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."

32 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Limits by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Limits must be defined in terms of the condition of the test. If testing is done outside those defined conditions, the limits are hard to apply and enforce. Seems like the regulators need to re-define the limits and testing method.

    1. Re:Limits by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Well, let's treat it like the US public educational system in the past few decades.

      Obviously, the standards are too HIGH as they currently stand, and if most of these cars, like most of our students can no longer past the tests, then we have no choice, but to lower the standards by enough so that everyone can pass and have positive self-esteem and profitable sales!!!

      Easy-peasy.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am shocked, SHOCKED, that clean diesel is just another totally meaningless advertising slogan!

  3. Hardly surprising by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Hardly surprising by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also note that the lab test limits were set at a lower level knowing that real world conditions would be worse. So exceeding limits in the real world was actually expected, the question is how much worse is expected.

    2. Re:Hardly surprising by mjwx · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      That would be the auto industry itself.

      The problem they have in Europe is due to historic dicounts/tax concessions on diesel, they became popular with tight-fisted motorists. Even though most of these concessions have been removed, the mindset of "diesel == cheap" remains.

      There is a backlash in Europe against diesels because they've been directly linked to worsening air quality in major cities.

      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 that's more equipment, more complexity and more expense.

      You cant make diesel cleaner. It's impossible. Everyone I know who worked with diesel engines from the fitter and mechanic level to the design and engineering level predicted this kind of revelation happening years ago. Being engineers, you can imagine the level of smug they generated after Dieselgate.

      To make diesel as clean as petrol, you have to refine it into petrol in the first place.

      Small diesel passenger cars are really an abbreviation, which is why they aren't common in the US or Australia where we never subsidised diesel fuels for passenger cars. Diesel engines are heavier and more complex than petrols, they require turbochargers regardless (if you want to know what a truly gutless car feels like, drive a naturally aspirated diesel). The returns are less than non-turbo petrol engines of the same size, if you turbo a petrol engine, you could easily knock 25% of the capacity off and still have a faster car with the same fuel efficiency and is kinder to the baby foxes.

      The only time a diesel engine is better than a petrol is when you need pulling power. This is why almost all big rigs and tractors are turbo diesels. Even decent 4x4's like a Hilux or Triton tend to use diesels, not for fuel efficiency but to pull 3 tons of bricks about using a 2.4L 4 banger.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Hardly surprising by james_shoemaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The NOX issue (the one in the article) has nothing to do with the fuel and everything to do with the temperature of combustion. Diesel engines are efficient because of the combustion temperature and that causes NOx to form. If Gasoline engines were raised to similar efficiencies they would start to develop similar NOx issues.
            Diesel engines aren't more complex than petrol engines (especially with the advent of modern common rail injector systems). They don't have a throttle or ignition system of any sort. They have to be built heavier because of higher compression ratios.
            Diesel is used in tractors and big rigs because of efficiency. The gallons per mile per ton are lower with diesel.

    4. Re:Hardly surprising by ThatBeDank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where in the world are you getting that diesel engines are more complex? All you need for the ignition cycle is fuel and compressed air. Bam that is it. A turbo in a diesel engine Diesel engines only became complicated because of BS emissions requirements levied by do nothing eurocrats.

      Diesel cars/trucks are light years better than gasoline on the sheer basis the engines last longer. NOx means nothing when you're gas car dies at 125k and you need to buy a new one. The level of emissions that go into making a car outweigh the small amount of NOx outputted anyday.

      Save the environment and drive your car longer!

    5. Re:Hardly surprising by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My reaction to this though is "so what?"

      The meaningful questions are does improvement on the lap test predict improvement under real word conditions?

      It does not have to mirror real work conditions to be useful.

      If the answer to the first question is yes does meeting the lab test standards mean a vehicle will have a meaningfully improved pollution profile as compared to if we did not bother setting standards and testing?

      Again the point here is to reduce the output of harmful airborne pollutants. Are we doing that or not, is really all the matters. If the real world effect is .01% than we are wasting effort and resources if its %10 percent in the lab but %7 on the road its still probably a win. Again we need to compare with equipment in common use before standards were enacted.

      Is there a more predictive test design that could be implemented?

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Hardly surprising by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct. TFA is making the assumption that the test limits are never supposed to be exceeded, which is a questionable assumption. The EU test is radically unlike typical driving, which unless the EU states otherwise suggests the correct interpretation is that normal operating emissions are supposed to be x times more than test emissions. TFA presents nothing new. It's been widely known within the industry for years that EU testing conditions generated less emissions than normal operation.

      This ambiguity was also present in the U.S. tests. After the truck diesel scandal around 1998-2000, the EPA firmly established that the test limits are not supposed to be exceeded during normal operation, and the test was merely sampling certain operating conditions to make sure the vehicles were in compliance. The EPA test however is more representative of typical driving.

    7. Re:Hardly surprising by prefect42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Small diesel passenger cars are really an abbreviation, which is why they aren't common in the US or Australia where we never subsidised diesel fuels for passenger cars. Diesel engines are heavier and more complex than petrols, they require turbochargers regardless (if you want to know what a truly gutless car feels like, drive a naturally aspirated diesel). The returns are less than non-turbo petrol engines of the same size, if you turbo a petrol engine, you could easily knock 25% of the capacity off and still have a faster car with the same fuel efficiency and is kinder to the baby foxes.

      I'm not clear that's the case. Find me a good turbo petrol match for a BMW 320d, and on the whole I think you'll be slower or less efficient, even with turbos and direct injection.

      BMW 320d 72.4mpg 163bhp/400Nm 7.8s 0-62mph
      BMW 320i 51.4mpg 184bhp/270Nm 7.3s 0-62mph

      The gap's definitely closed between the two since diesel tech has come over to petrol.

      --

      jh

    8. Re:Hardly surprising by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Informative

      You cant make diesel cleaner. It's impossible. Everyone I know who worked with diesel engines from the fitter and mechanic level to the design and engineering level predicted this kind of revelation happening years ago. Being engineers, you can imagine the level of smug they generated after Dieselgate.

      As a diesel emissions engineer I resent that statement. The trouble with diesel is exactly as the GP mentioned. Hotter burn is more fuel efficient, but makes more NOx. SCR is the option that can provide good fuel economy and lower emissions. However, SCR is expensive and has it's own consumable.

      Diesel engines are heavier and more complex than petrols, they require turbochargers regardless (if you want to know what a truly gutless car feels like, drive a naturally aspirated diesel). The returns are less than non-turbo petrol engines of the same size, if you turbo a petrol engine, you could easily knock 25% of the capacity off and still have a faster car with the same fuel efficiency and is kinder to the baby foxes.

      Diesels are not very volumetrically efficient. True.

      The only time a diesel engine is better than a petrol is when you need pulling power. This is why almost all big rigs and tractors are turbo diesels. Even decent 4x4's like a Hilux or Triton tend to use diesels, not for fuel efficiency but to pull 3 tons of bricks about using a 2.4L 4 banger.

      Not true. Diesels are fuel efficient because they run at higher compression ratios and don't use intake throttling to control power output. Gasoline engines can be built that rival diesels in torque. However, most consumers of such products demand the fuel efficiency of diesel.

      There's a lot of FUD being spread around about diesel. Yes, it has issues. But those of us in the industry had been wondering how VW was making that system work without SCR. Now we know.

      If the system is to improve, emissions regulatory agencies need to audit more engines themselves rather than trust the self reported results. They also need to implement Not to Exceed limits on all engines.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    9. Re:Hardly surprising by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem they have in Europe is due to historic dicounts/tax concessions on diesel, they became popular with tight-fisted motorists. Even though most of these concessions have been removed, the mindset of "diesel == cheap" remains.

      No they haven't been removed. At least not in France.
      The TICPE, which is the main tax is 0.64€/L on gasoline and 0.50€/L on diesel. There is also a 20% VAT on the final price, which include said tax. As a result, gasoline is typically 20% more expensive per liter than diesel only because of taxes. When we consider that diesel cars are typically more fuel efficient, "diesel==cheap" is not a myth, at least for those who travel long distances.

  4. Re:Finally they are telling the truth by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Before this fact was just used for public shaming of one german manufacturer... Believe me, they did this purposefully to force Germany to agree to secret ISDS courts (aka "this wouldnt happen with ISDS courts, look how badly VW is doing").

    Paranoid conspiracy in four posts!

    Not quite a record, but an achievement nonetheless. You should get some mod points.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. "Clean diesel" is an oxymoron by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What it actually means is slightly less dirty diesel.

    Even if new diesel cars did pass this test they'd still start blowing black soot and other crap after a number of years have passed and the car has reached owner number 3 who isn't bothering to do anything other than basic maintainance to keep it on the road until it falls apart.

    1. Re:"Clean diesel" is an oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:"Clean diesel" is an oxymoron by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are always garages around who'll look the other way on emissions if someone slips them some money. There's a bloke up my road who manages to get his almost scrap transit through the MOT every year. There's no way it would pass legally.

    3. Re:"Clean diesel" is an oxymoron by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    4. Re: "Clean diesel" is an oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By "dirty diesel" you probably mean soot emissions. This is a solved problem.

      NOx emissions are trickier as they come straight from high thermal efficiency. But as petrol engines are getting better this is no longer a diesel-only issue.

  6. Europeans by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Internet is full of enlightening Europeans heaping scorn upon lowly Americans for not using their awesome "clean diesel" technology. Silly Americans still driving non-diesels!

    1. Re:Europeans by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a European, it was never about clean. It was always about cheaper.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  7. Re:Why are companies allowed to basically self val by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Expecting "independent" labs to actually be independent is not much better. Remember that it was a Swiss academic lab that found the original problem, because no German lab could be found that was willing to make these measurements on a German car. They all had a lot of business to lose and probably had reason to expect that the measurements would show massive problems. As soon as enough money is involved, the whole complex becomes corrupt. And, just as with the financial crisis of 2008, I predict that nobody will go behind bars for this, or at best some lowly scapegoats.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  8. Re:What? No, this is wrong! by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Funny

    You should look up sarcasm in the English Common law library. Hopefully, you find it.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  9. Re:What? No, this is wrong! by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Funny

    You should look up sarchasm in the English Common law library. Hopefully, you find it.

    SARCHASM: The gulf between the author of wit and its intended recipient (ATTRIB: Someone on the internet)

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  10. Re:What? No, this is wrong! by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, yes. And that is what eventually kills a society: Too many self-centered fucks that do not care about anything except themselves.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  11. WHy we do it this way by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we avoid lab conditions, you bring in random factors. So some heavy polluting car could just get lucky and have no sharp stops and quick speed ups, which is where it happens to heavily pollute, so it passes.

    We need lab conditions to ensure a fair comparison between different cars.

    It is assumed that all cars vary from real life to lab conditions in roughly the same manner. That is, that a car that does best in the lab conditions will also do best in real world conditions, even if the real use pollutes far more heavily.

    In addition, we assume that the lab is similar enough to real world so that we know how much we are polluting.

    If either of those assumptions are false, it indicates a bad lab condition set up which needs to be fixed. But that is not the fault of the car companies, but instead the fault of the politicians and scientists that designed the lab. (Yes, it is often designed by politics, not scientists.)

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  12. Re:Electrics by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 5, Informative

    Emissions controls on a big stationary power plant is much easier and much more efficient than emissions controls on cars.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  13. I'm shocked, truly shocked by Joe+Branya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gambling at Ricks? I had no idea.

    So what was an open secret to every diesel mechanic in the U.S. and Europe, that the diesels didn't ever pass the emissions tests in the real world, didn't get noticed by anyone in a position of power in Europe or anyone in the the U.S. Department of Transportation, any state DOT, anyone in the general press or anyone in the specialized automotive press. Do we really believe that? Or are we witnessing a breakdown in both government and press accountability?

    Part of the problem is bad regs (under certain heavy load conditions diesels really can never meet the requirements). But that is no excuse for allowing VW and the others to get a total "pass" on all pollution control regs in Europe. This is a totally open secret, just like the computer tweaking all manufacturers use so they can claim the magic "40 MPG!". The shift point programmed in make the car burp and barely accelerate so AFTER the certification runs the manufactures issue "software updates" that drop the mileage a bit but make the cars run properly. Now this is an open secret. It is probably illegal (fair trade laws, EPA regs, etc).

    I'd like to propose an experiment. There is clearly an important story here. I'll bet that many of the readers here are members of the press or government employees; they are honorable people who know a lot. They tried to report this stuff and were rebuffed. They are rightfully afraid to send the info to Slashdot. In modern America you will be punished or fired for publishing documents that show what is going on so, regretfully, you must learn to think and act like a Soviet or Chinese dissident. This is the only way to publish the often embarrassing truth and still stay under the radar.. ,

    The key is a Gmail/hotmail account that is not traceable One way is get a throw-away computer and use wifi at coffee shops. NEVER use the computer for any other purpose except browsing and spreading the word and NEVER leave the battery in while not using the computer. All email is traceable. A second way is use the throwaway computer and a "borrowed" untraceable email address- and that means if you have ever cell-phoned or emailed the person with the account you are traceable. I'd suggest that you use your brother-in-law's or grandma's name to open a gmail account using their computer (with their permission) and report what you know to Slashdot.

    And remember on the "how to get the documents" side, if you open, download or copy documents using your work credentials they will trace the leak back.

    So folks, if you are an insider, give it some thought. Find a way to get a copy of the documents that matter. Photograph them with a throwaway camera (pay cash at Walmart). Load them on a "safe" computer at the coffeeshop and drop them as a comment here under 'anon coward"- you need to stay "anon" but it is about time you stopped acting like cowards.

  14. No, it was all the government. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    That would be the auto industry itself.

    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
  15. Re:What? No, this is wrong! by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I will be happy to fight for your right to "roll coal" as much as you want in the privacy of your own garage... with the doors closed, of course.

    In fact, I encourage such behavior.
    =Smidge=

  16. Re:What? No, this is wrong! by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not sure if trolling or not, so I'll just suggest reading a high school civics text.

  17. Re:What? No, this is wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!