Human health-affecting pollutants are "only" about 10-times higher per mile
for 2-cycle scooters than for "cars" - not 100 times as I erroneously
recalled a few days ago.- Due to better fuel economy, the CO2 emissions are
lower.
Their blue-white trails of unburned and incompletely burned gasoline and oil
attest to the fact that we'd all be better off if their users (>90% of whom
appear to be UW students) would ride bikes instead. With their short trips,
it hardly takes any longer than sputtering along to their destinations.
They're polluting a lot of bike routes within a 3-mile half-radius of
campus.
>From the World Bank
(http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/SAR/sa.nsf/Attachments/ImprovUrbanAirQual/$Fil
e/Improving+Urban+Air+Quality.pdf):
1
"The serious
health effects of this polluted air, breathed by 350
million people, make urban air quality management
an important policy concern. This report
addresses the technical, economic, and policy
issues related to controlling air pollution from
two-stroke engine vehicles."
"The Problem of Emissions from Two-
Stroke Engine Vehicles
Emissions from the large and rapidly growing
number of two- and three-wheel vehicles are a
major source of air pollution in South Asia.
Because they are less expensive than other vehicles,
two- and three-wheelers play an important
role in the transport market in South Asia and
account for at least half of all vehicles in most
countries in the region."
"Emissions from two-stroke engines pose a danger to
public health"
"The most critical pollutant in South Asia "[as well as Dane County, WI] -
ed. note] "in terms
of public health impacts is fine particulate matter."
"1 Fine particles have been shown in studies in a
number of cities around the world to have serious
health effects, including premature mortality and
such nonfatal effects as respiratory symptoms,
exacerbation of asthma, and changes in lung
function. Vehicle emissions of fine particles is
particularly harmful because they occur near
ground level, close to where people live and work."
"2 Improving Urban Air Quality in South Asia by Reducing Emissions from
Two-Stroke Engine Vehicles
Until recently new two-stroke engines emitted as much
as an order of magnitude [i.e., 10 times - ed. note] more particulate matter
than
four-stroke engines of similar size. When vehicle age,
maintenance, lubricant, and fuel quality are taken
into account, two-stroke engines in South Asia
probably emit particulate matter at an even higher
factor.
Two-stroke engines typically have a lower fuel
efficiency than four-stroke engines, with as much
as 15-40 percent of the fuel-air mixture escaping
from the engine through the exhaust port. These
"scavenging losses" contain a high level of
unburned gasoline and lubricant, which increases
emissions of hydrocarbons and organic lead if
gasoline is still leaded.2 Some of the incompletely
burned lubricant and heavier portions of gasoline
are emitted as small oil droplets, which in turn
increase visible smoke and particulate emissions."
The article goes on to note some pending improvements, including catalysts
for tail pipes, that cut emissions in half - but that's still 5 times the
emission rate of a "car," The authors recommend a switch to 4-cycle
engines and other measures that are mainly applicable in Asia where fueland
oil uality is at times suspect.
__________________
EPA standards for scooters are very lax -
>From "Alt.scooter", http://www.dreamscape.com/danny/faq/index.html#7.2
"The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a federal bureau delegated
the task of enforcing American laws governing air, water and land pollution.
This agency sets standards for all motor vehicles sold and imported into the
USA for tailpipe emissions and this typically affects scooters. EPA
standards are much more lax for vehicles under 50cc (which are usually, but
not always, considered mopeds) than for larger vehicles. Contrary to popular
myth, the EPA has never "outlawed" two-stroke engines in the USA of any
size, though as a practical matter, most of them above 50cc can no longer
meet the standards and thus are not allowed to be imported or manufactured,
though obviously technical advancements may get around that problem.
Further, each of the various 50 states has the right to impose stricter
emission standards then the federal government, but never more lax ones. In
particular, the most populous US state (about 10% the US total), California,
has chosen to utilize this option, because of severe air quality problems.
This is why vehicles must typically be certfied as either "CA compliant"
(California only) or "US compliant" (the other 49 states). It should be
further noted that other US states, especially in the northeast (NY, MA, CT,
etc.) are planning to adopt the stricter CA standards on emissions, though
it is unclear at this time how or even if this will affect scooters (because
they may exempt motorcycles and modeds). [12/99]"
__________________
An transportation policy paper notes the lower output of CO2, but this does
nothing to meet the immediate clean-air and health-protection needs of urban
residents. The (disassembled) table of CO2 output comparisons does not
address health-damaging pollutants. the last figure provides a comparison
among modes in grams CO2 per passenger mile. I'm disappointed it omits rail
of any type. It's likely that the electric rail systems used in many
European nations are lower in CO2 and other pollutants per passenger
kilometer than anything but walking and biking:
REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY
SHIFTING PASSENGER TRIPS
TO LESS POLLUTING MODES
A BACKGROUND PAPER FOR THE
BRAINSTORMING SESSION ON
NON-TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR ENGINEERING MODAL SHIFTS IN CITY
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
BY WALTER HOOK
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY
AND
LLOYD WRIGHT,
BRT PROGRAM AND LATIN AMERICA REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ITDP
With input from:
OSCAR EDMUNDO DIAZ
March, 2002
Whole document at:
http://www.itdp.org/read/GEFbackground_nairobi2002.pdf
"For quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions impacts of a shift in
passenger trips
between modes, it is useful to have a common evaluation measure. Table 2
provides emissions
per passenger - kilometres for a range of modes. The values are derived from
a variety of
sources (Sperling, Dan, University of California at Davis; UK Dept. of
Environment; European
Commission), and are intended to provide a relative comparison for
discussion purposes. A
more rigorous definition of emission factors would need to include analysis
of actual driving
practices, vehicle models, local traffic conditions, local fuel types, and
vehicle maintenance
practices.
Table 2 Greenhouse gas emissions by mode
Mode
CO2-equivalent
emissions (grams /
vehicle-km
Max.
capacity
(passen.)
Ave.
capacity
(passen.)
CO2-equivalent
emissions (grams /
passenger - km)
Pedestrian 0 1 1 0
Bicycle 0 2 1.1 0
Gasoline motor
scooter (2-
stroke)
118 2 1.2 98
Gasoline motor
scooter (4-
stroke)
70 2 1.2 64
Gasoline car 293 5 1.2 244
Gasoline taxi
car
293 5 0.5 586
Diesel car 172 1.2 1.2 143
Diesel minibus 750 20 15 50
Diesel bus 963 80 65 15
CNG bus 1050 80 65 16
Diesel
articulated bus
1000 160 130 7
This rough analysis shows the significant emission benefits to be gained
from retaining
mode share with both non-motorized and public transit options. Assuming an
urban commuter
travels a total of 4800 kilometers per year (20 kilometers per work day in a
240 day work year),
the average commuter will contribute: 470 kilograms of CO2-equivalent
traveling by a twostroke
motor scooter; and 1170 kilograms of CO2-equivalent traveling by car. By
comparison, a
commuter traveling in an articulated Euro II diesel bus, such as those
utilized in Bogota's
TransMilenio system, will contribute only 34 kilograms of CO2-equivalent. It
is worthwhile to
note that the emission reductions difference between bus propulsion
technologies (diesel, CNG,
hybrid-electric, fuel cell) can easily be dwarfed by the substantial gains
made from mode share
retention or mode switching.
------------------
>From Honda, who nots improved emission controls, but offers no data to
enable comparisons:
MotorcycleJuly 17, 1998
Honda Announces Launch of New Julio Fashion Scooter Series Targeted at Young
Riders Replete with Built-in Helmet Storage Space
Tokyo, July 17, 1998 --- Honda Motor Co., Ltd. has announced the launch in
Japan, on July 31, of a new Honda Julio series of fashion scooters. These
vehicles, which are being targeted predominantly at young people, are
capitalizing on the recent design craze that emphasizes classic fashions
with slightly rounded, rectangular lines. This style - square forms with
curves - is very popular among young people for making an individual fashion
statement.
The prominent horizontal lines and plain surfaces of the Julio evoke an
older, safer, more dependable age - while still looking highly individual.
Both the seat and the floorboard are completely flat, giving the rider a lot
more body position freedom. Also, by keeping the legs completely within the
vehicle and not allowing the rider's body to jut out, the design enhances
"feelings of safety. " (quotes added)
Like the Lead and Tact scooter series, the Julio series complies fully with
the new exhaust emission and noise pollution regulations for scooters and
mopeds due to come into force in Japan from October 1998. Kind on the
environment, the well-priced Julio series will also be kind on your
finances.
Honda Julio
Honda Julio 50th anniversary special edition
Domestic annual sales target: 30,000 units
Main Features of the Julio:
Environment-friendly 2-stroke engine complies fully with impending
"Japanese" motorcycle exhaust emission and noise pollution regulations
In common with the Lead and Tact scooter series, the Julio series features
an air-cooled 2-stroke single-cylinder engine with carburetor modified to
allow a lean air-fuel mixture, thereby increasing combustion efficiency and
reducing the amount of pollutants generated during the combustion process.
In addition, a new kind of oxidizing catalyst unit (or catalyzer) has been
fitted inside the muffler. These modifications reduce the amount of
pollutant gases in the exhaust by a substantial degree - reducing carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and hydrocarbon (HC) emissions by more
than half. The Julio series complies fully with the Japanese exhaust
emission regulations for new Class I motorcycles (50cc or less) due to come
into effect from October 1998. Furthermore, after the engine has warmed up,
the new modifications reduce emissions of white smoke, compared to present
Honda models, by more than 90% (values are taken from Honda-conducted light
permeation tests on Honda products).
NOTE: World Bank article above notes that catalyst needs to be change about
every 6 months. Personally, I wouldn't trust a 19 year-old with a full
credit load, a part0time job, and any semblance of a social life to devote
any attention to that matter.
From: "Bob Paolino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mopeds, statistics, and damned mopeds
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:15:32 -0400
The question of where mopeds/scooters park shifts to how much (or what kind
of?) pollution they emit...
In Message: 5 "Schimpff, Jeff A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:03:31 -0500:
>My disdain for mopeds lies in the fact that they emit the same amount
>of pollutants as 50-100 automobiles. It's not what I want to breathe
>as I'm pedaling to work, shop or play.
I know that many small engines emit proportionally more polution than cars
(which is among the major reasons I--and I assume most of the people on
this list--use a human-powered lawn mower rather than a motorised one), but
in another context....
In Message: 10 "Paul T. O'Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 26 Aug
2003 00:54:02 -0500:
[In reply to Michael Lemberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > PS: I wonder where you got the two percent number in the first
> >place? Did you make it up? Guess?]
>
>Eighty percent of all statistics are made up on the spot...
...which reasonably leads one to wonder if the 50-100X assertion about
mopeds is approximately correct and how measured. I would assume you'd at
least want to standardise the comparison by distance. So if a moped or
scooter gets, say, 150 miles per gallon of gasoline and a car gets 25 miles
per gallon (of course I know there's a wide range of fuel economy numbers
within the different vehicle classifications; a subcompact four-passenger
gasoline-electric hybrid might get almost 50 mi/gal, my midsize car gets a
gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of 33, but a subUrban assault vehicle
might not get much more than 15, and I'm sure there's a lot of variation in
mopeds, but just to start out the moped could be six times (assuming the
150 and 25 figures) dirtier per gallon of fuel to break even with a car per
mile, so the "fact" that they are as polluting "as 50-100 automobiles"
(presumably all going the same distance) would seem to mean that they would
have to be 300x-600x worse in the combustion of a given volume of gasoline.
And maybe they are, but does someone have an impartial source to document
that?
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino
>From the Department of Military Intelligence and Jumbo Shrimp:
Sign seen on a recently poisoned lawn on Johnson:
TruGreen/ChemLawn
( ) ASCII ribbon campaign
X against HTML e-mail:
/ \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages!
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
