Topics
1 Comment
-
Re: Idling Research
2009-02-20 10:46:38 UTC
Reference #1 for Env Can really should not be used to credit/discredit idling reduction programs. The intent was to evaluate tailpipe emissions after either idling or soaking. That fact aside, and despite only 3 vehicles being tested, only CO showed a negative for soaking.
Reference #2, reading the Exec Summ seems to clearly indicate that idling is worse than soaking, save maybe the very last bullet in the Exec Summ. Not a convincing case to idle.
One thing to keep in mind, if the vehicle is left running, and you assume there are zero hot soak emissions, you are forgetting about running losses. When the fuel system is under high pressure, any little leak or loose connection is exploited. Numerous studies in the US/CA have found that running losses can be huge, much more than hot soak. This is especially true for ethanol blends in non flex-fuel equipped autos.
Finally, though it is clear that heavy-duty vehicles need to prevent idling, all drivers should be made to realize the benefits of not idling. Wasted fuel is wasted fuel. Emissions, even if less than 5% of the vehicle total, are significant. If I told you that I could improve air quality 5% this year, would you think that was great news? Food for thought.
See this DOE study for truck idling fuel consumption, which captures light duty trucks as well. There are some published on-board emissions monitoring systems (OEMS) studies out there that look at real-time monitoring of indiviudal vehicles. That is the future.
Gregg Thomas
United States
0 Recommends
You haven't saved any recommendations.
Messaging 0 colleagues