GregLocock
Automotive
- Apr 10, 2001
- 23,423
jmw wrote (heavily edited)
"I thought ducking out of Kyoto was saying something about competitiveness."
More like inertia, and that it is bad science, I thought.
".... how much of the environmental legislation is well implemented and effective? How much of it is downright wrong?"
There have undoubtedly been some bad ideas and mistakes have been made (eg removing all asbestos from buildings in a panic, and taking lead out of petrol in countries that weren't using catalysts). On the other hand, within living memory thousands of people died each year in London's smogs, which no longer happens, so the Clean Air Act is probably a good thing. Similarly I doubt you'll find many LA residents complaining about catalytic converters.
"The popular view is that we live in an age of global warming. Is it true? There are some very strong views about and some say it just isn't proven. Some that we are just in one of those cycles when we are warmer now."
No one knows if it is true. Since respected climatologists have admitted recently that they over-emphasise the sensational aspects of their work, it is very hard for us to tell.
I look at Kyoto/global warming as a four step discussion, and you really need to agree on the answer for each before going to the next.
1) is the world getting warmer, on average?
2) is this primarily due to greenhouse gases?
3) are mankind's greenhouse gas contributions a significant proportion of the total greenhouse gas effect?
4) does the benefit of controlling gas emissions in (3) exceed the disadvantages of (1)?
My answers would be
1) possibly
2) maybe
3) I don't know, but I think so
4) I don't know, but given the previous answers it is difficult to be prescriptive.
"Can anyone say whether catalytic converters on cars are the right way to go?"
Now, please understand that this has very little to do with global warming. Cats reduce the emissions of NOx, carbon monoxide, and unburnt hydrocarbons. The latter are greenhouse gases, but are only present as a tiny percentage of the exhaust emissions (about 0.5%).
The reason to get rid of those gases is to make the air more breathable generally, and specifically to reduce smog.
" Correct me if i am wrong (i know you will) but i understood that most of the pollution from a car occurs when the engine is cold. The catalytic converter is at its best when it is hot. So the time when it is most needed it is the least use."
True, if a bit negative.
" I also understood that lean burn and modern engine management could have done just as good a job had the industry been told to do something but not been mandated what it should do."
I don't think so, lean burn will reduce CO and HC but vastly INCREASE NOx
" (Incidentally, i hear that the way to overcome the problem is to install preheaters to warm up the catalysts. Yeah. Right. So we are all going to sit and wait for the thing to hot up before we drive off.)"
Or keep the cat hot in a thermal jacket, or figure out how to make a fast preheater or.... There are many solutions, although personally I don't regard it as a priority.
"how many cars on the planet have catalytic converters and how many don't. And how much extra fuel is burnt to compensate for the otherwise better gas mileage that could have been had?"
By going to cats we had to have fuel injection instead of carbs. Now we've got fuel injection engines are more powerful, cleaner and use less fuel. I think it has been a good move.
So compared with where we were cats have improved things, If you were to take the cats off, and retune the engine to within the other constraints of the system, you would get NO MORE power (that is limited by the temperature of the exhaust valve), probably about 10-20% better fuel economy (guessing you could run 15:1) around town, and of course a heap more pollution.
"Politics and legislation are the bane of everyones lives."
Everyone apart from politicians, legislators and other weenies. However, some people have more urgent concerns, I don't think you can really say "everyone".
"In Europe, the trend is toward more and more diesel passenger cars. This may be because they are thought to be less polluting, I wouldn't know."
No, running costs and reliability are the primary drivers.
" The exception is the UK where the proportion of diesels is actually falling. The reason? taxation. (see SMMT reports). The price of diesel is lower than petrol just about everywhere in Europe except the UK. A phsychological point i guess since the mpg is still better with diesel."
As I said, running costs.
" But government gets it wrong again. In factlegislation fears are one reason why LPG fuelled cars never made it in the UK, the fear that if it became popular the tax burden would increase and strip all the benefits away again."
This is exactly what happened in Australia. I don't really see that LPG is such a terrific fuel anyway, to me it is just another hydrocarbon. Substituting one oil product for another doesn't seem to make that much difference to me.
"So, do catalytic converters represent sensible environmental legislation or bad politics?"
Ask city dwellers. Cats do what was originally asked of them. If that original aim was sensible then they are a successful solution.
"How about "renewable" energy? How many of us are pursuaded that oil and gas are bad?"
Oil and gas are inanimate substances, they can't be good or bad.
" Should we use Hydro-electricity?"
Where possible, where it doesn't destroy too much of the landscape, if it is cost effective, probably.
" Solar power?"
In some circumstances
" Wind farms?"
I don't know. They don't look very clever to me.
" well, so far as i can work out, none of them is as popular as they once were."
Not true in the UK or Australia.
" In fact many do quite a bit of harm to the environment themselves. Hence the latest European proposal is for off-shore windfarms. Great for countries with a continental shelf i.e. shallow waters over the horizon. But cheap? No, tax subsidised. In Europe the green target is 12% of power by 2010 or something similar. We're going to be paying for it but is it as green?"
As what?
" is it as environmentally friendly as the popular view says it is?"
Well you are substituting visual pollution, dead birds, and an inefficient use of resources (I bet) for a resource that will become expensive in my lifetime.
" Take some other "green" issues such as the opposition to incinerators in the UK. Frankly, we know there are some chemicals we need to dispose of carefully. A well controlled incinerator in a well regulated country is a good solution to me. But the "environmentalists are agiants it. The result? well i would suspect a good few more drums of chemicals will be "washed overboard" off the west african coast for a while to come."
I agree. The opposition to incinerators is NIMBYism and anti-industrialism.
"We are getting to live in a PC world where we dare not challenge the received wisdom of a few pundits and we are paying a price. Not all environmental legislation is well constructed, well intended, well thought out or even any use at all."
True. I happen to think that on balance we live in a nicer environment due to the sum total of the legislation.
"So is it wrong to suggest that environemntal legislation should be reviewed? No, not even for reasons of economy."
I agree it should be subject to review.
"Like everything else, some luxuries are beyond affordability if there is no level playing field. Don't forget that we are not talking about environmental legislation universaly applied but legislation that harms one economy more than another. "
Phew. I doubt that USAn pollution laws (apart from CO2 and Ozone depleting emissions) have much effect on India or China directly. The USA has decided generally on a level of pollution that its society will tolerate. It is AMERICANS who want pollution to stop in the USA, and it is AMERICANS who control the legislature. Your call, if you are American, not mine, cos I'm not.
Cheers
Greg Locock
"I thought ducking out of Kyoto was saying something about competitiveness."
More like inertia, and that it is bad science, I thought.
".... how much of the environmental legislation is well implemented and effective? How much of it is downright wrong?"
There have undoubtedly been some bad ideas and mistakes have been made (eg removing all asbestos from buildings in a panic, and taking lead out of petrol in countries that weren't using catalysts). On the other hand, within living memory thousands of people died each year in London's smogs, which no longer happens, so the Clean Air Act is probably a good thing. Similarly I doubt you'll find many LA residents complaining about catalytic converters.
"The popular view is that we live in an age of global warming. Is it true? There are some very strong views about and some say it just isn't proven. Some that we are just in one of those cycles when we are warmer now."
No one knows if it is true. Since respected climatologists have admitted recently that they over-emphasise the sensational aspects of their work, it is very hard for us to tell.
I look at Kyoto/global warming as a four step discussion, and you really need to agree on the answer for each before going to the next.
1) is the world getting warmer, on average?
2) is this primarily due to greenhouse gases?
3) are mankind's greenhouse gas contributions a significant proportion of the total greenhouse gas effect?
4) does the benefit of controlling gas emissions in (3) exceed the disadvantages of (1)?
My answers would be
1) possibly
2) maybe
3) I don't know, but I think so
4) I don't know, but given the previous answers it is difficult to be prescriptive.
"Can anyone say whether catalytic converters on cars are the right way to go?"
Now, please understand that this has very little to do with global warming. Cats reduce the emissions of NOx, carbon monoxide, and unburnt hydrocarbons. The latter are greenhouse gases, but are only present as a tiny percentage of the exhaust emissions (about 0.5%).
The reason to get rid of those gases is to make the air more breathable generally, and specifically to reduce smog.
" Correct me if i am wrong (i know you will) but i understood that most of the pollution from a car occurs when the engine is cold. The catalytic converter is at its best when it is hot. So the time when it is most needed it is the least use."
True, if a bit negative.
" I also understood that lean burn and modern engine management could have done just as good a job had the industry been told to do something but not been mandated what it should do."
I don't think so, lean burn will reduce CO and HC but vastly INCREASE NOx
" (Incidentally, i hear that the way to overcome the problem is to install preheaters to warm up the catalysts. Yeah. Right. So we are all going to sit and wait for the thing to hot up before we drive off.)"
Or keep the cat hot in a thermal jacket, or figure out how to make a fast preheater or.... There are many solutions, although personally I don't regard it as a priority.
"how many cars on the planet have catalytic converters and how many don't. And how much extra fuel is burnt to compensate for the otherwise better gas mileage that could have been had?"
By going to cats we had to have fuel injection instead of carbs. Now we've got fuel injection engines are more powerful, cleaner and use less fuel. I think it has been a good move.
So compared with where we were cats have improved things, If you were to take the cats off, and retune the engine to within the other constraints of the system, you would get NO MORE power (that is limited by the temperature of the exhaust valve), probably about 10-20% better fuel economy (guessing you could run 15:1) around town, and of course a heap more pollution.
"Politics and legislation are the bane of everyones lives."
Everyone apart from politicians, legislators and other weenies. However, some people have more urgent concerns, I don't think you can really say "everyone".
"In Europe, the trend is toward more and more diesel passenger cars. This may be because they are thought to be less polluting, I wouldn't know."
No, running costs and reliability are the primary drivers.
" The exception is the UK where the proportion of diesels is actually falling. The reason? taxation. (see SMMT reports). The price of diesel is lower than petrol just about everywhere in Europe except the UK. A phsychological point i guess since the mpg is still better with diesel."
As I said, running costs.
" But government gets it wrong again. In factlegislation fears are one reason why LPG fuelled cars never made it in the UK, the fear that if it became popular the tax burden would increase and strip all the benefits away again."
This is exactly what happened in Australia. I don't really see that LPG is such a terrific fuel anyway, to me it is just another hydrocarbon. Substituting one oil product for another doesn't seem to make that much difference to me.
"So, do catalytic converters represent sensible environmental legislation or bad politics?"
Ask city dwellers. Cats do what was originally asked of them. If that original aim was sensible then they are a successful solution.
"How about "renewable" energy? How many of us are pursuaded that oil and gas are bad?"
Oil and gas are inanimate substances, they can't be good or bad.
" Should we use Hydro-electricity?"
Where possible, where it doesn't destroy too much of the landscape, if it is cost effective, probably.
" Solar power?"
In some circumstances
" Wind farms?"
I don't know. They don't look very clever to me.
" well, so far as i can work out, none of them is as popular as they once were."
Not true in the UK or Australia.
" In fact many do quite a bit of harm to the environment themselves. Hence the latest European proposal is for off-shore windfarms. Great for countries with a continental shelf i.e. shallow waters over the horizon. But cheap? No, tax subsidised. In Europe the green target is 12% of power by 2010 or something similar. We're going to be paying for it but is it as green?"
As what?
" is it as environmentally friendly as the popular view says it is?"
Well you are substituting visual pollution, dead birds, and an inefficient use of resources (I bet) for a resource that will become expensive in my lifetime.
" Take some other "green" issues such as the opposition to incinerators in the UK. Frankly, we know there are some chemicals we need to dispose of carefully. A well controlled incinerator in a well regulated country is a good solution to me. But the "environmentalists are agiants it. The result? well i would suspect a good few more drums of chemicals will be "washed overboard" off the west african coast for a while to come."
I agree. The opposition to incinerators is NIMBYism and anti-industrialism.
"We are getting to live in a PC world where we dare not challenge the received wisdom of a few pundits and we are paying a price. Not all environmental legislation is well constructed, well intended, well thought out or even any use at all."
True. I happen to think that on balance we live in a nicer environment due to the sum total of the legislation.
"So is it wrong to suggest that environemntal legislation should be reviewed? No, not even for reasons of economy."
I agree it should be subject to review.
"Like everything else, some luxuries are beyond affordability if there is no level playing field. Don't forget that we are not talking about environmental legislation universaly applied but legislation that harms one economy more than another. "
Phew. I doubt that USAn pollution laws (apart from CO2 and Ozone depleting emissions) have much effect on India or China directly. The USA has decided generally on a level of pollution that its society will tolerate. It is AMERICANS who want pollution to stop in the USA, and it is AMERICANS who control the legislature. Your call, if you are American, not mine, cos I'm not.
Cheers
Greg Locock
