[tonixie]

I consulted for an automobile manufacturer that was looking to acquire a new catalytic converter start-up.

One of the main reasons for their interest was the fact that this new catalytic converter used 30% less palladium than the next leading product.

The other was because of the looming fleet fuel efficiency requirements. If the total fleet fuel efficiency was below the target, the companies would get fined for emissions on a mpg basis. You could also earn additional revenue if your cars had better mileage than were necessary since credits were tradeable.

Other things that were considered included mileage improvements/savings that could potentially be used to differentiate between competitors since catalytic converts could also improve fuel efficiency.

[phkahler]

>> since catalytic converts could also improve fuel efficiency.

For curious, I think this is because fuel economy and complete/proper combustion are directly at odds with each other. Better MPG means nastier exhaust, so a better catalytic converter will help clean that up. OP?

[Cogito]

Sorry, why do you think that?

More complete combustion would result in more CO2, H2O, and energy. The by products from incomplete combustion are the ones we want to limit - CO, C, various N and S compounds etc.

[refurb]

Not always. Nitrogen oxides are due to higher temps which is more efficient. In order to meet emissions standards, you often take a hit in efficiency (or at least drive-ability).

[Cogito]

Makes a lot of sense, thanks.

[selectodude]

The more efficient the combustion, the hotter it is, and the more NOx is formed. Nothing to do with incomplete combustion. Nitrogen doesn't combust.

[Cogito]

Makes sense - it's not incomplete combustion but rather atmospheric contamination that allows for NOx products, and the amount of those is dependent on heat of combustion. Thanks!

[selectodude]

There's a not insignificant amount of nitrogen in the fuel itself, as well.

[finales]

What startup is this? That seems really cool