Unpopular Opinion: Diesel Emissions Systems are Awesome

Yes I’ve read the articles you posted. So diesel trucks in general are bad then?

If you have read the research I've posted or have even read my posts you wouldn't need to ask that question.

1. Diesel Particulate Matter and NOx emissions are extremely hazardous to human health.
2. DPF systems substantially reduce those pollutants without any meaningful negative externalities.
3. Diesel Emissions Systems are awesome.
 
Where can I find verifiable research showing that hundreds of thousands of people die from exposure to NOx and diesel particulate every year?

LOL — Do you need more than Google and the dozen peer reviewed papers posted above to answer that question?
 
Where can I find verifiable research showing that hundreds of thousands of people die from exposure to NOx and diesel particulate every year?
That’s what I asked for christs sake! Read! Peasant! How dare you question him!
 
These are studies and reports published by lobbyists which fail to address the greater comparison I alluded to.

I'm not advocating to "roll coal" or whatever, I support efficiency, I am also pointing out that these types of emission systems are an imperfect solution and brings their own broader and diverse set of issues which aren't addressed in the direct tail pipe emission numbers.
 
These are studies and reports published by lobbyists which fail to address the greater comparison I alluded to.

I'm not advocating to "roll coal" or whatever, I support efficiency, I am also pointing out that these types of emission systems are an imperfect solution and brings their own broader and diverse set of issues which aren't addressed in the direct tail pipe emission numbers.

1. There is no discussion of efficiency in this thread. DPF systems are intended to and do reduce harmful diesel emissions. They are not intended to increase efficiency.

2. There is an abundance of peer-reviewed science associating diesel emissions — which DPF systems reduce by ~90% — with premature deaths.

3. Your “allusion” continues to be absent any quantitive analysis or fact-based science.

If you have a sound argument to make, make it.
 
LOL — Do you need more than Google and the dozen peer reviewed papers posted above to answer that question?
I posted before the thread refreshed with your multiple posts. I'll take a look, I'm assuming those articles are focused on studies done in the US, concerning US vehicle emissions.
 
I posted before the thread refreshed with your multiple posts. I'll take a look, I'm assuming those articles are focused on studies done in the US, concerning US vehicle emissions.

I have posted papers from all over the world, including discrete statistics for the U.S., Europe, Asia, etc.
 
I posted before the thread refreshed with your multiple posts. I'll take a look, I'm assuming those articles are focused on studies done in the US, concerning US vehicle emissions.


Here’s a simple summary of the ICCT study:

Some 385,000 people worldwide died prematurely in 2015 from air pollution caused by vehicle exhaust emissions.
Diesel vehicles were responsible for 47 percent of the deaths, it said, but the figure jumped as high as 66 percent in France, Germany, Italy and India where diesels make up a large proportion of cars on the road.
The global transportation sector was responsible for 11 percent of the 3.4 million premature deaths annually attributed to pollution from fine particles (PM2.5) and ground-level ozone exposure.
The United States saw 22,000 deaths from transport pollution, of which 43 percent were linked to diesels.

And these are just deaths.

Here’s peer-reviewed scientific research on one of a host of non-lethal correlative effects of diesel pollution, autism in children:

 
@soop

Your sources are weak at best. I looked through almost every link you posted. None of them provide any CONCRETE evidence that NOx exposure from diesel engines was a root/sole cause of death. Every article basically said that NOx and other particulate pollutants could be **linked** to those premature deaths as a risk factor. There are so many other factors that could be **linked** to those same premature deaths that the articles are laughable. If people took better care of themselves, ate healthier, exercised more, smoked less and drank less, those number would go down drastically. The only valid articles you posted, the ones from JAMA, admit this in their limitations sections. Oh, and those studies that focused on persons over 65, well, death is kind of a thing for old people. The articles failed to address how these old people survived the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s when emissions controls were far far less restrictive than they are today, but now that there are stringent regulations everywhere, it was the diesel bros fault that they died at at 72 in an old folks home. There are other significant limitations to studies done on the elderly using Medicare, JAMA acknowledges those. Funny how JAMA doesn't make any of the big, bold assertations that you are hanging your hat on. Diesel emissions are not responsible for more deaths than DUI crashes each year. They aren't responsible for more deaths than homicides each year. Wake up. I'm surprised you haven't claimed that NOx and other particulates are beating COVID-19 in the race to eliminate the human species from the planet.

You come across as the typical CA liberal. You're very articulate, but at the end of the day you're just another asshole that loses their mind when someone doesn't buy into the groupthink. Keep quoting the EPA, CARB, and CATF, nobody cares. They are government agencies motivated by a political agenda, not peer-reviewed scientific sources. The people that swallow the "data" presented by them are the same people that believe Epstein really did kill himself, and Biden did indeed win the election.
 
These are studies and reports published by lobbyists which fail to address the greater comparison I alluded to.

I'm not advocating to "roll coal" or whatever, I support efficiency, I am also pointing out that these types of emission systems are an imperfect solution and brings their own broader and diverse set of issues which aren't addressed in the direct tail pipe emission numbers.
Everything is a give and take or at least should be and I think everyone understands that this isn't a one-sided debate. I am as conservative and right leaning as a person can get but I also know that internal combustion engines are inherently unhealthy in many aspects. Would I get rid of them? Right now, hell no, but I am all in on applying science and knowledge to keep them as harmless (I know this is a gentle euphemism) as possible.

The DPF, SCR and EGR do not cause an enormous inefficiency in the engine as a whole. If you want to debate the function and science of an engine I am all in. If we are going to split hairs on efficiency then why not start the debate with the actual degree of bend in all emissions pathways? The more acute the bends the more resistance to the efficient expelling of the exhaust. So, why not just get rid of the entire pipe system starting from directly behind the turbo? Then we can debate whether we need more or less back-pressure to help spin up the turbo when at low RPM. From there we can debate the fact that the higher the temp the diesel engine runs, the more efficient it is, but the more NOX it creates as well as reduces the longevity of the material the engine is made of. So with this, do we just shit-can the cooling system or do we allow the cooling system to keep the engine to such a low temp that the longevity is increased enormously but reduces the power and mileage of it? Hell, while we're at it, why not dive right in and debate stoichiometry as it applies to internal combustion as a whole?
 
Your sources are weak at best.

If peer-reviewed science is weak, and if you believe every government agency is engaged in some conspiracy to filter out your magic diesel dust for no clear gain, than nothing will satisfy you.

Every article basically said that NOx and other particulate pollutants could be **linked** to those premature deaths as a risk factor.

That is just how reality works.

There are so many other factors that could be **linked** to those same premature deaths that the articles are laughable. If people took better care of themselves, ate healthier, exercised more, smoked less and drank less, those number would go down drastically.

Ah yes, I never considered that all those children could just be drinking too much…

The only valid articles you posted, the ones from JAMA, admit this in their limitations sections. Oh, and those studies that focused on persons over 65, well, death is kind of a thing for old people.

JAMA is a network where scientists publish peer reviewed research. There are countless papers on the network if the one of two I posted that happened to focus on seniors was not of interest to you:

https://jamanetwork.com/searchresults?q=diesel&allSites=1&SearchSourceType=1&exPrm_qqq={!payloadDisMaxQParser%20pf=Tags%20qf=Tags^0.0000001%20payloadFields=Tags%20bf=}%22diesel%22&exPrm_hl.q=diesel

Diesel emissions are not responsible for more deaths than DUI crashes each year. They aren't responsible for more deaths than homicides each year. Wake up. I'm surprised you haven't claimed that NOx and other particulates are beating COVID-19 in the race to eliminate the human species from the planet.

I never made any of those claims.

At the end of the day you're just another asshole that loses their mind when someone doesn't buy into the groupthink.

You're sitting here losing your mind because I disagree with the faith-based groupthink here that you want to indulge in. hmm……
 
I’m going to have to agree with soop on this one in the fact that older generation Diesel engines were worse for people in their higher expulsion of harmful particulate matter. And while even older Diesels would produce less Co2 than gasoline (when comparable power output engines are used), with the modern diesels equipped with DEF, DPF, and EGR systems, they now are cleaner than the majority of gasoline engines with regard to harmful particulates as well. The focus was primarily on Diesels, and this pushed these major improvements into place in a relatively short time period. Diesels have generally been better for the environment (less greenhouse gas emissions) than gassers, but until recent years they were far worse for people (carcinogenic particle expulsion causing smog).
 
I never made any of those claims.
No, you didn't, but the sources that *you* linked to did. Did you even read the articles you're standing behind?

I'm not losing my mind over anything, but it gets tiring watching your constant argumentative/hostile interaction with others. You provide a lot of good content here, but you're also a forum tough-guy who can't ever possibly be wrong or, as others have said, agree to disagree.

You remind me of this meme.

You're right Soop, have a great day.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2605.jpeg
    IMG_2605.jpeg
    417.6 KB · Views: 25
I’m going to have to agree with soop on this one in the fact that older generation Diesel engines were worse for people in their higher expulsion of harmful particulate matter. And while even older Diesels would produce less Co2 than gasoline (when comparable power output engines are used), with the modern diesels equipped with DEF, DPF, and EGR systems, they now are cleaner than the majority of gasoline engines with regard to harmful particulates as well. The focus was primarily on Diesels, and this pushed these major improvements into place in a relatively short time period. Diesels have generally been better for the environment (less greenhouse gas emissions) than gassers, but until recent years they were far worse for people (carcinogenic particle expulsion causing smog).
I don't see anyone disagreeing with the fact that diesel emissions are harmful. Personally, I think the harm caused by those emissions is overstated. But that is just my opinion.

What I do see is people that are refusing to acknowledge the second- and third-order effects from requiring all of the extra emissions equipment. Everything has a price, nothing is free, and as soon as someone points that out, they are attacked (as usual) by others who can't stand that people have differing opinions.
 
I don't see anyone disagreeing with the fact that diesel emissions are harmful.

I do see people that are refusing to acknowledge the second- and third-order effects from requiring all of the extra emissions equipment. Everything has a price, nothing is free, and as soon as someone points that out, they are attacked (as usual) by others who can't stand that people have differing opinions.

You seem as intellectually lazy as one gets.

Instead of crying about being “attacked” when it’s pointed out that dismissing the quantifiable first-order effects of a problem-solution for unquantifiable worry about hypothetical externalities is childish you could make an objective case or just stay out of it.

But I guess you’re just here to be a forum tough guy.
 
You seem as intellectually lazy as one gets.

Instead of crying about being “attacked” when it’s pointed out that dismissing the quantifiable first-order effects of a problem-solution for unquantifiable worry about hypothetical externalities is childish you could make an objective case or just stay out of it.

But I guess you’re just here to be a forum tough guy.
Like I said, very articulate.

You're right.

Carry on.
 
I don't see anyone disagreeing with the fact that diesel emissions are harmful. Personally, I think the harm caused by those emissions is overstated. But that is just my opinion.

What I do see is people that are refusing to acknowledge the second- and third-order effects from requiring all of the extra emissions equipment. Everything has a price, nothing is free, and as soon as someone points that out, they are attacked (as usual) by others who can't stand that people have differing opinions.
Understand what you are saying. Agree, there is always a trade off. I think in this case, that would be having to use DEF fluid, and worry about paying for the inevitable replacement of the DPF. I don’t think there is much in the way of less performance or fuel economy though, but I could be wrong as I have not put a lot of research into it. Also, I don’t think these systems decrease the longevity of the engines whatsoever, and they should still be fine for 500,000 miles as long as properly maintained, but the DPF will most likely need to be replaced in that time at least once… and possibly the DEF system components. And I also acknowledge the fact that they are creating pollution in order to make the components and fluid for these systems, but still believe that the amount created is still less than the amount saved.
But, I have to say- I miss that smell and turbo whistle from my old Diesel….. my wife does NOT agree as she is VERY happy with how quiet this truck is and the lack of really any smell…..
 
Back
Top