Posts Tagged ‘NOx’

Hi! I’m back!

I found a very interesting article about acid rain today. Do you remember when I wrote about NOx, and mentioned acid rain? This little problem, that have fallen from the spotlight have crawled its way up into the debate again.

Time to harp on drivers again! No, I’m kidding. But CO2 aside, transportation is a huge source of pollution. Particles, NOx, sulphur (mostly from ships) and runoff can do nasty things to our beloved environment. Acid rain is one of those things. It works like this:

Acid rain picture from Wikipedia Commons

In the 70′s and 80′s, sulphur was the main villain. Three-way-converters (a Volvo innovation by the way)  became more common in cars, and NOx from transportation was thought to be more or less a non-issue. (And that is why the picture don’t show it as a contributor, but the principle is the same.) Coal power plants got strict regulations on sulphur emissions, as did petrol manufacturers. So, problem solved, right?

Well, no. We still had the problem of fertilizers, one of the dirtiest but most important parts of the green revolution. And no, I don’t mean the wave of eco-friendliness that moves like a tsunami over the internet right now. I mean agriculture wave during the 50′s that is still in progress today… Fertilizer leak nitrogen via runoff from fields and through vaporising. And it is the biggest contributor to acid rain there is. This is old news, and lots are being done to change this.

The second biggest contributor to acidification used to be coal plants, but with the vast number of vehicles that are on the roads today it is no surprise that transportation have taken that place. Vehicles today are much cleaner and more effective than old ones, but there are a significantly higher number of cars and trucks on the roads today. You can see where I am going with that argument.

What is so bad about acid rain then? Well, excessive acidification damages plants, and may destroy sensitive limnic (freshwater) ecosystems. Acid lakes contain little life, and many types of trees can’t grow in acid soil. In urban areas acid rain damages concrete buildings and wither stonework. Take a look at an old statue that have been exposed to acid rain… not a pretty sight:

Damaged by acid rain

And as of late, the acidification of the oceans have become a focus in the environmental debate. I must admit that I don’t know enough to comment on this, but it does sound scary…

But what do we do about this problem? Well, I’m no scientist, and even if I was I wouldn’t have the answer. Many things play a part here, as in every subject of environmental science. However, we will have to stop our excessive driving. Telecommuting (ie working from home), public transportation, new infrastructure to let bike riders commute safely, etc will play a huge role in coming to terms with many problems. But it is not a total solution. There is no complete solution that I know of yet. Feel free to link to any research to prove me wrong, as I am always looking for things like that.

But once again, you who use Commute Greener!, and everyone that choose public transportation or zero emission alternatives are playing a part for a better environment. Not only are you helping the reduction of the worlds carbon emissions, you are helping the reduction of acidification (the result of acid rain) and many different things. You can feel proud of yourselves!

I hope you have found this interesting. I did! Remember to follow us on twitter and facebook and to Commute Greener!

I’m off for today

Fredrik

Hi!

It’s been a while since I wrote about environmental problems. Ranting is just more fun, especially at the end of the day. But while writing yesterday, I realised I have forgotten one of the more important but obscure environmental problems; VOC’s. This is why I love environmental issues; there are always more angles to look at, and more contributing factors.

Ok, what the heck is a VOC? Yep it’s another of those funny letter-codes that no one gets. VOC stands for Volatile Organic Compound. These compounds come from MANY sources. Natural VOC like turpentine come from pine trees while common anthropogenic sources are paint, fuel, printers (the ink) building material and combustions. This group of substances is as varied as a high school, and just as unruly. The VOC group include everything from carbon monoxide and turpentine to formaldehyde and pesticides. The only common ground is that they have a carbon base and mix with the air in gaseous form. Many VOCs are carcinogenic like benzene and carbon compounds are a part of the smog-build up chain. So we need to take it seriously, don’t you agree. Added to that most chemicals we use in day to day life and in industry emit VOCs during use and storage and we have a problem. Even dry products like impregnated wood and furniture release a steady stream of organic compounds.

VOC’s are an environmental problem, but mostly in an indoor environment. Malls and buildings with indoor parking spaces can have high levels of benzene. During my studies, some students tested benzene levels in one of Gothenburg’s largest malls with adsorbent tubes and air pumps. The levels were higher then it should have been as air got filtrated down from the garage on the third floor.

(Fun story from this survey; if I remember correctly, there were some very funny readings when the first tube was analysed… it turned out that a random junkie had decided to smoke under the equipment, and I’m not talking about tobacco here. I wish was there to see the students faces when they saw TBC on the analysis results).

Truth to be told, VOCs are unavoidable. When we drive, take the bus, ride a bike, or were clothes we contribute to the emissions of VOCs. But much is being done for cleaner air. One example is that PFOS (a substance used as fire retardant) is being phased out.Fire retardants in general are developed to release as little as possible now, but there have been a huge increase in flame-proof clothing, furniture and machinery…

By using public transportation we can reduce a number of environmental problems, but this is one we will never be totally free from. And most of them do no real harm to humans anyway. You need a high and long term exposure to benzene to get cancer, or develop other problems. Smog is another issue that need to be addressed, but it is more common to approach that issue from the NOx angle.

I hope you have found this interesting. If you want more information, check out US EPA, they have good information about VOC and a number of other subjects. And if you have questions, feel free to ask here or at facebook or twitter.

I’m off to lunch!

Fredrik

Hi!

Somehow, I survived the midsummer traffic. I’m amazed how smooth it went, despite rail repairs and hot weather.The train was even on schedule.

Anyway, I have been toying with some ideas lately. The commute is the least favourite part of the day for most people, yet one of the habits they are least inclined to change. Do we need a paradigm shift? Is this the politicians responsibility, or do the change have to come from the grass roots? And more importantly, why do people hate the commute?

Transportation is one of the largest contributors to environmental problems. CO2, NOx, particles, VOC’s (I haven’t written about them yet, right?), ozone and smog are no brainers, and many know about at least some of the problems.  Runoff from roads and chemicals from washing at the driveway are other important problems that are often forgotten. Considering all these issues, why do the society promote driving over every other mode of transportation?

Not that driving have to be a bad thing. It is after all a good way to travel long distances in a short time. There are many ways to reduce the environmental impact from driving, like eco driving, pumping up the tires and getting rid of roof boxes.

London, Shanghai, Copenhagen, Berlin, and many other cities all over the world is upgrading their public transportation system. Shanghai is buying electric buses, London is getting new double deckers. Bike lanes and a good environment is high on the agenda for the politicians. In North America it seems like public transportation is for the poor or for losers. I don’t want to offend anyone, but this is the impression I get. If you can afford it, you have to have a car.

I wonder if awareness campaigns like bike-to-work day, and all the nudist cyclist events actually does anything good. They reach people that are interested in the environment, but do they change any habits or actually raise awareness? I don’t know, but I doubt it. They raise a commotion, people look at those crazy hippies, and continue with their life like they always have. Names of the bigger forums is an issue in close relation to this. Take Treehugger for example, a site I absolutely love. That name is catchy, but I don’t think it impresses people not interested in the environment (or people that really love trees:-) )

What I’m getting at here is that there need to be a shift of focus from the top. Trying to scare people with climate change and standing over them with the whip is not the way to go, but there have to be campaigns aimed at regular people, based on actual traceable facts from a governmental standpoint. A real effort to get people to get out of the car and looking for other modes of transportation. At the same time, the grassroots have to understand that there are other ways to get around then driving. We all need look beyond our noses and realize that oil isn’t going to be an option in the future. And politicians and regular people alike must realize that saving our globe cost money. Environmental taxes ARE needed, as is stricter regulations like US EPA’s newest rules and Californians assembly bill 32. Deal with it.

Enough ranting for today. You know the drill, follow us on facebook, check out the new application, follow us on twitter, watch our videos at youtube and take a look at our flikr account.

I’m out of here

Fredrik

Hi everyone! I’m still here

The debate about the environment is very one sided. It is climate this, carbon that. But as I already have said in my earlier posts, CO₂ is not the only villain in this drama. And there are many other kinds of environmental problems connected to transportation other then global warming. Today, the topic will be some of those problems, smog, particles and groundside ozone.

Let’s start with photochemical smog. This mainly a problem in big cities that are located in a bowl, but it can happen everywhere. If someone doesn’t know what smog is, here is the short version: Pollutants are degraded by sunlight and oxidants like NO_x and create clouds of particulate matter and groundside ozone. Smog is dangerous, as none of the many components are good to breath in. They are especially dangerous to the weaker groups, the old and the young and those with respiratory problems or diseases. It can also cause severe visability problems. Today, there is no real way to reduce smog, other then to get people to drive less, and use catalytic converters. In many places, the problems have been reduced over time through technical innovations.

Particulate matter is connected to smog, but also a problem on its own. When you drive, the wheels rip up tiny particles from the asphalt. And even with a particulate filter, particles with a size under 10 micrometer (or 2,5 in some cases) will be released into the air from the combustion of fuel. Diesel cars are very guilty of this, as they release much more particulate matter then regular cars. Particles are dangerous since they can get into your lungs. Some of them can also be the cause of lunge cancer. Scientist’s usually divide the particles by size:

• PM₁₀ (thoracic fraction)
• PM_2.5 (respirable fraction)
• 1μM   (ultrafine fraction)

PM_2.5 and the Ultrafine fractions are the most dangerous, and most problematic to remove.

But what can you do to reduce YOUR particle emissions? First of all, commute by bike, or by public transportation. Both produce particular matter, but not as much as a number of cars do. If you have to drive, be sure that the car has a particular filter, if it is a diesel. And check your tires, spiked or studded mud and snow tires damage the roads and rip up higher amounts of particular matter then the unstudded variants.

Last topic of the day is groundside ozone. In the atmosphere, Ozone is vital. You do remember the old Ozone debate about CFCs,  right? On the ground Ozone is bad. It damages plantlife and can be harmful to humans and animals. The body have ways to protect itself, but not if the concentrations get to high. The ozone is produced by oxidation processes initiated by traffic emissions, like NO₂

Do some of you, dear readers live in a city were there are regular warnings issued about high ozone levels? I have heard about that but been to lazy to find out if it is true. Drop a line then, I am really interested.

That is all for today folks, be sure to comment, pipe in at facebook, and to follow us at twitter. And remember to commute greener!

/

Fredrik

Hi everyone!

I will continue my series about greenhouse gasses with Nitrogen Compounds. And I will probably throw in a few words about smog to.

NO_x is actually  two gasses, NO and NO₂. They are created as a by-product in combustion processes, were N₂ (the main substance in air) reacts with oxygen. This produces NO, which quickly react to NO_2. As you can see, both are very reactive, and therefore have a high turnover rate in the atmosphere. So why are they a problem? As climate gasses go, they are much more potent then carbon dioxide, 310 times more to be exact. But why don’t we focus on nitrogen compounds then? Simply because the amount make the poison. Carbon dioxide is released in vast quantities, many times more then nitrous compounds.

Because of their reactive nature, NOx have more local and regional effects rather then global. NO₂ reacts with water in the atmosphere to nitric acid (HNO₃) which causes acid rain. This was a huge topic of discussion in the 70s, but is not discussed that much today. Eutrophication on the other hand, that is discussed a bit more. When you are buying fertilizer, you are basically buying a mixture of chemicals, nitrate being one of the more important. However, this is not the biggest impact NOx have, smog is far worse.

If you live in a big city, chances are that you have run into smog. Smog is a by-product of photochemical oxidation of carbon compounds. The red-brown colour you often see comes from NO₂. And it plays a big part in the creation of groundside ozone.

So what can you do about it? Well, not a lot, to tell the truth. The best way to reduce your own NO₂ emissions is to take the bike instead of combustion based transportation, ie. cars, bus or anything involving oil. Otherwise, the same way to reduce carbon dioxide applies.  If you have to drive, be sure to check the cars 3-way catalytic converter from time to time. Don’t do this yourself; be sure to have it checked while the car is getting its annual service. WARNING! DON’T touch the converter while the motor is running. The converter has a working temperature between 400 – 800 degrees Celsius. A 3-way catalyctic converter reduces the NO₂ emissions by 90% if it is working, but when the motor is cold the catalyst don’t work. Use a motor heater. And if you buy an older car, be sure it have a catalytic converter.

Well, I guess that is all for today. I’ll be back soon, and remember to Commute Greener!

/

Fredrik