Slashdot Mirror
German Automakers Formed a Secret Cartel In the '90s To Collude On Diesel Emissions, Says Report (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Last week, Der Spiegel published an explosive report alleging that the major German automakers formed a secret cartel in the 1990s to collude on diesel emissions. These companies, including Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, Porsche, and Daimler, met in secret working groups to discuss "the technology, costs, suppliers, and even the exhaust gas purification of its diesel vehicles," the German weekly reported. The meetings were disclosed to German competition officials in letters from VW and Daimler and viewed by Der Spiegel. The secret meetings "laid the basis" for the 2015 diesel emission cheating scandal, in which VW was caught installing secret software in more than half a million vehicles sold in the US that it used to fool exhaust emissions tests. The admission of cheating ultimately cost the automaker tens of billions of dollars in fines and legal fees, making it one of the most expensive corporate scandals in history.
Years earlier, VW participated in dozens of secret meetings with its competitors, involving over 200 employees in up to 60 working groups, on how to meet increasingly tough emissions criteria in diesel vehicles. The automakers may have colluded to fix prices of a diesel emission treatment called AdBlue through these working groups, Der Spiegel says. Specifically, VW (which owns Porsche and Audi), Daimler (which owns Mercedes-Benz and Smart), and BMW allegedly agreed to use AdBlue tanks that were too small. AdBlue is a liquid solution used to counteract a vehicle's emissions.
Years earlier, VW participated in dozens of secret meetings with its competitors, involving over 200 employees in up to 60 working groups, on how to meet increasingly tough emissions criteria in diesel vehicles. The automakers may have colluded to fix prices of a diesel emission treatment called AdBlue through these working groups, Der Spiegel says. Specifically, VW (which owns Porsche and Audi), Daimler (which owns Mercedes-Benz and Smart), and BMW allegedly agreed to use AdBlue tanks that were too small. AdBlue is a liquid solution used to counteract a vehicle's emissions.
Slashdotters earlier on formed a secret cartel, one devoted to not buying cars, but instead making a million car analogies in forums.
...when ignorant politicians and regulators set emission goals that are apparently impossible to reach with current technology or far too expensive to include in a consumer vehicle.
and I believe them. I love my X5.
If it is any other country/company we could blame it on "low level team cheating" or "midlevel managers were scared to tell the higher level managers the truth" or "simple incompetence and cowboy attitude towards laws".
But in Germany, in VW, these stories do not add up. Given the documentation they do and the way they follow the orders, the cheating was done with full knowledge and compliance of everyone all the way to the top. VW buys our software. I see their acceptance testing reports and how much they test, document and demand explanations. Not only they document, they refer to the docs and use them all the time.
No way the VW diesel cheating was the work of some rogue team in some isolated division. It went all the way up the company, now it appears, it went all the way up the entire damned industry.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Drive behind most diesel cars more than a few years old and you know it is all bs.
Sometimes I am quick enough to switch to recirculation, and at other times you must sit in the stench for a long time. Some even gets pissed when you overtake them to get away from their stench and the black plumes of smoke they emit when they accelerate.
The faster diesel cars get banned, the better. Sadly, too many here in the EU drives diesel cars.
I can't wait for the internal combustion engine to become a historical curiosity like coal fired locomotives are today.
I hope to live to see the day when we have huge solar plants and other renewable energy powering everything including charging our cars - or solar cells getting efficient enough where cars are solar powered.
It will happen - it's inevitable.
If the US decides, that this affected them, se germans have RICO on their asses....
I'm sorry, it seems I've made a spelling error. And upon reflection, your glib sarcasm was meant as a rebuke of European claims of superiority on environmental claims, when in fact it turns out that things like relying on diesel were economic rather than environmental - despite broad claims otherwise. I'll try to be more thoughtful with my posts in the future.
AdBlue is a liquid solution used to counteract a vehicle's emissions.
AdBlue is a solution of urea and water generically referred to as diesel exhaust fluid. It lowers NOx emissions in diesel vehicles.
Is this just the natural result of unrealistic or even impossible regulations devised by leftist bureaucrats being forced on companies?
It's easy for regulators to create policies demanding that unrealistic, if not outright impossible, goals be met. And when subjected to these impossible-to-achieve regulations, it doesn't surprise me that those subjected to such regulations would need to find other ways to "achieve" them, to avoid harassment from those who imposed the impossible regulations to begin with.
It's not like the targets of such regulation can change the laws of physics, or magically make inherently uneconomical activities economical. They're forced into a corner where their only option is to cheat or work around the regulation in some way.
If many participants in a given industry end up colluding due to regulations being imposed on them, perhaps the viability of the regulations they're trying to bypass should be reexamined. This shouldn't be done by bureaucrats, but rather by people who are aware of the inherent limitations that physics and economics impose on activity.
In some sense this seems like a bunch of legislators telling 100 m sprinters that they're required to run the race in under 5 seconds. It's easy to say that and to mandate it, but then it's damn near impossible for even the best of the best to achieve it in any legitimate manner. Then a race is held, the runners end up taking 9 seconds or more, and the regulators give them hell for taking so long. So during the next race the runners all choose to ride motorcycles, to allow the requirement to be satisfied. So they do manage to pass the finish line within 5 seconds, but the regulators then accuse them of "colluding" merely because they couldn't overcome what are essentially physics-imposed impossibilities unless they bent the rules.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
everyone knows western Europe is a peace and earth loving heaven on earth while the evil USA spews carbon into the air
Also, this smug comic has always assured us that there are no possible downsides to any Green initiatives and proposals:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV...
I am confused. During emissions tests don't they stick a sensor down the exhaust pipe and making readings from there? if this is still the case what happened here? 1. The software interpreting the sensor (neither the software or the sensor attached to car) was written by these colluding car companies OR 2. The software is in the car itself and no external sensor is involved, and then the software is controlled by the colluding car companies. Either 1 or 2 being the truth: how on earth did no one see the opportunity for corruption? I know nothing. Chris
Diesel engines do not normally produce any odours.
I have no idea where you got that idea but it's total BS. Diesel exhaust definitely has odors and is rather well known for having them. They've gotten cleaner but they are hardly without smell.
I haven't seen any car emit black smoke in years. I doubt one that does would pass periodic safety and emissions tests.
I've seen at least three this week alone. Rolling Coal is disturbingly popular. And no they wouldn't pass any reasonable emissions test not to mention the practice being explicitly illegal.
I remember posting about it back when VW diesel cheating was making rounds.
The article is mixing up two different things, and pretending that they are connected. Der Spiegel says that the automakers met in secret to discuss “the technology, costs, suppliers, and even the exhaust gas purification of its diesel vehicles." Then, separately, VW implemented a cheating system to dodge the emissions testing, with other automakers doing similar things, although to lesser degrees.
But the article implies that these two things are connected. Documentation, however, pretty well shows that the original plan of VW was to buy a license for the Mercedes "blueTec" technology, but they abandoned this plan when the Chief Operating Officer changed, who favored using their own developed technology (TDI). TDI didn't work as well as expected, necessitating the cheat.
Der Spiegel attempts to imply that the collusions were to agree on how to cheat, but from the evidence, it looks like the "collusion" was exactly the opposite of what Der Spiegel implies: the "collusion" was to collaborate on technology to avoid producing emissions, but when that collaboration fell apart, they shifted to cheating.
New York Times article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/1...
Wall Street Journal article here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/v...
Are you saying that a larger tank of adblue is impossible?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
"The meetings were disclosed to German competition officials in letters from VW and Daimler"
So, not really a secret cartel meeting then? More a cooperation between industry leaders trying to find a solution.
Kind of like how many industries have a forum where competitors can exchange experiences and work on some things together?
Harald
Original AC here. Someone is being clever by reposting my original, flawed comment.
With that said, though, I agree that if you see a diesel car producing black smoke, it's probably an old one. The whole point of the new "clean diesel" technology is that they had "solved" that problem. But that can stop working, and then the out-of-tune car (or truck) belches out smoke like a tyre-fire (primarily when accelerating):
* https://commercial.lubrizoladd...
* https://www.yourmechanic.com/a...
* http://www.dieselsmoke.com.au/
* https://www.bellperformance.co...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ummmmm. Secret meeting involving 200 people? LOL. It appears misleading reporting, not journalism, yet again proves most readers have no ability to think critically. If it is written it must be true.
Emissions are actually measured during type approval tests. The CAN bus is used for diagnostics during annual emissions tests (usually in addition to actual exhaust measurements, depending on the country). All of the cheating uncovered so far (by all manufacturers, not just those in the alleged cartel) had to do with detecting or optimising for the type approval test, not the annual checks that verify whether the car still meets the emissions regulations it was certified for, which do not usually even measure NOx (the exhaust component that manufacturers are cheating with) in most countries.
If your world comes to fruition, we will drain the Sun of its energy!!!!
For a while here in Missouri they had the Gateway Clean Air program for car emissions testing. You didn't even have to go to some specific company/building to get tested they could actually set up on the side of a road, often an on-ramp to a major interstate, a camera at license plates and a set of sensors for recording actual emissions and viola, if you were up for renewal on registration you'd get a certificate of passing (or failing) in the mail not too long after. Whether this is an accurate or cost effective method of testing I have no idea. I also don't know how effective any particular testing procedure can be, but someone seemed to think it was worthwhile to do it this way.
I am already seeing anti west types calling this a conspiracy created by tesla and the us govt to destroy the german auto industry. Yup.
That would be pretty dumb, but that's not what they do. VW programmed the engine to detect an emissions test and change to a lower-performance mode that would produce less emissions. On the road the vehicle would revert to its normal high-performance mode.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Is this just the natural result of unrealistic or even impossible regulations devised by leftist bureaucrats being forced on companies?
Basically: no.
The regulations were neither unrealistic nor impossible. Gasoline powered cars, for example, met the regulations easily.
The companies involved, however, thought that they could meet the emissions standards using diesel engines. Old-fashioned diesel engines are classically dirty and polluting (although also simple and efficient)-- but new "clean diesel" technology was being developed.
VW, however, chose not to license the Mercedes technology and instead develop their own clean diesel approach... which turned out not to work as well as they had anticipated in stopping nitric oxide emissions. So they cheated.
It's easy for regulators to create policies demanding that unrealistic, if not outright impossible, goals be met.
It wasn't a case of regulations that couldn't be met-- it was a case of VW's "not invented here" syndrome.
You do have to pay attention to the fact that the "collusion" in the Spiegel article was not companies colluding on cheating: it was companies colluding on using each others technologies (which VW eventually decided not to do).
I am a leftist and will never validate any kind of generic nonsense on the lines of the parent poster one. I will also never justify any kind of cheating, much less the one coming from a multinational company and much less the one involving an environmental damage. But engine companies are actually not able to meet the emission targets, certainly not by keeping their clients happy (clients say in loud voice that they want lower emissions, but will never accept a notable power reduction in their cars). It is also true that most of emission targets are determined by political interests with low-to-no realistic technical knowledge.
I worked on this field some years ago and the fact that the upcoming targets, the ones being applied now and in the near future, were almost impossible to be met was a quite common belief in the industry. Also note that big companies only want benefits; they certainly don't care about the environment, but don't want to be fined and get bad press either.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
We had to fight hard to prevent those acid rains from destroying the little forests we still had before. These days it's the slutty car companies, beetle and ecosystem killing pesticides, overuse of last resort antibiotics and whatever is around the corner next. The fight is never over. Hitler had plans for preserving the European forests, on the other hand.. =)
If many participants in a given industry end up colluding due to regulations being imposed on them, perhaps the viability of the regulations they're trying to bypass should be reexamined.
Or perhaps the viability of the technology being regulated should be reexamined. If we accept that the goal of the regulation (low PM levels) is a a good thing, why would we let people use a technology that breaks that regulation just because "It's too hard". There are alternatives (gasoline, and electric is becoming more viable every day).
Not impossible, but it changes many things about the vehicle. Bigger tank = more volume taken up, which means trading cargo / interior / fuel space. More exhaust pee carried with you everywhere also means more mass, so less fuel efficiency. More mass also means slower acceleration. Liquid sloshing around means less handling accuracy.
Are these problems insurmountable? No, but it means redesigning or redefining many aspects of the vehicle in a way that potential buyers won't like. And that's why they did what they did.
The bean counters have struck again.
Dear Slashdot, don't be a prick. Yes, we all know that Slashdot is US centered, however these cars were not only sold in the States but also Canada, Europe...
Except for the VW defeat device in question being the software sensing when the vehicle was in test conditions and de-tuning the engine in order to pass the test, you are absolutely correct.
No wait, you are wrong. And that's how VW got away with it for years until an independent research effort sought to confirm the emissions rates under actual road conditions, and couldn't. In fact, they found the emissions were many times worse when on a real road then when the same car was going the same speed on a dynomometer.
How do you think they got caught?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It's like the journalist is trying to shove ordinary industry co-operation (or "collusion") into some kind of a conspiracy template. Even the /. abstract starts out with emissions something-or-other, sounding like it's about emissions cheating like WV etc., but then it comes down to allegations of price-fixing of diesel exhaust fluid and BMW building their diesel cars' tanks for it too small.
Not exactly a scandal here, not an environmental "we're all gonna die because of the free market solution being collusion and cheating" kind of scenario.
At what point do regulations supersede the laws of physics? Is anyone really surprised that companies are trying to avoid the insane amount of research costs required to meet pollution regulations? We are now required to pour purified piss in our diesel engines. And meet emissions standards, and meet safety standards, fuel consumption standards, weight standards, etc... At some point you simply can't engineer it anymore.
Have you not read the news in the past two years? The problem is that nobody in the industry was following the rules as they were intended and that it's likely not even illegal in most cases due to the huge loopholes that allow practically everything that can be construed as serving to protect the engine.
I'm going to stick with my original theory that the conspiracy is larger than what we've seen so far: http://geekcrumbs.com/2015/10/...
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
It does nothing for the latter. You still need some other method to get rid of the soot.
Do they send you an MP3 of the viola music by email?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Im the AC, and so is my wife.
Do they send you an MP3 of the viola music by email?
Not email; this is from a government agency. They put it on an 8-inch floppy disk, fold it in half to fit in a standard business envelope, and send it through the postal service.
Isn't the German motto if you aren't cheating you aren't trying hard enough? Und ja, ich spreche Deutsch.
But engine companies are actually not able to meet the emission targets, certainly not by keeping their clients happy
Baloney. They can meet the emissions targets today and the technology is being sold as I type this in large numbers. It will mean that they will have to change the vehicle mix but to that I say so what? Same rules apply to every one and they have the technology to achieve it. If that means that you and I have to live with less horsepower so be it. But Tesla is showing that you can meet emissions targets and have a vehicle worth driving too. Even among gasoline powered vehicles there are plenty that are being sold right now that meet any reasonably near term emissions requirement and are perfectly fine vehicles to drive.
It is also true that most of emission targets are determined by political interests with low-to-no realistic technical knowledge.
The emissions targets have been reviewed plenty by interested parties with technical knowledge and there is no evidence that it is technically impossible to meet them as a general proposition. There are vehicles available TODAY that can meet the emissions targets. Yes they will have to sell a different mix of vehicles. The fact that car makers want to have their cake and eat it too is not my problem nor yours. They have the technology and they need to get busy applying it.
I worked on this field some years ago and the fact that the upcoming targets, the ones being applied now and in the near future, were almost impossible to be met was a quite common belief in the industry.
I work in the auto industry today and while I agree that some "believe" it impossible, that's only true if you assume no change to the product mix. Despite what they might tell you, very few people "need" a 500HP Corvette or a 400HP pickup truck.
Nobody complains about buses that belch diesel soot in their face? Who the fuck are you kidding? Stop with the lies. Every driver I know is GLAD when he is not behind any sort of diesel vehicle. The new natural gas powered buses are MUCH nicer to share the road with--so much cleaner!
NOx is hugely harmful to health, particularly the lungs. It can induce asthma.
I’m the AC and I’m banging your wife.
cartel (plural cartels)
A group of businesses or nations that collude to limit competition within an industry or market.
A combination of political groups (notably parties) for common action.
A written letter of defiance or challenge.
An official agreement concerning the exchange of prisoners.
(nautical) A ship used to negotiate with an enemy in time of war, and to exchange prisoners.
cabal (plural cabals)
A usually secret exclusive organization of individuals gathered for a political purpose.
A secret plot.
An identifiable group within the tradition of Discordianism.
Please, Slashdot editors, could you be bothered to check these things before you post them? Thanks.
**********
In any event: I for one am not at all surprised to hear this, and in fact I was expecting it. Furthermore I expect that in the days to come we're going to find that every automaker on the planet has been doing something similar. Sadly, the days of the internal combustion engine need to come to an end, if we're going to clean things up, and I, for one, having spent decades maintaining them, would be glad of something much simpler, cleaner, and easier to maintain, like a fully electric vehicle. If only I could get a plug-in electric version of my Tacoma..
...when they do bad things, they still keep meticulous records about it.
-Styopa
Electric motors have none of these problems.
Stranded assets. Fossil fuel and internal combustion engines will be replaced within the next 10 years by EVs. Big problem for industry.
They can keep investing in a failed technology or move to EVs. So far they have been resisting change but they are becoming dinosaurs.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Electric motors have none of these problems.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, they are linked to all our combustion-based society and, for example, the generation of the electricity they need might be even dirtier. But they are undoubtedly the future and the next logical step for IC engines (at least, for small sizes and loads). The problem is people liking nice results, but not being willing to accept what they imply: many people don't like the limited ranges, the lower speeds, the multiple associated problems, etc. For example, If people would be seriously concerned about the environment and would be willing to, let's say, buy cars not going faster than 100 kph, the pollution from IC-engines might stop being a relevant problem.
Fossil fuel and internal combustion engines will be replaced within the next 10 years
It would be nice, but I am afraid that it will not happen so soon. Just by focusing on the richest countries, having most of cars (not talking about trucks, ships, planes, manufacturing facilities, etc.) electric within the next 50 years would be impressively good news for me.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
As the grid transitions from fossil to renewable, EVs get cleaner. In most states, they are already much cleaner than ICE cars... equivalent to about 100 mpg ICE car.
As far as the transition to EVs, there have been several reputable studies of the transition (Bloomberg, Stanford, ING) and they predict new sales primarily electric within 10 years. Phase out of old ICE cars will take longer but now that the TCO of EVs are on the cusp of surpassing ICE cars, it will be a powerful incentive to ditch your expensive to run ICE car and buy an EV. (Used car prices will suffer.)
Also, several countries (France, Norway, Sweden, India, China) are pushing to ban ICE cars (with various timelines).
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I'm the AC my wife is your mom.
they predict new sales primarily electric within 10 years
Let's do one thing. If by July 2027 most of new cars being sold in the US are electric, I would pay you $5; if not but by July 2037, $4; and so on until July 2067. If most of new cars being sold in the US by the 1st July 2067 aren't electric, you would pay me $1 million for having wasted 50 years of my life waiting for nothing. LOL.
:)
Seriously, your (and these others') expectations are very unrealistic, but I cannot put my money where my mouth is because of being (kind of) poor
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Dad? You finally came back? Did you bring the Pop Tarts!?
I'm not so sure about the story. One must stop to consider that all of the manufacturers mentioned all purchase significant quantities of parts (especially electrical and electronic components) from Bosch. I'm not sure how much is collusion or how much is simply co-incidence. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've owned enough European cars to know that most of the European companies all get their parts from the same suppliers, namely Bosch.
Finally, the conspiracy community is vindicated! See, we told you so. Conspiracy is real. Oh... wait... they were blathering on about chemtrails and just about everything else while this happened. You know though, that some conspiracy theorist will find *something* in this that they can front as an example of how their way of thinking is correct.
Diesel lorries are practically free of emissions except for CO2 these days (except when the owners install kill systems). If it's possible to run lorries practically free from emissions, then surely it's possible with smaller vehicles as well.
The main problem is that fitting a $20000 emissions kit on every lorry is quite a bit of money, but it's a reasonable part of the overall lorry cost. Fitting a $20000 emissions kit on every passenger car would kill most of the industry.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Diesel lorries are practically free of emissions
This statement isn't true and will never be. Diesel engines will always generate dangerous-for-health emissions, exactly the same than gasoline engines. We (= the human kind) have been working on over-optimising all the actions happening at each level of the IC engines for over 100 years. Each second of each single stroke of any modern engine is fully controlled to deliver not just the best performance, but also to generate as less emissions as possible. We can keep slightly improving over and over, but emissions will never be "solved".
IC-engine emissions are either completely-unavoidable (CO2) or practically-unavoidable under the current fuels/pressure/temperature conditions (all the dangerous-for-the-health species) outputs. As explained in other comments, engine manufacturers are the ones being more concerned about reducing emissions (emissions above the target = engine cannot be sold) and users don't need to do anything.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
These predictions are from conservative banks, not wide eyed environmentalists.
The economic case for EVs will be compelling in a very few years.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
conservative banks
Good to know. I am an open-minded engineer, completely detached from the current US (car market) reality but with very clear ideas regarding the differences between people talking (about nice things) vs. actually doing (when it implies any effort). Are you up for the bet then? Or are you afraid of losing $1 million? In 50 years, you might be rich and it wouldn't be a problem. In the worst scenario, you might always ask your friends the banks for some help, because they will certainly be there for you and for taking responsibility for all their long-term predictions. LOL.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
As an "open minded engineer" you should read these reports.
https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/A...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
https://www.iea.org/publicatio...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
http://inhabitat.com/stanford-...
I am already rich and have no need to take your money so I will not accept your bet.
You, OTOH, might find cause to divest from oil and fossil cars after reading these reports. It might save you some money.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
It isn't the performance that is changed, but the degree of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and it wasn't just VW, but pretty much the entire car industry does something like that in one way or another.
I'm not quite sure where the "Adblue tank too small" can come in. My (German) car's Adblue tank holds enough for at least 11000 miles (18000km) of driving, which is the farthest I have driven it between services, where it is filled up. A work colleague's non-German car (with higher fuel consumption, it's an SUV) still runs about 10k miles between Adblue fill-ups. Meanwhile Adblue is very cheap if you go to a service station that caters for goods vehicles. Of course you can pay a huge premium for some dealer brand-name Adblue - that's like going to a name brand PC dealer and buying their manufacturer brand USB cable instead of some other one.
So, I'm not sure how much this holds water. Or adblue.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
Jesus you are an idiot. Do you get your ideas about car crashes from Jerry Bruckheimer movies? What kills everyone in car crashes (gas or diesel) is the IMPACT.
Sorry, I don't believe in conspiracy theories.
As an "open minded engineer" you should read these reports.
I hope that the quotes are only meant to highlight the fact of being using my exact words and you aren't implying that my statement isn't accurate. Thanks for the info, but I have no need of reading certain kind of reports from certain kind of sources about certain kind of issues. The fact of being reasonably sure about something (logically, not certain as far as this is about consumer behaviour, an intrinsically unpredictable reality) doesn't mean that I am really interested in that something.
I am already rich and have no need to take your money so I will not accept your bet.
You are one of the first rich persons I know who rejects (what s/he thinks that is easy) money! We are talking here about up to $5! You can seriously miss the opportunity of earning $5? How have you become rich with this attitude? Well, I guess that I will have to continue looking for ways to earn by first $1 million. LOL.
might find cause to divest from oil and fossil cars after reading these reports. It might save you some money.
I don't invest in anything other than in myself and I mostly run on food :)
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
I put open minded in quotes because those were your words.
However, from your response, it's clear that you are not open minded.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
And the problem with all of these "hammering out" of regulations is that those writing the regulations are typically underfunded compared to those protesting the regulations.
... and as a result, the people writing the regulations most often are the people protesting the regulations-- that is, the car companies have way more input into the pollution regulations than the people actually worried about the effects of pollution, because the car companies have a lot more funding than the people worried about the effects of pollution.
The writers will come up with a cost and benefit and decide the regulation is good. Those opposed to the regulation will say that the cost is half as much and the benefit may not be achievable. Once the regulation is written, it suddenly gets met at half of the original estimate provided by the regulators.
That turns out to be true very often: the companies complain about how expensive the cost will be to meet the regulation, but once the regulation is in place, suddenly it turns out that the companies can meet it at half the cost they said it would take: they had been overestimating the cost in order to prevent the regulations from being more strict. (Or, to take a less antagonistic view, they were quoting the worst-case cost estimates when opposing regulations.)
Rinse and repeat ad nauseum. If you object to a regulation saying it will cost X and then the implementation actually costs less, you ought to have to pay a tax that brings the cost up to your original estimate. That way at least there would be motivation to be honest.
Interesting thought, but of course actually doing that would kill innovation, because whenever somebody finds a better way to lower pollution, the companies would have negative incentive to implement it.
they predict new sales primarily electric within 10 years
Let's do one thing. If by July 2027 most of new cars being sold in the US are electric, I would pay you $5; if not but by July 2037, $4; and so on until July 2067. If most of new cars being sold in the US by the 1st July 2067 aren't electric, you would pay me $1 million for having wasted 50 years of my life waiting for nothing.
This is a screwball bet, but (ignoring inflation), what you basically proposed is a bet in which your stake, betting against electric cars, is $5, and your payoff, paid by people betting in favor of electric cars, is $1,000,000. So the odds you just offered were 200000:1 in favor of electric cars.
(in fact, the odds are nothing like that, because the terms of the bet are peculiar, you can't ignore discount rate or inflation over a fifty year period, and the million dollar payout occurs after we're dead. But, nevertheless, the odds you proposed are vastly lopsided-- a five dollar payout if electric cars are real and a million dollar payout if they are not.)
Now both France and the UK will ban ICE cars by 2040
Britain to ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars and vans from 2040
https://www.theguardian.com/po...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
However, from your response, it's clear that you are not open minded.
?! Other than getting some idea about my sense of humour and my low interest in money, there is no other relevant information in that comment. I will help you understand your mistake by being a bit more honest with you: I will never take a study from a bank, financial-institution or similar even slightly seriously when dealing with anything not strictly related to banks or financial stuff.
:)
Financial whatever is mostly meant to grow at the expense of others. They don't try to do things better, to learn, to share knowledge, but right the contrary: they want inequality to remain, to keep their (unfair) advantages, to share good-for-their-own-interests information, to try to persuade people to do what is good for them, etc. Trusting them would be like trusting what a person trying to sell you a bridge tells about the bridge market. Even if I wouldn’t have any other way to get that knowledge, I wouldn’t trust in any of this.
I am a mechanical engineer with a pretty good grasp about the technical aspects (able to easily differentiate between meaningless marketing and probable upcoming technology) and even in general (kind of a knowing-human-nature-pretty-well guy). I am also skilled in all what is required to create a proper study on this or on any other front (good background in maths, programming, data management, etc.). Why should I ignore all that and blindly accept the conclusions given to me by other people, even by forgetting about my aforementioned perception of the financial world? This wouldn’t be open-minded, but sheep-minded; even plainly stupid. If I ever want to make a proper analysis about the most likely evolution of whatever reality during the next years, I would trust my favourite source of knowledge for these tasks: myself
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
(Politicians talking about what will be happening in over 20 years? Very reliable source of something. LOL)
Do you want to go ahead with the bet or not? We might choose other country if you wish, although with smaller/greener countries the conditions might change a bit. Just escrow the $1 million somewhere and I will do the same with the $5, although I might need some months because I don't have that much money with me right now. LOL.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
EURO6 diesel lorries are just not a problem. They are such an improvement over previous standards that it is simply shocking. You can tell when a lorry passes whether it's EURO5 or EURO6. It is not a slight improvement, it is a complete game changer. This happened because EURO6 lorries are actually road tested before they get type approval. Emissions above target == engine cannot be sold.
EURO5 and EURO6 also apply to passenger vehicles, but passenger vehicles are not tested on the road. Hence the improvement in EURO6 is practically non-existent. Emissions above target != engine cannot be sold.
Personally I am against the death penalty, but I cannot help but hope that all those involved die early of cancer or heart disease.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The whole point of having emissions targets is to not allow any engine to go over said targets. The values are different in different countries, for different types of emissions and vehicles. The (regulated) measuring processes might also differ and have a very important influence on the emissions being really generated (as proven by some cheating scandals). Any engine not meeting the targets cannot be sold, full stop. This has always been the case when a legislation has forced whatever minimum threshold to be met.
For your information, the standard being applied in Europe when I was working on this field was Euro 4 and every single engine (or other machines where other regulations were applicable) had to meet the given targets in order to be commercialised. In any other scenario, we would be talking about mere recommendations or ideal values, a completely different story which certainly doesn't concern the engine industry at all. Engine manufacturers, equivalently to any other company in the world, will exclusively spend money (reducing/measuring/caring about emissions is very expensive) for two reasons: either earning more money or not having any other option (= legislation forcing them to do so). Engine manufacturers never meet emissions targets voluntarily, not even for having their clients happy (the cost/benefit ratio would be too high).
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
FUN FACT: I was working on engine emissions in the UK, for a small (half-)British company, with a relevant proportion of British clients and coworkers. All of them were using "truck" rather than "lorry", an alternative which I don't even recall to have ever heard in that professional context. No idea why. Perhaps, it was because the US engine/automotive industry is much more relevant than the British one and most of the technical references are written in US English.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
You have missed the entire point. Millions of diesel engines were sold in Europe, labelled as EURO6, while not living up to EURO6 standards.
You say "No engine can be sold if it does not meet emission targets". I offer you lots and lots of engines which WERE sold despite not meeting targets. That is what the scandal is all about.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
You missed my point too. In the given moment under the given regulation (= country) certain thresholds are applicable (a different story is engine makers working ahead of time and trying to meet the targets of the upcoming years). For example, let's assume that you are building an engine to be used in vehicles X, in country Y and on year Z. That engine HAS to met whatever regulation and emission targets are applicable. Meeting means passing whatever standardised tests are applicable under the given conditions (measuring emissions is very expensive and difficult; in fact, I was precisely working on emission modelling, a sub-field which doesn't precisely deliver too accurate conclusions, but that is used systematically as a way to minimise the huge costs associated with actually measuring emissions). If you build an engine and you pass the tests that the corresponding authority considers good enough, your engine is assume to meet whatever targets. If you don't pass the tests, you would have to continue working on that engine. After passing the tests for a given engine, the engine maker will stop caring about any of this (= they did they work = they can sell that engine).
IC engines involve extremely complex actions at each single second at the the physical/chemical levels, what makes virtually impossible to deliver reasonably accurate conclusions regarding the expected emissions. You can try to model them (acceptably good guesses) or measure them, but only under very specific conditions. Then, you can (reasonably accurately) guess what might be the overall emissions of that engine, but certainly not knowing it for sure. Just slightly varying the exact moment where the fuel is being injected might provoke tremendous differences in the generated emission levels! Same thing for pressure/temperature variations. Engines deliver notably different levels of each emission type at different speeds, accelerations, when having different types of problems, on account of the age of the engine (or associated elements, like filters), etc. In summary, within the IC-engine-emission world, "meeting targets" is only a conventional way of saying "it passed the legal tests which were considered good enough at that given moment".
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
I hear all this talk about alternative like electric, which require vast amounts of lithium for the batteries which fail after about 5 years. I haven't found one post about Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe and which ICE engines can burn and old ones can too with modifications. I think this is best option because and ICE engine dozen require any exotic or rare earth metals like Fuel Cell needing platinum and or iridium or electric cars needing lithium do.
This does not change the fact that there are two cases:
EURO6 lorry engines, which are in practice free from emissions other than CO2. As a pedestrian, you only notice the exhaust by the heat.
EURO6 passenger vehicle engines, which emit pretty annoying smoke most of the time, and nasty black clouds every time they accelerate.
If we can get all engines to the EURO6 lorry level, we have solved basically the entire non-CO2 pollution problem from engines. After that we'll have to look at e.g. brakes before we do more about the engines.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
EURO6 lorry engines, which are in practice free from emissions other than CO2. As a pedestrian, you only notice the exhaust by the heat.
You being aware about emissions is irrelevant. Some of these particles are so small that cannot even be measured or trapped (they pass through the filters). And the smallest ones might even be the most dangerous ones. You shouldn't be aware about emissions from relatively modern vehicles, but it doesn't matter: they are there anyway and are harmful.
Additionally and as already said, "EURO6 lorry" doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Labelling something as EURO6 isn't the result of an undoubted process objectively and absolutely defining a given engine, but pretty much the contrary. Additionally, a standard doesn't have an absolute meaning for all the possible engines, just for a specific type of them, being run under certain conditions. No idea what the advertisement, politics, etc. tell, but I can assure you that "free from emissions" is far from true now and ever. The kind of fuels being used, the pressure/temperature and operative conditions, etc. provoke certain outputs which are dangerous. Completely eliminating these outputs is virtually impossible.
EURO6 passenger vehicle engines, which emit pretty annoying smoke most of the time, and nasty black clouds every time they accelerate.
Again, this shouldn't be the case but it doesn't matter anyway. The important thing is reducing dangerous compounds, not reducing what you can see. There are different targets for different conditions and the differentiation truck/car is present almost everywhere; they do have different values, but also different operative conditions. I am currently not too much into all this but, years ago, the targets were already very difficult to be met and the upcoming ones (= Euro 5/6) almost impossible. So, by looking just at the expected values and by assuming that all the engines meet them, they are likely to be really low for both cars and trucks (you have to apply different rules because their conditions are different). But it doesn't mean that they don't contaminate; they certainly do and will continue doing so as pretty much every other machine (directly or indirectly). In fact, there are some machines which contaminate much more than cars/trucks and don't think that they have to meet so tough targets; for example, planes or ships. This whole reality is extremely complex and fully fixing it is plainly impossible.
This chat has already become too long and we are basically repeating the same ideas, so I hope that you don't mind if I stop it here.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
EURO6 passenger vehicle engines, which emit pretty annoying smoke most of the time, and nasty black clouds every time they accelerate.
And how exactly does this smoke somehow become invisible and odourless? I don't think I've ever seen a Euro 5 or Euro 6 car emit visible smoke and unlike petrol cars, which produce a noticeable smell when the engine is cold, they are odourless. If I ever see a diesel car or lorry emit smoke, it is at least twenty years old.
If we can get all engines to the EURO6 lorry level, we have solved basically the entire non-CO2 pollution problem from engines. After that we'll have to look at e.g. brakes before we do more about the engines.
For diesel cars, we are already long past the point where tyres and brakes became the dominant source of pollution. For petrol, not quite, but with the particulate traps that a few manufacturers have introduced this year they probably get there too.
And how exactly does this smoke somehow become invisible and odourless? I don't think I've ever seen a Euro 5 or Euro 6 car emit visible smoke and unlike petrol cars, which produce a noticeable smell when the engine is cold, they are odourless. If I ever see a diesel car or lorry emit smoke, it is at least twenty years old.
I regularly see diesels with 2014 or 2015 registration plates emit nasty black clouds under acceleration. The diesels seem to have fallen out of fashion around 2016, I don't see very many new registrations. But at least until 2015, the emission control doesn't work on diesel passenger cars.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Strange. I never see them in The Netherlands. When I see any visible smoke from a diesel car, it is invariably a very old one. Is removing particulate filters a thing where you live?