[DayneD89]

B284 - Plant / non-road emissions bill 2010, daniel_williams

Plant / non-road emissions act 2010

An Act to control emissions from all new Non-road and Plant vehicles

Preamble:

Preamble

Since 1993 motor vehicles such as Cars, Lorries and Motorbikes have had to have an emission-controlling device (catalytic converter) fitted to it. Currently all non-road and plant vehicles are exempt from having a catalytic converter fitted to them.

Emissions of NO_x (nitrous oxides), CO (Carbon Monoxide), HC (un-burnt Hydrocarbons) are major contributors to global warming and have adverse health effects, not to mention low laying Ozone produced in the vast temperatures inside a cars engine. Carbon Monoxide itself isn’t a greenhouse gas but elevates methane and ozone levels in the lower atmosphere leading to global warning.

By fitting 3-way catalytic converters to ALL new non road and plant vehicles the amount of Nitrous Oxide, Carbon Dioxide, Ozone and un-burnt Hydrocarbons will be converted into less harmful CO₂ (Carbon Dioxide), N₂ (nitrogen) H₂O (Water) and O₂ (Oxygen).

The impact will also help reduce global warming. If we look at the impact CO2 has on global warming and we give it the value of 1 the following is the impact of the other gases:

NO_x – Nitrous Oxide – 310 ¹
CH₄ – Methane (most simple HC) – 21 ¹
N₂ – 0
O₂ – 0
H₂O ≈ 0

Other harmful gases such as Benzene, PM (particulate matter [soot]), 1:3 Butadiene and SO2 (sulphur dioxide) are emitted through burning of petrol/diesel fuels.

Research is already underway to ensure that emissions are looked at for all non road vehicles.

The effect of Nitrous Oxide in global warming over the next 100 years gram for gram will have 298 times more impact than that of Carbon Dioxide. The Nitrous oxides also produce Acid rain and can catalyse the reaction of ozone formation in lower levels of the atmosphere (this can lead to photochemical smog) as shown in the image below.



This is a prediction of how much of an impact these gases will have on global warning over the next 100 at their current levels:


as stated before having an effect 298 times greater than carbon dioxide, it is imperative that nitrous oxides are removed from the atmosphere. Many catalytic converters these days will have the ability to produce 'cleaner' air from the exhaust than what was used in the fuel combustion (the engine takes in NOx, Methane and ozone and converts to nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water and oxygen)

To fit a catalytic converter, no modifications will need to be made to the vehicles (meaning there is no change in the performance or the way the vehicles function), it is simply putting a honey comb like structure into the exhaust system close to the engine manifold. as shown below:



N.B:

3-way catalyst - converts NOX, CO and HC to Water, Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen.

CFS (Catalysed soot filter) - operates in the same way as a 3 way catalyst, but is made of a semi-porous material which traps soot and particulates being released by the combustion of diesel causing them to burn completely to produce carbon dioxide and water

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Vehicles:

1) All newly manufactured and registered Non-Road and Plant motor vehicles shall be fitted with an emission controlling device (catalytic converter) in the form of:
a. A 3 way Catalytic converter for petrol vehicles
b. A catalysed soot filter (CSF) for diesel vehicles

2) All vehicles will be subject to an annual emissions test (similar to that of an MOT)

3) For the purposes of this bill this shall include:
a. Military Vehicles – Tanks, transporters and APC (Armoured Personnel Carriers) etc.
b. Construction Vehicles – Bulldozers, Diggers, Cranes (both mobile and fixed), Cement Mixers etc.
c. Non Road – Fork Lift trucks, ride-on Lawn Mowers, Snowmobiles, ATV (All terrain vehicles). Etc.
d. Agricultural – Tractors, Combine Harvesters, cultivators etc.
e. Aviation – Tugs, baggage carts stepped vehicles etc.

4) All imported vehicles must be fitted with the appropriate catalytic converter before being used.


Exemptions:

1) Motorboats will be exempt from this bill due to catalytic converters being unable to operate correctly if damp.

2) Vehicles built and registered before commencement of this bill will not be required to have a catalytic converter

3) Military vehicles will be exempt from Testing 2, and will require a new catalyst to be fitted within 6 months of it failing a test.


Testing:

1) An annual emissions test shall be conducted at the same time as an MOT or service, (any non-road vehicles should be annually serviced, at which point the test will be conducted)

2) Failure of an emissions test will result in the vehicle being unusable unless the catalytic converter is replaced. (military vehicles are exempt from this, but will require a replacement catalytic converter installed within 6 months)

3) Emissions values will be dependant upon:
a. The purpose of the vehicle
b. The size of the engine
c. The fuel being used
d. The efficiency of the catalytic converter


Commencement:

1) This bill will come into act in stages upon royal ascent (to allow for development) as follows:
a. January 2013 – Aviation, construction and agricultural vehicles
b. June 2013 – Non Road vehicles
c. January 2014 – Military vehicles

2) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom


¹ http://www.cogeneration.net/Global_W..._Potential.htm

[daniel_williams]

would like to point out its a centre party bill (even though I've submitted it as a PMB), but if you could quote me with any questions or remarks it would be great. I'm doing a lot of other stuff on the site at the moment so that way you'll hopefully get a fairly quick response

Also I'd like to apologise if this is a bit science heavy.... I'm working in the catalysis industry specialising in heavy duty and non road applications so its something I'm doing work on at the moment.

[Smack]

Aye this is a Centre Party bill, although daniel_williams was solely the brains behind it so credit to him. As SoS for environment I fully support this.

[simontinsley]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
would like to point out its a centre party bill (even though I've submitted it as a PMB), but if you could quote me with any questions or remarks it would be great. I'm doing a lot of other stuff on the site at the moment so that way you'll hopefully get a fairly quick response

Also I'd like to apologise if this is a bit science heavy.... I'm working in the catalysis industry specialising in heavy duty and non road applications so its something I'm doing work on at the moment.

Sure, just a couple of questions to start with.

1) What % of plant/non-road vehicles have catalytic converters despite them not being mandatory?
2) Why do those that don't have them not have them? Are they expensive or is it simply from vehicles being old?
3) Will they have to be fitted retrospectively?

[Anony mouse]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
would like to point out its a centre party bill (even though I've submitted it as a PMB), but if you could quote me with any questions or remarks it would be great. I'm doing a lot of other stuff on the site at the moment so that way you'll hopefully get a fairly quick response

Also I'd like to apologise if this is a bit science heavy.... I'm working in the catalysis industry specialising in heavy duty and non road applications so its something I'm doing work on at the moment.

Tis is a well researched and constructed Bill.

[daniel_williams]

(Original post by simontinsley)
Sure, just a couple of questions to start with.

1) What % of plant/non-road vehicles have catalytic converters despite them not being mandatory?

I can't find an exact number, but it is relatively low. JCB have recently started fitting catalysts to all their vehicles, it varies on company to company really and what they want to do for their green credentials. non road vehicles I would say less than 10% have catalytic converters and probably less than 20% of plant machinery will have them.

2) Why do those that don't have them not have them? Are they expensive or is it simply from vehicles being old?

the main reason is there has never been any regulation to have them, so what's the point of sticking something on a machine which can cost anywhere form about £20 (for a motorbike) up to £3,000 for a super heavy duty articulated lorry catalyst. all catalysts will fall in this range and based on the side of the vehicle there will be a suitably sized (and priced) catalyst.

3) Will they have to be fitted retrospectively?

please see expemtions 2:


2) Vehicles built and registered before commencement of this bill will not be required to have a catalytic converter

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
would like to point out its a centre party bill (even though I've submitted it as a PMB), but if you could quote me with any questions or remarks it would be great. I'm doing a lot of other stuff on the site at the moment so that way you'll hopefully get a fairly quick response

Also I'd like to apologise if this is a bit science heavy.... I'm working in the catalysis industry specialising in heavy duty and non road applications so its something I'm doing work on at the moment.

What was the reason for exempting non-road vehichles initially when catalytic convertors were first made mandatory, I can't seem to find out?

Also, does this act legally oblige private owners of vehichles not acting in a commercial capacity to test their vehichles yearly for emmissions? I'd like for that to be cleared up as well.

[daniel_williams]

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
What was the reason for exempting non-road vehichles initially when catalytic convertors were first made mandatory, I can't seem to find out?

Also, does this act legally oblige private owners of vehichles not acting in a commercial capacity to test their vehichles yearly for emmissions? I'd like for that to be cleared up as well.

The law that came in was mainly brought on by what was happening in California where there was a lot of smog and it was cased by the cars and lorries on the roads, it was mainly at rush hour times so to combat this they brought forward the catalytic converters. it was only vehciles which would be causing the majority of the emissions at those peak times that were needing to be fitted with them.

The EU is actually looking at the moment to introduce something similar to these... ok its not as stringent but its to make sure all plant vehicles are fitted with catalysts.


the second part I hadn't considered, Ideally if someone is not using it in a commercial capacity I think it should still be enforced. when using a catalyst in car terms (just to simplify things) a standard catalyst should last for 20 years or 70,000 miles, anyone who buys a vehicle that is to be used off-road or comes under the new scheme would have to have the annual tests (but in theory it will never need to be replaced unless poisoned in some manner - but then the emissions would be the least of their problems they've got a leak or something more serious), but ideally any machinery should be serviced annually to ensure its functional. I can always enter into exemptions anything below a 150cc engine will be exempt.

[simontinsley]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
the main reason is there has never been any regulation to have them, so what's the point of sticking something on a machine which can cost anywhere form about £20 (for a motorbike) up to £3,000 for a super heavy duty articulated lorry catalyst. all catalysts will fall in this range and based on the side of the vehicle there will be a suitably sized (and priced) catalyst.

Well as we're dealing with large vehicles (largely ), they will be expensive. Mandating all vehicles that have to have an expensive catalytic converter will mean the costs are passed onto consumers. There is a question of whether this cost is worth it for the environmental benefit - convince me that it is.

please see expemtions 2:

2) Vehicles built and registered before commencement of this bill will not be required to have a catalytic converter

Fair enough, missed that somehow.

[daniel_williams]

(Original post by simontinsley)
Well as we're dealing with large vehicles (largely ), they will be expensive. Mandating all vehicles that have to have an expensive catalytic converter will mean the costs are passed onto consumers. This creates somewhat of a disincentive to buy, I can envisage a situation where people buy (cheaper) a new stock of vehicles just before the act comes into force. Then they will not replace and as the vehicles get greener (what through engine developments) stocks are not replaced and it has the opposite to intended effect on the environment.

There is another question of whether the cost of regulation is worth it for the environmental benefit.


Fair enough, missed that somehow.

average life of a catalyst is 70,000 miles (usually a bit higher for these Heavy duty catalysts - more in the region of 150,00). in all honestly I work in development so we are a making small scale productions of these when they are mass produced the cost will fall to well below £1,000 for a catalyst even thsoe of teh bigest sizes (which can be up to 12 inches x 18 inches). when you are spending for example £190,000 on a buldozer I don't think £1,000 is really a great effect on the price. for example a ride on lawnmower will have a catalyst that costs about £30.

if companies do end up buying up vehicles before the new introduction comes in then so be it. they'll have to scrap their vehicles eventually seeing as when you do the financial accounting side of thing a life span of a digger in the industry is probably about 7 years before its value has fallen so low it is disposed of. so replacing vehicles before they need to be just to avoid a price increase of £1,000 isn't really likely even in the most fictitious of worlds.

if you look at the preamble you will see that even if the engine technologies get greener the same greenhouse gases will be developed. there is no way of preventing the production of NOX, PM and HC, CO levels can be reduced by increasing efficieny and having complete combustion but thats never going to happen. and you are right the geener the engines the less co2 they will use but still the whole point of the information I've given is that these levels of nox and co as well as PM are causing more damage than the CO2....

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
The law that came in was mainly brought on by what was happening in California where there was a lot of smog and it was cased by the cars and lorries on the roads, it was mainly at rush hour times so to combat this they brought forward the catalytic converters. it was only vehciles which would be causing the majority of the emissions at those peak times that were needing to be fitted with them.

The EU is actually looking at the moment to introduce something similar to these... ok its not as stringent but its to make sure all plant vehicles are fitted with catalysts.

Okay, sounds fair enough to me.

(Original post by daniel_williams)
the second part I hadn't considered, Ideally if someone is not using it in a commercial capacity I think it should still be enforced. when using a catalyst in car terms (just to simplify things) a standard catalyst should last for 20 years or 70,000 miles, anyone who buys a vehicle that is to be used off-road or comes under the new scheme would have to have the annual tests (but in theory it will never need to be replaced unless poisoned in some manner - but then the emissions would be the least of their problems they've got a leak or something more serious), but ideally any machinery should be serviced annually to ensure its functional. I can always enter into exemptions anything below a 150cc engine will be exempt.

It just seems like an unnecessary amount of hassle for people that own, for example, a quad bike, to get it tested yearly. I think a better way around the problem would simply be any vehichle that is normally registered (as a private quad bike not being used for something like agriculture would be) for any reason must have these annual tests rather than a CC engine limit.

[daniel_williams]

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Okay, sounds fair enough to me.



It just seems like an unnecessary amount of hassle for people that own, for example, a quad bike, to get it tested yearly. I think a better way around the problem would simply be any vehichle that is normally registered (as a private quad bike not being used for something like agriculture would be) for any reason must have these annual tests rather than a CC engine limit.

with this we start going down the routes of how you can get away with building a car out of scrap and driving it on the roads because it can be used for aggricultural purposes... people will start registering their vehicles or equipment for other purposes to evade it. i think sometimes we just need to enforce it for everyone.

plus a simple emissions test takes about 5 minutes and should cost no more than about £10 but i'll have a think about this section.

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
with this we start going down the routes of how you can get away with building a car out of scrap and driving it on the roads because it can be used for aggricultural purposes... people will start registering their vehicles or equipment for other purposes to evade it. i think sometimes we just need to enforce it for everyone.

plus a simple emissions test takes about 5 minutes and should cost no more than about £10 but i'll have a think about this section.

I said not being used for something like agriculture. As in a quad bike you'd drive just for fun on private property would not be registered. But under the legislation as it stands, would be legally obliged to have annual tests. A quad bike being used for agriculture WOULD have to be registered as such and thus would be liable to annual tests. A just for fun quad bike would not be registered.

Essentially I'm saying you should clarify in the law that only vehichles that are currently registered for any reason (i.e. reasons beyond road included such as industry and agriculture) should be tested annualy, but those that don't need to registered (like a just for fun quad bike only used on private land), don't need the annual test.

[daniel_williams]

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
I said not being used for something like agriculture. As in a quad bike you'd drive just for fun on private property would not be registered. But under the legislation as it stands, would be legally obliged to have annual tests. A quad bike being used for agriculture WOULD have to be registered as such and thus would be liable to annual tests. A just for fun quad bike would not be registered.

Essentially I'm saying you should clarify in the law that only vehichles that are currently registered for any reason (i.e. reasons beyond road included such as industry and agriculture) should be tested annualy, but those that don't need to registered (like a just for fun quad bike only used on private land), don't need the annual test.

yeah sorry I was trying to use an example and can see how it went wrong. basically if you build a car like they do frequently on scrap heap challenge, it has to undergo tests with the DVLA, if you register the vehicle for agricultural use it doesn't have to comply with standard regulations. in essence if you have a non road cheicle that is being used for commercial use, it could be claimed to be for non commercial use and evade having to be tested. if that makes sense.

basically people will say its not for commercial use when it blatantly is. i'll see what I can come up with, but as it stands I think everything thats fitted with a catalyst should be subject to testing, even if I make all non commercial testing to be conducted every 5 years because in theory 1 year of use in a commercial industry would equate to more than 5 years in a non commercial sector. that way everyone is subject to testing, but not as frequently.

[simontinsley]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
average life of a catalyst is 70,000 miles (usually a bit higher for these Heavy duty catalysts - more in the region of 150,00). in all honestly I work in development so we are a making small scale productions of these when they are mass produced the cost will fall to well below £1,000 for a catalyst even thsoe of teh bigest sizes (which can be up to 12 inches x 18 inches). when you are spending for example £190,000 on a buldozer I don't think £1,000 is really a great effect on the price. for example a ride on lawnmower will have a catalyst that costs about £30.

Sure, but I don't imagine you'd get away with a £30 one for tanks.

if companies do end up buying up vehicles before the new introduction comes in then so be it. they'll have to scrap their vehicles eventually seeing as when you do the financial accounting side of thing a life span of a digger in the industry is probably about 7 years before its value has fallen so low it is disposed of. so replacing vehicles before they need to be just to avoid a price increase of £1,000 isn't really likely even in the most fictitious of worlds.

Possibly, but I still think you'd see a spike before the introduction as those say, within a certain time period get replaced slightly earlier rather than later.

if you look at the preamble you will see that even if the engine technologies get greener the same greenhouse gases will be developed. there is no way of preventing the production of NOX, PM and HC, CO levels can be reduced by increasing efficieny and having complete combustion but thats never going to happen. and you are right the geener the engines the less co2 they will use but still the whole point of the information I've given is that these levels of nox and co as well as PM are causing more damage than the CO2....

Sure, I'm aware of the science regarding catalytic converters - at least to the level that was explained in the preamble with the gas conversion to N2, H2O and CO2.

I'm less interest in global warming as I'm not entirely convince that the correlation between CO2 and warming is necessarily causation. That, however is a completely different debate for a different place. I'm interested in the environmental issues that directly affect people's lives, such as smog. How much of an effect will it have on things like that, and what makes it worth the cost of £1000 for the converter to the consumer (or to producer through reduced profit margins, and thus to employment in that sector) and the hassle of annual checkups?

Not to mention, how much do these vehicles currently contribute to those environmental problems? They seem to make up such a small proportion. Furthermore, why have JCB started putting them on? It's because of a demand for green credentials, to me, it doesn't need regulating - if consumers want greener products and are willing to pay the extra, then they will make them.

[Teaddict]

What is the cost to business of this bill?

[Matthew_Lowson]

Just a question, Will this be cost effective?

[daniel_williams]

(Original post by simontinsley)
Sure, but I don't imagine you'd get away with a £30 one for tanks.

cost of a tank for the british army... £2million cost of catalyst £1,000..... its like diferentialing between £9999 ot £10000 its such a tiny mount makes no difference.

Possibly, but I still think you'd see a spike before the introduction as those say, within a certain time period get replaced slightly earlier rather than later.

yeah that happened in 1993. though most firms brought them in from the late 80's and no one noticed. most companies could fit a catalyst tomorrow and not actually have people realise. jaguar had them fitted since 1986 and people still bought them in 1992. but it honestly doesn't add too much onto the price.


I

'm less interest in global warming as I'm not entirely convince that the correlation between CO2 and warming is necessarily causation. That, however is a completely different debate for a different place. I'm interested in the environmental issues that directly affect people's lives, such as smog. How much of an effect will it have on things like that, and what makes it worth the cost of £1000 for the converter to the consumer (or to producer through reduced profit margins, and thus to employment in that sector) and the hassle of annual checkups?

machinery used by a company by law has to be serviced every year, its like pat testing so would be a simplistic test to ensure its within limits . it is a European union legislation. whilst smog isn't that common these days the low lying nox gases are the ones that are causing more and more people to have asthma (or like symptoms) and other medical conditions associated with the respiratory tract. the levels of ozone being depleted in the upper atmosphere by the carbon monoxide and the free redicals will lead to more UV light being let through the atmosphere potentially increasing the number of skin cancer patients. I can't give an exact number because its not known.

the bigger machines whcih will require more expensive catalysts are producing huge amounts of these noxious gases which are harmful to the people surrounding them, an example would be how we banned smoking in pubs because of second hand smoke... second hand smoke contains particulate matter (that is after all what smoke is) people working within close prximity to these machines are breathing in these fmes containing harmful chemicals. a simple filter will prevent this particulate matter. if every petrol/diesel vechile on the planet were fitted with a catalytic converter the air being produced out the exhasut would be less harmful than that going in the front. this is the case with many volvo lorry catalysts. we would in effect be cleaning up the air we breath reducing breathing problems so I think whist you keep harping on about this£1,000 catalyst its only going to ba less than 1% of the cost of the vehicle its fitted to brand new so is a non entity on the price yet for it to reduce the risk of illness, prevent global warning its not a bad investment as long term effects you'll see imrpovements in the air and it wouldn't have any eprformance on the vehicle.

in some vechiles being tested now having a catalytic converter fitted right at the engine manifold can even increase the efficieny of the engine and reduce emissions. so it can safe you fuel as well.

Not to mention, how much do these vehicles currently contribute to those environmental problems? They seem to make up such a small proportion. Furthermore, why have JCB started putting them on? It's because of a demand for green credentials, to me, it doesn't need regulating - if consumers want greener products and are willing to pay the extra, then they will make them.

i dunno. I've not asked them personally. but they've been doing it for a while in the past 2 years they've invested a lot into development. other companies are doing it as well. as for such a small contribution... you are wrong there. 30% of all Nox produced is from non road and plant vehicles. the rest comes from powerstations and other sources. but because of the nature of vehicles being low to the ground they have more of a profound impact on people and animals, whereas the powerstations etc have high stacks which go through scruber to try clean it up a bit before being relased higher into the atmosphere.

one of the other things with Nox is it produces acid rain and well no one likes that.

[daniel_williams]

(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
Just a question, Will this be cost effective?

well its proved to be for cars and will have exactly the same effect with the plant and non raod vehicles because it will remove near enough all the remaining low laying nox that will is causing the majority of problems.

[simontinsley]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
cost of a tank for the british army... £2million cost of catalyst £1,000..... its like diferentialing between £9999 ot £10000 its such a tiny mount makes no difference.


yeah that happened in 1993. though most firms brought them in from the late 80's and no one noticed. most companies could fit a catalyst tomorrow and not actually have people realise. jaguar had them fitted since 1986 and people still bought them in 1992. but it honestly doesn't add too much onto the price.

Sure, but any increase to the price is one that is avoidable if it doesn't have discernible benefits, the extent to which there are benefits is what I'm very much sceptical about.

machinery used by a company by law has to be serviced every year, its like pat testing so would be a simplistic test to ensure its within limits . it is a European union legislation.

Sure, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with the above legislation regarding machinery testing.

whilst smog isn't that common these days the low lying nox gases are the ones that are causing more and more people to have asthma (or like symptoms) and other medical conditions associated with the respiratory tract.

I can debate with you the reasons for the upturn in asthma, there are many theories. Besides, since the introduction of catalytic converters in 1993 has the level not dropped while asthma prevelance keeps rising?

the levels of ozone being depleted in the upper atmosphere by the carbon monoxide and the free redicals will lead to more UV light being let through the atmosphere potentially increasing the number of skin cancer patients. I can't give an exact number because its not known.

But these levels are virtually negligible now.

the bigger machines whcih will require more expensive catalysts are producing huge amounts of these noxious gases which are harmful to the people surrounding them, an example would be how we banned smoking in pubs because of second hand smoke... second hand smoke contains particulate matter (that is after all what smoke is) people working within close prximity to these machines are breathing in these fmes containing harmful chemicals.

How much, how may people are affected? If it is the consumers' own health (as they are the ones working nearest them) then surely they have an incentive to buy a machine with a converter, so more should be produced. If they don't care, you can't protect people from themselves.

If it's not the consumers' own health, how? They are the ones working nearest the machines.

As an aside, the smoking ban was ridiculous, companies (or indeed anyone) should be able to choose whether to allow smoking on their private property or not. The damage of allowing smoking where the clientèle don't like it is in the bottom line.

a simple filter will prevent this particulate matter. if every petrol/diesel vechile on the planet were fitted with a catalytic converter the air being produced out the exhasut would be less harmful than that going in the front. this is the case with many volvo lorry catalysts. we would in effect be cleaning up the air we breath

But there are already catalytic converters in all cars and lorries. I fail to see why you think this would have some a big effect.

reducing breathing problems so I think whist you keep harping on about this£1,000 catalyst its only going to ba less than 1% of the cost of the vehicle its fitted to brand new so is a non entity on the price yet for it to reduce the risk of illness, prevent global warning its not a bad investment as long term effects you'll see imrpovements in the air and it wouldn't have any eprformance on the vehicle.

The effect on breathing problems is negligible. I'm very much unconvinced on global warming, and you already have catalytic converters on 90+% of vehicles (by miles driven). You'll see no effect on air quality or breathing problems. After all, shouldn't we have seen this improvement since 1993?

in some vechiles being tested now having a catalytic converter fitted right at the engine manifold can even increase the efficieny of the engine and reduce emissions. so it can safe you fuel as well.

So if it improves the efficiency of the engine, then there's an incentive for companies to do it anyway, they can sell their vehicles for a higher price based on lower future fuel costs.

i dunno. I've not asked them personally. but they've been doing it for a while in the past 2 years they've invested a lot into development. other companies are doing it as well.

So is the legislation really needed?

as for such a small contribution... you are wrong there. 30% of all Nox produced is from non road and plant vehicles. the rest comes from powerstations and other sources. but because of the nature of vehicles being low to the ground they have more of a profound impact on people and animals, whereas the powerstations etc have high stacks which go through scruber to try clean it up a bit before being relased higher into the atmosphere.

Sure, but the amount of NOx produced in this country is minimal.

one of the other things with Nox is it produces acid rain and well no one likes that.

Indeed, but remind me, when we acid rain last a problem here? If it's to stop rain abroad, when were we one of the main contributors to NOx gases?

I seem to be coming to the conclusions that either it's not practical for catalytic converters to be fitted to all these vehicles or it is unnecessary to do so as the changes will come about anyway, so it'll have to be a no from me.