Tier 2 and Tier 3/Tier 3 Stage 4 Emissions

[skobylenski]

I need to vent a little bit here, so bear with me... ...



A little background on me - college student, SUNY Cobleskill (central NY), Diesel Tech. major, graduating in a week and a half.



Ok, so I just got out of my Fuel Systems class, where we've been talking about the above mentioned emissions standards that the EPA has set, and how its going to affect the industry. The newest concept for cleaning up emissions on big trucks is to use a catalyst system (basically a fancy catilytic converter) that injects Urea into the exhaust stream pre-converter to clean up the NOx emissions. This is for the Tier 3 engines, which has a scheduled deadline of 2007. Now does anyone see the problem of carrying diesel fuel and urea in tanks next to each other on the same truck? At the same time, does anyone remember Oklahoma City? Yeah, crash the truck, and it's all over for anyone within 50 or more yards of the darn thing.



Also, it's hard enough to find a diesel pump in some places, what are gas station owners going to do when they have to now install a urea pump as well? Who's going to pay for that? The other thing is, anhydrous ammomia can aparantly be substituted for urea, now we'll have a chemical that's used in the making of meth. redily available to the general public. Hmmm... let's think about that for a minute - the government has enought of a problem keeping up with meth labs, now any old Joe Schmoe can go out and try making meth with pump ammonia... ..... yeah, makes me feel real safe.



How come the EPA only thinks about one aspect of a new proposal before making it the new standard? Seems to me like they skipped WAY more than they looked at with this one. And the best thing is, it takes petrolium power to make urea and ammonia, so how are we getting ahead of the game here?



Oh, and by the way, this fuel systems class consists of about 30 rednecks, who are now very enraged rednecks :-laf



Anyone have any other takes on this? I'm open to all points of view here, I just needed to vent a little bit. I'll relinquish my soapbox now



Scott

 

[FloridaEd]

I'm surprised that you can find 30 "genuine" rednecks in that part of the country. Us rednecks don't cotton (Southern Expression) to snow and cold country. You should ask how many of those 'rednecks' carry pistols in their vehicles and that will give you the REAL number in your class.



As you are young and gaining experience in life, may I be so bold as to offer you something to remember: The biggest lie ever is: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. "



That said, I do appreciate clean air (I have asthma) and understand there are trade-offs in life. I also have enough experience to be an utter believer in the law of un-intended consequences. For that reason, I plan to drive my 2001 7. 3 liter Ford until 2012 or after... . when I may have some confidence in diesel pickups again.



Nice vent...



Florida Ed

 

[RoadGoesOnForever]

Not everyone is using urea. In fact, I don't know of any US diesel manufacturers that will be using urea for Tier III engines.

 

[fbaurley]

Its a complicated mess, but SCR will allow them to ease up on the detuning of the engines, freeing up hp , and fuel economy. This way they can run less EGR for NOX control. Europe will be using SCR shortly for Nox control, and most of there engines will not have any EGR system on them.

 

[cyborg]

So now is your chance to be rich and make history.

Design a small device that extracts urea from TruckerPiss and patent it. Truck stops could serve as collection and distribution points. Think of all those liter bottles littering the highway?

Oh my... .

 

[hammersley]

The new ULSD will cost -3.5% in fuel mileage....

A major trade magazine - which is out on the truck right now - and since the winds are howling to 70 mph - Columbia River Gorge effect) I'll post the article later.

 

[skobylenski]

So now is your chance to be rich and make history.

Design a small device that extracts urea from TruckerPiss and patent it. Truck stops could serve as collection and distribution points. Think of all those liter bottles littering the highway?

Oh my... .

Haha, I like that idea You might be on to something there... ...

 

[skobylenski]

RoadGoes - As for US manufacturers using urea, I think Cat is currently working on it for the Tier 3/Stage 4 emissions due in 2010.



hammers - We were told between 4 and 7% more fuel usage with ULSD and the urea/catalytic converter system... . ugh. Like those big trucks don't get poor enough mileage as it is... . why don't we work on somehow getting them up into the double digits for fuel mileage and worry about emissions later on.

 

[TowPro]

Already done! That's how they discovered it.



History

Urea was first discovered in human urine by H. M. Rouelle in 1773.



It was synthesized in 1828 by Friedrich Wohler and was the first organic compound to be synthesized from inorganic starting materials. It was found when Wohler attempted to synthesis ammonium cyanate, to continue a study of cyanates which he had been carrying out for several years. On treating silver cyanate with ammonium chloride solution he obtained a white crystalline material which proved identical to urea obtained from urine.



This discovery prompted Wohler to write triumphantly to Berzelius:-



"I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys, either man or dog. Ammonium cyanate is urea. "



This organic synthesis dealt a severe blow to a widespread belief called "vitalism" which maintained that organic chemicals could be modified by chemistry but could only be produced through the agency of a vital force present in living plants and animals.



In 1870 urea was produced by heating ammonium carbamate in a sealed vessel. This provided the basis of the current industrial process for its production.



Production

Urea is produced commercially by the dehydration of ammonium carbamate (NH2COONH4) at elevated temperature and pressure. Ammonium carbamate is obtained by direct reaction of ammonia with carbon dioxide. These reactions are normally carried out simultaneously in a high pressure reactor.

So now is your chance to be rich and make history.

Design a small device that extracts urea from TruckerPiss and patent it. Truck stops could serve as collection and distribution points. Think of all those liter bottles littering the highway?

Oh my... .

 

[RoadGoesOnForever]

RoadGoes - As for US manufacturers using urea, I think Cat is currently working on it for the Tier 3/Stage 4 emissions due in 2010.

Oh yea, where did you hear that? By the way, check my profile to see where I get my insight on who is using what.

 

[RoadGoesOnForever]

I need to vent a little bit here, so bear with me... ...



A little background on me - college student, SUNY Cobleskill (central NY), Diesel Tech. major, graduating in a week and a half.



Ok, so I just got out of my Fuel Systems class, where we've been talking about the above mentioned emissions standards that the EPA has set, and how its going to affect the industry. The newest concept for cleaning up emissions on big trucks is to use a catalyst system (basically a fancy catilytic converter) that injects Urea into the exhaust stream pre-converter to clean up the NOx emissions. This is for the Tier 3 engines, which has a scheduled deadline of 2007. Now does anyone see the problem of carrying diesel fuel and urea in tanks next to each other on the same truck? At the same time, does anyone remember Oklahoma City? Yeah, crash the truck, and it's all over for anyone within 50 or more yards of the darn thing.



Also, it's hard enough to find a diesel pump in some places, what are gas station owners going to do when they have to now install a urea pump as well? Who's going to pay for that? The other thing is, anhydrous ammomia can aparantly be substituted for urea, now we'll have a chemical that's used in the making of meth. redily available to the general public. Hmmm... let's think about that for a minute - the government has enought of a problem keeping up with meth labs, now any old Joe Schmoe can go out and try making meth with pump ammonia... ..... yeah, makes me feel real safe.



How come the EPA only thinks about one aspect of a new proposal before making it the new standard? Seems to me like they skipped WAY more than they looked at with this one. And the best thing is, it takes petrolium power to make urea and ammonia, so how are we getting ahead of the game here?



Oh, and by the way, this fuel systems class consists of about 30 rednecks, who are now very enraged rednecks :-laf



Anyone have any other takes on this? I'm open to all points of view here, I just needed to vent a little bit. I'll relinquish my soapbox now



Scott

I forgot to mention, Tier III and IV has NOTHING to do with trucks, it is for off highway equipment only. Also, urea injection is only one solution out of many, so don't be so sure it will ever be used by any manufacturer. The EPA is not forcing anyone to use that solution, so it is not their fault.

 

[Devan Manis]

Oh yea, where did you hear that? By the way, check my profile to see where I get my insight on who is using what.

And the good man drives a cummins.

 

[gonehuntingagain]

We were told between 4 and 7% more fuel usage with ULSD and the urea/catalytic converter system... . ugh. Like those big trucks don't get poor enough mileage as it is... . why don't we work on somehow getting them up into the double digits for fuel mileage and worry about emissions later on.

I wonder if the amount of NOX reduced will be more than the extra NOX that would be produced by burning more fuel per mile.



Somehow I doubt that it would... Nobody (in the gov't) can see that far ahead... Like tripping over a five dollar bill to pick up a quarter.

 

[RoadGoesOnForever]

I wonder if the amount of NOX reduced will be more than the extra NOX that would be produced by burning more fuel per mile.



Somehow I doubt that it would... Nobody (in the gov't) can see that far ahead... Like tripping over a five dollar bill to pick up a quarter.

NOx is not produced just by burning more fuel. Nitrogen and oxygen are both elements that come from the air going in the engine. Burning more fuel alone does not add more nitrogen or oxygen. Also, all emissions numbers that the EPA looks at are a brake specific calculation. In other words, it is how much emissions the engine produces per hp*hr, so to meet the laws, if an engine made more NOx at a given point, it would have to make more power too, so no, the overal NOx output is less for each incremental change in regulations. Hope that makes sense.

 

[RoadGoesOnForever]

And the good man drives a cummins.

HA, last I checked Cat doesn't have an engine in a light duty truck, and the Cummins in my opinion is a heck of an engine, so I have no problems driving it.

 

[TowPro]

Also, urea injection is only one solution out of many, so don't be so sure it will ever be used by any manufacturer. The EPA is not forcing anyone to use that solution, so it is not their fault.

I think VW is using urea in the Touareg in the new model. If I understand it correct, VW went to the EPA to get the car approved and the EPA turned them down saying "we have not tested urea injection yet" so we did not get the V-10 TDI this year.

 

[RoadGoesOnForever]

I think VW is using urea in the Touareg in the new model. If I understand it correct, VW went to the EPA to get the car approved and the EPA turned them down saying "we have not tested urea injection yet" so we did not get the V-10 TDI this year.

That doesn't make sense. The EPA doesn't test the different emissions solutions for the different manufacturers, the manufacturers have the burden of proof to show that their solution meets the standards. Perhaps since we do not have urea filling stations here, the EPA said they would not pass it.

 

[fbaurley]

Theres is a chance you could see urea SCR in the U. S. for 2010, but the infrastructure for the distrivbution of urea is a biggie, You wont see it for 2007 in the U. S. The next round of regs for Europe Euro 5 i think ?? In 2007 or 2008 will be using it. The infrastructure there is not as much of a problem, because most hauling is closer range from a home base, and there arent near as many fuel stations that would have to invest the money. The only reason they are using Urea Scr is because fuel is so much more expensive there that every bit of fuel efficiency counts. Here in the U. S. we just say add more EGR , and retard the timing, to control Nox and take a fuel mileage loss, because our fuel is cheap compared to theirs.

 

[rbattelle]

The newest concept for cleaning up emissions on big trucks is to use a catalyst system (basically a fancy catilytic converter) that injects Urea into the exhaust stream pre-converter to clean up the NOx emissions. This is for the Tier 3 engines, which has a scheduled deadline of 2007. Now does anyone see the problem of carrying diesel fuel and urea in tanks next to each other on the same truck? At the same time, does anyone remember Oklahoma City? Yeah, crash the truck, and it's all over for anyone within 50 or more yards of the darn thing.

Whoa! Back up a second. Last I read was that BMW proposed the use of urea catalysts to the EPA, and asked for proposals for urea to be carried in auto parts stores. The EPA responded that BMW would need to come up with a way to prevent the vehicle from being operated when the urea ran out, but not leave people stranded roadside.



All that was just a couple months ago. As far as I knew BMW was still evaluating the idea. I have heard absolutely nothing about the EPA adopting such a policy. Can you point us to a link at the EPA website?



As an aside, a Diesel Technology degree sounds very cool. What are your plans after school?



-Ryan

 

[gonehuntingagain]

NOx is not produced just by burning more fuel. Nitrogen and oxygen are both elements that come from the air going in the engine. Burning more fuel alone does not add more nitrogen or oxygen. Also, all emissions numbers that the EPA looks at are a brake specific calculation. In other words, it is how much emissions the engine produces per hp*hr, so to meet the laws, if an engine made more NOx at a given point, it would have to make more power too, so no, the overal NOx output is less for each incremental change in regulations. Hope that makes sense.

You explained it pretty well. It didn't click (in my mind) that if engine x burns 10 gal/hr and engine y burns 11 gal/hour that it doesn't really matter as long as they suck in the same amount of air as each other, thus emitting the same amount of NOX since there is only so much N and O2 in the air to begin with.

It still sucks though since it would make us burn more fuel (= more $$$ for the oil co's).



Burning more fuel would put out more of the other byproducts of combustion (CO, CO2, particulates, etc. ) though, wouldn't it?