Quote:
Originally Posted by trebuchet03
Potentially - keep in mind that small motor scooters, despite their lower consumption have been found to pollute more that farm equipment in grams/mile. Your consumption doesn't change the standards you are required to meet - if you're a motor scooter, those standards are super lax.
Please, tell me where you see gallons of fuel in the grams per mile unit.
It doesn't matter how many gallons you burn - that is not what standard controls.... It's purely emissions per mile weather or not you burn 10 gallons, 12 gallons, 20 gallons etc.
If you feel emissions on the refining/distribution side is something less than optimal at this current time... Then write your representative(s) to enact and enforce stricter emissions standard - ask them to join the lawsuit in progress. Going backwards on end user emissions so sludge eating oil tankers and refineries put out less is just idiotic. You can't rob Peter to pay Paul and expect to win.
At least we have 35mpg in new cars by 2020 (which should help with the distribution side)... But that still puts us behind China, EU, Japan..... Other indicators say we're done being number 1 anyway 
And again.... I fail to see where the new stricter standards are slashing FE, hindering innovation, etc.... |
I Was making the gallons of fuel to grams per mile example in the fuel per week example.
Ok I'll try something else.
Let's put the McClaren F1's engine in my Del Sol. Same emissions controls that I have right now. (and for all intents and purposes the only thing that changes is the consumption ratio of the engine and its output).
The catalytic converters reduce a percentage of emissions. No catalytic converter in any vehicle measures the amount of emissions coming in and says, " I can go easy because there are not enough emissions anyway." Inversely, they can't all of a sudden crank up their ability to reduce emissions because you dump gallons of fuel on them. If you don't believe me pump fuel into your catalytic converter while the car is on and measure your new grams/mile emissions. They just went up. Catalytic converters do the best they can all the time, they do not have an ECU to manage how fast or how hard they go. the cat goes fullspeed all the time.
In saying that if we take my 1.5 liter power plant out and drop in that v12 I promise you my grams/mile goes up.
Just because the requirements says you can produce this much does not mean your car is always producing exactly that much. Auto-manufacturers designed the car at its peak fuel consumption to only produce .grams to a mile for diesels. If your engine is consuming less fuel then it is producing less of those emissions that get filtered out, consequently since its a percentage a small overall number of emissions hit the environment. Let's just say its 95% efficient. At 3,000 RPM and throttle all the way open your engine yields its .whatever grams per mile and for ease we will say 1 gram per mile before filtering and just .05 grams afterward. at 1,000 RPM throttle also wide open your car only consumes 1/3 as much fuel as it does at 3,000 so its only producing .3 grams before it gets filtered and just .015 grams per mile after.
.015 does not equate to .05. It's less. In reducing the engine's fuel consumption you always reduce the emissions the engine produces. No fuel no emissions, lots of fuel lots of emissions.
Racing applications rarely have any form of post engine emissions controls. why? because it cuts down on HP and FE.
You CANT overcome the pollution dumped in by removing those controls in your car to improve FE.
No congressional litigation is never the answer for anything. Gas prices reaching 4$ a gallon will have sucessfully raised the FE demands by the public than congressional litigation ever can. It's always easier, faster and more effective to control people through economics than litigation. Everyone in the world will buy a cheaper more effective engine. Less than 1/4 countries will ascribe to Kyoto protocols.
Once again I did not say make engines dirtier just to make them dirtier. I said save gas, save money, save emissions.
More congressional mandates against refineries, tankers, diesels, electrical plants, pipelines, oil rigs and every other facet of fuel production would not solve the problem. It takes 1.25 times more energy(and therefore emissions) to convert crude oil to GASOLINE than you can possibly get out of gas. Therefore every single time you lose any gas you multiply the amount of energy wasted. You waste fuel in your engine, you waste fuel at electric plants and refineries. you create emissions at the pipe, at the refinery and at the plant.
It's ignorant to force EPA emissions ideals because its the smallest contributor. The same money would be infinitely better spent on funding for more efficient engine designs. If you increase engine efficiency(MPG) 95% you reduce the engine's emissions per gallon(consequently per mile) 95%. So why waste time regulating something that most of the world will ignore and just make a better engine instead and cut global gasoline emissions by 95%. As I said above though, you'd be reducing it much more than 95% because it takes 125% of one gallon to make a gallon. . .by increasing engine efficiency 95% you increase the overall efficiency 118%(read huge drop in emissions).
So if I make my car JUST 14% more FE by ripping out the Cat going 4-1 and popping the muffler I reduce emissions 17.5% in the whole process(because the emissions I create are less than the refining process and just the electricity required I save 17.5 at the electrical facility and then add in savings throughout the rest of the chain).
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
