Why is diesel now bad news?
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
Fastdruid said:
NOx emissions for diesels hadn't improved from the launch of the Euro emissions standards to Euro V! Even at Euro VI they're still at the level of a 20 year old petrol car and still many times the limit!
Urea-SCR was implemented in the auto industry when Euro 5 went in force as far as I know. A petrol without a 3-way cat is also a nasty thing (and may still be as the cat ages).I (to a certain amount) agree but we're talking about 22+ year old cars and unlike Diesels (where they only get a smoke test) petrol cars are tested every year for emissions.
scherzkeks said:
Fastdruid said:
But still had no effect on the real world NOx.
Where is that shown? Urea systems are there to reduce NOx. The fact that most diesels on the road didn't have them when Euro 5 came out (or even now) is a different issue.Appendix 2 Table 2 (page 28), Tested emissions (grammes per kilometre)
Tier Date Diesel Petrol
NOX PM NOX PM
Pre-Euro 0.479 0.171 2.278 0.003
Euro 1 1993 0.570 0.054 0.260 0.003
Euro 2 1997 0.600 0.043 0.144 0.003
Euro 3 2001 0.687 0.028 0.072 0.001
Euro 4 2006 0.482 0.027 0.047 0.001
Euro 5 2010 0.593 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro 6 2015 0.207 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro V diesels are 3.3 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
Euro VI diesels are 2.5 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
Fastdruid said:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Driv...
Appendix 2 Table 2 (page 28), Tested emissions (grammes per kilometre)
Tier Date Diesel Petrol
NOX PM NOX PM
Pre-Euro 0.479 0.171 2.278 0.003
Euro 1 1993 0.570 0.054 0.260 0.003
Euro 2 1997 0.600 0.043 0.144 0.003
Euro 3 2001 0.687 0.028 0.072 0.001
Euro 4 2006 0.482 0.027 0.047 0.001
Euro 5 2010 0.593 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro 6 2015 0.207 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro V diesels are 3.3 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
Euro VI diesels are 2.5 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
There is a note on the chart that says those figures are for simulated testing with diesel engines smaller than 2.0 liters, no? The very engines that typically don't use Urea systems.Appendix 2 Table 2 (page 28), Tested emissions (grammes per kilometre)
Tier Date Diesel Petrol
NOX PM NOX PM
Pre-Euro 0.479 0.171 2.278 0.003
Euro 1 1993 0.570 0.054 0.260 0.003
Euro 2 1997 0.600 0.043 0.144 0.003
Euro 3 2001 0.687 0.028 0.072 0.001
Euro 4 2006 0.482 0.027 0.047 0.001
Euro 5 2010 0.593 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro 6 2015 0.207 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro V diesels are 3.3 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
Euro VI diesels are 2.5 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
scherzkeks said:
Fastdruid said:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Driv...
Appendix 2 Table 2 (page 28), Tested emissions (grammes per kilometre)
Tier Date Diesel Petrol
NOX PM NOX PM
Pre-Euro 0.479 0.171 2.278 0.003
Euro 1 1993 0.570 0.054 0.260 0.003
Euro 2 1997 0.600 0.043 0.144 0.003
Euro 3 2001 0.687 0.028 0.072 0.001
Euro 4 2006 0.482 0.027 0.047 0.001
Euro 5 2010 0.593 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro 6 2015 0.207 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro V diesels are 3.3 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
Euro VI diesels are 2.5 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
There is a note on the chart that says those figures are for simulated testing with diesel engines smaller than 2.0 liters, no? The very engines that typically don't use Urea systems.Appendix 2 Table 2 (page 28), Tested emissions (grammes per kilometre)
Tier Date Diesel Petrol
NOX PM NOX PM
Pre-Euro 0.479 0.171 2.278 0.003
Euro 1 1993 0.570 0.054 0.260 0.003
Euro 2 1997 0.600 0.043 0.144 0.003
Euro 3 2001 0.687 0.028 0.072 0.001
Euro 4 2006 0.482 0.027 0.047 0.001
Euro 5 2010 0.593 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro 6 2015 0.207 0.001 0.035 0.001
Euro V diesels are 3.3 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
Euro VI diesels are 2.5 times the limit for NOx against 6/10th of the limit for Euro 6 petrols
icct said:
All of the passenger cars analyzed in this report were certified to stringent emissions limits (below 80 mg/km over the NEDC cycle for the Euro 6 vehicles, and below 50 mg/mi [31 mg/km] over the FTP cycle for the Tier 2 Bin 5/ULEV II vehicles).
icct said:
This increase in fuel consumption and CO2 emission values (which on average amounted to approximately 40% of the type-approved values <snip> it could be acceptable to have a proportional, average increase of 40% in the emissions of other pollutants. <snip>But unfortunately this was not the case for NOX.
icct said:
So what makes NOX different? A possible reason behind the real-world diesel NOX issue is that this is not an easy pollutant to control. For example, the proper urea dosage in SCR systems is difficult to calibrate, as an excessive amount of urea injection in the exhaust stream can lead to high ammonia emissions at the exhaust tip (“ammonia slip”).
icct said:
Another possible explanation for the high NOX emissions from diesels is that robust control of NOX emissions is likely to result in a small fuel penalty that—unlike high on-road NOX emissions—can be directly perceived by the users of the vehicles and negatively affects compliance with the CO2 standards, thereby creating an incentive for manufacturers to optimize fuel consumption to the detriment of NOX performance.
icct said:
The average on-road emissions of CO and THC remained consistently low for all the vehicles under test. This otherwise praiseworthy behavior was overshadowed by a
generalized unsatisfactory emission profile of NOX. High NOX emissions were observed across vehicles, regions (US and EU), manufacturers, and aftertreatment technologies. They were heavily present not just in the more demanding driving situations (e.g., uphill driving, instances of high acceleration*velocity), but also during the situations that would in principle be most favorable to achieve low NOX emissions. This points to the application of NOX control strategies that are optimized for the current type-approval test procedures (on the chassis dynamometer laboratory, using a standard test cycle), but are not robust enough to yield acceptable on-road performance.
generalized unsatisfactory emission profile of NOX. High NOX emissions were observed across vehicles, regions (US and EU), manufacturers, and aftertreatment technologies. They were heavily present not just in the more demanding driving situations (e.g., uphill driving, instances of high acceleration*velocity), but also during the situations that would in principle be most favorable to achieve low NOX emissions. This points to the application of NOX control strategies that are optimized for the current type-approval test procedures (on the chassis dynamometer laboratory, using a standard test cycle), but are not robust enough to yield acceptable on-road performance.
Fastdruid said:
Links
Thanks. Seems NOx remains more of a problem than what I'd read. If anything this supports the previously posted conclusion: IC engines are dead and diesel may be too expensive to be an interim solution for engines that are efficient and that meet emissions targets both in the lab and on the road. ORD said:
It all says to me that a combination of bad government policy (obsession with CO2) and amoral behaviour by car companies (prioritising low CO2 at the cost of poisoning the public) has led us into an utterly avoidable air quality crisis in major cities. It's shameful.
May I suggest a bicycle? ORD said:
So I can suck particulates and NO2 even deeper into my lungs?
You're doing that by staying in your car. 
http://road.cc/content/news/129814-testing-mps-rev...heebeegeetee said:
ORD said:
So I can suck particulates and NO2 even deeper into my lungs?
You're doing that by staying in your car. http://road.cc/content/news/129814-testing-mps-rev...Fastdruid said:
heebeegeetee said:
ORD said:
So I can suck particulates and NO2 even deeper into my lungs?
You're doing that by staying in your car. http://road.cc/content/news/129814-testing-mps-rev...Interesting article on the whole "why is diesel now bad news"
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-e...
In summary it's was a totally misguided policy cluster-f
k, taken largely on the dodgy grounds of supporting the European car industry, hasn't cut down on CO2/global warming and instead given us lots more of other nasty pollution.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-e...
In summary it's was a totally misguided policy cluster-f
k, taken largely on the dodgy grounds of supporting the European car industry, hasn't cut down on CO2/global warming and instead given us lots more of other nasty pollution. In my line of work Diesel is great, I filled my car up 9 times in September covering some 3533 miles......like to see a petrol car do the same....if I burn less fuel I have to be cleaner....like I care anyway....If I did i wouldn't have a car....or a job....
Most of the air pollution is from buses and lorries.....and Taxi drivers sat idling at Taxi ranks cause they are too lazy and/or stupid to save some fuel by turning them off
Most of the air pollution is from buses and lorries.....and Taxi drivers sat idling at Taxi ranks cause they are too lazy and/or stupid to save some fuel by turning them off
Fastdruid said:
Interesting article on the whole "why is diesel now bad news"
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-e...
In summary it's was a totally misguided policy cluster-fk, taken largely on the dodgy grounds of supporting the European car industry, hasn't cut down on CO2/global warming and instead given us lots more of other nasty pollution.
Good god, there's been some garbage written on this subject but that piece really takes the cake http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-e...
In summary it's was a totally misguided policy cluster-f
k, taken largely on the dodgy grounds of supporting the European car industry, hasn't cut down on CO2/global warming and instead given us lots more of other nasty pollution. 
Paris is vying with Beijing to be the most polluted city in the world according to that piece, citing an article in the Los Angeles Times. Funny, 'cos according to the World Health organisation, not only is Paris not one of the dirtiest cities, it is nowhere near Beijing, and indeed is cleaner than Los Angeles. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/jun/...
Reading about the diesel "disaster" that Europe has suffered, you'd never know that in fact air has never been cleaner, and that European longevity is far better than the US.
I see the article says "One recent study estimated that diesel pollution from cars, buses, and trucks in Britain caused 9,400 premature deaths in 2010 alone. It's difficult to pinpoint what fraction of those deaths might have been avoided if emission rules had been enforced all along..."
No s
t. heebeegeetee said:
Fastdruid said:
Interesting article on the whole "why is diesel now bad news"
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-e...
In summary it's was a totally misguided policy cluster-fk, taken largely on the dodgy grounds of supporting the European car industry, hasn't cut down on CO2/global warming and instead given us lots more of other nasty pollution.
Good god, there's been some garbage written on this subject but that piece really takes the cake http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-e...
In summary it's was a totally misguided policy cluster-f
k, taken largely on the dodgy grounds of supporting the European car industry, hasn't cut down on CO2/global warming and instead given us lots more of other nasty pollution. Paris is vying with Beijing to be the most polluted city in the world according to that piece, citing an article in the Los Angeles Times. Funny, 'cos according to the World Health organisation, not only is Paris not one of the dirtiest cities, it is nowhere near Beijing, and indeed is cleaner than Los Angeles. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/jun/...
Do you even read the stuff you post links to?
Fastdruid said:
The page you link to is purely for particulate matter and utterly irrelevant.
Do you even read the stuff you post links to?
Quote: "The WHO considers the measurement of PM2.5 to be the best indicator of the level of health risks from air pollution".Do you even read the stuff you post links to?
I mean seriously, did you read that LA Times article on Paris? Do you honestly believe that?
Diesels have ALWAYS been bad news.
Noisy, dirty, smelly & best left in tractors & vans.
Owning a diesel car is just so working class & down-market however snobby the badge or size of engine.
Think Little Chef or McDonalds as opposed to Michelin starred eateries, Butlins or CentreParcs compared to 5 star hotels.
And surprise surprise they ARE dirty & contaminate everything & everybody.
Those more wise & able to assess future developments long ago worked out that petrol engines would become more fuel efficient.
Noisy, dirty, smelly & best left in tractors & vans.
Owning a diesel car is just so working class & down-market however snobby the badge or size of engine.
Think Little Chef or McDonalds as opposed to Michelin starred eateries, Butlins or CentreParcs compared to 5 star hotels.
And surprise surprise they ARE dirty & contaminate everything & everybody.
Those more wise & able to assess future developments long ago worked out that petrol engines would become more fuel efficient.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff