YotaTron88'

First thing that comes up when you Google "Diesel vs Gas pollution" ......

Americans continue to perceive diesel as a "dirty" fuel, though today that image is only partly deserved. Because of their lower per-mile fuel consumption, diesel engines generally release less carbon dioxide—the heat-tapping gas primarily responsible for global warming—from the tailpipe. So that's a check on the good side of the pollution chart. But when it comes to smog-forming pollutants and toxic particulate matter, also known as soot, today's diesels are still a lot dirtier than the average gasoline car.

YotaTron88'

2nd one......


Just start reading before you argue....

Does a diesel engine cause less harm to the environment than one using gasoline? On first sight it would seem that the answer is yes. Diesel engines produce less CO2 emissions, which is good news for the environment. A build up of excessive CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere causes a layer of gas to form that traps heat, contributing to global warming. If diesel provides a healthy alternative to gasoline, there would be a good argument for using this fuel more extensively.



But this is only part of the equation. Although the CO2 emissions are less, the production of diesel requires a far greater amount of oil and produces more pollution than the production of gasoline. So this offsets some of the advantages of using diesel. And research has shown that the toxic emissions from the tailpipe of diesel driven vehicles contains more of the soot particles that cause smog and carry air borne sources of cancer and breathing problems.

abecedarian

Now you're getting somewhere... backing up your theories. Unfortunately you're using articles several years old.
However this doesn't prove your 22r is cleaner.

DupermanDave

Diesels being more resource intensive to produce is sort of a moot idea. The same idea applies to recycling paper and plastic. Recycling paper costs more, but the fact that we don't have to cut down the trees really balances it out. The more trees we keep, the more we can offset the pollution causes by the recycling of the paper and plastic. So again, why should we cut down more trees and go the easy route just because it's less pollutants than recycling? That's still going backwards. It's 2 steps back, no steps forward. If we planted more trees, used diesels, etc... it's be 1 step back 3 steps forward.

I hope this thread is being kept positive. I'd hate to see anyone get grumpy and mad over a nice discussion. There's some great information being brought to the table.

YotaTron88'

I'm not grumpy I just TRY and back up my big mouth.......Hey I find out new things everytime I open it! I'm glad people are concerned....and educated on it, and have feeling too. I'm sure we're all in the same boat....or yota

milehigheric

Nasa has been using hydrogen for years correct. There are slight differences between the humble car and a billion dollar spacecraft however. The propulsion method in which it used is slightly non practical for the modern commuter. The only way we can effectively use hydrogen is by converting it to electricity to power electric motors. The process(es) of producing hydrgoen (or capturing it) is not efficient neither is the method in which it is transformed to electricity. Fuel cells have been used on nasa spacecraft since appolo, but there output is ridiculously small. With current technology it is not viable for mass production/use not to mention the several safety and security risks involved.

The debate between petrol and diesel is in vane when looking at the broader picture. Both fuels come from the same hydrocarbons, and regardless of what form they come in they will be burnt.

The only point I am trying to make is that pollution control is everyone's problem regardless of how small our contribution is.

abecedarian

Hmmm... I thought the power for most space probes was either solar or plutonium based reactors. Viking's are using plutonium. Didn't know NASA did hydrogen cells. Even the ISS uses solar.
Have a reference for the claim that NASA uses hydrogen?
Oh wait... you're talking about the main boosters and shuttle thrusters. I stand corrected.

*** I don't really mean to come across as argumentative. Sometimes it's difficult to come across any other way, though. ***

DupermanDave

i was going to shoot off an e-mail to my dad, lol. He works with satellites and could tell us what hydrogen is used for.

YotaTron88'

From what I've understood they have done the most testing with it...have the best ideas of how to use it, more than say...honda

kanyonkritter

LMAO....emisions produced by automobiles, motorcycles, and yard equipment equate to less than 1% of the total atmospheric "pollution". Its funny to see people get all worked up over a red herring..on a side note I think my PCV is gonna get hooked back up