"cuts_off_prius" (cutsoffprius)
11/04/2015 at 14:50 • Filed to: None
0
11|
"cuts_off_prius" (cutsoffprius)
11/04/2015 at 14:50 • Filed to: None | 0
| 11 |
For a toxicology course and this will be 12-15 pages with references. Although I’ll talk about the byproducts of power plants that burn fossil fuels (like coal), my paper will focus on the chemical byproduct of internal combustion that has been in the center of the VW scandal and that is NOx, which consists of NO, NO2, NO3, and so on. I’ll talk about products of further chemical reactions from these as well with their toxic effects, like how NOx can form ozone (O3). Other byproducts of internal combustion I’ll discuss are CO, CO2, SO, SO2. Am I missing anything important? And what about the power plants? Coal sounds the worst. Any byproduct from them really stick out to you?
offtopic: I wonder if the VW/Audi V12 TDI in the Toureg and Q7 will be implicated in the scandal...
450X_FTW
> cuts_off_prius
11/04/2015 at 14:58 |
|
I’ll give you $5 if you throw in your paper that NOx is just another for of NOS, which according to Vin VW Diesel, is nothing but go-go juice for your motor.
Hiroku
> cuts_off_prius
11/04/2015 at 14:59 |
|
Share it over here when you’re done, I’d like to check it out. It’s a subject I take interest in.
|
cuts_off_prius
> Hiroku
11/04/2015 at 15:03 |
|
Will do hopefully. So far, I know that NOx can cause respiratory issues, asthma, and was labeled a carcinogen by some agencies.
jariten1781
> cuts_off_prius
11/04/2015 at 15:03 |
|
You can also reference the NH3-slip byproduct of using DEF/SCR. Every paper I’ve seen on deleterious effects of NOx mention that DEF/SCR is being used to lower NOx emissions but that NH3 is bad in and of itself but won’t be referenced in the paper. I find that an interesting and convenient omission from the studies but I’m not well enough versed to tell whether that moves the needle or is just being thrown in to say 'Yeah we thought of that.'
It'd be very intriguing if DEF/SCR is just a cover system whose emissions do the same order of magnitude damage as a diesel without them but is selected because they're not tested for by the EPA.
|
cuts_off_prius
> jariten1781
11/04/2015 at 15:10 |
|
That is great. I’ll definitely look into that and the toxicological effects of NH3.
tromoly
> cuts_off_prius
11/04/2015 at 15:12 |
|
Talk about the efect of running lean vs running rich in diesels (hint: one gives more NOx with less soot, the other gives more soot with less NOx).
DrJohannVegas
> cuts_off_prius
11/04/2015 at 15:18 |
|
Particulates. Soot (I’m looking at you, coal-rollers, and perhaps a bit less so, gasoline direct injection) is a biggie. A concern from ethanol burning is acetaldehyde. So, yea, there’s a few others, but I bet a simple risk analysis at the start will get you focused.
|
DrJohannVegas
> tromoly
11/04/2015 at 15:20 |
|
THIS. A thousand times this. Over beers discussing the VW emissions thingy, this is the topic which dominated - how VW will have to adjust calibration to deal, and how that will affect soot-related systems. (ie. regen all the time...)
|
tromoly
> DrJohannVegas
11/04/2015 at 15:23 |
|
It’s kinda funny to realize that “rolling coal” produces less NOx than running lean so is in a way “better” for the environment.
ttyymmnn
> cuts_off_prius
11/04/2015 at 15:41 |
|
Anecdotally, there was a study done in Holland (I think) a few years ago about how people who ride their bikes to work are actually unhealthy because they breathe in so much car exhaust while riding.
AMGtech - now with more recalls!
> cuts_off_prius
11/04/2015 at 15:42 |
|
Sounds fun. Counterpoint to think about is that NOx can also contribute to global cooling. It has its ups and downs.