Genuinely curious.... are any emissions systems better for the environment?

[Shadow_storm56]

Lets avoid any politics but I am genuinely curious if any emissions systems are actually better for the environment. Some seem maybe and some I can't see how.... I am genuinely curious of this.

For example my forklift is just an expensive fuel filter and otherwise nothing weird to cause downtime. My excuvator has a DPF but it's completely passive and dosen't care if it's interrupted, only know it's doing a burn from engine tone. Thoes 2 seem like they could be better for environment.

Now lets move to my tractor, takes DEF, oddly enough only about 5 jugs a year for the 100Hp tractor but that's 5 cardboard boxes and 5 plastic jugs that are completely garbage. Probably 5ish hours a year it has to sit there at 2100 RPM doing
burns.... idle not doing anything just a regen. Useable in stuff like mowing or spraying but most time it's too high of a rev for use so has to sit there. Plus some staff can't understand regens and then u end up in a 30+ min parked regen.

So final factor is the ones with emissions systems all use more fuel than ones without and are much harder to repair.

So with all these factors are the environmental impacts actually less from my machines with emissions systems than those without like my fuel sipping 2355 or 2350.

Again let's not get into politics I just am actually curious of this

 

[GeoHorn]

There are scientists and laboratories and much money spent by engine mfr’s who have All Agreed that the environment benefits from their various schemes. I’m willing to believe their results.

What I’m NOT willing to believe is…. that the economics are sensible…. In other words…that there aren’t more economical methods to achieve similar results.
Example: If burning fossil-fuels is harmful….and A DPF system burns MORE fuel to heat the exhaust to burn-out the particulates (basically carbon)…. then Exactly-How does burning MORE fossil-fuel to burn-up / convert carbon to carbon-dioxide …particularly helpful (?) … versus a system that might simply collect the carbon for mechanical-removal (such as a scrubber system)…which might then collect the carbon for useful purposes…(?)

It’s difficult for me to understand how a DPF system balances against a catalytic-converter, etc.

I’m suspicious the engine mfr’s have simply addressed the near-term emissions problem in a fashion which merely “kicks the can down the road”….. but it allows them to bring their product to market….and the fossil-fuel sellers and their lobby don’t mind that method.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

The 'original' systems worked fine for knocking the huge numbers of 'bad things' to smaller ones. Great....THEN test equipment got better,so 'they' (EPA, CA,greenies,etc.) demanded and got pseudolaws to reduce emissions even further. Really ,can anyone show what have 1 to 10-22 particles IS harmful ?
One machine can read 6 units out of 8 BILLION. That's a really really tiny number. The machine can detect a family of 4 and two others out of ALL the people in the World !

I'm fine with 'knocking down' the numbers at a reasonable cost, but going to the 'nth degree' is not good.
What really irks me are all the 'exclusions' to all of the enviromental rules. Planes get a pass, trains get a pass,guv vehicles too..fire trucks, hot rods, HD MCs, cop cars,we all know some who pollute,legally.

We got rid of 'single use plastic bags' and gee, someone FINALLY 'did the math' and those new reusable bags (typ walmart ones) are WORSE for the environment ! Can't be recycled ! Same as my 'blue box', that holds recycalbles( that end up in landfill) , the box itself CANNOT be recycled !!

Another study concluded that if Canada stopped all 'pollution', it won't make a difference in the World. Others, like China toss out more in a week than Canada does in a year.

 

[fried1765]

The 'original' systems worked fine for knocking the huge numbers of 'bad things' to smaller ones. Great....THEN test equipment got better,so 'they' (EPA, CA,greenies,etc.) demanded and got pseudolaws to reduce emissions even further. Really ,can anyone show what have 1 to 10-22 particles IS harmful ?
One machine can read 6 units out of 8 BILLION. That's a really really tiny number. The machine can detect a family of 4 and two others out of ALL the people in the World !

I'm fine with 'knocking down' the numbers at a reasonable cost, but going to the 'nth degree' is not good.
What really irks me are all the 'exclusions' to all of the enviromental rules. Planes get a pass, trains get a pass,guv vehicles too..fire trucks, hot rods, HD MCs, cop cars,we all know some who pollute,legally.

We got rid of 'single use plastic bags' and gee, someone FINALLY 'did the math' and those new reusable bags (typ walmart ones) are WORSE for the environment ! Can't be recycled ! Same as my 'blue box', that holds recycalbles( that end up in landfill) , the box itself CANNOT be recycled !!

Another study concluded that if Canada stopped all 'pollution', it won't make a difference in the World. Others, like China toss out more in a week than Canada does in a year.

Having spent many Summer in Nova Scotia, I can really appreciate the absolute stupidity of the waste regulations/collection system there.
The only thing that I could see, was that it made the "greenies" feel good.
Total waste of gov't time, and money.

 

[GeoHorn]

“EPA, CA,greenies,etc.” is political….and not supposed to be included in the discussion.

The problem developing nations have with the U.S. pointing the finger at them for being heavy polluters is….. “Hey America! YOU polluted yourself into a well-developed world-power of wealthy privileged citizens…. but you don’t want any of the REST of us to have that privilege.… Since YOU (Americans) brought the world to the brink of environmental-collapse…why don’t YOU (Americans) find a way for the Rest of Us to “catch up” without penalizing US with prohibitions…??”

It’s like the U.S. saying “We Got Ours….. Go Get Yours!….but just not with the same advantages.”

It’s an argument with some validity.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

I didn't consider it 'political' rather that some groups that do 'stuff' to control emission requirements.
As for the 'pointing fingers', EVERY country needs to reduce to the SAME standards. Canada and USA have already reduced a lot, while others haven't. One area is use of coal for power plants. NONE is USA yet China puts a new one online every week. Canada exports millions of tons of coal yet WE have to convert steel plants to electricity ?
Make it a FAIR playing field, ALL should be equal.....

 

[L35]

The 'original' systems worked fine for knocking the huge numbers of 'bad things' to smaller ones. Great....THEN test equipment got better,so 'they' (EPA, CA,greenies,etc.) demanded and got pseudolaws to reduce emissions even further. Really ,can anyone show what have 1 to 10-22 particles IS harmful ?
One machine can read 6 units out of 8 BILLION. That's a really really tiny number. The machine can detect a family of 4 and two others out of ALL the people in the World !

I'm fine with 'knocking down' the numbers at a reasonable cost, but going to the 'nth degree' is not good.
What really irks me are all the 'exclusions' to all of the enviromental rules. Planes get a pass, trains get a pass,guv vehicles too..fire trucks, hot rods, HD MCs, cop cars,we all know some who pollute,legally.

We got rid of 'single use plastic bags' and gee, someone FINALLY 'did the math' and those new reusable bags (typ walmart ones) are WORSE for the environment ! Can't be recycled ! Same as my 'blue box', that holds recycalbles( that end up in landfill) , the box itself CANNOT be recycled !!

Another study concluded that if Canada stopped all 'pollution', it won't make a difference in the World. Others, like China toss out more in a week than Canada does in a year.

Fire trucks/police cars are held to the same emission standard as the rest of us. The only thing fire trucks have different is they are programmed not to go into 5mph derate like vehicles sold to the public, also regen can be postponed with the flip of a switch if in a hazardous location. If that is postponed for to long a CEL will illuminate.

 

[mikester]

Next time there is a classic car show in town check it out. When you are driving home and get stuck behind someones classic car spewing noxious fumes you might have youthful memories of how all cars and trucks had stinky exhaust fumes.

If your red neck neighbours are driving around in their noisy jacked up rolling coal sh*tbox pickups you too might wish for better pollution controls.

 

[RDinNHandAZ]

In general you need to have lived in the 50’s or before to realize the unbelievable change in our surroundings for the better, due to all the regulation. Smog and unburned hydrocarbon stink was rampant in many small cities and all large ones, raw sewerage flowed in even small rural streams and flotillas of it in rivers, the Susquehanna river was so full of combustibles it caught on fire, following a diesel truck left a film of greasy soot on your car. We live in a much cleaner world and though there are plenty of restrictions these measures have by and large been effective.
DEF treatment reduces diesel exhaust to much lower CO2 and NOX and increases the engine efficiency by about 5% so it is less fuel burned overall, and near zero particulate emissions. I drove an older Jetta diesel which was unfortunately a white car except all the rear end that was greasy black soot! Breathing that soot cannot be good for us.
There is plenty of data out there if you want to know more. As for the harder to repair, I hear yah.

 

[mcmxi]

Lets avoid any politics but I am genuinely curious if any emissions systems are actually better for the environment. Some seem maybe and some I can't see how.... I am genuinely curious of this.

There should be more transparency on the cradle to the grave aspect of any of these technologies. So my tractors are putting less particulates into the atmosphere while the engine is running, but how about the environmental impact of manufacturing the components which includes extraction and transportation of raw materials, manufacturing, and transportation of the final product. Then there's the environmental impact from discarding old or malfunctioning emissions parts and the cycle begins for the new part.

Lots of smoke and mirrors I'm afraid, and once again the cost is passed down to the little guy using their tractor for 50 to 300 hours per year.

 

[L35]

DEF treatment reduces diesel exhaust to much lower CO2 and NOX and increases the engine efficiency by about 5% so it is less fuel burned overall

DEF is injected downstream of the turbo, and does a good job of reducing NOX. Without DEF more EGR would be used. I’d rather the small extra expense of DEF than my vehicle ingesting it’s own exhaust.

 

[lynnmor]

the Susquehanna river was so full of combustibles it caught on fire

Since I live near the Susquehanna, I had to look it up. All I found was this article from 1940: fire Maybe you have more information.

 

[lugbolt]

follow the money

 

[GeoHorn]

I didn't consider it 'political' rather that some groups that do 'stuff' to control emission requirements.
As for the 'pointing fingers', EVERY country needs to reduce to the SAME standards. Canada and USA have already reduced a lot, while others haven't. One area is use of coal for power plants. NONE is USA yet China puts a new one online every week. .....

This is incorrect. There are presently over 200 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. and a new one came on-line as recent as 2013. Some are not planned to be retired for at least another decade or more.

Also, long before Covid…it was common for ordinary citizens in oriental countries to wear masks while outdoors simply for the pollution problems.

 

[The Evil Twin]

As mentioned- the waste of the DEF jugs.
Let's also not forget the emissions of the plants where the DEF is made. Also, the trucks and trains that deliver the DEF to the store. The stuff is mostly water. Seems pretty wasteful to haul around tons of water all over the country.

 

[lugbolt]

DEF is injected downstream of the turbo, and does a good job of reducing NOX. Without DEF more EGR would be used. I’d rather the small extra expense of DEF than my vehicle ingesting it’s own exhaust.

DEF works but DEF adds cost to an already expensive powertrain system. For this reason, and many more, that's why we're paying more for goods and services since the vast majority of transport equipment and harvest equipment uses +75hp diesel engines.

We did a study at work a while back. We have a GMC pickup and a Ram pickup. Ram is gas, GMC is diesel. We had to deliver a piece of equipment to Indianapolis, and chose to use the GMC because it's a little more fuel efficient. Not a month later, we found out that we had to go BACK to Indianapolis to pick that machine up (repo) so to study, I took the ram.

The ram is a little less expensive to make the same exact trip. Why? Diesel costs more, maintenance & repair costs more, and then you add DEF into that. A box of DEF is about $25 now locally including tax.

That same trip in the ram ends up about $110 less expensive if you figure it all in. So with that said, we're going to keep the GMC another year (it's coming up on 5 years old) and it will be sold, and not replaced with another diesel-powered vehicle. Probably just keep the ram.

Note that they are both the same exact truck, 2500 series no frills, only real difference is one is a duramax and the other is a 6.4. Rear gearing is nearly the same, tires nearly the same, pulls the same trailer, etc.

Emissions stuff has always been a good thing, but has always cost consumers a little bit of money to implement it. That also means a boost in tax income for the man.

 

[GeoHorn]

As mentioned- the waste of the DEF jugs.
Let's also not forget the emissions of the plants where the DEF is made. Also, the trucks and trains that deliver the DEF to the store. The stuff is mostly water. Seems pretty wasteful to haul around tons of water all over the country.

How else would you suggest it be distributed?

I can remember driving I-10 to Los Angeles for a job interview in 1976…and cresting that last hill before seeing the valley….. Covered in SMOG! The city was barely visible.

Today it’s a clear view from that same location.

Imagine all the millions of people who were breathing that stuff…and the costs of medical care for cancer, COPD, emphysema, early deaths,…..not to mention the physical and Real Suffering those victims of “the good ol’ days” went thru.

Have YOU ever been under-water so long your chest PAINS for a breath of air…?? Imagine that feeling being Constant.

I once worked with a young man who walked lurchingly as if he had polio-braces on his legs. But the actual problem he suffered was from being born and living near San Pedro for the first decade of his life…near all those refineries… He suffered from Lead-Poisoning living/breathing/eating/drinking that environment in the 60’s/’70s. It was pitiful to watch him simply trying to live.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re: There are presently over 200 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. and a new one came on-line as recent as 2013

well according to Google..they're all being phased out..ain't be upgraded to new regs...
as recent as 2013 is ten years ago.. a decade !!
China puts 4 online every month.....

 

[L35]

DEF works but DEF adds cost to an already expensive powertrain system. For this reason, and many more, that's why we're paying more for goods and services since the vast majority of transport equipment and harvest equipment uses +75hp diesel engines.

We did a study at work a while back. We have a GMC pickup and a Ram pickup. Ram is gas, GMC is diesel. We had to deliver a piece of equipment to Indianapolis, and chose to use the GMC because it's a little more fuel efficient. Not a month later, we found out that we had to go BACK to Indianapolis to pick that machine up (repo) so to study, I took the ram.

The ram is a little less expensive to make the same exact trip. Why? Diesel costs more, maintenance & repair costs more, and then you add DEF into that. A box of DEF is about $25 now locally including tax.

That same trip in the ram ends up about $110 less expensive if you figure it all in. So with that said, we're going to keep the GMC another year (it's coming up on 5 years old) and it will be sold, and not replaced with another diesel-powered vehicle. Probably just keep the ram.

Note that they are both the same exact truck, 2500 series no frills, only real difference is one is a duramax and the other is a 6.4. Rear gearing is nearly the same, tires nearly the same, pulls the same trailer, etc.

Emissions stuff has always been a good thing, but has always cost consumers a little bit of money to implement it. That also means a boost in tax income for the man.

I’m with you there. Fuel is usually a dollar more than gas around me. There is a 3-4mpg benefit in the favor if diesel. It used to be greater but with regeneration using fuel that lowered it as we know. DEF is DEF and I buy the cheapest available. Walmart is about 10 bucks (used to be 6 a few years ago) so they get my money. My truck uses about 3% DEF per gallon of fuel so it’s not a huge expense, but yea an extra. Not to mention the maintenance of fuel filters, etc.

 

[The Evil Twin]

How else would you suggest it be distributed?

I can remember driving I-10 to Los Angeles for a job interview in 1976…and cresting that last hill before seeing the valley….. Covered in SMOG! The city was barely visible.

Today it’s a clear view from that same location.

Imagine all the millions of people who were breathing that stuff…and the costs of medical care for cancer, COPD, emphysema, early deaths,…..not to mention the physical and Real Suffering those victims of “the good ol’ days” went thru.

Have YOU ever been under-water so long your chest PAINS for a breath of air…?? Imagine that feeling being Constant.

I once worked with a young man who walked lurchingly as if he had polio-braces on his legs. But the actual problem he suffered was from being born and living near San Pedro for the first decade of his life…near all those refineries… He suffered from Lead-Poisoning living/breathing/eating/drinking that environment in the 60’s/’70s. It was pitiful to watch him simply trying to live.

I don't care if it is distributed or not. Don't use it. I just find it ironic.
And yes, as an avid waterman, I have been underwater that long.
And....the improvement in air quality is not solely due to the mandate that diesels use cat urine and water injected into the exhaust.