Volkswagen Could Face $18 Billion Fine Over Emission-Cheating Software

After getting caught cheating on emissions testing by means of software, Volkswagen could face up to $18 billion in fines, reports USA Today. That number is based on the company being assessed the maximum penalty of $37,500 per affected vehicle. That's not the only bad news for Volkswagen, which has halted sales of its 4-cylinder diesel cars; the linked article reports that the violations "could also invite charges of false marketing by regulators, a vehicle recall and payment to car owners, either voluntarily or through lawsuits. Volkswagen advertised the cars under the 'Clean Diesel' moniker. The state of California is also investigating the emissions violations."

Comments

23% of the company

[crow]

For reference, $18B would be about 23% of the market cap of the company. In other words, if the company were to pay such a fine by issuing new stock and giving the stock to the government, the government would end up with 23% of the company (or so goes the math if the stock market were being logical).

That's not what's going to happen, but it shows that the company should be able to raise the money to pay the fine if it comes to it. Of course, such things usually take many years of lawsuits and appeals before it's all settled, which is why these things often are settled out of court for a lower price.

Re:23% of the company

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Plus, aren't all those customers now stuck with cars that are either not street legal(I know that pre-emissions-standards vehicles were grandfathered; but these aren't) or will absolutely suck once they get reflashed so that the 'clean' ECU parameters run all the time, rather than just during testing(I'm assuming that something about the test-mode parameters was lousy, or they would have had no incentive to try this little trick)?

That seems like the sort of thing that might make them justifiably unhappy, and in a way with a relatively large, and relatively easily quantified, dollar value attached.

Re:23% of the company

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the previous article about this, the cars are still LEGAL, they are just nowhere near as clean as they claim. It's not a "clean" or "dirty" question, all cars are dirty to a certain extent.

Uh, no.

During normal driving situations, the controls are 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.

Re:23% of the company

[Z00L00K]

Then you have misunderstood the EGR. What the EGR do is to recirculate some exhaust lowering the oxygen content in the combustion chamber, which in turn lowers the combustion temperature and result in a lower NOx level. The EGR gases are usually also cooled down before entering the intake.

The downside with a lower combustion chamber temperature is that the engine will provide less power as well, all according to the ideal gas law. To compensate for this the boost pressure through a turbocharger is pretty high - newer engines conforming to the latest emission standards have a higher boost than previous generations - even up to 4 bar (4 atmospheres) boost. (way more than what a gasoline engine have)

On a diesel there's a catalytic converter to take care of some HC that may remain, but the primary objective is that there's a particle filter that catches most particles - where the majority are soot particles. This filter has to be regenerated at regular intervals which is done by injecting some additional diesel into the filter where it's ignited. However since the soot isn't entirely clean there's an accumulation of ash residue that requires a replacement of the filter at regular intervals - usually >= 100000 km.

In order to lower the NOx even more there's also on modern vehicles also an injection of a selective catalytic reagent (SCR), often named AdBlue or Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) (which is a clear water-based liquid containing urea) into the exhaust system that combines with the NOx and other compounds in the exhaust fumes to produce nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water.

Re:Hang 'em high...

[Salamander]

Yes, there is such a law. 40 CFR 86.1809-10 - Prohibition of defeat devices. So much for the "if it's legal it's wonderful" pseudo-argument.

Re:Hang 'em high...

[drinkypoo]

We have algae that can turn cellulose grown on scrubland into a direct substitute for gasoline (butanol), we can make biofuel substitute for diesel. But there is no serious investment that way, only token efforts.

No, it's worse than that; Butamax, a holding company owned by BP and DuPont, managed to get a patent on the process for efficiently producing butanol and are now actively preventing Gevo (a GE energy ventures subsidiary) from making butanol fuel and selling it to the public, which they would like to be doing right now — on a small scale at first, but ramping up over time.

BP, some of the most evil fucks ever, and DuPont, more of the most evil fucks ever, are actively preventing us from having the best biofuel we could be burning.