Emissions equipment on diesel trucks. A deeper discussion on the pros, cons, and science behind it

[UglyViking]

I brought this post over from another thread to try and allow that topic to have more focus and instead give us that wanted to discuss diesel emissions, and others who may not be aware of the conversation, ample space to do so. And also to make @Brutal_HO 's job easier, maybe.

I mean, yeah. Feel free to look up historical air quality data for any major US city from, say 1970, to today and see what you find. See the past decade, let the data speak for itself.

I agree that the historical air quality, especially for LA metro and NYC metro, has improved quite dramatically over the past 50 years. That said, I think you see less dramatic change from the 2010s (considering diesel emission equipment wasn't around until MY 2007.5 most broadly). That said, I still think it's a net bonus if viewed in isolation. Now, there are other emissions you have to wonder about that I don't see tracked or talked about anywhere. Things like emissions from the manufacture of DEF, the manufacture/refining of the compounds to make DEF, the containers to hold them, the shipping to the end user, etc. That is just for the DEF itself and doesn't take into account the manufacture of the more complex emissions systems for these trucks. I can't find that data anywhere, because most likely the EPA and federal regulators either never took that into account, or never shared that data publicly.

Now, I am 100% open to the fact that even accounting for all the emissions of DEF and emissions equipment it's still a net win. I really have no clue, I just would like to see the data as I'd be surprised. Keep in mind that the majority of our DEF comes from China and Russia. I'm unclear if this is just the synthetic Urea compound, or if they actually ship the containers of DEF across the ocean. Either way, it would seem like that has some impact on the overall emissions output, although probably less than most anti-DEF folks would think.

The biggest issue I have is that laws are crafted for issues facing LA metro, and expanded nation wide. I lived outside LA for most of my life, and I saw the terrible smog as it cleared over the years. It's still there even today, but nowhere near as bad as when I was young, and even in my youth it wasn't as bad as it was in the decades prior. So I fully accept and understand vehicle emissions impact on air quality, especially in places like LA where the local mountain ranges, in combination with weather effects and compounded by the lack of trees and mass amount of concrete and vehicles can make it absolutely terrible for air quality.

That said, making the emissions policies of southern CA something that is applied nationwide, in places like the northeast where our tree cover is almost oppressive is nonsensical to me. Trees eat up NOx and other VOCs, so our area really doesn't have any issue like there is in southern CA. Applying this law, nationwide, seems a bit like applying glue to every light switch screw in your house because the screw in a single light switch keeps falling out. Sure you can do it, but is it strictly necessary?

Again, just to be absolutely crystal clear here. I am not a chemistry major. I do not work even related to environmental science. I do not know, one way or the other, any of the data I'm requesting (because to my knowledge no one has seen it). I'm simply making an argument that I'd like to see more data, and that it seems like a too broadly applied as a law. I also really like fresh air and nature, so if it turns out this is the best thing I'm happy to oblige. As of this minute I'm sort of 6 in one half dozen in another, and I keep emissions because I figure "whats the harm", outside the DEF usage obviously. That said, if I have to replace my emissions system even once, how long does that take to break even?

Hopefully I have explained my thinking clearly and in a way that can lead to further discussion. I think I may have hit the horse one too many times though…

 

[DrTron]

Things like emissions from the manufacture of DEF, the manufacture/refining of the compounds to make DEF, the containers to hold them, the shipping to the end user, etc.

Interestingly enough, Urea was a major breakthrough that basically founded organic chemistry. Before the successful artificial synthesis of an organic compound, urea in this case in 1828, it was widely believed that only living organisms can synthesize organic compounds. We've sure come a way since then, and as urea is the most basic carbamide, its synthesis is rather easy. It is synthesized from ammonia and CO2, and while ammonia production is a rather energy-intensive (Haber-Bosch process from hydrogen and nitrogen), that also is true for basically any nitrogen-based fertilizer today. The CO2 needed is a by-product of hydrogen production from natural gas for the ammonia production, so those two processes are usually done in the same plant.
DEF is only a secondary use of urea, with fertilizer being the main use.

So the amount of urea used for DEF really doesn't matter in the greater scale of things. Plus, the general idea is that it's distributed by tankers and offered at gas stations from pumps along with diesel for big rigs. The gallon canisters for our trucks are not where the lion's share of DEF is used. And certainly not regarding the use of urea itself.

I am not a chemistry major.

Well, I have a PhD in Chemistry, so AMA.

 

[UglyViking]

Ok, so I'll continue to ask away then, and perhaps you can fill me in.

A) Are you aware of any data that shows the emissions created from the creation of DEF and associated container, shipping etc. or would it be purely speculation?

B) I realize that DEF sold at the pump is far and away the primary form of DEF that's used, but that argument is more so to regulate a specific industry, rather than diesel engines overall. For example, to my knowledge at least, container ships don't have the same sort of emissions equipment that on road trucking has, and they likely produce much more emissions overall. In a somewhat similar vein, on road trucking has a lot of additional licensing and drive requirements that non-commercial (ie. personal) truck driving doesn't.

I've read that on road trucking accounts for the vast majority of emissions, so why not just regulate that and leave private vehicles alone?

C) Is there any argument against the local based argument I presented before? Could this be something that is regulated state to state and less a nationwide thing? Outside the fact that it will or won't, was my argument about plant/tree cover a legitimate argument or is there clear holes that I'm missing in accounting for?

 

[Surgdoc4]

Interesting. I only have a BS in Chemistry and Biology, that I haven't given much thought to in 40 years, but the MD in me would be very interested in the actual supporting data. I have found little more infuriating than a mandate "for the greater good" with not a single peer reviewed published study to back it. What changed beside diesel trucks? The millions of gasoline cars, powerplants, manufacturing facilities, home heating, jet traffic (a 747 burns 5000 gallons just during takeoff then 10-11 tonnes per hour in cruise), the ever present inversion layer over LA, forest fires, farming practices, and hundreds of other factors? What percentage did each contribute? Without such data, of which there is none, how can measures not be random, subject to bias, and therefore manipulated. Is DEF the answer? Ask the EPA to publish the proof. Ha

 

[DrTron]

Ok, so I'll continue to ask away then, and perhaps you can fill me in.

A) Are you aware of any data that shows the emissions created from the creation of DEF and associated container, shipping etc. or would it be purely speculation?

B) I realize that DEF sold at the pump is far and away the primary form of DEF that's used, but that argument is more so to regulate a specific industry, rather than diesel engines overall. For example, to my knowledge at least, container ships don't have the same sort of emissions equipment that on road trucking has, and they likely produce much more emissions overall. In a somewhat similar vein, on road trucking has a lot of additional licensing and drive requirements that non-commercial (ie. personal) truck driving doesn't.

I've read that on road trucking accounts for the vast majority of emissions, so why not just regulate that and leave private vehicles alone?

C) Is there any argument against the local based argument I presented before? Could this be something that is regulated state to state and less a nationwide thing? Outside the fact that it will or won't, was my argument about plant/tree cover a legitimate argument or is there clear holes that I'm missing in accounting for?

a) Not really, at least that I know of. Like I said, urea is a chemical produced in millions of tons, so the cost per container is probably very, very low. Shipping, I'd say it just depends on the weight, pretty much like shipping bottled water.
b) Can't really answer that. You're probably right that commercial traffic makes up for the majority of emissions, but since the technology is available, it makes sense to also use it in private vehicles. And if you compare the number of private Diesel vehicles to the number of commercial trucks, that likely adds up, too.
c) Unfiltered Diesel emissions are harmful to both people /and/ the environment. So it's a bit of both. Of course, a rural area will not have the pollution of downtown LA, but even small towns can have busy roads, and you would want to protect the people living there as well.

I work in nuclear power, and there for occupational radiation exposure the ALARA principle is in place. As low as reasonably achievable. I think that fits pretty well, you don't have to chase down every last molecule of harmful emissions, but where it matters. And if you can get that using "reasonably achievable" means, and I'd say DEF systems in Diesels are among that, then go for it. If a truck, just as a thought, had to use and carry 10x the amount of fuel it has in DEF, then it would not be reasonable anymore (because then the truck can only carry its own DEF and nothing else) and probably not be a thing.

 

[DrTron]

Interesting. I only have a BS in Chemistry and Biology, that I haven't given much thought to in 40 years, but the MD in me would be very interested in the actual supporting data. I have found little more infuriating than a mandate "for the greater good" with not a single peer reviewed published study to back it. What changed beside diesel trucks? The millions of gasoline cars, powerplants, manufacturing facilities, home heating, jet traffic (a 747 burns 5000 gallons just during takeoff then 10-11 tonnes per hour in cruise), the ever present inversion layer over LA, forest fires, farming practices, and hundreds of other factors? What percentage did each contribute? Without such data, of which there is none, how can measures not be random, subject to bias, and therefore manipulated. Is DEF the answer? Ask the EPA to publish the proof. Ha

Power plant emissions played a big role. Remember a few years back when they had serious smog issues in Bejing? Unfiltered coal plants all the way.
But I agree, that's not the only thing that changed, it's a million other things, too.

But a recent study showed that human behavior can really change things. In the late 80s, we banned fluorochlorocarbons as propellants in spray cans, and now the ozone layer is actuall recovering. So that did actually have an impact.

 

[Surgdoc4]

I agree, I believe there have been great strides in decreasing pollution. DEF may be the best current option. That will give me great comfort when stranded in limp mode 100 miles from anywhere. So we agree that DEF works but is it being used wisely. Are the restrictions being placed on light duty trucks worth the risk and the expense of failure (common). Who decided that after 150 miles of a usually faulty code appearing that the truck is rendered useless? Who decided limp mode should be 5 mph? It is because of these senseless mandates that the aftermarket exists to override these systems.
Changing human behavior, spray cans, agree, but did anyone even notice the change. If the new propellant caused your hair to fall out, burned your eyes, or forced a physician visit, it would not be tolerated. What behavior change would one expect by stranding a family on vacation in the desert, or anyone in below zero temperatures, because of a poorly designed, EPA mandated, emission control system. How many fires have been started that has destroyed countless trees and homes due to the DPF regen? What is the cost?
Behavior change, there are already to many raving lunatics in the world many created by the ones in control. BTW

 

[UglyViking]

a) Not really, at least that I know of. Like I said, urea is a chemical produced in millions of tons, so the cost per container is probably very, very low. Shipping, I'd say it just depends on the weight, pretty much like shipping bottled water.

Cost is one thing, but I'm not asking about cost, I'm asking about environmental impact of the entire process. The pro-emissions argument is basically coming from the perspective that diesel emissions are bad (agreed), and that we need to do what we can to reduce them (also agreed). The issue that I struggle to deal with is that we have no clue what the emissions related cost of "the cure" is. So we speculate that it's low, but we seem to be completely lacking in data to back that assertion.

b) Can't really answer that. You're probably right that commercial traffic makes up for the majority of emissions, but since the technology is available, it makes sense to also use it in private vehicles. And if you compare the number of private Diesel vehicles to the number of commercial trucks, that likely adds up, too.

[FONT=BlinkMacSystemFont, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The technology being available is great, and if it functions great then I have no issue! However, there still seem to be bugs left to workout in the system. Turbo actuators fail due to exhaust gumming up the movable veins. ERGs need to be replaced over time, along with intakes due to soot loading. DPF systems have no easy way to be cleaned and need to be replaced with a multi-thousand dollar bill. Emissions system sensors, injectors and other parts are sometimes [/FONT]finicky[FONT=BlinkMacSystemFont, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] and need to be replaced often to the tune of hundreds of total dollars in part cost and shop labor. Now, to be fair emissions systems have become way better than they were in 2007, but they are nowhere near as reliable as the systems in most gas vehicles.

So the question is, do you burden the private citizen with those costs in favor of a clean system? You and I may both argue yes, but without the data from A, we are doing so with a ton of faith in the EPA and other systems having done their due [/FONT]diligence[FONT=BlinkMacSystemFont, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]. While I am not a tinfoil hat wearer, I don't have much faith in our federal government most days, so I'm [/FONT]hesitant[FONT=BlinkMacSystemFont, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] to blindly trust. My trust can be earned with a simple [/FONT]white-paper[FONT=BlinkMacSystemFont, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] of the data from emissions related to the [/FONT]manufacture[FONT=BlinkMacSystemFont, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] and ship of the emissions related components and DEF. If such a paper creates a clear win, then I would fully support it. As of now, I'm having to go on blind faith.[/FONT]

c) Unfiltered Diesel emissions are harmful to both people /and/ the environment. So it's a bit of both. Of course, a rural area will not have the pollution of downtown LA, but even small towns can have busy roads, and you would want to protect the people living there as well.

Sure… but emissions don't generally simply stagnate in one place, unless the local area has such an environment to lead to that stagnation. In my local we don't have such an issue, downtown LA seems to. I'm not arguing that anyone should suck on a tailpipe, but it's all give and take right?

I work in nuclear power, and there for occupational radiation exposure the ALARA principle is in place. As low as reasonably achievable. I think that fits pretty well, you don't have to chase down every last molecule of harmful emissions, but where it matters. And if you can get that using "reasonably achievable" means, and I'd say DEF systems in Diesels are among that, then go for it. If a truck, just as a thought, had to use and carry 10x the amount of fuel it has in DEF, then it would not be reasonable anymore (because then the truck can only carry its own DEF and nothing else) and probably not be a thing.

I work in tech, and we have a similar challenge in something called many names, but we will call it general reliability. I can have a system that has "three 9s" uptime, or one that has "four 9s" uptime. Three 9s generally means about 45 minutes of downtime in a month, where as four 9s means under 5 minutes of downtime in a month. Assuming that both are reasonably achievable, which one do you do? One would argue that you do the less downtime, but even if reasonably achievable it may be completely unnecessary. If you are running a service like Twitter or Facebook, one could argue that the web interface for both needs to be four 9s (sub 5 mins down for a month), and I'd say that is probably right, but is the same true of your DMV registration website?

But again, to circle back to the initial point, both of us are arguing this blind. I'm doing a few quick google searches to review data I've seen before, but that I have not looked at in depth, to try and draw some basic perspective. You are bringing up similar points based off your experience and perspective. Neither of us have the core data that matters here, which is what are we trading for this "clean diesel"?

And just to try and be crystal clear here I'll mention a few things. #1 - I still have all my emissions in tact, and I don't plan to remove them. #2 - As counter as it may seem, I truly care about our environment and would gladly forgo certain things, or spend more money, in order to see it protected. That is a choice I'm willing to make, but not one I'm comfortable forcing on everyone else.

Finally, I think it's important to call out what would change your mind on the perspective, otherwise this becomes a religious debate. I would truly like to see hard data on emissions output of DEF creation, and shipment, and the same for the emissions components. I would say that if the emissions systems result in even a 35% reduction in CO2 or NOx (after accounting for the added emissions of DEF and emissions components manufacture and shipment), then it's worth it as a net benefit. If it's less than a 35% reduction, I'd argue there are far bigger fish to fry in our desire for a clean world and that US citizens should not be burdened with the cost and trouble of potential emissions system failures if they have not shown to have a true impact on total emissions output.

 

[flan]

Tier 4 Def tech is long in the tooth, soon to be replaced with (euro) stage 5 tech, cleaner burning less B.S. diesel power is not dead yet.

 

[Surgdoc4]

Great, in the meantime replace the DEF triggered limp mode with a flashing red light. Interesting discussion UV but nonsensical in that there is no endpoint until the non-existent data is analyzed by the unavailable quantum computer that eventually concludes none of this will be important after WWIII. Enjoy.

 

[UglyViking]

Interesting discussion UV but nonsensical in that there is no endpoint until the non-existent data is analyzed by the unavailable quantum computer that eventually concludes none of this will be important after WWIII. Enjoy.

That is basically what I said in my third to last paragraph above.

That said, I still personally enjoy the discussion as I view it as an opportunity for me to challenge my perspective and potentially change it. You're obviously welcome to leave the discussion, but I enjoy it until it gets repetitive.

 

[AH64ID]

(a 747 burns 5000 gallons just during takeoff then 10-11 tonnes per hour in cruise),

Are you taking takeoff or takeoff and climb out?

It’s closer 5000lbs on takeoff, not 5000 gallons. 5000 lbs is roughly 750 gallons. Some freight models will burn more during takeoff. Depending on several things it make take 5,000 gallons to get to cruise, but that’s not the same thing as takeoff.

They then don’t hardly burn anything on descent, and a full 747 averages out to over 100 mpg per person, which is pretty darn fuel efficient. Sure takeoff and climb out is hard on fuel, but so it starting a truck and pulling a pass right out of the driveway.

Context and accuracy is important with technical discussions, just like your comment on DEF being injected prior to the DPF, which it’s not. It’s great to have these discussions but we need to be as accurate as possible when making statements. If you’re unsure ask.

 

[Blythkd1]

So is DEF usage on a diesel truck actually a net gain? Good question. I don't have the answer. But one thing I am sure of, it was never researched as net gain to the environment was never the goal. As with almost any government mandates, the end goals are money, power and keeping the commoners pushed down in our place, limiting our power and wealth. In this case, I'm sure the obsolesence of diesel trucks was a nice bonus, if not the actual end game. The reasons that the government advertises for doing things like this are typically never the real reasons. If the DEF data is out there, I'm sure the EPA (maybe others as well) will do their level best to make sure it's not available or at least tough to find if it does not support their position. It reminds me of wind turbines which are being sold to us as "clean energy." Hardly. Go do some research on how much carbon is created in the manufacture and construction of one wind turbine. I wonder if they will ever pay back on the carbon front and become carbon neutral, much less a gain.

I wouldn't have so much issue with the modern diesel emissions systems if it weren't for all the built in limp modes. Cars have had emissions equipment for a half century without limp modes. Somewhere along the line if you had an emissions issue with your car or light truck, it would trigger a CEL without hampering your ability to keep going down the road. All these limp modes that are built into diesel trucks now have made them unreliable and sometimes even unsafe. That's the part of it that really sets me off.

I've been in LA during smog season and it's no fun. SCAQMD is probably not a bad thing but where I live, hovering smog is not an issue. Flat land and wind takes care of that. So would pre-emissions (2007) diesel trucks actually be good enough in my area, and most of the nation? If not, then I would be good with further cleaning up our exhaust, if we did it in a rational manner. If you look at soot emissions improvement from the 70's to about 2000, we had already improved by leaps and bounds. I don't know about NOX but I'm guessing the improvement was not as drastic. But is it necessary to go to near zero? In LA maybe but probably not where I live. LA could just fix the giant parking lot that they call a freeway system and they would see vast improvements. I mean when it takes 2-3 hours to go 30 miles on a "freeway", that means you've spent almost all of your time idling, so what do you expect? But I digress.

I'll keep watching for the answer to the net DEF debate. It's an interesting discussion.

 

[DrTron]

But again, to circle back to the initial point, both of us are arguing this blind.

I agree, I haven't been able to find hard data, either. That's likely because it's a complicated process with a lot of variables involved, so any result would likely have a large margin of error, making it rather useless.

 

[Surgdoc4]

Are you taking takeoff or takeoff and climb out?

It’s closer 5000lbs on takeoff, not 5000 gallons. 5000 lbs is roughly 750 gallons. Some freight models will burn more during takeoff. Depending on several things it make take 5,000 gallons to get to cruise, but that’s not the same thing as takeoff.

They then don’t hardly burn anything on descent, and a full 747 averages out to over 100 mpg per person, which is pretty darn fuel efficient. Sure takeoff and climb out is hard on fuel, but so it starting a truck and pulling a pass right out of the driveway.

Context and accuracy is important with technical discussions, just like your comment on DEF being injected prior to the DPF, which it’s not. It’s great to have these discussions but we need to be as accurate as possible when making statements. If you’re unsure ask.

Admittedly I do tend to get ahead of myself as I am often told.
I am a bit rusty on flight calculations but not totally unqualified. 3000+ hours, 30 years, commercial, multi engine, instrument rating, several planes including a Saberliner (pure jet, expensive junk), Cessna 421, Turbo Aztec, Mooney M20-F, PA-180, and a couple others along the way.
Quit 20 years ago because I didn’t die like many I’ve known. Bought an RV and a Harley, safety first.
Back to the 747.
Fuel capacity 63,500 GALLONS, 238,604 Liters
Range 7,790 nautical miles
Overall average Fuel burn on a flight is 5 gallons/mile. An average because wind, altitude, and weight vary.
A large percentage of fuel used is on takeoff and getting to altitude.
20% of fuel capacity can be used during takeoff, every time, and not due to some foolish impulse.
That was the point. The amount of unfiltered fuel, basically kerosene, burn for the more than 200 commercial flights/day leaving LAX. It was a minor point in a broader discussion.
I do agree that this is an efficient mode of transportation, despite the enormous fuel burn, if at capacity (500+ people)
Al Gore flying private jet to Davos, not so much.

As far as the DEF DPF, I was just throwing out an idea that this problem, and potential hazards, are a programming issue. Before, after, what ever, Fords have the same problem.
And despite being separate systems, they are connected via the PCM( hopefully that is correct), the question asked was how? Do you know? I DO NOT! Be specific!
I thought this was supposed to be a site to learn and discuss issues relating to HD RAMS. Ask a question, throw out an idea, see what other members know.
This was all leading up to the suggested solution of eliminating the limp mode for DEF triggered codes, for which I have not seen a response.

So as suggested, I will depart this forum. Thanks for the fun. I will try to find my menstruating teenage granddaughter to discuss this issue further. ))

 

[DrTron]

Who decided that after 150 miles of a usually faulty code appearing that the truck is rendered useless? Who decided limp mode should be 5 mph? It is because of these senseless mandates that the aftermarket exists to override these systems.

I don't know much about limp mode, not a Diesel guy, but if it gives you solace, there is actually a technical reason for that. Depending on which part of the emission system fails, There is actually a chance of causing severe damage to the system if the truck were to drive normally, including the risk of overheating the system. That can pose severe danger to both vehicle and occupants.
The other reason is, of course, that a lot of drivers would just quit filling the DEF tank and run their trucks without it, rendering the emissions system inoperable. So yes, the EPA is putting drivers on a leash here.

There are exceptions to having a limp mode, for instance emergency vehicles like EMTs and fire trucks are exempt. Here, lives are at stake and in that special case the risk is deemed acceptable.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-06-08/pdf/2012-13088.pdf