Slashdot Mirror
Diesel Cars Produce More Toxic Emissions Than Trucks and Buses, EU Study Says (theverge.com)
Modern diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, according to European researchers. That's because heavy duty vehicles in the EU have much stricter regulations than cars, and so even if they meet lab tests, cars end up producing much more nitrogen oxides (NOx) when driven on actual roads. From a report: The new report, released by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), shows that trucks and buses tested in Germany and Finland emitted about 210mg NOx per kilometer driven, less than half the 500mg/km produced by diesel cars that meet the highest "Euro 6" emission standards.
Second sentence of summary:
I Know commenting on the headline is fashionable, but not even getting to the second sentence is a bit extreme even for /.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You remember dieselgate right, where VW cars were cheating the lab based regulatory tests, by going into a state where the NOx emission are within standards, but when driven on real roads the cars exceeded the standards by 20 fold and higher. The point of the article is because the car standards are lab based, they bear a very poor relationship to the actual NOx emissions in real world conditions. The real world testing of heavy vehicles has ensured that they are actually lower in output than many dieshttps://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/01/06/142229/diesel-cars-produce-more-toxic-emissions-than-trucks-and-buses-eu-study-says#el cars under similar conditions.
just my own very sensitive nose can barely tell a diesel car in front vs trucks/buses I must pass(or stop) or have breathing trouble... Didn't read the referenced post but if it's true at all it must be pound for pound? Cause diesel cars dont' even come close to being as offensive.
Nitric Oxide (NO) is colorless and odorless. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) has a reddish brown color and a pungent smell. So if the majority of the NOx emmissions are Nitric Oxide you couldn't smell it even if you wanted to.
Green facism?... Surelly some wimpy Social Justice Warriors cause you worry?
In my time there were hardcore Maoistes, Trotskistes and Stalinists, those I was scared of, now these guys going on a gluten free diet, meh.
Screaming quotas, lower emmission, more recycling can be annoying, but facism?
Now if you want to breathe NOX gases, take some lead compounds into your system, drink water with benzene, please do.
But please, do it quickly. You need to increase the dosage it is clearly not working well enough.
Technically yes. In practice no. Passenger cars with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems can apply for low temperature operation exemptions. Basically, the system losses efficiency at low temperatures, so the automakers are allowed to turn it off as not to waste the SCR fluid. Some of these exemptions are ridiculous, one Mercedes (if I remember correctly) vehicle is exempt from turning the SCR on at ambient temperatures below 15 C.
Most of the diesel passenger vehicles are exempt below 5 C, so especially in the winter there is almost no NOx emissions control on any of these vehicles. If you are a heavy duty vehicle, there is no exemption. You have to put an electric heater on your exhaust system to keep it at operating temperature. Also, as there are very few labs that can accommodate large truck testing the testing, the certification test for heavy duty trucks is on the road with a portable emissions measurement system.
The whole issue is that a bug truck hauling 70-80,000 pounds doesn't care if it needs a 100 pound heater or a 200 pound urea tank to bring emissions down. Space and weight are not an issue. Much more difficult to do on a 3,000 pound passenger car.
Part of the reason is that diesel trucks are required to have a DEF[*] tank and a corresponding catalyst in the exhaust. This greatly reduces the NOx output.
For cars with a similar system (commonly "BlueTec"), it tends to be underpowered, with far too little DEF being used. Consumers can't be relied on to refill it regularly, and would B&M if they had to buy and top up DEF every time they filled the tank.
For trucks, there are fuel logs and inspections, and you can't just ignore filling DEF without getting fined.
[*]: "Diesel Exhaust Fluid", a mix of urea and deionized water.
There's too much news these days to read more than first sentences (unless it's very interesting), and this is worse when you see the same news over and over across your sources of choice.
Translation : "I'm too fucking lazy to become educated, but I'm perfectly willing to spout off about shit I am cluelss on."
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
I happen to live in a populated city that brags about having a ton of electric/hydrogen fueled vehicles (Porto, Portugal),
CH here.
Long range public transportation:
We have an extensive train network (all electric, thus mostly hydro-electric and nuke powered, with a little bit of solar and wind sprinkled in) (Thank the *Alps* for nearly perfectly clean hydroelectric - unlike tropical hydroelectric which tends to be giant glorified swamps)
It covers most of the territory except for remote less populated area (and as they are less populated, the long-range public transportation using busses hardly makes a dent in the total energy tally)
Short range:
Most big cities have a dense network of tramway and trolley buses (aerial electric power delivery makes much more sense in a densely packed area) also sometime metro/subs for some cities.
They are also joined by (diesel) bus. But the electric propotion of short-range transportation is quite significant and hardly just for the show.
Private companies in public transportation / ride sharing:
Most taxi fleets in big cities tend to rely on hybrid vehicle (lower gaz consumption makes operations cheaper)
the rise of Uber (mostly privately owned car with classical ICE drives) is actually a step backward environmentally. (But as taking transportation instead of driving a car around is better anyway, the end tally might not be bad).
Private companies car sharing:
The main car sharing operator in Switzerland (mobility) operates a mixed fleet featuring ICE (mostly), hybrid (fewer) and electric vehicle (only a few, usually available at sharing stations where high electrical power is available : eg.: parking near trainstation usually feature 1 or 2 Renault Zoé. But other places feature them too. Random example : EPFL institute).
From that point of view we are less ecologically advanced than france, where the dominating car sharing companies tend to have all-electric fleets (e.g.: Autolib in Paris).
Though there are smaller CH player with electric fleets (e.g.: ElectrEasy)
So globally, in Switzerland, the role played by electricity in public transportation (specially by public company like national trains and city public transportation) is really significant.
Also, regarding merchandise :
Switzerland is peculiar in that transport of merchandise *across* the country is *forbidden in trucks*.
Trucks can be used to deliver merchandise to/from and within cities.
But if you want to transport merchandise long distance or across the country, it's mandatory to load it on trains.
When driving on the highway, you're going to see way much less trucks compared to other European countries (e.g.: Italy, France, Spain...)
Last but not least a few interesting corner case :
I few touristic cities (mostly in the mountains like Zermatt and Saas Fee) have completely banned ICE engines within the city (with a few exceptions like firefighters, ambulances)
Thus nearly the whole fleet is small electric glof-cart-like cars and taxis.
Fun to see (even if completely insignificant statistically to the rest of the country).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]