Could the Volkswagen Cheating Scandal Improve Emissions Standards? (citiesofthefuture.eu)

dkatana writes: An article in Cities of the Future suggests that the "automaker's emissions scandal could end up being a boon if it pushes governments and the industry to reassess diesel's impact more honestly and move away from it altogether." The article also asks the European Union to accelerate the introduction of new emissions standards, currently slated to take effect in September 2018, and to order mandatory recalls for all the vehicles affected, as Germany has. It points out that some drivers could refuse to have their cars "fixed" out of fear that the diesel engine will lose gas efficiency and power output.

Comments

tbh

[Anonymous Coward]

It points out that some drivers could refuse to have their cars "fixed" out of fear that the diesel engine will lose gas efficiency and power output.

Tbh that is what I would do. It's almost guaranteed that the fix will lose gas efficiency and power output.
And then I would never buy another VW again.

Re:tbh

[johanw]

This is going to be golden buisiness for tuning companies who will put back the original software (and perhaps some extra's).

Re:tbh

[TWX]

It points out that some drivers could refuse to have their cars "fixed" out of fear that the diesel engine will lose gas efficiency and power output.

Tbh that is what I would do. It's almost guaranteed that the fix will lose gas efficiency and power output. And then I would never buy another VW again.

And, if you didn't get it fixed, you'd go to renew your tags through your motor vehicle department only to find that your car is ineligible to be registered.

Re:tbh

[TWX]

I doubt it. I expect that emissions and inspections will scrutinize these cars more to confirm that they're conforming, not less. They may even issue software updates to their OBD-II/CANBUS emissions test controllers to check the veracity of the software in the car's computer. Then again, if there's still any question there's always a tailpipe test on a dyno.

Re: tbh

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubtful... The engines are optimized already. When you plug in a diagnostic unit, you can tell the engine runs differently.

Besides most performance cold reduce gas mileage anyway.

Re:tbh

[RandomFactor]

I have a vehicle ('95, in Georgia) that requires an annual dyno test.

Finding a working inspection station for these is getting harder every year. I can't imaging telling a pack of people with recent cars to go find them. ('96 and later models don't have to do the dyno test here so they are getting pretty rare...)

Re:tbh

[Anonymous Coward]

Most states don't have the mechanisms to enforce this. Only CARB states can require you to have the fix before you can get registered.

Re:tbh

[TWX]

Only CARB states may requires testing, but the VINs of the affected vehicles can simply be submitted to states' motor vehicle departments, and given the nature of Federal highway funding to the states, plus it actually being against Federal law to tamper with the emissions controls of a vehicle, it would not be difficult to compel states MVDs to deny registration of affected vehicles without manufacturer-submitted proof that the manufacturer-created tampering was not corrected.

These Federal laws are specifically on the books for cases of fraud for profit. The EPA isn't going to go after some private owner taking the catalytic converters of of their '77 Monte Carlo or removing the smog pump from their '76 Mustang or blocking the EGR crossover and removing the charcoal canister from their '79 Magnum, they're going to go after the people that make a business of removing the emissions controls on relatively modern vehicles in quantity or violate the law from the point of original manufacture. This predominately means dealerships and manufacturers.

Re: tbh

[mrchaotica]

The engines are optimized for (at least a modicum) of emissions already. If you told an aftermarket tuner to completely ignore NOx (and possibly particulates, although the DPF would still catch them), he could substantially increase horsepower (think 25% or more).

Also, tuning a diesel does not tend to reduce MPG much, because you are actually using the extra power only occasionally. The rest of the time it uses only the same amount of fuel as it did before.

Re:tbh

[gl4ss]

they'll fix it so that you don't lose power / efficiency.

but here is the kicker to that: some of them need new physical parts. and that is in their fix plan. which is why they're offering deep discounts to owners of some cars in order to buy a new car.. because the fix is so expensive(1.6 tdi's in germany for example afaik).

basically they will have to bring the engines up to the spec of the newer engine model and that needs swapping out parts.. it's not just a firmware fix.

Re:tbh

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that poor Americans have no other option than Volkswagen if they want a diesel station wagon with a manual transmission.

I did not like driving a VW either, the car never sat right with me, but there was no other option in America. American automobile marked sucks ass. It is one of the most undeveloped, primitive automarkets in the world. Even third world countries have more choices when it comes to cars, especially diesel cars, station wagons, and manual transmission option.

Re:tbh

[Anonymous Coward]

California doesn't test diesel cars in any way, shape, or form, other than visually inspecting that

a) the emission system has not been tampered with
b) the vehicle has a black sticker from the manufacturer that it is legal in California.

I know this because I imported a VW diesel into California two years ago to the day.

Re:tbh

[rwise2112]

And, if you didn't get it fixed, you'd go to renew your tags through your motor vehicle department only to find that your car is ineligible to be registered.

The government here in Ontario has already stated that they will require proof that the fix was applied before these cars can be re-licensed. I can only imagine many provinces and states will do the same.

Re:tbh

[Shirley Marquez]

The CARB states include 38% of the US population. So the impact is substantial even if the remaining 62% are not covered. The CARB standards are going national starting with the 2016 model year, though I don't believe that includes a mandate for testing.

Re:tbh

[Shirley Marquez]

It's true that if you want the specific things on your list, the choices in the US are limited. Manual transmissions are not popular here, so many models are not offered with them. Station wagons are out of fashion, both because of consumer preference and because fuel mileage standards are biased in favor of crossovers rather than station wagons.

Diesel cars have also never been popular in the US. In the early years there were prejudices against them because of smoky exhaust, poor availability of fuel (most drivers don't want to have to visit a truck stop to fuel their cars), and some ill-fated attempts by American car makers to market diesel cars, notably the Oldsmobile models. More recently, diesels have suffered because of the very strict EPA standards for diesel emissions (which impose tight limits on particulate and NOx, which are problem areas for diesel), which mean that many of the diesel cars sold elsewhere in the world cannot be imported into the US without substantial modification. Conversely, the EU put strict limits on CO2 emissions (where diesels do well) so their regulations were far more friendly to diesel, and the much higher fuel prices that prevail in Europe provided a stronger incentive to buy diesel cars.

Another reason that some cars from other parts of the world are not available in the US is safety standards. Notably, the US has a much stronger requirement for bumper strength than other parts of the world, so nearly every car model from elsewhere in the world has to be modified to include more substantial bumpers. If a company does not see enough market potential for a car to justify making a special US version, the car doesn't get sold here.

Finally, very small cars have been a hard sell in the US. Some companies do not choose to import their smallest models here. Notable examples include the VW Polo and the BMW 1-series, as well as all the Japanese "city cars".

All that said, describing the US as an underdeveloped car market is an exaggeration. There are still plenty of choices, though perhaps not the ones you want. (Like you, I find the paucity of station wagons frustrating.) And the US is the second most successful market in the world for hybrid cars (in part because of economic incentives to buy them), trailing only Japan and far ahead of the EU.

Predestiny?

[msauve]

"automaker's emissions scandal could end up being a boon if it pushes governments and the industry to reassess diesel's impact more honestly and move away from it altogether."

So, the author has already decided on what the result should be, without the benefit of the reassessment they've said should happen. That doesn't seem "honest" to me.

Re:Predestiny?

[bobbied]

To be honest, diesel is dirtier than gasoline no matter how you slice it. It's just really hard to keep diesel emissions down and we've not been pushing the technology to do so as hard as gasoline engines. European governments have pushed diesel use in the past though favorable treatment in tax codes, not necessarily trying to get more diesel cars, but more to permute diesel's use as a transportation fuel.

I think the article writer is engaged in some wishful thinking though and you are correct that the author is certainly biased. But I also see where it could be read as advocating for regulatory changes which seem long over due in Europe. It's an opinion piece, not a news report....

Re:Predestiny?

[tomhath]

Try reading the article. The entire opinion piece is that diesel and gasoline powered vehicles should be banned.

Re:Predestiny?

[dbc]

But diesels can meet emission standards honestly if auto makers include a urea tank. They just fear consumer reaction to having another consumable fluid (that needs to be refilled every 9 thousand miles, or so) and don't want to do the heavy lifting of consumer education. Considering we are a lot closer to a renewable biodiesel fuel than other fuels, it seems like it makes a lot of sense. Of course, that begs the secondary question of whether farm land should be used to grow food or to grow fuel for cars, but that is a secondary debate.

Re:Predestiny?

[bughunter]

Read the sentence again without being so critical. He's not predetermining the result, he's just saying X = Y && Z .

If both Y and Z become true, then X (the scandal will be a boon) will become true.

In this case Y and Z aren't independent variables. Z likely won't happen unless Y does, but Y could happen without causing Z.

Re:Predestiny?

[ganjadude]

lets all be honest. as far as the customer goes, all any of this means is higher costs on your next new car

Re:Predestiny?

[CCarrot]

But diesels can meet emission standards honestly if auto makers include a urea tank. They just fear consumer reaction to having another consumable fluid (that needs to be refilled every 9 thousand miles, or so) and don't want to do the heavy lifting of consumer education.

Or the consumer could provide 'incremental' top-ups. Just market it as a new feature: "No more 'Mom, I gotta go!' during long road trips!" ;-)

Re:Predestiny?

[bobbied]

Actually it's the primary debate for me. It makes zero sense (and cents) to go out and actively *grow* motor fuels by farming plants to me. All this ethanol we are making and burning in our gasoline powered cars is pretty stupid environmentally, as is growing oily crops just to burn as fuel. It's also very expensive.

Personally, and I know this isn't popular with the huge farming voting block, I don't think we should do this, any more than we should pay farmers not to grow specific crops like we have in the past.

Re:Predestiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

slice it this way. diesel may be 'dirtier' but their engines are more efficient than a gasoline engine, burning less fuel per mile, and add the fact that diesel cars tend to be smaller and lighter and therefore more efficient in that regard as well.. mile for mile, the typical modern diesel powered car (examples include vw jetta or a compact mercedes, etc) is better for the environment overall, by a landslide vs the typical modern gasoline powered vehicles chosen by american drivers (big sedans and wagons, performance oriented cars, 3/4 and 1 ton pickups, suv, etc), and even better than gasoline compact cars which overall are less efficient than the segment used to be.we got 40-45+ mpg reliably in any driving condition in a 80s era escort always a 10 gallon fill-up always 400-450+ miles per tank even after 250k miles, and can't break 40 in a late model focus with 100k miles driving highway commutes in the country.

Re:Predestiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm .. No. There's 17% more energy in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline. My 2014 TDI achieves 56mpg while cruising at 80mph in 6th gear. A diesel engine produces more torque. Once the vehicle is rolling is uses less energy. I average 680 miles per 12 gallons of diesel. NOx is a byproduct of a lean burning engine. CO emissions of a new TDI is very low. NOx is actually higher when running biodiesel.

Re:Predestiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

nah.. an SCR system costs $100.00 every 9k miles and has been proven not to work. The 2.0L TDI with an SCR also exceeds NOx. believe it or not a TDI running biodiesel emits higher NOx.. google it. I own a TDI. I know. My TDI has the LNT system. No SCR. There are 2 Catalytic Converters. The problem with both designs the Catalytic Converters run outside the temperature window. I checked the chemistry of my LNT system. The NOx Cat also has the DPF filter. They used platinum and ceramic with an aluminum oxide coating. The REGEN cycle heats up the CAT to 1100F to incinerate the soot particle that were caught in the filter and the ash is stored in the DPF. The DPF has to be either replaced or removed and cleaned out every 120k miles. My vehicle gets 56mpg cruising at 80mph in 6th gear.. that's the economy that makes it worth it. If the emissions fix reduces mpg and performance then it's not worth it because there are some costly maintenance and diesel costs more than gas. I'm pissed at VW destroying the brands resale value. I have vehicle ADD.. I usually drive something different every 2 to 3 years.

Re:Predestiny?

[NotInHere]

Don't use farm land to farm stuff. Farming is highly inefficient, photovoltaics is much better.
If you farm crops for fuel, you are doing it wrong.

Re:Predestiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

mile for mile, the typical modern diesel powered car (examples include vw jetta or a compact mercedes, etc) is better for the environment overall, by a landslide vs the typical modern gasoline powered vehicles chosen by american drivers (big sedans and wagons, performance oriented cars, 3/4 and 1 ton pickups, suv, etc), and even better than gasoline compact cars which overall are less efficient than the segment used to be.

That's all well and good, but not much help in American markets where ratings are done on the basis of emissions per unit fuel consumed rather than unit distance travelled.

Re:Predestiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes Move away from Diesel Trucks, Bus , and construction Equipment.
To Solar and Battery I would assume?

Re:Predestiny?

[MightyYar]

diesel may be 'dirtier' but their engines are more efficient than a gasoline engine

Correct, though they are not very much more efficient. Generally it is in the 10% range.

burning less fuel per mile

This is true, but misleading. Diesel is more energy-dense. It takes more crude to make diesel than it does gasoline. Apart from the 10% efficiency advantage, it does not burn much less petroleum.

add the fact that diesel cars tend to be smaller and lighter and therefore more efficient in that regard as well

I'm not aware of many (any?) diesel-only cars. A diesel car with similar performance will by definition be either (a) heavier or (b) a lot more expensive than a gasoline car.

we got 40-45+ mpg reliably in any driving condition in a 80s era escort always a 10 gallon fill-up always 400-450+ miles per tank even after 250k miles, and can't break 40 in a late model focus with 100k miles driving highway commutes in the country.

While that single example may be true, fleet mileage has gone up. Cars are, as a whole, more efficient than in the 1980s. Things have gotten better, not worse.

Re:Predestiny?

[SydShamino]

That's all just VW screwing up. The researchers who found this did so because they were running a BMW and VW side-by-side and saw weird fluctuations in emissions in the VW. The BMW was consistently good.

So an SCR system has been "proven not to work" - VW's in their 2.0L TDI. Other SCR systems work fine.

Re:Predestiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it will work fine. For the most part, they just will just need to increase the dosing of urea, so the fix will mainly just be a reflash of the ECU.

Those of us who don't have SCR are looking at a much more substantial set of changes.

Re:Predestiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in terms of drivability. I've gotten used to the torque of a diesel, if o can't have my 2l diesel, ill drive a gas guzzling muscle car to get the same feel.compare my 2l diesel emmisdions to a 6.4l hemi, because that's where I'm going if diesel dies.

Re:Predestiny?

[rtb61]

Pretty much ban the infernal combustion engine, logical and sound decision. Should have happened decades ago. Think that shit is safe, park in your garage with the engine running and see how long you last. Does any ever have the right to pollute the air someone else breathes.

Re:Predestiny?

[calque]

While that single example may be true, fleet mileage has gone up. Cars are, as a whole, more efficient than in the 1980s. Things have gotten better, not worse.

I have always gotten worse mileage than the EPA ratings. However, I had a 1992 Civic that would get 36-38 mpg overall, not highway. My 2012 Civic is consistently right around 30 mpg for the same mix of driving in the same area. The '92 had a lean-burn engine that presumably couldn't be made clean enough for modern standards. Fleet mileage improving doesn't mean that cars within a class have necessarily improved.

Re:Predestiny?

[calque]

I have heard that a modern engine would only smother you with carbon dioxide, long before killing you with carbon monoxide. I haven't noticed that a new gasoline car these days smells bad at all so I don't think they are producing much besides CO2 and water.

Re:Predestiny?

[MightyYar]

It's not that cars have gotten worse - you can, after all, still buy a car that gets you 38MPG. But in this case, Civics have gotten larger and more powerful. In 1992, your Civic weighed far less than 2500lbs and had a 1.5 liter, 100 HP engine with stick shift. Now, a Civic is pushing 3000lbs and has a 1.8 liter, 143 HP engine.

You can get yourself a Honda Fit and have a similar, high-mileage car (albeit with more power). Or you can jump over to a Ford Fiesta and get the SFE edition, which basically gives you a tiny 3-cylinder engine (but still more horsepower than your old Civic!) and good fuel economy.

Most of the high-mileage market has been usurped by the hybrids.

Re:Predestiny?

[calque]

Hmm .. No. There's 17% more energy in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline. My 2014 TDI achieves 56mpg while cruising at 80mph in 6th gear.

This is exactly why I haven't bought a diesel. Even though diesel is cheaper relative to gas than in a long time, it's still 13.7% more expensive where I live, which means assuming your number is right, I'd only save less than 3% on gas. Roughly $500 over 15 years. A Chevy Cruze diesel averages $5000 (!!) more expensive than a top of the line LTZ gasoline version of the same car. So there is just no payback at all.

Re:Predestiny?

[aaarrrgggh]

Not really. It takes the engine at least 5 minutes and usually 10-15 to get up to temperature where the SCRs work effectively. The SCRs also do not react quickly to changing load. Average trip lengths are likely in the 10-20 minute range.

To make a diesel efficient, your best bet would be as a range-extender engine in a plug-in hybrid, where the engine can run at peak efficiency for a longer period of time... But this is still less effective than using cng/lng for the same purpose.

Re:Predestiny?

[tlhIngan]

But diesels can meet emission standards honestly if auto makers include a urea tank. They just fear consumer reaction to having another consumable fluid (that needs to be refilled every 9 thousand miles, or so) and don't want to do the heavy lifting of consumer education

Since the urea consumption is proportionate to fuel consumption (about 1:100), the easy solution is to fill both at the pump. I mean, either use a nozzle that will dispense both together or a special filler nozzle. That way the consumer simply dispenses "clean diesel" into their car and everything's taken care of.

No need to remember to fill another tank or anything - you just fill up like you normally do.

Re:Predestiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of those diesel engines will outlast a gasoline car by about three times (300,000 miles is nothing for a diesel, nothing!)

The problem with you people, and this is a very America-specific problem, is that you change cars every three to five years, an enormous financial expense for no good reason and no financial gain.

Other nations do not do this, because it does not make any financial sense, and only makes one poorer. Not even the richest nations in the world do this.

Re:Predestiny?

[rapiddescent]

That's quite a difference to where I live (Scotland). Here, car dealerships often have no, or very few petrol (gas) engined versions of the new family sized cars for sale and pretty much all are diesel.

Price per litre of petrol (95RON) is within 3% of a gallon of diesel. Most diesel for sale here includes 5-10% biodiesel.

My own Subaru XV with a 2.0l turbo boxer diesel engine averages 42mpg and can get towards 60mpg on a motorway (highway) drive. It has the same torque as the famous STi 2.0ltr boxer petrol engine but about half the power. There is a slight downside in that Diesel freezes at only -15'C, although some gas stations include addtive to stop that happening.

Re:Predestiny?

[jabuzz]

You think diesel is dirtier than petroleum spirit because you are focusing on the NOx and nothing else. You are for example ignoring all the un-burnt carcinogenic hydrocarbons in the exhaust of the petroleum spirit engine that are absent from the diesel engine. You are also not considering the reduced CO2 emissions from the diesel compared to the petroleum spirit engine. You are also not considering the half life of the NOx in the equation; that is NOx does not stick around while CO2 and the un-burnt carcinogenic hydrocarbons do.

Is diesel cleaner? Hard to tell in my view probably if you step back and look at the full picture. Certainly the idea it is dirtier is not the simple case you are making out.

Re:Predestiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, diesel is dirtier than gasoline no matter how you slice it.

That depends entirely on which emissions you focus. Diesel will probably always produce more NOx compared to a petrol engine with similar emission reduction technologies. However, PM2.5 emissions are now lower than for petrol engines, while PM10 are comparable. CO and VOC have always been lower for diesel.

The emissions scandal has already led the EU to decide on a new, realistic testing regime. I think that is a very good outcome. VW might be the only manufacturer that has admitted to gaming the tests, but almost all current and recent diesel cars exceed the emission limits by several times when actually on the road, so the current tests are essentially useless. The new test will make sure that cars remain low under all circumstances.

Re:Predestiny?

[tempmpi]

The SCR System works. The issue is that they did not want to include either a much bigger tank or make it user refillable. The refill is $100 not because of the urea ($10-20), but because some serious disassembly is required to refill the small tank. They cheated to make the tank filling last longer by not using enough urea unless running on a testbench. Consumers would not accept a $100 refill and a visit to the shop every 3k miles. SCR is fine, you just need to use enough urea and make it easy to refill it.

Re:Predestiny?

[tempmpi]

I would think that they should also change the tank, install something to allow user refilling or at least make refills free. Because if you use reflash the ECU to use more urea, it will work, but the urea/adblue/def tank will be empty much sooner than initially promised.

Re:Predestiny?

[tempmpi]

cng/lng still has the issue with big tanks required. Hybrid+Diesel sounds like a good idea. If you use a small diesel engine and run it mostly at peak power and get additional power for acceleration from the electric motor it will also reach high enough temperatures much quicker.

Re:Predestiny?

[Discgolferusa]

Honestly what seems stupid is that our government currently pays farmers to NOT farm almost 4 million acres each year (that doesn't include the almost 600,000 acres that get denied). Removing this subsidy (which at least in iowa, is mostly abused by non-farmers anyway especially since the top 2 recipients of this subsidy are also some of the richest people in the state), would add plenty of usable acres to produce viable biofuel crops. Also, realize that the VAST majority of crops in the US aren't grown for human consumption. 90% of all soybeans, 80% of corn, and 70% of all grains are grown for livestock feed. Luckily, the mash byproduct of producing ethanol is sold as feed anyway, so adding biofuel processing as a middle step gives us additional benefit from the crops we currently grow.

Re:Predestiny?

[Thelasko]

They just fear consumer reaction to having another consumable fluid (that needs to be refilled every 9 thousand miles, or so) and don't want to do the heavy lifting of consumer education.

Typically, a DEF tank needs to be refilled every time the fuel tank is filled. Volkswagen cheated to get to that 9k mile interval.

When DEF was first introduced, there was a concern that the infrastructure wasn't available to refill the tanks. Manufacturers were trying to avoid using DEF, or extending fill intervals as long as possible to prevent issues if DEF wasn't available.

Re:Predestiny?

[marciot]

But diesels can meet emission standards honestly if auto makers include a urea tank. They just fear consumer reaction to having another consumable fluid (that needs to be refilled every 9 thousand miles, or so) .

If auto makers were more like NASA, they would realize that the car already has a totally free and renewable supply of urea that could be tapped to solve this problem, as well as having the fortunate side of effect of ensuring a much longer uninterrupted driving range for the vehicle's operator.

Re:Predestiny?

[bobbied]

Nothing is simple, especially where one is discussing environmental impact caused by transportation.

Re:Predestiny?

[calque]

That's quite a difference to where I live (Scotland). Here, car dealerships often have no, or very few petrol (gas) engined versions of the new family sized cars for sale and pretty much all are diesel.

Price per litre of petrol (95RON) is within 3% of a gallon of diesel.

You might think that the difference between gas and diesel in the US is because the US taxes diesel more than gas. However, I just looked it up, and diesel is only taxed about 2% more than gas in my state. So that doesn't explain why diesel is expensive.

Re:Predestiny?

[kammermusik]

What about the urea condensation deposits (biuret/ammeline/ammelide/cyanuric acid) deposits? Is the inherent problem of the catalyst monolith clogging up fixed?

No, emission standard will not get better

[bobbied]

Of course, emission TESTING standards might get improved in ways that can catch cheaters faster...

Re:No, emission standard will not get better

[Thelasko]

Of course, emission TESTING standards might get improved in ways that can catch cheaters faster...

Absolutely! The fact that an automaker cheated says the standards are strict. The fact they got a way with it as long as they did says the system lacks proper verification.

Re:No, emission standard will not get better

[Anonymous Coward]

The current EU reaction appears to be to make the emissions standards twice as worse as before, so the cars that first fraudulently passed the tests can now "legally" pass them (the EU parliament DOES NOT AGREE).

I wonder whether I can send them the bill for any health issues coming from this thoroughly corrupt reasoning.

It will probably tighten up standards...

[Irate Engineer]

It will probably tighten up standards so tight that bicyclists will have to have an emissions probe stuck up their backside annually to see if they are contributing to global warming.

May want to skip the beans for dinner for a while...

Re:It will probably tighten up standards...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will probably tighten up standards so tight that bicyclists will have to have an emissions probe stuck up their backside annually to see if they are contributing to global warming.

May want to skip the beans for dinner for a while...

You joke now...

Re:It will probably tighten up standards...

[MerlynEmrys67]

Quit handing out advise... Someone will take it

Re:It will probably tighten up standards...

[mspohr]

Actually, that's a good idea... but it should be for the cows. They produce a lot of methane and contribute as much to global warming as all transportation fuels.
Now that WHO has determined that meat is bad for you it might be a good time to ban cows.
www.cowspiracy.com

Re:It will probably tighten up standards...

[sconeu]

Where's the "MOOO" guy when he'd actually be on-topic?

Re:It will probably tighten up standards...

[silentcoder]

You could make a solid and scientific case that emissions from humans (and indeed, all animals) are carbon neutral (ditto every other gas).
You can't produce more of any of these gasses than you consume the materials for in the food you eat. Your CO2 output in mass can never be more than 3 times the mass of the food you ate (the other 2X is the oxygen part).
In reality it's far less than that - a big chunk of that carbon is not emitted at all, but instead used to build the proteins for new cells in your body - those only get turned back into CO2 after you die (and presumably cannot be prosecuted). Of course that too, cannot exceed what you ate.

Since the carbon you're adding was removed by plants to become your food just a short while previously - the effect is a nett-zero change in CO2 levels. Ditto for methane and water vapour (you can't breath out more water than you've drunk).

So no, we probably won't ever see regulations against human emissions - that's a strawman the deniers made up. If anybody proposed it, unlike regulations against fossil fuels - no scientist would support them because they would be... erm... completely idiotic.
The amazing thing is that such an idiotic idea nevertheless became a strawman that, based on slashdot, a helluva lot of people (who also consider themselves "smart") seriously believe...

Re:It will probably tighten up standards...

[Anonymous Coward]

May want to skip the beans for dinner for a while...

That, my friend, is the same as cheating on the emissions test. I am sure there will be mandatory bean-eating the night before the anal probe.

gas efficiency not affacted.

[Anonymous Coward]

They will go for relaxing NOx requirements. A lower gas efficiency is something consumers could sue for.

I'd wager....

[PortHaven]

That they'll do some random tests of all makes and manufacturers, and discover a few other cheaters.

To be honest, VW stock could be a fortune maker if you buy it when it's on a drop due to threats of fines, and then one or two other makers are caught cheating on emissions. VW stock will bounce back up.

Volkswagen rock meets Emissions window

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems appropriate to site the Parable of the broken window.

fear the diesel engine will lose gas efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you... but my diesel doesn't use *ANY* gas.

Never Ban a Technology

[Thelasko]

Once you ban a technology, you are also banning any development on it. It may have some undesirable effects now. Ban those effects. If the technology is worthwhile, someone will figure out a way to solve the problems.

Also, just because there is one bad egg doesn't mean an entire technology is bad.

Re:Never Ban a Technology

[TWX]

That's not really true for automakers. Self-driving cars are not permitted but automakers are developing them. Car companies are able to get exceptions for manufacturing and testing purposes all of the time when they want to drive on public roads, and they have miles and miles and miles of test track on which to run unlicensed vehicles. Plus they test components and systems outside of vehicle chassis too.

If your argument was true then there would be no auto racing as basically none of those cars are street legal.

Re:Never Ban a Technology

[evilviper]

Once you ban a technology, you are also banning any development on it.

Even if diesel cars are banned, diesel engines will certainly remain extensively in-use. Semi trucks, stationary electrical generators, train locomotives, massive container ships, etc.

Re:Never Ban a Technology

[khallow]

Self-driving cars are not permitted

Actually, they are. They just aren't permitted to drive on public roads except in certain controlled circumstances. If you want to build some private roads and run your self-driving car, you can.

Re:Never Ban a Technology

[thegarbz]

Which are all very different from those found in tiny passenger cars. It's trivial to make a very large diesel engine meet emission standards.

Re:Never Ban a Technology

[Thelasko]

Which are all very different from those found in tiny passenger cars. It's trivial to make a very large diesel engine meet emission standards.

As a diesel emissions engineer, I cannot emphasize enough how incorrect this statement is. All diesel engines function on the same principles. Diesel emissions regulations are the most strict for small engines. The EPA assumes that smaller engines (car and truck) are less expensive to develop than large engines. Medium and large engine (locomotive and ship) regulations lag behind the small engines by a few years so they can benefit from the work already done by the small engine manufacturers.

Right now it appears all types of diesel engines will eventually end up with similar engine technology (EGR+SCR). There might be some slight differences in execution due to the duty cycle differences. For example, a ship at sea has a very different duty cycle than a semi in traffic.

Re:Never Ban a Technology

[thegarbz]

May I ask you how it scales? Do emissions scale linearly with engine size, consumption, power, torque?

There's a sweet spot in every such process, but what is it? Is the relationship truly linear, or does it have a peak at a certain point of one of the above specifications? Because while I agree that trucks are a dirty dirty thing I was also under the impression that they generate less emissions per (insert one of the units above that make them so valuable for road haulage).

Vehicles WILL be fixed

[flightmaker]

Over here in the UK for example, every vehicle has to have an MOT certificate to be used on the road. No certificate, no go. ANPRS cameras check that passing vehicles have certificates and insurance.

Part of the MOT certificate is the emissions test. There will most likely be a requirement that VW diesels have to have their ECU firmware updated before they can pass the emissions test.

That's what I reckon will happen.

Re:Vehicles WILL be fixed

[TWX]

Yep. A lot of blustering VW owners will suddenly change their tune when they go in to renew their tags or else receive mail that tells them that the car will not be registerable past a certain date...

Re:Vehicles WILL be fixed

[Spudboy2003]

Fortunately I live in Texas where we don't care about the environment. Still not sure what I'm going to do about my 2014 Passat.

Doesn't look like it

[mugurel]

Not sure whether the timing of this article is a coincidence, but it seems that European has voted today that emissions standards should get more lax: http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Re:Doesn't look like it

[dkatana]

Shit happens!

TDI fanbois

[Tailhook]

We're now over 30 minutes into an automotive related story and so far not one TDI neckbeard has chimed in about getting 69 mpg while towing a boat uphill.

Wonderful. I don't know if the scandal will ever improve anything with regard to emission standards, but I am certain the Internet has already been improved.

Re:TDI fanbois

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because we all converted to Mr. Fusion last Wednesday.

Re:TDI fanbois

[Anonymous Coward]

The most significant impact on the internet is that all the VW haters now make not-so-funny jokes about TDI emissions and talk about how they are never going to buy a VW because of the cheating and hoping they will go bankrupt, instead of discussing how boring they think VW styling is and making up issues about reliability like before. I don't think it is really an improvement. The VW haters just found new ammunation but they are as annoying as ever.

Re:TDI fanbois

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has to make up reliability issues. Do you really think that a top down organization like VW, that hoards information and power, is only hiding an emissions problem?

Re:TDI fanbois

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has to make up reliability issues.

VW haters do it all the time. Just look at a random comments section almost anywhere where cars are discussed. Posters act as though VWs are unreliable even though objective statistics show VW is among the most reliable and durable brands. Fanboys of other brands often have a strong antipathy towards mass-market brands and the largest manufacturer gets most of the flak. The fanboys cannot imagine that someone would buy a car as 'plain' and 'ordinary' as a VW or a Skoda when they could have also bought the fanboys 'exciting' favourite brand, which of course naturally happens to be the best brand ever in every aspect and since VW and its brands are the most common cars on the road, they cannot be good in any way and anybody who buys a VW must have been misled by marketing (which apparently only VW does). Since many of these 'more exciting' (e.g. Alfa Romeo, Ford) or 'better value for money' (e.g. Renault, Fiat, Opel, Kia) have a questionable reputation for build quality, usually not without reason, the fanboys claim that somehow VW would be just as bad (or worse).

It's an interesting phenomenon and it probably happens with other products too, but somehow cars generate lots of emotions and irrationality in people.

Do you really think that a top down organization like VW, that hoards information and power, is only hiding an emissions problem?

I am not so sure VW is a top-down organisation. It is a very decentralised and complicated organisation. Also, the emissions problem was hidden within VW, rather than by VW -- senior management, or at least most of it, was unaware until a month ago. It could well that that there are more issues that are hidden somewhere in the organisation. Those will likely show up in the current investigation. I hope they learn from this scandal to restructure the organisation in such a way that things like the emissions cheating cannot happen anymore.

Re:TDI fanbois

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking about standards, a boat costs too many gallons of euros and accelerating to 69 mpg to many inches of road.

Re:TDI fanbois

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get to use the "hidden within" excuse. The defacto answer to any scandal by most any CEO is that "oh I didn't know until just yesterday". We all know it's bullshit. Try again.

Re:TDI fanbois

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, it is evidently true:
- The US EPA informed VW in 2014 of high NOx emissions in real-world conditions for some diesel cars. VW issued software updates that reduced emissions, but did not remove the 'defeat device'. Neither did they remove it from engines produced after the EPA started investigations. Clearly, management was unaware. If they had known, they could have done a lot of damage control at that time. Had they been truly malicious, they would have tried to cover it up.
- When the cheating was first discovered, VW management declared that the EA288 engine could also contain such software. After weeks of investigation, it turned out that it did not.

Investigations are ongoing and someone wrote the code, someone else likely ordered it and probably a few others must have been aware as well. However, there is no indication as of yet that the rest of management was aware and their actions do not seem compatible with that hypothesis.

Refuse to license

[Luthair]

If owners refuse to fix their cars governments can easily refuse to license them for the road.

Re:Refuse to license

[silas_moeckel]

Owners should not be fixing their cars rather it should be VW and not just some firmware flash but a hardware upgrade to keep its performance and mileage the same or pay for the mileage difference. That sounds like replacing the CAT and adding urea (and paying for that in perpetuity) to the system but regardless of how they do it they need to do it and maintain it.

Re:Refuse to license

[Anonymous Coward]

If owners refuse to fix their cars governments can easily refuse to license them for the road.

Not have a driver's license hasn't prevented a lot of people from driving. Of course, many of those drivers have already established that they don't obey laws.

Re:Refuse to license

[zlives]

actually its a claim for fraud and owners should return the cars and get their money back.

Re:Refuse to license

[Luthair]

The original topic was about owners refusing to take VW's fix.

Obviously if it affects performance they could sue VW, that will happen anyway as either way this will affect resale values.

Re:Refuse to license

[willy_me]

or VW could offer an alternative. A new firmware and X dollars refunded to compensate for lost milage / reduced resale value. If they offered enough then people would accept the deal and problem solved. It will cost VW a significant amount of money but would save them in the long run.

Many VW owners would likely see it as a net-gain. Especially those who, after getting the new firmware and compensation check, revert back to the more efficient firmware.

Re:Refuse to license

[Anonymous Coward]

I think gp was referring to vehicle registration, not licensing.

Re:Refuse to license

[Anonymous Coward]

not without liability. The upgrade to SCR robs VW's of 35HP. now if that loss of 35 hp causes a vehicle to stall at a critical point say in an intersection, guess who is getting sued? My VW will NEVER see a dealer. and if they force me my sole goal in life will be to bypass/remove that shit with extreme prejudice. if they require periodic checks i will pay thousands if necessary to ANYONE who can put in a bypass system. IDGAF i want the highway speed passing torque of a diesel or ill start driving a muscle car. its about driving style and if your ass is too slow im passing it. WHEN electric cars can match the torque and range im used to, i'll gladly switch, but till then, you'll have to pry my diesel out of my cold dead hands.

sincerely, Das KollerRocher

Re:Refuse to license

[dkatana]

I'm sure some lawyers are already working on that!

Re:Refuse to license

[Anonymous Coward]

Fraud requires intent and hence knowledge. As far as is currently known, neither VW senior management, nor the dealers were aware. VW might have been defrauded by some of its its employees, but the customers were not misled intentionally.

Re:Refuse to license

[Anonymous Coward]

Most are getting above the mileage stated, our Touareg averaged 4-6mpg (27-30mpg) when we bought it, above the stated average (24mpg). After a tune and a few modifications it is near 30-33mpg most of the time and over 20mpg hauling our boat or Rzrs.

So they will probably be back to the mileage on the window sticker with no need for a mileage or resale value compensation. It is possible that there might be a performance hit most will feel like they are owed something if if there is no performance hit. Personally I will wait to see what they fix is and decide if I will take it in or not. We do not have testing here anyway and most of my vehicles probably wouldn't pass if we did.

They should have never switched from the old emiss

[Anonymous Coward]

The old emissions trading would have caught the issue straight away. Hook the house up, rev the engine and bam! Your f*cked!

more SCR

[Anonymous Coward]

It means that VW will have to use more effective, but expensive, SCR technology in the future.

Re:more SCR

[jerryjnormandin]

probably a 3 element CAT. platinum/palladium/rhodium. SCR technology is out there on 2.0 TDIs and failing too.

The test is flawed...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to actually check whats coming out of the tailpipe is by doing an actual road test... with either a built into the car system, or a portable emissions analyzer. This goes for both diesel and gasoline fuels. The current dyno test is a joke. I used to get older cars to pass by retarding the timing letting the catalytic converter glow red hot. I had one pass with a dead cylinder, no compression. Going on a road test will measure total emissions under different conditions. The current test is idle, slight load, and just under hwy speed. It doesn't test acceleration emissions which are ridiculously high. If the manufacturers want to do this right, build in emissions testing into the car. Then all you need to do is connect to the onboard diagnostics and get a pass or fail code. That is unless someone finds out how to hack the system.

Yep

[rsilvergun]

and that's why everyone in the Auto industry is shitting themselves right now. They're going to actually be regulated for real for the first time in ages (maybe forever). Seems like every other week another batch of cars are discovered cheating.

Re:Yep

[khallow]

They're going to actually be regulated for real for the first time in ages

You can't cheat, if there's no regulation. And if the regulation weren't pretty damn harsh, it wouldn't be worth their while to cheat. It's sad how often a slight change in regulation or the enforcement of regulation is heralded as the magical transition from no regulation to regulation. Needless to say, I take such exaggerated rhetoric as a sure sign that the writer is completely ignorant of the topic and has nothing worthwhile to say about it.

Re:Yep

[calque]

They're going to actually be regulated for real for the first time in ages

You can't cheat, if there's no regulation. And if the regulation weren't pretty damn harsh, it wouldn't be worth their while to cheat. It's sad how often a slight change in regulation or the enforcement of regulation is heralded as the magical transition from no regulation to regulation. Needless to say, I take such exaggerated rhetoric as a sure sign that the writer is completely ignorant of the topic and has nothing worthwhile to say about it.

I don't think that it is reasonable to divorce your definition of regulation from enforcement. Zero enforcement can't be seen as other than zero regulation. Going from zero enforcement to some enforcement is exactly what "regulated for real" obviously means. It is entirely reasonable to see that as a transition from no regulation to regulation.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

There was significant enforcement, far from zero. Your argument is still wrong.

Re:Yep

[khallow]

Sorry, I wrote the above. I don't know why I wasn't considered as logged in since I didn't have to fill out a captcha to post.

Independent testing of claims...

[Anonymous Coward]

As with the push for independent testing of pharmaceutical products there should be a push for independent, scientifically rigorous testing of ALL PRODUCT CLAIMS.

Self regulation by manufacturers is a crock and should be phased out immediately.

Lesson not learned...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it was very likely more stringent emissions standards played a big role in the cheating to begin with. Attempting to meet overly aggressive political mandates and maintain an affordable car led to corners being caught and cheating taking place. Had the standards been more practical, it's likely all those cars would have been creating less pollution the past several years.

Rather than playing politics, look for practical gains. Less motive to evade the standards. Also, more efficient, less poluting cars can be made more affordably, thus increasing the odds that people with older, less efficient cars can retire them and buy new ones.

Screw emissions, i don't want my car failing MOT

[Anonymous Coward]

If this whole debacle leads to anything changing in regards to emissions it's a bad thing for us all.
I am one man driving less than 5k miles per year; i don't want to spend more money because my car outputs a small amount more co2 than it should when texas, india & china output more co2 than most of the rest of the planet combined.

It's always the way; the big, co2 spewing countries can't be touched so instead they try to blame global warming on us; on our 100w bulbs, on our 2000w vacuum cleaners, on our cars.
WE get blamed. WE get taxed. WE lose money.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

They will just find a different way to cheat.

dumb ass

[Anonymous Coward]

The owners are buying these care because the high fuel efficiency and claimed low emissions. They don't want their fucking car's polluting. Unlike the cock-suckers who buy old ass cars to get around emissions checks.

Re:dumb ass

[PPH]

They don't want their fucking car's polluting.

TFA states that some people may try to refuse the fix if it affects performance. So perhaps they don't care so much.

Unlike the cock-suckers who buy old ass cars to get around emissions checks.

When its all over, VW might have to buy back the cars from people who won't accept the performance hit. The market for pre-smog muscle cars is heating up and the people with refunds in hand might just opt out of the whole emissions rat race for a nice 454 V8.

Re:dumb ass

[triffid_98]

They don't want their fucking car's polluting. Unlike the cock-suckers who buy old ass cars to get around emissions checks.

Yes, because tons of people commute in 40+ year old cars with laughable MPG, all to get around your precious precious smog laws.

Re:dumb ass

[Anonymous Coward]

nice 454 V8

I don't think that means quite what you think it means. Enjoy your rebuilds and bad gaskets.

Re:dumb ass

[triffid_98]

people with refunds in hand might just opt out of the whole emissions rat race for a nice 454 V8.

Is there a large cross-section between people with mullets and VW diesels?

Good luck with your 454 project, my dad got 280K out of his before it developed a rod knock. They aren't bad motors but (understandably) not terribly high revving or fuel efficient.

Re:Screw emissions, i don't want my car failing MO

[RandomFactor]

Damn I miss 100 watt bulbs everywhere :-)

LEDs work well enough though. Just a few CFLs left waiting to die now (or me to get pissed enough to help them along...)

Fuel efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

out of fear that the diesel engine will lose gas efficiency
 
I'd say the gas efficiency of the diesel would remain unchanged, not using any gas at all, same as before.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

The International Framework for Climate Change and the International Panel on Climate Change and the Emperor General Bon Ki Moon are working furiously to emplacement of UN mandated laws for the killing of nationals in member states of the UN.

Emperor General Bon Ki Moon states, "Killing Climate Change Requires Killing Bit Whitey. Kill Big Whitey or Loose My Love."

At the end of the session, meeting Delegates rushed out of the UN General Hall and into the bars surrounding it to get a "really good drink".

Ha ha

Ah, but Which Emission Standards do Diesels Meet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with urea and all the other tweaks, light-duty diesels are at best in mid-range compliance with US and California emission standards. Many if not the majority of gasoline-engine cars do far better (ULEV, SULEV, PZEV, etc.). Combine a very low-emission gasoline engine with a good hybrid system and the car really is near-zero emissions, something that a diesel will never reach unless it's usually not running. "Clean" diesel is clean compared to uncontrolled diesel (without the urea and catalyst), not compared to the best standards attainable.

How Emissions Are Measured

[Anonymous Coward]

> emissions per unit fuel consumed rather than unit distance travelled

Wrong. US and California emission standards for light-duty vehicles are expressed as grams/mile. Emission standards for heavy-duty engines and non-road engines are expressed as grams/horsepower-hour. All vehicles in a given weight category (e.g. light duty) and emissions subcategory (e.g. ULEV, SULEV, PZEV, etc.) must meet the same standards, regardless of how they're fueled.

biofuels

[Firethorn]

Actually it's the primary debate for me. It makes zero sense (and cents) to go out and actively *grow* motor fuels by farming plants to me.

Why not? It's not like we don't grow a lot of other things - food, lumber, medicine, etc...

Now, where you have a point is on the 'cents'. Current technologies are just not economical, but figuring out this stuff is still 'good' because it puts a hard limit on the price for fossil fuels - at some point biofuels are cheaper than fossil.

Matter of fact, the last peak in oil prices was flirting with that price range.

I'll note that 'biofuels cheaper than fossil' is very much not using corn based ethanol. You need crops that are much more scaleable.

Re:biofuels

[bobbied]

Actually it's the primary debate for me. It makes zero sense (and cents) to go out and actively *grow* motor fuels by farming plants to me.

Why not? It's not like we don't grow a lot of other things - food, lumber, medicine, etc...

Food, building materials and drugs from growing things is just a little bit different than growing fuel. Lumber grows on trees and we eat plants, these uses for growing plants is cost effective and necessary. But fuel? We have other sources of fuel yet you want to grow it?

Well ask yourself WHY? Why do you think we should grow fuel?

If your answer is that you want to protect the environment or reduce CO2 emissions, then it's not helping your cause, at all. It doesn't help and it costs a LOT of money. It's stupid to grow fuel if your concern is the environment.

Now if you are not using the environmentalists argument to justify growing fuel, we can talk. I've not yet heard a reasonable argument for this, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Re:biofuels

[Firethorn]

We have other sources of fuel yet you want to grow it?

You're coming dangerously close to setting up a straw man here. Up here in Alaska, and even down south in the upper parts of the lower 48, a lot of people heat their homes with wood. That's using a biofuel. It's substantially cheaper than heating by oil, if you have the equipment for it, though it does require more user effort.

Sure, we have other sources of fuel. But said fuel causes environmental damage and isn't free to extract either.

Well ask yourself WHY? Why do you think we should grow fuel?

You didn't actually read my post, did you? Hint: "because it puts a hard limit on the price for fossil fuels"

If your answer is that you want to protect the environment or reduce CO2 emissions, then it's not helping your cause, at all. It doesn't help and it costs a LOT of money. It's stupid to grow fuel if your concern is the environment.

Protect the environment - Something of a mixed bag; most bio-fuels still pollute by generating things like NOx compounds, but they also tend to be naturally sulfur-free.
Reduce CO2 emissions: Vehicle traffic is the biggest source of CO2 after coal power. So reducing addition of CO2 will help.
It costs a LOT of money: There's also the problem that in today's subsidized environment(though better than the past) it's sometimes an energy negative energy - more than a gallon of fossil fuel is 'burned' to produce a gallon of bio-fuel. However, I believe that even corn ethanol is up to about 7:1 today. That being said, another indicator that you didn't actually read my post. Or do you believe that "Current technologies are just not economical" means something other than "it's currently too expensive"?

Now if you are not using the environmentalists argument to justify growing fuel, we can talk. I've not yet heard a reasonable argument for this, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Going back to my post: "Current technologies are just not economical, but figuring out this stuff is still 'good' because it puts a hard limit on the price for fossil fuels - at some point biofuels are cheaper than fossil."

Basically, at some point biofuels will be cheaper than fossil. We keep drilling deeper and deeper for oil, not to mention that we've graduated to squeezing and melting it out of crushed rock (shale oil and oil sands). These techniques are amazingly more expensive than the old wells, especially in energy cost per barrel extracted. The latter methods are even questionable - they're burning so much natural gas to extract the oil in some cases that you'd get more miles burning it in cars adapted for NG.

Then I identify that during their last peak, fossil fuels were 'flirting' with the price range at which biofuels can be economically produced. What I mean by this is that they got very close (within ~10%) of what biofuels could be economically produced and sold for in a theoretically fully developed industry, where economy of scale has beaten prices down to close to their natural minimums. IE rather than being $20/gallon, it's $4/gallon. The numbers are all theoretical, so there's a variance in the range depending upon various presuppositions.

Note that I specifically decried the viability of ethanol from corn. Personally, I'm more for algae farms built in deserts that are fairly close to the ocean so it can be a source of water.

Finally, you'd most likely see a peak and a fall, IE "peak oil", where oil is more expensive than the minimum price for biofuels, but less expensive than boutique production. At that point you'd be seeing massive investment into biofuels, because profit CAN be made if it can be produced cheaply enough, IE with enough economy of scale. As biofuels start coming onto the market in significant, economically competitive amounts, this will have the effect of diminishing the price of fossil fuels. Drilling new wells and

Re:biofuels

[bobbied]

No, I'm not surprised. However, opinions differ on this end.

Directly burning wood for heat aside....

Long term you may be correct. As Oil becomes more and more scarce and the "easy" stuff to recover is used up, oil will become more expensive. Eventually, this will make biofuels more attractive, all other things being equal. But there are things that may drive the "long" part of the "long term" out to be much longer than you expect.

First, history shows that as the price of oil increases, the amount of economically recoverable oil grows rather quickly. As oil approached $100/bbl. recently, the amount of proven (economically recoverable) oil grew and literally made the USA one of the largest holders of fossil fuel reserves in the world. At $100/bbl. it made sense to spend the money to frack and use expensive extraction technologies where this wasn't true at $50/bbl. There is a bit of lag in the production rate so we see spikes in oil prices as demand outstrips production, but this is short term. Much of the sharp rise in motor fuel prices we recently saw where driven by supply side limits, and we briefly may have ended up close to parity with Bio-Fuels on cost, but that would have been short term, and turned out to really be an artificial supply problem caused by OPEC.

Second, bio fuel production costs are directly linked to energy prices. They take fuel/energy to produce (fertilizer, cultivation, harvesting, converting into fuel) especially when you have to convert it into motor fuels like diesel or ethanol. So as overall fuel/energy prices rise, bio-fuels also cost more to produce. Yes, I guess there is a point where the two costs end up on par, but I have no doubt that if you took the government incentives out of the bio-fuel markets it would be a lot higher than you imagine and certainly a lot higher than we've actually seen so far.

Third, you do realize that we highly subsidize this industry in a number of ways. Government mandates minimum Ethanol content of gasoline in many areas and requires that it be sold. They provide tax incentives and credits for producers and users of Biofuels. It's really hard to tell how much they cost to produce in the real world because government activity is artificially driving prices. I think this is driving the cost of bio-fuels lower, meaning that the break even point naturally is going to be well beyond $100/Bbl. oil we've already seen if the government took it's hands off like it should.

Fourth, why would we waste food production capacity on this? As the world's population grows at an alarming rate, we are going to struggle more and more to produce food enough for all. The amount of land suitable for this production is limited, as is our ability to obtain the resources (fertilizer, water, sunlight) necessary to make the right kinds of plants grow. We are not running at full capacity in food production, but if we choose to convert more and more of our capacity over to bio-fuel production, we eventually will. Also, because we are now using "food" plants for bio-fuel production, we drive up the price of the food. It may not matter to you, but I can assure you it matters to the poorer folks who depend on these crops we insist on using for bio-fuels. Surely you see how this rush to farm for bio-fuels makes food more expensive, so there are additional indirect costs to consider.

So, I don't think we disagree in principle here, but in the effective time line. "Long" term unsubsidized viability of bio-fuels has got to be well beyond the future point where oil exceeds $150/bbl. (all prices adjusted for inflation in the future) and I think this puts "long" in the realm of a couple of decades sans any big spikes in demand or available supplies. 20 years is a long time for technology to develop....

Re:biofuels

[Firethorn]

But there are things that may drive the "long" part of the "long term" out to be much longer than you expect.

Note that I didn't put any real time-lines in, other than 'long term'. And yes, I'm very well aware that any quotation of 'estimated reserves' has hidden in it a '@$X per barrel' disclaimer, and if you raise X, the 'economically recoverable' amount goes up.

Long term, to me, I'm thinking that once oil prices exceed the theoretical minimum biofuel production cost, it'll still be 20-25 years before fossil oil becomes a 'niche' product. We've been building fossil fuel infrastructure for a long, long time.

At $100/bbl. it made sense to spend the money to frack and use expensive extraction technologies where this wasn't true at $50/bbl.

You do realize that you're explaining something to me that I had in the post you're responding to, right? Except I was thinking more about the literally mile deep wells they've drilled in the Bakken fields up in North Dakota, and that's not including that they go horizontal as well. As well as oil sands(Canada) and shales.

There is a bit of lag in the production rate so we see spikes in oil prices as demand outstrips production, but this is short term. Much of the sharp rise in motor fuel prices we recently saw where driven by supply side limits, and we briefly may have ended up close to parity with Bio-Fuels on cost, but that would have been short term, and turned out to really be an artificial supply problem caused by OPEC.

*shrug*, again, you're explaining a concept that I explained in my post - except what happened involved new sources of fossil fuels rather than biofuel. Same deal. Prices go up due to supply side shortage, and stay up until suppliers, on a construction spree, manage to produce enough supply to drop the prices again. I'm not arguing against what happened. It's just that, as time goes on, more supplies are going to dry up, we'll drill more wells, again, but at some point the biofuels will become competitive.

Second, bio fuel production costs are directly linked to energy prices. They take fuel/energy to produce (fertilizer, cultivation, harvesting, converting into fuel) especially when you have to convert it into motor fuels like diesel or ethanol.

Right now they use fossil fuels and such for this because it's the cheapest. As prices go up you'd see them shift into sustainable energy sources. Sort of like how manufacturers of solar panels used utility power that included coal, though today a lot of them have their own solar panels on the roof, that displacing most, if not all, of the coal.

So as overall fuel/energy prices rise, bio-fuels also cost more to produce. Yes, I guess there is a point where the two costs end up on par, but I have no doubt that if you took the government incentives out of the bio-fuel markets it would be a lot higher than you imagine and certainly a lot higher than we've actually seen so far.

The $20/gallon I quoted earlier is the 'current' price without subsidization. So isn't the theoretical $4/gallon they estimate they can get it down to.

as for "you do realize" again - you need to filter your talking points through my posts a bit better. I already stated in my previous post "There's also the problem that in today's subsidized environment"

Fourth, why would we waste food production capacity on this?

Ahem: "Note that I specifically decried the viability of ethanol from corn. Personally, I'm more for algae farms built in deserts that are fairly close to the ocean so it can be a source of water."

The spots that I proposed to use for biofuel production are currently mostly empty of plant life, and are very much not being used for food production. There are also proposals for deep-sea algae farms.

I think this puts "long" in the realm of a couple of de

VW tdi Diesel == EOL

[ElitistWhiner]

Diesel is EOL thanks to VW executive decision that it was too costly to make diesel ' Clean'.

Hydrogen== emergent technology. Hydrogen for the foreseeable future plays increasingly in powering the planet, space and our climate sustainability programs.

Re:VW tdi Diesel == EOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the EU just reduced emission requirements. Turns out that the old ones cannot be met at acceptable economic cost. But they will check more thoroughly that they are actually met now.

Re:VW tdi Diesel == EOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesel is EOL thanks to VW executive decision that it was too costly to make diesel ' Clean'.

Sure, one issue with one specific engine model will suddenly make the type of engine that powers the majority of passenger cars and almost all vans, lorries and buses obsolute.

Hydrogen== emergent technology. Hydrogen for the foreseeable future plays increasingly in powering the planet, space and our climate sustainability programs.

Hydrogen is not efficient and dangerous to handle. I don't see a serious role for hydrogen in the foreseeable future.

Re:VW tdi Diesel == EOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the EU just reduced emission requirements. Turns out that the old ones cannot be met at acceptable economic cost. But they will check more thoroughly that they are actually met now.

The EU has delayed the introduction of more thorough compliance factors. The Euro 6 emission standards remain the same, but manufacturers have until January 2021 to comply with a factor of 50%.

The article has posted an update on the second page.

VW tdi Diesel == EOL again for light duty diesel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesel may be EOL in light duty vehicles for the second time around, and VW was involved the first time too though GM was the most visible failure. History lesson:

1981-85: VW couldn't quite meet California NOx emission standards of the time with their diesels so they upped the emission warranty to 100K miles on diesels - supposedly making up for the deterioration of gas engines after their 50K emission warranty expired. Didn't work (engine problems), then gas prices fell and diesel prices went up in the U.S.; Mercedes gave up on diesels in the U.S. emissions, too, for a while; and of course the GM Diesel Debacle kind of wiped out any prospect of Good Press. People simply stopped buying diesels for anything but trucks after about 1985 so they were no longer offered.

The Germans tried to bring back diesels in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but still couldn't meet California standards without urea and catalysts. Mercedes tried to sell some in the non-CA-emissions states but apparently didn't do well. Finally, everybody with diesels (except VW's 2.0 TDI) adopted urea and SCR, and was able to squeeze under the California standard so 50-state vehicles could be sold starting in 2009. VW seemed to be able to do the impossible with the 2.0 TDI (meet standards without SCR) but as it turned out they didn't, really. If it seems too good to be true, maybe it is ...

Re: fear the diesel engine will lose gas efficienc

[Anonymous Coward]

I get either zero or infinite miles per gallon of gasoline in my TDI. Zero if I pour it in the fuel tank, attempt to drive on it and thereby quickly destroy the engine. Infinite if I get the gallon of gasoline in a jerry can and drive it around; the amount of gasoline never changes.

Improve emissions standards?

[Tijaska]

It's easy to improve emissions standards. Improving actual performance is the hard part. Hence the VW work-around. The regulators can specify any standard they like, someone with develop a software hack that shows them what they want to see.

Self-driving cars aren't actually banned...

[Firethorn]

Self-driving cars are not permitted but automakers are developing them.

This isn't a ban though. As you say, car companies, even non-car companies like google, are able to get exceptions for testing on public roads.

It's better to say that self-driving cars aren't banned, it's just that the current regulatory system for cars is such that a self-driving car isn't useful right now, because the rules don't account for a computer controlling the vehicle, thus the vehicle still requires an operator capable of taking over again at a moment's notice.

They can make and operate said cars on closed tracks/private property as much as they like, even if they lack all ability for user control(IE no wheels, gas pedal, brake pedal, etc...), outside of something along the lines of an 'emergency stop' button.

That being said, with the permits and such, they're prodding lawmakers and other regulatory bodies to allow them when they have a sufficiently functional system developed. Hell, technology from self-driving development is finding it's way into new vehicles left and right - lane following, automatic collision avoidance, etc...

Ongoing cat and mouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Emission cat and mouse has been going on ever since emission standards were imposed. Altering though was usually done by the car owner by way of such things as the catalytic converter "test" pipe. Or simply installing customized exhaust pipe or maybe installing a aftermarket carburetor. What VW did was simply move the cheating from physically removing emission devices to simply bypassing when drivability was desired, and engaging them when and if you had to pass the test.
Almost any engine performs worse in terms of emissions in real world driving. The tests most agencies do to certify are basic, done stagnant and don't reflect any real world driving events. Otherwise the VW thing would have been caught years ago. In fact in the US many states do not do much testing at all and if you move to a more stringent federal standard say having a real world driving emission test. You may in fact have a better vehicle out the door in terms of emissions. But no doubt it will also force engine makers to lean out and reduce performance too. Which could lead to car owners finding their own ways to cheat. In the end you have to have a good combination of emission regulation without discouraging the end user to bypass the devices. I have no doubt many VW diesel owners will never have their vehicles fixed to reduce emissions for fear of drastically reducing performance.

Re: fear the diesel engine will lose gas efficienc

[goose-incarnated]

I get either zero or infinite miles per gallon of gasoline in my TDI. Zero if I pour it in the fuel tank, attempt to drive on it and thereby quickly destroy the engine. Infinite if I get the gallon of gasoline in a jerry can and drive it around; the amount of gasoline never changes.

If by gasoline you mean petrol, then no, you won't destroy the engine. You may need new engine accessories (pipes, pumps, filters, etc) but the engine itself will be all good. A woman I dated once filled up her Golf TDi with petrol. Dealership sorted the car out in a day.

Not in the EU

[mythix]

The European commision voted for new tests this week, and they are just marginally better than the current ones.

Heavy lobbies from Germany, France and the UK are holding us back.

Re:Not in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, they extended the compliance factors for Euro 6 standards to 2019 and 2021... not a good thing. I hope cities raise road tax to old cars to get them out of here

Europe is doing exactly the opposite!

[thegarbz]

Only in today's issue there's talk of Europe pushing back and relaxing the new Emissions guidelines.

So really wishful thinking on part of the author. But the world does not work like that.

Re:Europe is doing exactly the opposite!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hardly think that "talk" about legislative direction equates to, you know, real legislation.

If talk were policy then every government would be going in every direction, simultaneously. And that includes banning government itself. Talk is cheap.

We're well aware that the auto makers will attempt to push back on emissions standards. That's a very reasonable stance for them to take from a cost, technology and timeline perspective. That hardly means they will get their way though. Maybe they will--but that's why we have policy debates, lobbyists and elections.

The genesis of the Order of the Engineer

[RogueWarrior65]

These fools in government really should read up on the origins of the Order of the Engineer and engineers should really grow the balls needed to tell bureaucrats to go pound sand.

Smog check stations...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Expect smog check stations to be checking the version number of the software on the car via the OBD-II port and fail it if it's not been patched...

"gas efficiency?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"fear that the diesel engine will lose gas efficiency"

As any diesel owner probably knows, diesel engines don't go very far on "gas" if you mean gasoline. If you mean gas as in oxygen, hydrogen, etc. Well that is a different story, and still makes me wonder what you mean.