Demonising Diesel

Demonising Diesel

Motor manufactures have been Limbo Dancing for over 20 years as the EPA has repeatedly lowered the emissions bar until it has reached unrealistic, unnecessary and counter productive levels.

Faced with “increasingly unattainable standards” some manufacturers decided to “cheat”.

At the same time, the cars that may still be manufactured are required to meet increasingly unattainable standards, putting the manufacturers (like VW) in the position of manufacturing government-compliant cars that cost too much and perform poorly that few will want to buy… or “cheating” the government, in order to build cars people will actually want to buy.

The VW “Scandal” – Eric Peters – TheBurningPlatform.com
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/09/23/the-vw-scandal/

Other manufactures simply withhold their technical innovations.

Mazda has been trying to get its Sky-D diesel engine EPA-compliant (while also customer-viable) for the past two years, without success so far. You are denied this 50-plus MPG (and extremely clean) diesel because of the particulate jihadists in Washington.

The VW “Scandal” – Eric Peters – TheBurningPlatform.com
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/09/23/the-vw-scandal/

Some manufactures continue to Limbo Dance as the EPA lower the nitrogen oxides [Nox] standard for “heavy-duty” diesel engines by 96% from 5.0 grams per Brake Horsepower-Hour in 1994 towards 0.2 grams per Brake Horsepower-Hour when the EPA 2010 regulations come into effect.

Heavy Duty Diesel

When EPA 2010 standards go into effect, no heavy-duty diesel engine can be emitting levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) higher than .2 g/bhp-hr (grams per brake horsepower-hour), a standard more stringent than any place in Europe.

FactsAboutSCR.com – Meeting EPA 2010
http://www.factsaboutscr.com/environment/epa2010.aspx

However, the EPA regulations for passenger car NOx emissions make Limbo Dancing a whole lot harder because the EPA discriminates against diesel cars by ignoring the horse-power produced.

Tier 2 Exhaust Emission Standards

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/standards/light-duty/tier2stds.htm

The Tier 2 standards finalized today will reduce new vehicle NOx levels to an average of 0.07 grams per mile (g/mi).

Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements
http://www3.epa.gov/tier2/documents/r99023.pdf Via: http://www3.epa.gov/tier2/

Emission standards
The VW and Audi cars identified as violators had been certified to meet either the US EPA Tier 2 / Bin 5 emissions standard or the California LEV-II ULEV standard.
Either standard requires that nitrogen oxide emissions not exceed 0.07 grams per mile (0.043 g/km) for engines at full useful life which is defined as either 120,000 miles (190,000 km) or 150,000 miles (240,000 km) depending on the vehicle and optional certification choices.

This nitrogen oxide emission standard is among the tightest on vehicles in the world.

For comparison, the contemporary European standards known as Euro 5 (2010-2014 models) and Euro 6 (2015 models) only limit nitrogen oxide emissions to 0.29 grams per mile (0.18 g/km) and 0.13 grams per mile (0.08 g/km) respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissionsgate

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the “VW Scandal” is that the EPA isn’t complaining about it’s favourite bogeymen: Sulphur, Ozone and Carbon Dioxide.

Instead, the EPA have scraped nitrogen oxides from the bottom of their scaremongering barrel where atmospheric levels of NO2 are a stunningly small 0.02 parts per million [whilst NO levels are so insignificant they aren’t even listed].

Nitrogen dioxide – NO2 – 0.02 parts/million (ppm)
The Engineering Toolbox – Air Composition
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-composition-d_212.html

NOx emission levels are 10 – 40 times higher than emission standards.
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm#happen

Notice of Violation – 18 Sept 2015
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf

NOx is a generic term for the mono-nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide). They are produced from the reaction of nitrogen and oxygen gases in the air during combustion, especially at high temperatures. In areas of high motor vehicle traffic, such as in large cities, the amount of nitrogen oxides emitted into the atmosphere as air pollution can be significant. NOx gases are formed whenever combustion occurs in the presence of nitrogen – as in an air-breathing engine; they also are produced naturally by lightning.

In atmospheric chemistry, the term means the total concentration of NO and NO2.

NOx gases react to form smog and acid rain as well as being central to the formation of tropospheric ozone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx

The EPA is still fighting a battle it won “decades ago” because “acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976”.

Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.

Conventional regulation was used in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO2 emissions during the same time period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain_in_the_United_States

The “emissions problem” has been solved – decades ago.

But the EPA, et al, cannot admit this.
Because then there’d be no need for the EPA.

The VW “Scandal” – Eric Peters – TheBurningPlatform.com
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/09/23/the-vw-scandal/

This latest imaginary emissions “scandal” is about the pitifully small maximum value of 1.5 grams per mile of NOx produced by a 2.0 litre diesel rental car on a demanding hilly route on rural roads.

In-use testing of three light duty diesel vehicles—certified to US-EPA Tier2-Bin5 and California LEV-II ULEV emissions limits—found a wide variation in real world emissions performance relative to the regulatory limits.

Trial Results

Average NOx emissions of test vehicles over the five test routes compared to US-EPA Tier2-Bin5 emissions standard; repeat test variation intervals are presented as ±1σ; Route 1 for Vehicle A includes rush-hour/non rush-hour driving, ‘R’ designates routes including a test with DPF regeneration event, ‘nd’ – no data available.

ICCT-sponsored study of in-use testing of 3 Tier2-Bin5, CA LEV-II light-duty diesels finds wide variation of emissions against the limits – 2 June 2014
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/06/20140602-icct.html

3.1 Test Vehicle Selection
The vehicles tested in this study comprise two MY 2012 and one MY 2013, diesel-fueled
passenger cars, and will hereinafter be referred to as ‘Vehicle A’, ‘Vehicle B’, and ‘Vehicle C’ in order to anonymize model- and make-specific information for the purpose of this report.

Vehicle A and Vehicle B were equipped with the same 2.0L turbocharged, four cylinder base engine.

However, they were equipped with two different NO x reduction technologies.
Vehicle A featured a lean NO x trap (LNT) for NO x abatement, whereas Vehicle B was fitted with an aqueous urea-based selective catalytic reduction system.

Both vehicles had a DPF installed for controlling particulate matter emissions.
Vehicle C was fitted with a 3.0L turbocharged in-line six-cylinder engine in conjunction with an aqueous urea-SCR system and DPF for NO x and PM control, respectively.

The drive-train of both Vehicles A and B comprised 6-speed automatic transmissions with front wheel drive, whereas Vehicle C featured all-wheel drive with a 6-speed automatic transmission.

All three test vehicles were compliant with EPA Tier2-Bin5, as well as California LEV-II
ULEV (for Vehicles A and B) and LEV-II LEV (for Vehicle C) emissions standards as per EPA certification documents.

Vehicle A and Vehicle C were rented from two separate rental agencies and had initial
odometer readings of 4,710 and 15,031 miles, respectively. Vehicle B had 15,226 miles at start of testing and was acquired from a private owner.

In-Use Emissions Testing of Light-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States
Dr. Gregory J. Thompson, Daniel K. Carder, Marc C. Besch, Arvind Thiruvengadam and Hemanth K. Kappanna – May 15, 2014
Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines & Emissions – West Virginia University

Full report: http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/09/21/document_cw_02.pdf

If this offending Vehicle A was [for example] a VW Jetta with a “140 hp 2.0 TDI (diesel) engine” travelling at a constant 50 mph on a highway then the recorded 0.6 grams per mile of Nox [see “Route 1: Highway” above for Vehicle A] equates to a miserly 0.21 grams per Brake Horsepower-Hour which is only 0.01 grams per Brake Horsepower-Hour above the EPA 2010 standard for heavy-duty diesel engines.

Sixth generation (A6, Typ 1B; 2011–present)
Volkswagen’s target of increasing its North American sales removed the Jetta from the premium compact car market. This forced many cost-cutting measures to be made for the North American models, which include a lower quality trim material for the interior and the replacement of leather with leatherette as an optional seating upholstery. Leather is still available on Canadian-spec models. The North American version also loses the multi-link rear suspension of the previous generation.

Engines from the MK5 Jetta carried over include the 170 hp 2.5 L (five-cylinder) as well as the economy-minded 140 hp 2.0 TDI (diesel) engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Jetta#Sixth_generation_.28A6.2C_Typ_1B.3B_2011.E2.80.93present.29

The real “scandal” is that the EPA are discriminating against fuel efficient diesel cars.

Clearly, the EPA don’t want consumers driving VW diesel cars that can achieve 70 miles per gallon.

Volkswagen Jetta 2.0 TDI S 4d – Facts and Figures
MPG 70 mpg
Power Output 108 bhp

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/volkswagen/jetta/saloon-2011/65978/

Instead, the EPA discriminates in favour of petrol engines which consume about 50% more fuel.

2015 Buick Regal

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35005&id=35433

Either way, the EPA [with the collusion of the totally gullible and totally useless mainstream media] managed to manufacture a series of spectacular Climate Change headlines to coincide with the the Pope’s propaganda campaign.

Pope Francis calls for urgent action on climate change in White House speech
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/23/pope-francis-climate-change-white-house-speech

Pope to Congress: Time to act on climate change, poverty
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/24/pope-to-congress-time-to-act-on-climate-change-poverty.html

Only during such tests are the cars’ full emissions control systems turned on. During normal driving situations, the controls were turned off, allowing the cars to spew as much as 40 times the pollution allowed under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. said.

Volkswagen to Stop Sales of Diesel Cars Involved in Recall –
Jack Ewing and Coral Davenport
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/international/volkswagen-chief-apologizes-for-breach-of-trust-after-recall.html?_r=0

Volkswagen scandal could kill off diesel cars
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11883719/Volkswagen-scandal-could-kill-off-diesel-cars.html

“Washington’s Pope”? Who is Pope Francis?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-pope-who-is-francis-i-cardinal-jorge-mario-bergoglio-and-argentinas-dirty-war/5326675

The big lesson for VW is that it needs to grease the wheels in America.

And then there is Volkswagen, which earlier today took out a record charge of €6.5 billion, one which many think will be insufficient before all it set and done, following its own snafu involving manipulating emissions tests to make its cars appear “cleaner” than they were.

Yes, GM killed people, but Volkswagen killed the air!

To summarize Volkswagen’s biggest mistake: it was not poisoning the environment, it wasn’t even getting caught. It was this:

Lobbying

Dear Volkswagen: This Was Your Biggest Mistake – Tyler Durden – ZeroHedge.com
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-22/dear-volkswagen-was-your-biggest-mistake

Whilst the big lesson for consumers is that it looks like the EPA values the air more than it values human life.

When bailout-darling GM ‘fessed up to an intentional ignition-switch defect, tied to at least 174 deaths, The Justice Department fined them $900 million (and no employees faced criminal charges). So, in this consequence-less world in which we live, when Volkswagen admits to literally cheating emissions-standards tests, it faces up to $18 billion in fines from The EPA, one has to wonder whether “we” have our priorities right?

GM’s penalty is also less than the record-setting $1.2 billion fine levied on Toyota last year after the Japanese car giant failed to recall cars that could suddenly accelerate, even though federal regulators say the defect has been linked to at least five deaths.

So, as The Telegraph reports, VW could face huge fines if it is found to have violated America’s Clean Air Act, as US watchdogs claimed it has done. The EPA has the power to impose a $37,500 penalty per vehicle in contravention of law, meaning VW could face a theoretical penalty of $18bn for the 482,000 cars affected.

Automakers Fines

Volkswagen “Cheating” Fine Is 20 Times Higher Than GM’s For ‘Killing 174 People’
Tyler Durden – ZeroHedge.com
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-21/bailout-world-volkswagen-cheating-fine-20-times-higher-gms-killing-174-people

Such are the values and ethics of the Climate Change belief system.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Atmospheric Science. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Demonising Diesel

  1. Pingback: Week in review – energy and policy edition | Climate Etc.

  2. Pingback: Week in review – energy and policy edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  3. The real issue is the fallacy of petroleum being a “fossil fuel”. And the problem is that all the ruling scientific elite “believe ” this. It is firmly entrenched dogma that, as Pauli noted, has to die out before a paradigm might change.

    But fear of petroleum goes further back in history, history of the Velikovskian kind, fear of being inundated with burning pitch and hydrocarbons as our ancestors seem to recall but suppress into mankind’s collective subconsciousness as a form of amnesia.

  4. rwegrzen says:

    The 2015 diesel Golf is rated at 36 MPG EPA combined while the gas version gets 29 MPG. A lot less than 50% better.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35352&id=35353

    If you want to compare best in class try the Honda Accord Hybrid with the VW Jetta diesel

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35627&id=35433

    Honda 47 MPG combined Jetta 36.

    It all depends on how you cherry-pick.

    • malagabay says:

      Indeed.

      Wikipedia goes for a “common margin” of 40%.

      Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline (petrol) engines of the same power rating, resulting in lower fuel consumption.

      A common margin is 40% more miles per gallon for an efficient turbodiesel.

      For example, the current model Škoda Octavia, using Volkswagen Group engines, has a combined Euro rating of 6.2 L/100 km (46 mpg-imp; 38 mpg-US) for the 102 bhp (76 kW) petrol engine and 4.4 L/100 km (64 mpg-imp; 53 mpg-US) for the 105 bhp (78 kW) diesel engine.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engines#Advantages_and_disadvantages_versus_spark-ignition_engines

      With VW the “common margin” seems to get closer to 50% [when compared to US manufacturered petrol cars].

      VW vs GM

      Either way, without VW diesels there will be fewer fuel efficient “cherries” to pick…

  5. oldbrew says:

    The ‘$18 billion in fines’ is probably sabre-rattling but no doubt it will be expensive for VW, one way or another. But they cooked their own goose by cheating the system.

  6. PeterMG says:

    Cummins, Caterpillar and Detroit Diesel were caught doing exactly the same thing back in the early days of electronic engines 1991 to 1997. I knew it was happening as I worked for one of the said companies. Note that Caterpillar have given up supplying automotive diesels and Detroit diesel is now just a brand of Daimler Benz. The upshot of stupid regulation is you destroy your industrial base, slowly but surely.

    As for those who think they can cheery pick a petrol powered car to get within using 40% of using the same or less fuel than a diesel just think again. Anything you do to a petrol engine to improve efficiency gives you double when applied to a diesel. All the gains for diesel cars over the last 10 years have just been down to the fuel system, with a few tweaks to the turbo’s and combustion chamber. There is a long way to go, and if manufacturers didn’t have to meet the absurd regulations and could wind back to EPA07 and Euro5 then we could find an instant 15% gain in real on road efficiency with absolutely no measurable decline in air quality.

    As I did testing of heavy Trucks in the 90’s it wasn’t the test-bed grams/kw/h that really made the difference but actual on road performance with a torque curve that kept rising as the revs dropped and high hp in the mid range. Very often all the gains from technological advances were swallowed just because the regulators wanted zero emissions, which is effectively what they have with the heavy duty product at EPA10 and Euro6. I have it on good authority that the regulators can not accurately measure the current low levels.

    The trouble is all the manufacturers leaders have no balls and believe the CO2 bullshit and believe the poor science and research on particulates.

    You may be interested in this article where The UN admits that most particulates are not from transportation, but from our everyday activity. This revelation has hit home because despite the elimination of particulates from trucks and buses the levels in cities are not going down.
    http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp5/publications/Diesel_Engines_Exhausts_Myths_and_Realities_2014.pdf

    • rwegrzen says:

      Ponder this cherry picking –
      2015 EPA combined gasoline MPG
      Honda Accord hybrid 47
      Ford Fusion hybrid 42
      Toyota Camry hybrid 41
      VW Jetta Hybrid 45 on premium fuel

      VW Jetta turbo diesel 36

      Seems increasingly clear that future Corporate Average Fuel Economy – CAFE standards will force manufacturers to rely on hybrid technology to meet the higher MPG requirements. Volvo seems to be betting on diesel hybrid technology.

      • PeterMG says:

        Real world figures never match the complete bollocks that are official figures which are NEVER derived from real drivers driving real cars. I know because I have been there. The complete bull that the manufacturers print and the motoring mags print parrot fashion is just that. These figures are all derived from engine running a theoretical cycle on the test bed with everything working perfectly. And don’t get me started on Hybrid’s because there is such a mountain of data and real world experience that shows they don’t work.

        I even bought one of these “so called” modern petrol engine cars when swapping my wife’s Fiat 500. We went from 1.3 diesel that got better and better the longer we had it (45,000 miles and 70mpg) to 800cc twin air Petrol with turbo charging and variable valve timing, direct petrol injection in other words all the bells and whistles from F1 and we get 42 mpg after the car has done 41000 miles. Look up the published figures for those cars and the twin air is supposed to be the future. Well it is not.

      • malagabay says:

        “Ponder this cherry picking – 2015 EPA combined gasoline MPG Honda Accord hybrid 47

        It looks like the jury is still out on the Honda Accord Hybrid which was re-launched in 2014.

        Honda offered the Accord Hybrid in the United States in the 2005 through 2007 model years.

        Fuel economy was originally estimated at 30 mpg-US (7.8 L/100 km) city and 37 mpg-US (6.4 L/100 km) highway for the 2005 model year, but was later changed to 28 mpg-US (8.4 L/100 km) city, 35 mpg-US (6.7 L/100 km) highway, after Honda’s addition of standard moonroof and spare tire during the 2006 model year. This change bumped the car to a higher weight class for United States Environmental Protection Agency mileage testing.

        Honda has announced the Accord Hybrid will return to market for the 2014 model year after skipping a generation, with a new dual-motor system and a plug-in option.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord_%28North_America_seventh_generation%29#Hybrid

        However, the jury has returned it’s verdict of the Honda Civic Hybrid which is being withdrawn in 2015.

        Honda Civic Hybrid

        1. Legal actions over mileage claims

        A class-action lawsuit filed in 2012 alleged that Honda falsely advertised the fuel economy of the Civic Hybrid and that owners were getting significantly lower mileage.

        The Los Angeles Times reported in May 2012 that at least 36 small-claims lawsuits had also been filed against Honda over alleged false advertisement of gas mileage.

        In January 2012, Heather Peters was awarded $9,867 by a Los Angeles Superior Court small-claims commissioner after alleging that her 2006 Civic Hybrid did not meet mileage claims advertised by the manufacturer.

        Honda won an appeal against this decision when a judge ruled that the vehicle’s fuel-economy ratings complied with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements, and that such ratings are for the purpose of comparison among vehicles.

        Consumers who purchased or leased a 2003 through 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid have until April 19, 2013 to claim a cash payment and Rebate Certificate from the class action lawsuit settlement. However, the Settlement Administrator has already begun to review claims and began mailing checks last month to those with validated claims.

        In March 2012 Honda Canada issued a release pledging to honor the USA class action settlement with owners and lessees in Canada when it was finalized in the USA. To date there has been no follow up to parties concerned, but shortly after the Honda release a class action was launched in Quebec courts on behalf of Quebec and Canadian owners and lessees.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_Hybrid

        Peters’ Argument

        Peters made her argument in court on January 3rd, 2012. She claims Honda knowingly deceived her by advertising an MPG rating that is unattainable in real-world driving scenarios. She said the sales staff proudly displayed “50 MPG” but didn’t tell her that rating didn’t include doing things like stopping at stop signs. Minor details like that.

        I think we all understand that the EPA estimates are just that: estimates. But Peters claims she regularly gets a combined MPG under 30, which is roughly equivalent to what you can expect from a non-hybrid Civic. She said if she had known that up front, she wouldn’t have bothered with the Hybrid and all its headaches.

        http://www.hondaproblems.com/trends/civic-hybrid-mpg/

        2. Battery life

        A Consumer Reports survey found a very high rate of battery failure in Civic Hybrids 2nd-generation Civic Hybrids, describing the failure rate for 2009-2010 models as “shocking”, with over 30% of responders reporting they had needed a battery replacement within the last 12 months.

        Honda acknowledged problems with the 2006-2008 models which could cause the batteries to “deteriorate and eventually fail”; software updates were issued to prolong the life of the battery, but some owners reported these updates led to reduced fuel economy and power.

        The 132 NiMH cell pack suffers from imbalance as individual cells can’t be monitored or charged. Monitoring is available at a 12 cell sub-pack level, but charging isn’t. After years/miles of use, the cells become imbalanced as the cells charge/discharge at slightly different rates from one another. Eventually, strong cells are limiting the upper capacity of the pack and weak cells are limiting the lower capacity of the pack thereby reducing the usable capacity of the pack. There are higher capacity non-OEM packs available for less than the OEM price, and many owners have achieved years-long extensions of usable battery life by utilizing a grid charger. A grid charger is a home-made or purchased charger that connects your car to the power-grid. These devices impart a long, slow “balancing” charge where all cells are gently charged to their maximum capacity. This can temporarily restore balance and dramatically improve usable capacity for months at a time.

        In August 2010, Autoblog reports that a replacement battery for Civic hybrid retails at $2,100

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_Hybrid

        MAX-IMA™ Replacement IMA Battery for Honda Civic Hybrid
        $2,095.00 With return of your old battery + Shipping
        http://bumblebeebatteries.com/hybrid-batteries/honda-civic-hybrid-battery/

        Any guesses what a Honda Dealer would charge in parts and labour?

        3. Cost of ownership

        Consumer Reports ran an article in April 2006 stating that hybrid vehicles would not pay for themselves over 5 years of ownership.

        However, there was an error in the calculation of depreciation for the hybrid vehicles. It resulted in overstating how much extra money the hybrids would cost their owners during the first five years of ownership. When corrected, the Honda Civic Hybrid did have a payback period of slightly less than 5 years.

        In October 2010 Vincentric performed a hybrid cost of ownership analysis for USA market. In this analysis it compared hybrid’s 5 year cost of ownership to their all-gas counterparts.

        The analysis showed that 2010 Honda Civic Hybrid costs an additional $1830 over a 2010 Honda Civic EX 2D Coupe with an Automatic Transmission (the report assume 15,000 miles are driven annually and fuel prices are based on a weighted average over the five months prior to October 2010).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_Hybrid

        Apparently the “Civic hybrid ranks as the second best selling electric hybrid car in the U.S.” and has been so successful that “Honda announced the Civic Hybrid 2015 will be the final year due to poor sales.

        Bottom Line

        The Honda Civic Hybrid suggests the fantasy EPA 50 mpg equates to less than 30 mpg in reality.

        Time will tell if the 2014 Honda Accord Hybrid fairs any better in reality.

  7. A C Osborn says:

    One only has to look at Road Tests in car magazines like the UK AutoExpress to see the real world differences.
    The actual Fuel Consumptions and Emissions never get close to the “Official Government Test” figures.
    Another area of interest to Car owners and the Ncapp Safety Tests, take a look at the variation in stopping distances when AutoExpress group test cars at different speeds.
    There can be as much as 2 metres at 30Mph and 10metres at 70Mph difference between cars of the same type, let alone different weights, sizes and categories.
    That is the difference between having, or not having, an accident at 70mph and possibly killing a pedestrian or not killing them at 30Mph.

    I don’t think many UK motorists could give a toss about emmissions other than how it effects their Road Tax and would not give it a second thought, whereas fuel consumption matters a great deal.

  8. oldbrew says:

    People might think about diesel output more if they had more info.

    From: DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUSTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES by UNECE

    Analysis of Diesel Engine Exhausts’ main air pollutants
    II.1. Main air pollutants
    13.    The incomplete combustion of diesel fuel creates the particulate matter. Particulate matter’s
    composition often includes hundreds of chemical elements, including sulphates, ammonium, nitrates, elemental carbon, condensed organic compounds, and even carcinogenic compounds and heavy metals such as arsenic, selenium, cadmium and zinc. Though just a fraction of the width of a human hair, particulate matter varies in size from coarse particulates (less than 10 microns in diameter) to fine particulates (less than 2.5 microns) to ultrafine particulates (less than 0.1 microns).  
    14. A recent report from the European Environment Agency (EEA) (EEA, 2012) provides a brief description (summary in Box 1) of particulate matter and other air pollutants and their effects on human health and the environment.  
    Box 1. Description of the main local air pollutants (gases, particulate matter and heavy metals)

    Box 1 is on page 8 (11 on pdf) here:
    http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp5/publications/Diesel_Engines_Exhausts_Myths_and_Realities_2014.pdf

    • malagabay says:

      The Diesel Engines Exhausts: Myths and Realities document is a curious beast.

      Firstly, and most importantly in the context of the VW “scandal”, the document includes a graph which shows the 2010 “Ambient” concentrations of NOx [left green line 0.02 ppm] are about 50% higher than the 2010 “Roadside” concentrations of NOx [right green line 0.01 ppm] in Japan.

      Japanese NOx Levels

      In other words, if you are worried about NOx levels in Japan then the roadside air is cleaner.

      The second point that leaps out from the graph is that the current “Ambient” and “Roadside” levels of SO2 [blue line] and Particulate Matter [red line] are just about identical in Japan.

      The report also highlights that “Road Transport” is only a minor contributor of “Particulate Matter” where “Road Transport” only accounts for 15.8% of PM2.5 and 14.4% of PM10.

      Contributors of Particulate Matter

      The report seems to confirm the “war on car emissions” was won long ago.

  9. PeterMG says:

    “The report seems to confirm the “war on car emissions” was won long ago.” Exactly and it was won well and truly before the introduction of Euro 5/ EPA 07. Its a pity they don’t analyse their own data.

    One small point about where particulates come from in a diesel, or a heavy-duty diesel in particular. Its not incomplete combustion, it was oil consumption. It took a lot of development of pistons and rings to crack the oil consumption problem. That was the war on particulates won. However meeting the ever more stringent NOx requirements of Euro 5/6 or EPA 07/10 increases particulate matter by introducing incomplete combustion, because any excess oxygen in the combustion chamber, (good for every other aspect of running a diesel) runs the risk of increased NOx. That is why the manufacturers first introduced Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) but have now all moved to Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) by injecting urea into the exhaust stream to covert the NOx to N2 and O2. This allows them to run with complete combustion and higher NOx from in cylinder which delivers much better fuel economy. Companies such as Cummins are now developing engines that only have SCR as their only after treatment to achieve zero emissions. No particulate traps necessary. Form an engineering stand point the engineers need to be applauded long and loud. They have extracted better fuel economy, zero harmful emissions and better durability, but perhaps suffering some reliability issues with the complexity. And lastly I will repeat, anything you can apply to a petrol engine will deliver two or three fold in a diesel so petrol’s or more correctly spark ignited engines will never catch up.

    This is the point at which regulators need to take a long holiday, however we all know it has become totally political. Somehow the messages needs to get out to the wider public.

    • rwegrzen says:

      Rugulators taking a long holiday in the EU and USA are exactly what VW was counting on. Hats off to the CARB regulators for not playing dumb like their EU counterparts.

      • PeterMG says:

        There was a time back in the 70’s when the EPA was working to reduce real pollution, like CO one of the most deadly poisons to man, which spark ignited (Petrol & Gas) engines produce in prodigious amounts, and diesel almost none, and later NOX from both petrol’s and diesels as NOx was seen as the major contributor to the brown smog’s that afflicted major cities especially in the US. Europe’s issues were of a different nature and caused more by coal and wood fires in domestic houses. But today the EPA has gone beyond what it could legitimately say was protecting public health into and area of crony capitalism whereby regulation is not about reducing measurable pollution, but a numbers game that only about 0.000001% of the population realise is all about protectionism of the US. Oh yes a whole load of useful idiots can be rolled out to add some sort of official scientific legitimacy, but if these people were trying to get a 747 in the air with their form of science and engineering, that 747 would currently look like the Titanic.

        One last question. Name one person who has died from particulate cancer cause by diesel engines and who didn’t smoke? or have a family history.

  10. rwegrzen says:

    Isn’t the VW flap about NOX emissions? I live in an area where we have periodic ozone action days. The EPA claims that vehicle emissions are a major factor

    http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/quality/action.htm

    There appears to be some evidence that diesel smoke causes cancer at high exposure levels

    http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/06/14/diesel-fumes-definitely-cause-cancer-should-we-be-worried/

    Please explain your point about crony capitalism/protectionism and the EPA. It’s my understanding that VW’s Golfs have been imported to the USA from Mexico since 2015.

  11. PeterMG says:

    “Please explain your point about crony capitalism/protectionism and the EPA. It’s my understanding that VW’s Golfs have been imported to the USA from Mexico since 2015.”

    This is complicated to answer in a short article but here goes. Firstly you have to separate engines into those that go predominantly into the commercial world from those that go into cars. Although today there is some cross-over at the smaller end of the commercial market into larger recreation vehicles including some bus sized mobile homes in the US, which can have a high powered (400hp plus) heavy duty engine of about 10 to 11 litres in capacity. Also the best-selling large pickup in the US is the Dodge RAM, predominantly because it is powered by an in-line 6.7 litre Cummins engine which is more powerful, longer lasting and more economical than all its rivals, many of which still rely on large V8 Petrol engines. This engine from Cummins is called in the Automotive commercial world an ISB and you will find this engine in every 4 x2 DAF truck (badged as a Paccar engine (Paccar is the parent company of DAF)) in Europe and around the world operating up to 18 Tonnes, The Boris Buses in London (4 cylinder version) all the Dennis Alexander Double decker’s in London and around the UK, all the new Euro 6 Scania buses, large numbers of small Trucks in the US and the list goes on.

    The main point here is when it comes to the commercial world US technology was way ahead of Europe, and Cummins in particular with it range of companies is the leading light and has its finger in the pie of many of its direct competitors. Cummins is a different company, the only independent engine manufacturer to survive the being swallowed by the uncaring corporate world. This book http://www.amazon.com/The-Engine-That-Could-Values-Driven/dp/0875846130 is as much a history lesson as it is a business book. It illustrates how hard management need to work if they are to compete in manufacturing or any business for that matter. It also illustrates capitalism as it should be, not the crony variety of handouts as how the Detroit car makers see it.

    When it comes to cars the US is way behind. For many years they have not produced the cars consumers wanted, as Americans like people all over the world wanted smaller more economical cars that had a modicum of class. There is no denying the reliability and durability of the older American cars, but as safety regulations and then emission’s standard bit, cars had to change. The cars coming out of Detroit where not what consumers wanted and those with a bit more money started to choose European cars and those on a bit of a budget went with the Japanese. Simplistic I know but it illustrates the point.

    Around the turn of the century a revolution came to small diesels. This was all about a breakthrough in manufacturing of fuel systems that allowed the complicated electronic fuels systems of heavy duty diesels, (for illustrative purposes we will say anything 10 litres or over and 300hp although that boundary has now moved up) now called common rail systems to be scaled down to fit engines as small as 1 litre and at a price that did not significantly add to the manufacturing cost of the engine, especially given the carburettor was being replaced with more sophisticated fuel injection on spark ignited engines. To illustrate my point about the cost of the fuel system as you move down the scale, the predecessor to the Cummins ISB 6.7 mentioned above was a 5.9 litre engine called the 6BT or 6BTA of 180 HP. This engine had a cheap and cheerful Bosch rotary pump and Bosch injectors. It was direct injection as most large diesels were, at a time when most small diesel were indirect injection (explanation of difference is for another post) In 1991 from memory a 210hp version was needed to compete in the market but this necessitated the fitting of a more sophisticated inline fuel pump normally reserved for larger engines. These engines were supplied to OEMs at zero margin. Normally you don’t produce a product unless you can make money, but the engine was necessary for the Customers of Cummins for their own competitiveness, and the last thing you want to do is let a competitor in the door. Perkins had decided to compromise performance and fuel economy and stuck with the rotary pump on their engine in the same market. Two years later for the Euro 1 emission’s Cummins had to fit a larger, more sophisticated and even more expensive fuel pump from Bosch on the engine to pass the emissions tests and provide better fuel economy to the end user. This fuel pump cost more than all the other parts of the engine put together. Engine power went up to 230 hp. Every Euro 1 automotive engine over 200hp (I believe there was some form of cutoff at 200hp) went out the factory gate at a loss. So even for a 6 litre class medium duty engine the current technology in the mid 90’s (intricate mechanical fuel pumps) was going to become too expensive and cumbersome trying to meet emissions standards. If it didn’t work on a 6 litre engine it would never work on a 1,2 or 3 litre engine. But at the time diesel cars were exempt from emissions standards so the manufactures were not trying very hard. They did introduce direct injection, led by the French, which for the first time gave us powerful and amazingly economical cars. I went from 33 mpg with a Rover 216 to 45 mpg with my Peugeot 405.

    Fast forward to today. I’m not totally familiar with the US Car market other than the US manufactures are not big on diesel and have a lot of catching up to do. But what we see is regulation being used to inhibit imports into the US rather that direct tariffs which are banded under international law. Cars are not the only products that are happened in the US with the attitude do as I say, not as I do. The country that calls itself the leader of the free world is the least free in the world when it comes to bureaucratic hindrance of anyone that may try and compete from outside. Diesel cars are rated not on the same scale as a commercial engine but on a per mile basis which is a complete and arbitrary nonsense.

    Also much is made of particulates. But the irony is diesels are certified for use in underground mines. The zealots have been trying to find someone that works in underground mining suffering from particulosis (my word) for years and have failed. If you smoke just one cigarette a week you get more particulate that you would ever get inhaling diesel smoke. More particulates come off the tires of vehicles than out the exhaust. It’s it just a case that ignorance of the public is played upon by the environmental zealots. A point to remember, black smoke from a diesel is not particulates, its unburnt hydrocarbons. Particulates are 10 and 20 microns, so you can’t see them, you can’t taste them and certainly can’t smell them. They are everywhere from everything, and really just another false flag for enabling governments to control our activities.

    It is illustrative that at the moment the only argument they seem to have left in the US is to make science scepticism illegal. I guess that is the first real sign the US has really become completely unhinged, and that the money men feel they are losing control. In fact they actually lost control in 2008, and the action of the Fed has only kicked the can down the road so that the crash and losses will be even bigger.

  12. Pingback: EU Noxious Emissions | MalagaBay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s