all, if it is caused by some weird effect, it has to do with the pollution dynamics of the current emissions band. Obviously if emissions go towards zero, then there would be nothing triggering pollution. This is common sense.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2006 8:01:53 AM
Joseph, there are NATURAL sources of "pollutants" including NOx. You're NEVER going to get to zero.
Posted by: Carl | Aug 24, 2006 8:18:32 AM
Joseph, there are NATURAL sources of "pollutants" including NOx. You're NEVER going to get to zero.
Did you see the word "TOWARDS" that I used?
Try again, please.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2006 8:22:32 AM
"First of all, no one has the certain answers."
That's true (virtually all of the dissension is from CARB). There's also some dissension about anthropogenically-linked global climate change.
This is from a graduate-level environmental engineering course I completed:
"…The atomic oxygen produced by the photolysis of NO2 is very reactive and readily combines with O2 in the air to form O3. In the presence of NO, however, the O3 will immediately decompose, regenerating the nitrogen dioxide. This nitrogen dioxide photolytic cycle is summarized in the following three reactions.
NO2 + hv --> NO + O
O + O2 --> O3
O3 + NO --> NO2 + O2
Hence, while the presence of NO2 is required to form O3, the nitrogen dioxide photolytic cycle by itself does not generate net ozone, and cannot explain ozone accumulation….
...ROG [VOC] reductions (with constant NOx) always lead to a slowing of the ozone production process and lower peak ozone concentrations. NOx reductions (with constant ROG) can lead to a speeding up of the ozone process, and can increase or decrease peak ozone values depending on the ROG-to-NOx ratio.
Thus, whereas ROG control is never detrimental, NOx control can be detrimental, particularly in the central cores of urban areas...."
Source: Air Pollution Control, A Design Approach; Cooper, D. C.; Alley, F. C.; Third Edition, pages 595 and 600
From another graduate environmental engineering textbook, Air Pollution, It's Origin and Control; Wark, Warner, Davis (page 476):
[O3] = kI[NO2]/[NO] (I is the intensity of the sunlight; brackets [ ] represent "the concentration of")
so, if [NO2] = [NO] (i.e., NO and NO2 are in equilibrium), [NO2]/[NO] = 1 and [O3] = kI
Empirical data show that kI = ~25 micrograms/m3 or about 0.015 ppm (15 ppb), so if [NO2] = [NO], O3 = 15 ppb, far below the NAAQS one-hour standard of 124 ppb or 84 ppb eight-hour standard (about what would occur in natural background (pre-industrial) conditions).
I don't think this phenomenon is that unexpected or "weird".
Posted by: Carl | Aug 24, 2006 8:41:27 AM
"Did you see the word "TOWARDS" that I used?
Try again, please."
OK - you're NEVER going to even approach zero, roughly a third of NOx in non-anthropogenic.
Posted by: Carl | Aug 24, 2006 8:46:40 AM
Carl, we've had this debate before. Were you not satisfied with the first iteration of it? You're simply rehashing what you said then, and in addition, aren't really addressing anything I said except to resort to "appeal to authority" fallacies.
Within the pollutant level bands we currently live with, it is obviously possible that decreasing NOx can increase smog. The point I made then and still make is that once you move out of the band downwards, there will be a different dynamic. In either case, there's far from any consensus on this issue - not anything along the lines of climate change theory, so to assert some sort of equivalence is also inaccurate.
Accepting your worldview means that more emissions makes the air better, in general. That's ridiculous.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2006 8:49:06 AM
OK - you're NEVER going to even approach zero, roughly a third of NOx in non-anthropogenic.
I see. So smog is "natural". Then why isn't there smog everywhere? Did ancient humans live trapped in clouds of smog?
Let's be real here.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2006 8:50:43 AM
"Accepting your worldview means that more emissions makes the air better, in general. That's ridiculous."
Where did I say more emissions will make air quality better? I'm saying VOC/CO emissions need to be limited relatively more than NOx, exactly 180 degrees from what the current regs (Tier 2/LEV II) do.
Can you point to any sources other that the regulatory agencies that disagree with lower NOx emissions on weekend being the cause of higher ozone (smog) on weekends in urban areas?
I live/work about 45 miles downwind (statistically speaking) from a large urban area in the southeasten U.S. in which three busy interstates converge Based on my own studies, weekend ozone levels are no different from weekday levels. If what you say is correct, why aren't weekend ozone levels lower in this downwind rural area? Another aberration?
If I thought the current on-road emission regs would significantly improve air quality, I can assure you that I'd be all for them. But I really don't based on the empirical data provided by the weekend ozone effect studies.
Posted by: Carl | Aug 24, 2006 9:21:32 AM
Where did I say more emissions will make air quality better?
Um, the whole "weekend effect" notion states that lower emissions during the weekend create more pollution, ergo more emissions means better air quality. Again, possibly true within certain pollution level bands, but the general logic behind such thinking, extended rationally, creates a ridiculous conclusion.
Can you point to any sources other that the regulatory agencies that disagree with lower NOx emissions on weekend being the cause of higher ozone (smog) on weekends in urban areas?
Like I thought, you want a repeat of our last exchange on this. You have the links I gave you last time.
I live/work about 45 miles downwind (statistically speaking) from a large urban area in the southeasten U.S. in which three busy interstates converge Based on my own studies, weekend ozone levels are no different from weekday levels. If what you say is correct, why aren't weekend ozone levels lower in this downwind rural area? Another aberration?
Why are you dodging my question? You're the one asserting that a good chunk of NOx is "natural", therefore to try and reduce human output of it is not only pointless, it creates MORE pollution (apparently forever and ever, in your view). The point is that your view is essentially we shouldn't try to lower NOx levels. Indeed, they should be higher in some cases, for the sake of clean air.
If you can't see the fundamental flaws with that whole line of thinking (including the fact that smog is a modern phenomenon, even though you say much of NOx is "natural" so we shouldn't try to deal with it).
If I thought the current on-road emission regs would significantly improve air quality, I can assure you that I'd be all for them. But I really don't based on the empirical data provided by the weekend ozone effect studies.
Well, bully for you. Thankfully you're not in charge of decisions about such things.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2006 10:31:42 AM
"Um, the whole "weekend effect" notion states that lower emissions during the weekend create more pollution, ergo more emissions means better air quality."
No, the RELATIVE reductions on weekends is about 50% for NOx and about 15% for VOC/CO. This leads to about 50% higher ozone levels. The point of these studies is that we need to reduce VOC/CO relatively more/faster than NOx.
Actually, purely from a ozone perspective in urban locations, raising NOx WOULD reduce smog, but then problems with the NO2 NAAQS would become an issue.
"You're the one asserting that a good chunk of NOx is "natural","
It is. Lightning is a large source (lightning heats the column of air through which it passes to hotter than the surface of the sun). Some "natural" NOx (and ozone) comes from stratosphere intrusions into the troposphere cause by strong mid-latitude cyclones. The average concentration of ozone in the stratosphere is 15 ppm (15,000 ppb).
"The point is that your view is essentially we shouldn't try to lower NOx levels."
We need to decrease anthropogenic VOC/CO faster than we decrease anthropogenic NOx. I don't disagree that ZERO anthropogenic emissions should be the goal, but we need to be smart about how we approach doing that.
"Well, bully for you. Thankfully you're not in charge of decisions about such things."
I don't see why we can't have a civil discussion without resorting to condescension. Beside, how do you know I'm not?
Posted by: Carl | Aug 24, 2006 12:06:53 PM
Joe, its time for your time-out. You are being nutty and living up to your status of local anti-diesel zealot. You're acting like the fool you so love to be. Like I tell my dog "knock it off". Oh, and if you think for a moment that your little alter-ego "George" was fooling anyone, you might want to at least try to modify your writing style and catch phrases.
See, people, Joe is a zealot. No matter how much common sense, data, and anecdotal evidence you throw his way, he ain't gonna change his mind. Soon enough he'll be some lonely old guy, locked up in his pathetic apartment, muttering about the children and their scarred lungs...while the rest of the world drives efficient diesels and DHEVs, burning domestic and carbon neutral fuel. Pity him.
Posted by: Chingy | Aug 24, 2006 1:21:20 PM
I don't see why we can't have a civil discussion without resorting to condescension.
Carl, you started that process with the "appeal to authority" responses upthread. I also asked why you wanted to repeat a discussion we've already had. Are you changing your mind? Learning anything new? I'm not. I'm just seeing a discussion repeated almost verbatim.
Beside, how do you know I'm not?
I don't. But since you're complaining about it, then it is reasonable to assume you're not having influence in a way that you want.
When I see these "weekend effect" arguments I just scratch my head because the underlying logic is that less emissions is bad. If you feel CARB "isn't being smart about it", then it's probably best that you bring it up with them. Somehow I think they've thought about these things in depth and are well aware of the science and tradeoffs involved.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2006 1:28:29 PM
"ARB Report on the Ozone Weekend Effect in California - Executive Summary"
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2006 1:41:13 PM
Joe, hello? Your meds run out again? Like my dog, you just can't stop barking. If you were here in person, a little spritz of lemon juice in the snout would work wonders. Although you might very well need a full on shock collar. :)
Posted by: Chingy | Aug 24, 2006 1:44:20 PM
Carl wrote: This nitrogen dioxide photolytic cycle is summarized in the following three reactions.
NO2 + hv --> NO + O
O + O2 --> O3
O3 + NO --> NO2 + O2
Hence, while the presence of NO2 is required to form O3, the nitrogen dioxide photolytic cycle by itself does not generate net ozone, and cannot explain ozone accumulation….
Carl, I question this analysis. The rate of the third reaction should be exceedingly low, because it is a second order process in two species (O3 & NO) that are present at very low concentrations. Unless the rate constant of the third reaction is many orders of magnitude greater than the second (which I think is improbable), the O3 concentration is going to have to go up. The reaction sequence may be OK thermodynamically, but kinetically it looks bogus. In other words, it looks to me like the book may have gotten it wrong. Is there something I'm missing here?
Later you say:
so, if [NO2] = [NO] (i.e., NO and NO2 are in equilibrium), [NO2]/[NO] = 1 and [O3] = kI
Why would we expect [NO2] = [NO] at equilibrium? The photodissociation is facile, but where are the equally rapid processes for the back reaction (NO -> NO2)? The most plausible pathway is via atomic oxygen, but it's not like there's a lot of .O. hanging around near ground level. The kI of 25 ug/m3 is probably OK, but [NO2]/[NO] is going to be very small; I just don't think this NOx eats ozone hypothesis holds water.
umm, Chingy, I'm not Joseph's little alter ego. I'm a whole 'nother guy. Your last couple of posts are starting to sound a little creepy, btw.
Posted by: george | Aug 24, 2006 9:24:27 PM
Okee-dokee there "George" (with the multiple return email addresses). I guess I just fell off the turnip truck so I'll go along with your roll-play.
Joe, you do amuse me so! :D
Posted by: Chingy | Aug 25, 2006 4:10:04 AM
That troll's a trip, isn't he, George?
I'm flattered that in his addled little mind he thinks I'm you. Last time I took chemistry was in high school, so what you were saying about the reactions is beyond what I could possibly write.
Drop the owner of this website an email and he'll get around to cleaning up the trolling.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 25, 2006 9:14:34 AM
Joe, you're talking to yourself. As for referrals to the admin, you're right, I think I should bring the admins here up to speed on your antics on Treehugger.
Here's a great string where the admin admonishes you nicely:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/epa_test_confir.php
In fact, a search of Treehugger shows a bizarre number of rapid-fire, rambling posts by you. It also shows you bullying and being generally unpleasant to anyone who disagrees with you.
I may be a bit abrasive, but so far I have not been shut down by an admin.
One common thread is that you generally are at your height of unpleasantness when it comes to diesel. Hence my labeling you our local anti-diesel zealot. Again, searching Treehugger and Greencarcongress shows this to be true.
Now, how exactly am I trolling?
Posted by: Chingy | Aug 25, 2006 10:49:25 AM
Carl, I question this analysis. The rate of the third reaction should be exceedingly low, because it is a second order process in two species (O3 & NO) that are present at very low concentrations. Unless the rate constant of the third reaction is many orders of magnitude greater than the second (which I think is improbable), the O3 concentration is going to have to go up. The reaction sequence may be OK thermodynamically, but kinetically it looks bogus. In other words, it looks to me like the book may have gotten it wrong. Is there something I'm missing here?
George,
I suppose the book could be wrong. I copied verbatim from it (pages 595 and 600). I have a graduate degree in atmospheric chemistry (masters), but that was nearly 20 years ago, so my recollection of third order reaction rates is pretty fuzzy now.
However, that's not the only reference to the chemistry:
"…Near the earth's surface, small amounts of ozone are continuously created and destroyed in ongoing natural cycles. When nitrogen oxides (pollutants formed from the burning of fossil fuels), are added to the air more ozone is created, but then is quickly destroyed again. The balance of ozone creation and destruction shifts drastically, however, when hydrocarbons are added to the atmospheric mix.
Hydrocarbons --vapors from solvents, gasoline, dry cleaning fluids and hundreds of other common substances--actually add to the creation phase of the ozone cycle, while circumventing the destruction phase. Summer heat and the increase in sunlight intensity speed the rate of these chemical reactions, triggering rapid formation of ozone. This is why ozone "health advisories" often are issued during the summer, but never during the winter. …"
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/bts/ozone/ozrpt.html
"…Simplified chemistry:
UV radiation (hv), acting on atmospheric NO2 creates ozone (O3):
NO2 + hv ---> NO + O
O + O2 ---> O3
But ozone is also destroyed (titrated) if NO is still present:
O3 + NO ---> NO2 + O2
Why does O3 build up? If volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are also present, NO is consumed by other reactions and is not available to titrate the O3: VOC + NO ---> NO2 + other products …"
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ost/air_quality/Davidson.pdf
"…NO2 splits under the sunlight to produce NO + O. Then O reacts with O2 to produce O3. O3 reacts with NO to produce NO2 and O2. At the end of this reaction there is neither net gain nor loss for ozone. However, in the presence of hydrocarbons, HO2 and RO2 radicals are produced. These will convert NO to NO2, without losing ozone; thus, ozone concentrations will increase…."
http://www.baaqmd.gov/brd/advisecouncil/tec_min_060304.pdf (page 7)
The kI of 25 ug/m3 is probably OK, but [NO2]/[NO] is going to be very small; I just don't think this NOx eats ozone hypothesis holds water.
If [NO2]/[NO] is very small, then you'd have a lot of NO and very little NO2, right? A lot of NO would titrate the O3, right?
I'm an operational meteorologist involved in air quality forecasting, so if you have any insights, I'd appreciate hearing them.
Posted by: Carl | Aug 25, 2006 11:01:18 AM
Wow, someone's still hung up on the fact that they plagiarized something 6 months ago and was busted for it.
Seems like someone needs to move on.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 25, 2006 11:54:16 AM
Carl, I don't think that I have any great insights- smog is a pretty complex chemical problem. While I may question the NO2 pathway, the presence of NO in the original exhaust stream and any VOCs in the mix are confounding factors. The weekend effect appears to be real and we need to get a handle on the cause of it.
a lot of NO would titrate the O3, right?
Yes, ultimately, but is the rate of that reaction sufficient to overcome the rate of O3 production in the short (hours) term? It will be great when we can accurately quantitate all of the pertinent species in e.g. the LA basin with high spatial and temporal resolution and really nail things down with good data from the field rather than simplified systems in chambers.
Posted by: George | Aug 25, 2006 2:15:09 PM
Chingy and Joe, take it elsewhere.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 25, 2006 8:17:40 PM
George - according to some class notes I have from an atmospheric chemistry course, the "atmospheric lifetime of NO due to reaction with O3" is one minute.
Posted by: Carl | Aug 26, 2006 9:28:06 AM
I wonder how the ULSD switch will affect the diesel prices. There were recently reports about shortage in Oregon, 3,52/gal in Washington and higher diesel prices in Canada. Does anybody have an idea how much ULSD might push the price? I mean in refining not due to (artificial?) shortage.
Posted by: Gerry | Aug 28, 2006 6:50:02 PM
STFU bitches...MB 6cyl misses NOx by .01g/m WITHOUT Adblue
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Aug 28, 2006 8:55:48 PM
