9 ms·
Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says
- ZeroGravitas 10y agoI think since they are used more, and burn more fuel generally more total emissions come from heavy commercial vehicles, so at least the more rigorous testing was introduced in the right sector first. This is also part of the reasoning one of the Tesla founders used when they moved on to creating hybrid drivetrains for trucks with Wrightspeed.
- lb1lf 10y agoPart of the problem is that basically the closer you run the diesel engine to its optimum mpg-wise, the more NOx it emits. So, when you are trying very hard to make engines more efficient to get impressive mpg numbers, you also end up generating more NOx (Which you can then get rid of using urea, which I think is the preferred option in trucks and buses - think AdBlue or whatever it is called when used for cars.
- PythonicAlpha 10y agoThe other part is, that producing cleaner Diesel cars is just more costly -- that was the main reason for VW to cheat.
- lb1lf 10y agoI wonder how my old diesel (1998 Toyota Land Cruiser 1KZ-TE, 3.0l I4 TDi) would fare when compared to a modern diesel. Obviously, it would soot orders of magnitude more - but I wouldn't be surprised if the NOx emissions were surprisingly low, seeing as efficiency was way down on Toyota's list of requirements; they just made a bigger fuel tank. It was designed to just work(tm) - almost regardless of what happened to it. Gas mileage? Not as much.
- raverbashing 10y agoNot really However it does consume more AdBlue and/or produces less power the cleaner it is They did it to sell a "better car" with disregard to pollution regulation
- CydeWeys 10y ago> However it does consume more AdBlue and/or produces less power the cleaner it is This is why it's more costly. In order to design a diesel car that meets the exact same specifications, they either need to add an entire urea system (costs more money to manufacture, plus ongoing AdBlue costs to the consumer) or add a larger less efficient engine to meet the same performance target (costs more money to manufacture, plus ongoing higher petrol costs to the consumer). Making a non-polluting diesel car is certainly more costly than making an equivalent diesel car that you don't care about pollution on at all. You're adding a big engineering constraint, of course it gets more costly! I should add that I'm all in favor of cutting down pollution, and that if diesel as a technology turns out to not be that practical anymore for small cars, then so be it. Eventually they should all be zero emissions anyway.
- raverbashing 10y agoThanks for the clarification
- jsz0 10y ago> if diesel as a technology turns out to not be that practical anymore for small cars, then so be it. This is tricky because, in the US market at least, one of the major appeals of small diesel cars was their performance / low end torque. There aren't really any other options on the market right now that can offer the same mix of performance/efficiency. Diesel cars are definitely on their way out in the US but I'm not sure it will be a net gain in the end. Lots of people such as myself are choosing to replace their small diesel cars with bigger, less efficient, similar performing cars.
- hx87 10y agoGasoline TDI comes pretty close in terms of performance and low-end torque, although fuel economy isn't as good. I wish OEMs would implement water injection as a standard feature in those engines, which would significantly close the gap.
- Xylakant 10y agoOne problem with AdBlue is that the car makers decided that the car owners were not supposed to refill it, it was considered more like an oil change than a fill-up. So the tank needs to be large enough to cover a full maintenance interval - which either requires quite a large tank or creative solution to limit consumption. And - meh - the decision was made to limit consumption.
- lb1lf 10y agoI think - mind, think - that car makers may be innocent in this particular instance; I am pretty sure I read some time ago (Just as Dieselgate blew up) that regulations required AdBlue to be refilled primarily by workshops - this as it directly affected the emissions of the vehicle, and as such shouldn't (couldn't?) be entrusted to Joe Q. Public to do. However, at least around here they sell it at (some) gas stations, and the user manual (2012 Passat 3c) shows how you go about topping it up, so it can't be that much of a concern.
- hydrogen18 10y agoJust another step to the complete infantilization of citizens by the government. If you can't pour a liquid into another container, you have no business being outdoors.
- mikeash 10y agoI will note that about 13 million Americans already live in states where it's illegal to pump your own gasoline.
- jessriedel 10y agoYes, and this does in fact infantalize people. But it's an unintended consequence of it's functional purpose: job creation (regardless of the stated justification for the law).
- vkou 10y agoThat's a jobs program.
- amcuit01 10y agoVery relevant 33c3 talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCu8XIHjKwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCu8XIHjKwc This all sounds to be entirely due to inadequate emissions testing processes and manufacturers doing the absolute bare minimum to comply with those tests as if they're gaming the rules of an automobile race.
- PythonicAlpha 10y agoOne of the reasons, I am not proud to be a German, since it was/is my government (shame on them all!) that actively prevents real progress in the area of emission reduction of cars. Reality is, that ADAC or TÜV years ago already warned, that EURO 6 cars may produce even more emissions than EURO 5 cars. So, decades of EU environment politics where just Potemkin villages to please German car producers.
- jjawssd 10y ago> my government (shame on them all!) that actively prevents real progress in the area of emission reduction of cars how? > So, decades of EU environment politics where just Potemkin villages to please German car producers. ???
- PythonicAlpha 10y agoBecause they actively blocked (and still do) any attempts in the EU to release real-life regulations (not measure pollution in artificial environments, but on the roads!) -- for many years now. And still, they hinder that car buyers in Germany get the same compensation as US customers do. The German news where full of it. It is not helpful, when the labs are cleaner during car testing, but at the roads the people suffer from the pollution. VW is not the only brand, that optimizes the emissions for artificial environments.
- ifcho 10y agoHere is a nice article outlining the position of the German government and the big carmakers on electric cars: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/german-government-at-odds-with-industry-over-electric-cars-a-1123436.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/german-governme...
- tehabe 10y agoThe car maker lobby VDA even says today that stricter emission standards are not needed. Btw, the chairman of the VDA is Matthias Wissmann, wo used to be the German transport minister.
- sllabres 10y agoHave a look at cargo ship emissions and then think.
- lb1lf 10y agoWhich is why lots of very smart people spend lots of money figuring out better ways to power commercial shipping; gas turbines for instance - and even sails may make a comeback. The problem with cars (in particular diesel ones) is that their pollution causes problems locally, too. That is less of an immediate concern if you're plying the Yokohama-US Pacific coast route.
- robin_reala 10y agoI always liked the kite idea: http://www.skysails.info/english/skysails-marine/skysails-propulsion-for-cargo-ships/ http://www.skysails.info/english/skysails-marine/skysails-pr...
- sllabres 10y agoI don't negate that this is the case but bunker and "gas turbines" seems a bit on the opposite for fossile energy regarding the environment. And this fuel does not seem to loose attraction due to its price. "Worldwide bunker use in 2001 was estimated at 278 million tons, of which around 212 million tons were residual fuels. Between 2001 and 2020, total consumption grows at an average annual rate of 3.1% [...]" [1] [1] https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1001TZU.PDF?Dockey=P1001TZU.PDF https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1001TZU.PDF?Dockey=P100...
- lb1lf 10y agoI (partially) agree; however, we have a saying in Norway that "The best is the worst enemy of the good." In a perfect world, shipping would be emissions-free; however, it is not; the vast majority of the world's commercial shipping runs off heavy fuel oil. Getting it to pollute less in the short term is IMHO better than holding out, waiting for zero emissions somewhere down the line.
- dovdovdov 10y agoBut, they have all those blue and green emblems on the back. :/ When I see these cars getting floored and I see the dark grey/black smoke coming out I often wonder, this must be super healthy for all of us.
- Timethy 10y agoYouTube for Rolling Coal
- guscost 10y agoThe smoke/soot you can see is particulate matter, not NOx. That's only a problem with older diesels or if the owner removes the filter, modern diesels with intact DPFs emit way less particulate matter than an average gasoline car. The health problem with NOx (as I understand it) is that it will react with oxygen producing ozone and therefore smog, if there is enough in the air.
- fjrieiekd 10y agoEven new diesel trucks from Japan do this in places like the Caribbean. Maybe the standards are lower but I haven't seen a similar problem with new gas cars.
- guscost 10y agoThe US has way stricter new car auto emission standards than pretty much anywhere else, and I think lots of countries don't require DPFs at all, good point. If the US standards get much stricter there will have to be PM filters on gasoline cars too.
- headmelted 10y agoI'm in Northern Ireland, and while I can't speak for the rest of the UK or Europe, I know the stats put diesel vehicles at almost half in Europe as a whole. It sounds absurd, but I can see the increase in Diesel soot on the roads and pavements here, and more often than not, it can be smelt from passing traffic. To be fair, that I've become more aware of it is making me notice it more - but I live now not so far from where I grew up and it's clear how much difference the last 10-15 years have made to the state of the local environment. It's disgusting, and no doubt a massive public health crisis 10-20 years from now in the UK, where we already lead the world in lung disease.
- jeffwass 10y agoI live in London, and really noticed the effects of diesel exhaust (particularly buses along busy roads) on my breathing in the past couple years. I've lived here for over 8 years. It's the NoX that I notice much more than the soot. I get breathing difficulties after walking past buses (the sharp smell of the NoX fumes is pretty noticeable). I've had bronchitis twice in the past two years. I've even started changing my walking routes to avoid busy roads entirely due to the diesel pollution. What adds insult to injury is that many of these buses advertise as "Enviro" because their Diesel engines produce marginally less CO2 than a gasoline engine.
- 7952 10y agoPeople seem to block out the smell and just not notice, when they do it becomes obvious. Maybe a campaign of warning signs would help. Target areas with high pollution with "Danger" signs that outline the risks.
- gambiting 10y agoIt's made worse by the fact that manufacturers don't offer, or offer worse petrol engines in the UK, pushing buyers towards diesel. For the past 10 years, you couldn't buy a petrol Land Rover in the UK, despite the fact that petrol land rovers are assembled in the Sollihul plant. The Latest Discovery 5 finally has a petrol option, but the Discovery Sport is still only offered with a diesel, despite the fact that the rest of the continent enjoys an excellent Si4 Petrol engine in the same vehicle. It's the same story elsewhere - MB offers probably half of the engines that rest of Europe gets, if there is a petrol option it is hugely underpowered, and diesel is the only way to go.
- milansuk 10y agoArticle doesn't mention DPF(Diesel Particulate Filter) removal. Many owners don't wanna pay for new one, so they pay for removal. There are so many cars without it and emissions are completely sick.
- gbil 10y agoSame applies to petrol cars, many don't replace the catalytic converter they just remove it. Don't want to get in a argumentation which one is "cleaner" afterwards, both are equally stupid.
- jordanb 10y agoHow long does a DPF last? Replacing a catalytic converter is a rare maintenance item on a car. Most of the time they last the lifetime of the vehicle. In fact the only person I know who had to replace one had it stolen from under his car while he was parked on a city street.
- gbil 10y agoIt depends on many things, like car type, usage, maintenance (or lack of it) and for sure on what is the lifetime of a car? How many km/mi? For you it might be eg. 300k but have you checked the manufacturer's specs?
- Sarki 10y agoIt depends on many aspects (car usage, quality, etc.) I recently bought a used diesel car (10 years old, 150k KM), the DPF was almost dead. Needless to say that is wasn't a pleasant surprise... Edit: Also the DPF is not the catalytic converter, these are two different elements.
- hx87 10y agoAnywhere from forever (towing heavy trailers on long-distance highway trips, urea injection to reduce NOx) to less than 10K (heavy pickup truck, no load, frequent short trips, exhaust gas recirculation to reduce NOx).
- 10y ago
- vermontdevil 10y agoHere's a good article on how diesel engines became popular in Europe and not in the US https://longtailpipe.com/2015/10/02/differences-in-us-and-eu-emissions-standard-key-cause-of-dieselgate/ https://longtailpipe.com/2015/10/02/differences-in-us-and-eu...
- agumonkey 10y agoVery interesting. I'm often under the impression that the EU has stricter standards than the USA. But in this case not at all, it's even somehow unethical (to me at least) that the laws were made as economic incentives over health.
- arprocter 10y agoYou can't buy what isn't on sale. In Europe most cars have been available in diesel or petrol versions for decades, and it's very rare to find somewhere that sells petrol but not diesel - not so much in the US, where other than in big rigs etc. diesel was only really found/available in pickups until recently, and diesel pumps can be rare. The big appeal of diesel in Europe with their higher fuel costs is the better MPG - gas is cheap in the US so there isn't as much demand for vehicles with higher MPG Other manufacturers 'pass' US diesel emissions, so it isn't impossible to comply with the laws
- ewood 10y agoMany areas in London breach EU NOx limits hundreds of times each year - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/london-breaches-toxic-air-pollution-limit-for-2017-in-just-five-days https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/london-b...
- tehabe 10y agoThis could really the death blow for the Diesel engine in cars. Over a decade people have promoted the Diesel as a cleaner, more efficient fuel for cars and car makers spent billions to improve the engines and apparently even more in marketing. Now, the bubble collapsed. Also, Germany currently gives Diesel owners a rebate on the fuel tax. That is why a liter of Diesel is around €1.10 and a liter of gas is around €1.30. I wouldn't be surprised if this rebate will be gone soon. (But I wouldn't take bets on when)
- blacksmith_tb 10y agoBut isn't the truth a little more complex? In terms of CO2 emissions, those diesels are about twice as efficient (distance traveled on the same volume of fuel). So they are potentially better for the global environment at the same time they are worse for the local one... That said, I am happy to have just switched from an old diesel to a PHEV, but even it can't beat riding my bicycle to work...
- tehabe 10y agoI think that is a fair point. But as the report mentions, trucks and busses are fine. Because with those it apparently not an issue to add Diesel exhaust fluid to the mix. But I can't imagine that the usual drivers want the hassle with filling up two tanks.
- hx87 10y agoStill can't beat turbodiesel fuel economy, especially on the highway. Chevrolet Cruze diesels routinely get >60mpg on the highway, and that's the last generation, which unlike VW diesels were fully emissions compliant.
- Mc_Big_G 10y agoDoes this explain why European cities smell the way they do? It makes me feel a bit sick after a while
- sp332 10y agoYeah, even though they might produce less CO2, they do put out a ton of NOx and particulates. They can be mitigated to some extent, but the good systems are expensive and EU regulations on NOx are not as high as in California. And most cars sold in the US are built to CA specs because they are the largest market.
- adventured 10y agoIt's a big part of why Paris for example has become so horribly smog covered.
- abainbridge 10y agoAs I've cycled around Cambridge, UK for the last 17 years, I've noticed now diesel cars that seemed OK when new (ie no noticeable soot or smell from the exhaust) become problematic about half way through their life - presumably due to wear or poor maintenance. Are there any studies of emissions from vehicles in the second half of their useful life? Let's say the average car in the UK will have done about 120,000 miles by the time is it scrapped. I want to know what typical cars are like in the 60 to 120 thousand mile range of their life. I guess this is the dominant source of pollution on UK roads. If so, there'd be a case for more thorough testing of emissions in the MOT.
- rogerbinns 10y agoHere in California I find the emissions testing bizarre. Instead of actually measuring the emissions, they just plug a computer into the OBD port and use whatever the car itself reports!
- DiabloD3 10y agoWhich circles back to where VW Dieselgate was a fucking disaster and a lot of people at a lot of levels of government on multiple continents are just as at fault as VW is. First rule of computer security: do not trust humans. First rule of not trusting humans: computers lie when ordered to by computers, and cannot be trusted, and results should be checked as often and as completely as possible.
- woobar 10y agoThis could be more reliable than measuring emissions at the tailpipe. In my state vehicle registration is not renewed until the car computer sends a report to the centralized DMV database. Before that, cheating the emission test was much more easier, because the test was not linked to a particular car.
- bit_logic 10y agoThis happened because environmental policy focused too much on one metric: CO2 emissions. It should've been reduction of all polluting emissions, which would naturally favor hybrids and then plug-in cars as the rules get more strict.
- lb1lf 10y agoIn Norway (and probably elsewhere, but I only followed the debate here), the engineer's union, automobile association and just about everyone who knew the first thing about engines said 'NOOO!!!' when our parliament decided that favouring diesels was The Right Thing to do. However, as CO2 was bad and diesels emitted less overall, diesel it was. Result? Air quality in towns took a nosedive, and suddenly diesel cars were forbidden to drive in city centres on days with poor air quality. Much annoyance (naturally) ensued - first the public is being told (by diesels suddenly costing thousands of € less) to buy diesels; then they are being told that they cannot drive them. I luckily live in a very rural area; otherwise I wouldn't have had the conscience to (nor need for) my daily driver - an old diesel Land Cruiser.
- martinald 10y agoThis isn't surprising. Larger engines are almost always more efficient, compare for example a gas boiler in a house vs a CCGT in a powerplant. But overall diesel has been a complete disaster and will take probably a decade minimum to undo. Complete tunnel vision focus on CO2 emissions at all costs which continues to plague environmental regulation IMO.
- hx87 10y ago> Larger engines are almost always more efficient, compare for example a gas boiler in a house vs a CCGT in a powerplant. Not necessarily true--gas boilers can be up to 97% efficient, whereas CCGTs top out at the mid-60s. CCGTs can be more efficient as part of a district heating system.
- 08-15 10y ago> compare for example a gas boiler in a house vs a CCGT in a powerplant One makes hot water (~100% efficiency based on LHV), the other makes electricity (~50% effciency). What's your point?
- 08-15 10y ago> Nitrogen oxides cause tens of thousands of early deaths in Europe Complete bullshit. There isn't a single death certificate in the world that lists "NOx poisoning" as cause of death, unless it was an industrial accident. These numbers come from assuming that some high dose of NOx will kill you, therefore 1% of that dose kills one in a hundred. So, at least for regulatory purposes to scare people, we can take a tiny dose, multiply it by a huge number of people, and get the number of deaths. Apparently, this is true for any chemical, such as Paracetamol. 10g of Paracetamol are reasonably likely (about 50%?) to kill you. So if 100 people take 200mg each, one of them is going to die, right? Apparently, "30 million packs" are sold each year in the UK, each containing about 10g, and somebody swallows most of it. So every year, Paracetamol kills about 15 million people in the UK. Or maybe just 5 million, if some Paracetamol is flushed down the toilet. So it takes no more than 13 years, and there nobody left in the UK to be killed by NOx. But the UK isn't devoid of people. That's because this whole logic is bullshit, and when applied to medicine, everybody knows it. When NOx concentrations of less than a ppm are involved, it suddenly makes sense. Dear ICCT: If you feel the need to make up bullshit like this, you are tackling a non-problem.
- throwaway729 10y agoDo you have a source on that? I thought that the numbers came from extrapolating from large population studies on the effects of air pollution (e.g. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401#t=article http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401#t=a...).
- 08-15 10y agoThe article itself cites the Guardian, who cites the European Environmental Agency, who cites REVIHAAP, which is only a review. REVIHAAP (http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/193108/REVIHAAP-Final-technical-report-final-version.pdf http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/193108/R...) mentions a lot of studies that estimate the proportionality factor between mortality and NOx concentration. This is precisely the method I described above: assume proportionality, then estimate the proportionality constant, then multiply by millions of people and get a scary number. Few studies in the REVIHAAP report cite actual concentrations, but when they do they are invariably much higher than the 20µg the EEA applies as lower cutoff. (The study you linked to doesn't include NOx. REVIHAAP itself has more inapplicable stuff, such as one study that actually looked at proximity to roads, then noted that they can't tease apart the effects of NOx, ozone, soot, etc, then proceeded to make a claim about NOx specifically anyway.)