Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
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.
|
I don't disagree with the original principles of the EPA. It's my opinion that what has happened over the years is that the EPA has been turned into a political tool and doesn't have the best interests of the country as one of its core values. I agree that there is some success' but recently it's gone overboard in some areas. My complaint don't entirely center on the EPA itself but also the rules it creates and leave up to the states to define or enforce or the unreasonable burdens placed on manufacturers and even the general consumer. Here are a few examples (albeit not related to the original intent of this post);
In California (I know, NOT the Federal EPA, but the policies started here many times find their way into EPA rules), Because of the concerns over VOC's, windshield washer solvent for your windshield containing ANY amount of methanol (or other type of alcohol) is banned UNLESS you live in a county where average wintertime low temperatures are below freezing. Another rule that originated in California and had been adopted by the EPA are the new emissions stands for small engines (i.e., lawn mowers, etc.) I honestly believe that rulemaking like this is an irresponsible waste of (administrative) resources and only serve as a distraction from other bigger sources of air pollution that are protected by political influence. I understand what you mean about improvements in small degrees but there are still a lot of gross polluters out there that have been getting a free pass for MUCH too long. I have a set of RR tracks not far from my house. I see Union Pacific locomotives several times a day with untreated exhaust. I have a small rail yard behind my house and I talk with the RR employees. Even the locomotives that are brand new don't have any emissions controls. Manufactured by General Electric (one of the big players in trying to have coal fired power shut down so they can sell more natural gas fired generation equipment), and EMD (Electro Motive Diesel, owned by GM). And then the railroads owned by Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet). Why are they still allowed produce prolific amounts of NOX? Why is the EPA concerning itself with my lawn mower and not the freight trains behind my house? Pretty sure the 10 trains a day that pass through my county do more to pollute the air here than all of the lawn mowers in the county produce in a year. The EPA is more about image and perception any more than doing any meaningful work towards keeping the environment clean. Another example of an unnecessary burden is the forced use DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) on Diesel powered vehicles. It's only good in the sense that it has allowed manufacturers to eliminate or reduce EGR and the maintenance problems associated with it and return some lost performance and fuel economy, but with one painful catch.....if your DEF tank runs out or the level sensor malfunctions, your vehicle shuts down. Your catalytic converter fails? Your car keeps running. Your EGR valve stuck shut? Your car keeps running. Your evaporative emissions purge valve sticks open? Your car keeps running. All of these emissions subsystems can and do fail and when they do, the driver is simply informed with a check engine light. This asinine requirement that your vehicle is disables if the DEF tank run dry was a mandatory requirement by the EPA to the manufacturers as a condition of letting them use DEF/SCR catalysts. The only other option to DEF/SCR is NOX absorber technology and it still hasn't matured enough to be viable in the heavy duty truck industry. The amount of EGR alone required to satisfy EPA rules makes the vehicles unusable and unable to meet the mandatory EPA emissions system warranty at best. Same things goes for DPF and the associated regeneration process that purposely burns fuel in the exhaust producing NO usable power for motivation. And again, the de facto (solely because the manufactures are forced to do this to protect the emissions warranty on the hardware) mandatory requirement by the EPA to cause a vehicle to become disabled because of a failed emissions device. Technology like DPF and DEF/SCR are forced on the public because there is no better alternative. And the reason for this is because the EPA creates the rules with no regard to the viability of existing technology. The philosophy of the EPA is 'Make the rules and the technology will follow'. There needs to be a better approach. If you look at the evolution of emissions systems beginning from the early 1970's on, you can see what the result of this has been. For the first 15 years they were horrible, subject to drivability problems and most of the time disabled by the owners and (illegally) by repair shops out of necessity. So what was the net effect of forcing the auto manufacturers to adopt immature technology? 15 years of horribly engineered automobiles that polluted nearly as much as their predecessors. It wasn't until the widespread adoption of feedback fuel injection systems in the late 1980's that any real impact on exhaust emissions affected air quality were made. So now, with respect to diesel vehicles built since 2007, we are going through the same thing all over again. Owners disappointed with dealing with the headaches of DEF/SCR and DPF are simply disabling these systems at great cost. I don't have the answer but there has to be a better way. I don't do the things I do to my vehicle because of a sense of rebellion against the government or EPA. I do it solely for economic reasons and in the eyes of some people, that makes me a criminal no different than a bank robber.