Why does fuel mileage go down during regeneration

[DMarriott]

Why does fuel mileage go down during regeneration. First time with w def truck so curious

 

[kthaxton]

Regeneration occurs by adding additional fuel. That is where the heat comes from that cleans the DPF.

 

[DMarriott]

that makes sense thanks

 

[KATOOM]

Why does fuel mileage go down during regeneration. First time with w def truck so curious

Because we're told that smog emissions equipment is supposed to make the engine less pollutant. Oh but wait.....smog equipped diesels use more fuel. Nice one CARB.....

 

[EDankievitch]

Hmmmm.... Burn more but make less pollutants..... Sounds like the Congress's FUZZY MATH

 

[KATOOM]

Given the national economic debt we're in, I'd say math is not their strong point.

 

[kthaxton]

My guess is....someone that is smarter than us, determined that the emissions they are controlling, are worse than the emissions from simply burning more fuel.

As frustrating as emissions regulations are, there are reasons they are the way they are..........and I am an environmental manager for an aerospace manufacturer, I get to deal with air quality regulations every day.....and probably hate them more than you guys.

 

[KATOOM]

My guess is....someone that is smarter than us, determined that the emissions they are controlling, are worse than the emissions from simply burning more fuel.

As frustrating as emissions regulations are, there are reasons they are the way they are..........and I am an environmental manager for an aerospace manufacturer, I get to deal with air quality regulations every day.....and probably hate them more than you guys.

I agree that most regulations intent on protecting the well being of society start off with good intentions, but over time money and power and gaining more money tend to shadow the original reasons. But.....people tend to overlook those obvious problems and accept their skewed and erroneous reports pushing even stricter regulations, because well.....they're the experts so they must be smarter.

 

[kthaxton]

I can only respond with: It is well known and accepted that Particulate Matter is a major health risk. There's no conspiracy there.

 

[KATOOM]

As so are many many other things in our daily lives like aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, agriculture pesticides, gasoline fumes, touching engine oil, paints, diet soda's, most medications, etc, etc..... So it seems the health level "conspiracy" is only dependent on what side of the argument someone is concerned with.

 

[kthaxton]

I really, really should not be getting into this....but....there is absolutely no evidence that aspartame is bad for you unless you have the genetic disorder "phenylketonuria". Further, High Fructose Corn Syrup is no worse for you than regular sugar, your body cannot tell the difference.

Agriculture pesticides...that's up for debate, and varies greatly on which ones we are talking about.....but, they are regulated.
Gasoline fumes (technically vapors)....there are regulations (and controls on our vehicles) to control these.
Touching engine oil.....this is a scenario that is seriously easy to avoid. Can you avoid particulate matter in the air?
Paints....lots of various degrees of regulation on paints as well....depends on who, what, where and how.
Diet Sodas.....see Aspartame above. No evidence that they are bad for you as long as you consume in moderation (like anything else). They just aren't good for you either.
Medications......yeah, that's a big, broad subject.

For many of the above, there have been myths floating around for years based on paranoia and lack of knowledge. Some of those myths will never go away, especially with the large anti-science movement that is going on.

So basically, for the point you are making....for the most part, those things are either a non-issue, or they are already regulated. PM is bad for you. There are no two ways about it.

 

[Newsa]

When i was growing up in the 70's in central illinois farm country, planes would crop dust all around our house because we lived between farmer fields. I suspect our (water) well also had significant amounts of pesticides and fertilizer in it. No cancer or respiratory disease or tissue disease has struck our family. And the neighbors did not have an increase in any diseases. However, now i teach school in the 4th largest city in the country where air quality is questionable. Students here (and adults who grew up here) have a higher incidence of respiratory disease than i have ever imagined could be possible. The farmers and their families breathing fresh air were healthy as could be. Those in a polluted city are mostly sickly. (Just observational data)

I like the fact that the air coming out my tail pipe is cleaner than the air going in. If they would just get algea-produced biodiesel production perfected, it would even be carbon neutral.

 

[KATOOM]

You both are only reaffirming my statement. The level of concern for health risks is and will always be dependent on what side of the argument you have an opinion on.

By the way, my "opinions" on health hazards are not from any anti-science movement or paranoia either. Yet I have many friends and family who are in the health/hospital industry and they all say the same thing whereby what we need to be concerned with are not air qualities nor fuel emissions but rather what our foods are made of, what they contain, their quality, where it comes from, and the medicines people are rampantly becoming addicted to. So when they tell me that aspartame is bad and high fructose syrup is bad and pesticides are bad and diet soda's are bad.....I'll tend to believe they have reason for their mythical opinions. So many people are diabetic, allergic to peanuts, gluten intolerant, etc... But I'm not sure I'd pin all those things diesel particulates. If you're worried about air quality then how about the hundreds of airplanes that fly over your head everyday for starters.

 

[kthaxton]

Yet I have many friends and family who are in the health/hospital industry and they all say the same thing whereby what we need to be concerned with are not air qualities nor fuel emissions but rather what our foods are made of, what they contain, their quality, where it comes from, and the medicines people are rampantly becoming addicted to.

You have friends in the healthcare industry that do not think air quality is an issue? I can assure you, there are more physicians that are concerned, than aren't.

If you're worried about air quality then how about the hundreds of airplanes that fly over your head everyday for starters.

Airplanes have emission requirements too, but far more emissions are created by cars. Why should we be MORE concerned with airplane emissions? Please tell me you are not referring to chemtrails?

 

[The patriot]

When I was growing up, we lived in a small cape cod style house.
Dad sprayed the cellar beams with chlordane all the time, my bedroom was on the first floor.
I turned out fine. :%/

 

[KATOOM]

Oh I didn't say air quality isn't a concern for them..... Being of the medical state of mind, everything to them poses as a threat to humanities health risks. Rather what I did say was that all those other things I listed are considered by them to be far more of a concern than vehicular emissions.

As for airplanes, well once again you further prove my point..... Your opinion seemingly is why should we be concerned with airplane emissions. Well I'm no conspiracy theorist boasting wild erroneous studies but it seems various entities like NASA have even been concerned with jet plane contrails, their increasing presence, and their obnoxious gases. Is NASA anti-science or suffering from paranoia? Thats not me supporting or not supporting NASA's position either but merely making a point.

Again, you obviously have your opinions as to what things society needs to worry about in regards to public health risks as where others (like I) feel differently. And those opinions are going to be based more on personal variables than not. So you making such a bold statement as, "it is well known and accepted that Particulate Matter is a major health risk. There's no conspiracy there.", should be taken with as much grain of salt as my opinion that on road diesel smog regulations are more for revenue grab bagging than looking out for our "air quality".

 

[kthaxton]

Oh I didn't say air quality isn't a concern for them..... Being of the medical state of mind, everything to them poses as a threat to humanities health risks. Rather what I did say was that all those other things I listed are considered by them to be far more of a concern than vehicular emissions.

So are you saying that we need to have regulations that tells you what you can and cannot eat (which only affects you, mind you), as opposed to regulations to limit the amount of harm someone can cause to the general population?

As for airplanes, well once again you further prove my point..... Your opinion seemingly is why should we be concerned with airplane emissions.

No, I said there already are regulations on airplane emissions and why do we need to be MORE concerned about them than cars.

Well I'm no conspiracy theorist

It kinda sounds like it!

but it seems various entities like NASA have even been concerned with jet plane contrails, their increasing presence,

Do you have a link or a source that discusses this? I'd like to see the context, because frankly, that sounds rather odd.

and their obnoxious gases.

The vast majority of what you see in a contrail is crystalized water vapor, not obnoxious gases.

Again, you obviously have your opinions as to what things society needs to worry about in regards to public health risks as where others (like I) feel differently. And those opinions are going to be based more on personal variables than not. So you making such a bold statement as, "it is well known and accepted that Particulate Matter is a major health risk.

See above, I don't think we need regulations telling us what to eat, as far as I'm concerned, that's each person's own responsibility/problem. But.... we need regulations to minimize how much one can pollute, because that affects more than just the person/entity causing the problem.

There's no conspiracy there.", should be taken with as much grain of salt as my opinion that on road diesel smog regulations are more for revenue grab bagging than looking out for our "air quality".

Well, there is that pesky little detail of data....that supports the need for limiting emissions.

So who is grabbing all of this revenue? The local auto shop who tests emissions? Did they band together and lobby the EPA with their big bucks? Or is it more like the head of the EPA has a brother who manufactures SCR systems for our trucks?


So I am curious as to how we should regulate what kind of food we allow people to eat....Please explain.

 

[KATOOM]

So are you saying that we need to have regulations that tells you what you can and cannot eat (which only affects you, mind you), as opposed to regulations to limit the amount of harm someone can cause to the general population?

No, what I'm saying is that the FDA is no longer doing the job they're supposed to be doing. I'm not sure how you're perceiving this as an "to each is own" type of problem..... I dont care what someone chooses to eat but if the things we put in our open market foods are harmful or the sources where we get those food is unsafe then that certainly IS a general population problem.

No, I said there already are regulations on airplane emissions and why do we need to be MORE concerned about them than cars.

So you think the ever growing diesel smog regulations are OK but yet the 100k+ jet planes in the air every day are nothing to bother with.....? The amount of fuel a jet plane uses in 1 minute would last me two weeks. Hmmm.....with diesel vehicles numbering around 5% of the total vehicles purchased in America, I think there's clearly other things we could be paying attention to in regards to "air quality" and increasing diesel smog regulations.

It kinda sounds like it!

I appreciate the compliment but definitely not a theorist as I tend to lean more towards the obvious issues. At this level of today's societal awareness, I dont think there's reason to call "legislative plotting" conspiracies.

Do you have a link or a source that discusses this? I'd like to see the context, because frankly, that sounds rather odd.

I'd be happy to link but I'd think you'd have access to such resources too. We live in the information age.....

The vast majority of what you see in a contrail is crystalized water vapor, not obnoxious gases.

Dont misunderstand my point. I'm not claiming contrails are bad as I couldn't say whether they are or arent, but merely pointing out that a well known recognized organization (NASA) has been paying attention to them as if they or may not may be.

See above, I don't think we need regulations telling us what to eat, as far as I'm concerned, that's each person's own responsibility/problem. But.... we need regulations to minimize how much one can pollute, because that affects more than just the person/entity causing the problem.

Again, I absolutely do NOT feel that the quality of food society has available to them is a personal problem. Especially since most of the general population is kinda at the mercy of getting what ya get.

Well, there is that pesky little detail of data....that supports the need for limiting emissions.

Again, depends on where the data comes from.

So who is grabbing all of this revenue? The local auto shop who tests emissions? Did they band together and lobby the EPA with their big bucks? Or is it more like the head of the EPA has a brother who manufactures SCR systems for our trucks?

Seriously.....?

So I am curious as to how we should regulate what kind of food we allow people to eat....Please explain.

Dont know how I can be more explicit on this.

 

[kthaxton]

No, what I'm saying is that the FDA is no longer doing the job they're supposed to be doing. I'm not sure how you're perceiving this as an "to each is own" type of problem..... I dont care what someone chooses to eat but if the things we put in our open market foods are harmful or the sources where we get those food is unsafe then that certainly IS a general population problem.

This assumes all of those myths are true about the foods you mentioned. They are not (not all of them). We are able to pick and choose what we eat, we are not forced to eat anything. The thing is, if the facts/data/science shows no ill health affects (regardless of what the mommy bloggers claim) the FDA doesn't need to prohibit its usage.

So you think the ever growing diesel smog regulations are OK but yet the 100k+ jet planes in the air every day are nothing to bother with.....?

I may have mentioned it a time or two, but there ARE regulations on jet airplanes and they ARE getting more stringent. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea I said they do not need to be bothered with.

The amount of fuel a jet plane uses in 1 minute would last me two weeks. Hmmm.....with diesel vehicles numbering around 5% of the total vehicles purchased in America, I think there's clearly other things we could be paying attention to in regards to "air quality" and increasing diesel smog regulations.

As I said, air planes are regulated (broken record methinks), but it is irrelevant to the discussion. PM's are a known health risk, and is becoming a bigger problem. Diesel engines produce a lot of PM's, therefore they need to be limited (as inconvenient as it may be) if the EPA is to attempt to succeed with its purpose. It is what it is.

A jet plane can move dozens of people across the country with a lot less environmental impact, than the same amount of people all driving across the country. Your argument is not a logical one.

I'd be happy to link but I'd think you'd have access to such resources too. We live in the information age.....

Ahhh yes, the typical "I'm not going to prove my argument for you, do it yourself" copout.

Again, I absolutely do NOT feel that the quality of food society has available to them is a personal problem. Especially since most of the general population is kinda at the mercy of getting what ya get.

Again, you can eat whatever you want, if you want to avoid those things you listed, go ahead, feel free. Make that choice for yourself.

Again, depends on where the data comes from.

Like, scientists. They do science really well.

Seriously.....?

Seriously, spell it out to me, who is getting filthy rich of our DPF systems?

 

[kthaxton]

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. If i break it down into the simple, basic facts, it should make sense.

The first few lines of the EPA's mission (see the entire list here:https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do):

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.


EPA's purpose is to ensure that:

• all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
• national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;
• federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;

How can they possibly attempt to achieve that by ignoring known health risks? They can't, therefore we have regulations that eliminate or minimize these risks where ever possible.

It may not be convenient when we ourselves are have to do our part ($$ emission controls), but what is the alternative? Ignore it?