Volkswagen Is Ordered to Recall Nearly 500,000 Vehicles Over Emissions Software

[mspohr]

Interesting. I wonder if this applies in the U.S. as well (I have no idea what rules exist for commercial trucks here, much less whether they're consistent between states).

Also, I think there must be something broken about this paragraph:

"It found that heavy-duty vehicles tested in Germany and Finland emitted about 210mg NOx per kilometre driven, less than half the 500mg/km pumped out by modern diesel cars that meet the highest “Euro 6” standard. However, the buses and trucks have larger engines and burn more diesel per kilometre, meaning that cars produce 10 times more NOx per litre of fuel."

Try as I might I can't get the second sentence to make any sense in the context of the first. I know I could go read the original paper, but life's too short.

I believe they are saying that trucks emit half the NOx per KILOMETER and that translates to cars emitting 10x the NOx per LITER of fuel since trucks burn more fuel per kilometer than cars.

 

[jgs]

I believe they are saying that trucks emit half the NOx per KILOMETER and that translates to cars emitting 10x the NOx per LITER of fuel since trucks burn more fuel per kilometer than cars.

Ah, right. Thanks.

 

[McRat]

The US has tighter diesel emissions laws especially when it comes to NOx.

And they forgot that NOx emissions are only part of emissions and part of the problem with ICE vehicles. Zero credit is given for the lower amounts of petroleum required per mile for diesel engines, and their lower CO2 levels.

Since NOx is no longer a huge problem in the US, allowing diesels some more room on this area will reduce CO2 emissions.

If your goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gases, then diesels are part of the solution. If you want to raise CO2 emissions, insist on gasoline.

 

[Electroman]

If your goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gases, then diesels are part of the solution. If you want to raise CO2 emissions, insist on gasoline.

If your goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gases, then there is only one solution - to accelerate to an EV world and eliminate oil as a transportation fuel completely. Everything else is just providing lip service.

 

[SageBrush]

If your goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gases, then there is only one solution - to accelerate to an EV world and not eliminate oil as a transportation fuel completely. Everything else is just providing lip service.

Is there an extra not in your post ?

I also wonder about your reduction requirement. Lots of approaches reduce GHG, e.g. taking away soda and encouraging use of more efficient small cars. Or swapping NG for coal. Or taxing carbon pollution... the list is pretty long with infinite variations.

As for EVs -- they are appliances and no more clean or dirty than my home toaster. Both just pass the question to how much I use them and how the electricity is produced. I've looked at GHG emissions for my Colorado home driving a Prius Prime PHEV. The EV miles from the grid are worse than running on petrol.

 

[McRat]

If your goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gases, then there is only one solution - to accelerate to an EV world and not eliminate oil as a transportation fuel completely. Everything else is just providing lip service.

So your plan is to just wait for mass EV adoption via more affordable EV's and a greener electrical grid?

How long will you wait?

Should we force people at gunpoint to buy EV cars?

And just grounding things back into the reality of the world, cutting your use of private cars for commuting will do more than EV's will today. Mass transportation and commuting shorter distances is a better solution TODAY than private ownership of EV cars.

If you are REALLY green, you are driving under 5,000 miles a year if at all. Anything else falls short.

I'm certainly Pro-EV. 3 out 4 drivers in our household use EV power daily soon to be 4/4. But we also moved our business so we save 100's of miles of commuting for my staff each day. When people apply for jobs, one of the considerations is how far they live from our location.

When I need to pick up a 1000+ lb tool and deliver it, we use diesels. Soon we may be forced to use gasoline.

 

[thegruf]

... I've looked at GHG emissions for my Colorado home driving a Prius Prime PHEV. The EV miles from the grid are worse than running on petrol.

not if you include the well to pump cost of petrol - which about doubles the stated emissions for an ICE vehicle. Also consider that no ICE vehicle typically attains anywhere near it's claimed mpg, therefore the published figure worsens further, and further the stated figures are for a brand new vehicle not one that is 3+years old and running less efficiently by that time - a factors that will continue to deteriorate with the vehicles age.

Furthermore some recent research in the UK is showing a potential link between neurological disease and metal particles most likely emitted from ICE vehicles and the picture gets bleaker still. Maybe not a GHG issue but sure as heck an environmental issue for ppl living in the vicinity of high traffic concentrations.

By any rational calculation - EVs are massively better for the environment than ICE - though you do make a good point that the onus is then on the state and power generation industry to clean up their act to fully realise their overall benefits, and indeed there is some really strong R+D work starting to bear fruit in this area too.

 

[SageBrush]

not if you include the well to pump cost of petrol - which about doubles the stated emissions for an ICE vehicle.

well to pump included
I have owned three Prius for over a decade total and have a very good idea of fuel economy in HV mode. I have EV mode the same benefit

 

[gene]

As for EVs -- they are appliances and no more clean or dirty than my home toaster. Both just pass the question to how much I use them and how the electricity is produced. I've looked at GHG emissions for my Colorado home driving a Prius Prime PHEV. The EV miles from the grid are worse than running on petrol.

Do you not have a solar system?

 

[mspohr]

So your plan is to just wait for mass EV adoption via more affordable EV's and a greener electrical grid?

How long will you wait?

Should we force people at gunpoint to buy EV cars?

And just grounding things back into the reality of the world, cutting your use of private cars for commuting will do more than EV's will today. Mass transportation and commuting shorter distances is a better solution TODAY than private ownership of EV cars.

If you are REALLY green, you are driving under 5,000 miles a year if at all. Anything else falls short.

I'm certainly Pro-EV. 3 out 4 drivers in our household use EV power daily soon to be 4/4. But we also moved our business so we save 100's of miles of commuting for my staff each day. When people apply for jobs, one of the considerations is how far they live from our location.

When I need to pick up a 1000+ lb tool and deliver it, we use diesels. Soon we may be forced to use gasoline.

I agree that reducing driving will reduce emissions.
Also, if you stop eating meat, it will reduce your emissions by more than if you stopped driving completely so you should stop eating meat and only hire vegans for you business. (I have stopped eating meat... no problem.)
No one is forcing you to buy gasoline trucks to move your stuff. Also, the article shows that diesel trucks are better regulated to have lower emissions.
I do think that we should offer incentives for EVs (already being done... perhaps we could do more).
No guns required... anytime... anywhere... just say no to guns.

 

[SageBrush]

Do you not have a solar system?

Coming this spring ! Or I wouldn't buy an EV.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Should we force people at gunpoint to buy EV cars?

In a way, YES - governments should. Many countries already heavily tax new vehicles and some have begun to limit the number of vehicles that can be registered annually.

A massive tax on all new vehicles or an increase to the gasoline tax would give the industry time to adapt, would force people to reconsider driving habits, and would rapidly increase the number of people look into buying an EV.

And just grounding things back into the reality of the world, cutting your use of private cars for commuting will do more than EV's will today. Mass transportation and commuting shorter distances is a better solution TODAY than private ownership of EV cars.

You're right. Everyone shouldn't own a vehicle. It shouldn't be essential to own a vehicle to have a good job, or to get around . Unfortunately, until there is much better public transportation, it will be difficult for most people to switch from owning a vehicle to using public transportation or ride sharing.

 

[McRat]

In a way, YES - governments should. Many countries already heavily tax new vehicles and some have begun to limit the number of vehicles that can be registered annually.

How would making cars more expensive help the workers?

As you said, a car is a necessary evil today.

Eventually the price of EV's will fall to under the price the ICE cars. Then the transition will happen rapidly. As parity approaches we will see sales start to increase geometrically.

But right now, today, we can lower CO2 output from motor vehicles by switching to diesel, and bring it to virtually zero footprint by using renewable biodiesel.

So we can either wait for prices to fall and sit on our hands, or use the tools we have in our drawer. One of those tools is compression ignition (misnomer) engines instead of spark engines. It's like taking 1 out of 5 cars off the road today without taking cars off the road.

The beauty is they can power large pickups and SUV's. If the government allows it.

 

[mspohr]

How would making cars more expensive help the workers?

As you said, a car is a necessary evil today.

Eventually the price of EV's will fall to under the price the ICE cars. Then the transition will happen rapidly. As parity approaches we will see sales start to increase geometrically.

But right now, today, we can lower CO2 output from motor vehicles by switching to diesel, and bring it to virtually zero footprint by using renewable biodiesel.

So we can either wait for prices to fall and sit on our hands, or use the tools we have in our drawer. One of those tools is compression ignition (misnomer) engines instead of spark engines. It's like taking 1 out of 5 cars off the road today without taking cars off the road.

The beauty is they can power large pickups and SUV's. If the government allows it.

You're going to need new cars. Today's diesels aren't suitable for anything. They emit too much NOx and particulates. Newer diesels are better but still pollute much more than EVs. . We can switch to EVs today (lots of options besides Teslas) reduce emissions without having to suffer the NOx and particulate exhaust of diesels.
We need a carbon tax so that fossil fuel users pay for the environmental damage they are doing to the environment. Fossil fuels are only cheap if you don't count climate damage and health damage.

 

[nwdiver]

But right now, today, we can lower CO2 output from motor vehicles by switching to diesel, and bring it to virtually zero footprint by using renewable biodiesel.

It's important to keep in mind that diesels emit NOx regardless of the fuel source.

 

[McRat]

It's important to keep in mind that diesels emit NOx regardless of the fuel source.

As do spark engines and any powerplant that relies on atmospheric air for igniting fuel. Nitrogen is air. NOx is compression and temperature. You can make it without even burning anything with enough pressure and temperature.

Sort like how you can ignite aluminum pistons if you get greedy. Been there, done that.

It's not that NOx levels are a concern, it's the possibility they are a concern.

Diesels make more NOx because they are high compression. Gas makes less because they are weak. Turbos up the NOx game. A turbo is exactly how you'd make NOx if you wanted. High backpressure increases EGT's and boost is even more potent than compression since there is no such thing as cold boost.

Cold air EGR is the common fix for NOx. This cannot be done with cam timing, it must be done with a heat exchanger.

Gasoline engines have EGR, active or passive via cam overlap to reduce their NOx. It's one of the pollutants that is measured.

 

[SageBrush]

It's important to keep in mind that diesels emit NOx regardless of the fuel source.

Utility coal is also darned atrocious.

 

[nwdiver]

As do spark engines and any powerplant that relies on atmospheric air for igniting fuel.

Utility coal is also darned atrocious.

NOx has a very short half-life of ~35 hours. If it's emitted outside a city it'll decompose back into air before it reaches harmful levels.

With the recent study indicating that vehicle emissions contribute to dementia seems like a good idea to accelerate plans to ban combustion engines from inside cities.

 

[mspohr]

NOx has a very short half-life of ~35 hours. If it's emitted outside a city it'll decompose back into air before it reaches harmful levels.

With the recent study indicating that vehicle emissions contribute to dementia seems like a good idea to accelerate plans to ban combustion engines from inside cities.

London reports that half the monitoring sites have exceeded their entire 2017 NO2 limit in the first 5 days of the year.
London breaches annual air pollution limit for 2017 in just five days

London breaches annual air pollution limit for 2017 in just five days

 

[SageBrush]

I am not a diesel advocate by any stretch of the imagination but EVs running on coal is not a panacea.

Some more data on coal, from a publication by the AGU in 2012:
This works out to ~ 300 mg/mile NOx related emissions from an EV on coal.
Compare to 70 mg/mile maximum Nox max emissions allowed by EPA T2B5