Future Emissions Standards..........

[Tbar]

Found this article in one of my OEM magazines. Personally I am not looking foward to the future emission standards.

Emissions: Government Warming - May 2007 Issue - (OEM Off-Highway)

In another decision of significance to the diesel industry, the EPA appears to have partially embraced the concept of Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) technology, which is expected to be a key strategy that engine and equipment manufacturers will employ to meet the next round of increasingly stringent emission standards.

With SCR technology, ammonia is injected into exhaust gases before it reaches a catalyst that then converts NOx emissions into harmless gasses. It can also significantly reduce hydrocarbon and particulate emissions. Unfortunately, the technology is difficult to adapt to the mobile market because of the equipment that is needed to make it work.

The primary concern is the storage tank for urea, an organic compound that can be converted to ammonia as needed. It takes about 1 gallon of urea to successfully treat 18 gallons of fuel, which means designers would have to make room for new storage tanks. EPA is also concerned that operators may neglect to fill the urea tanks, which would render the emission-reduction technology ineffective.


Tbar

 

[Crumm]

Yeah we need another tank full of urea.. now just where would you fill it?

Sometimes I think the gooberment has gone over the deep end.

 

[ktpauley]

I thought the Bluetec diesels already use the urea injection. Keith

 

[bushpilot]

more reason to drink beer and piss it into a tank of your car <or truck>...
wanna bet my sewer rates wont go down ?

bluetec has been used by mercedes benz for sometime now in europe...
all this indecision is part of why VW decided NOT to import TDI's into
the states this year...

 

[bling821]

When is it going to stop! Thanks AL "greenhouse gas" Gore. When are people going to get it through their thick skulls that human production of CO2 is insignificant when compared to natural sources? When are the ones who don't believe in this global warming hogwash going to stand up and say, "That is garbage!"

Here is something to think about. Scientist were trying to come up with a way to reduce the temperature of the earth to keep the ice caps from melting. One scientist in particular (don't remember his name) noticed that volcanic ash that goes airborne has a cooling affect on the atmosphere. His proposal is to fly large jets over the ice caps and dump tons of SULFUR (which makes up most of volcanic ash) into the atmosphere to shade the sunlight therefore cooling the atmosphere. This idea is more obtainable than creating a solar shield out in outer space. So here is the point of this rant, they reduced the SULFUR content of diesel therefore reducing the sulfur emitted into the atmosphere and, as a result, losing some of that sulfur shade that diesel engines are creating and heating up the planet. Tell that to the left and they will say human production is insignificant. Bingo!

All they are trying to do is cause vehicles to cost more to own and operate because they feel the need to "cure" the U.S.'s "oil addiction". And you know what I say to that...Its garbage!

Sorry guys, I've been holding that back for a while and couldn't take it anymore. I drive my kittyless PSD with pride! I got your global warming right here, Al! How is that for a bumper sticker?

 

[ktpauley]

I saw an article a few weeks ago at work about Antarctica have a week or so where the temperatures were in the 40s. That has been happening for years. I made 2 deployyments there. Both time we had a week wher e it was between 40 and 50. That was from 80-81, and 81-82. That was shorts and tshirt weather. Keith

 

[JLDickmon]

EPA is also concerned that operators may neglect to fill the urea tanks, which would render the emission-reduction technology ineffective.

This is what's going to happen.
Heck, you can't get people to buy a frickin' $.81 license plate bulb much less spend money on something they can't see or feel...

 

[BJS]

Vehicle emissions are easy targets because it is source that is constantly being produced so the results are seen relatively quickly since the average lifespan of a vehicle is around 10 years if that. The major sources of greehouse gasses is the manufacturing segment. There is more pollution generated in the production of a single vehicle than the vehicle will produce in a lifespan of 200k miles.

This is a prime example of political pandering, they are being yelled at to do something by the tree huggers but at the same time they can't go after thier own bread and buttter so they pick the easy target. However the sad fact is that in reducing tailpipe emissions they have choaked the engines to the point that while the emissions are cleaner we are burning more fuel in the process. Point & Case... My '90 ranger 2.9 2wd yielded me 20-23 MPG on a regular basis with a sticker that 16/21. The new rangers with the comparable engine 3.0L Are stickered at 16/21 however if you visit a ranger board most will tell you to expect averages well under 20. So how is it in 18 years of engineering and making greener vehicles the mileage hasn't increased but actually decreased. I will say without hesitation that the new engines have far more power than I did.


Ok that's enough ranting for the time being.