Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

ecosalon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 157 posts

Re: 25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

#71

Post by organsnyder »

sliverstorm wrote: post #24
organsnyder wrote: post #18

Living in a state (Michigan) without any sort of vehicle inspections, I can usually spot a vehicle that will be especially bad well before I smell it. If I'm driving, I'll punch the recirculate button to head off the issue, and look at making lane changes (or even varying my route) to avoid vehicles. This doesn't work as well if I'm walking or biking, however. I have asthma, so I'm especially sensitive to this. I'd l…

Why would mandatory smog checks never be politically feasible? They are not just a California-only thing.

In addition to having a fairly large libertarian-leaning contingent (especially in rural areas), people in Michigan tend to associate personal vehicles with "freedom" at a level probably unmatched anywhere in the country (if not the world).

Re: 25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

#72

Post by mgarfias »

Retric wrote: post #59
koolkat wrote: post #28

What i allways ask myself is for example if someone has an old car which polutes more than a new one, what would polute more to buy a new one or to continue to use the old one. Because producing the new car releases a lot of polutants as well. I have never investigated this.

That's a sad reflection on out throwaway economy. Obviously repairs are often a much cheaper option. Further cars limited lifespan so 1 new car could mean replacing 15 cars 1 year sooner.

You’re not counting labor costs, tracking down an issue with an older car can be seriously time consuming, and that time costs something like $75-100/hr.

For instance, my fun car had a persistent miss that made it basically undrivable. It took me something like 20-30 hours to find the issues and fix them. I have OBD2 scanners (the real deal, not the toys), all the tools needed, and the ability to read the service manuals and follow the dianostic proceedures.

Someone driving an old pile, isn’t likely to have the time, know how, or funds to fix the old car. So instead of spending $5k to fix the thing, they spend $300/mo on a new (or new to them) car.

Re: 25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

#73

Post by maxsilver »

sliverstorm wrote: post #24
organsnyder wrote: post #18

Living in a state (Michigan) without any sort of vehicle inspections, I can usually spot a vehicle that will be especially bad well before I smell it. If I'm driving, I'll punch the recirculate button to head off the issue, and look at making lane changes (or even varying my route) to avoid vehicles. This doesn't work as well if I'm walking or biking, however. I have asthma, so I'm especially sensitive to this. I'd l…

Why would mandatory smog checks never be politically feasible? They are not just a California-only thing.

Because it's Michigan. Smog checks could pass in other states. But probably never in Michigan.

This is the state that wants to revoke healthcare from victims of automobile accidents ( http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/04/senate_c... ). Automobile manufacturers and related industry still controls most of the state.

It's hard to overstate how small the chance of smog checks happening in Michigan is.

Re: 25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

#74

Post by jobu »

organsnyder wrote: post #6
paulshapiro wrote: post #4

What does "badly tuned" mean? I feel like there is a need for a lot more clarity. Anyone have the source study (or know what it is). I'd like to know more.

In our old car, the catalytic converter wasn't effective, and the cost of fixing it was more than the car than the car was worth. The check engine light was on constantly as a result, but it was easy to ignore. Judging by the smell of that car's exhaust, it was definitely in the 25%. Bad air-fuel ratios also cause lots of pollution due to unburned fuel being sent out the tailpipe. I would think that this is less comm…

Also, diesel engines have problems with carbon buildup over time, which reduces the combustion efficiency and causes the notorious black clouds of soot. (http://www.bellperformance.com/bell-performs-blog/blog/carbo...).

Re: 25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

#75

Post by organsnyder »

maxerickson wrote: post #46
sliverstorm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would mandatory smog checks never be politically feasible? They are not just a California-only thing.

I find carbureted vehicles the most bothersome (the exhaust stinks of fuel at city speeds), so I guess enforcing emissions standards wouldn't solve the problem (because of grandfathering/exceptions).

They tend to be the worst, but they're not terribly plentiful. The bigger culprits are those oldish (10-20 years old) vehicles that have busted (if not removed) emissions control systems. As long as you enforce the emissions standards in effect the year the vehicle was built, you can get around a lot of the grandfathering issues.

Re: 25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

#77

Post by crxgames »

akallio9000 wrote: post #44
crxgames wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Badly tuned generally refers to incorrect AFR (air-fuel ratios). These can not only cause lower power, but increase the amount of unburned fuel and other chemicals in the exhaust. On some high performance cars you can even go as far as using the fuel's injection to cool combustion and decrease knock in the combustion cycle of the engine...sometimes this can lead to a richer AFR (more fuel in exhaust gases) which caus…

Most (if not all) cars decrease the air/fuel ratio on wide open throttle, which ensures lack of air to burn pistons, etc., as well as cooling the charge to allow greater volumetric efficiency. Carburetors had a "power valve" to accomplish this, fuel injected vehicles usually have a vacuum hose attached to the fuel pressure regulator to increase fuel pressure temporarily. A fouled O2 sensor, mass air flow sensor or ma…

Indeed. That is why I specifically stated on high performance cars. High performance turbo cars, for example, at WOT generally aim for 11.2-11.8 (pending tuner preference etc etc, but ballpark) AFRs.

GDI cars have the capability of going extremely lean under highway speeds to drastically increase mpg and decrease emissions. This is the beauty of GDI.

Re: 25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

#78

Post by mturmon »

losangelino wrote: post #58
pjc50 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ships are not usually found in the middle of cities.

Have you ever been to Long Beach CA? Take a look at the (frequently) dozens of containter and tanker ships idling just offshore. Any major port city will have the same issue, transport ships waiting, for various reasons, just outside of a port with their engines running. Any refrigerated cargo needs to be cools, which requires power, which means that they run 24x7 while sitting around. there was a push to improve sho…

It is called AMP, and it happened:

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/alt_maritime_pow...

There has been push back from cargo shippers, but cruise ships are using it. The port of LA has been pretty forward-looking about improving operations efficiency.

Re: 25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

#79

Post by [deleted] »

collyw wrote: post #19

Here in Europe (well UK and Spain whee I have lived and owned a car) you need to get a check every year for older cars, and that includes an emissions test. Don't you get that in the States / Canada? (It would appear that the study was done in Canada). Saying that, go to many less developed country and the cars are far worse condition. My friend always used to claim that the environmental cost of producing a new car…

[deleted]

Re: 25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution

#80

Post by ams6110 »

maxerickson wrote: post #46
sliverstorm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would mandatory smog checks never be politically feasible? They are not just a California-only thing.

I find carbureted vehicles the most bothersome (the exhaust stinks of fuel at city speeds), so I guess enforcing emissions standards wouldn't solve the problem (because of grandfathering/exceptions).

Yes, every time I'm behind or passed by a "classic" older car with carburetors, even one that has been restored and looks like new, I'm surprised by how clearly I can smell the exhaust. By contrast modern cars emit almost no detectable smell. Hard to belive that pre-1980s all cars had exhaust odor like that, I certainly don't remember it from my childhood.
Post reply on HN