Are auto emissions really directly related to fuel effeciency?
October 26, 2009 in Global Warming
Did you know that you can save fuel and run your car on water
Chris S questioned:
Isn’t it possible to reduce automobile pollution (i.e., “emissions”) without rising fuel efficiency? And if so, shouldn’t preparation (and biased agendas) all ears around fuel state be thorough ambiguous?
Place another way, are we perplexing preparation over oil Independence (an vital conversation on its own) with preparation over global warming?
Did you know that you can save fuel and run your car on water
Excellent question.
It is possible to reduce SOME detrimental emissions without rising efficiency.. Automobile companies have cut-rate NOx emissions and CO emissions with catalytic converters that chat the NOx & CO to N2 and O2 or CO2.
But, the CO2 is now the culprit.. in view of the fact that it is thought that the CO2 causes the greenhouse look and global warming…
The amount of CO2 (neglecting CO emissions) is frankly related to Fuel Efficiency.. the more fuel burned the more CO2 related…
So YES fuel efficiency, oil Independence and global warming are related…
yes
yes
no
no, just you it seems
No, they are not. And I do not reflect so.
The relationship is complicated, and uncommon kinds of emissions peak out at uncommon points..
Fuel efficiency is a gathering of engine geometry, mass life stirred, accelerations probable, back pressures (often inversely related to blast pollution!!) affect of the cylinder, detonation efficiency, swept and unswept areas..the list goes on..
And what is the best efficiency of conversion of the hydrocarbons and oxygenated fuels into energy will not automatically be the best one for being paid inane rapidly ample to be helpful. Or for minimizing NOx pollution.
Cars are used to transport public and lots from one place to another, and ordinarily designed to try to do so at speeds and distances that make it economically valuable.
In view of the fact that high and mighty genteel top, and genteel adjustments, the best state is where the fuel is burned and twisted into energy in the best stylishness, emissions are liable to be smallest amount.
When you “step on it” you run engines in a fuel-rich mode that increases the raw horsepower productivity, but at the expense of lots of unburned and to a degree-burned hydrocarbons life released…but public do not want to start up at a long crawl.
You want the best current matter-of-fact conversion of fuel to useable energy, push for the gas turbine…jet planes use it in view of the fact that it is so much more efficient, and NASCAR bans it in view of the fact that of the same wits…shows up the piston-engine cars too terribly
You want the lowest pollution, place the vehicle in the garage.
Then its emissions will be 0. Don’t know about yours tho!
No, it’s not possible. Not when you contain CO2.
When you look at gasoline exactingly as a hydrocarbon (ie, without the trace atoms/molecules that make-up “traditional” pollution) then you have a agreed amount of energy that can be consequential from that fuel. The most efficient combustion of a hydrocarbon yields CO2 and H2O. Cycle. It comes down to stoichiometry. That is just so what all the sensors for like, pressure, O2, etc are tiresome to accomplish in a bestow fuel injection logic.
Anything less efficient results in additional byproducts like carbon soot, carbon monoxide, and unburnt fuel – that is, an Boost in (traditional) pollutants. It is no coincidence that most ULEV and SULEV badges (Even more Low Emanation Vehicle and Super ULEV) are found on high-efficiency vehicles like the Prius or Civic Hybrid.
Do you reflect that it would be right if a poorly-maintained, poor running 1970 Cadillac DeVille puts out LESS CO2 per gallon of gas than a 2007 Prius?
So, you tell me. Do you reflect that CO2 must be lumped in with all the additional traditional pollutants?
That depends on the emanation or pollution you are discussion about.
If you are discussion about CO, NOx, SOx, and unburned hydrocarbons–including vanishing from the fuel tank and all owing to refueling. The pledge to you question is that they are frequently unrelated. Newer cars have greatly cut-rate them over cars made even 10 being ago. Not to bring up substitution of air sensors, catalytic converters, and tune-ups have a splendid look on these real pollutants.
If you are tiresome to submit to carbon dioxide (CO2) the pledge is a loud YES. In the end CO2 is the ideal upshot of burning the fuel. SOx, NOx, CO, and unburned hydrocarbons are all sources of inefficiency in your engine, but producing CO2 earnings the fuel was completely burned.
On another level, the real compound arrangement of the fuel, which varies greatly, will chat how much CO2 vs H20 is bent from burning the hydrocarbon. But this will be a moderately small look on the by and large amount of emissions except you are discussion about fleeting-string hydrocarbons (meth- and eth-) or hydrogen.