Nearly All New Diesel Cars Exceed Official Pollution Limits (theguardian.com) 216
An anonymous reader writes: The Guardian, citing a comprehensive set of data, reports that 97% of all modern diesel cars emit more toxic nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution on the road than the official limit. A quarter of this voluminous number emits at least six times more than the limit. From the report, "Surprisingly, the tiny number of models that did not exceed the standard were mostly Volkswagens, the carmaker whose cheating of diesel emissions tests emerged last year sparked the scandal. Experts said the new results show that clean diesel cars can be made but that virtually all manufacturers have failed to do so. The new data, from testing industry leader Emissions Analytics (EA), follows the publication this week by the Department for Transport of emissions results for 37 vehicles, all of which emitted more NOx on the road than the official limit. But the new data covers more than 250 vehicles in more stringently standardised road conditions. EA found that just one of 201 Euro 5 diesels, the EU standard from 2009, did not exceed the limit, while only seven of 62 Euro 6 diesels, the stricter standard since 2014, did so. Diesel cars must meet an official EU limit for NOx but are only tested in a laboratory under fixed conditions. All vehicles sold pass this regulation but, when taken out on to real roads, almost all emit far more pollution. There is no suggestion that any of the cars tested broke the law on emissions limits or used any cheat devices. Mayoral candidates in London, the city with the worst air quality in Britain, have seized on the DfT data to call for tighter controls on polluting traffic -- including a ban on diesel cars."Caroline Pidgeon, the Lib Dem mayoral candidate, said: "The figures are exactly the reason why we need to speed up the introduction of the ultra-low emission zone so that it starts in 2018. Ultimately we will need to ban diesel vehicles from much of London and we need a mayor prepared to take these tough decisions and work with people to make these changes happen."
What? No, this is wrong! (Score:2, Funny)
I have a right to pollute the air by burning whatever I please. It's freedom, the air is free, so I'm free to do whatever I want with it.
Why must you steal my liberty?
Re:What? No, this is wrong! (Score:4, Funny)
I will be happy to fight for your right to "roll coal" as much as you want in the privacy of your own garage... with the doors closed, of course.
In fact, I encourage such behavior.
=Smidge=
Re:What? No, this is wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
You should look up sarcasm in the English Common law library. Hopefully, you find it.
Re:What? No, this is wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
You should look up sarchasm in the English Common law library. Hopefully, you find it.
SARCHASM: The gulf between the author of wit and its intended recipient (ATTRIB: Someone on the internet)
Re:What? No, this is wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, yes. And that is what eventually kills a society: Too many self-centered fucks that do not care about anything except themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The parable of the talents is not about making material gains for yourself.
It is about taking what God gives you, and putting it to use in a way that pleases God, not hiding it.
Your analysis of some who claim 'Christian' and 'camels and needles' is quite insightful.
Jesus calls for us to look after the interests of others in addition to our own
He calls on us to share with others, to help others.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Woosh.
2. The Bill of Rights was not meant to enumerate specific rights, but rather raise the bar so high on restricting or revoking those rights as to make it legally impossible.
So you've been wrong twice now.
Re: (Score:3)
2. The Bill of Rights was not meant to enumerate specific rights, but rather raise the bar so high on restricting or revoking those rights as to make it legally impossible
It was meant to enumerate specific rights AND to set the bar high enough that restricting or revoking those rights is difficult, not impossible.
Re:What? No, this is wrong! (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure if trolling or not, so I'll just suggest reading a high school civics text.
Re: (Score:2)
And the 14th Amendment which completely invalidates his citation of a Supreme Court case:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Equal Protection clause throws out his whole argument.
Re:What? No, this is wrong! (Score:4, Informative)
Where did you go to school?
The USA Constitution says that the rights of the Federal Government are severely restricted, that is, they are listed in the USA Constitution.
The rights of the people (individuals as 1 or a group such as a State) have severely UNrestricted rights.
The Bill of Rights ONLY lists some of the unrestricted rights of the individual or states. The fact that the Bill of Rights does not address a particular right that an individual has does not mean the individual does not have that right. To the contrary, the individual, under the USA Constitution, has the vast majority of rights and these rights need not be listed for the individual to have those rights.
History shows that the USA Federal Government has continually and constantly disregarded and restricted the rights of the individual as often as the Federal Government can. And without regard to what is Constitutional, legal or illegal.
The USA Supreme Court has limited the rights of the local and state Governments in most cases that it has ruled on. The local and state Governments do not have unrestricted rights.
This is what you should have been taught in the Government Schools (I was).
The is what you should have read, the USA Constitution, in the Government Schools (I did).
This is what you should know to pass a citizenship test.
Please try to keep up!
Re: (Score:2)
Please read the 10th amendment. Then read it again. And once more. Then realize how what you wrote is completely incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution was written to mean, if this doesn't say they can do it then they can't do it.
It now means, if this doesn't specifically disallow it, they're good to go.
That is not a distinction without difference. In fact, it's pretty much backwards from the intent. There's a line in there that I like but people like to pretend it doesn't exist. Now, I'm not some fancy Constitutional Scholar or anything but I'm pretty sure it mentions something about those rights not granted by the document are reserved f
Limits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Limits (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously, the standards are too HIGH as they currently stand, and if most of these cars, like most of our students can no longer past the tests, then we have no choice, but to lower the standards by enough so that everyone can pass and have positive self-esteem and profitable sales!!!
Easy-peasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that clean diesel is just another totally meaningless advertising slogan!
"Clean diesel" is an oxymoron (Score:5, Insightful)
What it actually means is slightly less dirty diesel.
Even if new diesel cars did pass this test they'd still start blowing black soot and other crap after a number of years have passed and the car has reached owner number 3 who isn't bothering to do anything other than basic maintainance to keep it on the road until it falls apart.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The UK and most of europe has mandatory emissions testing of diesels with defined levels of particulates etc to be taken at certain engine conditions. The newer the diesel the stricter the levels. In the UK its every year (the MOT test), mainland France, its every two. I always cross my fingers when they're revving the nuts off to conduct the diesel emissions hoping my cambelt doesn't suddenly self destruct as it just seems cruel on the engine.
Re:"Clean diesel" is an oxymoron (Score:5, Interesting)
There are always garages around who'll look the other way on emissions if someone slips them some money. There's a bloke up my road who manages to get his almost scrap transit through the MOT every year. There's no way it would pass legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: "Clean diesel" is an oxymoron (Score:3, Insightful)
By "dirty diesel" you probably mean soot emissions. This is a solved problem.
NOx emissions are trickier as they come straight from high thermal efficiency. But as petrol engines are getting better this is no longer a diesel-only issue.
Re: (Score:2)
By remaining silent, you may sometimes appear to be a fool, but every time you open your mouth you dispel all doubts. You are a problem your society has to deal with. Please take steps to mitigate this effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any diesel vehicle that isn't bad? (Score:2)
Diesel everything is bad. In my city I see diesel buses and trucks all the time that spew out insane amounts of soot into the air. If you are unlucky enough to get stuck behind one while bicycling/walking/running up a hill behind one of these things, prepare to get gassed out. Even the United States Postal Service's fleet of mail trucks are diesel and spew out huge amounts of noxious gas.
I think its time to wake up and just ditch diesel. Perhaps the only acceptable use of it is for train locomotives.
Re: (Score:2)
"Clean diesel" is not something I've even heard of I don't believe. The word diesel its-self conjures images of soot spitting oily monster machines. The aforementioned ban is a good step in the right direction, albeit a decade or two later than it should have come.
I imagine that someone who saw early gasoline engines spewing black smoke a century ago would have had similar thoughts about them.
Hardly surprising (Score:5, Informative)
The cars only have to pass a laboratory test. If that test bears no resemblance to the real world (which the EU one doesn't) then thats the fault of the people who devised it.
The main problem with emissions is if you want good fuel economy and hence lower CO2 per km then you need a high burn temp. The trouble with that is a high burn temp gives high NOx. Take your pick.
The only serious solution to NOx is a urea system such as adblue as used in trucks but thats more equipment, more complexity and more expense.
Re:Hardly surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hardly surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
My reaction to this though is "so what?"
The meaningful questions are does improvement on the lap test predict improvement under real word conditions?
It does not have to mirror real work conditions to be useful.
If the answer to the first question is yes does meeting the lab test standards mean a vehicle will have a meaningfully improved pollution profile as compared to if we did not bother setting standards and testing?
Again the point here is to reduce the output of harmful airborne pollutants. Are we doing that or not, is really all the matters. If the real world effect is .01% than we are wasting effort and resources if its %10 percent in the lab but %7 on the road its still probably a win. Again we need to compare with equipment in common use before standards were enacted.
Is there a more predictive test design that could be implemented?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The meaningful questions are does improvement on the lap test predict improvement under real word conditions?
It does not have to mirror real work conditions to be useful.
/quote> I'm not sure why that is meaningful. A test method and limit should be set with knowledge of the relationship to real world conditions, and reasonable certainty you are keeping actual emissions levels within an expected range.
and then there's this (Score:3)
...before too much longer, a decade or two most likely, the vast majority of the vehicles on the road will be electric anyway. Technology has a way of rendering these issues moot rather thoroughly. This is one we can see coming well in advance.
The driving-to-pollution coupling will be at the power plants, not at the vehicle. It'll be much easier to control as a direct result. And of course, far more efficient in the first place.
Re:Hardly surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
This ambiguity was also present in the U.S. tests. After the truck diesel scandal around 1998-2000, the EPA firmly established that the test limits are not supposed to be exceeded during normal operation, and the test was merely sampling certain operating conditions to make sure the vehicles were in compliance. The EPA test however is more representative of typical driving.
Re: (Score:3)
So they created an unrealistic test with unrealistic expectations. It is like they designed the test to promote cheating, and oh surprise, manufacturers cheat.
Is is that hard to devise a test that includes actual driving?
Re: (Score:2)
So they created an unrealistic test with unrealistic expectations. It is like they designed the test to promote cheating, and oh surprise, manufacturers cheat.
Is is that hard to devise a test that includes actual driving?
They devised a test that was standardized and repeatable and relatively easy to perform. They assigned limits that they thought were reasonable and had a certain margin of error from real world driving. As to motivations, I'm not going to assign any.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the manufacturers decided they were not going to invest in newer technologies because they would rather spend their money lobbying to get the limits changed.
If 1 automaker can meet regulations, all of them can. The ones that failed just didn't try hard enough.
Re:Hardly surprising (Score:5, Informative)
The cars only have to pass a laboratory test. If that test bears no resemblance to the real world (which the EU one doesn't) then thats the fault of the people who devised it.
That would be the auto industry itself.
The problem they have in Europe is due to historic dicounts/tax concessions on diesel, they became popular with tight-fisted motorists. Even though most of these concessions have been removed, the mindset of "diesel == cheap" remains.
There is a backlash in Europe against diesels because they've been directly linked to worsening air quality in major cities.
The main problem with emissions is if you want good fuel economy and hence lower CO2 per km then you need a high burn temp. The trouble with that is a high burn temp gives high NOx. Take your pick.
The only serious solution to NOx is a urea system such as adblue as used in trucks but that's more equipment, more complexity and more expense.
You cant make diesel cleaner. It's impossible. Everyone I know who worked with diesel engines from the fitter and mechanic level to the design and engineering level predicted this kind of revelation happening years ago. Being engineers, you can imagine the level of smug they generated after Dieselgate.
To make diesel as clean as petrol, you have to refine it into petrol in the first place.
Small diesel passenger cars are really an abbreviation, which is why they aren't common in the US or Australia where we never subsidised diesel fuels for passenger cars. Diesel engines are heavier and more complex than petrols, they require turbochargers regardless (if you want to know what a truly gutless car feels like, drive a naturally aspirated diesel). The returns are less than non-turbo petrol engines of the same size, if you turbo a petrol engine, you could easily knock 25% of the capacity off and still have a faster car with the same fuel efficiency and is kinder to the baby foxes.
The only time a diesel engine is better than a petrol is when you need pulling power. This is why almost all big rigs and tractors are turbo diesels. Even decent 4x4's like a Hilux or Triton tend to use diesels, not for fuel efficiency but to pull 3 tons of bricks about using a 2.4L 4 banger.
Re: (Score:3)
>You cant make diesel cleaner. It's impossible.
Not impossible - just very expensive and it would hit fuel economy. Which then defeats the point of using diesel in a car.
"This is why almost all big rigs and tractors are turbo diesels. Even decent 4x4's like a Hilux or Triton tend to use diesels, not for fuel efficiency but to pull 3 tons of bricks about using a 2.4L 4 banger."
That used to be the case - but modern turbo petrols can produce high torque at low rpm now. Not sure how that would scale to a truc
Re:Hardly surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
The NOX issue (the one in the article) has nothing to do with the fuel and everything to do with the temperature of combustion. Diesel engines are efficient because of the combustion temperature and that causes NOx to form. If Gasoline engines were raised to similar efficiencies they would start to develop similar NOx issues.
Diesel engines aren't more complex than petrol engines (especially with the advent of modern common rail injector systems). They don't have a throttle or ignition system of any sort. They have to be built heavier because of higher compression ratios.
Diesel is used in tractors and big rigs because of efficiency. The gallons per mile per ton are lower with diesel.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has much, much tighter standards for particulate matter and NOx than the EU. Like they only allow about 25% of the levels that the EU allows. Basically, you should shut your pie hole or start complaining that Diesel engines in the EU pollute 4 times as much as they do in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where in the world are you getting that diesel engines are more complex? All you need for the ignition cycle is fuel and compressed air. Bam that is it. A turbo in a diesel engine Diesel engines only became complicated because of BS emissions requirements levied by do nothing eurocrats.
Diesel cars/trucks are light years better than gasoline on the sheer basis the engines last longer. NOx means nothing when you're gas car dies at 125k and you need to buy a new one. The level of emissions that go into makin
Re: (Score:2)
>Where in the world are you getting that diesel engines are more complex?
They are now thanks to high pressure common rail injectors and emissions control equipment.
>The level of emissions that go into making a car outweigh the small amount of NOx outputted anyday.
Thats so true. If only the greens and politicians would realise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called "knowledge" and informing oneself. I can help you a little, because I have been driving diesels (and keeping them maintained) for 33 years, and I know how they work, and I know how the technology has changed during this time.
As the technology has advanced since around 1990 or so, the complexity has exploded. 95% of it is emissions-related, and the other 5% is efficiency-related. Injection pressures have climbed from under 10
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what - cars that run on gasoline / petrol are moving to high-pressure fuel systems and direct injection now too. Because it's better.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely right - with qualifications. Designers have found that they need to have combination GDI (gasoline direct injection) plus "conventional" port injection, because straight GDI was found to be impractical for engine life and pollution issues.
GDI yields very similar particulate problems to diesel. If/when people catch on to the truth that you can't see the dangero
Re:Hardly surprising (Score:4, Informative)
Small diesel passenger cars are really an abbreviation, which is why they aren't common in the US or Australia where we never subsidised diesel fuels for passenger cars. Diesel engines are heavier and more complex than petrols, they require turbochargers regardless (if you want to know what a truly gutless car feels like, drive a naturally aspirated diesel). The returns are less than non-turbo petrol engines of the same size, if you turbo a petrol engine, you could easily knock 25% of the capacity off and still have a faster car with the same fuel efficiency and is kinder to the baby foxes.
I'm not clear that's the case. Find me a good turbo petrol match for a BMW 320d, and on the whole I think you'll be slower or less efficient, even with turbos and direct injection.
BMW 320d 72.4mpg 163bhp/400Nm 7.8s 0-62mph
BMW 320i 51.4mpg 184bhp/270Nm 7.3s 0-62mph
The gap's definitely closed between the two since diesel tech has come over to petrol.
Re:Hardly surprising (Score:5, Informative)
You cant make diesel cleaner. It's impossible. Everyone I know who worked with diesel engines from the fitter and mechanic level to the design and engineering level predicted this kind of revelation happening years ago. Being engineers, you can imagine the level of smug they generated after Dieselgate.
As a diesel emissions engineer I resent that statement. The trouble with diesel is exactly as the GP mentioned. Hotter burn is more fuel efficient, but makes more NOx. SCR is the option that can provide good fuel economy and lower emissions. However, SCR is expensive and has it's own consumable.
Diesel engines are heavier and more complex than petrols, they require turbochargers regardless (if you want to know what a truly gutless car feels like, drive a naturally aspirated diesel). The returns are less than non-turbo petrol engines of the same size, if you turbo a petrol engine, you could easily knock 25% of the capacity off and still have a faster car with the same fuel efficiency and is kinder to the baby foxes.
Diesels are not very volumetrically efficient. True.
The only time a diesel engine is better than a petrol is when you need pulling power. This is why almost all big rigs and tractors are turbo diesels. Even decent 4x4's like a Hilux or Triton tend to use diesels, not for fuel efficiency but to pull 3 tons of bricks about using a 2.4L 4 banger.
Not true. Diesels are fuel efficient because they run at higher compression ratios and don't use intake throttling to control power output. Gasoline engines can be built [wikipedia.org] that rival diesels in torque. However, most consumers of such products demand the fuel efficiency of diesel.
There's a lot of FUD being spread around about diesel. Yes, it has issues. But those of us in the industry had been wondering how VW was making that system work without SCR. Now we know.
If the system is to improve, emissions regulatory agencies need to audit more engines themselves rather than trust the self reported results. They also need to implement Not to Exceed [dieselnet.com] limits on all engines.
No, it was all the government. (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure how it is in the EU. But here in the US it was NOT the auto industry. The testing regime was completely defined by a government agency.
At the time I was working on engineering emissions testing programs as a consultant, one of the auto company engineers claimed it had been designed like this:
- The EPA put recording instruments on a car (notably the bike-wheel odometer/tachometer).
- Then they parked behind cars in a "typical" city (Denver Colorado, if I recall correctly) and waited for the owner to come out and drive somewhere.
- The timed how long (if at all) the target warmed the engine before pulling out.
- Then they followed the target to its destination, doing their best to drive their instrumented car the same way as the target.
- From among the recorded trips they picked one that looked representative and contained about an average mix of city and highway driving. That became the test cycle the manufacturers must use.
Emissions test measurements (the fancy ones the engineers have to run at the companies, not the surveillance ones applied to car owners) measure enough about engine exhaust gasses and vehicle forces and motions that the mileage can be computed from the carbon balance, without extra gadgetry. So the government mandated it be computed and printed on the price stickers. It thus became glaringly obvious that (of course):
- (Of course) The chosen test cycle was not what all people drove all the time.
- (Not of course) The chosen test cycle happened to be somewhat more fuel efficient that the typical driver's average use of his vehicle.
Thus was born "Your Mileage May Vary (and will probably be lower)"
Re:Hardly surprising (Score:4, Informative)
The problem they have in Europe is due to historic dicounts/tax concessions on diesel, they became popular with tight-fisted motorists. Even though most of these concessions have been removed, the mindset of "diesel == cheap" remains.
No they haven't been removed. At least not in France.
The TICPE, which is the main tax is 0.64€/L on gasoline and 0.50€/L on diesel. There is also a 20% VAT on the final price, which include said tax. As a result, gasoline is typically 20% more expensive per liter than diesel only because of taxes. When we consider that diesel cars are typically more fuel efficient, "diesel==cheap" is not a myth, at least for those who travel long distances.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem they have in Europe is due to historic dicounts/tax concessions on diesel, they became popular with tight-fisted motorists. Even though most of these concessions have been removed, the mindset of "diesel == cheap" remains.
There is no such tax advantage in the UK, in fact typically diesel is more expensive (slightly) than petrol, and has been for many years. It is however still a win for the "tight fisted" driver due to diesel's typical higher fuel economy.
The real "problem" in Europe is that they legislated for much stricter standards on fleet average fuel economy and CO2 emissions (see e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] ). The only way to meet those standards has been small diesels, it is only in the last couple of ye
That's what catalytic converters are about. (Score:3)
The main problem with emissions is if you want good fuel economy and hence lower CO2 per km then you need a high burn temp. The trouble with that is a high burn temp gives high NOx. Take your pick.
But that's the NOx coming out of the exhaust port. What matters is the NOx coming out of the exhaust PIPE. That's what catalytic converters are about.
A triple-acting catalytic converter pulls the oxygen off NOx, leaving N2, and uses it to burn CO into CO2 and UHC into CO2 and H2O.
Keep the air/fuel ratio carefull
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about diesel. Call us back when they have a throttle.
Diesels have catalytic converters, too, and other ways to adjust the mixture as viewed by the cat - notably exhaust gas recirculation.
Re: (Score:2)
After reading this article - I wondered how petrol / gasoline vehicles measure up when tested in the real world.
Obviously the laboratory test is broken and requires some updates to better simulate the real world. This is a common problem that I deal with everyday (in a different industry) - it can be very complicated to build a test env. The question always is "what is the real world?" - and making sure test results are meaningful plus data that can be trended.
Re: (Score:2)
The cars only have to pass a laboratory test. If that test bears no resemblance to the real world (which the EU one doesn't) then thats the fault of the people who devised it.
No, no, the people who actually devised the test are not at fault; the people who legislated what the testers are to test are at fault.
In Other News (Score:2)
Programmers write code that's bug free in test conditions, not in real world applications.
Every field tends to work to succeed at what they're explicitly judged for, ignoring what they're not.
Europeans (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, this European here does not own a car, because there is well-working, reliable and safe public transportation here. Silly Americans probably do not even know what that means or think public transportation is only for the poor.
Public transportation limits when and where you can go and takes significantly longer to get there. It also has the benefit of exposing you to an absurd amount of germs. If you haven't been to the United States, it's gigantic so that puts limits on what type of public transportation system you can have without a cripplingly large annual investment.
The solution isn't slinging jingoistic insults, it's renewable energy sources and EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution isn't slinging jingoistic insults, it's renewable energy sources and EVs.
Even in the US there are many places that need better public transit options. Commuting to work alone in a vehicle is a waste of resources, no matter what energy source is powering it. I would certainly love to take a train or (rapid) bus instead if one were available.
Re: (Score:3)
Commuting to work alone in a vehicle is a waste of resources, no matter what energy source is powering it.
you speak as if a person's time is unlimited. a car that recharges using sunlight (an otherwise wasted resource) also conserves your time. life isn't perfectly scheduled and that's how mass transit operates which means you end up wasting time just waiting for your transport to arrive.
Re: (Score:2)
You speak as though public transport has to be so infrequent that you have to plan which bus / train to catch. Where I live (London), a bus comes along every minute or so; a tube every three minutes or so. There's no need to plan or wait.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It also has the benefit of exposing you to an absurd amount of germs. ...thus keeping your immune system in good shape.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really weird post.
Why on earth would you think that it is a universal that pubic transport "takes significantly longer to get [where you want to go]"? Surely you have some imagination. Have you never been to a congested city? Many, many journeys in London, for example, are quicker on the tube than by car. You wouldn't go from Finchley Road to Pinner by car quicker than by tube. You wouldn't get in from Highgate to central London by car quicker than by tube. You can't get to Manchester faster in a
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian has a story currently on a Los Angeles 'conspiracy' [theguardian.com]. But then I'm from Melbourne and we're very patriotic about our trams. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I am an American who prefers public transportatinn because it lets me read a book instead of sitting uselessly in traffic. Unfortunately, i have to drive to the nearest public transportation :-(
Re: (Score:2)
I could, theoretically, walk from one side of my property to the opposing side in a single day. I have a lot of land, it's inexpensive in Maine. On the other hand, I have a bunch of land in other places. We'd need a whole lot more rail if I'm to use any of that property. I wonder how much it would cost me for a bus ticket across the property in Maine?
I don't believe I could actually walk *back* in a single day, I've hunted it quite a bit and it's often a couple of nights - and that's with a truck or 4 wheel
Why are companies allowed to basically self valida (Score:2)
Re:Why are companies allowed to basically self val (Score:5, Interesting)
Expecting "independent" labs to actually be independent is not much better. Remember that it was a Swiss academic lab that found the original problem, because no German lab could be found that was willing to make these measurements on a German car. They all had a lot of business to lose and probably had reason to expect that the measurements would show massive problems. As soon as enough money is involved, the whole complex becomes corrupt. And, just as with the financial crisis of 2008, I predict that nobody will go behind bars for this, or at best some lowly scapegoats.
Might be nice to see. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
1. What formally defines "Clean Diesel". "Euro 6" is spectacularly uninformative.
2. How badly the standard was blown: a few percentage point, or orders of magnitude ?
3. Some historical data. For instance, what did emissions look like before ANY emission controls were put in place.
Furthermore, the Guardian article offers zero actual numbers. As an engineer, I'm always skeptical of any claim when no specific numbers are mentioned. Gee, real-world conditions aren't well-replicated in testing environments
Thinking politically, not logically (Score:2)
Diesel cars must meet an official EU limit for NOx but are only tested in a laboratory under fixed conditions. All vehicles sold pass this regulation but, when taken out on to real roads, almost all emit far more pollution...Mayoral candidates in London...call for tighter controls on polluting traffic -- including a ban on diesel cars."
Here's another idea: how about we do not limit emission tests to only laboratory settings? That would send the message to all manufacturers that they can no longer cheat, b
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, insurance companies seem to feel differently about whether "testing" human driving behavior *while driving* is interesting or useful. Once built, the car engine/computer should be much more deterministic over the range of driving behaviors/variables that you want to map exhaust to, versus those silly, unpredictable humans.
Is simple: test while driving, and just sample enough cars in enough areas. Testing thingy clamps onto exhaust, stores data, and measures whatever you want to measure, along with ot
This is no surprise at all (Score:2)
It was clear from the very beginning that all must be doing this, and that all knew about the others doing this. Otherwise they would not have dared to run such a scam and those that could not make clean diesel engines would either have licensed the technology from the competition or exited that market. But instead of exposing the first ones that did it, like a true anti-market cabal they all decided to keep silent and defraud the customer and cause significant harm to the population in general.
Wat would ne
Electrics (Score:3, Insightful)
And all the emissions will be shifted to countryside where power plants can pollute to their heart desire because population density (and associated health problems) over there are close to nil.
Re:Electrics (Score:5, Informative)
Emissions controls on a big stationary power plant is much easier and much more efficient than emissions controls on cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice talking point, but it doesn't always happen in practice. E.g. sulfur emissions from power plants are by order of magnitudes higher than in transport. Chinese coal plants may have scrubbers but they are all turned off for economy once Western media leaves the plant after one day show.
Re: (Score:2)
In my state 30% of the power comes from renewable sources. There is virtually no coal and the rest comes from nuclear and natural gas. Every year our power gets cleaner as more renewable sources come online. Across the United States the use of coal is declining due to costs and pollution.
The carbon footprint of a typical electric car is far lower than that of a comparable internal combustion engine car. [forbes.com].
London Taxis? (Score:2)
It's been a while since I was last in a London Black Cab, but I'm pretty sure it was a diesel. Are they suggesting getting rid of them all? Good luck with that.
WHy we do it this way (Score:5, Insightful)
If we avoid lab conditions, you bring in random factors. So some heavy polluting car could just get lucky and have no sharp stops and quick speed ups, which is where it happens to heavily pollute, so it passes.
We need lab conditions to ensure a fair comparison between different cars.
It is assumed that all cars vary from real life to lab conditions in roughly the same manner. That is, that a car that does best in the lab conditions will also do best in real world conditions, even if the real use pollutes far more heavily.
In addition, we assume that the lab is similar enough to real world so that we know how much we are polluting.
If either of those assumptions are false, it indicates a bad lab condition set up which needs to be fixed. But that is not the fault of the car companies, but instead the fault of the politicians and scientists that designed the lab. (Yes, it is often designed by politics, not scientists.)
Re: (Score:3)
In addition, we assume that the lab is similar enough to real world so that we know how much we are polluting.
If either of those assumptions are false, it indicates a bad lab condition set up which needs to be fixed. But that is not the fault of the car companies, but instead the fault of the politicians and scientists that designed the lab.
Whenever you test for something that's a proxy for the truth you want, rather than as good a measure as you can get for the actual truth, then you're introducing a disconnect. It's like how teachers are incentivized to "teach to the test" rather than teach their subjects.
Once you've done this, it's inevitable that folks will discover the cracks and exploit them. You're specifically rewarding this behavior.
Re:Why we do it this way (Score:2)
You have mistaken limitation as a reward.
Walls are not perfect. People can climb over them. That does not negate their value.
Similarly, tests are not perfect, people can target the tests rather than the subject. That does not mean they are worthless. A well designed test makes this very hard to do, becoming not worth the effort.
The mere existence of badly designed tests does not mean that all tests are badly designed.
I'm shocked, truly shocked (Score:3, Interesting)
Gambling at Ricks? I had no idea.
So what was an open secret to every diesel mechanic in the U.S. and Europe, that the diesels didn't ever pass the emissions tests in the real world, didn't get noticed by anyone in a position of power in Europe or anyone in the the U.S. Department of Transportation, any state DOT, anyone in the general press or anyone in the specialized automotive press. Do we really believe that? Or are we witnessing a breakdown in both government and press accountability?
Part of the problem is bad regs (under certain heavy load conditions diesels really can never meet the requirements). But that is no excuse for allowing VW and the others to get a total "pass" on all pollution control regs in Europe. This is a totally open secret, just like the computer tweaking all manufacturers use so they can claim the magic "40 MPG!". The shift point programmed in make the car burp and barely accelerate so AFTER the certification runs the manufactures issue "software updates" that drop the mileage a bit but make the cars run properly. Now this is an open secret. It is probably illegal (fair trade laws, EPA regs, etc).
I'd like to propose an experiment. There is clearly an important story here. I'll bet that many of the readers here are members of the press or government employees; they are honorable people who know a lot. They tried to report this stuff and were rebuffed. They are rightfully afraid to send the info to Slashdot. In modern America you will be punished or fired for publishing documents that show what is going on so, regretfully, you must learn to think and act like a Soviet or Chinese dissident. This is the only way to publish the often embarrassing truth and still stay under the radar.. ,
The key is a Gmail/hotmail account that is not traceable One way is get a throw-away computer and use wifi at coffee shops. NEVER use the computer for any other purpose except browsing and spreading the word and NEVER leave the battery in while not using the computer. All email is traceable. A second way is use the throwaway computer and a "borrowed" untraceable email address- and that means if you have ever cell-phoned or emailed the person with the account you are traceable. I'd suggest that you use your brother-in-law's or grandma's name to open a gmail account using their computer (with their permission) and report what you know to Slashdot.
And remember on the "how to get the documents" side, if you open, download or copy documents using your work credentials they will trace the leak back.
So folks, if you are an insider, give it some thought. Find a way to get a copy of the documents that matter. Photograph them with a throwaway camera (pay cash at Walmart). Load them on a "safe" computer at the coffeeshop and drop them as a comment here under 'anon coward"- you need to stay "anon" but it is about time you stopped acting like cowards.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't take this the wrong way, but...
Were you born yesterday?
The headline should actually read... (Score:2)
"All new diesel cars meet or exceed the official pollution limits". What they fail to meet is unofficial pollution limits.
California should ban all gas/diesel passenger car (Score:2)
ban diesel cars (Score:2)
Banning diesel cars is a farcical thing to do in a two year timescale. 5-10 years at best.
If my local city council ban diesel cars then I'll have to buy a different car to commute to work. I'll make sure it's a 20 year old petrol burner with horrific fuel economy and no catalytic converter. Maybe make one cylinder misfire too.
It's the cheapest way for me to acquire a second car. Far less wasteful and polluting to let me use the one I've already bought, but that wouldn't meet the demands of the fucking nazi
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like they got themselves a PR firm to try and change that.
Re:Finally they are telling the truth (Score:5, Funny)
Before this fact was just used for public shaming of one german manufacturer... Believe me, they did this purposefully to force Germany to agree to secret ISDS courts (aka "this wouldnt happen with ISDS courts, look how badly VW is doing").
Paranoid conspiracy in four posts!
Not quite a record, but an achievement nonetheless. You should get some mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ideas intrigue me and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.
But I'm curious how interstate regulation didn't apply to interstate rail traffic.
Thanks, and I'll listen to my answer off the air.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prior to the Act, any transport on rail that was entirely within a single State was free of regulation by Congress; it was not INTERstate, it was INTRAstate. With the creation of the Interstate system, all commerce was thus classified as Interstate, even if entirely within one State, on the claim that because it was using a Federally funded Interstate system, it must affect other Interstate traffic (even if by simple schedule management) and thus is actually an Interstate act and therefore subject to regul
Re: (Score:2)
Given all the special treatment and regulation of the railroads by the Federal government, it wouldn't surprise me if Congressional regulation via the Interstate Commerce Clause wasn't just an eventuality anyway, regardless of the Interstate Highway system.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this a rhetorical question?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This story is about pollutants observed in Europe, and the regulations and testing in Europe. And diesel passenger vehicles commonly found in Europe.
Another fail, Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as someone who really wants stinky deisel engines off the road, the only way this is going to be fair is if the manufacturers buy the cars back at their current market value + inconvenience money... that's separately from any fines they have for fucking the world and increasing everyone's chances of lung cancer significantly.
That's a nice idea, but the car companies don't have that much money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a stupid bloody comment -- in each case you cite, are you suggesting that absent a government regulator, companies would have behaved *better*? You yourself used phrases like "banks were able to get away with things" suggesting you understand that people will often behave venally and what is required is a decent regulator.
Re: (Score:2)
No - exactly the opposite. I'm suggesting that effective government oversight IS needed. Many people, when left to their own devices, will cheat. Its human nature. The problem is that the oversight is NOT effective. The problem is that these government bunglers are NOT doing their jobs. And don't tell me that they are underfunded and if only we had more money.....etc, etc, etc.
I'm not suggesting either that the bankers and car makers and oil people are without blame here. Obviously they are largely to blame
Re: (Score:2)
You said, and I quote: "Government - with few exceptions - is the problem not the solution"
You now say: "effective government oversight IS needed".
Presumably you mean something like: "effective government oversight is needed, but in practice we not only don't have it, we never get it, and spending more doesn't seem to improve things".
Your handle implies you are an erp consultant. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of McKinsey's book, and put together a decent problem statement and an issue tree for how this
Re: (Score:2)
Particulates: caused by poor burning of the diesel. Large particulates are soot. Particulates are smaller with modern engine design, and allegedly removed by a filter if fitted (they don't necessarily work well, and people often removed them). Older engines did not have filters. Unfortunately, smaller particulates are invisible, but much more dangerous.
NOx: Caused by running the engine hot - which improves fuel efficiency, and reduces CO2 emis