Depends on how you count and how much you drive, but in terms of the pollutants discussed here (as opposed to CO2 and solid waste) I think you are probably wrong. Manufacturing doesn’t actually produce a lot of air pollution these days, especially in the US. It is much easier and more economical to control pollution in factories rather than on cars, so it is much more better. Of course the energy consumed results in CO2 production, but this article is about local air quality issues. How to factor in the additional global costs of the CO2 production and additional landfill waste I don’t know., but in terms of respiratory health, I think replacing an old truck with a new car is a slam dunk.
2 Likes
I had been making a wrong assumption then, and now I have to change my bad attitude toward smelly cars. I will reserve my ire for trucks that are rolling coal.
Meh, I don’t yell at people who drive trucks. I find people who drive trucks without a scratch on them to be poseurs and therefore annoying, but I have zero problems with people who actually buy and use trucks because they’re useful. I’m not a fan of diesel because of all the cancer causing particulates combustion of it produces, but it is often the best tool for the job, so I don’t get bent out of shape when I see a semi.
But someone who modifies their exhaust system to belch smoke into the air? If the law refuses to prevent that vehicle from being on the road, then I’m happy to take up the slack.
1 Like
Sure, Per mass.
But in terms of vehicles they have enormous weight and just as importantly a huge profile to cause drag.
And most cars only get a few thousand miles a year. while trucks do that in a few days or weeks.
Also, the environmental standards for larger trucks are generally lower.
1 Like
All valid points.
I was just trying to point out that, since these trucks are the main cost to their own business, there’s a large incentive to keep them running as smoothly and efficiently as possible, because diesel costs stack up really fast for the fleet.
In reality these trucks get about 10mgp and often less which sounds really lousy, but they are moving triple or more the weight of a sedan. So they often are as efficient or more efficient than sedans and SUVs by weight.
The environmental standards thing should definitely be redone as well. It’s pretty preposterous how lax those emissions regulations are for Semi Trucks, and ought to be re-evaluated.
And that would be great if that was the only source of pollution entering your body everyday. It’s like the TSA agents saying the body scanner “only” gives off as much radiation as a single flight (to which they never seem to know the answer of how long a flight is). Which means travelers double the amount radiation they receive for a round trip. A single low dose source is fine as long as it doesn’t stay in the body for long periods of time or happen repeatedly before your body filters it out. Multiple sources could snowball into something more dangerous.
Witch hunts where the magic fetishes are repaired. Hm. I’m not getting the same worst-possible vibe, but then I haven’t been caught by a gang of torch-wielding exhaust techs, had my ignition system mutilated to exhaust uses, and billed by way of a robust blend of state and local…Witch Hunting Guild fee. Oh.
So the engineers who think everyplace should smell like 100 cats and one mattress live there are doing great work, and that catalytic converter is working right but overworked by an ECM letting the engine run rich? And this is not the top-quartile polluter whose NOx SOx and VOC are right out there offending senses?
This isn’t news, some researchers have pushed for roadside machines that look at traffic (where it is one lane, like an on ramp) and use an infrared spectrometer to measure CO emissions, and a few motorcycle cops to write tickets for a serious emissions check if it flags you. But, that wouldn’t put money in service station owners pockets all over the state. But it would catch the gross emitters quickly, rather than only checking every two years.
1 Like
You can watch an entire street at once, using chemical imaging, a flavor of MASINT.
In the process industry, mid/far IR cameras are used for detecting gas leaks. For carbon monoxide, a cooled InSb sensor with sensitivity at 4.52-4.67 µm is employed:
http://www.flir.com/ogi/display/?id=51857
Not sure it would be sensitive enough to the relatively low concentrations in vehicle exhaust, but worth looking at.
Edit: Example of chemical imaging deployed here:
If there were no consequences for my actions, I would gladly kill any of these rollin’ coal asswipes.
2 Likes
Which is why buses and trains are such great ideas for moving lots of people or heavy goods.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
