CO2 vs NOx, which is worse?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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>

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.

 

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

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

 

:blink:

 

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.

 

and if you can blend in a l'il biodiesel it's even better.