Slashdot Mirror


Volkswagen's CEO Was Told About Emissions Software Months Before Scandal, Says Report (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Volkswagen Chief Executive Herbert Diess was told about the existence of cheating software in cars two months before regulators blew the whistle on a multi-billion exhaust emissions scandal, German magazine Der Spiegel said. Der Spiegel's story, based on recently unsealed documents from the Braunschweig prosecutor's office, raises questions about whether VW informed investors in a timely manner about the scope of a scandal which it said has cost it more than $27 billion in penalties and fines.

Responding to the magazine report, the carmaker reiterated on Saturday that the management board had not violated its disclosure duties, and had decided to not inform investors earlier because they had failed to grasp the scope of the potential fines and penalties. Citing documents unsealed by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office, Der Spiegel said Diess was present at a meeting on July 27, 2015 when senior engineers and executives discussed how to deal with U.S. regulators, who were threatening to ban VW cars because of excessive pollution levels. Diess, who had defected from BMW to become head of the VW brand on July 1, 2015, joined the July 27 meeting with Volkswagen's then Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn to discuss how to convince regulators that VW's cars could be sold, a VW defense document filed with a court in Braunschweig in February, shows.

93 comments

  1. I for one, am shocked, shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gambling going on in this establishment? Why I never imagined!

    1. Re:I for one, am shocked, shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Another shitty misleading headline and story by the incompetent morons at Slashdot.

      >>"Volkswagen Chief Executive Herbert Diess was told about the existence of cheating software in cars two months before regulators blew the whistle"

      Except he wasn't VW's chief executive at the time. Martin Winterkorn was.

      >>"Diess was present at a meeting on July 27, 2015 when senior engineers and executives discussed how to deal with U.S. regulators, who were threatening to ban VW cars because of excessive pollution levels."

      When that meeting took place, Diess had only worked at VW for 26 days and was the "head of the VW brand", whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. Diess did not become the "chief executive" of VW until April of this year.

    2. Re:I for one, am shocked, shocked! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Just as an aside, Braunschweig is where famous comedian Arnold Braunschweiger originally came from.

  2. Time to break up volkwswagen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope Germany is troubled by this and will figure out a proper punishment and corrective action. Big businesses need to be feared more than big governments

    1. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany will give them a huge but negative fine, so they won't go bankwupt.

    2. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      Big businesses need to be feared more than big governments

      Why bother making the distinction? The line is beyond blurred, in the US anyway.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    3. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by blindseer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In other words VW is "too big to fail"? Where have I heard that before?

      If a company is "too big to fail" then it is too big to exist. If a nation's economy is so tied up into these large corporations then they are essentially free to break the rules as they please. Break them up into smaller companies and make them compete against each other.

      I'm old enough to remember the bailout of the "big three" automakers in the USA. Well, Ford was doing just fine economically but if the government only bailed out the other two then that might be considered some kind of violation of the law. Ford was forced to take the money. At the time Tesla was just salivating at the idea of scooping up Detroit automotive factories at fire sale prices. The workers at those factories might be out of a job for like a month or two, until Tesla was able to finalize the sale and retool for making electric cars. Well, maybe they couldn't make electric cars that quickly but those factories would be making cars under a new badge and with improved efficiency. Tesla would have made out like a bandit on the deal and they'd be on much better financial footing now.

      What killed the electric car? That's a question that's been asked many times. The answer is a government too scared to let the market forces work it's way out.

      I don't believe that electric cars would dominate today, only 10 years after this automobile industry "crisis". I do believe that we'd probably see an industry more willing to innovate past the problem of tailpipe emissions rather than trying to game the system. We'd likely be seeing more electric hybrids, more natural gas vehicles, and a healthier economy in the long term.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "an industry more willing to innovate past the problem of tailpipe emissions rather than trying to game the system. "

      Unfortunately, this is what you get when the mileage numbers they have to meet are just made up from thin air, without consideration to what's reasonably possible. All they did was say "Hmm, you know, whatever mileage vehicles get today, it should be possible to double that number in ten years' time.". Well, no - not really. Part of the solution ws gaming how vehicles were classified - that's why for years there were no mini pickups - they weren't cars, and they screwed up the truck numbers, so manufacturers just quit making them. It was easier than to meet the rules.

    5. Re: Time to break up volkwswagen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany already gave them a huge fine.

    6. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      To what end? Breaking up companies is something that is normally suggested for large market behemoths who control an unstoppable monopoly. What do you hope to achieve by breaking up a car manufacturer who is being pounded by the market anyway?

      Or are you hoping to kill the company and a long with it the pensions of many people as well as raising taxes on constituents to compensate for the lack of dividend payments to the government?

    7. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by Contract+Gypsy · · Score: 0

      Lets see, you claim that big business is more dangerous than big govt? Did you graduate in Stalingrad?

      --
      Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
    8. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope Germany is troubled by this and will figure out a proper punishment and corrective action. Big businesses need to be feared more than big governments

      well if VW can't do the time,
      VW should never have done the crime... simple as that..

      and yes.. I do hope Germany will kick them hard... god knows... they deserve it.

    9. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Did you? The most incompetent bureaucrat at the worst Soviet institution didn't have a personal incentive to screw over everyone and everything in the name of a bonus, or ordered to do so to boost share price.

    10. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Easy answer: the company is nationalized with upper management getting fired and shareholders getting wiped out. Workers wouldn't lose their jobs or pensions as they would go back to the same plant and do the same job the next week.

    11. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Easy answer: the company is nationalized

      You should see who is a shareholder and who sits on the board before you make pointless statements.

      shareholders getting wiped out. Workers wouldn't lose their jobs or pensions

      It's not the worker's pensions I was talking about. Again you should look at who the shareholders are before you punish the population of a nation for your silly vendetta against a few.

    12. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You should see who is a shareholder and who sits on the board before you make pointless statements.

      Not remotely pointless, and the statements remain the same.

      Again you should look at who the shareholders are before you punish the population of a nation for blah blah blah blah.

      The only way to keep capitalism as a justifiable enterprise is to impose appropriate penalties when the system fails. Otherwise, fuck capitalism.

    13. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You didn't look did you. Again whom are you trying to punish? A company, or the government and citizens who had nothing to do with it.

      Personally I would like to see the people involved directly in trouble for something that capitalism has done without knock-on effects on my own retirement / taxes. Throw people in jail, levi huge fines, make em shovel poop for the rest of their lives, but senselessly shouting anger at companies themselves is actually quite pointless.

      So again, back to the beginning. What are you hoping to achieve? You have talked about breaking up a company, and then talked about nationalising. Both of those are two completely different things with different purposes. The latter is especially pointless given the amount of government control on Volkswagon as it is, and even more so that such a move has devastating and crippling effects of the economy of a country.

      Punish the people involved, don't commit national economic suicide.

    14. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You have talked about breaking up a company

      Different parent poster called for breaking it up, I'm calling for nationalization.

      You didn't look did you.

      Because it's irrelevant. The much-needed corporate death penalty for massive conglomerates will inevitably hit some Widows and Orphaned Kids Pension Fund, and produce cries of "will no one think of the capitalist children?"

      Tough cookies. Any retirement or investment plan needs to be diversified so the failure of one business - or even an entire industry - will not result in massive losses. To get back to that other poster's point, if the business is Too Big To Fail, it's too big to exist.

    15. Re:Time to break up volkwswagen by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Different parent poster called for breaking it up, I'm calling for nationalization.

      Appologies

      Because it's irrelevant. The much-needed corporate death penalty for massive conglomerates will inevitably hit some Widows and Orphaned Kids Pension Fund, and produce cries of "will no one think of the capitalist children?"

      No it's not. Because if you did check you would see how much of the company is already owned by the government in the first place. VW is not Ford, built by some capitalist venture. Its very roots are as a nationalised company and I think you completely underestimate the sheer costs of nationalising a multinational company both direct costs (can the government afford it?) and indirect costs. Nationalising a multinational has in the past led directly to war and the downfall of a nation, though it is unlikely to occur here the consequences will nonetheless be felt. Take a look at Brexit. A somewhat unfavourable trade condition has businesses fleeing the country (Panasonic is the latest casualty). Now imagine if instead of being mildly unfavourable you take a stance instead of taking a large companies and saying "All of this is now mine, all of you GTFO". It's not just shareholders and pension plans that will suffer in Germany, the entire German industry would go under.

      To get back to that other poster's point, if the business is Too Big To Fail, it's too big to exist.

      VW is not too big to fail, also most failures come gradually over long periods and don't have as big of an impact as the event that coined the phrase: The sudden failure of a major bank.

      Germany is however too sensible to fuck themselves.

  3. One good thing... by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These bozos deserve everything they get. Corporations and bankers only ever learn by losing money and in cases like this the perfect learning mechanism is being slapped with great big massive fines. One good thing to come out of VW's shenanigans, however, is that the 'using fossil fuels is patriotism' and 'there should be an environmentalist hunting season' crowd has been purged from VW leadership and replaced with people who are sinking EUR 34 billion into electric vehicle technology and are planning to take that to EUR 72 billion by 2022. Same is probably true for a whole other bunch of car companies that didn't get caught but did notice the massive fines VW got. I'm no fan of the VW leadership but at least this is a move in the right direction.

    1. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A fine is not enough in this case, this is massive fraud. Prison AND a massive fine, at the very least.

    2. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have to degree with this; in this case it is not enough to fine the company. The persons leading the company and performing the fraud should be locked up for a long time, if just for the damage they have performed on the environment. Remember that they have been caching since the start of this fiasco; just slamming the company does nothing to disparage the next management team.

    3. Re:One good thing... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      The guy who orchestrated it was Ex-CEO Martin Winterkorn. He hated licensing Mercedes' diesel exhaust fluid technology (which combines ammonia with nitrous oxides to produce nitrogen, water, and CO2). So he specifically tasked his engineers with coming up with a diesel engine which didn't use DEF.*

      When he resigned as CEO, he collected a $32 million golden parachute. Fines won't solve the problem. We need jail time.

      * (To their credit, the engineers almost succeeded. The earlier 2-liter engines were a disaster - up to 5x the legal limit of NOx emissions (0.2-0.3 g/mi). But the 2015 2-liter diesel engines met EPA emissions limits without using DEF. They're just included in the scandal because they barely exceeded CARB's limits (0.05 g/mi).)

    4. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I have to agree with this: idiot between chair and keyboard.

    5. Re:One good thing... by sandoval88419 · · Score: 2

      thank you for the informative links. IMHO VW fail way behind their competition. They produce the worst and the most unreliable diesel engines compared to BMW, Mercedes and PSA. That is why they resorted to cheating.

      VW is by far very overrated, they manage to sell car thanks to a very aggressive marketing and lots of product placement. They deserve to be forgotten and their management to be jailed.

    6. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To which agreement do you decree your decried degreement? Time to cache in on this world-salad, eh Siri? :p

    7. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These bozos deserve everything they get. .

      You are a nobody and a pussy.

      Your opinion means nothing.

      Kill yourself now.

    8. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't learn. Much like "There's a sucker born every minute", there's a willing and able criminal born every second. Removing players from a board that keeps being replenished with more crooks since it's still very lucrative is a losing battle. Even if you execute them, plenty of people would still be willing to rob and kill for pocket change. Reference the drug wars.

      If you want a real change then change how corporate governments work. Expand the power of the share holders assembly while limiting the power of the board room and CEO in the same fashion you'd separate the branches of government and rule a state: Have the board be appointed by the full assembly from a selection of, say, top 4x board's size from a selection of the top share holders and make every instruction and resolution they pass required to be written and submitted to both the share holders and the CEO. Have the CEO be elected directly by the shareholders leaving it to the board to decide over competency issues during emergencies. And so on...

      Overall, once we stop relying on small fascist governments to operate our resources, we'll stop being surprised by how they keep fouling up and trying to buy our politicians and rig the game and influence its rules.

      Don't blame the players. Blame the game. After all, it's not the first "scandal" and it won't be the last.

    9. Re: One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet for a long time, VW was the only manufacturer to offer any diesel engines that actually met Euro 6 in practice.

    10. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These bozos deserve everything they get. .

      You are a nobody and a pussy.

      Your opinion means nothing.

      Kill yourself now.

      **thud**, **thud**, **thud**, **thud**, Your words strike me like 20mm shells from an automatic cannon .... seriously though, go back to your den in your parent's basement and try to coming up with some better insults.

    11. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I have to agree with this: idiot between chair and keyboard.

      That is the best description of you that I have hear in a long time.

    12. Re:One good thing... by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 2

      Company my friend worked for had a similar problem with cheating a standards body. In the end, company was fined and no single person/team was found guilty. Lower level employees were shifting blame one level up, upper level said it wasn't even a decision just a team issued directive to reach a milestone, programmers said it started as a test that never went away, CEO claimed he was under too much pressure from shareholders (to be able to stop it once he learned about it).

      Unless you are willing to fine shareholders who only care about quarterly results, this will keep happening. Everybody will say they were trying to protect their job.

    13. Re:One good thing... by TFloore · · Score: 1

      Company my friend worked for had a similar problem with cheating a standards body. In the end, company was fined and no single person/team was found guilty. Lower level employees were shifting blame one level up, upper level said it wasn't even a decision just a team issued directive to reach a milestone, programmers said it started as a test that never went away, CEO claimed he was under too much pressure from shareholders (to be able to stop it once he learned about it).

      Umm... yeah.

      At its basic level, a corporation is a legal fiction designed to shield liability. Success!

      Next?

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
    14. Re:One good thing... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Everybody will say they were trying to protect their job.

      But that isn't a valid excuse to do illegal shit. Why were they allowed to get away with it? Even if it was just fines, why didn't the shareholders string up the management team?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    15. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At its basic level, a corporation is a legal fiction designed to shield liability.

      Designed to shield liability for the investors. Corporations do not legally shield liability for the CEO.

    16. Re:One good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These bozos deserve everything they get. Corporations and bankers only ever learn by losing money and in cases like this the perfect learning mechanism is being slapped with great big massive fines.

      Unfortunately, in the vast majority of "cases like this" nothing gets done. For example, organizations like WMG routinely block videos that are posted an exercise of fair use rights - with no ads attached, no commercial gain, and plenty of fair use justification.

      This is not just a violation of rights granted by Congress under US federal law, it is a violation of rights under the US Bill of Rights, which supersedes the authority of Congress and the federal courts. Specifically, it's a violation of several rights arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments (rights retained by the people, rights reserved to the people) - including the right to ethical practice of law, which current US IP law clearly violates (a point that has been made in detail in previous discussions on this forum so I won't repeat the details here).

      The infringement of fundamental rights "under the colour of law" is considered a crime under long-standing US federal law. It's also a civil violation (going back to the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era, so this is not new law) and hence grounds for civil suit.

      But these organizations - doubtless with the full knowledge of their executives - continue to break the law without any form of penalty or even censure by the authorities.

      This has become the norm in the USA.

      In other words, if one studies US law in detail, and looks at the behaviour of corporations, one will necessarily come to the conclusion that the VW case is a RARE exception to a climate of ROUTINE law-breaking on the part of US government (at all levels, federal, state, and local), on the part of the mostly-unethical US legal profession, and on the part of many corporations (US and otherwise). Law in the USA is a really corrupt system, plagued by legal ethics problems.

      The amazing thing about the VW case is that ANYTHING was done. Perhaps they were just selected as a token "bad guy" to give the illusion of legitimacy to the government. They probably didn't pay the right bribes, excuse me I meant to say "campaign contributions", and of course a foreign corporation makes an easier target (as the EU likes to demonstrate - there may have even been an element of retaliation here).

  4. Only two months? Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They knew from the beginning the objectives were unattainable. Decisions were taken at the highest level. CEO didn't sign papers of course, but he can not not have been aware of the situation from the onset.

    1. Re:Only two months? Bullshit by careysub · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are most certainly correct. In reading a number of histories of geopolitical affairs (the machinations leading to WWI, Soviet decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Mideast Crisis that led to the Six Day War, the Invasion of Afghanistan) and repeatedly in Israel's nuclear weapons program, decisions were made in closed meetings with no notes taken. It was enough that the lieutants tasked with carrying out the plans and who were present, knew what that were supposed to do.

      This is certainly the case here. Top management orchestrated and approved this, but made sure no records were kept.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re: Only two months? Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on Earth would anyone have told him unless they had to? It would have been an unnecessary risk.

  5. We know how high it went, now how wide? by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea that this great fraud was perpetrated by some rogue engineers never made much sense.

    Even if we assume this is an accurate depiction of when the CEO was told, there almost had to be some degree of lower management complicity in this from the outset, even if it was in the form of setting impossible goals for employees, much like the Wells Fargo fake accounts debacle.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:We know how high it went, now how wide? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Credit travels upwards, blame travels downwards. That's the way it works." - The Pointy-Haired Boss, from the Dilbert animated series.

    2. Re:We know how high it went, now how wide? by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Heads I Win; Tails You Lose;

  6. Do you want cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the engineering is impossible to meet the expectation.

  7. Insulting by sjames · · Score: 1

    So they're in a meeting about how to avoid being banned from selling in the entire U.S. market and we're to believe they weren't certain the problem was serious enough to tell the stockholders about it?

    I smell pants burning.

    1. Re: Insulting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA is a tiny market for diesel cars. Americans strongly prefer petrol.

    2. Re: Insulting by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's still a large enough market that it's hard to believe they didn't think there was anything the stockholders should know about.

    3. Re: Insulting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. The US has always been an afterthought to VW and the main shareholders don't seem to care much about it.

    4. Re: Insulting by sjames · · Score: 1

      They cared enough to pay the huge fines rather than withdraw from the market.

    5. Re: Insulting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would have still had to pay fines if they had withdrawn all diesel cars from the US market. In fact, they did just that.

    6. Re: Insulting by sjames · · Score: 1

      In other words, their concern was ALL cars sold in the U.S. not just Diesel.

      And they thought it was important enough to cheat, important enough to keep the market alive, but not important enough to tell their shareholders.

      Yeah, right.

    7. Re: Insulting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chrat wasn't specific to the US market.

    8. Re: Insulting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errr, cheat. Moreover, it wasn't known to those who actually have a direct responsibility towards shareholders until years after it was devised.

    9. Re: Insulting by sjames · · Score: 1

      TFA states that they definitely knew before the scandal went public and that they didn't inform the shareholders. They read about it in the news like everyone else.

  8. Very likely he knew a lot earlier by gweihir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The guy is an engine expert with a reputation of wanting to know all the details at all times. He could probably have looked at the AdBlue numbers and immediately know what was going on. Also has a reputation as a control freak, so nobody will have dared to make these changes without checking with him first. As basically every other car maker with diesel cars (except for the the Japanese, it seems) had this fraud-device in their diesel cars, they will have coordinated on it. Makes sense, because one brand doing much better sticks out and could raise suspicion. I expect this was a coordinated decision a year or so before they started doing it and all the CEOs did sign off on it. No paper-trail, of course.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Very likely he knew a lot earlier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the summary states that he joined VW on the 1st July, and the meeting in question was on the 27th July, does 26 days count as "a lot earlier" ?

    2. Re:Very likely he knew a lot earlier by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Winterkorn was CEO of VW from January 1st, 2007 until September 23th, 2015 and that is the CEO I am talking about. However Diess very, very likely knew what he was walking into.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Very likely he knew a lot earlier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese were doing the same - with petrol cars: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-Trends/Emissions-cheating-stains-Japanese-cars-reputation-for-quality

    4. Re:Very likely he knew a lot earlier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... As basically every other car maker with diesel cars (except for the the Japanese, it seems) had this fraud-device in their diesel cars ...

      The Japanese have been cheating on emissions too:

      https://www.nextgreencar.com/news/8471/which-tests-show-almost-80-of-diesels-exceed-emissions-limits/

      'The average NOx figure from Which?'s diesel tests is 0.27 g/km, more than three times the official limit, and the worst results from its testing programme come from the Subaru Forester. This produces 2.0 g/km NOx when subjected to cycles based on real-world testing according to Which?, 25 times the official limit.'

      Subaru has admitted to it:

      https://www.caradvice.com.au/643962/subaru-manipulating-fuel-and-emissions-data/

      'Subaru has confirmed around 900 vehicles produced between December 2012 and November 2017 have had "certain measurements" like fuel economy and emissions data "inappropriately altered" following an internal investigation.

      In December last year, the company was ordered by the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) to conduct an investigation after it identified nonconforming final vehicle inspections at the company's Gunma and Yajima manufacturing facilities.'

    5. Re:Very likely he knew a lot earlier by mjwx · · Score: 2

      The guy is an engine expert with a reputation of wanting to know all the details at all times. He could probably have looked at the AdBlue numbers and immediately know what was going on. Also has a reputation as a control freak, so nobody will have dared to make these changes without checking with him first. As basically every other car maker with diesel cars (except for the the Japanese, it seems) had this fraud-device in their diesel cars, they will have coordinated on it. Makes sense, because one brand doing much better sticks out and could raise suspicion. I expect this was a coordinated decision a year or so before they started doing it and all the CEOs did sign off on it. No paper-trail, of course.

      The "fraud" device is a standard part of any car, a programmable ECU (Engine Control Unit). Its due to this fantastic little device that we can use fuels of varying quality and engines can dynamically adjust timing to produce the best fuel/air mix which both reduces emissions and improves fuel efficiency. Just about every car made today will have one. The unit in question with VW's Diesels was a Bosch EDC17 ECU.

      The problem wasn't hardware, every car has a programmable ECU, the problem was software. Bosch created a test mode that was not designed to be used on production cars, that was fine. However VW needing to fool tests because they didn't want to have to license technology to reduce diesel emissions used the software in production cars to change the engine characteristics when the unit detected test conditions.

      Programmable ECU's are wonderful things, they've made cars cleaner, faster and easier on fuel at the same time, but like all things programmable they can be used for evil.

      However it's all for nought now as diesel passenger cars are failing. The tax concessions given to diesels in Europe due to the oil crisises of the 50's-70's have almost all been repealed and operating a modern diesel is no more expensive than operating a modern petrol (the petrol is often cheaper, being less complex) and doesn't have the downside of a diesel (noisy, rattly, smelly). New diesel car sales are falling month after month here in the UK.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  9. Cheating is rampant everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone, everyone has cheated sometime in their life. Anyone that says they haven't is a straight-up liar. Peeps here really quick to dish out fines, jail time and punishments out of parity. Be careful holding others to a higher standard than yourselves.

  10. Diesel engines are the future, do the math by blindseer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is there so much concern on diesel cycle engines? As heat engines go they are quite efficient devices. As far as providing a lightweight and compact power source for transportation these things are close to miraculous. So, where is the problem? It's not the engine, it's the fuel.

    Right now diesel fuel is primarily petroleum. I use the modifier "primarily" because there are places that burn bio-mass derived diesel in their engines, either pure bio-fuel or as a mix with petroleum fuel. The US Army has been burning 20% bio-diesel in their trucks on bases all over the world for at least a decade. I can say that because I saw the fuel pumps on an Army base while serving and I have a friend that works for the National Guard. The trucks the Army uses on bases at home and in "friendly" nations are just commercial off the shelf stuff. The battlefield vehicles though will run on just about anything. I had a conversation with someone about this and he told me those Army helicopters will run on just about anything that is liquid and flammable. I asked if that included Wild Turkey and cheap perfume, he said it might not like it but that will get you home if you are in dire need.

    I hear people claim that electric cars are the future, charged up by electricity from wind, water, and sun. But has anyone done the math on what it would take to make that happen? It turns out that people have and the math does not work out for such a world.

    Here's how we start with that math. The world uses about 2.3 TW of electricity. That's the consumption if we were to average out all the use in the world. Citation:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    In 2008, the world total of electricity production was 20.279 petawatt-hours (PWh). This number corresponds to an average power of 2.31 TW continuously during the year.

    So, let's do the math on everyone in the world driving an electric car. First thing is to do the math on how much in resources we'd need to just make up for the electrical use right now and replace that with wind, water, and solar. Looking at the page I linked to above we see that we are about 1/4 the way there, with most of that in water. A common one megawatt windmill takes one ton of rare earth elements in its magnets. Does it have to use rare earth metals? No, but then it's not as efficient, will need more copper and steel to make, and therefore will not be as cheap as it is now with rare earth metals. Windmills don't run all the time at maximum output, in real life they produce maybe 30% of their maximum rated output. So we don't need 2.3 TW of wind to replace what we need, we'd have to start with 3 times that, 7 TW. But, as I pointed out before, existing renewable energy has 1/4 of the total electrical supply already so, in round numbers we'd need about 5 TW of new wind, water, and sun to replace the coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear (if you believe nuclear is "bad").

    Go figure out how much rare earth metals we'd need in windmills to replace even half of the current electrical production, assuming that solar and hydro would make up the rest. Then add in the rare earth metals needed for those electric cars. Then add in the steel and concrete needed, because those windmills need something to hold them up. Then do the math on how much silicon we'd need for the solar panels. Then compare all of this to current production of these materials worldwide. There simply is not enough of current production to switch over to anything "green", except nuclear power.

    Can we improve our output of things like rare earth metals, concrete, steel, copper, silicon, and whatever else we might need? Sure, given enough time I would expect that to happen. Here's another thing to add to your calculations, how much dirt would we have to dig up, sift through, and process, to get these materials we need? You think mining for coal and uranium is bad for the environment, how muc

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by munch117 · · Score: 1

      There simply is not enough of current production to switch over to anything "green", except nuclear power.

      Production follows demand. As we start building more windmills, more rare earth will be mined. It's not like it's actually rare.

      Then do the math on how much silicon we'd need for the solar panels.

      This is where it gets funny. The earth is 7.3% silicon, you know.

    2. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Production follows demand. As we start building more windmills, more rare earth will be mined. It's not like it's actually rare.

      This is where it gets funny. The earth is 7.3% silicon, you know.

      Yes, I know that. These are exceedingly common elements. Now, tell me, just how much dirt would we need to dig up and sift through to get these metals? I am truly curious. I've seen the math done before but I'd like to see you verify these numbers yourself and see how they match with other computations.

      While digging up these metals there will be the stuff left over. These leftovers will have some very toxic elements in them, and having dug them up we've introduced them to the environment. What do we do with those?

      A nuclear power plant takes no more resources to build than a coal or natural gas plant. The fuel for a nuclear power plant is part of the "leftovers" from mining the rare earth elements we need for things like windmills and electric cars. It's essentially a fuel we don't even have to mine, because it comes up as a byproduct of rare earth mining we already do. China and Australia mine a lot of rare earth elements, and they use the uranium that comes up as fuel for nuclear reactors. The Australian government has a ban on nuclear reactors of their own but they sell the uranium to other nations for their nuclear power plants.

      We, in the USA, could mine rare earth elements but disposing of the uranium and thorium that is in the ore makes it very expensive under current law. If there was a sufficient market for this uranium and thorium, such as for nuclear power plants, then this problem solves itself and we'd have plenty of cheap rare earth elements. This would mean domestic sources of rare earth elements, domestic sources of electricity, and quite likely all kinds of cheap electric cars running on plenty of cheap electricity from nuclear and wind energy.

      Did you do the math before you replied to me? I'm quite certain that you had not.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Production follows demand. As we start building more windmills, more rare earth will be mined. It's not like it's actually rare.

      That rare earth production has an impact on the environment.
      https://earthjournalism.net/st...

      We have inexpensive rare earth elements for now because China is just dumping the waste in a lake, where it can contaminate the ground water for miles around. This is a huge problem and if countries like the USA would mine this responsibly then they'd do so only at a price that included proper management of the waste, which means higher prices for the minerals. This will affect the prices of windmills and electric cars that rely on tons of this stuff.

      Unless you can show me the math on how to get sustainable electric vehicles then I see the future in diesel engines and synthetic fuels.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From your own source, 21% of the world's energy already comes from renewables, and 11% from nuclear. So scaling up renewables seems like it'd be easier than scaling up nuclear, and a heck of a lot safer.

      I say that as someone who is a big fan of nuclear power. I think that modern reactors, in modern safety regimes are very safe and could be built, run and decommissioned cost-effectively. I'm less convinced that every country in the world can be trusted to operate their own nuclear plants.

      So setting the source of generation aside, if you have enough electricity to make diesel then you already have enough to charge EVs. It doesn't matter that the process if net zero carbon, you're extracting carbon from one place and spewing pollution into the middle of cities. That's harming the health of a lot of people.

      There has always been points where we've wanted more of a natural resource than we have been able to cheaply extract, but that is one situation where the free market actually works well. If demand for Lithium outstrips supply and it becomes prohibitively expensive, there'll be a huge incentive to come up with new battery chemistries that use more readily available materials, and improvements to Li-extraction technology.

      Chemical fuels will be useful for long distance travel as long as their energy density is higher than batteries, but for most journeys EVs will be both cheaper and cleaner.

    5. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by blindseer · · Score: 1

      From your own source, 21% of the world's energy already comes from renewables, and 11% from nuclear. So scaling up renewables seems like it'd be easier than scaling up nuclear, and a heck of a lot safer.

      Are you certain of that? Can you show me your math?

      Here's an example of some people that did the math.
      http://www.climatecentral.org/...

      They say that to match the power generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power stations, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass. Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity meets about 7 percent.

      Just think about the environmental impact of having to dig up that much material to build all these windmills and solar panels. Then tell me how "easy" it would be to meet that demand for these materials.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windmills mill grain, wind turbines produce electricity.

    7. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More discoveries of exploitable rare earth deposits are being made. The recent one
      on a Japanese island is a good example.

      https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/17/17246444/rare-earth-metals-discovery-japan-china-monopoly

      Of course, separating out the various elements is still expensive and difficult, but the technologies
      will inevitably improve over time now that demand is so high.

    8. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear power is so expensive it is hard to see much of a future. It's easy
      to talk about it in some general way, but when you get down to the specifics
      it doesnt look very pretty.

      Hinkley Point is one of a small number of nuclear power stations being built
      in a Western country. To say that the project is financially non-viable is putting
      is putting it mildly. It will be the most expensive source of power in the UK by
      far, with ridiculous long term price guarantees being made to the operators. And
      even with those, it's not clear whether it will be viable. And on top of that, there
      is no catastrophe insurance. That is provided 'for free' by the state as a hidden
      subsidy.

      Even with the cost of energy storage, renewables are cost competitive with this
      sort of ludicrous nuclear project.

    9. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The future is nuclear power. The future is diesel engines. The future is diesel fuel synthesized from seawater and nuclear power. The byproducts of this fuel synthesis process is salt, desalinated water, and oxygen, all of which have considerable value on their own.

      Why not a combination of diesel and electric engines? Logistics of charging cars and other smaller vehicles seams far simpler and more efficient. I assume we want a distributed grid anyway to minimize transmission power loss. Charging smaller vehicles at night would juice excess power from inland nukes while coastal nukes would be doing more of bio-fuel production. Why have a giant fuel distribution infrastructure if you can get away with a much smaller one?

      I have to say draining CO2 from ocean with Thorium MSRs, among other things, just might save our collective asses. Hopefully to be replaced by fusion power one day.

    10. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by munch117 · · Score: 1

      Did you do the math before you replied to me? I'm quite certain that you had not.

      Sorry, when you said the rare earth thing I stopped taking you seriously.

      And you didn't present any math yourself, so why should I?

    11. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Okay, here's some more math. Picking up where I left off we would need 5 TW of electricity production capacity from wind and solar to merely replace the current production from coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear. Wind power requires 1 ton of rare earth metals per megawatt of capacity, assuming we use current windmill technology and not older less efficient types that do not make use of rare earth elements. Solar PV requires 5 tons of silicon per megawatt of capacity. Wind requires 500 tons of steel and 1000 tons of concrete per megawatt of generation capacity, again this assumes efficient rare earth based windmills. One TW equals 1,000,000 megawatts, and we need to see at least 5 TW just to meet current demand.

      Annual silicon production is about 7.2 million tons, and this is already not enough. Annual concrete production is now 4 billion tons. Steel production is 1.7 billion tons. Rare earth production about 100,000 tons. We'll need millions of tons of rare earth elements, on top of what is already consumed for current electronics and electric cars. We'll need tens of millions of tons of silicon, on top of the millions consumed per year already. These PV panels do not last forever so even if we meet current demand the old panels will need to be replaced, and recycling old panels takes more resources than mining new silicon.

      Did I do enough math for you now? This does not add up to a bright future for wind and solar energy.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    12. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windmills mill grain, wind turbines produce electricity.

      Here's a copy/paste from my dictionary app

      windmill | win(d)ml |
      noun
      * a building with sails or vanes that turn in the wind and generate power to grind grain into flour.
      * a structure using wind to generate electricity or draw water.
      * British a pinwheel.

      It's a bloody windmill.

    13. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Why is there so much concern on diesel cycle engines? As heat engines go they are quite efficient devices.

      Yes, very efficient at producing NOx emissions in confined living spaces for many.

      If it surprises you that there's more to life than CO2 and fuel economy it's probably from lead exposure from cars when you were younger.

    14. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is there so much concern on diesel cycle engines? As heat engines go they are quite efficient devices.

      Yes, very efficient at producing NOx emissions in confined living spaces for many.

      If it surprises you that there's more to life than CO2 and fuel economy it's probably from lead exposure from cars when you were younger.

      Doesn't modern catalytic converters and the blue fluid additive address this? If that's not what those things are for then what do they do?

    15. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not a combination of diesel and electric engines?

      Sure, why not? Why not a combination of natural gas and electric?

      Here's an idea of why not, because if we've entered a world of synthesized diesel fuel that closes the carbon loop on fuel then what purpose does a hybrid serve? It's now heavier, more complex, more expensive, and nothing is gained on reducing CO2.

      Maybe there is a gain on convenience of a refuel/recharge at home with electric but having diesel for long drives and cold weather. But then natural gas service to the home (common in many places in the world) and a natural gas car gets this same convenience but with a simpler and cheaper natural gas vehicle.

      Logistics of charging cars and other smaller vehicles seams far simpler and more efficient. I assume we want a distributed grid anyway to minimize transmission power loss. Charging smaller vehicles at night would juice excess power from inland nukes while coastal nukes would be doing more of bio-fuel production. Why have a giant fuel distribution infrastructure if you can get away with a much smaller one?

      We already have a "giant" fuel distribution infrastructure, nothing is gained by not using it and adding to the load on the electric grid, again assuming synthesized fuel. Presumably any excess nighttime electrical capacity could be used to produce synthetic fuels, whether that be diesel fuel/cetane, gasoline/octane, natural gas/methane, or LPG/butane.

      Also, what does nuclear power have to do with biofuels? I realize that the facilities that make bio-fuels need energy but if we have the ability to produce synthetic fuel from seawater then why turn food and fertilizer (as biomass will be one or the other) into fuel? We need food to eat, don't burn it.

      I have to say draining CO2 from ocean with Thorium MSRs, among other things, just might save our collective asses. Hopefully to be replaced by fusion power one day.

      Fusion is hard, fission is easy. No need to bother with fusion. I guess there's no reason not to keep trying for the fun of it but if we have thorium reactors then we are golden on getting energy for a very long time.

    16. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by munch117 · · Score: 1

      An evidence review published in the journal Renewable Energy in 2010, which included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years, concluded that the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines.

      In other words, the concrete, the rare earths and the steel can all be mined and refined for less than 5% of the energy output of the windmill. Even if increased demand causes us to use slightly less easily mined materials, increasing the energy use by a few percentage points, so what? It would still be immensely profitable from an energy standpoint.

      On the solar side: Concentrators don't require silicon. If silicon consumption really is such a big problem for pv panels, we can build concentrators instead. They're not suited for residential rooftops, but they're fine for large-scale installations.

    17. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by blindseer · · Score: 1

      In other words, the concrete, the rare earths and the steel can all be mined and refined for less than 5% of the energy output of the windmill. Even if increased demand causes us to use slightly less easily mined materials, increasing the energy use by a few percentage points, so what? It would still be immensely profitable from an energy standpoint.

      So what? Nuclear power has an energy return between 40 and 80.
      http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

      That energy return on investment is with 40 year old reactors, reactors that do not use the fuel very efficiently. As the article points out the EROI on nuclear power has a lot of room for improvement but it already beats everything except the best locations for wind and hydro. Third generation reactors have not been operating long enough yet to have good data, and fourth generation reactors are expected to have large improvements over third generation designs.

      Which should we choose? Something that has a 25 times return on investment or something that gives us 40 times return?

      Then we get back to the resources needed, we can build nuclear reactors right now with the resources we have. Nuclear uses no more steel and concrete than a coal fired plant. We can build them now and not need an increase in any mining. To get the same output with wind requires considerably more mining for steel and concrete, about ten times more. One other limited resource is human resources, it takes more people to build those windmills than to build a nuclear reactor. Unless the goal is just "busy work" then it would be time best spent to build nuclear power.

      On the solar side: Concentrators don't require silicon. If silicon consumption really is such a big problem for pv panels, we can build concentrators instead. They're not suited for residential rooftops, but they're fine for large-scale installations.

      And concentrated solar thermal gets an EROI of about 10. Maybe there is some room for improvement there but given its intermittent nature this is not likely to improve much.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    18. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What keeps that from turning into an environmental disaster like the other mines?

    19. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by munch117 · · Score: 1

      So what? Nuclear power has an energy return between 40 and 80.

      We weren't discussing nuclear. We were discussing whether, from a raw materials point of view, solar and wind energy could plausibly be expanded to cover all our energy needs.

      Thanks for the chat, but I don't want to start another discussion with you on another subject, related though it may be. I don't necessarily disagree with you on nuclear.

    20. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by blindseer · · Score: 1

      We weren't discussing nuclear. We were discussing whether, from a raw materials point of view, solar and wind energy could plausibly be expanded to cover all our energy needs.

      Nothing exists in a vacuum. Wind is a nice energy source but it cannot replace coal and nuclear on it's own based solely on the resources needed for construction, both in material resources and in human resources. From a raw materials point of view wind and solar take far too much material capital investment to compete with far less resource intensive (considering energy returned) coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro.

      You tried to just hand wave away the materials needed by pointing out the energy returned. Well, you can't do that. There will always bee that need to mine a lot of limestone and iron ore for those windmill towers. That problem does not go away. Assuming improvements on windmill technology won't make it go away either, we've been using wind for power for a very long time now and we're getting diminishing returns on the advancements in technology.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    21. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by munch117 · · Score: 1

      You were using current production as a proxy for maximum capacity. Well, you can't do that, as they say.

      Since you're the one making claims that revolve around there being a maximum production capacity for certain raw materials, the burden of proof is on you.

    22. Re:Diesel engines are the future, do the math by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      First, let me preface this by saying I've been doing the full Philip "shut up and take my money" Fry impression ever since Dodge announced they were putting a V6 diesel in a Ram truck....but not in the Durango. Now Ford and Chevy are jumping on the 3.0L bandwagon, so if another model year goes by without a diesel going into a durango/explorer/expedition/tahoe imma gonna cut a bitch. Mercedes has a diesel for the GL line, but for 19 mpg on the highway I want a lot more than 7500 lbs towing. Now, that said...

      Why is there so much concern on diesel cycle engines? As heat engines go they are quite efficient devices. As far as providing a lightweight and compact power source for transportation these things are close to miraculous. So, where is the problem?

      The pollution they generate is a problem. If pure biodiesel doesn't produce the particulates or NOx that petroleum does, cool beans, but I've never seen anyone make that claim.

      I hear people claim that electric cars are the future, charged up by electricity from wind, water, and sun. But has anyone done the math on what it would take to make that happen? It turns out that people have and the math does not work out for such a world.

      The same sort of higher math that claims a Prius or a golden retriever pollutes more than a Hummer.

      First thing is to do the math on how much in resources we'd need to just make up for the electrical use right now and replace that with wind, water, and solar.

      Sounds like people who complain that mass transit and high speed rail cost too much, while acting as if hundreds of billions haven't been spent to build and maintain highways, and billions more for pipelines, refineries, oil transportation and gas stations. You also talk as if there wont be a huge cost to build biodiesel refineries to replace petrol-based fuels, or nuclear power plants to replace coal.

      Windmills don't run all the time at maximum output, in real life they produce maybe 30% of their maximum rated output. So we don't need 2.3 TW of wind to replace what we need, we'd have to start with 3 times that, 7 TW.

      Annnnd the inevitable baseload baloney. When your nuclear power plant goes down for planned - or worse, unplanned - maintenance, sometimes for years at a time, you have a megawatt+ sized hole in your grid. That means you need to either build more nuclear generating capacity as well, or use a pumped storage facility as backup. And if pumped storage is good enough for nuclear, it's good enough for wind and solar.

      All of the FUD thrown at wind and solar can easily be answered with tech that has long been used for nuclear and coal, like the aforementioned pumped storage. An entire region isn't going to remain both windless and sunless for an extended period of time, but you can move power hundreds of miles via long distance power lines, like ND's Coal Creek Station that generates power for Minneapolis. This means a solar farm in Mexico could supply power to Los Angeles, New York City could be supplied by windmills in Canada, or Miami getting electricity from a pumped storage facility in the mountains of Cuba.

      The future is nuclear power.

      Nuclear power takes the cost argument, throws it in a dumpster, covers it in diesel fuel and sets it on fire. Finally, the dumpster is nuked from orbit.

      Just to be sure.

      Nuclear power is not just too risky and too time consuming to build, the cost makes it unjustifiable. Can't throw shade at a solar farm when it costs 20 billion and takes 20 years to bu

  11. I am shocked,shocked to hear cleaning is going off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Color me oh so surprised.

  12. He had two months to do something and didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Begs the question. If they hadn't been busted, would anything have ever been done? I find it difficult to believe these people didn't understand the software was not legal.

    1. Re: He had two months to do something and didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably. There was already a series of updates that reduced real-world emissions to levels closer to official limits before ICCT found out about the software.

  13. ROGUE ENGINEER STRIKES AGAIN! by michaelcole · · Score: 1

    Mwahahahahaa!

  14. Fake, old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am signing a presidential statement banning homosexuals from being able to be organ donors. Would you want to risk getting the gay that way? Also, NO COLLUSION!

  15. You must be by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    new to Slashdot.

  16. Shocking by Pimpy · · Score: 1

    I'm absolutely shocked that in a large bureaucratic organisation senior management knew about and were complicit in what was going on, rather than the far more believable narrative that a single lowly engineer somehow conceived of the scheme entirely on their own and was able to secretly introduce changes (in collusion with other industry partners) into a diverse range of product lines in mass production without oversight.