-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Volkswagen Is Ordered to Recall Nearly 500,000 Vehicles Over Emissions Software
- Thread starter hockeythug
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
And then there were "unspecified" imports ...
Your original objection was to my statement that 20% of CA electricity is imported and the majority of the imports are coal, implying that CA has at least 10% coal use but less than 20%.
We now (presumably) agree that 6% is designated coal imports and another 13% is unspecified but in part coal.
I'm missing the big discrepancy .
Last edited:
Merrill
Merrill
Yes that is true, let's hope now that renewables are getting competitive that everyone will use more of that to produce their energy.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
I'm in the category of people that thinks that the likes of VW misled our, then, Prime Minister that "Clean Diesel" was a real thing. (Net result was that government played favourable to Diesel and we have lots of them, and now towns & cities are moving to ban them in the near-ish future)
What is the consensus on whether modern diesels are clean, and not producing particle emissions which are harmful to health?
London takes 5 days to breach 2017 air pollution limit
Hmmm, I think the proof is in the pudding... (Isn't that an old English saying?).
Edit:
Interesting article too about why diesel trucks are "cleaner" than diesel cars. Hint: the trucks are subject to more rigorous testing....
Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Thanks
Plenty of legacy vehicles though ... I'm getting old so filed that in the category of "headlines sell papers" I'm afraid. EU limit requires emission limit to be breached no more than N-times per year and we had N+1 times in a single night. That sounds a lot more like "one event" to me, than "we can just call that a year's worth of failures". I'm glad that I don't live in a city though ...
I had also read that regular testing of commercial vehicles means that they are less polluting, which is no doubt a good thing, but are they [i.e. new ones] actually relatively harmless?
Plenty of legacy vehicles though ... I'm getting old so filed that in the category of "headlines sell papers" I'm afraid. EU limit requires emission limit to be breached no more than N-times per year and we had N+1 times in a single night. That sounds a lot more like "one event" to me, than "we can just call that a year's worth of failures". I'm glad that I don't live in a city though ...
I had also read that regular testing of commercial vehicles means that they are less polluting, which is no doubt a good thing, but are they [i.e. new ones] actually relatively harmless?
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/seminars/wall/wall.pdf
Based on this pdf from 2012 the newest engines maybe. But one has to remember that most of the fleet are older vehicles since reliability has improved significantly over the last 20 years or so. Furthermore, if you have a diesel work truck, you're likely going to drive it to the ground before switching to a newer vehicle. So you may be correct that the newest ones are much cleaner, but the lingering effects of the older ones will persist for likely a decade or so...
But I cannot find exact references on how much particulate is actually produced, since only a low level is needed to incite respiratory/inflammatory responses in people:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241152/pdf/ehp110s-000103.pdf
specifically (page 105):
"Toxicologic evidence indicates that NO2 is directly harmful to the respiratory system. Normal healthy subjects exposed for 2 hr to 2 ppm NO2 demonstrated increases in IL-8 and neutrophils (55). An in vitro study exposed human nasal mucosal tissues to NO2 and ozone and reported elevated histamine levels (56). Another study that exposed mildly asthmatic human subjects to 260 ppb (500 µg/m3) NO2 for 30 min found that the response to an inhaled allergen was enhanced after the NO2 exposure (57)."
Hope that's useful.
As a final note:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)32399-6/fulltext
"Interpretation
In this large population-based cohort, living close to heavy traffic was associated with a higher incidence of dementia, but not with Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis."
Based on this pdf from 2012 the newest engines maybe. But one has to remember that most of the fleet are older vehicles since reliability has improved significantly over the last 20 years or so. Furthermore, if you have a diesel work truck, you're likely going to drive it to the ground before switching to a newer vehicle. So you may be correct that the newest ones are much cleaner, but the lingering effects of the older ones will persist for likely a decade or so...
But I cannot find exact references on how much particulate is actually produced, since only a low level is needed to incite respiratory/inflammatory responses in people:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241152/pdf/ehp110s-000103.pdf
specifically (page 105):
"Toxicologic evidence indicates that NO2 is directly harmful to the respiratory system. Normal healthy subjects exposed for 2 hr to 2 ppm NO2 demonstrated increases in IL-8 and neutrophils (55). An in vitro study exposed human nasal mucosal tissues to NO2 and ozone and reported elevated histamine levels (56). Another study that exposed mildly asthmatic human subjects to 260 ppb (500 µg/m3) NO2 for 30 min found that the response to an inhaled allergen was enhanced after the NO2 exposure (57)."
Hope that's useful.
As a final note:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)32399-6/fulltext
"Interpretation
In this large population-based cohort, living close to heavy traffic was associated with a higher incidence of dementia, but not with Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis."
(someone mentioned self induced dementia above)
I'm in the category of people who believe that gasoline was over 100 times dirtier in the past than today.
And there is no debate whatsoever that compression ignition = less CO2, spark ignition = more CO2.
Perhaps the worst part of VW's legacy is that it will end up adding tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as diesels will get vilified even more.
The particle emissions issue is debatable. The premier study on it wildly exaggerated the health risk. It was done by CARB by a 'scientist' who was debunked. He admitted he made up numbers and his diploma was mail-order. That study is still in use today. Sort of like Bigfoot. Once it was seen, it can't be unseen, even if it wasn't seen to begin with.
But yes, all diesels for years now have a DPF and NOx capture in the USA. Little is mentioned about the reduction in sulfur, which also occurred. Gasoline is finally getting around to lowering sulfur this year - EPA slashes sulfur allowed in gasoline to cut smog
All the diesels produced in history have not done as much harm to human life as leaded gasoline did. Lead is an element. It does not dissolve like NOx and particulates do.
People still think gasoline is clean and diesel is dirty simply because the toxins that come from a spark engine are invisible, unlike VX nerve gas that is yellow at least.
What comes out of this car is deadly than a diesel "rolling coal":
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The on-road results are not much better than before.
So the 10% fuel hike for cleaner fuel, and $2500 of added emissions equipment has zero effect?
Exactly what does a DPF, quick-fire catalyst, urea fluid system, reduced droplet size with up to 5 events at over 30,000 PSI though holes the size of hairs, and dynamic individual injector balancing do?
Just the Common Rail dropped particulates without any other technology or cats. But past the common rail, the cats drop some particulates, and DPF catches most of what's left. It's not diesel sold in 1999. Nothing in common, not even piston design (to reduce emissions).
Typical diesel today has a high efficiency variable geometry turbocharger with an extremely wide map. Far more advanced than you will find on a 2017 Porsche. It has a solid lifter roller cam that is gear driven like the water pump. It has both pre and post boost IAT's. Intake preheater, and emissions throttle, and quick light-off tech.
Pistons have internal "race-track" oil cooling passages fed by jets near the fully counterweighted, forged, nitrated crank. Piston are also polymer coated on the skirts for low frictional losses and the keystone rings are coated with proprietary coating. The bores are induction hardened, and do not lose compression for 500,000 or more miles. Way superior to ICE parts.
I could go on for hours on why a 2017 diesel makes a 2017 gas engine look like a Briggs and Stratton. A diesel cost more because it IS more. More technology, more efficient, more life, etc. I love my gas engines, but after tearing down modern diesels, I can say that gasoline sucks hind teat in the tech department. Heck, they are just now realizing that direct injection is GOOD. Ya Think?
You linked to a Forbes article by Jude Clemente as your source on this:
California's Growing Imported Electricity Problem
I read the article and unsurprisingly it contained a fair amount of FUD. The author is an oil and gas analyst whose Twitter feed makes him appear to be a sports-loving political conservative climate-skeptical Trump supporter:
JudeClemente (@JudeClemente) on Twitter
In any case, you should have remembered from our extensive discussion 6 months ago on another thread that California's imports are not "20% from coal". The breakout table of California's 2015 electricity that you posted earlier in this thread has footnotes that describe what unspecified imports actually means:
So, actually, relatively little coal.
We had an extensive exchange about these general topics 6 months ago. For those who are interested, this page and the one before and after it might be useful:
The M3 terrifies BMW
Last edited:
jgs
Active Member
Thanks for the reference, beats the hell out of repeating the arguments over again.
One point I didn't see raised either there or here is that there are a few other, more-difficult-to-quantify reasons to choose an EV. One is that the pollution source at the end of my long tailpipe is a whole lot more likely to be properly inspected and tuned throughout its lifetime than the source at the end of my neighbor's very short ICE tailpipe. This is especially true in my state of Michigan, that has no annual vehicle inspection requirements, but I bet it's true to some extent even in states with fairly stringent annual inspections. It's just more scalable to inspect and maintain a few very large power plants than hundreds of millions of tiny ones. So, to the extent comparisons rely on the EV and ICE both operating nominally, I question whether those comparisons are realistic. (Especially apropos in the context of the parent thread, lest we forget.)
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I did remember, and you are misquoting.
I wrote "IIRC some 20% of CA electricity are imports that are mostly sourced from coal..."
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
jgs
Active Member
Correct. Or rather, it's presumed the owner is maintaining their vehicle sufficiently to comply with the law -- I'm sure there are laws controlling what vehicles are allowed on the road but other than once having been pulled over for a broken taillight I have no idea what they are.
Things may be different for commercial vehicles, I don't know.
This is not unique to Michigan, by the way. Although some states do require annual inspections, plenty don't.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
California tests, but only for smog emissions... your pile of rust with no brakes had better not have a smoky exhaust.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
VW unveils new all-electric and autonomous retro microbus with 270 miles of range
Dr. Herbert Diess, Chairman of the Board of Management for the Volkswagen brand, said during the announcement:
“The Volkswagen brand’s big electric offensive begins in the year 2020 with a completely new vehicle architecture. That is when we will be launching an entirely new generation of fully connected, all-electric vehicles to the market. By 2025 we want to be selling one million of these vehicles annually. We are making electric mobility the new trademark of Volkswagen.”
Dr. Herbert Diess, Chairman of the Board of Management for the Volkswagen brand, said during the announcement:
“The Volkswagen brand’s big electric offensive begins in the year 2020 with a completely new vehicle architecture. That is when we will be launching an entirely new generation of fully connected, all-electric vehicles to the market. By 2025 we want to be selling one million of these vehicles annually. We are making electric mobility the new trademark of Volkswagen.”
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I'm not sure how long it takes a big auto company to go from scratch to selling an EV, but we now have one point from VW:
About two years to go from scratch to a mock-up.
About two years to go from scratch to a mock-up.
Similar threads
