THE TRUCK STOP General Chat area. Religion and politics topics will undoubtedly be deleted. Anything over PG-13 is not allowed. WORK SAFE!

riddle me this

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 15, 2005 | 09:41 PM
  #1  
02sierraz71_5.3's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,473
Likes: 1
From: Cornelius, NC
Default riddle me this

How is it that catalytic converters help the enviroment when you can pass the sniffer with out them. Anyone have any emperical proof that they actually reduce hydrocarbons? I know how they work Im interested in data backing it up.
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2005 | 09:48 PM
  #2  
SSlow 4.8's Avatar
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 1
From: Flowery Branch, GA
Default

hmm... riddle me that
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2005 | 10:37 PM
  #3  
02sierraz71_5.3's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,473
Likes: 1
From: Cornelius, NC
Default

Originally Posted by SSlow 4.8
that has nothing to do with the question. hydrocarbons are bad for the environment this is general knowledge. What Im interested in is an actuall experiment or some sort of data showing that catalytic converters actually reduce the emmision of greenhouse gases. The reason I doubt thier effectiveness is that an emmisions test can be passed without them.
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2005 | 10:54 PM
  #4  
02sierraz71_5.3's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,473
Likes: 1
From: Cornelius, NC
Default

this is what Im talking about

" Steven H. Cadle, a research scientist at General Motors, said, "it's a huge number." In contrast, an older car without a catalytic converter produces much larger amounts of nitrogen oxides, but only about a tenth as much nitrous oxide, the greenhouse gas.

The EPA calculated that production of nitrous oxide from vehicles rose by nearly 50 percent between 1990 and 1996 as older cars without converters have neared extinction. Using a standard unit of measure for global warming gases, millions of metric tons of carbon equivalent, nitrous oxide emissions rose to 54.7 million tons from 36.7 million during those years, the study said.

The contradictory impact of the converter has not been lost on environmental officials or industry experts, who continue to debate not only the extent of the growing problem as well as how to reduce the emissions in future years. "

http://www.sepp.org/controv/catalytic.html

How could greenhouse gases be rising even though we have cat's and stoich afr fuel injected engines

Edit:

Cats are there to reduce smog but, yet they produce alot of greenhouse gases. Hmmm which is worse

Could it be my free flowing exhaust is helping to save the environment

Last edited by 02sierraz71_5.3; Sep 15, 2005 at 11:03 PM.
Reply
Old Sep 16, 2005 | 12:17 AM
  #5  
thunder550's Avatar
High on diesel fumes
iTrader: (70)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,658
Likes: 3
From: Phoenix, AZ
Default

I would like to see a study done on benefits of emissions reduction vs the loss of gas mileage...i picked up anywhere between 1 and 2 mpg when I gutted mine.
Reply
Old Sep 16, 2005 | 12:55 AM
  #6  
02sierraz71_5.3's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,473
Likes: 1
From: Cornelius, NC
Default

Originally Posted by thunder550
I would like to see a study done on benefits of emissions reduction vs the loss of gas mileage...i picked up anywhere between 1 and 2 mpg when I gutted mine.


this is the first sentence in the article

The catalytic converter, an invention that has sharply reduced smog from cars, has now become a significant and growing cause of global warming, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Im so sick of buerocratic PC bullshit, brazil has made it a law that all cars be able run on ehtanol a fuel derived from sugar, they put thier farmers to work and they fuel thier vehicles with envir friendly fuel that cost less too top it off and it produces less hydro-c's and they are considered a underdeveloped country, theyve had this law since the late 80's, they are also 15% dependant of foreign oil where as we are 85% dependant.

Is it me or does anyone else see the stupidity here, we are supposedly the most developed country yet we lag in so many areas, that could be easily fixed
Reply
Old Sep 16, 2005 | 01:15 AM
  #7  
PappyDan's Avatar
Tribe Shaman
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
From: Texas
Default

i'm sorry to say, it all has to do with money.

EPA invests in oil company's.
OIL company's say they need to build more refineries to increase production and lower price.
EPA says no more new refineries.
OIL company's raise price on gas.
OIL company make huge profits.
EPA gets great stock returns from OIL company's profits.
OIL company is happy and rich.
EPA is happy and rich.
America is very unhappy with their greed.

one say they need the other say you can not have but both get rich from the same dollar.
what better way to control the issue for better stock returns.
Reply
Old Sep 16, 2005 | 06:36 AM
  #8  
one03sierra's Avatar
Formerly one92rs
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,205
Likes: 1
From: league city texas
Talking

Originally Posted by PappyDan
i'm sorry to say, it all has to do with money.

EPA invests in oil company's.
OIL company's say they need to build more refineries to increase production and lower price.
EPA says no more new refineries.
OIL company's raise price on gas.
OIL company make huge profits.
EPA gets great stock returns from OIL company's profits.
OIL company is happy and rich.
EPA is happy and rich.
America is very unhappy with their greed.

one say they need the other say you can not have but both get rich from the same dollar.
what better way to control the issue for better stock returns.


amen!!!!
Reply
Old Sep 16, 2005 | 08:25 AM
  #9  
white1's Avatar
12 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,230
Likes: 5
From: Sittin on jackstands
Default

Originally Posted by PappyDan
i'm sorry to say, it all has to do with money.

EPA invests in oil company's.
OIL company's say they need to build more refineries to increase production and lower price.
EPA says no more new refineries.
OIL company's raise price on gas.
OIL company make huge profits.
EPA gets great stock returns from OIL company's profits.
OIL company is happy and rich.
EPA is happy and rich.
America is very unhappy with their greed.

one say they need the other say you can not have but both get rich from the same dollar.
what better way to control the issue for better stock returns.


Sounds like you hit the nail on the head. The circle of greed
Reply
Old Sep 16, 2005 | 09:58 AM
  #10  
quicksilverado's Avatar
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,944
Likes: 1
From: Marietta, Ga.
Default

Who owns the oil companies. Investors, ie you and I. The corporations don't hold wealth, individuals do. Quit bashing the oil companies, They are in business to make money. They are so highly regulated it is pathetic. They can't wipe their a$$ without the government putting there regulations on it. The oil companies raise the price of gas when supply is low or demand is high. Unfortunately both of these are the case and won't change anytime soon. If you don't like the prices don't buy the product. I know this is impossible, but you can sell your truck and buy a hybrid and it would drasticly reduce your dependence on the evil oil empire. You guys need to learn the basic principles of economics. Could someone define greed for me please. Sorry for the rant. I don't like the price of gas more than anyone else, but people need to stop listening to the media and government. They brainwash us into believeing that corporations are evil. They are in business to make money like everyone else. The profits they make go to investors as divedends or int R&D.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:43 AM.