UglyViking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2020
- Messages
- 1,309
- Reaction score
- 1,599
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.
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…
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.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.
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…