CO2 vs NOx, which is worse?

molgrips · 09-01-2006, 08:22 AM

So which is more important? Save on CO2 or nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons?

I'm thinking, if you live in LA, Mexico City, Athens or some other badly polluted city, then go for petrol. Otherwise, diesel...

Not counting hybrids of course, which we shoudl all be driving

tripp · 09-01-2006, 11:36 AM

I'd say CO2 is worse. NOx is easier to control. CO2 gets created by most of our energy producing facilities and we don't have much in the way of containment in place. NOx does damage the ozone layer, amonst other things, but it seems to be a much more local issue than CO2.

john1701a · 09-01-2006, 12:50 PM

NOx is dangerous to humans. CO2 can be breathed without any harm.

NOx cannot be removed easily after emitted. CO2 conversion to the good stuff (O2) is a natural process that plants provide for us.

NOx will shorten your child's life. CO2 will reduce the quality of your child's life.

ShellyT · 09-01-2006, 02:02 PM

With cars, I'll say the CO2 is worst. We have the technology to reduce the NOx. Because of sulfur content, we couldn't apply it to deisels. With the cleaner deisel coming out, we'll be able to.
The only way to control CO2, is to burn less, or use a carbon neutral fuel. Preferably both.

molgrips · 09-01-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

NOx cannot be removed easily after emitted. CO2 conversion to the good stuff (O2) is a natural process that plants provide for us.[/b]

Only that's not working, is it, because CO2 levels are on the up and up and we're cutting down trees like they're going out of fashion.

Quote:

NOx will shorten your child's life. CO2 will reduce the quality of your child's life.[/b]

Not so simple. If you live in Bangladesh, or other flood prone areas, human greed and laziness might well lead to global warming which could make that flood severe enough to wipe out your entire family and half your country. Ask which they'd prefer.

priusenvy · 09-01-2006, 04:42 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Sep 1 2006, 09:50 AM) [snapback]312801[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

NOx is dangerous to humans. CO2 can be breathed without any harm.
[/b]

Hardly.

Breathing air with 1-2% CO2 will kill you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Sep 1 2006, 11:02 AM) [snapback]312857[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

With cars, I'll say the CO2 is worst. We have the technology to reduce the NOx. Because of sulfur content, we couldn't apply it to deisels. With the cleaner deisel coming out, we'll be able to.
[/b]

I basically agree with this. The improvement of air quality in the LA basin over the last 25 years is proof that emission controls can contain the problem. The trick is to get all the developing countries to use them.

Emission of CO2 on the other hand doesn't have an obvious solution.

ken1784 · 09-02-2006, 12:55 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusenvy @ Sep 2 2006, 05:42 AM) [snapback]312918[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

Breathing air with 1-2% CO2 will kill you.
[/b]

That's not correct.
http://www.cidpusa.org/atmospheric.htm

Anyway, CO2 is naturally present in the atmosphere at levels of about 0.035%.
It is impossible to increase the percentage to a few % level in the present situation on open air place.
However, it is said to cause the global warming.

OTOH, NOx causes directly to air pollution and "acid rain".
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usenv.html

Ken@Japan

ceric · 09-02-2006, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Breathing air with 1-2% CO2 will kill you.
[/b]

fshagan · 09-02-2006, 02:17 AM

I think this question is important because of the move if my recollection is right that one of the car companies ... Daimler Chrylser? ... is banking on a new "efficient" deisel engine instead of pursuing cleaner technologies. The deisel is here already, and the mileage is impressive, but so far they have not been able to get the NOx down to allowable levels for California. I've heard this question asked a couple of times, and I'm beginning to think that its part of a campaign to get us to choose a "lesser poison".

We should not lessen the standards so they can pollute with NOx and avoid doing the hard work engineering a more efficient but CLEAN burning vehicle. And isn't there a connection with NOx and greenhouse gasses as well?

The other thing I see is comments about people living in densely populated areas should choose cleaner burning vehicles ... that's incorrect. The air doesn't stop circulating at the city limits. We have to think globally about these things.

molgrips · 09-04-2006, 10:13 AM

If you live in a rural part of the world, and not in a city, surely the concentration of NOx produced by your community would be so low as to not cause a problem wherever it might drift. The dense clouds caused by conurbations cause problems when they drift about the place before dispersing.

I still reckon diesel is a great idea for those who don't live in big cities. If, that is, you can get low sulphur diesel.

09-02-2006, 02:17 AM	#9
fshagan Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,775 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	I think this question is important because of the move if my recollection is right that one of the car companies ... Daimler Chrylser? ... is banking on a new "efficient" deisel engine instead of pursuing cleaner technologies. The deisel is here already, and the mileage is impressive, but so far they have not been able to get the NOx down to allowable levels for California. I've heard this question asked a couple of times, and I'm beginning to think that its part of a campaign to get us to choose a "lesser poison". We should not lessen the standards so they can pollute with NOx and avoid doing the hard work engineering a more efficient but CLEAN burning vehicle. And isn't there a connection with NOx and greenhouse gasses as well? The other thing I see is comments about people living in densely populated areas should choose cleaner burning vehicles ... that's incorrect. The air doesn't stop circulating at the city limits. We have to think globally about these things. __________________ My Blog PoliteTalk Debate Site:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Reno vs. Gonzales -- Who was worse as AG	dbermanmd	Fred's House of Pancakes	9	09-08-2007 02:09 PM
What's worse?	efusco	Fred's House of Pancakes	30	08-23-2007 04:54 PM
Telemarketers... Is it worse to	burritos	Fred's House of Pancakes	33	08-20-2007 09:21 PM
Who's worse, Bush or Benedict	RinMI	Fred's House of Pancakes	36	07-13-2007 11:22 AM
Spouse gets much worse MPG, how to remedy?	rerstad	Prius Main Forum	27	10-06-2004 11:02 AM

09-01-2006, 08:22 AM	#1
molgrips Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 188 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	So which is more important? Save on CO2 or nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons? I'm thinking, if you live in LA, Mexico City, Athens or some other badly polluted city, then go for petrol. Otherwise, diesel... Not counting hybrids of course, which we shoudl all be driving

09-01-2006, 11:36 AM	#2
tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it? Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 3,772 My Car: 2005 Prius Package: #3 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 4	I'd say CO2 is worse. NOx is easier to control. CO2 gets created by most of our energy producing facilities and we don't have much in the way of containment in place. NOx does damage the ozone layer, amonst other things, but it seems to be a much more local issue than CO2.

09-01-2006, 12:50 PM	#3
john1701a Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,715 My Car: 2004 Prius Package: Pioneer #3 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 3	NOx is dangerous to humans. CO2 can be breathed without any harm. NOx cannot be removed easily after emitted. CO2 conversion to the good stuff (O2) is a natural process that plants provide for us. NOx will shorten your child's life. CO2 will reduce the quality of your child's life.

09-01-2006, 02:02 PM	#4
ShellyT Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: eastern Pennsylvania Posts: 334 My Car: Other Non-Hybrid Package: N/A Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	With cars, I'll say the CO2 is worst. We have the technology to reduce the NOx. Because of sulfur content, we couldn't apply it to deisels. With the cleaner deisel coming out, we'll be able to. The only way to control CO2, is to burn less, or use a carbon neutral fuel. Preferably both.

09-04-2006, 10:13 AM	#10
molgrips Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 188 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	If you live in a rural part of the world, and not in a city, surely the concentration of NOx produced by your community would be so low as to not cause a problem wherever it might drift. The dense clouds caused by conurbations cause problems when they drift about the place before dispersing. I still reckon diesel is a great idea for those who don't live in big cities. If, that is, you can get low sulphur diesel.