If CO2 is so bad then why...

[StevieC]

So if CO2 is so bad for the environment and we are all driving these pollution machines that are slowly killing our planet, then why, when the emission test is done on a vehicle do they monitor HC/NOX/CO and not CO2 instead of/in addition to?

I hold no degree in a Science related field, but common sense to me would think that CO2 should be read, seeing as it's the gas that is supposedly destroying our climate.

Or is it that the "CO2 is killing our planet" just a farce?

 

[rpn453]

They already tested that!

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

If you can pass emissions, you're probably getting the same mileage as when the car was new.

 

[StevieC]

So then HC/CO/NOX somehow makes up CO2?

 

[Captain_Klink]

co2 indicates complete combustion, which is good. they are looking for incomplete combustion, and toxic by products that cause smog.
co2 is actually just a plant fertilizer, plants need it to combine with water to make sugar, so co2 is good. plants can't use any of that other garbage, that garbage stuff they measure is what makes the air smell bad and look brown, and causes asthma attacks and bronchitis.

 

[Kestas]

CO2 is easy to calculate. There's no need to test for it. Each gallon of gasoline (or alcohol or diesel fuel) produces a predictable amount of CO2. Per mile, a car getting 15mpg produces twice as much CO2 as one getting 30mpg. There's no argument about that.

If it doesn't come out of the tailpipe as CO2, then it's HC or CO, which is another matter.

 

[StevieC]

Ok, but why aren't they testing for CO2 then? If this indicates complete combustion why bother with the other 3?

Also... CO2 isn't bad for the environment as we have been told?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: StevieC


Or is it that the "CO2 is killing our planet" just a farce?

Cutting down the trees and plants that drink the CO2 and breathe out O2 is killing the planet. Oh, did I mention overpopulation by HomoSapiens?

 

[Quest]

gasoline contains all sorts of additives/impurities that, even when complete combustion takes place, it still leaves behind particulates and insoluables that may contibute to all sorts of human respiratory problems.

MMT (with Manganese) is one of them, which not only accelerates cat converter's death/O2 sensors death, but also is a bio-hazard that can leads to a lot of health issues down the road.

unburned HC, the byproducts of incomplete combustion (CO), etc. does contribute to pollutions of all kinds but NOx will lead to smog and acid rain.

Even in an ideal world, excessive CO2 will cause greenhouse effect (CO2 traps/retains heat better), which, unless you have a balanced carbon cycle (enough trees/forests and other forms of carbon "sinks" to take in the excessive, man-made CO2 created during daily world activities to equilibrium, otherwise, all the excess, unabsorbed CO2 will eventually ended up in the sea, which will also lead to acidify of the sea's pH (carbonic acid). Since ocean biology and biodiversity is very sensitive to minute pH change, this slight but significant alteration of pH in the ocean will lead to an avalanche of the breakdown of the food chain in the sea.

In the end, we are all doomed simply because of our own selfishness (personal mobility by burning fossil fuel comes with a price you know).

Q.

 

[rpn453]

The amount of CO2 emitted is proportional to the amount of fuel used. Relative to the amount of CO2 and H2O - the products of perfect combustion - produced, the local pollutants - HC/CO/NOX - are a small fraction of the emissions and represent the effects of a poorly functioning engine.

You could actually improve mileage by allowing higher NOX levels. They form during high combustion temperatures, so we reduce them using EGR and by avoiding lean burning, which reduce fuel economy. By how much, I don't know. It might not be a huge loss.

 

[StevieC]

Good info guys... Thanks, I get the picture!

 

[stockrex]

co2 is not an al gore quick to rich scheme. it is real. our ecosystem can recycle so much co2. after that it builds up in the atmosphere which acts as a reflective layer and slowly raises the temps.
the tragedy is that the bleeping politicians wants to profit from it.

 

[Steve S]

CO2 is good plants do well with increases levels .But CO2 is also good as a reason to tax the people more. It is B.S. There have been times when the CO2 level has been way higher . It is junk science and nothing more.

 

[Trajan]

let's not forget cow farts...

 

[StevieC]

And Taco-Bell encounters!

 

[MarkC]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
CO2 is good plants do well with increases levels .But CO2 is also good as a reason to tax the people more. It is B.S. There have been times when the CO2 level has been way higher . It is junk science and nothing more.


There have also been times when life on Earth was a less pleasant experience, too. What's your point?

 

[duaneb9729]

I wonder what the effect of volcano's had on the oceans ph when volcano's were more active? and how long did it take for the oceans ph level to change to what it is today?

Thank you for your post Quest, you give us food for thought.

 

[Junior]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
let's not forget cow farts...


methane is about 10 times worse as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide.

 

[javacontour]

It may be 10x worse, but I doubt it's even 1% of the CO2 produced. Methane is measured in parts per BILLION in the atmosphere, CO2 is measured in parts per MILLION.

So while it actually traps 20x (not 10) the heat of CO2, it also goes away faster, (approx 8 year 1/2 life, compared to an over 100 year 1/2 life for CO2.)

So while methane may have a greater impact per unit compared to CO2, it sticks around for a shorter period of time, reducing it's total impact.

Not to mention it is a much smaller atmospheric component.

But I don't think we know either way what will happen if we keep putting more gasses into the atmosphere and keep cutting down more and more trees, clearing more land for man-made structures.

It may be good. We may be able to grow more food as the plants will thrive on the additional CO2. We may not if the temps change too much either direction.

I do know that we are getting close to a verboten topic here.

 

[The_Jeff]

Sometimes they do read the CO2 in your emissions test as a baseline or to make sure you're not cheating with a hidden dual exhaust or air bleed or something. Then they compare the other smoke with the CO2 you're putting out.

Ford was fairly recently bragging about how green the SUVs were as far as coming in under regulatory limits of some gases. NOx are important in LA's smog bowl... less so over the rest of the planet... yet what we chose to regulate gets copied without much thought. You'll note Europe with their diesels are more into the fad of cutting CO2 than NOx...

 

[oilyriser]

Around here, they do measure CO2 on the smog test, to make sure you haven't rigged up a fake exhaust pipe with air coming out. I would be more sophisticated, and use a CO2 tank.