Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#81

Post by superuser2 »

awjr wrote: post #19
verytrivial wrote: post #17

I'm willing to take down votes for this position, I don't understand the fuss here, nor to credulity of the actors whom should have (and probably did) know better. If the tests were meant to reflect real-world conditions, they should be be designed to do that -- they clearly weren't, and were only tiny sample of performance from which (wild?) extrapolations were drawn. Don't have a cry about it, fix the tests. Get to…

There is a lot more riding on these tests than is currently being admitted. The simple fact is that based on the tests and the impact of NOx on population health, the sale of diesel cars should be stopped immediately. Even London has doubled the congestion charge fee for diesels. A further step would be to recognise that petrol cars also emit NOx and that the long term goal should be the removal of these from the roa…

The fact remains that millions of people park on the street or in alleys/garages they do not own. Until we start stomping on landlords' property rights to force them to install chargers, and also somehow install chargers in street parking spaces, EVs are just not usable for a huge segments of the population. The only way to make EV ownership practical is, ironically, to make your commute longer by living in the suburbs.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#82

Post by cptskippy »

jacquesm wrote: post #60
cptskippy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the manufacturer apparently does not get to chose the vehicle, which is one reason why the cheating code was present in all VWs with that engine model rather than just in the vehicles used for the testing. Are you implying that it's a bad thing that a manufacturer is forced to implement cheats on all cars rather than just provide a rigged car for test?

No, that's not what I'm implying, no idea where you got that idea.

I guess it's just the use of the words so and apparently, it reads sarcastically or condescendingly? I'm having trouble finding the words to describe the subtle implication of that combination of words.

Like if you were to say "So we're apparently not allowed to bring guns to school".

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#83

Post by deelowe »

mikekchar wrote: post #79
deelowe wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why couldn't a third party just take a production car and do the testing? This is how it works for most compliance testing. This whole situation seems needlessly complex. Or, probably more aptly, it reeks of crony capitalism and politics. Testing and compliance is an engineering problem. It should treated as such.

Although keep in mind that requiring 3rd party, independent auditors creates a market for crappy/soft auditors. I learned that from ISO 9000 work. Companies don't want to hire someone who will fail their product/process, so they hire someone who will conveniently look the other way. Probably the only way is to have government testing... which brings us full circle to the potential of crony capitalism and politics.

Industrial certifications like ISO 9000, six sigma, etc... are kind of a joke. What happens to those companies if they fail to maintain an acceptable standard? Quality goes down? Who cares? There's no liability.

A better comparison would be something like UL or FCC. Make the standards and testing body liable for their claims. Require PEs to be part of the organization and personally responsible for signing off.

This is a solved problem. We build bridges and electronics that don't kill people using similar methods.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#84

Post by TeMPOraL »

Marazan wrote: post #64
verytrivial wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The manufactures were required to "pass" the tests. They did. The tests were not fit for purpose. Fix the tests or GIVE UP. You will NEVER get the manufactures to act as moral entities -- they are amoral. They are profit machines and are required by law to be that way. The comparison to aircraft manufacturing only works if you are arguing aircraft manufactures and industry bodies design and implement similarly stupid…

They are not required by law to be amorral profit machines. Directors have to take into consideration company image and general well being in making decisions. They don't have to take into consideration profit.

They are not required by law per se, but this is what evolutionary pressures (i.e. competition) demand of them. We won't have companies acting morally until we start expecting it from them - seriously enough that it starts to affect the profit calculation.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#85

Post by jacquesm »

cptskippy wrote: post #82
jacquesm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not what I'm implying, no idea where you got that idea.

I guess it's just the use of the words so and apparently, it reads sarcastically or condescendingly? I'm having trouble finding the words to describe the subtle implication of that combination of words. Like if you were to say "So we're apparently not allowed to bring guns to school".

Apparently means 'as far as can be seen'.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#87

Post by jschwartzi »

Shivetya wrote: post #27
walrus01 wrote: post #16

Now I wonder what the diesel emissions of a 20 year old ford f350 are. A lot, I imagine.

Well it wasn't that long ago that a study found that school buses had many times the acceptable levels of pollutants inside because they sat idling while waiting for kids. All I have to do is watch the local bus service, mostly the city one, to see how bad some vehicles pollute. So let us be honest here, the government needs to clamp down hard on all vehicles in its employ at all levels even more than going after con…

I rode the bus every day as a child, and I will always associate the smell of diesel exhaust with the inside of the school bus, because it always smelled like exhaust.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#88

Post by elbrownos »

hcrisp wrote: post #56
selimthegrim wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no limp mode?

A truck mechanic told me that drivers have been rumored to urinate in the DEF tank to bring the level of urea up to the point that it can be driven.

Sounds like an urban legend. DEF is 325 g/L urea. Urine is roughly 9.3 g/L urea. Not a great substitute.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#89

Post by InclinedPlane »

verytrivial wrote: post #33
InclinedPlane wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diesel vehicles kill people, period. It's very difficult to reduce emissions sufficiently to change that but it's nigh impossible to ban diesel cars and trucks from the road. Given that, the only reasonable alternative is stringent tests that push diesel technology to the limit in terms of minimizing health impact. Which is what we have. Could the tests be better? Certainly. But that doesn't excuse the cheating. Imag…

The manufactures were required to "pass" the tests. They did. The tests were not fit for purpose. Fix the tests or GIVE UP. You will NEVER get the manufactures to act as moral entities -- they are amoral. They are profit machines and are required by law to be that way. The comparison to aircraft manufacturing only works if you are arguing aircraft manufactures and industry bodies design and implement similarly stupid…

You think that this: http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2015/09/vw-stock-s...

is coercing a corporation to be an amoral entity? No, VW thought they could get away with cheating, and they were found out, with disastrous consequences to their bottom line. The obvious market serving behavior would have been to avoid cheating. When VW cheated they were serving neither the public nor their shareholders, they were just being dumb.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#90

Post by cptskippy »

jacquesm wrote: post #85
cptskippy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it's just the use of the words so and apparently, it reads sarcastically or condescendingly? I'm having trouble finding the words to describe the subtle implication of that combination of words. Like if you were to say "So we're apparently not allowed to bring guns to school".

Apparently means 'as far as can be seen'.

It also means 'obviously' or 'obvious in hindsight'.
Post reply on HN