Slashdot Mirror
Nearly All New Diesel Cars Exceed Official Pollution Limits (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Guardian, citing a comprehensive set of data, reports that 97% of all modern diesel cars emit more toxic nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution on the road than the official limit. A quarter of this voluminous number emits at least six times more than the limit. From the report, "Surprisingly, the tiny number of models that did not exceed the standard were mostly Volkswagens, the carmaker whose cheating of diesel emissions tests emerged last year sparked the scandal. Experts said the new results show that clean diesel cars can be made but that virtually all manufacturers have failed to do so. The new data, from testing industry leader Emissions Analytics (EA), follows the publication this week by the Department for Transport of emissions results for 37 vehicles, all of which emitted more NOx on the road than the official limit. But the new data covers more than 250 vehicles in more stringently standardised road conditions. EA found that just one of 201 Euro 5 diesels, the EU standard from 2009, did not exceed the limit, while only seven of 62 Euro 6 diesels, the stricter standard since 2014, did so. Diesel cars must meet an official EU limit for NOx but are only tested in a laboratory under fixed conditions. All vehicles sold pass this regulation but, when taken out on to real roads, almost all emit far more pollution. There is no suggestion that any of the cars tested broke the law on emissions limits or used any cheat devices. Mayoral candidates in London, the city with the worst air quality in Britain, have seized on the DfT data to call for tighter controls on polluting traffic -- including a ban on diesel cars."Caroline Pidgeon, the Lib Dem mayoral candidate, said: "The figures are exactly the reason why we need to speed up the introduction of the ultra-low emission zone so that it starts in 2018. Ultimately we will need to ban diesel vehicles from much of London and we need a mayor prepared to take these tough decisions and work with people to make these changes happen."
The cars only have to pass a laboratory test. If that test bears no resemblance to the real world (which the EU one doesn't) then thats the fault of the people who devised it.
The main problem with emissions is if you want good fuel economy and hence lower CO2 per km then you need a high burn temp. The trouble with that is a high burn temp gives high NOx. Take your pick.
The only serious solution to NOx is a urea system such as adblue as used in trucks but thats more equipment, more complexity and more expense.
The UK and most of europe has mandatory emissions testing of diesels with defined levels of particulates etc to be taken at certain engine conditions. The newer the diesel the stricter the levels. In the UK its every year (the MOT test), mainland France, its every two. I always cross my fingers when they're revving the nuts off to conduct the diesel emissions hoping my cambelt doesn't suddenly self destruct as it just seems cruel on the engine.
In Europe (at least in Belgium) these cars would not be allowed on the road anymore. Does not matter if you are owner 1 or 10. Every two years the car needs to be tested and if it fails, you are not allowed to drive the car anymore. You will not get insurance and if you drive and get caught with a car that is not allowed on the road and no insurance, things go bad pretty fast.
So the maximum amount you could drive it till it falls apart is 2 years, with an average of 1.
What most people do at that point is sell them to somebody who will not bring it on the road in Europe (otherwise, another test) and export it to Africa.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Emissions controls on a big stationary power plant is much easier and much more efficient than emissions controls on cars.
Eat the rich.
Not sure how it is in the EU. But here in the US it was NOT the auto industry. The testing regime was completely defined by a government agency.
At the time I was working on engineering emissions testing programs as a consultant, one of the auto company engineers claimed it had been designed like this:
- The EPA put recording instruments on a car (notably the bike-wheel odometer/tachometer).
- Then they parked behind cars in a "typical" city (Denver Colorado, if I recall correctly) and waited for the owner to come out and drive somewhere.
- The timed how long (if at all) the target warmed the engine before pulling out.
- Then they followed the target to its destination, doing their best to drive their instrumented car the same way as the target.
- From among the recorded trips they picked one that looked representative and contained about an average mix of city and highway driving. That became the test cycle the manufacturers must use.
Emissions test measurements (the fancy ones the engineers have to run at the companies, not the surveillance ones applied to car owners) measure enough about engine exhaust gasses and vehicle forces and motions that the mileage can be computed from the carbon balance, without extra gadgetry. So the government mandated it be computed and printed on the price stickers. It thus became glaringly obvious that (of course):
- (Of course) The chosen test cycle was not what all people drove all the time.
- (Not of course) The chosen test cycle happened to be somewhat more fuel efficient that the typical driver's average use of his vehicle.
Thus was born "Your Mileage May Vary (and will probably be lower)"
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Not sure if trolling or not, so I'll just suggest reading a high school civics text.
Where did you go to school?
The USA Constitution says that the rights of the Federal Government are severely restricted, that is, they are listed in the USA Constitution.
The rights of the people (individuals as 1 or a group such as a State) have severely UNrestricted rights.
The Bill of Rights ONLY lists some of the unrestricted rights of the individual or states. The fact that the Bill of Rights does not address a particular right that an individual has does not mean the individual does not have that right. To the contrary, the individual, under the USA Constitution, has the vast majority of rights and these rights need not be listed for the individual to have those rights.
History shows that the USA Federal Government has continually and constantly disregarded and restricted the rights of the individual as often as the Federal Government can. And without regard to what is Constitutional, legal or illegal.
The USA Supreme Court has limited the rights of the local and state Governments in most cases that it has ruled on. The local and state Governments do not have unrestricted rights.
This is what you should have been taught in the Government Schools (I was).
The is what you should have read, the USA Constitution, in the Government Schools (I did).
This is what you should know to pass a citizenship test.
Please try to keep up!