97% of all modern diesel cars fail to meet NOx emissions standards in real-world conditions - Polidicks

[QUOTE=download;50198197]Oxygen is far more likely to react with hydrogen and carbon than nitrogen if it's available. It's the most crucial aspect there. You get very little NOx when there's no excess oxygen. Plants can't convert Nitrogen oxides into a form they can use by themselves; naturally they're reliant on things like lightning and some types of bacteria to form it. Nitrogen oxides -> Nitric acid -> nitrates. They're the critical building blocks of plant growth; plants love any extra sources of nitrogen. Why do you think farmers use so much ammonium nitrate on their plants? [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Also, the plants don't give a damn about fish.[/QUOTE] NOx is a pollutant, there really isn't any debate about this. It contributes to the formation of smog, acid rain, and (depending on the conditions) tropospheric ozone. Most nitrogen used by plants is fixed by bacteria (or by humans via the Haber process), and the role that NOx plays is minor at best.

[QUOTE=download;50198197] They're the critical building blocks of plant growth; plants love any extra sources of nitrogen. Why do you think farmers use so much ammonium nitrate on their plants? [/QUOTE] Adding nutrients to the environment is bad. There's no sugar coating it.

[QUOTE=download;50198197]Oxygen is far more likely to react with hydrogen and carbon than nitrogen if it's available. It's the most crucial aspect there. You get very little NOx when there's no excess oxygen. Plants can't convert Nitrogen oxides into a form they can use by themselves; naturally they're reliant on things like lightning and some types of bacteria to form it. Nitrogen oxides -> Nitric acid -> nitrates. They're the critical building blocks of plant growth; plants love any extra sources of nitrogen. Why do you think farmers use so much ammonium nitrate on their plants? [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Also, the plants don't give a damn about fish.[/QUOTE] Applying fertilizers and whatever directly to a plant is a bit different than emitting it from your exhaust and letting it float around. Are you really trying to argue that NOx isn't a pollutant? Should the EU repeal these standards and say fuck it, the more NOx the better sorry if you have a respiratory disease? The atmosphere is something like ~75% or so Nitrogen iirc, and then you have 21% oxygen.. everything else is in trace amounts really. Diesel combustion will have excess Oxygen, that is much less the case with a petrol engine. Then there's obviously a ton of nitrogen in there as well. Even if the oxygen reacts with all the other trace gasses first you are still probably going to have a decent chunk of oxygen reacting with Nitrogen. [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Also the Nitrogen Cycle has established its own equilibrium over millions of year, artificially disrupting that will have consequences.

Nice job misrepresenting what I said. Find the line where I said it wasn't a pollutant.

[QUOTE=download;50198505]Nice job misrepresenting what I said. Find the line where I said it wasn't a pollutant.[/QUOTE] You didn't explicitly state it but you did say: [QUOTE]Also, plants love NOx. NOx chemicals go on to form nitrates which plants love.[/QUOTE] What other point are you trying to prove with this statement? It's questionable if it's even true that plants "love" it, with the other effects that NOx produces. But hey if we are going off what's good for plants without looking at anything else or considering the conditions it's applied in then CO2 is also good. CO2 can help plants grow in certain conditions. Maybe diesels are just bad because they emit less CO2, thus inhibiting plant growth? That statement sounds absurd.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50198549]You didn't explicitly state it but you did say: What other point are you trying to prove with this statement? It's questionable if it's even true that plants "love" it, with the other effects that NOx produces. But hey if we are going off what's good for plants without looking at anything else or considering the conditions it's applied in then CO2 is also good. CO2 can help plants grow in certain conditions. Maybe diesels are just bad because they emit less CO2, thus inhibiting plant growth? That statement sounds absurd.[/QUOTE] No, you're putting words in my mouth.

Okay, so what I understood to be happening didn't reference cars at all, only ships. And yeah, NOx really messes with people, but heres the study I saw: "The large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. ... The large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. " [URL="Link to Study"]http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-transport/45095528.pdf[/URL]

[QUOTE=Apollo2947;50199499]Okay, so what I understood to be happening didn't reference cars at all, only ships. And yeah, NOx really messes with people, but heres the study I saw: "The large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. ... The large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. " [URL="Link to Study"]http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-transport/45095528.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]However, it should be stressed that the uncertainties with this conclusion are large, in particular for indirect effects, and global temperature is only a first measure of the extent of climate change in any event[/QUOTE] Your study also says: [QUOTE]Ship emissions of e.g. NO2, CO, NMVOCs, SO2, primary particles, heavy metals and waste cause problems in coastal areas and harbours with heavy traffic. Particularly high increases of short-lived pollutants (e.g. NO2) are found close to regions with heavy traffic e.g. around the North Sea and the English Channel. Model studies tend to find NO2 concentrations to be more than doubled along the major world shipping routes. Absolute increases in surface ozone (O3) due to ship emissions are pronounced during summer months, with large increases again found in regions with heavy traffic. Increased ozone levels in the atmosphere are also of concern with regard to climate change, since ozone is an important greenhouse gas. Formation of sulphate and nitrate resulting from sulphur and nitrogen emissions causes acidification that might be harmful to ecosystems in regions with low buffering capacity, and lead to harmful health effects. Coastal countries in western Europe, western North America and the Mediterranean are substantially affected by ship emissions in this way.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=download;50198578]No, you're putting words in my mouth.[/QUOTE] The way you've responded so far in this thread makes it sound like you're trying to defend NOx production as being no big deal. We're trying to tell you that it is a big deal, and the justifications you are trying to throw out ("plants love it", "nitrogen oxides go on to form nitrates which is good") aren't very good at all. [QUOTE=Apollo2947;50199499]Okay, so what I understood to be happening didn't reference cars at all, only ships. And yeah, NOx really messes with people, but heres the study I saw: "The large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. ... The large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. " [URL="Link to Study"]http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-transport/45095528.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] Atmospheric chemistry is far, far more complex than simply "increasing [X] will decrease [Y]", or vice versa. It's a complicated network of reactions involving molecular and atomic oxygen, ozone, NOx, HOx, volatile organic compounds, halogenated compounds, and halogens and hydrohalogens. Under certain conditions, for example, increasing the concentration of NOx can actually lead to a decrease in ozone concentrations. Still, it's generally accepted that NOx are pollutants, for the various reasons already mentioned by others.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50198200]er, even old diesels aren't necessarily rough, clattery, or awful. I've started up 60 year old Detroits that have run like watches. 70s and 80s Merc diesels are smooth as butter in good condition.[/QUOTE] My '84 Detroit Diesel runs very smooth. Even though it is 32 years old, it's not rough, clattery, etc. It gets 19-20MPG in a full size, 4wd pickup that is low geared.