View Single Post
Old 04-17-2008, 08:32 PM   #1 (permalink)
trebuchet03
MechE
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,151

The Miata - '01 Mazda MX-5 Miata
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts
Emissions Standards - "Good For Fuel Efficiency," Consumption Data Says

This is probably going to rub people the wrong way.... I've listened to plenty of people claim that emissions standards are choking fuel efficiency... But not once did anyone bring any data to the table....

First, a time line (cite: http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/mobile/history.htm)
Quote:
1970-1975: The First Standards

* In 1970, Congress passes the Clean Air Act, which called for the first tailpipe emissions standards. The pollutants controlled are carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The new standards go into effect in 1975 with a NOx standard for cars and light-duty trucks of 3.1 grams per mile (gpm).

1977-1988: Tightening Standards for the First Time

* In 1977, Congress amends the Clean Air Act and tightens emission standards again in two steps. First, between 1977 and 1979, the NOx standard becomes 2.0 gpm for cars. Then in 1981, the NOx standard for cars is reduced to 1.0 gpm. Effective in 1979, pursuant to the Clean Air Act requirements, EPA tightens standards for light-duty trucks to 2.3 gpm. Effective in 1988, EPA then sets the first tailpipe standards for heavier trucks at 1.7 gpm and revises the standard for lighter trucks to 1.2 gpm.

1990-1994: Tier One

* In 1990, Congress again amends the Clean Air Act, further tightening emission standards. The NOx standard is set at 0.6 gpm for cars, effective in 1994. The new standard -- called "Tier One"-- is a 40% reduction from the 1981 standard. For trucks, the new standard ranges from 0.6 to 1.53 gpm, depending on the weight of the vehicle.The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 also require EPA to assess the air-quality need, cost effectiveness, and feasibility of tighter emission standards for the 2004 model year and beyond.

1998: Voluntary Agreement For Cleaner Cars

* In 1998, the Clinton Administration, with the auto industry and the Northeast states, strike an innovative, voluntary agreement to put cleaner cars on the road before they could be mandated under the Clean Air Act. The new cars are called National Low Emission Vehicles (NLEV). The first NLEV cars under the agreement reach consumers in New England in 1999 and the rest of the country in 2001. NLEV cars operate with a NOx standard of 0.3 gpm, a 50% reduction from Tier One standards. The NLEV agreement also calls for a 0.5 gpm NOx standard for lighter trucks only, a 17% reduction from Tier One requirements for these vehicles.In 1998, as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA issues the Tier Two Report to Congress. The report contains strong evidence of the need, cost-effectiveness and feasibility for tighter tailpipe emission standards in the future beginning in 2004. Three main factors support EPA's decision: 1) currently vehicles make up 30 percent of smog-forming emissions nationally, and because the number of miles driven is increasing (up 127% since 1970) they will continue to be a significant contributor to pollution; 2) larger vehicles, like SUVs that currently do not meet the same standards as cars, pollute 3-5 times as much and make up almost 50 percent of the vehicles sold today; 3) the technology to meet tighter standards is available and cost-effective.In 1998, EPA also determines that sulfur reductions in gasoline are needed to enable the full performance of low emission-control devices.

1999: Tier Two

* In 1999, EPA proposes Tier Two tailpipe emissions standards beginning in 2004 -- the first time both cars and light-duty trucks are subject to the same national pollution control system. The new standard is 0.07 gpm for nitrogen oxides, a 77 to 86% reduction for cars and a 92 to 95% reduction for trucks beyond the NLEV agreement. EPA also proposes a reduction in average sulfur levels to 30 ppm (maximum of 80 PPM) to achieve the full performance of vehicle emission control technologies.As part of these new standards, EPA has included several measures to ensure maximum flexibility and cost-effectiveness. These flexibilities include: 1) allowing averaging to meet both the car emission and gasoline sulfur standards; 2) allowing extra time for larger vehicles between 6000 and 8500 pounds and smaller refiners to meet their respective standards; and 3) allowing for a market-based credit trading-and-banking system for both industries to reward those who lead the way in reducing pollution.
If that was too long...

1970-1975 - first emissions standards
1977-1988 - tightened emissions standards
1990-1994 - tier I emissions standards
1999 - tier II emissions standards

Now, fuel consumption over time.


Notice the huge drops in consumption beginning with the first fuel emissions standard. In 1999, the slight upward trend was reversed - I'm not so sure I'd call that significant, but the change in emissions went from .6gpm NOx to .3 gpm NOx (compared the difference to the 1975-1981 -- 3.1gpm to 1.0). There's not enough data to say what the trend is after 2004....

But what about fuel efficiency - the mpg numbers you ask?
Unfortunately, the BTS only has new car mpg data starting in 1980... But, for all cars on the road, data goes back to 1960 (which just means effects lag behind in year)...

So, for all cars on the road

Again, mpg numbers go up immediatly following the emissions standard being put into place... But, after 1990 (tier I) - things stay flat.



Feel free to poke holes - but, if you're going to do so... you sure as hell better back it up with reliable data. My data is coming from the BTS http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...on_statistics/ - so I'm expecting source quality to at least match that I put the effort in, I'm expecting you to do the same

And one more thing... I couldn't care less about your anecdotal evidence Bring data^

__________________
Cars have not created a new problem. They merely made more urgent the necessity to solve existing ones.
  Reply With Quote