4 ms·

Wondering if those active filters I've seen in the past might be an idea - isn't it the case that exhaust pollution is only half of emissions, with the rest com

Wondering if those active filters I've seen in the past might be an idea - isn't it the case that exhaust pollution is only half of emissions, with the rest coming from brakes and tyres? The US was right to be suspicious of diesel.

skocznymroczny 7y ago
Well, at least they have those filters. In Poland, it's common to cut off these filters because most people don't want to spend money to replace them and supposedly the fuel efficiency is better without those.
- gambiting 7y ago
  In the UK there is a £5000 fine for any garage which cuts them out - I wish the same fine was applied in Poland, at the moment it's not legal to do but 1) the penalty for doing so is marginal 2) there is no enforcement at all.
MisterTea 7y ago
The US wasn't suspicious of Diesel. People here associated them with being too dirty, noisey and high vibration. They didn't want to drive something that ran like a truck or bus. Of course this was in the 70's/80's when there were barely any emission controls and engines were all mechanically controlled. Unfortunately that image stuck with them well into the "clean" diesel era. Shame as my friend had a diesel Passat with manual transmission and it was amazing on fuel and fun to drive.
- growlist 7y ago
  Try following a diesel versus a petrol as a cyclist. There are estimates that the push for diesel is directly responsible for tens of thousands of excess deaths in the UK, for example.
  - MisterTea 7y ago
    Are you referring to a modern clean diesel with DPF/SCR or the old mechanical smoke belching rattlers? My friends Passat was a 2009 model I believe.
    - mprovost 7y ago
      The 2009 model year is when VW started to program their diesels to cheat on emissions tests.
    - Brakenshire 7y ago
      Diesels from 2009 produce 5-10x higher emissions than the regulatory limits when used in real world conditions. Even diesels built this year vastly exceed the required emissions. They actually had to include a fudge factor which they’re slowly decreasing because diesels were so much worse than they were supposed to be.
    - mikestew 7y ago
      Are you referring to a modern clean diesel... "...or my friend's 2009 VW?" When speaking of emissions output, I find it amusing that your anecdata involves a Volkswagen diesel.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - onlingyding 7y ago
      I don't know how true this is but I've heard the older diesels (2000 era) actually had lower NOx emissions than the newer models due to them running at lower temperatures as they weren't trying to hit newer regulations on particulate emissions. This also then led to newer models emitting finer particulate which was more easily picked up by the wind and could travel into the lungs more easily instead of denser particulate which fell to the roadside.
      - growlist 7y ago
- rconti 7y ago
  People everywhere associated them with being too dirty, noisy, and high vibration. The US just didn't provide the incentives to push people to buy them due to their efficiency. We pretty much said "yeah, keep driving that F-150". It turned out that fuel economy was not the only important thing to consider. You could say we lucked into not increasing diesel adoption. (I own a diesel vehicle with SCR, and an petrol engined vehicle, and an EV)
- Reason077 7y ago
  > "Unfortunately that image stuck with them well into the "clean" diesel era." Or, fortunately as it turned out. "Clean" diesel is a public health disaster in Europe. The US dodged a bullet by not jumping on that bandwagon.
- telchar 7y ago
  We learned when VW's diesel cheating scandal came to light that your friend's Passat probably wasn't as clean as the company claimed. It was fun to drive because VW made it run dirty when not on the test stand. This doesn't seem like a good argument for diesel vehicles.
jlnthws 7y ago
I had in mind that at most 60% of particles emitted by non-electric car are due to the exhaust. It's actually a bit more complex as there are different types of particles with different distributions depending on many factors. In [1], they seem to conclude that it is indeed 50%-50% for most particles, so it would mean that switching to an electric car only halves the emitted particles on the location the car is used (nothing is said about the overall assessment of its lifespan, maintenance, battery recycling, fuel production and transport). Regarding diesel, it's important to remember that it was a byproduct of oil refinery that had to be used somehow (instead of being discarded and trashed in the nearby river). Some industrial engines and boats have been designed to use it (and are actually better run on diesel engines). Diesel car engine also became a thing, but was originally emitting more small particles. Specific catalytic converters have been introduced to remove those particles decades ago, with very high efficiency (95+%). Those converters are alas not so efficient at lower speed. That's why we don't want too many diesel cars in our cities. [1] https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online%20final%20version%202.pdf https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  > In [1], they seem to conclude that it is indeed 50%-50% for most particles, so it would mean that switching to an electric car only halves the emitted particles That isn’t correct, because electric cars mostly use regenerative braking which eliminates brake emissions. Also, this is only for particulates, NOx also emissions are totally eliminated by the switch.
  - jlnthws 7y ago
    Indeed, I was not aware of it and it makes a huge difference. So local emissions reduction is probably in the 70+% per vehicle. Tyres and roads are the last big chunk of emissions then. Where is my flying Tesla? [2] https://electricautonomy.ca/2019/09/11/better-braking-another-way-evs-clear-the-air/ https://electricautonomy.ca/2019/09/11/better-braking-anothe...
- eyegor 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

skocznymroczny 7y ago

Well, at least they have those filters. In Poland, it's common to cut off these filters because most people don't want to spend money to replace them and supposedly the fuel efficiency is better without those.

gambiting 7y ago
In the UK there is a £5000 fine for any garage which cuts them out - I wish the same fine was applied in Poland, at the moment it's not legal to do but 1) the penalty for doing so is marginal 2) there is no enforcement at all.

MisterTea 7y ago

The US wasn't suspicious of Diesel. People here associated them with being too dirty, noisey and high vibration. They didn't want to drive something that ran like a truck or bus. Of course this was in the 70's/80's when there were barely any emission controls and engines were all mechanically controlled. Unfortunately that image stuck with them well into the "clean" diesel era. Shame as my friend had a diesel Passat with manual transmission and it was amazing on fuel and fun to drive.

growlist 7y ago
Try following a diesel versus a petrol as a cyclist. There are estimates that the push for diesel is directly responsible for tens of thousands of excess deaths in the UK, for example.
- MisterTea 7y ago
  Are you referring to a modern clean diesel with DPF/SCR or the old mechanical smoke belching rattlers? My friends Passat was a 2009 model I believe.
  - mprovost 7y ago
    The 2009 model year is when VW started to program their diesels to cheat on emissions tests.
  - Brakenshire 7y ago
    Diesels from 2009 produce 5-10x higher emissions than the regulatory limits when used in real world conditions. Even diesels built this year vastly exceed the required emissions. They actually had to include a fudge factor which they’re slowly decreasing because diesels were so much worse than they were supposed to be.
  - mikestew 7y ago
    Are you referring to a modern clean diesel... "...or my friend's 2009 VW?" When speaking of emissions output, I find it amusing that your anecdata involves a Volkswagen diesel.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - onlingyding 7y ago
    I don't know how true this is but I've heard the older diesels (2000 era) actually had lower NOx emissions than the newer models due to them running at lower temperatures as they weren't trying to hit newer regulations on particulate emissions. This also then led to newer models emitting finer particulate which was more easily picked up by the wind and could travel into the lungs more easily instead of denser particulate which fell to the roadside.
    - growlist 7y ago
rconti 7y ago
People everywhere associated them with being too dirty, noisy, and high vibration. The US just didn't provide the incentives to push people to buy them due to their efficiency. We pretty much said "yeah, keep driving that F-150". It turned out that fuel economy was not the only important thing to consider. You could say we lucked into not increasing diesel adoption. (I own a diesel vehicle with SCR, and an petrol engined vehicle, and an EV)
Reason077 7y ago
> "Unfortunately that image stuck with them well into the "clean" diesel era." Or, fortunately as it turned out. "Clean" diesel is a public health disaster in Europe. The US dodged a bullet by not jumping on that bandwagon.
telchar 7y ago
We learned when VW's diesel cheating scandal came to light that your friend's Passat probably wasn't as clean as the company claimed. It was fun to drive because VW made it run dirty when not on the test stand. This doesn't seem like a good argument for diesel vehicles.

jlnthws 7y ago

I had in mind that at most 60% of particles emitted by non-electric car are due to the exhaust. It's actually a bit more complex as there are different types of particles with different distributions depending on many factors. In [1], they seem to conclude that it is indeed 50%-50% for most particles, so it would mean that switching to an electric car only halves the emitted particles on the location the car is used (nothing is said about the overall assessment of its lifespan, maintenance, battery recycling, fuel production and transport). Regarding diesel, it's important to remember that it was a byproduct of oil refinery that had to be used somehow (instead of being discarded and trashed in the nearby river). Some industrial engines and boats have been designed to use it (and are actually better run on diesel engines). Diesel car engine also became a thing, but was originally emitting more small particles. Specific catalytic converters have been introduced to remove those particles decades ago, with very high efficiency (95+%). Those converters are alas not so efficient at lower speed. That's why we don't want too many diesel cars in our cities. [1] https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online%20final%20version%202.pdf https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...

Brakenshire 7y ago
> In [1], they seem to conclude that it is indeed 50%-50% for most particles, so it would mean that switching to an electric car only halves the emitted particles That isn’t correct, because electric cars mostly use regenerative braking which eliminates brake emissions. Also, this is only for particulates, NOx also emissions are totally eliminated by the switch.
- jlnthws 7y ago
  Indeed, I was not aware of it and it makes a huge difference. So local emissions reduction is probably in the 70+% per vehicle. Tyres and roads are the last big chunk of emissions then. Where is my flying Tesla? [2] https://electricautonomy.ca/2019/09/11/better-braking-another-way-evs-clear-the-air/ https://electricautonomy.ca/2019/09/11/better-braking-anothe...
eyegor 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]