Another interesting read
http://www.jernkontoret.se/energi_oc..._fuel_2015.pdf
up to 4.5% of the fuel is sulphur, the low sulphur bunker fuel @ .5% is still a factor of 10000 times more than typical auto fuel.
no telling what ppm that actually translates to but its astronomical.
i can only image what the pollution profile really looks like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r
I could imagine refineries, shipping, etc. of fuel to release more pollutants than the cars themselves, but those operate further from populated areas, so the health risks are smaller.
Does anyone have comparisons between HC emissions and NOx? Knowing how toxic HC emissions can be, the emphasis on NOx is a bit surprising to me when NOx is less persistent in the environment.
|
yes I agree with the above, the trouble with NOx is that it is highly reactive and if presented with HIGH VOC forms nasties and smog, however modern cars should not have High levels of VOC like the cars of the 60's but it could still be an issue in heavily populated urban areas, I figured if they would mist the exhaust the NOx would react with the water and not be able to interact with VOC relagating it to eventually form fertalizer, might eat cement roads with enough traffic though.