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

81–90 of 119 posts

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

#81

Post by bluead »

rlpb wrote: post #77
hydrogen18 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you mean it wouldn't sell well? DEF diesels in the US do go into limp mode (5 mph limit) if you ignore the empty DEF alerts.

Well, they don't sell well in the US, but they didn't sell well prior to DEF, so I don't think you can pin the blame on that.

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

#82

Post by bluead »

vkou wrote: post #79
mikeash wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's only partly a jobs program. Really, the jobs are mostly a side effect. Jersey people love their full service stations and are very protective of it. In and out, don't get out of the car, don't mess up your precious hair and hands dealing with the elements or the pump, back on the road. I don't identify with the attitude at all, but it's a real part of the culture. I've been chased back into my car by attendants more than once in Jersey. Nowadays I typically fill up before crossing state lines and drive across the state nonstop, even though the gas tax is lower in Jersey.

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

#83

Post by hydrogen18 »

rlpb wrote: post #77
hydrogen18 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems to sell just fine in the current market, I haven't seen a huge move away from Diesels as a result of its introduction.

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

#84

Post by hx87 »

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…

AdBlue is the same as truck DEF, which can be purchased at most auto supply stores and fuel stations. In my experience, pretty much every car that comes with an urea system can be refilled by the user. That makes sense--it's not like you can make emissions worse by filling up the tank.

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

#85

Post by lb1lf »

bit_logic wrote: post #72

This happened because environmental policy focused too much on one metric: CO2 emissions. It should've been reduction of all polluting emissions, which would naturally favor hybrids and then plug-in cars as the rules get more strict.

In Norway (and probably elsewhere, but I only followed the debate here), the engineer's union, automobile association and just about everyone who knew the first thing about engines said 'NOOO!!!' when our parliament decided that favouring diesels was The Right Thing to do.

However, as CO2 was bad and diesels emitted less overall, diesel it was.

Result? Air quality in towns took a nosedive, and suddenly diesel cars were forbidden to drive in city centres on days with poor air quality. Much annoyance (naturally) ensued - first the public is being told (by diesels suddenly costing thousands of € less) to buy diesels; then they are being told that they cannot drive them.

I luckily live in a very rural area; otherwise I wouldn't have had the conscience to (nor need for) my daily driver - an old diesel Land Cruiser.

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

#86

Post by scythe »

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.

How much does urea actually cost? If your car smells like a coal plant, it's kind of a turn-off to potential passengers.

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

#87

Post by hx87 »

martinald wrote: post #74

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.

> Larger engines are almost always more efficient, compare for example a gas boiler in a house vs a CCGT in a powerplant.

Not necessarily true--gas boilers can be up to 97% efficient, whereas CCGTs top out at the mid-60s. CCGTs can be more efficient as part of a district heating system.

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

#88

Post by vkou »

bluead wrote: post #82
vkou wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a jobs program.

It's only partly a jobs program. Really, the jobs are mostly a side effect. Jersey people love their full service stations and are very protective of it. In and out, don't get out of the car, don't mess up your precious hair and hands dealing with the elements or the pump, back on the road. I don't identify with the attitude at all, but it's a real part of the culture. I've been chased back into my car by attendants…

Oregon is a full-service state. Washington is not.

I strongly doubt that there is a significant cultural difference between the two, in terms of car culture.

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

#89

Post by hx87 »

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.

Anywhere from forever (towing heavy trailers on long-distance highway trips, urea injection to reduce NOx) to less than 10K (heavy pickup truck, no load, frequent short trips, exhaust gas recirculation to reduce NOx).

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

#90

Post by jsz0 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #48
raverbashing wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really However it does consume more AdBlue and/or produces less power the cleaner it is They did it to sell a "better car" with disregard to pollution regulation

> However it does consume more AdBlue and/or produces less power the cleaner it is This is why it's more costly. In order to design a diesel car that meets the exact same specifications, they either need to add an entire urea system (costs more money to manufacture, plus ongoing AdBlue costs to the consumer) or add a larger less efficient engine to meet the same performance target (costs more money to manufacture, pl…

> if diesel as a technology turns out to not be that practical anymore for small cars, then so be it.

This is tricky because, in the US market at least, one of the major appeals of small diesel cars was their performance / low end torque. There aren't really any other options on the market right now that can offer the same mix of performance/efficiency. Diesel cars are definitely on their way out in the US but I'm not sure it will be a net gain in the end. Lots of people such as myself are choosing to replace their small diesel cars with bigger, less efficient, similar performing cars.

Post reply on HN