People are always whining about government regulations and government intrusions into our everyday lives. It's a good thing many of the changes in automotive technology that have taken place in recent years have been forced on the auto manufacturers by government policy regulations, otherwise we would all be choking to death on our own pollution.
I'm not going to talk about consumer safety issues such as seat belts, air bags, antilock brakes, stability controls, lighting standards, crash standards or Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ASDS) such as automatic braking, lane departure warning, blind spot warning, self-driving cars, etc. because it would make this article way too long. I'm going to focus on changes in emissions-related technologies that have made today's cars cleaner than ever before.
The world people population is now over 8 BILLION human beings. An ever expanding number of these people now live in congested urban areas where cars are the primary means of transportation. This trend has led to a world vehicle population of 1.5 BILLION cars and trucks, about 98 percent of which still burn gasoline or diesel fuel and produce megatons of air pollution.
Many people today don't recall how bad urban air pollution was back in the 1960s and 1970s, especially in places like Los Angeles. Back then, the air quality in LA and some other big cities looked and smelled like the brown haze that suffocates many big cities in modern day China. Clean air isn't something the Chinese have prioritized in their mad pursuit of the almighty Yankee dollar. Being the world's leading supplier of cheap goods has its price, and bad air is one of them. In recent years, however, that attitude has been slowly shifting in China resulting in a rapid shift to cleaner sources of energy and electric vehicles. They have made significant strides in the right direction, yet China remains the world's biggest polluter.
So what does this have to do with U.S. government regulations and automotive emissions? Like many innovations that have been invented and developed in the U.S., changes in public awareness and attitudes about air pollution led to government policies in California that brought about the first automotive emission controls. It started way back in 1964 in California, and 1968 for the rest of the U.S. when auto makers were required to install Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) systems on cars.
The PCV system consisted of a simple spring-loaded vacuum valve and a hose connection between the engine's valve cover and intake manifold. It was a simple system that siphoned crankcase vapors (mostly water vapor but also oil and fuel vapors) out of the engine's crankcase and recirculated them back into the intake manifold. This reburned the oil and gas vapors to reduce hydrocarbon (HC) emissions, and also removed moisture from the crankcase which increased oil life. The PCV cut overall hydrocarbon emissions from most cars 20 percent while having zero impact on fuel economy or performance. It was a small but significant step in reducing smog and air pollution.
Next came Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) in 1972 and 1973. EGR is another relatively simple system that uses a vacuum-controlled valve and some plumbing to reroute a small amount of exhaust back into the engine's intake manifold. This dilutes the incoming air/fuel mixture slightly to reduce combustion temperatures when the engine is working hard under load. EGR lowers combustion temperatures several hundred degrees to reduce the formation of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). NOx forms when combustion temperature rise above 2500 degrees F. High temperatures allow nitrogen in the air to react with oxygen in the combustion chamber to form NOx. Like hydrocarbons, NOx is a major contributor to urban air pollution and smog. But thanks to EGR, we have gotten rid of much of the NOx produced by cars and light trucks.
Diesel engines produce higher levels of NOx because they have higher combustion temperatures compared to gasoline engines. Because of this, late model diesel engines use EGR as well as exhaust after treatment systems (Diesel Exhaust Fluid or DEF) and soot traps to reduce both NOx and HC. These are very complicated emission control systems that also require special maintenance and regeneration cycles. However, they do significantly clean up diesel exhaust emissions.
But there is a cost to this type of exhaust after treatment, which is a slight reduction in fuel economy and performance. To meet government fuel economy standards, some auto makers figured out a way to cheat during the emission testing process so their diesel engines would appear to run cleaner than they do during everyday driving. Volkswagen got caught and had to pay millions in fines. The point is if government regulations require a certain level of emissions control, auto makers have to use technology that can meet those standards - and they shouldn't have to cheat to do it. The whole episode gave "clean diesel" a bad rap and led other auto makers to drop diesel engines in favor of turbocharged gas engines and hybrids.
Although diesels can run relatively clean with the proper emission controls, some people think it's cool to remove all that "pollution junk" from their diesel-powered pickup trucks because they want more performance and fuel mileage (SPOILER ALERT: It doesn't really make that much difference, only a couple of percent at most.).
Some people also remove the exhaust emission systems on their trucks as an act of defiance against government regulations or because they want to make a political statement against environmentalists or the EPA for infringing on their right to "roll coal" (making the engine run extra rich so the tailpipe belches thick black smoke). I don't think rolling coal falls under the Right to Free Speech in the U.S. Constitution, but I can tell you emissions tampering is against the law on any vehicle. Keep in mind that we all breathe the same air. So if you think it's cool to blow soot in somebody's face on a public highway, go visit China someday and see how bad their air quality is.
Back to government-mandated changes in emissions technology. In 1975, the U.S. government imposed a number of rules that affected everybody in the country. All 1975 and later cars and light trucks with gasoline engines were required to be equipped with those new fangled catalytic converters, which also required switching to unleaded gasoline. Tetraethyl lead had been used for decades as a cheap octane booster in gasoline. By raising the octane rating of the fuel, it allowed higher compression engines that produced more horsepower. But the downside was that lead in gasoline meant the lead passed through the combustion chamber and into the atmosphere along with the other exhaust gases.
Lead is a toxic heavy metal that can accumulate in people, animals and the environment. Lead poisoning can cause brain and kidney damage, and is especially toxic in children. Rising lead levels in most urban areas by the 1970s were a growing concern, so that was one motivation for getting rid of lead in gasoline. The other reason was that lead fouls catalytic converters and oxygen sensors, ruining their ability to control emissions and reduce pollutants.
People whined and complained that removing lead from gasoline would ruin their engines (it didn't). Lead forms a coating on engine exhaust valves that helps reduce wear. With normal driving, switching to unleaded fuel had little if any impact on valve life in older vehicles. For high performance driving or racing, however, using unleaded gasoline could shorten valve life. So the fix was to use an octane-boosting lead additive in the fuel, or to replace the engine valves and valve seats with harder more wear-resistant materials.
The main complaint with unleaded gasoline was that it cost more than leaded regular gasoline. So sad, too bad. You had to use the more expensive fuel if you bought a 1975 or never vehicle. Those were the rules. To prevent people from using leaded regular gas in a vehicle that required unleaded fuel, unleaded gas pump nozzles had a smaller diameter than those for leaded gas. Vehicles were also equipped with a restrictor plate inside the filler pipe under the gas cap that would only accept the smaller gas pump nozzles. But many people found a work around by simply punching out the restrictor plate so they could fill up with the cheaper leaded gasoline. These same people later discovered that doing so ended up ruining their catalytic converter, which cost hundreds of dollars to replace.
The reason why unleaded gas cost more than leaded gas was that it had to undergo more refining to achieve the same octane performance as leaded gas.
Catalytic converters were also a big controversy when they were first introduced because of their potential fire hazard. Converters are essentially afterburners that run much hotter than the rest of the exhaust system. People feared the extra heat generated by the converter under their car might catch grass on fire if they were parked off-road. There may have been a rare fire or two, but the heat shield around the converter reflects most of the heat right back into the converter.
A catalytic converter reduces three pollutants in the exhaust. It reburns any unburned fuel vapors (hydrocarbons) in the exhaust, it converts carbon monoxide (CO, which is highly poisonous) into carbon dioxide (CO2, which is harmless except for its contribution to global warming), and it reduces and breaks down NOx into nitrogen and oxygen. Converters are extremely efficient at what they do, reducing these three pollutants to almost nothing. But they are also expensive components to install and replace because they contain platinum, palladium and rhodium as catalysts. These valuable metals make converters a prime target for thieves because the converter can be resold for its precious metal content.
So why do some people remove the converter from their exhaust system? Like removing the exhaust after treatment system behind a diesel engine, they think they are going to gain more performance and fuel economy (SPOILER ALERT: It really doesn't make much difference. The backpressure created by a converter is minimal, unless it is plugged or damaged, in which case it can strangle performance and even cause an engine to stall!). What's more, if you live in a state or urban area that requires annual emissions inspections, your vehicle will not pass an emissions test if the converter has been removed. It's against the law to remove a converter or replace it with a straight pipe. The only exceptions are vehicles that are not driven on public highways (like race cars or off-road construction machinery), or cars built before 1975 when converters were not required.
When the U.S. made the move to install catalytic converters and switch to unleaded gasoline, it led the world in a new direction. That leadership continued well into the 1980s as Europe gradually adopted similar emissions rules to the U.S. while Asian countries lagged behind. Today, Europe is actually ahead of the U.S. in developing, adopting and enforcing new emission rules, and the rest of the world is catching up.
The next big innovation that came about because of government regulations was Onboard Diagnostics (OBD II). This change cme in 1984 when the government required auto makers to add self-diagnostic engine control systems that could self-diagnose potential engine problems that would affect emissions. Standardized fault codes and diagnostic protocols were part of the package. Again, everybody bitched and whined about the change. It was too complicated. OBD didn't catch every fault. It turned on the Check Engine Light unnecessarily. Nobody understood what the Check Engine light really meant (and many still don't today!). OBD II required special training and expensive scan tools to read codes and system data. Yes, these were all real issues but over time technicians got up to speed on the new system and learned how to work with it.
There were teething issues during the early years of OBD II, as is common with any new technology. But it would be almost impossible to diagnose and repair late model vehicles without OBD II. The cost of do-it-yourself scan tools has come way down (under $150 for a really good tool, with simple code readers or smart phone apps costing as little as $20 to $30).
OBD II also eliminated the need to do tailpipe emissions testing. Because the OBD II system monitors all aspects of engine performance, it can tell if the engine is running clean or not. A simple plug-in test will verify there are no problems, eliminating the need for expensive tailpipe emissions testing equipment and chassis dynos.
Today's cars are extremely clean emissions-wise, thanks to government mandated changes in emissions control technology, and they are far more reliable than ANY pre-emissions vehicle ever was. Most vehicles today can go upwards of 150,000 miles or more with minimal maintenance. There is no need for annual tune-ups or replacing spark plugs every few years because platinum and iridium spark plugs last almost forever. Fuel injection allows instant cold starting (no troublesome carburetors or chokes to worry about).
No, the government is not going to force everybody to drive electric vehicles, at least not for many years. Even so, the U.S. government (or should I say the Obama and Biden administrations) as well as many other governments around the world (including China) are doing all they can to incentivize zero emission vehicles. Some have even set targets to totally phase out the sale of new non-electric vehicles by 2030 to 2035. When they say "zero emissions", they mean vehicles that produce no hydrocarbons, no NOx, no carbon monoxide and no carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is the main concern today because CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere and is a major contributor to global warming and climate change (maybe a third of the total CO2 produced by all manmade sources). And yes, global warming and climate change have been well documented and verified by scientists and governments all over the world (including China).
Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of burning any type of hydrocarbon fuel (gasoline, diesel, ethanol, propane, kerosene, jet fuel, coal, oil or natural gas). Pure hydrogen would quality as a zero emission fuel because it contains no carbon and produces only water vapor when it is burned. Hydrogen can be used as a motor fuel in a modified internal combustion engine, but there is almost no hydrogen infrastructure for transportation use, it must be stored at extremely high pressures, and it contains much less energy than hydrocarbon fuels.
By comparison, an electric vehicle produces no exhaust at all. The vehicle itself is totally clean in terms of emitting any air pollutants. However, the power source used to charge the batteries in EVs may not be so clean. Electricity generated by wind, solar or nuclear energy produces no hydrocarbons, no NOx or no carbon dioxide. It can argued that "green" energy isn't totally clean because the components for wind turbines, solar panels and nuclear power plants all use traditional (dirty) manufacturing methods. But once produced, wind and solar run clean. So do nukes except for the left over depleted uranium (a problem which has yet to be successfully dealt with, but scientists are working on it).
People bitch and whine about all the shortcomings of EVs. They are too expensive (yes, but costs are coming down). And you don't have to buy the most expensive luxury EV to go all electric. Entry level vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt cost no more than other entry level cars. Even the Tesla Model 3 is a bargain these days. Most people don't need a $70,000 to $150,000 electric luxury car, truck or SUV that can go from zero to 60 mph in 3 seconds or less. Get real.
Skeptics say EVs don't have enough range. You mean 250 to 300 miles isn't enough for urban driving or commuting? I wouldn't want to drive an EV cross country at this point in time, but the charging infrastructure is expanding rapidly and will soon catch up to what is actually needed to handle the growing number of EVs that are hitting the road. Over a million EVs have been sold in the U.S. in 2023, and nearly 8 million in China!
They say EVs take forever to charge. True, if you are using a slow poke 110v plug-in home charger. You only get about 4 miles of range per hour of charging. A Level II 220-volt home charger can usually fully charge a battery overnight. Or, you can plug into a Level III commercial fast charger and go from 20 percent charge to 80 percent in about 15 minutes or less. Next generation EV batteries and chargers will be even faster.
They say EV batteries are too dangerous because they can catch on fire. Gasoline-powered vehicles can also go up in flames if there is a fuel leak. The ratio of actual fires in EVs is far less than their hydrocarbon-powered counterparts. There have been some fire issues with defective EV batteries (GM, for example, with the Chevy Bolt). GM had to recall and replace all the potentially defective batteries (at no cost to vehicle owners). As for EV fires caused by an accident, it can happen but less often than gasoline fires. The problem with current EV batteries is that they are nearly impossible to extinguish if they catch on fire. The battery usually has to burn itself out, which can take hours or even days! Next generation EV batteries promise to be more fire resistant with improved materials and design.
They say EV batteries don't last. Another myth that is not true. A cell phone battery will typically crap out after a year or two, and a conventional lead-acid car battery will need to be replaced every three to five years. By comparison, the vast majority of EV batteries are lasting well beyond 150,000-plus miles.
It will take many years for the transition to EVs to take place in the U.S. due to the huge number of vehicles on the road and public resistance to change (even if it is for the better). But eventually it will happen. Norway currently leads the world in its transition to electric vehicles, with 87 percent of all new car sales being EVs. Europe is also moving quickly in the same direction, with over 20% of its new vehicle sales in the EU in 2023 being electric. China, however, is far ahead of the U.S. and Europe, producing close to HALF of all the EVs that are being manufactured worldwide. Most of the EVs in China are for domestic consumption, but exports to Europe are expanding. As for importing less expensive EVs from China into the U.S. I doubt the current political tensions between the U.S. and China will allow that to happen. However, the Chinese are exporting a lot of electric bikes and scooters to the U.S. since we don't seem to have the desire to make them here.
So that's my overview of politics and automotive technology. If you don't agree, that's okay, Go write your own article and post it on the internet or your own website. At least we still have the Right to Free Speech here, along with Democracy. Hope it lasts!
Related Articles: