Why are our trucks (and all on-road diesels) getting the shaft with this SCR and DPF junk when coal and oil power plants, oil heating systems and China have comparably minimal environmental restriction? I can see big energy effectively lobbying for commercial power, oil heat being overlooked (maybe because it's regional?), and various reasons for not putting pressure on dirty foreign nations. So is there no lobby to enforce more reasonable restrictions on on-road diesels? Can we do anything about this?

Note that I'm NOT advocating the complete abandonment of environmental restrictions for on road diesels, I just see a huge imbalance in what's currently happening.

If it's not clear, this is my problem with the new diesel technology: MORE fuel has to be burned (and CO2 released) to reduce some soot emissions, to produce and distribute ammonia solution, to produce more trucks over time as they don't last as long, and so forth. If these emissions are so harmful and we have such an energy crisis, why haven't we outlawed air conditioning north of the Mason Dixon line, for example? I AM ranting a bit on the topic, but I want to be constructive.

 

This should be a letter to the EPA If you think they care! The consumer can only drive and wonder where this country is headed to..For a lack of better words POLITICS!

 

Individual drivers have very little money to influence DC politics, whereas Utility Companies (the ones with the power plants) have plenty of it. As well as oil companies.

China doesn't give a rip about emissions; they're doing the same thing WE did 40-50 years ago. It'll come back to haunt them, eventually. We just won't be around to see it.

Heating oil is burned differently, so it's emissions aren't as much of an issue.

-blaine

 

i have a similar rant that i go off on from time to time. in an effort to reduce emmissions, todays vehicles get crappy MPG, thus using more fuel, in my feeble mind, creating more emissions. HEY, WHOEVER... ditch the emissions equipment crap, the trucks will get much better MPG, using less fuel, thus there is less emissions.

 

05chop: looking for a place to submit a comment on EPA's web site has led me to regulations.gov, which I'm currently lost in. Man, I see why my boss is a libertarian...

Frankenbiker: Sigh, I know, I know. But it feels good to talk about it, if that's all we can do. On the oil heat, I know they don't soot so much if the air supply is sufficient and the combustion chamber is in good shape and incandeses, but don't they spew NOx? Like big time NOx, especially with some high sulfur heating oils?

 

Have you ever even seen exhaust system of oil and coal power plants? They have exhaust scrubbing systems bigger then a house! Wood stoves have had Catalytic converters for a few years now, and I can't imagine home heating furnaces are far behind. Many countries ARE putting pressure on china to crack down on emissions for their coal power plants.

 

Not that I know of. NOx is generated when fuel is burned in a high-pressure, high-temp environment, like one finds inside a PSD cylinder, or a high-efficiency diesel-fired boiler. Home heating units generally run at temps not much different than propane heaters, and at atmospheric pressure; conditions under which the formation of NOx is highly unlikely.

-blaine

 

I've never been in a coal plant but I have been in a smaller oil plant and they had only economizers between the boiler draft inducers and the stack breeches. This was a few years ago. Anyway, if all of these plants have this stuff now then I didn't know that (thanks) and that's good.

On wood stoves I've only heard of ones with catalysts, and I was stove shopping this fall. I've yet to see a wood stove that actually has emissions equipment. I can buy a wood stove with no cat, I cannot buy a diesel car or truck with no EGR/cat/DPF.

Oil heating equipment may be heading in this direction but not any time soon. You can buy today a boiler or hot air furnace with no exhaust treatment and the same burner technology that's been in use for nearly 30 years. For example, I salvaged a boiler out of a school in the early 90s that had a Carlin 301 burner on it. The burner was probably 20 years old at the time and Carlin still makes and sells the same burner today: Carlin Combustion Technology, Inc. - 201CRD & 301CRD Burners Again, I can buy this oil burner today, I cannot buy a diesel car or truck without emissions controls.

I'm aware that there is international pressure on polluting nations (and that's good), but it's not as radical as what's happening to our diesels. My point is not that Carlin should be making a different burner, or that wood stoves should have $20K of emissions controls, or that we should impose sanctions on countries that pollute, but rather that these are all big sources of similar pollution to on road diesels yet the regulator response to the diesels is substantially more aggressive than what's being applied to the other sources.

 

The catalysts on wood stoves make them more efficient so they burn less oil, yes you can still buy wood stoves without catalysts, but EPA is going trying to put a stop on that.

As for oil burning furnaces, it is not so much the burner itself that can be more efficient and clean. Alls the burner does is just atomize the fuel and ignite it. It is upto the furnace or boiler maker to make their units utilize that heat more efficiently so less heat goes out the exhaust and add emissions controls. Not the burner maker themselves. The EPA has actually now mandated that furnace and boiler makes cannot sell units that cannot meet a minimum of 85% effeciency.

All these other things have been with little to no emissions controls for decades, you can't jsut suddenly decide to force it all on them at once. Since emissions controls were already on diesel engines, why not work form there to get it tried and true then bring it to other uses of #2. First all pickups needed DPFs, now Tractor trailers need DFPs. in 2012 all off road and on road diesel will be ULSD, and by 2014 I believe all offroad equipement will also need a DPF and/or other emissions controls - off road includes boilers and furnaces I believe.

 

Don't forget that by 2011 tractors with engine hp of 25 and over will have to have emissions equipment on it as well. 2 stroke machines(weedeaters, leaf blowers etc) will also have to have emissions equipment as well by then I do believe.

As for China, their big excuse is why should they clean up their act when we still aren't all that great at cleaning up ours. If you get the US to be really environmentally friendly, then the other countries will have more political pressure to do so as well. Til then, who knows how long it will take.

 

Lets just nuke china, russia, and iran that will alleviate a LOT of problems.

 

It might emissions wise, but not in terms of radioactive fallout - or political.

 

I find that ironic when he has this in his siggy:

 

China has been and is still considered a developing country. Thus, they live by different standards than the US does as a developed country. The issue is that they have leap frogged to a developed country in the last 10-15 years, yet their "classification" has not changed. China is buying up as much coal as they can get their hands on and they bring online something like 5-7 coal power plants everyday. Don't forget about India either. The same deal goes for them.

 

Don't forget that both China and India are involved with the G-20 which is also considered a "Developing Countries" trading bloc.