Actually, I am going to have a chat with the PIs on that study.
There are some issues with their characterization --- aerosol, time aloft, and also biodegradability of carbon particles...
The study said their time aloft was limited to days or weeks at the most. That would lead me to think that most of the black carbon in our atmosphere is locally generated.
Reread that study...does it not say that improvements on the US side of the line have greatly improved. Good grief, you guys act like the world is coming to end. Lets just make laws that ban fossil fuels no more open air burning nucular power hydro electic, to improvine fishing, camping, electricity to reduce the carbon foot print the cattle industry to reduce methane production and go back to the horse an Oxen we'll deffinitely increase jobs by cleaning up the physical pollution. this is fun
The study says that 52% of US carbon particulate emissions come from transport. That means diesel. Particulate emissions are a known health hazard which is not subject to dispute like CO2. If carbon particulate emissions only stay in the air for a few days, that means the majority of emissions in the North American atmosphere are self inflicted regardless of what is happening in Asia.
No study, regardless of its source, will be acceptable to a person when it's conclusions do not match what that person wants to believe.
that 52% does not represent a global issue as you two were implying notice the article states That the majority of Bc emission comes from Asia, Africa and South America. If the Article states that comparing BC emissions between Canada and The US I would agree that we put alot of fecal material in the air and wouldn't question a fine government agency such as the EPA
I was implying nothing of the sort. What is it about "52% of US carbon particulate emissions come from transport" that you don't understand? It doesn't matter to us if the majority of emissions come from Asia, Africa and South America if they don't reach us because of the limited time they spend in the atmosphere.
I suspect there is little difference between Canada and the US when it comes to BC emissions as our economies and standards are so similar.
"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice" WSC
Jarlaxle wrote: How much of the "transport" emissions are from the soot-belching trains? You know, the ones running essentially 1930s engines with zero emission controls!
That's also going to be one big DPF on that Boeing 747.
~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~
"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"
EPA Proposes NOx Emission Standards for Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines
Diesel Boats and Ships
In March 2008, EPA finalized a three part program that will dramatically reduce emissions from marine diesel engines below 30 liters per cylinder displacement.
The 2008 final rule includes the first-ever national emission standards for existing marine diesel engines, applying to engines larger than 600kW when they are remanufactured. The rule also sets Tier 3 emissions standards for newly-built engines that are phasing in from 2009. Finally, the rule establishes Tier 4 standards for newly-built commercial marine diesel engines above 600kW, based on the application of high-efficiency catalytic after-treatment technology, phasing in beginning in 2014.
Locomotives
Locomotive engines are significant contributors to air pollution in many of our nation's cities and ports. Although locomotive engines being produced today must meet relatively modest emission requirements set in 1997, they continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (PM), both of which contribute to serious public health problems.
In March 2008, EPA finalized a three part program that will dramatically reduce emissions from diesel locomotives of all types -- line-haul, switch, and passenger rail. The rule will cut PM emissions from these engines by as much as 90 percent and NOx emissions by as much as 80 percent when fully implemented.
This final rule sets new emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured--to take effect as soon as certified systems are available, as early as 2008. The rule also sets Tier 3 emission standards for newly-built locomotives, provisions for clean switch locomotives, and idle reduction requirements for new and remanufactured locomotives. Finally, the rule establishes long-term, Tier 4, standards for newly-built engines based on the application of high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment technology, beginning in 2015.
Actually, I am going to have a chat with the PIs on that study.
There are some issues with their characterization --- aerosol, time aloft, and also biodegradability of carbon particles...
The study said their time aloft was limited to days or weeks at the most. That would lead me to think that most of the black carbon in our atmosphere is locally generated.
Reread that study...does it not say that improvements on the US side of the line have greatly improved. Good grief, you guys act like the world is coming to end. Lets just make laws that ban fossil fuels no more open air burning nucular power hydro electic, to improvine fishing, camping, electricity to reduce the carbon foot print the cattle industry to reduce methane production and go back to the horse an Oxen we'll deffinitely increase jobs by cleaning up the physical pollution. this is fun
The study says that 52% of US carbon particulate emissions come from transport. That means diesel. Particulate emissions are a known health hazard which is not subject to dispute like CO2. If carbon particulate emissions only stay in the air for a few days, that means the majority of emissions in the North American atmosphere are self inflicted regardless of what is happening in Asia.
No study, regardless of its source, will be acceptable to a person when it's conclusions do not match what that person wants to believe.
that 52% does not represent a global issue as you two were implying notice the article states That the majority of Bc emission comes from Asia, Africa and South America. If the Article states that comparing BC emissions between Canada and The US I would agree that we put alot of fecal material in the air and wouldn't question a fine government agency such as the EPA
I was implying nothing of the sort. What is it about "52% of US carbon particulate emissions come from transport" that you don't understand? It doesn't matter to us if the majority of emissions come from Asia, Africa and South America if they don't reach us because of the limited time they spend in the atmosphere.
I suspect there is little difference between Canada and the US when it comes to BC emissions as our economies and standards are so similar.
Read this from our two governments main source of North America's GHG emissions
December 7, 2011
Related Articles:
Greenhouse gases reached record highs in 2008 - UN
New Trends Report: Fuel Economy Increases as CO2 Decreases
Russia’s hot air threatens UN climate deal
CEC examines air pollution from North America's 3,000 fossil-fuel power plants
Montreal, December 7, 2011- North America's 3,000 fossil fuel burning power plants continue to produce two-thirds of the region's electricity and, at the same time, generate the majority of certain harmful air pollutants and emit more greenhouse gases than any other industrial sector.
North American Power Plant Air Emissions, a new report and database released by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), provides detailed information on the electric power sector in North America.
It also profiles, on a plant-by-plant basis, the air emissions of six of the most-important contaminants-the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and methane; sulfur dioxide; mercury; and particulate matter-emitted by North America's fossil fuel-fired power plants.
These pollutants-especially sulfur dioxide, mercury and greenhouse gases-are linked to a range of environmental and public health problems facing the people of North America today, including acid rain, smog, asthma, and global climate change. For sulfur dioxide alone, the major contributor to acid rain, fossil-fuel power plants are responsible for 71 percent of reported emissions from industrial facilities across North America.
The production of electricity from burning coal is significantly more important in terms of a source of CO2 than the current output of the tarsands,'' said Evan Lloyd, executive director of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an inter-governmental organization established in conjunction with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the 1990s.
"The information we've collected in this report is vital to understanding the magnitude and impact of these power plant emissions on our environment, climate, and health, not just locally but across North America," said Lloyd.
"North America's continuing reliance on fossil fuel electricity comes at a steep price in terms of air pollution and public health, and underlines the challenge, and the long-term benefits, of making the transition to a cleaner, low-carbon economy," he added.
The detailed information found in the report will help industry, regional and federal authorities in Canada, Mexico and the United States make better decisions on energy alternatives and on reducing and preventing pollution,.
Greenhouse gases
North America's fossil-fuel electricity generating sector is a major contributor to emissions of greenhouse gases, representing 33 percent of North American and six percent of global emissions, mainly carbon dioxide. The combustion of coal accounts for the bulk of these emissions.
Coal-fired power plants in Canada and the United States, along with Mexican oil-fired facilities, produced the largest emissions overall of greenhouse gases (GHGs), particularly CO2, although in Canada and Mexico, natural gas-fired power plants were major sources of methane as well as nitrous oxide, both extremely potent greenhouse gases.
Sulfur dioxide - The CEC study finds that a relatively small percentage of facilities across the region account for much of the sector's sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, a criteria air contaminant associated with a variety of impacts on the environment and human health-including the creation of smog, acid rain and regional haze, and the development of respiratory illnesses. The report reveals that the overall per-plant emission levels of the top five SO2 emitters of Mexico and the United States were very similar, and significantly higher than those of the top five SO2 emitters of Canada.
Mercury - The data in this report show that mercury emissions in the three countries were mainly from the combustion of coal. For Canada and the United States, coal-fired power plants accounted for 98 percent of all mercury releases from fossil-fuel electricity generating facilities, and in Mexico, they accounted for nearly 88 percent.
Gauging environmental performance
The report reveals that factors other than fuel type, such as total electricity generation, capacity, age and efficiency of power plants, also figure significantly-with many of the top pollutant emitting facilities not necessarily the top electricity generators. For instance, for the pollutants considered in the report, per capita emissions are higher in the United States than in Canada and Mexico.
However, for certain pollutants, such as CO2, overall the largest US facilities, many of them coal-fired power plants, had lower emissions per unit of electricity produced than the largest facilities in Canada and Mexico. Similarly, for SO2, Mexico's three highest emitters had considerably higher emissions per unit of electricity produced than the highest three emitters of Canada and the United States, suggesting differences in environmental controls and performance.
A North American picture of power plants
The report compiles data from 2005, the latest publicly available information from all three countries. The report reveals the relationship between pollutant emissions and the type and size of facilities and the technologies and fuels they use-a unique mix for each country.
For instance, coal-fired plants in the United States generate close to half of that country's electricity, while Canada produces 60 percent of its electricity from hydroelectric generation. In Mexico, oil and natural gas-fired plants generate more than two-thirds of that country's electricity.
North American Power Plant Air Emissions builds upon the first-such CEC assessment (published in 2004) that compiled information on emissions of two criteria air contaminants and limited information on mercury and carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in North America for the year 2002.
The latest report provides a more extensive coverage, with analyses from over two thousand additional facilities and of additional pollutants, including
methane, nitrous oxide and particulate matter, thereby offering a more complete picture of power plant contributions to air emissions across North America.
The current report also highlights some of the significant emission reductions achieved by a number of power plants featured in the previous publication. The report also notes that from 2002 to 2005 increases in electricity production have also been accompanied by increases in the use of relatively cleaner fuels such as natural gas, increased use of fuels from renewable sources, as well as the implementation of control technologies.
The report also makes a statement about the importance of improved availability and comparability of pollutant emissions data from the three countries.
Although the emissions inventory data for Canada and Mexico have improved significantly from 2002 to 2005, they are not yet at par with the level of detail of the US data. Facility-level data on electricity generation or pollution-control technologies for Canadian facilities are not publically available.
In Mexico, the majority of the air emissions data were estimates based on facility fuel consumption, due to the lack of site-specific monitoring data.
North American Power Plant Air Emissions Online
Interested parties can read the report and explore the CEC's air emissions database for 3,144 fossil-fuel power plants online at www.cec.org/powerplants. The data can be downloaded and can also be viewed using Google Earth.
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was established by Canada, Mexico and the United States to implement the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), the environmental side accord to NAFTA. More information at www.cec.org.
This article has been viewed 960 times
Show/hide comments »
overnments:
08 Dodge Mega Cab DRW,6spd auto, Exhaust break, 8'bed conversion (Best mistake I've made)
35' Teton Home Experience 3 slides, its not a trailer its a home
5500 watt generator
and a beautiful Co-piolet
mkirsch wrote: Only six Chinese babies died of heavy metals poisoning during the production of the emissions equipment on your truck. A small price to pay for clean air...
NewsW wrote: Looks like Environmental Science Literacy 101 is not required curriculum here.
What is the difference between GHG (that is short for Green House Gases) and Particulate Matter?
What is Sulfur Dioxide?
What is Mercury?
What is PM 2.5?
You pick on the diesel engine as a pollutor when there is a bigger picture that everyone needs to look at. You and the other gentleman and I don't mean to be insulting, are "Chicken Littles" if you're worried about the air quality and I am too. Then let's just put a ban on industry. your article about sea transport is right on.
I'm using my diesel to Rv around the rockies and to quote Charton Heston you'll have to pry the steering wheel from my cold hands.
NewsW wrote: Looks like Environmental Science Literacy 101 is not required curriculum here.
What is the difference between GHG (that is short for Green House Gases) and Particulate Matter?
What is Sulfur Dioxide?
What is Mercury?
What is PM 2.5?
Exactly. Particulates are not a green house gas. Their limited time in the atmosphere makes them mostly a local threat. It's always easy to point somewhere else as long as it isn't you that has to change anything.
I'm a diesel fan. My TV is a diesel and so is my daily driver car. I'm quite happy with the idea that my new truck spews a small fraction of the particulates that my old one did. If nothing else, it doesn't stink up my garage every time I fire it up.
Afraid you are playing piano to water buffalo. Note it does have warming properties --- re that study, but not as a GHG.
Their limited time in the atmosphere makes them mostly a local threat. It's always easy to point somewhere else as long as it isn't you that has to change anything.
I'm a diesel fan. My TV is a diesel and so is my daily driver car. I'm quite happy with the idea that my new truck spews a small fraction of the particulates that my old one did. If nothing else, it doesn't stink up my garage every time I fire it up.
Part of the problem is that diesel emissions should have been done 20 years ago, say in mid 80s when there was stronger public support.
Every one of the technologies used now have been around since then, but was not used for diesels until the mid late 90s in Europe and then Japan.
Diesel emission technology compared to gas is primitive, expensive, and generally, not designed from scratch into engines as a system.
If it was clean sheeted, particulate trapping can be made a lot more effective, smaller, and so on --- and cost a lot less.
The volume is now there for small diesels to achieve the scale economies because of Europe going diesel crazy.
But here, the retrofit afterthoughts are causing as much grief as the original catalytic converters for gas engines.
The only down side is when we are done, and OBD III rolls around, engines and computers will more or less be sealed.
Offline
