Slashdot Mirror


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.

23 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Predestiny? by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Predestiny? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Predestiny? by dbc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Predestiny? by bughunter · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    4. Re:Predestiny? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Predestiny? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:Predestiny? by rapiddescent · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re:Predestiny? by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. No, emission standard will not get better by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:No, emission standard will not get better by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  3. It will probably tighten up standards... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:It will probably tighten up standards... by mspohr · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:It will probably tighten up standards... by sconeu · · Score: 2

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

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  4. Never Ban a Technology by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Never Ban a Technology by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  5. Vehicles WILL be fixed by flightmaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. TDI fanbois by Tailhook · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  7. Yep by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Re:tbh by TWX · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  9. Re:Refuse to license by zlives · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  10. Re:Refuse to license by willy_me · · Score: 2

    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.

  11. Re:tbh by TWX · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  12. Re:tbh by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.