Diesel Cars Produce More Toxic Emissions Than Trucks and Buses, EU Study Says (theverge.com) 154
Modern diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, according to European researchers. That's because heavy duty vehicles in the EU have much stricter regulations than cars, and so even if they meet lab tests, cars end up producing much more nitrogen oxides (NOx) when driven on actual roads. From a report: The new report, released by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), shows that trucks and buses tested in Germany and Finland emitted about 210mg NOx per kilometer driven, less than half the 500mg/km produced by diesel cars that meet the highest "Euro 6" emission standards.
Re:But... But... (Score:5, Informative)
Second sentence of summary:
I Know commenting on the headline is fashionable, but not even getting to the second sentence is a bit extreme even for /.
Re: (Score:2)
We're all proud of you.
Now, next question. How come small, light cars somehow manage to have worse emissions than buses or trucks? Surely there is no grand conspiracy whereby vehicle manufacturers sit in a smoky room complete with a floating hologram of the planet held under an outstretched hand, and think to themselves "hahaha, those fuckers, we can quite easily sell them clean technology that we already developed for buses and trucks, but what we are really after is ruining the planet (and our own future
Re: (Score:1)
it's not the engines, it's the emission systems attached to the engines, so you are completely off base with your comment. trucks and buses have better emission systems to meet the stricter demand, they save $ on the cars systems by engineering them to the lower standard using the cheapest systems possible. they likely could meet the stricter standards set for trucks and buses but it will likely make the cars heavier and more expensive.
Re:But... But... (Score:4, Informative)
Part of the reason is that diesel trucks are required to have a DEF[*] tank and a corresponding catalyst in the exhaust. This greatly reduces the NOx output.
For cars with a similar system (commonly "BlueTec"), it tends to be underpowered, with far too little DEF being used. Consumers can't be relied on to refill it regularly, and would B&M if they had to buy and top up DEF every time they filled the tank.
For trucks, there are fuel logs and inspections, and you can't just ignore filling DEF without getting fined.
[*]: "Diesel Exhaust Fluid", a mix of urea and deionized water.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a truck.
Cars are different - people can drive 20-50,000 miles on a single small tank of DEF, because most diesel cars hardly use anything at all - just enough that the manufacturers can get away with it.
With the pitiful DEF tank size in many cars, if it used as much DEF as trucks do to really bring the NOx emissions down, they'd have to refill it every second or third time they filled fuel. In reality, most diesel car drivers never fill it - it gets topped off when they take the car in for service
Re: (Score:2)
I think i agree with the sentiment.
I don't think EU Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 even states that DEF status has to be checked to get renewal.
I am not even sure there is any warning signs in cars with DEF.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sure that the cars check the DEF status, when they have such a system at all. But they also tend to use such a microscopic token amount of DEF that they won't run out. And the EU directive seems more concerned with particulates than NOx, which is primarily what a liberal amount of DEF reduces to near-zero.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:But... But... (Score:4, Informative)
There's too much news these days to read more than first sentences (unless it's very interesting), and this is worse when you see the same news over and over across your sources of choice.
Translation : "I'm too fucking lazy to become educated, but I'm perfectly willing to spout off about shit I am cluelss on."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they aren't cars. Both use diesel engines, but the trucks and buses produce about half the toxic output as the cars do, due to regulations on them. That is the point, that a giant truck produces less toxic pollution than a little Volkswagen car.
Re: But... But... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Details (Score:2)
I'm ruining your recursive joke but :
- Nope, there are also lots of city bus which are electric [wikipedia.org]. These are quite popular in densely populated European city centers. (And as electricity production in Europe relies a lot less on burning fossils, these are definitely emitting a lot less).
- Also, as explained even in the summary : big vehicles like buses have much more stringent limitations in most European jurisdictions.
So if you take a diesel-powered car, that perfectly following regulation,
and a diesel-powe
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I didn't read the article, but I did get first post :D (read my answer to someone else here where I explain myself). Obviously one can conclude that car companies in Europe are making a lot of money from marketeering their vehicles with a lot of power while following VERY FLAWED regulations (and they get to say "we're clean as sh*t"), but I'm guessing this is easily solvable through awareness like this study (and VW-like scandals) and the consequent harder restrictions.
OTOH I disagree with that electr
Electric public transportation (Score:4, Informative)
I happen to live in a populated city that brags about having a ton of electric/hydrogen fueled vehicles (Porto, Portugal),
CH here.
Long range public transportation:
We have an extensive train network (all electric, thus mostly hydro-electric and nuke powered, with a little bit of solar and wind sprinkled in) (Thank the *Alps* for nearly perfectly clean hydroelectric - unlike tropical hydroelectric which tends to be giant glorified swamps)
It covers most of the territory except for remote less populated area (and as they are less populated, the long-range public transportation using busses hardly makes a dent in the total energy tally)
Short range:
Most big cities have a dense network of tramway and trolley buses (aerial electric power delivery makes much more sense in a densely packed area) also sometime metro/subs for some cities.
They are also joined by (diesel) bus. But the electric propotion of short-range transportation is quite significant and hardly just for the show.
Private companies in public transportation / ride sharing:
Most taxi fleets in big cities tend to rely on hybrid vehicle (lower gaz consumption makes operations cheaper)
the rise of Uber (mostly privately owned car with classical ICE drives) is actually a step backward environmentally. (But as taking transportation instead of driving a car around is better anyway, the end tally might not be bad).
Private companies car sharing:
The main car sharing operator in Switzerland (mobility) operates a mixed fleet featuring ICE (mostly), hybrid (fewer) and electric vehicle (only a few, usually available at sharing stations where high electrical power is available : eg.: parking near trainstation usually feature 1 or 2 Renault Zoé. But other places feature them too. Random example : EPFL institute).
From that point of view we are less ecologically advanced than france, where the dominating car sharing companies tend to have all-electric fleets (e.g.: Autolib in Paris).
Though there are smaller CH player with electric fleets (e.g.: ElectrEasy)
So globally, in Switzerland, the role played by electricity in public transportation (specially by public company like national trains and city public transportation) is really significant.
Also, regarding merchandise :
Switzerland is peculiar in that transport of merchandise *across* the country is *forbidden in trucks*.
Trucks can be used to deliver merchandise to/from and within cities.
But if you want to transport merchandise long distance or across the country, it's mandatory to load it on trains.
When driving on the highway, you're going to see way much less trucks compared to other European countries (e.g.: Italy, France, Spain...)
Last but not least a few interesting corner case :
I few touristic cities (mostly in the mountains like Zermatt and Saas Fee) have completely banned ICE engines within the city (with a few exceptions like firefighters, ambulances)
Thus nearly the whole fleet is small electric glof-cart-like cars and taxis.
Fun to see (even if completely insignificant statistically to the rest of the country).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious:
Unload truck onto train, ship, unload train onto truck, deliver?
or
Drive truck onto flatbed railcar, ship, drive truck off railcar, deliver?
For trucks that are separate tractor trailer, just the trailer on the flatbed.
-nB
Truck (Score:2)
I'm curious:
Unload truck onto train, ship, unload train onto truck, deliver?
or
Drive truck onto flatbed railcar, ship, drive truck off railcar, deliver?
For trucks that are separate tractor trailer, just the trailer on the flatbed.
The law doesn't specify anything. :
But it seems to me that for logistic reasons, the 3rd option you mention is the most popular
the trailer is a standardized contrainer that can be moved from the truck to the train without needing to lose time for unloading/reloading the merchandise.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolley buses are - unfortunately - only widespread in the former soviet union and its client states (for some reason soviet government seriously loved trolley buses, they have even built a trolley bus line in Afghanistan, back then they were there). Everywhere else they are far less common, except maybe in very hilly cities. Here in Germany so far I've only seen them in Solingen, but it was a decade ago, they might have replaced them with diesel buses by now. I also remember these yellow Ikarus trolleys in
CH (Score:2)
Trolley buses are - unfortunately - only widespread in the former soviet union and its client states
CH, here. The country has mostly been neutral during cold war and is far from being a client state.
But bigger cities here love trolley and trams too.
Electricity is easily available (thanks to alpine dams)
And city centers are rather densely populated - and thus the network of bus stops is also dense (you don't need hundreds of km of wire just to link 2 bus stops)
(for some reason soviet government seriously loved trolley buses, they have even built a trolley bus line in Afghanistan, back then they were there)
I would say that electric motors are simpler, smaller, easier to install into a vehicle. And are easy to ship around.
Whereas ICE are more a custom j
Re: (Score:1)
Most trucks and buses are diesel aren't they?
In Seattle and nearby areas like SF, a lot of them are electric or hybrid electric, actually. Even fuel cells. It depends on which trucks and buses you refer to. A large number of the Seattle buses are fully electric, I can see about 20 out of my window on the streets right now.
Adapt.
We're changing the world today. You'll be left behind.
Obvious solution (Score:1)
Instead of driving them on actual roads, drive them on theoretical roads, like the rest of us.
Euro 6 (Score:1)
Euro 6 requires 80 mg/km NOx for diesel cars. 500 mg/km CO though, a typo/misreading that lead to an incorrect conclusion?
Re:Euro 6 (Score:4, Informative)
You remember dieselgate right, where VW cars were cheating the lab based regulatory tests, by going into a state where the NOx emission are within standards, but when driven on real roads the cars exceeded the standards by 20 fold and higher. The point of the article is because the car standards are lab based, they bear a very poor relationship to the actual NOx emissions in real world conditions. The real world testing of heavy vehicles has ensured that they are actually lower in output than many dieshttps://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/01/06/142229/diesel-cars-produce-more-toxic-emissions-than-trucks-and-buses-eu-study-says#el cars under similar conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
You remember dieselgate right, where VW cars were cheating the lab based regulatory tests, by going into a state where the NOx emission are within standards, but when driven on real roads the cars exceeded the standards by 20 fold and higher.
but then I'm looking at the PDF of the brief and all the VWs in their study produced next to no NOx...
Re: (Score:2)
You remember dieselgate right, where VW cars were cheating the lab based regulatory tests, by going into a state where the NOx emission are within standards, but when driven on real roads the cars exceeded the standards by 20 fold and higher. The point of the article is because the car standards are lab based, they bear a very poor relationship to the actual NOx emissions in real world conditions. The real world testing of heavy vehicles has ensured that they are actually lower in output than many dies
This, and VW couldn't even pass the lab tests without cheating. If you've seen the difference between a 9L Cummins and a 1.9L Fiat JTD you'd see a lot of things on the Cummins designed to restrict, recirc and reduce emissions.
The problem Europe has is that it has traditionally given concessions to diesel drivers. They still do now as diesels have lower tax rates in the UK and pay a reduced congestion charge. Places like the US and Australia never gave concessions to diesel passenger cars so they're very
Re:Euro 6 (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the diesel passenger vehicles are exempt below 5 C, so especially in the winter there is almost no NOx emissions control on any of these vehicles. If you are a heavy duty vehicle, there is no exemption. You have to put an electric heater on your exhaust system to keep it at operating temperature. Also, as there are very few labs that can accommodate large truck testing the testing, the certification test for heavy duty trucks is on the road with a portable emissions measurement system.
The whole issue is that a bug truck hauling 70-80,000 pounds doesn't care if it needs a 100 pound heater or a 200 pound urea tank to bring emissions down. Space and weight are not an issue. Much more difficult to do on a 3,000 pound passenger car.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Renault-Nissan and Opel (GM Europe) switch off SCR completely below 17 degrees and above 33 degrees in some models, to 'protect the engine'. The emissions test for the type approval process has to be performed between 20 and 30 degrees, which is of course just a coincidence. Fiat-Chrysler simply turn off NOx emissions controls after 22 minutes. The test lasts 20 minutes.
Pretty much every car has, as you say, a low-temperature cutoff, some more reasonable than others. Most cars also perform differently after
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the diesel passenger vehicles are exempt below 5 C, so especially in the winter there is almost no NOx emissions control on any of these vehicles. If you are a heavy duty vehicle, there is no exemption. You have to put an electric heater on your exhaust system to keep it at operating temperature. Also, as there are very few labs that can accommodate large truck testing the testing, the certification test for heavy duty trucks is on the road with a portable emissions measurement system.
Whoa! You are very confused. I'm a diesel emissions engineer. Electric heaters are not used to heat the exhaust by any manufacturer that I'm aware of. That would require a ridiculous amount of electricity. Electric heaters are only used to keep the DEF lines from freezing.
Furthermore, the same low temperature exemptions that are made for passenger vehicles apply to heavy duty trucks. Details on the US EPA rules can be found here. [dieselnet.com] The difference in the US, is that heavy duty trucks are subject to in
Re: (Score:2)
Pick your brain for a bit then?
What is the chemistry for DEF?
Re: (Score:3)
Pick your brain for a bit then?
What is the chemistry for DEF?
Wikipedia can answer that. [wikipedia.org] You don't have to ask me.
Ban humans (Score:1)
Already tried that (Score:2)
European countries should just do themselves a favor and begin killing off excess humans.
They tried that in the 1910s and again in the 1940s. Didn't work either time. Just depressed the population growth for a while and generated a lot of rubble in the process.
Carbon neutrality (Score:2)
Humans don't just magically create carbon. They are carbon neutral.
Humans by ourselves are not carbon neutral even if you ignore our activities. However humans as a component of an ecosystem can be carbon neutral. In simple terms we breathe in oxygen and emit carbon dioxide. Plants do the reverse. Together the system is carbon neutral even though parts of it are not. Problem is that humans also do activities that are decidedly not carbon neutral and we do them to a degree the earth's ecosystem cannot easily absorb.
The problem arises when you take carbon out of the ground and release it into the atmosphere.
Correct. Which is something we do with almost every m
Nothing creates carbon (Score:2)
That's a whole lot of words to say a thing that was already said. Humans don't just create carbon. It already existed.
The only thing that creates carbon is stars when they go boom. Neither humans nor plants nor any other form of life creates carbon. The carbon that is on earth has been here for billions of years. The only question is how much of it is in the ground versus the atmosphere and humans absolutely can affect that balance.
(for you pedantic souls out there, yes I'm aware humans can technically create carbon from other atoms but doing so takes huge amounts of energy and isn't done on any meaningful scale)
Re:Ban humans (Score:4, Funny)
In my time there were hardcore Maoistes, Trotskistes and Stalinists, those I was scared of, now these guys going on a gluten free diet, meh.
Screaming quotas, lower emmission, more recycling can be annoying, but facism?
Now if you want to breathe NOX gases, take some lead compounds into your system, drink water with benzene, please do.
But please, do it quickly. You need to increase the dosage it is clearly not working well enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Nitrous Oxide emissions from diesel engines that under hot summer conditions can lower the pH of rainwater to slightly acidic conditions as opposed to internal combustion engines that exhaust carcinogenic petroleum fractions are are less of an environmental hazard to people and the environment.
The main reason that passenger car diesel engines create more NOX gasses than commercial trucks has little to do with catalytic exhaust treatment and more to do with how the engines ar
Re: Ban humans (Score:1)
oxford street most polluted in the world?! (Score:1)
you think that's bad.... http://www.standard.co.uk/news... [standard.co.uk]
Something smells (Score:1)
Something is fishy about this, I mean just my own very sensitive nose can barely tell a diesel car in front vs trucks/buses I must pass(or stop) or have breathing trouble... Didn't read the referenced post but if it's true at all it must be pound for pound? Cause diesel cars dont' even come close to being as offensive.
NOx odor (Score:5, Informative)
just my own very sensitive nose can barely tell a diesel car in front vs trucks/buses I must pass(or stop) or have breathing trouble... Didn't read the referenced post but if it's true at all it must be pound for pound? Cause diesel cars dont' even come close to being as offensive.
Nitric Oxide (NO) is colorless and odorless. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) has a reddish brown color and a pungent smell. So if the majority of the NOx emmissions are Nitric Oxide you couldn't smell it even if you wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
So if the majority of the NOx emmissions are Nitric Oxide you couldn't smell it even if you wanted to.
An engine without any emissions equipment will output >90% NO emissions. However, once exhaust catalysts [dieselnet.com] are installed, they shift the ratio closer to 50%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That truck produces very low NOx emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Smell comes from particulates primarily, not NOx. Related but separate issues.
Just go EV already (Score:2, Insightful)
All of this drawn-out study and deliberation and the protracted uncertainty and wasted manufacturing and expense for users makes very little sense, when it's abundantly clear that all road transport is set to become electric in a very short space of time.
Just go there now and save everyone a lot of time and effort, and improve air quality at the same time.
EV conversion will take decades (Score:2)
All of this drawn-out study and deliberation and the protracted uncertainty and wasted manufacturing and expense for users makes very little sense, when it's abundantly clear that all road transport is set to become electric in a very short space of time.
I'm as big a fan of electric cars as anyone here but even I'm not naive enough to believe that gasoline/diesel powered vehicles are going to go away any time soon. Even if electric cars eventually do take over the market it's going to take decades to happen. The average age of a car on the road today is 11.5 years. That number isn't going to drop dramatically any time soon. And right now EVs are more expensive than their equivalent gas/diesel powered cars in most cases. That's going to keep the dino-ju
Re: (Score:2)
Still going to take a long time (Score:2)
A few places in the UK have already started having tolls for vehicles that emit pollution at the point of use.
Which is fine but let's not pretend they are enough to force a mass transition to electric cars. The fees would have to be absurdly high to really force people to accelerate the switch to electric cars and unfortunately the options in EVs and hybrids are still rather lacking unless you want a really crappy eco-cred vehicle like a Prius or an impractical city car like a Leaf. Some like the Chevy Volt aren't bad but the options are rather thin if you don't want a sedan or hatchback.
It's not much of a stretch to imagine congestion fees for non-electric motor vehicles in urban areas.
Maybe in the UK it's not
Re: (Score:1)
Electric vehicles just aren't viable though. Half the population have nowhere to charge one at home, let alone when anywhere else.
What is viable is fucking over every diesel car owner in the country. The nearest city to me is already planning to ban diesel cars, which means I wont be able to drive to work without buying a second car or replacing my current perfectly functional one.
Save the environment, own two cars not one. Fucking environmentalist cunts.
Re: (Score:3)
This wouldn't have been a problem if you hadn't provided falsified documents to the authorities when getting your diesel car registered. Now obviously you didn't KNOW you did so, since you in turn got defrauded by the car manufacturer. That isn't my problem though, I just need you to stop poisoning me.
Since the legal system has proven to be completely incapable of dealing with dieselgate, we are forced to turn to local politicians to help. Sucks to be you.
Either way, hybrid petrol cars provide the benefits
Re: (Score:2)
Hence banning them is the only reasonable option.
Fine, but compensate me for the loss this causes me. Otherwise I'm happily going to continue slowly killing you with my mostly inconsequential fumes.
You're the idiot that chose to live in a congested area. How about you move instead of stopping me getting to work? I live near green fields, lovely clean air, the occasional vehicle has no material impact at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but that logic can easily be turned around. You are the idiot that chose to live in the middle of nowhere. How about you stay there?
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturers took advantage of loopholes and leeway in the regulations, but as far as I am aware (and I have been following dieselgate closely), no cases have been found where manufacturers produced falsified documents.
They falsely stated emissions that they could not in fact do in practice. The cars were registered and license plates issued under false pretences.
If the correct values had been provided, the cars would not have been street legal. Getting them registered anyway is fraud.
The future is electric (Score:2)
Electric vehicles just aren't viable though. Half the population have nowhere to charge one at home, let alone when anywhere else.
Eyeroll. Electric cars can be charged anywhere there is an electric outlet which is pretty much everywhere. And even if we ignore that piece of reality it still is the case that well over half the population DOES have a place to charge them at their house. Furthermore we can build the infrastructure if we want to and there are hybrid cars as a bridge option until we get there. Frankly electric and hybrid cars appear to be the future whether you care to admit it or not. Won't happen overnight but it is
Re: (Score:1)
well over half the population DOES have a place to charge them at their house
I own a house, and I can't. I'd have to run an electric cable across a public throughway. How about the people living here: http://www.johndavies.org/Pic-... [johndavies.org]
Only 66% of homes in the UK have off-street parking, including those with a garage. Mine is one of them; the garage is 80 yards from the house, has no power and is too small to fit a car into.
Hybrid cars are an option but you can eyeroll all you fucking want, electric cars are not fucking viable in this country.
Viability does not require dominance (Score:2)
I own a house, and I can't. I'd have to run an electric cable across a public throughway.
Oh well then you can generalize your situation to apply to everybody in the world then... Sorry my friend but your situation does not describe everyone else.
Only 66% of homes in the UK have off-street parking, including those with a garage
That's still a HUGE number of homes. You are making the mistake of thinking that somehow the options are either gasoline or electric with no other options. Gasoline and diesel powered cars aren't going away any time soon. But electric WILL become a serious player in the near future I think. It has too many advantages both economic and performance t
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that it currently has no power is a choice you can remedy if you want to
Sure, I could get planning permission, permission from each of the 23 people whose property I'd have to cross and get electric power added to my garage. Probably wouldn't cost much more than a new car.
Or I could keep driving the car I already own.
Electric cars may become viable, but right now they are not. Before they are they'll almost certainly be autonomous and the whole personal transport domain will undergo a sizeable shift in scope and nature.
In the meantime, people that can charge an electric car, do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What sidewalk parking spaces? We call it a fucking road.
Shit, I'm lucky when I can park near my house. I could be anywhere within 80 yards. Sure, that's not a lot - unless you have a three metre cable you're trying to connect.
But then, safety, security and not tripping up pedestrians also comes into play. Sure, a 1st world society can address these challenges. Hasn't yet, hasn't shown the political will to do so, can't afford it.
I can build a new house with a garage on the roof and an electromagnetic car li
Re: (Score:2)
If a car is parked on a road, you can call it a road, or you can call it a parking spot. That's a choice I leave up to you.
Regardless, it's not like we need another Manhattan project to figure out how to get electric power to places where people park their cars.
I can build a new house with a garage on the roof and an electromagnetic car lift to let me use it, but that also isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future;
Right, because that's exactly like installing a simplified parking-meter sty
Re: (Score:2)
Parking meters? Yeah, that's possible. We'll just get the old ladies to walk down the middle of the road now the pavement's unavailable.
I'm delighted for you that you live in a big country with lots of space. But yes, I'm a fucking ray of sunshine when people talk shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Parking meters? Yeah, that's possible. We'll just get the old ladies to walk down the middle of the road now the pavement's unavailable.
Seriously now, do you think a parking meter is as wide as a sidewalk?
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem is that the only solution you can envision to get power to your car is running a cable from your home directly to your car. A better solution is to install charging points where people park, whether it is on the street or in a garage. Many streets already have power infrastructure (to run streetlights, parking meters, etc.) it's not too big of a stretch to imagine car charging points installed alongside the road where people commonly park. Yes, there is a lot more power required and it proba
Re: (Score:2)
What is really needed to make EVs the mainstream type of car is better charging infrastructure. In Europe and Japan people often don't have a driveway or garage of their own. They either park on the public street or in their building's garage, so can't easily charge at home. In some countries public charging is affordable, but in the UK it's an insane rip-off, an absolute last resort.
Some countries have started installing charging posts along public roads. If someone in the road requests on, the local gover
Re: "Toxic" diesel exhaust? (Score:2, Funny)
So NO2 isn't toxic because you say so? Yeah, man, fuck science.
Re: (Score:2)
So NO2 isn't toxic
It had better not be. Because the vehicular production of NOx falls down in the noise level compared to natural sources. Besides, it's just part of the nitrogen cycle and a kind of plant food.
Re: (Score:2)
The exhaust from diesel power can stink and it can condense on surfaces leaving a sticky film that attracts dirt. But it's not "toxic". No one has ever murdered anyone with diesel fumes, no one has killed himself in his closed garage by sitting in the diesel-powered car with the engine running.
While diesel exhaust is largely carbon dioxide, it also contains carbon monoxide which can kill you pretty quickly. It also has many components that can cause cancer, primarily lung cancer. If course it's toxic.
References:
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/dies... [osha.gov]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nox vs co2 (Score:2, Insightful)
As i understand it you get more nox if you optimize your combustion for co2. And the other way around. In europe you pay a high tax on co2 so the carmakers try to reduce that heaviley and as a result we get worse nox.
even worse... (Score:2)
Outlaw Diesel Cars. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Totally right.
lets get this into perspective:
The entire transportation sector only accounts for about 27% of the total man-made greenhouse gas (MMGG) emissions:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha [epa.gov]...
Of that 27%, Road transport accounts for 72%,
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha [epa.gov]...
the rest is aviation and marine. That means about 19% of all MMGG is road vehicles.
From http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/clima [epa.gov]...
About 23% of that 19% is from heavy duty vehicles (so 18 wheelers etc are responsible for
Re: (Score:2)
As one of the many people who own classic cars, go F yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
That is animal cruelty. The poor donkey is innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax is based on how much pollution the vehicle produces.
That doesn't stop manufacturers from lying about emissions. The emissions laws are already very strict in the US and Europe. What is needed is better enforcement.
What you are asking for is analogous to creating longer sentences for murderers, instead of hiring police to catch the ones that are getting away with it.
Nox isn't the only issue (Score:3)
While their NoX output might be lower, it is relatively common to watch a diesel truck pull away from a stoplight, and flood the entire intersection with so much exhaust and soot that you can't even see through it. :|
Rare to see a car or non-commercial vehicle do the same.
Unless it's a *Red-Neck Truck.
( *Requires: Diesel engine, largest pickup truck, gigantic tires, custom exhaust and a ridiculous lift kit. Flag pole and 100,000 watts of lights installed optional )
Then it has the same specs and problems as their commercial brethren.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's hardly an issue. An exhaust soot thick enough to see is a soot thick enough to filter in the AC in the car behind it, and is thick enough to fall to the ground and wash away.
In general thick soot is one of the least dangerous of the things that come out of an engine. It is just a bit visually unappealing.
Propaganda (Score:2)
In other news: OPEC cuts oil output for first time in 8 years [bloomberg.com] and oil prices rise.
Don't forget that the reason people use diesel cars is that they are significantly more fuel efficient that petrol cars.
Diesel cars have been getting a real bashing over the last year or so. (e.g. VW emissions scandal)
I have question; why, now, has diesel become the fuel of the devil for the ordinary man?
This article effectively says "Diesel good only for commercial vehicles, bad for consumer vehicles".
Bull. Shit.
It's like the
Interesting that the EU is so far behind the U.S. (Score:2)
The current standard for diesel passenger vehicles in CARB states (California Air Resources Board [howstuffworks.com], which sets the limit for California and 16 other states) is 0.05 grams/mi, which is 80 mg/km [dieselnet.com].
And if you're curious, here's how much the cheating 2.0L VW diesels were emitting [ca.gov]. If the Euro 6 standard is 500 mg/km (
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
They were also so smug about how Americans had their cars and fuel "unreasonably cheap," when what really happened is that Europeans just taxed their stuff by ridiculous amount making it unaffordable.
I wonder if this over-taxation was responsible for the diesel obsession.
Diesel is superior in many ways (Score:2)
Economy, torque, reliability (well, not so much any more with all the extra complexity) and ease of maintenance (no HT system for starters).
Yes, for NOx they're bloody awful and the politicians knew this but in the 90s CO2 emissions were seen as more important. Which of NOx or CO2 is more important now probably even the greens would have trouble answering.
Re: (Score:3)
"far less"? All the diesels seen on the road today still (even after the low-sulfur directive) still stink to high heaven. Particulates are still visible, even if we ignore the Rolling Coal asswipes.