Neutralizing Diesel's Idle Threat

[Dale Reed]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,55646,00.html



Neutralizing Diesel's Idle Threat



2:00 a. m. Oct. 10, 2002 PDT

PHILADELPHIA -- While diesel-powered buses are great for taking little Christopher to school, the Environmental Protection Agency says their polluting engines are a growing threat to kids' health.



A startup company is developing a cleaner alternative: the first fuel cell to run on ordinary diesel fuel.



Diesel vehicles have long been considered a pariah because of their noise and air pollution. In September, the Northwest office of the EPA sent a letter to schools requesting that bus drivers stop idling their engines while on school grounds because "exposure to diesel exhaust can cause lung damage, increased frequency and severity of asthma attacks, and increased cancer risks. "



Diesel bus and truck operators frequently sit with their engines running in order to keep the heating or air conditioning going. But a growing number of states have passed anti-idling laws that limit the time that vehicles can sit still and belch out harmful particulate matter.



Franklin Fuel Cells, located just outside of Philadelphia in Wayne, Pennsylvania, is developing a fuel cell as an auxiliary energy source that could provide the on-board electricity used for heating and cooling buses and trucks.



Dave Kelly, president of Franklin, said the quieter diesel fuel cells could also be used in construction vehicles or garbage trucks that require extensive on-board power. Kelly expects the technology to be commercially available within 12 to 24 months.



The technology is based on a discovery by University of Pennsylvania researchers Ray Gorte and John Vohs.



Most fuel cells "reform" or extract hydrogen from fossil fuels such as natural gas or petroleum. According to Gorte the process is expensive and cuts down on the fuel efficiency.



The Penn team found that by using copper as a catalyzing agent (instead of nickel, which is used in many fuel cells), they could power a fuel cell with diesel fuel without reforming.



Their solid oxide fuel cell is approximately 50 percent more fuel efficient than standard diesel combustion engines and reduces emissions by the same amount, according to Gorte. He "recognizes the dangers of global warming and hopes that (diesel fuel cells) will help to curb carbon dioxide emissions. "



Gorte, who is working as a consultant at Franklin along with Vohs, said the fuel cells operate at around 700 degrees Celsius, which makes them appropriate as home energy sources. He also said the U. S. Army is interested in using the technology to replace batteries as a power source for mobile devices.



In Gorte's view, diesel fuel cells could also take the place of generators in recreational vehicles. However, others disagree.



"Using a diesel fuel cell as an auxiliary power source (in vehicles) is appealing, but it is not clear that it would be appropriate because of the higher operating temperatures and the longer time it takes to get started," said Therese Langer, program director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.



Jay Stein, the managing director of the analyst firm E Source, said that although eliminating the need for reforming should make the diesel fuel cell less expensive, "you don't get any fuel value from throwing away the carbon," which would probably have an impact on its efficiency.



But the EPA's heightened interest in enforcing anti-idling laws, such as last week's penalties for violations at Boston's Logan Airport, could spur interest in diesel fuel cells from bus and truck drivers.



"My boss would love it -- it costs us money idling overnight," said truck driver George Hill, of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, who often sleeps in his truck with the engine racing. "But I'd miss the noise and vibration -- I sleep better in my truck than at home. "

 

[Dane]

Forget about all those smoky old buses and trucks, the truth is that the modern diesel car is as clean, and probably cleaner than an equivalent petrol car. Don't believe me? - read on.



The five main emissions for petrol and diesel cars are:-

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Hydrocarbons

Particulates



Of these five, a diesel car is better than a petrol car with three of them, about the same with one, and worse with one. Only one of these classes of emissions is visible (particulates, or soot), and rather unfortunately for diesel cars, that is the one which is worse for them. The three emissions for which petrol cars are worse are invisible, so you won't realise that they are there; however they still cause harm to health and the environment.

What problems do these emissions cause, and how does diesel stack up:-



Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide is the main cause for concern at the moment, and is the subject of international agreements to try to reduce its output. Carbon dioxide is causing global warming; this is a known fact. Carbon dioxide is produced by any burning of fossil fuels, and is caused by production of electricity by most current powerstations; this means that electric cars cause carbon dioxide emissions too. Carbon dioxide does not cause any health issues.

Carbon dioxide emissions are directly proportional to fuel consumption, and as diesel cars use 30 to 40% less fuel, they emit 30 to 40% less carbon dioxide than petrol cars. Natural gas and LPG cars are actually quite fuel inefficient, if otherwise cleaner burning, and so produce more CO2 than a diesel.

Although CO2 emissions are not directly harmful to us, they are changing our climate. The legacy these emissions will leave will be felt by every generation after us.



Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide is a poison. It has no smell, but can kill you without you realising what is happening. Carbon monoxide is the reason why you should not run you car engine (petrol) in a confined space. Diesel engines produce virtually no carbon monoxide, a petrol engine produces enough to kill you. The main remedy to carbon monoxide emissions of petrol engines has been the introduction of catalytic converters, however there are problems with cats:-

They don't work until they are hot, maybe 10 or 15 minutes of driving. As most car journeys only last 10 or 15 minutes, the cat is not terribly effective.

They increase fuel consumption.

They are easily poisoned and stop working.

They are easily mechanically damaged.



Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen is the main constituent of the air that we breathe. When it is exposed to high pressures and temperatures it combines with oxygen in the air to form nitrous oxides. The nitrous oxides then combine with low level ozone to form smog. Because of the way a diesel engine works, with an excess of air inside the engine (rather than "just enough" as in a petrol engine, which is what causes CO emissions), nitrous oxides are more likely to be formed. However tests of actual cars reveal that whilst emissions of NOx are higher in a new diesel than a new petrol car, that by 50,000 miles or so they are the same, and after that the petrol engine produces more than the diesel. Therefore over the life cycle of the car, petrol and diesel engine emissions of nitrous oxides are similar. Emissions of nitrous oxides can be effectively reduced in both petrol and diesel cars by use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). EGR reduces the combustion temperature to below the point where nitrogen effectively burns.



Hydrocarbons

Hydrocarbons include chemicals such as benzene. Benzene is an extremely carcinogen chemical, and has been declared unsafe by the World Health Organisation in any concentration. Hydrocarbon emissions are contained in petrol engine emissions much more than in diesel engine emissions. Benzene is also present in the fumes which can be smelt when filling up with petrol at a service station, this is not a problem with diesel.



Particulates

Particulates or smoke are really the only problem for diesels (compared with petrol engines). Most of the controversies and newspaper scare stories centre around particulates. Various groups have been trying for years to prove a link between diesel smoke and cancer, and so far have failed to actually prove anything. Friends of the Earth may come up with statements such as "Small particles are believed to lead to 8,100 premature urban deaths every year (1. 9% of all deaths in urban areas)" and then apply them to diesel emissions, but this is flawed because:-

The studies were carried out in American cities where the penetration of diesel in the market is lower. Any increase in deaths due to particulates, if it exists, may be caused be particulates from some other source; the particulates in question have not been indisputably linked with diesel emissions.

Even in Europe, particulates from diesel cars are a very small percentage of the particulate emissions which we breathe; most are from industry.

Diesel engines emit more PM10 particles, that is particles which have a diameter up to 10 microns, but petrol cars actually emit more PM1 particles than diesel ones. These particles are smaller than 1 micron and are invisible. They are also more likely to penetrate deeply into human lungs (as they are smaller) and look less like a natural dust particle, which human lungs have evolved to cope with.

Even if particulates are a factor in the deaths of 8,100 people every year in the UK, then these are the most seriously unwell people in the country. The fact is that we are talking about 8,100 people who are about to die, with or without particulates around.

The original research which led to the link between deaths and particulates is being questioned. See Merlise Clyde's paper, Model Uncertainty and Health Effect Studies for Particulate Matter, which can be downloaded from The National Research Center for Statistics and the Environment in Washington.



Summary



Diesel cars are better than petrol cars with reference to carbon dioxide, the global warming gas.



Diesel cars are better than petrol cars with reference to carbon monoxide, a poison.



Diesel cars are better than petrol cars with reference to hydrocarbons which cause cancer.



Diesel cars are similar to petrol cars with reference to nitrous oxides, which cause smog.



Diesel cars are worse than petrol cars with reference to particulates, which have unproved health impacts.



Take that you knuckle draggin tree huggers!

 

[Blakers]

Carbon dioxide is the main cause for concern at the moment, and is the subject of international agreements to try to reduce its output. Carbon dioxide is causing global warming; this is a known fact.

This is a great article, except this global warming thing is BS! The earth has warmed and cooled a few degrees for eons. Just a natural occurance. Heck, one volcano erruption somewhere in the world pretty much eclipses all the man made pollution in the whole world.



Blake

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

Aren't we doing the world a favor by putting particulates in the air hence causing more cloud cover and thereby global cooling? Just balancing things out . . . .

 

[Dale Reed]

I like that idea as I sit here at the computer warming my backside with a wood-burning fireplace insert stove.

 

[illflem]

I also like the idea of global warming but wouldn't want to live any further south than Montana or near any oceans.

by Lee Iacocca

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we really need?"

 

[T. Baker]

I think the EPA should pass a law that no child should have any bare skin exposed to the sun while at school because the sun is a well known carcinagen. All barbaques should be outlawed because the particulate emissions are documented carcinagens. While they are at it they should ground all jets because they emit lots of particulate matter and burn lots of fuel and have no emission controls. How about no more fires on the beach or campfires either. Truck pulls should definatly be outlawed - way too much black smoke! It should be made a fellony to tamper with any factory EPA aprove settings of any Cummins diesel as well. Only factory trained technitions or dealers should be alowed to work on our diesels. After all diesels are responsible for people getting cancer! Heck the EPA has rulled diesel emmissions to be toxic and carcenegenic through their scientific tests! We all know somebody who has died of cancer. It must be the fault of diesel engines.

 

[Snow man]

I think modern trucks/cars are way cleaner than the average ciggarette.

 

[illflem]

T. Baker, I know you're joking but many of things you mention are already against the law in some places. Scary.

 

[Dale Reed]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1015/p16s01-wmgn.html



from the October 15, 2002 edition -



Can 'clean diesel' power past gasoline?

By Laurent Belsie | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

To those worried about air pollution, America's enginemakers want to say two words: Clean diesel.



Admittedly, it sounds like a contradiction. Nevertheless, urged on by ever-tougher emissions standards, manufacturers and researchers are turning sooty old truck engines into clean-burning power plants.



If they meet the challenge, the nation's trucks, buses – even many of its sport-utility vehicles and cars – will be running on clean diesel for years to come.



The technology may raise the costs of driving. It will almost certainly boost the nation's freight bill. Still, it would push onto America's highways vehicles that get higher mileage and pollute less than today's cars and trucks.



"Not very many experts in this field have much faith in the future of gasoline engines," says Stephen Ciatti, a clean-diesel researcher at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Ill. "Either diesel engines or fuel cells will be the likely contenders as the power plants for future transportation needs. " (One environmental advocate bets on fuel cells, see story. )



Even some environmentalists acknowledge diesel has a role to play, at least in trucks and heavy equipment, if it can meet future clean-air requirements.



"Once those standards kick in, those big smoking diesel trucks we've all come to know and hate will be a thing of the past," says Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, a Washington, D. C. , environmental group.



Already, momentum is building. At last month's Paris Auto Show, 13 chief executives of the world's top automakers issued a joint statement calling for, among other things, a universal standard for and acceptance of clean-diesel technology. Diesel already powers 3 of every 10 new cars sold in Western Europe and, according to one forecast, may run half of them by 2006.



In the United States, domestic and foreign automakers are beginning to offer diesel-powered models again after a long lull. Volkswagen has built a small but fanatical following with diesel-powered Jettas, Golfs, and Beetles. Ford and General Motors now offer diesel-powered pickup trucks. And this time they promise to run cleaner and better than the models that appeared in the 1970s.



Of the five most fuel-efficient cars in the US today, the top two are hybrid-gasoline Japanese cars, followed by three diesel-powered Volkswagen models. The reason: Diesel engines remain inherently more efficient than gasoline-powered cars. And they produce less carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.



So when Volkswagen wanted to show off a high-mileage car of the future at its annual meeting last April, its outgoing chief executive drove a tiny diesel-powered prototype that got a whopping 285 miles to the gallon.



Of course, diesel engines have their drawbacks. They emit nitrogen oxides (NOx), which produce smog, and very fine airborne particles linked by some to thousands of premature deaths each year. By tightening emission and other standards, governments on both sides of the Atlantic have begun to push enginemakers to improve their technology.



In 2005, tough new clean-air standards will challenge European automakers to create even cleaner diesel engines. A year later, the US will require diesel fuel to meet low-sulphur requirements. Low-sulphur fuel should prove a key benefit for US automakers, allowing them to build less-polluting diesel pickups, vans, and sport-utility vehicles.



"We think there's an opportunity in the US," says Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum, a consortium of manufacturers based in Frederick, Md. "If you could get 40 miles per gallon in your SUV, a lot of people would be interested. "



The tougher challenge lies in truck engines, which spew more pollution and where fuel economy is critical. For example, new federal emissions regulations that took effect Oct. 1. have slowed semi trailer-truck sales to a crawl. That's because, for the first time, diesel-engine manufacturers have failed to lower the cost of operation while meeting clean-air standards, notes Bob Costello, chief economist with the American Trucking Associations (ATA) in Alexandria, Va.



Instead, they're using technology that boosts the cost of a new truck by some $5,000 to $8,000 and actually lowers fuel efficiency by 3 to 5 percent. Added maintenance on the new engines could cost truckers an extra $6,000 over the life of their vehicle, the ATA estimates.



No wonder truck salesrooms have cleared out in the past two weeks. Many fleet managers bought their trucks before Oct. 1 to avoid buying the more costly and less proven engines.



"Nobody knows what they're going to do," says Roger Weiler, new-truck sales manager for Kenworth of St. Louis, a truck dealership in suburban Fenton, Mo. But "eventually they're going to have to buy them... . I'd say in six months we'll see a pickup. "



That prediction may prove too optimistic, says Tom Rhein, president of Rhein Associates, a diesel-engine and truck research company and newsletter publisher in Canton, Mich. He estimates new truck sales could fall to as low as 125,000 next year – half the total sales of year 2000.



If truckers are leery of the new technology – called cooled exhaust gas recirculation – they're not alone. Although it cuts enough NOx to pass the Oct. 1 standards, it does little to help manufacturers meet the much stricter 2007 specifications. Those standards call for a 90 percent reduction in the fine particles diesels spew out.



That's why Caterpillar, the nation's top seller of large, heavy-duty truck engines, is trying to leapfrog its competitors with its next-generation engine, which uses advanced-combustion emissions-reduction technology.



Using electronic controls, the engine burns more of the diesel fuel at the point of combustion than traditional engines do. That means fewer emissions at the tailpipe. So far, the company sounds optimistic that the process can help meet the 2007 standards cost-effectively.



"We believe that clean diesel is going to take us through the next decade for sure in terms of a primary power source," says Jim Parker, vice president of the power-systems marketing division for Caterpillar, in Peoria, Ill.



There's only one problem. The new technology isn't ready yet. Now being tested in undisclosed locations around the country, it won't appear in a production engine until sometime next quarter, and won't be fully rolled out until the end of next year.



Until then, the company will have to pay federal clean-air penalties of anywhere from $3,000 to $4,500 for every engine sold.



Caterpillar has promised not to pass on the cost to its consumers and claims the penalties – in this slow sales period – won't affect its bottom line significantly.



Still, in the larger context, the added expense of these various engine technologies undoubtedly will raise the nation's transportation costs. Already, trucks haul some 8. 8 billion tons of goods every year, accounting for 86 percent of the nation's freight bill.



When the new 2007 rules kick in, trucking costs will rise, says Mr. Costello of the American Trucking Associations.



Whatever technology wins, it will only gradually clean up the air. Truck engines typically last about a decade – longer if they're rebuilt. Manufacturers and regulators are starting to look at how they might retrofit existing trucks with pollution controls.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Copyright 2002 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email -- email address removed --

 

[John Berger]

Carbon dioxide is causing global warming; this is a known fact.



Wrong!!! It's a known theory and that's all. Produce 10 scientists that say global warming is occurring and I can find 10 that will say it is not. It's kind of like the theory of evolution. You teach it long enough it assumes the identity of fact.



One of many statistics cited supporting global warming is the Antarctic Ice shearing occurring along the northern coast of the continent. Interior temperatures on the continent have actually dropped on average over the last 40 years. The ice shearing off is attributed to man made pollutants, primarily those made and consumed in the United States. If that's the case, what's causing the interior to become colder? Personally, I look to the decline in the earth's magnetic field as the problem, not emissions from our trucks or cars.

 

[Dale Reed]

http://www.oism.org/

http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm



Global Warming Petition

Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

www.oism.org/pproject



This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails. See over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.



The global warming hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test. It lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists and population reduction advocates. The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.



This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is eviromentally helpful.



The link above will take you to the paper Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and a petition that will let you participate in this important project.

 

[Blakers]

Originally

The ice shearing off is attributed to man made pollutants, primarily those made and consumed in the United States.

Of course! It's always America's fault. Every problem in the world is America's fault. Yea right!

 

[hammersley]

Liked the data ---- but

When I sent it to a co-worker - this is what I got back:



http://www.afscme.org/health/faq-dies.htm

 

[wxman]

Re: Liked the data ---- but

Originally posted by hammersley

When I sent it to a co-worker - this is what I got back:



http://www.afscme.org/health/faq-dies.htm

This "fact sheet" is so replete with old data, half truths, and assumptions that I hardly know where to start... so I guess I'll just start from the beginning.

When diesel fuel burns in an engine, the resulting exhaust is made up of soot and gases which may contain thousands of different chemical substances.

Response: So does gasoline engine exhaust... . in fact any combustion process does!

The soot consists of very small particles that can be inhaled and deposited in the lungs. Diesel exhaust contains 20-100 times more particles than gasoline exhaust.

Response: Gasoline engine exhaust has an even smaller particle size distribution than diesel. Under many real-life operating conditions, gasoline engine emits many time more particulates, especially nano-particulates, than diesel engines under the same operating conditions.

These particles carry cancer-causing substances known as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Response: Gasoline engine exhaust typically has more... 4 to 10 times as much according to this study!

Gases in diesel exhaust, such as nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde, benzene, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide can also create health problems.

Response: Once again, gasoline engine exhaust also contains these gases, typically more! According to the previously referenced study, benzene emissions from gasoline engines are approximately one order of magnitude (i. e. , 10 times) higher than diesel engine exhaust. And carbon monoxide... don't go there! It's several orders of maganitude higher in gasoline engine exhaust! As a matter of fact the above study concludes: "Most harmful gaseous emiss. lower for diesel". NOx is really the only thing mentioned that's higher for diesel engines, and that is only a minor contributor to ozone formation (hydrocarbon emissions are much more important in ozone formation and guess what... they're much higher in gas exhaust).

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), human and animal studies show that diesel exhaust should be treated as a human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance). These findings are not surprising since several substances in diesel exhaust are known to cause cancer.

Response: Did you know that one study on diesel exhaust exposure actually suggests that cancer risk is lower with increasing exposure to diesel exhaust, according to the Health Effects Institute (HEI)? I don't buy it, but there's certainly NOT unequivocal evidence of diesel exhaust carcinogenicity! That's why EPA lowered diesel exhaust from a "highly likely" carcinogen to "likely" (based on the recommendation of its Science Advisory Board), and declined to assign specific cancer risks like CARB has done. Another study presented at the 2002 DEER Conference in August suggests that "high emitting" gasoline engines are actually much more "toxic" in terms of acute responses than "high emitting" diesel engines. Don't get caught behind an old gas clunker!

 

[wxman]

Oh, and regarding "global warming", I'm one scientist (I'm an atmospheric scientist) who's skeptical of the warming theory. I concede that CO2 is transparent to incoming shortwave radiation and does absorb outgoing IR suggesting the possibility, but no one has any idea of what mitigating processes may occur if the atmosphere does in fact warm due to increasing "greenhouse" gases (e. g. , more cloud cover?). For one thing, this warming projection is based on a couple of general circulation models (GCMs), which by the way disagree on the magnitude and the spacial distribution of the warming. Granted, these are climate models, but it's been my experience that trying to rely on model output data for one week in the future is nothing but an exercise in futility, much less a hundred years!



Since we really don't know what increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will do, I think it's probably prudent to limit CO2 emissions as much as practicable. That's why I think promoting widespread diesel use in private transportation is wise!

 

[RADdodge]

When reading these posts and the included documentation, it came to me that to really get a grip on the “facts,” a person would really need to know the political agenda behind the person or persons behind these reports, studies, etc. I wish there was a big BS filter readily available. It was comforting to see rebuttals to the nasty diesel pollutant slant. My thoughts are that the heavy particulate passed by a diesel would readily precipitate from the atmosphere while gasoline exhaust would more readily mix with and stay suspended in the air we breath. I don’t have any “facts” to support this, it just seems logical.

 

[Champane Flight]

Cycles

The earth as I understand it has gone through warming periods and cooling periods for eons without the help of man. It tends to heal itself when threatened by asteroid hits, volcanic activity, and other catosthropic happenings. Pollution by fossil fuels can only be reduced by ceasing to use fossil fuels. Although when the sun dissapears under a brown cloud, the earth will cool down again FAST.



I just came back from a week in the big city (Denver) and can tell you that pollution is alive and well. From the eastern plains looking west, the mountains are not even visible on bad days. I can also tell you that mass transit is not used and most vehicles have only one occupant. People are not even aware of their actions, no one wants to better this situation. All they want is convienence.



I love my diesel and my gas. I am quite aware of what is going on and try to limit my driving. I still love a joy ride every once in awhile, I consider it a treat. Human nature is to deny and there is plenty of it to go around.



The only thing I don't like seeing is smoke out storys, our rigs when driven correctly will not smoke. Just like one girl in a story said "Why would you want your truck to smoke like that?". It brings with it a cloud over any common sense. Its like saying "I don't like you, so I am going to pour unburnt diesel fuel on you. Then I am going to soot up my own engine. Then to top it off, I will give everyone who sees me the idea that all diesels are dirty. " . Smart... ... ...

 

[T. Baker]

I try to consereve as well. However I think it is ridicules to assume that the earth can sustain an ever growing population. It is at 6 billion + now. It was almost half as much in 1970. How does this affect fuel use, the enviroment, and polution?World population Check this link!

 

[Dale Reed]

I disagree. I say the more the merrier. There is lots of room for people that produce more than they consume thus increasing all of our living standards. Shortages are due to lousy economic policies that do not allow prices to rise to their free market level.



And I too, attempt to drive my truck as quietly and as smokeless as possible.



Who is John Galt?