Quote:
Originally Posted by California98Civic
My claim was that the total pollution is more complicated than your first post, and that my total pollution profile for transportation should be more broadly considered than the narrower focus of the EPA's estimates. I'm not suggesting that a car burning fuel through an unlit, cold CAT is by some magic less polluting.
|
I understand your point and it is also often used by ICE producers as an argument against electric cars. Isn't it horrible that some places burn coal to generate electricity? So gasoline must be better than electric right?
I was not able to get accurate test results because it would go off the scale on my analyzer. Needless to say burning a liter of fuel with a cold cat was worse than burning 10 liters of fuel with a functioning cat. That was HC and CO. How much worse I can't say. That was a late 1990's era honda civic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by California98Civic
I've been driving this same car since 2001, a timeframe in which most Americans would have replaced the vehicle how many times? What's the pollution profile of the production of a new car and its transportation to market? But you're right, P&G can burn fuel in a more polluting manner. So, I try to warm my engine quickly when first started, to get the CAT lit. With my grill blocking, and given the short duration of my EOC cycles, and the location of my cat attached to the exhaust manifold, I am not persuaded there are relevant studies from which I should conclude that I'm doing pulse and pollute at something like 10x the normal emissions, as you say. Especially given the wider transportation pollution context I am considering. Yes, I am theorizing. But theorizing on a known context is a part of empirical inquirytoo and should 't be dismissed so readily. Yes, testing the theory would be best. But I don't have access to the equipment you suggest, and can't afford it as you might guess. Results from that equipment would be interesting, but it would not tell the whole, relevant story. BTW, you reference an arsenal of peer-reviewed studies... if you can get access to some of them, I love to see 'em.
|
Theorizing is fine but just because you think really hard about it doesn't make it correct. Take for example the idea of blocking your grille to help the car heat up faster. In theory this sounds like a great idea - after all the rad cools the engine right?
In a cold engine, the thermostat will be closed and the coolant in the radiator remains cold until it opens. At the outset the theory falls because the system the theory was created about was not properly understood.
In the case of P&G the theory was that by burning less fuel the driver is being more ecological and reducing pollution. In fact the opposite is true since the majority of short drive pollution comes out of the tailpipe before the cat lights off. Generally it is about 70% but if you're accelerating to keep in the max BSFC of the engine it will be even higher.
While I am definitely in support of techniques to reduce fuel consumption that do not adversely impact emissions you do have to realize that building calibrations and getting them certified is a very complex and time consuming task. Many highly educated engineers work on this process and the technologies and standards are continuing to evolve. An enthusiast with no formal training in the area is not likely to improve on their work.
-Michael