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

71–80 of 119 posts

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

#71

Post by throwaway1X2 »

rlpb wrote: post #55
hydrogen18 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just another step to the complete infantilization of citizens by the government. If you can't pour a liquid into another container, you have no business being outdoors.

On the other hand, when strapped for cash, many citizens will stop doing it. You can make it illegal to drive with that tank empty, but that still won't make many citizens do it. The environment is better off this way.

Well, running the engine (or not to) with empty AdBlue tank has nothing to do with topping it up yourself.

- You can let the tank go empty and not turn up to the workshop for the fill up, how does disallowing to top it up yourself prevent that?

- Many current cars with AdBlue will flash increasingly annoying warnings at you, and although many people drive with check engine lights lit, running out of urea will display you a counter of remaining kilometers and the car will simply refuse to start when empty. Again, nothing to do with whether you push the car to the dealership on foot or fill the tank yourself from the bottle (and actually, there are very foolproof anti-spill bottles, which let the liquid go only when tightly screwed onto the DEF tank).

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

#73

Post by bluead »

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.

Not generally true. In addition to those mentioned, the Chevy Cruze diesel has an Adblue tank easily accessible in the trunk. Refilling the Adblue is no harder than topping up your wiper fluid. It takes a standard bottle with a built-in spill-proof adapter. If for some reason you don't have such a bottle, you can just use a regular old funnel.

There's an idiot light type indicator that tells you when the change is coming up, just as with oil changes, and if ignored I think the engine will go eventually go into a kind of limp mode.

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

#74

Post by martinald »

This isn't surprising. Larger engines are almost always more efficient, compare for example a gas boiler in a house vs a CCGT in a powerplant.

But overall diesel has been a complete disaster and will take probably a decade minimum to undo. Complete tunnel vision focus on CO2 emissions at all costs which continues to plague environmental regulation IMO.

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

#75

Post by bluead »

derefr wrote: post #58
rlpb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, when strapped for cash, many citizens will stop doing it. You can make it illegal to drive with that tank empty, but that still won't make many citizens do it. The environment is better off this way.

Perhaps they could mandate another additive to diesel that gives it a very apparent coloured plume in its exhaust; and then another additive to AdBlue that oxidizes/reduces that additive. Then you just tell police to pull over anyone with black fumes coming from their cars.

There's no need for any of this. DEF diesel engines already go into limp mode not long after the fluid runs dry (after ignoring many warnings). There are sensors such that just replacing with any arbitrary diesel-compatible fluid won't fool it (thought that would be stupid to do). And most states have annual inspections that include emissions, you would not pass with a dry Adblue tank. No need for dramatic exhaust; the cops can run your plates and see your inspection is expired.

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

#76

Post by rlpb »

throwaway1X2 wrote: post #71
rlpb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, when strapped for cash, many citizens will stop doing it. You can make it illegal to drive with that tank empty, but that still won't make many citizens do it. The environment is better off this way.

Well, running the engine (or not to) with empty AdBlue tank has nothing to do with topping it up yourself. - You can let the tank go empty and not turn up to the workshop for the fill up, how does disallowing to top it up yourself prevent that? - Many current cars with AdBlue will flash increasingly annoying warnings at you, and although many people drive with check engine lights lit, running out of urea will display…

> Well, running the engine (or not to) with empty AdBlue tank has nothing to do with topping it up yourself.

Yes it does, since it affects the design of the vehicle. Remember that the context of this thread includes:

"So the tank needs to be large enough to cover a full maintenance interval...or creative solution to limit consumption."

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

#77

Post by rlpb »

hydrogen18 wrote: post #70
rlpb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, when strapped for cash, many citizens will stop doing it. You can make it illegal to drive with that tank empty, but that still won't make many citizens do it. The environment is better off this way.

That one is simple, just make the vehicle not run when certain conditions aren't met. Most diesel trucks already do this from the factory, if you don't follow the regen. cycle the truck just turns off.

That wouldn't sell well. Manufacturers would end up doing more to make sure it doesn't run out. This is my point - read back up the thread.

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

#78

Post by jessriedel »

mikeash wrote: post #42
hydrogen18 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just another step to the complete infantilization of citizens by the government. If you can't pour a liquid into another container, you have no business being outdoors.

I will note that about 13 million Americans already live in states where it's illegal to pump your own gasoline.

Yes, and this does in fact infantalize people. But it's an unintended consequence of it's functional purpose: job creation (regardless of the stated justification for the law).

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

#79

Post by vkou »

mikeash wrote: post #42
hydrogen18 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just another step to the complete infantilization of citizens by the government. If you can't pour a liquid into another container, you have no business being outdoors.

I will note that about 13 million Americans already live in states where it's illegal to pump your own gasoline.

That's a jobs program.

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

#80

Post by amcuit01 »

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.

Very relevant 33c3 talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCu8XIHjKwc

This all sounds to be entirely due to inadequate emissions testing processes and manufacturers doing the absolute bare minimum to comply with those tests as if they're gaming the rules of an automobile race.

Post reply on HN