This Is Your Air Without CARB

jackbombay

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Location
Diesel knows best
TDI
A4 Jetta
GM was sued by the Federal Govt., and lost the case. GM was fined five thousand dollars for virtually destroying the SoCal transportation network.
http://moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html
:,-(


Rick's is a cheap non franchise fast food place in Silver Lake (LA) and they have some killer, and cheap breakfast burritos, and there are remnants of the red car line on either side of the low spot they reside in., bunch of concrete pillars that used to support tracks. If you head southeast along Riverside drive from Rick's there are numerous relics from the Red car line....
 

dhangejr

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Location
PNW is my home
TDI
mk4 Jetta
Some interesting opinions are we doing this thread.

First I'll say I drive a Roll coal for MPGs which saves money. Wish it was a wagon or a converted yotA lol Otherwise I miss driving my e36m3 daily. It is so much fun to drive.

For me, I'm of the belief we truly are past the point of no return. That is to say, humans havd had enough of an adverse effect on the earths chemestry that esrth is sick. Who knows what it will do to cough the crud out, but surely it will make life in hearth look like hell. Personally I blame human greed.

Inspection and tags is just a tax. The state don't care about nothing but money...just like auto makers. The whole notion of ethics and corporate responsibility is relatively new to and really it's just to make consumers purchase their products. In Other words corporate responsibility is just a front to look good.

If I was in the position to make millions doing g something I was questioning I'm sure money talks and BS walks. Well maybe not today but once upon a Time during a loos g streak.
 

El Dobro

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Location
NJ
TDI
2017 Bolt EV Premier, 2023 Bolt EUV Premier

2015vwgolfdiesel

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Location
Oklahoma
TDI
2015 VW Golf S DSG Silver
General Motors purchased, and put out of business a number of Trolley companies in Southern California in the 1930's/1940's

GM was sued by the Federal Govt., and lost the case.

GM was fined five thousand dollars for virtually destroying the SoCal transportation network.

http://moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html
Same for Tulsa:mad:

We had a good trolley from Tulsa down town to Sand Springs?

All ripped up and here come the (dirty GM) buses

Think the trolley was a nickel ~~ Bus was more coin
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
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
 

Oilerlord

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Location
Edmonton, Canada
TDI
2012 JSW TDI w/DSG. 700 Mile Club. 2008 BMW X3 "Beatrice", 2004 BMW 330Xi, 2014 Mercedes B-Class Electric
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
I'm not a liberal, or a fan of GM, but the $10.3B loss the taxpayers incurred may have paled by comparison if GM was allowed to fail. GM for all intents and purposes - is the "heartbeat" of America's economy. The patient almost died on the table back in 2009.
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
I'm not a liberal, or a fan of GM, but the $10.3B loss the taxpayers incurred may have paled by comparison if GM was allowed to fail. GM for all intents and purposes - is the "heartbeat" of America's economy. The patient almost died on the table back in 2009.
If GM had been allowed to go belly up, NO TAXPAYER DOLLARS would have been lost, not more. Admittedly a bunch of over-paid UAW sluggards would have been out of the jobs they pretend to do properly, but McDonalds, Starbucks, and their ilk would have been available. ;)
 

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
Except they wouldn't have, because there would've been a flood of applicants for those positions, and a lot of people wouldn't get jobs. And then there's the suppliers downstream.

Upshot would be, either the taxpayers would pay in the form of unemployment, disability, SNAP, EBT, and other benefits, or they would pay in the form of a public health disaster in the form of people turning to drugs, and in the form of a massively increased crime rate.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
That just assumes that GM and all that it included would suddenly cease to exist, which likely would not have happened anyway. Their suppliers, competitors, and other investors would have stepped in and assumed much of them. Nothing new, that was happening already for years as GM was circling the drain.

AAM, for instance, came to be when GM decided it could no longer support its own in-house drive axle/etc. manufacturing, so some investors (largely led by a former Chrysler guy) purchased that part and formed AAM. Now they make all kinds of things for all kinds of companies, including Volkswagen.

That is just one example.

GM was riding a massive wave from the 1960s. And yes, it was such a huge wave it carried them along for decades, but eventually the wave was reaching shore, and the surf board that was General Motors had so many hangers-on that the poor surfer could no longer stay up. It was bound to happen, sooner or later. The US gov't involvement just softened the landing. They still went bankrupt, and they still went away. Today's GM is not the same company. I will argue they are a better one now, though. Perhaps not the trend setters and giant they were in the '60s, but that is probably a good thing for the long term.

Funny how a company that was once in danger of having the gov't force them into being broken up due to anti-monopoly reasons ended up needing to be financially propped up by that same gov't a few years later. :cool:

GM is still shedding weight, the latest now is Opel. This may seem to many here to be "no big deal", but much of what GM's vehicles have under their hoods, aside from the pushrod toting truck engines, is largely due to German influence, in the Opel division. I wonder who they'll tap for future projects, unless they feel (as I sort of do) there really isn't anything useful left for ICE anyway.
 
Last edited:

Oilerlord

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Location
Edmonton, Canada
TDI
2012 JSW TDI w/DSG. 700 Mile Club. 2008 BMW X3 "Beatrice", 2004 BMW 330Xi, 2014 Mercedes B-Class Electric
If GM had been allowed to go belly up, NO TAXPAYER DOLLARS would have been lost, not more. Admittedly a bunch of over-paid UAW sluggards would have been out of the jobs they pretend to do properly, but McDonalds, Starbucks, and their ilk would have been available. ;)
Again, I'm no fan of GM but if they weren't given the time to restructure, and the company grinded to a sudden halt, the economic consequences may have been slightly more damaging than you describe.
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
No, that's the air when the nuts at CARB are allowed to spew their toxic fictional blather into it :D
As much as I despise CARB's lies and practices, I DO like their formulation of diesel. Extremely little soot, minimum cetane is 50.
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
Someday, the air on earth will be pristine, but that's only when all the humans are extinct.
Ah, not really, as the animals will still be emitting methane so they all need to go also. :D

Then only plant life will be around, emitting lovely O2.
 

aja8888

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Location
Texas..RETIRED 12/31/17
TDI
Out of TDI's
Except they wouldn't have, because there would've been a flood of applicants for those positions, and a lot of people wouldn't get jobs. And then there's the suppliers downstream.

Upshot would be, either the taxpayers would pay in the form of unemployment, disability, SNAP, EBT, and other benefits, or they would pay in the form of a public health disaster in the form of people turning to drugs, and in the form of a massively increased crime rate.
Pure speculation and taxpayers don't fund unemployment on a state or federal basis. Employers pay into the fund (pay state and federal costs) as UE is an insurance product.
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
The major objection I have to CARB regulation policy is that they developed emission standards that essentially ignored valid research results. It was known for decades (since the 1970s) that ozone levels increased on weekends in Southern California relatively more than weekdays even though precursor emissions were significantly lower on weekends than weekday, especially NOx.

This 2003 article offers a good summary of the "weekend ozone effect" research.

In spite of that, CARB proceeded with LEV 2, which mandated a 8.6-fold reduction in NOx emissions (from 0.6 g/mi in Tier 1 to 0.07 g/mi in LEV 2), while only mandating a 3.4-fold reduction in NMHC (from 0.31 g/mi in Tier 1 to 0.09 g/mi in LEV 2).

Even though air quality has generally improved there, ambient ozone remains a significant issue:





Meanwhile, no area in the U.S. is currently in non-attainment with the NO2 NAAQS. CARB's approach is really backward from what it should have been with respect to mobile emission regulations.
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.
 

john.jackson9213

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Location
Miramar, Ca. (Think Top Gun)
TDI
1996 B4V
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.
 
Last edited:

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
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/weekendeffect/weekendeffect.htm and https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-ambient-air-quality-standards-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.
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
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/weekendeffect/weekendeffect.htm and https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-ambient-air-quality-standards-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.
 

aja8888

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Location
Texas..RETIRED 12/31/17
TDI
Out of TDI's
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? :rolleyes:
 

piotrsko

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Location
Reno Nv
TDI
2013 Golf, 2000 F-250 (7.3)
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.
 

roflwaffle

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Location
BFE, CA
TDI
Maybe a TDI in the future. For now... D - 82 Rabbit, 63 190d; H - 00 Insight, 05 Prius ; G - 82 RN30
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-researchers-help-farmers-improve-air-quality-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.

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.
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
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-researchers-help-farmers-improve-air-quality-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.
 

roflwaffle

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Location
BFE, CA
TDI
Maybe a TDI in the future. For now... D - 82 Rabbit, 63 190d; H - 00 Insight, 05 Prius ; G - 82 RN30
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/

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.
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
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.
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
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.
 

roflwaffle

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Location
BFE, CA
TDI
Maybe a TDI in the future. For now... D - 82 Rabbit, 63 190d; H - 00 Insight, 05 Prius ; G - 82 RN30
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....

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.
 

Matt-98AHU

Loose Nut Behind the Wheel Vendor
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Location
Gresham, OR
TDI
2001 Golf TDI, 2005 Passat wagon, 2004 Touareg V10.
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.
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
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.
 
Top