- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
I think my point was that of the 2 criteria pollutants associated with DRO's, particulates are the suspected carcinogen (notwithstanding ~4000 deaths directly caused by NOx/UV interaction early 50's UK).Tommy Cookers wrote:sAx wrote:The NOx in reaction with sunlight (UV), has long been linked with with photo chemical smog production which at best can be an extreme respiratory irritant.
Thanks for the information, sincerely.
Isn't the atmosphere much the largest NOx factory in the world, and totally unregulated ? Doesn't it produce at least ten times as much NOx (hence Nitrate) as the whole of mankind ?
Chrysler argued along these lines in their action at the US Supreme Court in the 60s ?
Now the fashion is to knock fertiliser for Reactive Nitrogen effects (as if RN was essentially man-made, not natural).
No doubt some of those driving the politics are sincere in their beliefs, does that make those beliefs right ?
Politics (in part) works by generating feelings of fear and guilt in the populus.
These are genuine questions re NOx, I have never got convincing answers to them.
The private car never produced much NOx in normal use, IMO the official tests were deliberately rigged.
NOx comes from hot, hard running.
IMO the diesel lovers seem to be doom-and-gloom types in other areas, so this news is particularly interesting.
I was going to ask the same question.zonk wrote:What about the FAP & DOC?
This isn't directed right at you strad, just using this to help prop up my soapbox.strad wrote:You guys do understand they are talking about exhaust fumes.
This strikes home to me for a couple of reasons. Not the least of which is that I work in a world of diesel exhaust fumes.
As I say I'll be gone but the typical gestation period for lung cancer is about 20 years. So years from now a fifth or so of my co-workers of today will develop lung cancer, Millions of people stuck in their daily commute will suffer the same fate.
Why, because the fashion of the day was to switch to diesel to eek a few more years out of petroleum based propulsion?
To continue down this path, to my mind, is like the smoker or addict who knows their addiction will kill them, but can't make the intelligent decision to quit.
Dragonfly wrote:I was going to ask the same question.zonk wrote:What about the FAP & DOC?
FAP - filtre à particules - the particles filter, fitted on modern common rail diesels (a quite expensive addition though), which catches the carbon particles and with the help of a catalyst additive in the fuel and under computer control burns them periodically when driving above certain load on the engine and thus cleans up the filter cells. IIRC pioneered bu PSA and Renault.
DOC - Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
( 4.8l/100km )sAx wrote:I think my point was that of the 2 criteria pollutants associated with DRO's, particulates are the suspected carcinogen (notwithstanding ~4000 deaths directly caused by NOx/UV interaction early 50's UK),Tommy Cookers wrote:sAx wrote:The NOx in reaction with sunlight (UV), has long been linked with with photo chemical smog production which at best can be an extreme respiratory irritant.
I think you are. The two AQ criteria pollutants i mentioned where in relation to products of diesel compression ignition. Mentioning NOx as one of the criteria pollutants was for completeness and should not be confused with a classified carcinogen such as particulates, which I guess is what the WHO report is about.Tommy Cookers wrote:
I'm losing track of the way this thread is going, but ........
For smog a mix of ingredients is needed, and time (stable atmospheric conditions). Particulates/organics vapour (eg 'smoke )', NOx (I can believe), and UV.
Some of these are natural, eg LA was 'the valley of 1000 smokes' long before the car.
The killer smog in London in the 50s had little to do with the car, its hotspots were just downwind of big power stations.
It killed people who were at death's door due to existing respiratory illness. It caused action against smoke, not the car.
NOx and UV alone don't make smog ?
Diesel particulates have been condemned since the 20s ?
Trust me...They burn Bunker...it stinks,,it's carcinogenic. Gross stuff.Bunker Fuel was for steam ships (and power stations), where it could be burnt properly (in a furnace), for long enough and with lots of surplus air.
The 70s 'energy crisis' resulted in marine Diesels being modded to withstand the use of BF, so now we have it burnt improperly, on a vast scale.
The origin of the bunker fuel being considered is crude oil. When crude oil is subjected to refining, the lighter fractions (gasoline, kerosene, diesel, etc.) are removed by distillation. The heaviest materials in crude petroleum are not distilled - the boiling points are too high to be conveniently recovered. These materials (asphaltenes, waxes, very large molecules, etc.) carry through refining and become residual oil (or resid). During various operations in the refinery (principally heating at high temperatures), rearrangement of molecules may take place forming even larger molecular materials that have still higher boiling points. These materials also become part of the resid. Finally, any contaminants in the crude will not be distilled from the crude and will also be in the resid. This includes any salts (chemical elements that are typically soluble in water), sediment (oil-wetted solids), and the heavy organic molecules from various sources. Just as salt water leaves a residue of salt behind when it evaporates, so too does the refining process leave solids behind when the lighter materials are removed. Before selling resid as bunker fuel, a refiner will very often dilute it to meet various sales specifications for trace metals, sulfur and/or viscosity.................
.
Anything that doesn't distill during refining carries into the residual oil. This includes not only water soluble metal salts sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), sulfates (=SO4), and several others, but also the oil soluble metals vanadium (V), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni) and others. Oil wetted materials such as rust and metal particles will also be present. The water-soluble materials enter the refinery contained in very small droplets of water dispersed through out the crude oil. As refining proceeds, the water is boiled away leaving the contaminants behind. Sodium, the most prevalent water-soluble contaminant, comes from salt water normally produced with the crude oil. ("Salt" in this sense is sodium chloride.) Additional amounts of sodium can be introduced at the refinery if low cost caustic (sodium hydroxide) is used as a neutralizer for chlorides in the oil. Sodium can also be added during ocean transportation, as salt water is normally used as ballast for ships when they sail (especially when empty). There are methods to remove vanadium from oil (solvent dilution, etc.). However, these methods are not economically attractive. Therefore nearly all refiners simply concentrate the vanadium in the inexpensive resid fractions.
It is important to note the oil soluble metals vanadium and nickel are present as chemical molecules known as porphyrins. These come from the primordial materials that became petroleum. Porphyrins are very large molecules. As such they have very high boiling points. Therefore, they do not distill during refining. Because of the concentration effects when roughly 90% of each liter of crude is removed, these oil soluble contaminants are concentrated approximately 10 times in the resulting resid. Thus for a crude oil containing 15 ppm vanadium, the resulting resid would contain about 150 ppm vanadium. The contaminant lead is rarely encountered today. Lead does not exist in nature as a crude oil contaminant. When found in oils or resids it is almost always due to fuel contamination with leaded gasolines. As the use of lead in gasolines has diminished, the amount of lead seen in fuels has correspondingly decreased. However, due to the very corrosive attack by lead in fired equipment a check for lead should always be made.
Another contaminant encountered in nearly all fuels is sulfur. Sulfur exists as both a water-soluble contaminant (as contaminant-metal sulfates, sulfites, and sulfides) and as an oil soluble contaminant (polysulfides, thiols, mercaptans, pyrroles, etc.). Except for adding to deposits in fired equipment, sulfur problems normally occur after going through the combustion process. The level of sulfur found in a resid is normally controlled by the specifications from the fuel purchaser. Environmental laws in nearly all countries have required a reduction in the amounts of sulfur that can be combusted. Sulfur can also be removed from oil, but the cost has never met with widespread acceptance. The normal practice is to reduce the amount of sulfur in fuels that are sold by blending with low sulfur solvents. In the United States, the current level of sulfur that can be burned is about 0.75% without stack scrubbers. The cost of scrubbers to remove the sulfur combustion products has forced many smaller fuel users to burn much cleaner - albeit more expensive - fuels.
Contaminants occurring in resids should also include various suspended solids (rust, catalyst fines, etc.) and other materials that are introduced in the refinery (corrosion inhibitors, soaps, water wetted solids, etc.). These contaminants typically cause problems as filter plugging materials and in some cases as particulate emissions from stacks.
They use these at work...They don't work and cause their own problems..and it's not the big old carbon molecules that are the problem..they just clog you up.FAP - filtre à particules - the particles filter, fitted on modern common rail diesels (a quite expensive addition though), which catches the carbon particles and with the help of a catalyst additive in the fuel and under computer control burns them periodically when driving above certain load on the engine and thus cleans up the filter cells. IIRC pioneered bu PSA and Renault.
I haven't seen anything saying that it is any worse than gasoline engines or coal fired electrics?strad wrote:They use these at work...They don't work and cause their own problems..and it's not the big old carbon molecules that are the problem..they just clog you up.FAP - filtre à particules - the particles filter, fitted on modern common rail diesels (a quite expensive addition though), which catches the carbon particles and with the help of a catalyst additive in the fuel and under computer control burns them periodically when driving above certain load on the engine and thus cleans up the filter cells. IIRC pioneered bu PSA and Renault.
Of course life is fraught with dangers, but to purposely convert to diesel is to kill people.
It reminds me of acid rain...They thought it was a good idea to switch to unleaded fuel that mixes with water in the atmosphere to make acid rain..
Takes a little more forethought when you're playing on such a large scale.
It and this is short sighted. imo
bidong wrote:
as long as you get a petroleum product and force it to combust; you will ALWAYS get carcinogens. make it liquified petroleum gas, gasoline or diesel. just my two cents.