5 ms·

Nobody specified what innovation must occur. Nobody even said you had to make diesel engines. They just said if you want to sell diesel engines they must be thi

by ip26 7y ago

Nobody specified what innovation must occur. Nobody even said you had to make diesel engines. They just said if you want to sell diesel engines they must be this good. Anyway, remember VW themselves had engines that met the spec just fine. They only cheated so they could omit the AdBlue system.

legitster 7y ago
The push to diesel was actually launched by various European governments starting in the 90s: https://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-europe-diesel-pollution https://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-europe-die... They specifically set goals and policies to make diesels a larger presence (hence why so many power diesel sedans and small cars were made for the EU market but not the US).
- jessewmc 7y ago
  This is where the blame really lies: "European nations — including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Austria — had been cutting taxes on diesel car purchases and diesel fuel to promote sales". The big lesson here is regulators should never ever pick winners from specific technologies.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    I think your conclusion is not supported by the premise. Yes, regulators fucked up. But that does not mean they are wrong all the time. And besides, it wasn't the regulators that cheated, it was the car manufacturers. The worst you can really accuse them of is lax oversight.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - legitster 7y ago
    This is something that worries me about current green initiatives. We throw down subsidies for electric cars, but they still fuel on coal fired plants. Or all the money we throw away to make ethanol. It would be so much better if we just started taxing externalities like carbon or fertilizer runoff and let markets decide the tech to do it organically. But let's not let the car oligopoly completely off the hook. At some point they all took that step over the line.
    - mobilefriendly 7y ago
      Ethanol is not a green initiative, it is a subsidy program for corn growers. There's no serious green group that argues for ethanol from corn. The "green" aspect is just marketing by the corn lobby.
    - marcyb5st 7y ago
      I think it is still a good thing to subsidize electric cars for several reasons: 1) even if powered 100% by coal plants, these plants have an higher efficiency than cars' internal combustion engines, especially if you consider the energy/co2 emissions due to the distillation process of petrol/diesel. Moreover, having a huge central plant means that you can install heavy and big filters and possibly re-capture some of that co2. You can't do this with cars 2) not all the power comes from coal plants, some from nuclear, some from natural gas, and even from renewables sources 3) when we finally crack nuclear fusion / thorium reactors / we found a way to store the surplus of renewables for underperforming times in a good way (like with molten salt https://newatlas.com/mit-molten-salt-battery-membrane/53085/ https://newatlas.com/mit-molten-salt-battery-membrane/53085/ ) we can be carbon free from as soon as these technologies spread, without having to way for consumers to change cars 4) Pushing people to use newer technologies means that companies will spend more in R&D on this subject. Imagine if someone finally invents a battery with energy capacity of 5x current Li-ion. A car like the model 3 will have ~ 1500 kms of range ... Of course there are points in favor of petrol/diesel cars, like the fact that producing current batteries is not that good for the environment, but if we don't invest on this we'll never have the incentive to overcome these problems.
      - 7y ago
  - djaychela 7y ago
    I think this doesn't take into account the reasons behind this (in the UK at least, where I live). Tax cuts were made because CO2 emissions were viewed as being the problem, and Diesels are more fuel efficient than an equivalent-power petrol engine, hence lower CO2 emissions. It wasn't that the regulators were 'picking winners from specific technologies' as you claim, but they were favouring any vehicle with a low CO2 emission per kilometer. If that was achievable by a petrol car, then it was rewarded; low emission petrol cars got the same break, but they're inherently less efficient due to the lower compression ratio of a petrol engine.
    - donjoe 7y ago
      ... whereas less CO2 emissions caused by Diesel engines is a misconception, too. Diesel comes with a higher energy density which means there are more CO2 emissions per burned liter of Diesel in comparison to gas. Burning a liter of Diesel emits 2.6kg of CO2, gas 'only' emits 2.3kg of CO2 [1]. Plus, a Diesel engine is heavier compared to a gas engine with comparable specs. [1] https://www1.wdr.de/wissen/technik/kohlenstoffdioxid-sprit-100.html https://www1.wdr.de/wissen/technik/kohlenstoffdioxid-sprit-1...
      - scythe 7y ago
        This comparison is wrong. You want CO2 per distance, not CO2 per liter. From these numbers if it could go either way. If the diesel engine gets 10% more distance/liter then it's worse than an Otto engine, but if it gets 20% more distance/liter then it's cleaner than an Otto engine. CO2/liter tells us very little. However, what is certain is that the CO2 savings from diesel is small and certainly less than 50%. That's not going to get us where we need to go in terms of carbon emissions.
        donjoe 7y ago
        I wouldn't say it's per se wrong. The tax is based on a per liter basis and not on a per distance/liter basis. If you'd want to tax CO2 emissions, Diesel would need a higher tax rate than gas since it'll emit more CO2 per burned liter.
- mymythisisthis 7y ago
  This was a critical mistake. The push should have been for Propane. Propane is cleaner than almost any other carbon source. Also, you don't have to get it from the Middle East.
  - Arbalest 7y ago
    You might have been thinking Methane with the middle east comment. Natural gas is mostly methane. Also you should have mentioned LPG, to allow it to be related to existing initiatives (which have now seen decline).
- tobias3 7y ago
  Perhaps someone older can correct me if I am wrong, since this is difficult to research: Here in Germany the tax difference between diesel and gasoline was mainly created in 1991. Gasoline prices were increased to pay for German re-unification and diesel prices weren't taxed as much because of "European tax harmonization" -- I'd say this is code for "we want to remain competitive and lower diesel taxes gives our industry a competitive advantage". To be fair, they increased taxation of diesel passenger cars (yearly fee) as well -- just not enough. So nothing intentional. They needed to increase taxes, gasoline was a convenient target because its price was low compared to previous times or something, they didn't want to hurt the (export oriented) industry, so diesel wasn't taxed as much. Individual consumers looked at total cost of ownership of diesel vs. gasoline cars and started buying the diesel one.
usrusr 7y ago
Regulations, at least the European ones, were created with industry input. I believe that they were designed as much as advertisement for replacing perfectly fine existing cars with new ones from the factory as they were designed for actual air quality improvement. Test stand trickery was factored in from the beginning, because basic trickery had already started (for mileage) before emissions regulations entered the picture. Politicians can claim that they have wrestled major concessions from an unwilling industry, the industry feigns a struggle while happily agreeing (as long as nobody looks too hard at the trickery) so that their customers get a free clean conscience with their shiny new car. Repeat a few iterations and the gap between regulatory fiction and reality will be too large to remain unnoticed.

by ip26 7y ago

legitster 7y ago

The push to diesel was actually launched by various European governments starting in the 90s: https://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-europe-diesel-pollution https://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-europe-die... They specifically set goals and policies to make diesels a larger presence (hence why so many power diesel sedans and small cars were made for the EU market but not the US).

jessewmc 7y ago
This is where the blame really lies: "European nations — including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Austria — had been cutting taxes on diesel car purchases and diesel fuel to promote sales". The big lesson here is regulators should never ever pick winners from specific technologies.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  I think your conclusion is not supported by the premise. Yes, regulators fucked up. But that does not mean they are wrong all the time. And besides, it wasn't the regulators that cheated, it was the car manufacturers. The worst you can really accuse them of is lax oversight.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- legitster 7y ago
  This is something that worries me about current green initiatives. We throw down subsidies for electric cars, but they still fuel on coal fired plants. Or all the money we throw away to make ethanol. It would be so much better if we just started taxing externalities like carbon or fertilizer runoff and let markets decide the tech to do it organically. But let's not let the car oligopoly completely off the hook. At some point they all took that step over the line.
  - mobilefriendly 7y ago
    Ethanol is not a green initiative, it is a subsidy program for corn growers. There's no serious green group that argues for ethanol from corn. The "green" aspect is just marketing by the corn lobby.
  - marcyb5st 7y ago
    I think it is still a good thing to subsidize electric cars for several reasons: 1) even if powered 100% by coal plants, these plants have an higher efficiency than cars' internal combustion engines, especially if you consider the energy/co2 emissions due to the distillation process of petrol/diesel. Moreover, having a huge central plant means that you can install heavy and big filters and possibly re-capture some of that co2. You can't do this with cars 2) not all the power comes from coal plants, some from nuclear, some from natural gas, and even from renewables sources 3) when we finally crack nuclear fusion / thorium reactors / we found a way to store the surplus of renewables for underperforming times in a good way (like with molten salt https://newatlas.com/mit-molten-salt-battery-membrane/53085/ https://newatlas.com/mit-molten-salt-battery-membrane/53085/ ) we can be carbon free from as soon as these technologies spread, without having to way for consumers to change cars 4) Pushing people to use newer technologies means that companies will spend more in R&D on this subject. Imagine if someone finally invents a battery with energy capacity of 5x current Li-ion. A car like the model 3 will have ~ 1500 kms of range ... Of course there are points in favor of petrol/diesel cars, like the fact that producing current batteries is not that good for the environment, but if we don't invest on this we'll never have the incentive to overcome these problems.
    - 7y ago
- djaychela 7y ago
  I think this doesn't take into account the reasons behind this (in the UK at least, where I live). Tax cuts were made because CO2 emissions were viewed as being the problem, and Diesels are more fuel efficient than an equivalent-power petrol engine, hence lower CO2 emissions. It wasn't that the regulators were 'picking winners from specific technologies' as you claim, but they were favouring any vehicle with a low CO2 emission per kilometer. If that was achievable by a petrol car, then it was rewarded; low emission petrol cars got the same break, but they're inherently less efficient due to the lower compression ratio of a petrol engine.
  - donjoe 7y ago
    ... whereas less CO2 emissions caused by Diesel engines is a misconception, too. Diesel comes with a higher energy density which means there are more CO2 emissions per burned liter of Diesel in comparison to gas. Burning a liter of Diesel emits 2.6kg of CO2, gas 'only' emits 2.3kg of CO2 [1]. Plus, a Diesel engine is heavier compared to a gas engine with comparable specs. [1] https://www1.wdr.de/wissen/technik/kohlenstoffdioxid-sprit-100.html https://www1.wdr.de/wissen/technik/kohlenstoffdioxid-sprit-1...
    - scythe 7y ago
      This comparison is wrong. You want CO2 per distance, not CO2 per liter. From these numbers if it could go either way. If the diesel engine gets 10% more distance/liter then it's worse than an Otto engine, but if it gets 20% more distance/liter then it's cleaner than an Otto engine. CO2/liter tells us very little. However, what is certain is that the CO2 savings from diesel is small and certainly less than 50%. That's not going to get us where we need to go in terms of carbon emissions.
      - donjoe 7y ago
        I wouldn't say it's per se wrong. The tax is based on a per liter basis and not on a per distance/liter basis. If you'd want to tax CO2 emissions, Diesel would need a higher tax rate than gas since it'll emit more CO2 per burned liter.
mymythisisthis 7y ago
This was a critical mistake. The push should have been for Propane. Propane is cleaner than almost any other carbon source. Also, you don't have to get it from the Middle East.
- Arbalest 7y ago
  You might have been thinking Methane with the middle east comment. Natural gas is mostly methane. Also you should have mentioned LPG, to allow it to be related to existing initiatives (which have now seen decline).
tobias3 7y ago
Perhaps someone older can correct me if I am wrong, since this is difficult to research: Here in Germany the tax difference between diesel and gasoline was mainly created in 1991. Gasoline prices were increased to pay for German re-unification and diesel prices weren't taxed as much because of "European tax harmonization" -- I'd say this is code for "we want to remain competitive and lower diesel taxes gives our industry a competitive advantage". To be fair, they increased taxation of diesel passenger cars (yearly fee) as well -- just not enough. So nothing intentional. They needed to increase taxes, gasoline was a convenient target because its price was low compared to previous times or something, they didn't want to hurt the (export oriented) industry, so diesel wasn't taxed as much. Individual consumers looked at total cost of ownership of diesel vs. gasoline cars and started buying the diesel one.

usrusr 7y ago

Regulations, at least the European ones, were created with industry input. I believe that they were designed as much as advertisement for replacing perfectly fine existing cars with new ones from the factory as they were designed for actual air quality improvement. Test stand trickery was factored in from the beginning, because basic trickery had already started (for mileage) before emissions regulations entered the picture. Politicians can claim that they have wrestled major concessions from an unwilling industry, the industry feigns a struggle while happily agreeing (as long as nobody looks too hard at the trickery) so that their customers get a free clean conscience with their shiny new car. Repeat a few iterations and the gap between regulatory fiction and reality will be too large to remain unnoticed.