View Single Post
Old 12-05-2008, 06:07 PM   #88 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
It's lovely that the cat reduces emissions of other semi toxic compounds(Benzene can be directly ingested in substantial amounts before the probability kicks in that it combines with something else in your body that makes it lethal. It's LD50 is 1800 grams so it will take a very very long time to get that much benzene into the atmosphere and even then talk to anyone who took Organic chemistry pre 1996 and they will tell you they used it by the gallon and got it all over them.)

Nevertheless 298 times .5 grams(the grams of NOx in one gallon of simply burned diesel) is just 149 grams equivalent of CO2. There are 7,200 grams of CO2 in a gallon of diesel. It's pretty obvious that limiting total gas consumption is far more important than NOx or anything else. Nox could be 14,000 times more harmful than CO2 and still the best approach would be limiting total fuel consumption.

And limiting CO2 emissions in a moving assembly is rather incredulous because it takes much more power to reclaim the CO2 or scrub the CO2 from the air than you get out of a gallon of gasoline. A stationary facility maybe, but thats because they can draw off the electric grid. It's impossible for a vehicle to go anywhere if it has to spend all(and then some) of its fuel regulating its own emissions.

40/45 Civic 09 variable trans
29/36 civic 05 variable trans
same engine size 1.7. 11 on the low and 9 on the high over just 4 years.

And to your combined reduction comment. . .I did combine them all except for CO2. Like I said they might be reducing a tiny fraction of their total CO2 output and nothing else to achieve that number.

I'm also certain that development was not an EPA instigated event. The event started at the Baytown refinery in Texas when they decided to use excess fuels that are not used to generate electricity through gas turbines. all refineries built since then have had it stock. Most refineries since then have done it anyway because it bites into their massive electric bill. The EPA claiming credit for something someone else invented and established is nothing new. Originally refineries dumped those compounds into the air. . .until they exploded. They decided on their own they should burn them and then the EPA said they had to.

My statement that new regulations could potentially break the market slips through the main claus of my whole point. The EPA made a rule to make a rule. refineries did it because its more efficient. . .not because its more eco-friendly. I have no problems with emissions controls so long as they don't cost efficiency. That post-facto regulation doesn't bother me.

Fighting and resisting things does solve problems. You are fighting resisting the idea that companies should be able to emit whatever they want. That resistance led to the EPA.

I'm fighting resisting stupid policies. I will say this again, I have no problems with controls, so long as they do not hinder efficiency of the vehicle.

The plant can draw as much juice as it wants. It's tied into the electrical grid. Your car can't. Unless you want to plug an extension cord to your car and use the electricity to filter out CO2 its not feasible.

Outside firms working for oil companies and electric power plants are developing bacteria that convert all kinds of things into useful or non-harmful things. There is no free lunch. The bacteria, or more appropriately algae, run on sunlight and compounds in emissions to create fossil fuels and emit oxygen and other gasses. other versions emit hydrogen and oxygen and several other things.

It's not possible to fit an equivalent system to a car. Cars have to move. cars can't haul around several tons of bacteria sludge to filter their emissions. You would get the same gas mileage as a tank(measured in gallons per mile). Also those critters require things that are difficult to keep in stock on a car. They need sunshine, plenty of fresh water, and the exact right amount of pollutants. . .all the time. If they don't get sunlight thats fine, obviously algae survives without it for extended periods(nights over ponds) but let's say your car sits still for a couple of days. If their metabolism is so fast it can devour your 20lbs of CO2 per gallon(50 lbs an hour for me at highway speeds) then the lack of food for even a single day could whipe out the colony.

This is the same argument as raising capital taxes. Virtually every time capital gains taxes go up the revenue generated from capital gains goes down. The inverse is also true, virtually every time capital gains taxes go down revenues from them go up. Countries that have bottomed their capital gains taxes out have seen some of the largest economic growth over the last ten years(Israel for one). Just because you increase emissions controls doesn't mandate overall emissions go down. It's not so simple.

It's enormously complex, but the easiest most obvious method as this site itself states is, use less gas(ride a bike, walk, get a motorcycle). There is also simply no way it wouldn't work. If less fuel is consumed, fewer gallons of fuel are converted into emissions that have to be converted back at the cost of lbs of coal which then have to use more coal to filter their own emissions, and transport lines that have to decrease their own mpg-freight to keep up with new policies. If you only ever add positive numbers you will never get a smaller number.
  Reply With Quote