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

Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 119 posts

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#31

Post by PythonicAlpha »

jjawssd wrote: post #24
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #4

One of the reasons, I am not proud to be a German, since it was/is my government (shame on them all!) that actively prevents real progress in the area of emission reduction of cars. Reality is, that ADAC or TÜV years ago already warned, that EURO 6 cars may produce even more emissions than EURO 5 cars. So, decades of EU environment politics where just Potemkin villages to please German car producers.

> my government (shame on them all!) that actively prevents real progress in the area of emission reduction of cars how? > So, decades of EU environment politics where just Potemkin villages to please German car producers. ???

Because they actively blocked (and still do) any attempts in the EU to release real-life regulations (not measure pollution in artificial environments, but on the roads!) -- for many years now. And still, they hinder that car buyers in Germany get the same compensation as US customers do.

The German news where full of it.

It is not helpful, when the labs are cleaner during car testing, but at the roads the people suffer from the pollution. VW is not the only brand, that optimizes the emissions for artificial environments.

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#32

Post by ifcho »

jjawssd wrote: post #24
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #4

One of the reasons, I am not proud to be a German, since it was/is my government (shame on them all!) that actively prevents real progress in the area of emission reduction of cars. Reality is, that ADAC or TÜV years ago already warned, that EURO 6 cars may produce even more emissions than EURO 5 cars. So, decades of EU environment politics where just Potemkin villages to please German car producers.

> my government (shame on them all!) that actively prevents real progress in the area of emission reduction of cars how? > So, decades of EU environment politics where just Potemkin villages to please German car producers. ???

Here is a nice article outlining the position of the German government and the big carmakers on electric cars:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/german-governme...

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#33

Post by jordanb »

gbil wrote: post #17
milansuk wrote: post #14

Article doesn't mention DPF(Diesel Particulate Filter) removal. Many owners don't wanna pay for new one, so they pay for removal. There are so many cars without it and emissions are completely sick.

Same applies to petrol cars, many don't replace the catalytic converter they just remove it. Don't want to get in a argumentation which one is "cleaner" afterwards, both are equally stupid.

How long does a DPF last? Replacing a catalytic converter is a rare maintenance item on a car. Most of the time they last the lifetime of the vehicle. In fact the only person I know who had to replace one had it stolen from under his car while he was parked on a city street.

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#34

Post by gbil »

jordanb wrote: post #33
gbil wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same applies to petrol cars, many don't replace the catalytic converter they just remove it. Don't want to get in a argumentation which one is "cleaner" afterwards, both are equally stupid.

How long does a DPF last? Replacing a catalytic converter is a rare maintenance item on a car. Most of the time they last the lifetime of the vehicle. In fact the only person I know who had to replace one had it stolen from under his car while he was parked on a city street.

It depends on many things, like car type, usage, maintenance (or lack of it) and for sure on what is the lifetime of a car? How many km/mi? For you it might be eg. 300k but have you checked the manufacturer's specs?

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#35

Post by Sarki »

milansuk wrote: post #14

Article doesn't mention DPF(Diesel Particulate Filter) removal. Many owners don't wanna pay for new one, so they pay for removal. There are so many cars without it and emissions are completely sick.

Except that it's forbidden in most European countries to remove it (full disclosure: I recently had to replace the it on my own car). Indeed the fine for driving without is expectedly way higher than changing the part itself. e.g. In France the replacement shall cost roughly 2500 €, the fine for driving without the part is 7500€. (source https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=7563...)

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#36

Post by Sarki »

jordanb wrote: post #33
gbil wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same applies to petrol cars, many don't replace the catalytic converter they just remove it. Don't want to get in a argumentation which one is "cleaner" afterwards, both are equally stupid.

How long does a DPF last? Replacing a catalytic converter is a rare maintenance item on a car. Most of the time they last the lifetime of the vehicle. In fact the only person I know who had to replace one had it stolen from under his car while he was parked on a city street.

It depends on many aspects (car usage, quality, etc.) I recently bought a used diesel car (10 years old, 150k KM), the DPF was almost dead. Needless to say that is wasn't a pleasant surprise... Edit: Also the DPF is not the catalytic converter, these are two different elements.

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#37

Post by TheCondor »

lb1lf wrote: post #23
Xylakant wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with AdBlue is that the car makers decided that the car owners were not supposed to refill it, it was considered more like an oil change than a fill-up. So the tank needs to be large enough to cover a full maintenance interval - which either requires quite a large tank or creative solution to limit consumption. And - meh - the decision was made to limit consumption.

I think - mind, think - that car makers may be innocent in this particular instance; I am pretty sure I read some time ago (Just as Dieselgate blew up) that regulations required AdBlue to be refilled primarily by workshops - this as it directly affected the emissions of the vehicle, and as such shouldn't (couldn't?) be entrusted to Joe Q. Public to do. However, at least around here they sell it at (some) gas stations…

I thought there was an issue with contamination and efficiency, or at least a fear.

There are more fundamental issues though, the car needs to not run if it's empty, a lot of people drive around with their dashboard lit up and don't care. People will balk at having a full tank of gas and the car shuts down because of DEF.

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#38

Post by jeffwass »

headmelted wrote: post #12

I'm in Northern Ireland, and while I can't speak for the rest of the UK or Europe, I know the stats put diesel vehicles at almost half in Europe as a whole. It sounds absurd, but I can see the increase in Diesel soot on the roads and pavements here, and more often than not, it can be smelt from passing traffic. To be fair, that I've become more aware of it is making me notice it more - but I live now not so far from…

I live in London, and really noticed the effects of diesel exhaust (particularly buses along busy roads) on my breathing in the past couple years. I've lived here for over 8 years.

It's the NoX that I notice much more than the soot. I get breathing difficulties after walking past buses (the sharp smell of the NoX fumes is pretty noticeable). I've had bronchitis twice in the past two years.

I've even started changing my walking routes to avoid busy roads entirely due to the diesel pollution.

What adds insult to injury is that many of these buses advertise as "Enviro" because their Diesel engines produce marginally less CO2 than a gasoline engine.

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#39

Post by LordKano »

gbil wrote: post #17
milansuk wrote: post #14

Article doesn't mention DPF(Diesel Particulate Filter) removal. Many owners don't wanna pay for new one, so they pay for removal. There are so many cars without it and emissions are completely sick.

Same applies to petrol cars, many don't replace the catalytic converter they just remove it. Don't want to get in a argumentation which one is "cleaner" afterwards, both are equally stupid.

I don't know if it's a taxation or regulatory thing but replacing a catalytic converter isn't particularly expensive on the US. My vehicle has three of them. One is extremely easy to access, one is a bit more difficult to access and one is ridiculously difficult to access.

I have replaced two of them over the past few years. If the third one ever goes, I'm completely done with the vehicle.

But this is me, a home mechanic, doing the work. For a professional with access to professional tools, it would be a different story. The parts themselves aren't too expensive. The easy one can be purchased for <$50 online and the two others are <$200 each online.

Re: Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

#40

Post by gambiting »

Xylakant wrote: post #19
lb1lf wrote: post #3

Part of the problem is that basically the closer you run the diesel engine to its optimum mpg-wise, the more NOx it emits. So, when you are trying very hard to make engines more efficient to get impressive mpg numbers, you also end up generating more NOx (Which you can then get rid of using urea, which I think is the preferred option in trucks and buses - think AdBlue or whatever it is called when used for cars.

One problem with AdBlue is that the car makers decided that the car owners were not supposed to refill it, it was considered more like an oil change than a fill-up. So the tank needs to be large enough to cover a full maintenance interval - which either requires quite a large tank or creative solution to limit consumption. And - meh - the decision was made to limit consumption.

I'm not sure about any other cars, but Land Rover will happily sell you bottles of AdBlue and you can add it yourself. I wonder if that's because Land Rovers traditionally were expedition vehicles and you can't realistically expect to be able to find AdBlue in the middle of Kazakhstan for example.
Post reply on HN