www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You




Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI (Diesel) Emissions

TDI (Diesel) Emissions This is a discussion about emissions from TDI's. Pro's cons of Diesels (including biodiesel) effects on the environment and how they compare to Gasoline and other fuel sources for Internal combustion engines.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 13th, 2017, 22:11   #106
john.jackson9213
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miramar, Ca. (Think Top Gun)
TDI(s): 1996 B4V
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by romad View Post
This is another thing I hold against Obama - he didn't let GM go belly up! Even breaking it up into several smaller companies would have been an improvement
Personally, I saw enough people suffering from the Great Recession. I had no wish to see any additional suffering of UAW workers (or others) applying at McDonalds.

So I try to be non judgemental when it comes to the "Blame Game". Because in life, there is usually more than enough "Blame" to cover everybody.
__________________
JJ
1996 B4V, Hella E-Codes, GLX leather, EuroTuning.cz 02A 6 speed conversion w/.71 5th and .588 6th gear, A4 shift linkage by Matt-98AHU. 11 mm pump by Oldpoopie. Now, GTC1549VZ turbo by Whitbread. TDtuning, 24 lbs. boost, 162 hp, 285 lb/ft tq. Smoke Free (9/18/15). Koni Yellows and Big Brake 5 lug conversion.

Last edited by john.jackson9213; March 13th, 2017 at 22:15.
john.jackson9213 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2017, 09:03   #107
wxman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: East TN, USA
TDI(s): Other Diesel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by romad View Post
Not all the problem areas in that graphic are SOURCES of pollution though. The center of California is a large valley surrounded by mountain ranges: Coastal Range to the West, Cascades to the North, Sierra Nevadas to the East, Tehachapis to the South.

The main opening in the Coastal Range is the Carqueniz Strait where the combined Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers flow into San Francisco Bay (well, technically San Pablo Bay). There are further openings to the south where main highways go through the passes. These openings allow a large amount of Bay Area generated pollution to blow into the valley since the winds blow from west to east then north and south until the flow is blocked by the Cascades and the Tehachapis, trapping the pollution.

Looking at the map, I'm in Butte County which is the blue shaded county on the north edge of the "non-attainment" area; everyone here could convert to only electric vehicles but Butte County would still be considered non-attainment simply due to natural air flow. The clearest days are right after winter storms that blow DOWN from the north; between the rain and north winds our air is clear until the north winds weaken enough for the south winds to return.
Agree. This is what CARB and EPA use to justify the relatively larger NOx emission reductions in the on-road mobile source regulations. See, e.g., https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/week...kendeffect.htm and https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...for-ozone#h-21 (3rd paragraph).

Nevertheless, it is likely that ozone generated in the large metropolitan areas in Southern California is advected along with those southerly surface winds up the central valley of California. It still appears that ozone generated in these metropolitan areas are primarily caused by VOC emissions, not NOx emissions.

It should also be noted that according to EPA monitoring data, overall ambient ozone levels in EPA Region 9 (Southwest U.S.) have not not fallen in spite of a >10% decrease in ambient NO2 levels between 2010 and 2015.
wxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2017, 09:31   #108
romad
Veteran Member
 
romad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oroville, State of Jefferson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
Agree. This is what CARB and EPA use to justify the relatively larger NOx emission reductions in the on-road mobile source regulations. See, e.g., https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/week...kendeffect.htm and https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...for-ozone#h-21 (3rd paragraph).

Nevertheless, it is likely that ozone generated in the large metropolitan areas in Southern California is advected along with those southerly surface winds up the central valley of California. It still appears that ozone generated in these metropolitan areas are primarily caused by VOC emissions, not NOx emissions.

It should also be noted that according to EPA monitoring data, overall ambient ozone levels in EPA Region 9 (Southwest U.S.) have not not fallen in spite of a >10% decrease in ambient NO2 levels between 2010 and 2015.
Actually, I think the Tehachapis would block most SoCal pollution from entering the San Joaquin Valley except maybe through Tejon Pass (I-5 corridor), but I'm sure SoCal and the Bay Area are the sources of the vast majority of Central Valley pollution.
__________________

The fleet:
2005 Jetta Wagon "Cranberry" (bought July 2011)
2004 Toyota Prius (bought August 2004)
1990 Mazda Miata (bought July 1989)
romad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2017, 12:29   #109
aja8888
Veteran Member
 
aja8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas..I work in Oil & Gas...
Fuel Economy: About as good as it gets!
Default

I've been gone a long time from LA (left 1992) and worked for ARCO (Environmental Manager) responsible for the West Coast facilities. I worked on committees with industry and WOGA (at that time). We generally concluded through studies that the largest impact to the atmosphere (ozone) was due to moblie sources. I remember the earlier SIP's causing some chemical manufacturers being told to curtail operations and remove their plants. How did that work out?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Mike View Post
........"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face." -- philosopher Mike Tyson.
Bring the 1971 Beetle back to life thread:
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=472400
aja8888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2017, 09:23   #110
piotrsko
Veteran Member
 
piotrsko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Reno Nv
Fuel Economy: 46 city/56 hwy so far wonder what the Golf gets
Default

don't forget the fresno swirl vortex. the tehachapis do pevent norcal mixing but my data is observational only while living there most of the mountains are 4000 to 5000 ft with passes generally not lower than 2500.
piotrsko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2017, 00:07   #111
roflwaffle
Veteran Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
I'm not suggesting that regulations aren't necessary. However, the ONLY reason for emission standards is to facilitate attainment with ambient air quality standards (NAAQS in the U.S.)
CARB has taken the NOx-control approach to reach attainment with the ozone NAAQS (which was reduced to 70 ppb in December 2015 from 75 ppb), despite research suggesting this is not the best approach. The success of this approach is dubious to date. For example, according to EPA monitoring data, ambient concentration of NO2 in Los Angles has been reduced by nearly 45% between 2000 and 2014 (from 123 ppb in 2000 to 69.4 ppb in 2014), but ambient O3 levels have only decreased by about 15% (from 85 ppb in 2000 to 72 ppb in 2014). NO2 levels in San Bernardino decreased by about 42% but O3 decreased by 12%.
According to a recent study (Fujita et al., "Projected ozone trends and changes in the ozone-precursor relationship in the South Coast Air Basin in response to varying reductions of precursor emissions." J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2016 Feb;66(2):201-14. doi: 10.1080/10962247.2015.1106991), another 90% reductions in NOx from 2008 levels will be required to reach attainment with the O3 NAAQS. In 2008, ambient NO2 was 79 ppb in San Bernardino. A 90% reduction from 79 ppb would mean that NO2 levels would have to be no more than about 7.9 ppb in order to attain O3 NAAQS.
This may be a difficult target to hit even if all anthropogenic NOx emissions are eliminated, because another study (Oikawa, P. Y. et al. “Unusually high soil nitrogen oxide emissions influence air quality in a high-temperature agricultural region.” Nat. Commun. 6:8753 doi: 10.1038/ncomms9753 (2015)) found very high levels of biogenic/geogenic NOx emissions from agricultural soils in SoCAB.
According to this article, those NOx emissions are the result of ag/fertilization practices (anthropogenic), which can be changed to substantially reduce NOx emissions.

http://www.feedstuffs.com/story-rese...lity-45-146295
https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/37984

It's accurate to say that the reduction in NOx emissions required is substantial. Excluding NOx emissions from on-road vehicles wouldn't get us to the ozone NAAQS in the SCAQMD basin. We need substantial reductions in emissions from other sources as well.

Quote:
1.4 Conclusions
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) are implementing a long-term multi-pollutant (ozone and PM2.5)
control strategy that is primarily NOx focused. Based on preliminary evaluations, the SCAQMD
and CARB predict that reductions in NOx emissions from current levels of about 90% will be
necessary to attain the ozone NAAQS (SCAQMD, 2013; CARB, 2014). These reductions equate
to allowable emissions of NOx in the basin (“carrying capacity”) of 80 tons per day (SCAQMD,
2013) compared to 2008 emissions of 723 tpd and projected 2030 “baseline” emissions of 284
tpd. The 2030 baseline takes into account the effects of only currently adopted control programs,
which include the LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) -III standards. Thus, substantial additional NOx
reductions (204 tpd) will be needed beyond currently adopted control measures. For perspective,
on-road vehicles account for 95 tpd of NOx in the 2030 baseline inventory. Eliminating all
remaining NOx emissions from on-road vehicles would leave a residual of 189 tpd, which more
than doubles the projected carrying capacity. SCAQMD acknowledges that “it would be the
greatest air quality challenge the region has ever faced relative to achieving the additional NOx
emission reductions that would be necessary, and would further necessitate transformational
technologies with zero or near-zero combustion emissions” (SCAQMD, 2013).
Having said that, the ~95 tpd expected emissions from vehicles are still above the ~80 tpd limit needed to bring down, so even if all other sources were eliminated, we would still something more stringent than LEV-III.
roflwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2017, 08:38   #112
wxman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: East TN, USA
TDI(s): Other Diesel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle View Post
According to this article, those NOx emissions are the result of ag/fertilization practices (anthropogenic), which can be changed to substantially reduce NOx emissions.

http://www.feedstuffs.com/story-rese...lity-45-146295
https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/37984

It's accurate to say that the reduction in NOx emissions required is substantial. Excluding NOx emissions from on-road vehicles wouldn't get us to the ozone NAAQS in the SCAQMD basin. We need substantial reductions in emissions from other sources as well.

Having said that, the ~95 tpd expected emissions from vehicles are still above the ~80 tpd limit needed to bring down, so even if all other sources were eliminated, we would still something more stringent than LEV-III.
Interesting - thank you for the references.

One reason I'm skeptical that SoCAB can reach attainment with the ozone NAAQS through primarily NOx control is that the Oikawa paper showed quite significant non-anthropogenic NOx emissions in SoCAB:





Is there substantial agricultural activity in SoCAB? (I've never actually been in that part of California.) It doesn't appear that CARB/SCAQMD has accounted for this non-anthropogenic NOx in their emission inventories.

It's still not clear to me what level of ozone is achievable through NOx control alone, even if all anthropogenic NOx is eliminated.
wxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2017, 23:58   #113
roflwaffle
Veteran Member
Default

Are you thinking of another study? "Unusually high soil nitrogen oxide emissions influence air quality in a high-temperature agricultural region" breaks up emissions into agricultural and anthropogenic (industrial emissions) categories, but they focused on the Imperial valley and don't reference non-anthropogenic emissions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4659929/

Quote:
Improving WRF-Chem performance will therefore require evaluation of both model structure and model input data with regard to multiple sources of agricultural and anthropogenic organic compounds and NOx in the Imperial Valley.
My guess is that SoCAB maybe generates half of the ag-related NOx emissions of the Imperial Valley, and most of those are from landscaping as opposed to growing crops. I'm not sure how far NOx emissions can travel, but at certain times wind flows from the Imperial Valley into the IE/OC/LA region, which might bump up NOx levels.
roflwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2017, 10:23   #114
turbobrick240
Veteran Member
 
turbobrick240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: maine
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle View Post
Are you thinking of another study? "Unusually high soil nitrogen oxide emissions influence air quality in a high-temperature agricultural region" breaks up emissions into agricultural and anthropogenic (industrial emissions) categories, but they focused on the Imperial valley and don't reference non-anthropogenic emissions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4659929/
My guess is that SoCAB maybe generates half of the ag-related NOx emissions of the Imperial Valley, and most of those are from landscaping as opposed to growing crops. I'm not sure how far NOx emissions can travel, but at certain times wind flows from the Imperial Valley into the IE/OC/LA region, which might bump up NOx levels.
I would think agricultural related NOx emissions would be considered anthropogenic in nature. As most of the agriculture related NOx emissions results from human application of fossil fuel derived nitrogen fertilizers and ICE tractors/machinery.
turbobrick240 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2017, 11:14   #115
wxman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: East TN, USA
TDI(s): Other Diesel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle View Post
Are you thinking of another study? "Unusually high soil nitrogen oxide emissions influence air quality in a high-temperature agricultural region" breaks up emissions into agricultural and anthropogenic (industrial emissions) categories, but they focused on the Imperial valley and don't reference non-anthropogenic emissions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4659929/

My guess is that SoCAB maybe generates half of the ag-related NOx emissions of the Imperial Valley, and most of those are from landscaping as opposed to growing crops. I'm not sure how far NOx emissions can travel, but at certain times wind flows from the Imperial Valley into the IE/OC/LA region, which might bump up NOx levels.
Yes, you're correct that the paper focuses on NOx emissions from the Imperial Valley. The graphic I posted was the top right graphic from Figure 6 of that paper.

According to that graphic, "Biogenic NO Emissions" appear to be about the same in Los Angeles, and SoCAB in general, as they are in the Imperial Valley (2.0-2.5 ng N/M^2/sec).

There's another issue that CARB may not be fully accounting for and that is long-range transport of ozone precursors and possibly even ozone itself from Asia.

Again, I'm just wondering out loud if California will be able to achieve full attainment with the ozone NAAQS even if all anthropogeic NOx is eliminated.
wxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2017, 22:04   #116
roflwaffle
Veteran Member
Default

I think non-anthropogenic biogenic NOx emissions (I'm not sure from what?) are far smaller than anthropogenic biogenic NOx emissions (landscaping/crops), and I'm pretty sure the biogenic emissions from 6b are mostly from anthropogenic sources based on passages from the paper like....

Quote:
Third, biogenic volatile organic compound emissions in high-temperature irrigated environments
I agree with the author's point that just regulating NOx emissions from vehicles won't be enough to get ozone in check. We also need to regulate emissions from landscaping/crops. In my opinion, we can do a lot more with a lot less in terms of landscaping, which leaves farming as the nut to crack.
roflwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2017, 04:19   #117
Matt-98AHU
Loose Nut Behind the Wheel Vendor
 
Matt-98AHU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Vallejo, CA
Fuel Economy: Depends on which TDI :)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by romad View Post
Actually, I think the Tehachapis would block most SoCal pollution from entering the San Joaquin Valley except maybe through Tejon Pass (I-5 corridor), but I'm sure SoCal and the Bay Area are the sources of the vast majority of Central Valley pollution.
I'm sure they contribute to parts of it, especially the Northern half, though there is a fair bit of blocking from hills between the Bay and the central valley. The delta is the only real low spot that would allow for any significant inflow of pollution from the Bay Area.

The central valley is reasonably well populated in its own right, complete with its own sources of emissions. Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield and several smaller towns in between. There's plenty of sources in the southern and central valley to make their own pollution problem, especially given the geographic challenge of it not being able to go anywhere, it mostly just gets trapped and stays there and continues to build up, until, as you point out, a proper rain storm comes through and helps clear things up.
__________________
Sole Proprietor, Diesel Autowerks in San Anselmo, CA. One man operation, email is preferred method of contact: email me with inquiries for service.
Matt-98AHU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2017, 10:09   #118
romad
Veteran Member
 
romad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oroville, State of Jefferson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt-98AHU View Post
I'm sure they contribute to parts of it, especially the Northern half, though there is a fair bit of blocking from hills between the Bay and the central valley. The delta is the only real low spot that would allow for any significant inflow of pollution from the Bay Area.

The central valley is reasonably well populated in its own right, complete with its own sources of emissions. Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield and several smaller towns in between. There's plenty of sources in the southern and central valley to make their own pollution problem, especially given the geographic challenge of it not being able to go anywhere, it mostly just gets trapped and stays there and continues to build up, until, as you point out, a proper rain storm comes through and helps clear things up.
You're right, Matt, the delta and Carquinez Strait is exactly where the majority of Bay Area pollution comes into the Sacramento Valley and is pushed until it hits the Cascades at the north end. Additionally any pollution in the Sacramento are is pushed north at the same time.
__________________

The fleet:
2005 Jetta Wagon "Cranberry" (bought July 2011)
2004 Toyota Prius (bought August 2004)
1990 Mazda Miata (bought July 1989)
romad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
De-carb Frankeh West Coast Canada/USA 9 October 6th, 2011 09:11
Fight CARB! LiquidBlackDZL West Coast Canada/USA 3 September 6th, 2009 09:46
CARB TDI's... How do you know? k2dog TDI (Diesel) Emissions 3 June 17th, 2007 12:38
Dirty Air in Too Many Locations: CARB Expansion? dieseldorf TDI (Diesel) Emissions 24 August 1st, 2006 16:35
CARB At It Again wxman TDI (Diesel) Emissions 2 April 6th, 2001 18:23


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 16:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
© 1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.20089 seconds with 11 queries
[Output: 133.06 Kb. compressed to 114.27 Kb. by saving 18.78 Kb. (14.12%)]