NO IDLE ACCOMPLISHMENT: The government mandated cleanup of diesel engines has already produced measurable positive results: Ozone-causing smog is down 13 percent, soot levels are down 24 percent and short-term particulate pollution is down some 28 percent over the last decade.
Image: StockPhoto/Thinkstock
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: Diesel exhaust from trucks, buses, large ships and farm equipment is especially unhealthy. What progress has been made in curbing diesel pollution?—Jackie Mitchell, Barre, Mass.
Gasoline-powered passenger cars plying American roads have been subject to strict pollution limits for some three decades already, but only recently have tougher standards for diesel-powered trucks, trains, barges and other soot-belching vehicles gone on the books across the country. Traditionally, older diesel engines produce less carbon dioxide per mile driven than gasoline-powered vehicles, but they produce more of the pollution associated with localized environmental trauma—such as smog and soot in the air—that can trigger respiratory and cardiovascular problems and have been linked to lung and other cancers.
Thanks to the work of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), American Lung Association (ALA) and others, though, the U.S. government has adopted increasingly stringent rules governing how much particulate pollution and other toxins are allowed to come out of diesel engines. In 2001, these groups convinced Congress to pass strict new pollution limits on heavy-duty trucks and buses. Three years later similarl standards were applied for non-road vehicles, including construction and farm equipment.
These laws were designed to clean up new diesel engines, but the millions of older diesel engines still on American roads, work sites and waterways continue to cause pollution problems. Newer state laws in California, Texas and New York calling on owners of older diesel vehicles to retrofit their engines with emissions reduction equipment has helped clean the air in those states. And regional public-private partnerships administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Clean Diesel Campaign have also helped put a dent in diesel emissions from the trucking, rail and shipping sectors.
Even though the clean-up of diesel engines has only been mandated in the U.S. within the last 10 years, the positive effects are already noticeable. A recent report (“State of the Air: 2012”) issued by the ALA found that, in urban areas across the U.S., ozone-causing smog is down 13 percent, soot levels are 24 percent lower and short-term particulate pollution is down some 28 percent over the last decade.
Meanwhile, California’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, which calls for cleaner-burning diesel fuels, retrofitting of older engines with particle-trapping filters, and the use in new diesel engines of advanced technologies that yield some 90 percent fewer particle emissions, has already cut diesel particle emissions by 75 percent there, with 10 more percentage points worth of clean-up expected by 2020.
“Together, these regulations will prevent tens of thousands of deaths and hospitalizations each year,” reports EDF. “The billions of dollars in public health benefits far outweigh the costs of controlling pollution.” Green leaders concede we still have lots of work to do on the issue, given that 40 percent of the U.S. population still lives in areas with unsafe levels of smog and soot pollution. But there is optimism that pollution reduction policies like California’s will soon be standard elsewhere as well, making our air even cleaner and reducing the percentage of Americans living in areas with compromised air quality.
CONTACTS: EDF, www.edf.org; EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign, www.epa.gov/diesel; ALA’s State of the Air 2012, www.stateoftheair.org/2012/assets/state-of-the-air2012.pdf; California’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentSomeone please explain to me why we aren't encouraging biofuel useage for diesel engines. This was originally created to run on vegetative matter. You can successfully run a diesel engine on used vegetable oil, easily obtained from any good quality restaurant. This would recycle used oils, burn cleaner, and an additional bonus, run more mpg.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been driving diesels for several years and have had great fuel economy. When the government decided to cut down on the mount of sulfur in the diesel fuel, my economy dropped down to about 85% of what it was before. Unless I am mistaken, the government is making me pay more per mile to run my diesel truck down the road. I really don't see this as a pollution solving process as it is more government regulations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much has pollution been dropped since low sulfur diesel was introduced if all vehicles are getting poorer fuel economy? Looks like it is a trade off to me.
Where we really need to look to control pollution is on these huge super tankers that spew more pollution than all the vehicles on the road today. Clean them up and most of the pollution would be taken care of world wide.
Unfortunately, if ALL cropland currently producing soybeans and corn in the US were converted to making biofuels - you would only supply 20-25% of the current fuel requirements. Right NOW, a THIRD of the corn crop goes to bogus Ethanol production and constitutes less than 10% of the "gasoline" engine consumption. Making biofuels from ARABLE land simply decreases food security and raises food prices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you could make biofuels in commercial quantities from algae or something - you MIGHT get to 50% of fuel consumption. The trouble is that plants only capture 1-2% of sunlight for storage as sugars so they are not very efficient. Solar cells + batteries are going to be WAY more efficient and won't degrade food production.
Robin
Robin, I specifically stated recycling vegetable oil that would already be considered as "trash" not growing corn or soybeans whose primary function would be "gas." The energy/resources, etc., that were expended to grow the food has now, in theory, been halved, since you used the oil that was first used to cook (fry, whatever...), as the primary energy source to run diesel engines, whether in trucks, cars or wherever it can be used to replace or subsidize the current energy source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnderstood - there is just not enough scale for it to be that significant - especially once you subtract collection costs (in fuel/dollars). Of course, every little bit helps. I was pointing out that even IF you converted all cropland to fuel production - there isn't near enough to supply our fuel needs. Solar + Batteries is virtually our only hope of avoiding an epic catastrophe at this point. :(
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are, of course,correct; converting to biofuel alone is most certainly not enough. I would love to see solar, hydro and wind power become key players in our future. However, since the article was referring to oil in particular, that is what I addressed. :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWaste cooking oil WILL NOT be a significant addition to fuel supply. And the best source of biofuel is waste/excess/diseased wood which has caused some of the terrible forest fires this past season, which in turn release vast amounts of CO2 and Soot into the atmosphere. Properly harvesting the Wood would result in much less fire hazard, much lower emissions & GHG gases, more productive and healthy CO2 absorbing forests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Wood to biofuel means Methanol, been done for over a hundred years. Portable truck sized Methanol plants could be moved to suitable areas where Wood waste is available.
The Methanol burns very well in converted Diesels, at a higher efficiency than diesel and a much wider island of high efficiency, as well as much lower emissions. And Methanol to DME, DME is a better fuel than Diesel in unconverted Diesel engines with a higher cetane number than Diesel. Methanol produced from Wood could supply the entire USA with fuel. If all corn stover in USA were used to make cellulosic ethanol it provide 7 –12% transport fuel, at a very high cost, not currently practical. Wood -> Methanol produces 165-186 gals per tonne dry biomass vs 24-36 gals sugar cane -> ethanol by fermentation. Less than 1/2 the cost per mile of vehicle travel of Corn Ethanol, but 10X the energy per unit of CO2 produced.
http://deq.mt.gov/Energy/bioenergy/Biodiesel_Production_Educ_Presentations/KVogt_Pablo_NCAT_10_31_07.pdf
Methanol production is virtually unlimited by Coal, Biomass, Waste/Industrial/Volcanic/Flue gas CO2 plus Nuclear Hydrogen & Nuclear Electricity. The Lurgi MegaMethanol plants can convert NG to Methanol from stranded flared gas for 5.2 cents per liter. 100 million cubic meters of NG are flared every year, that can produce 130 million tonnes of Methanol per yr vs 39 million tonnes of Ethanol the USA produces. And Methanol from Coal costs 50 cents per liter. Big Oil & Agro are blockading Methanol fuel usage in the West.
Wind, Solar & Hydro are all severely limited by geography. Wind & Solar are too costly and intermittent for practical use in Electric Vehicles or for Synthetic fuel production. Only Nuclear Energy is capable of doing that job. And IT IS capable of replacing all fuels as well as Electricity economically with virtually unlimited supply. Nuclear Energy is the ONLY sustainable Energy source we have at present or for the foreseeable future. That is just a fact - you may not like it - but hiding from the truth is just sentencing future generations to lives of deprivation & suffering.
Ok my 2 cents on this as a truck driver. People talk about the pollution off diesel and think on a per mile basis its while lo, significant. Trucks/ships haul large amounts of weight for their footprint. The best way to lower these emissions is to buy locally. Our current business model puts all these vehicles out there. Right now someone growing tomatoes in the US will ship them to Mexico for cleaning/sorting things like that are putting ridiculous amounts miles on every product we buy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that the internal combustion engine will be banned because of an interaction of nanoparticle emission, rogue DNA and a solar storm with human DNA . The result will be " wormwood " . The solar storm may only be associated, not a cause. HAARP could also play a role. We should know in 6 months.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNano particle emissions are rising. It is the most dangerous part.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last part of your comment I do not agree with you in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nuclear Energy is the only sustainable source of energy we have today or in the foreseeable future. It's just a fact - you may not like it - but hiding the truth is just sentencing future generations to lives of deprivation and suffering."
More good alternative clean energy sources is on track to reach the market shortly. Cold Fusion / LENR is tomorrow's energy that is here today!
My website is written in Norwegian, but most articles originate from English-language web sites. Take therefore the links to the original pages, or use google translate on the home page. Recommended "Top 5" "Brillo" "New Today" publishes latest information about Andrea Rossi's Cold Fusion.
HHO gas / Brown's Gas is a technique with great advantage can be used to reduce fuel consumption and harmful emissions.
http://fjordland.dinstudio.se
Nope Rossi is so old news dude - a bit too dodgy if I may say so. Blacklight power is way to go. Send your cash to get in first!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously, you want a real chance to get in on dirt cheep fusion have a look at Lawrenceville Physics Fusion experiments. Working good and are lookin fur cash!!!
Better still have a look at posts here from Diy'er Jerryd who has 100% efficient rooftop windmills, solar panels that work at night, and the best tasting ethanol biofuel you've ever quaffed.
Has Any Significant Progress Been Made to Reduce Diesel Pollution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere? On Mars?
Here in São Paulo, the bus drivers do not turn off the engines at the endpoint in the lunch hour, are polluting, stopped and empty! And the worst diesel of the universe!
They know futebol, pinga e samba. ONLY.
Has Any Significant Progress Been Made to Reduce Diesel Pollution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere? On Mars?
Here in São Paulo, the bus drivers do not turn off the engines at the endpoint in the lunch hour, are polluting, stopped and empty! And the worst diesel of the universe!
They know futebol, pinga e samba. ONLY.
Dude, LENR IS Nuclear Energy. I am very familiar with the Rossi E-CAT SCAM, and the Blacklight Power SCAM and the EESTOR battery SCAM. You keep hearing promises every few months, tangible products always delayed, this goes on for years, but hype reports monthly. Pure BS. There may be something to LENR but so far it doesn't appear to be a practical way to produce energy, and little hope it ever will be. Sort out the physics first and then maybe practical applications might be developed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd HHO is just an idiotic joke. Come back when you have REAL energy solutions. Not pipe dreams.
Big Oil positively LOVES Bait-And-Switch SCAMs. After all that is what Wind & Solar energy is. And that is why Big Oil/NG is the #1 promoter and investor in Wind & Solar energy.
Correction, Methanol from Coal is 50 cents per gallon (not liter), USA DOE pilot plant, 40 cents per gallon in China, where Methanol from Coal is commonly used as a transportation fuel, cooking fuel and heating fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMethanol use in China:
http://emsh-ngtech.com/methanol/methanol-energy
"...In fact, Methanol actually increases energy efficiency. This means that the volume required is no longer 2.15 liters of Methanol for every liter of gasoline or 2.346 liters of Methanol for every liter of Diesel but only 1.6 liters of Methanol for every liter of gasoline or Diesel...The second extraordinary fact about Methanol is that you can cover about 40% more distance on 1.6 liters of Methanol than you can on a liter of gasoline or Diesel. This gives Methanol a huge advantage as a fuel..."
Added feature Methanol is an excellent fuel to supply interior heat to EVs in the winter. So safe, simple to store and clean burning. One liter per hour of Methanol at 15 cents per liter, would keep an EV warm in the coldest weather, and you can even burn it in a flameless catalytic heater. And a small 3 kwe Direct Methanol fuel cell would be great for interior heat and a range extender/charger for your battery, if you wanted to make an occasional longer trip, or to prevent range anxiety.
that sucks about the non particle emissions. Hopefully they will start regulating those as well. I used to have a diesel VW Jetta TDI and would sometimes use bio-diesel from local station that sold it in San Diego, but I like the idea of using waste oil for bio-diesel rather than growing a crop to use specifically for bio-diesel. I think we should reduce the number of diesel engines out there so they can all be run with waste veggie oil from restaurants and other places like that. Another options would be that fast food restaurants like McDonalds and so forth could have bio-diesel generators right outside their restaurant that they pour their waste oil into and run to provide supplement power to their restaurant. So, back to my Diesel Jetta, I ended up selling it cause it stunk pretty bad. The diesel exhaust smell was especially noticeable when I was in drive through line or if I was driving slowly. I ended up getting a Prius cause gets about the same gas mileage without the smell, but I think the newer TDIs are cleaner than the old 2005 Jetta TDI that I had.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEthanol can also be produced from wood chips and other cellulose waste. The problem with methanol is that it is highly corrosive and so will destroy the fuel storage, pumping and metering systems that are currently installed in our vehicles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn some parts of Canada (Manitoba, Quebec Newfoundland etc) and the USA electrical power is produced mostly from hydroelectric power dams. This is renewable energy and electric vehicles can operate in such a system with virtually no emissions. Electric ehicles make the most sense for these situations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDiesel is as clean as it's fuel. Fact is 'diesel' is a nasty blend of the leftovers from gasoline production.
Now your more simple fuels, syn fuel of a chemical or 2 without the sulfur, other trash makes diesels fairly clean.
While methanol can be used it has 40% of the energy of gasoline so one would need 2.5x's as many gallons for the same drive. It's very toxic is another problem.
I'd go for now for lowest cost NG using a gasoline engine block costs far less, 30% of the weight, as eff, 5% of the pollution, 20% of the cost of fuel than diesel. Any truck fleet that doesn't switch in the next few yrs won't be able to compete.
Future replacing a say 500 hp diesel would be a 300hp E motor, a 100hp NG motor with a 100hp alternator/motor and 10 mile range batteries along with composite chassis, bodies will in 15 yrs or so be the choice of smart operators as doubles mileage.
For ships too NG can mean big savings while being far more clean as they burn bunkerC oil which is the tar left over after all the worthwhile stuff has been removed and loads of sulfur making SOx acid raining down on others. It's basically the worse than most coal. They can take advantage of stranded gas too.
Sethdiyal, real class. Again your post say much more about you. Please try to stay on subject.
A great place for new generation nukes like the 25MWE Hyperion is powering the biggest ships which while loading could even sell power to the port. That's what the original purpose of the design was for, submarines. Most of our military ships should be powered by these too to cut fuel oil costs.
No mention that Corning Inc. has been producing diesel filters for years that remove diesel pollutants.This is starnge in that the title asks what progress has been made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonsense. Methanol IS NOT highly corrosive as you ridiculously claim, it is mildly corrosive, much less so than water, does not corrode steel, will not even corrode black iron, slightly corrosive to aluminum. Ethanol does corrode steel, and is more corrosive than Methanol, but both Methanol and Ethanol have been and are used quite successfully in converted vehicles, never mind in Methanol optimized vehicles, for which corrosion and possible effects on gaskets, etc are non-existent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI put a jar of Methanol with aluminum, brass, iron, copper and steel inside and the same with water & left for one year. After one year the Methanol jar was crystal clear with no sign of corrosion, whereas the water jar was opaque with considerable corrosion and residues. Must be terrible to use that "highly corrosive" water, Eh! Need to shutdown all home water delivery because of that "highly corrosive" water.
Existing engines are optimized for gasoline or diesel. It is INEVITABLE that replacing that fuel with Methanol, Ethanol, NG, DME, Propane etc will cause issues that need to be corrected.
The important factor is choosing a fuel that is effective, economical and SCALABLE to provide Carbon free liquid energy indefinitely, long after petroleum is depleted. Methanol and its cousin DME are by far the best candidates using rational criteria.
And sure you can make ethanol or synthetic gasoline/diesel from Wood or other Biomass, but all of that is either Synthesis or Fermentation. Both of which are MUCH MORE expensive, MUCH MORE complex with high capital cost and fermentation has a low Carbon Efficiency. And only Methanol, Methane and DME, among hydrocarbons, lack the double-carbon bond that causes carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic Soot and PAHs to be formed. It is stupid to waste petroleum on producing fuel when the complex hydrocarbons are valuable for Petrochemicals whereas for fuel only simple hydrocarbons are needed. It is much easier to break down molecules into simpler ones than building more complex molecules from simpler ones. You can make Methanol in a home production plant from Wood waste. Try that with Ethanol.
Electric Vehicles are great, and Nuclear Electricity is the optimal way to supply the power for them. But Methanol makes a great adjunct to EV power, for extended range EVs and as a clean, flameless heat source for EVs in cold Northern Winters.
"..methanol..has 40% of the energy of gasoline.. need 2.5x's as many gallons for the same drive..very toxic.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong, Wrong & Wrong. Methanol has 49% the energy density of gasoline and 44% that of diesel. But it burns at double the efficiency of gasoline, in a properly converted or Methanol optimized engine - so SAME NUMBER OF GALLONS. Methanol is more efficiently burning than diesel, with a much wider island of high efficiency, so maybe 25% more volume of fuel needed with Methanol, but much cheaper per mile than diesel, much cleaner, and unlimited supply from DOMESTIC sources. No Iran Nuclear Weapons or Terrorist funding from Methanol.
As for NG, Methanol has double the Energy Density of CNG, with much simpler, smaller & far safer, storage. CNG prices in North America are WAY low right now due to another Wall St. Ponzi scheme mortgage-type scam. Not so in Asia, NG is just as expensive as Oil, and Europe almost as expensive as Oil. Production cost of the only surplus NG in Canada & USA, namely Shale Gas, is over $7 per mmBTU, nowhere near the $2-3 per mmBTU it is selling for. Forbes is predicting NG prices this winter to return to normal levels of $8 per mmBTU. And Middle East NG producers have already detailed plans for MASSIVE LNG exports to North America when the current glut is spent. That will be LNG tied to the Oil price.
And it is cheaper, easier and more efficient to convert either a Gasoline Engine or a Diesel Engine to Methanol than it is to CNG.
And Methanol ain't toxic, it is actually very environmentally friendly, spills are trivial. They quickly evaporate, dissipate to meaningless levels in water or are consumed by common bacteria. Gasoline or Diesel/Heating Oil spills can cost a homeowner over $1 million. Cleanup is a nightmare. All contaminated soils must be dug up and sent to a toxic waste disposal site, even soils under a home foundation.
So what is true is that Methanol is a primate poison, The only reason Methanol is poisonous to primates is because the enzyme we have evolved to metabolize the ethyl alcohol in fruit, converts methanol to Formic Acid in the blood which gradually over a period of 8-48 hrs builds up to the point that it can destroy nerve tissue, called acidosis, possibly causing blindness. Antidotes include taking 4 standard drinks of alcoholic beverage and one drink per hr, by a fomepizole tablets or folate.
Millions of gallons of Methanol are added to sewage treatment plant effluent to destroy nitrates, and it is commonly found in nature and in fruit juices and diet soft drinks.
Robin, Quiz time! What do solar PV panels do after 10 years? THEY DEGRADE. (only about 50% as efficient as new) What do batteries do after 5 years? THEY DEGRADE. What are batteries made of? How much pollution is used in the process of making batteries? A LOT! Ton on money is spent on replacement costs for solar systems. Go back to school. Biomass is clean and takes carbon out of the air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article and comments which follow. The way the article is written, you get the impression the law changed diesel vehicle emissions. Too bad they don't mention the desiel particluate NOx reduction catalysts, improved combustion efficiency, lower sulfur fuel, Selective Catalytic Reduction, etc. that is what actually improved the emissions. It is the engineers that made the success, not just the law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this