Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrimMechanic
The information the EPA has here seems somewhat misleading. From what I remember about my chemistry, N20 (nitrous oxide) is a powerful reducer of ozone and is considered an 'ozone depleting chemical' similar to R-12. Of course we have to make the distinction about 'good ozone' and 'bad ozone' here. 'Good ozone' being the ozone found high up in the atmosphere that blocks UVB, and 'bad ozone' found at ground level (and is considered a pollutant). One could argue that the presence of N2O at ground level has a beneficial effect with its respect towards its interaction with ozone at ground level. NO (nitric oxide) is a free radical and has a very short half life most likely ending up as NO2 (the red gas, nitrogen dioxide). And NO2 reacts with water in the atmosphere to make nitric acid (HNO3). Which most likely ends up in the soil (from rain), and again could arguably be considered a benefit to plant life by fixing nitrogen to the soil.
Not that I'm arguing for [I]increased[I] emissions of NOX. I grew up in Southern California in the 1960's and '70's and remember the brown cloud and the sore throats and tight chests from it. It's no fun using your lungs as a nitric acid factory. Just bringing up the point that there are always two sides to every argument but logic doesn't always dictate the winner.
The driving public and consumer are just low lying fruit with respect to how the EPA imposes its rules and regulations. If you look at the big picture, ocean shipping probably contributes more to global air pollution in one day than all automobiles driven in the United States in an entire year. Typical ocean transports are virtually unregulated with respect towards exhaust emissions and they use the worst fuel imaginable for propelling their loads of freight from mainland china to your local Wal Mart. Most of the ships fire their boilers with 'bunker oil'. The bottom of the refining tree residue that unusable for anything else because of sulphur content, mercury, etc. Burning tires probably pollutes less than burning 'bunker oil'.
|
Even though the EPA Link was simplified for public understanding, it made it clear that the problem was a photochemical interaction of hydrocarbons and NOx to produce ozone. The ozone comes from the Nox.
With the much smaller population of people and vehicles in the 60s and 70s you should have first hand knowledge of what happens on a sunny day in the AQMD (Air Quality Management District - the Los Angeles Basin) region seeing how you lived here. There is now over double the population of people and vehicles and the air is far better. I don't know how you continue to knock emissions efforts when the AQMD basin is a prime example of success.
And a little goes a long way. And it is cumulative. Each person in a small way contributes. Our business has been impacted not just in the vehicles we operate, but in the paints that we use, the cutting fluids the CNC machines use, down to the lighter fluids "forced" on us during company picnics. Southern California is just a microcosm of the rest of the world - too many people in too small of a place.
The Earth is soon to be in the same situation with the pollution contributions of over 7 billion sources great and small overwhelming the ability to absorb the output. The ground level pollution created in China is now detectable on the United States western shores. Our pollution ends up in western Europe and theirs goes . . . well you get the picture.
EPA is not perfect, but it has had tremendous success within it's jurisdiction and thus has set an example that is to be followed by other countries. The implementation of strict Euro6 standards are just an example. The Chinese governmental efforts are looking to the EPA for guidelines. Even the container ships you mention are coming under scrutiny as the Low Hanging Fruit is picked and more pollution cutbacks are sought. But, that is a question that is as much international politics as it is simple technology.