banning diesel

http://www.vwvortex.com/news/volkswagen-news/paris-athens-madrid-and-mexico-city-to-ban-diesel/

Wow, what political war is being waged on diesels....My cynical side still thinks VW will not end up surviving this mess, only time will tell, in the mean time, I have until 2025 to get my GSW to Paris, Madrid, Athens, and Mx City to drive around and pollute?

Wow . . . Trying to solve a problem by banning that which is not the problem . . . . Uh, way to go, geniuses?

I will not drive to those cities..... Some countries are after DIESEL since anno tobac!

Those guys are funny. 'Invest?' Really? With whose money?

It won't hurt me - I don't live near any of them, and they aren't on my list of places I'd ever want to visit.

In the end, it won't hurt VW much, if at all. The market for diesel engines is worldwide, so pretending these few places will make a large difference is rather silly, to tell the truth. VW builds and sells cars all over the globe. 4 cities isn't the whole globe, in spite of a few megalomanics who want to pretend otherwise.

Cheers,

PH

VW owns a lot of companies. They will survive.

tadawson said:

Wow . . . Trying to solve a problem by banning that which is not the problem . . . . Uh, way to go, geniuses?

Click to expand...

Are you disputing the fact that diesel engines contribute to the smog issues that these cities are facing?

Justinw303 said:

Are you disputing the fact that diesel engines contribute to the smog issues that these cities are facing?

Click to expand...

All engines contribute, it just seems to me that diesel is the easy target right now....as usual, this is more political than actual.

^^^ Cows and Horses do too....

TDI smile said:

^^^ Cows and Horses do too....

Click to expand...

So do I after eating a bowl of chili.

So, does that mean they will start banning legumes?

I must stop eating and breathing to reduce my emissions.

TDI2000Zim said:

So do I after eating a bowl of chili.
So, does that mean they will start banning legumes?
I must stop eating and breathing to reduce my emissions.

Click to expand...

Different emissions... critters, people and gassers don't emit NOx... diesels do. But I suspect you knew that....

larrydk said:

All engines contribute, it just seems to me that diesel is the easy target right now....as usual, this is more political than actual.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference between other fuels and diesel. CNG is incredibly clean... the only emissions are CO2 and H20. Gasoline is nearly as clean. Diesel is much worse since the higher combustion temperatures generate NOx. Eliminating diesel from inside cities is the easiest way to clear up smog.

Powder Hound said:

It won't hurt me - I don't live near any of them, and they aren't on my list of places I'd ever want to visit.

Click to expand...

Really? Paris is one of my favorite cities. I've only been to Madrid once, but would go back. Athens would be nice. Mexico City I can take a pass on, however.

I heard this story on the BBC when it broke. People in Europe are already talking about how the focus should be on all cars, not just diesel. A large percentage of particulates and dust created by cars comes from tires, along with all cars stirring up what's already in the atmosphere.

I think that in the next few years this focus on diesels will transform to banning all cars from city centers. And as much as I love cars, I don't hate that idea. Go to Amsterdam. You can get on a train to downtown at the airport. Walk out of the train station and there are a row of street cars that can take you just about anywhere in the city. And there are tons of dedicated bicycle lanes. We can evolve.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

Really? Paris is one of my favorite cities. I've only been to Madrid once, but would go back. Athens would be nice. Mexico City I can take a pass on, however.

I heard this story on the BBC when it broke. People in Europe are already talking about how the focus should be on all cars, not just diesel. A large percentage of particulates and dust created by cars comes from tires, along with all cars stirring up what's already in the atmosphere.

I think that in the next few years this focus on diesels will transform to banning all cars from city centers. And as much as I love cars, I don't hate that idea. Go to Amsterdam. You can get on a train to downtown at the airport. Walk out of the train station and there are a row of street cars that can take you just about anywhere in the city. And there are tons of dedicated bicycle lanes. We can evolve.

Click to expand...

I love the idea of public transportation everywhere it makes sense. The biggest problem here in the US is most cities are literally designed around the automobile (suburban areas with low-to-mid density housing). Long-term land use planning in this country is a national embarrassment. Public transportation thrives in areas with high density residential, and/or mixed-use zones. Without adequate ridership, public transportation systems lose a LOT of money. City managers have to pay for police and fire. They don't have money to waste on light rail or subway systems that go underutilized.

As long as automobile ownership remains a viable option, too few Americans will use public transportation unless it becomes equally convenient and less expensive to get from point A to point B, sometimes to point C, and then back to point A.

I live in the Northeast where public transit works reasonably well around city centers. It could be better here in Boston, but it's something. My daughter lives in LA and it's pretty hopeless there, even with the investment they're making.

I agree that land use planning here is horrid. I live in the suburbs, we have 1 acre zoning in most towns, so people are spread out. Cars are essential. But in cities we could have car-free zones at least.

Justinw303 said:

Are you disputing the fact that diesel engines contribute to the smog issues that these cities are facing?

Click to expand...

Yes! Current diesels does *NOT* contribute to that problem anywhere near as much as other sources/causes . . .

tadawson said:

Yes! Current diesels does *NOT* contribute to that problem anywhere near as much as other sources/causes . . .

Click to expand...

Since Paris was mentioned as a city that plans to ban diesels; It appears the French have data that says otherwise... ~60% of NOx in the city comes from diesels...

What other sources are you thinking of?

There are other potential explanations for apparent air quality issues in Europe (e.g., Paris).

The current air quality issue in Paris is apparently high levels of PM10 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nsport-free-air-pollution-spike-a7460191.html). Vehicle emissions along with residential wood burning are being blamed. Current diesel vehicles, including Europe, have PM emissions that are near zero, so banning new diesel vehicle won't be of any benefit.

Also, gasoline (fuel) in Paris is relatively high in aromatics (http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/2201.htm). High aromatic VOCs readily are converted to secondary organic aerosols (SOA) in the local atmosphere, thus contributing to ambient PM issues.

Scooters also appear to be an "asymmetric" source of emissions there (http://www.news24.com/Green/News/Two-stroke-scooters-are-big-polluters-20140513).

I submit all those cities ban all diesels,which of course means all trucks, HA, no lets see how they supply all the goods and services get to Paris,ETC. I can't wait to see this. This is all the EU needs to fully collapse.

Trucks belch out more soot than diesel cars.

And, as far as I have seen, oil heating furnaces belch out more soot than both diesel trucks and cars.

Bottom line, this is mere grand politicking against the most efficient automobiles on planet Earth, which makes me wonder if it is financed by oil producers...

I saw scenes of Paris on the news this morning too. Reminded me of my visit to India back in 2010. I'm for rebates & incentives for EV's and home solar, but sadly governments find new ways to use climate change simply to collect taxes from us, and the money collected does nothing to make our air cleaner.

The thing that drives me nuts is spinning the commerce of carbon credits as making a real difference to the environment - when in reality, it's only a transfer of wealth that feeds it's own bureaucracy. Ask a politician about how much taxing carbon costs the taxpayer - and you'll never get a straight answer. Here's a clip of an interview with our environment minster who is an expert at the spin:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1014349

Justinw303 said:

Are you disputing the fact that diesel engines contribute to the smog issues that these cities are facing?

Click to expand...

No, however, the entire concept of "climate change" which used to be called global warming is not "settled". The premise that CO2 is THE primary cause of warming is actually rather amusing. As a chemist and someone who actively sold Infrared instruments, if you look at atmospheric science, you will note that WATER absorbs Infrared and Near Infrared from the Sun far more than CO2. And by the way, there is FAR more water in the atmosphere than CO2. This is just the beginning but it's too long to belabor more here.
Bottom line is, governments trying to squelch diesel in this manner show their ignorance and lack of all facts. Also, the higher NOx output of clean diesels is minimal compared to the NOx put out by other sources such as lightning, industrial sources, etc.

The only place where climate change is not scientifically recognized as human influenced, and ongoing, is in our political discourse.

We have massively increased (and are continuing to increase) the amount of CO2, which has modified the dynamics of solar gain and heat loss. The mechanism is simple, and the effects are widespread for those capable of observation on a wide scale (of time and distance).

It still amazes me that some choose to deny, rather than honestly debate how much we value the present vs the future, and how much to do about it.

The folks in europe made a bad policy decision to focus on the CO2 (and encourage diesel, which produces less CO2 than gas does) and ignore the other pollutants. There is a story in the Washington post https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...07f4f671da4_story.html?utm_term=.a873ea460df5 today that talks about London and other European cities. it is helpful to remember that previously London had massively bad air from coal, and "solved" it by banning burning of coal within the city.

Climate change is a banned subject on TDIClub, because past posters have quickly dove into corners and hurled fecal insults at each other.

Please accept this as a reminder that others may have opposing opinion, and move on to other subjects.

Banning diesel cars while allowing gas-powered cars will likely just solve one air quality problem (high ambient NO2) and create others (ambient ozone and possibly ambient particle (PM2.5) issues).

Europe has their weak regulatory testing procedures to blame for the relatively high NOx emissions from diesels, which clearly are capable of near-zero NOx emissions. The 2017 BMW 328d has one of the lowest, if not the lowest, officially certified composite NMOG+NOx emissions of any 2017 model year vehicle certified in the U.S. Composite emissions are the weighted average of emissions measured in the FTP, US06, and SC03 test duty cycles. Even if it's assume that all of the NMOG+NOx emissions are NOx, the certified level (0.008 g/mi) is still well below the T2B2/SULEV II regulatory limit (0.02 g/mi - FTP).

It also should be noted that Europe's annual ambient air quality standard for NO2 is extremely strict (40 micrograms/m^3). That equals about 21.3 ppb, which is less than half the U.S. NAAQS for NO2 of 53 ppb. Natural background levels are likely not much less than the European standard.

Frustrated!

I am so frustrated that our TDI's get equal blame in the diesel NOX problem, when we put out 100x less pollutants than the big-rigs, busses, and construction equipment. We have EGR valves, particulate filters, and other emisisons equipment on board. I've never seen a modern TDI emit any smoke what so ever. Mine is still clean and shiny in the exhaust pipe! I drive down the road and see trucks with over 1M miles on them. They emit blue smoke from both stacks EVEN AT IDLE!! I can't tell you how many times I've cringed either following and choking on, or watching plumes of blue or even black smoke come out of these horrible machines. I don't know how these things go unphased by all the looming regulation, because they are ALWAYS on, always driving and consuming/emitting MUCH more than the TDIs. If they ban anything, ban the rigs and busses. At least force them to use DPF and urea reduction.

IDoSeaDoo, but you have to admit, the big-rig industry has amazingly cleaned-up their exhaust over the years as well as improved fuel economy. I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember when a single big-rig would/could put out more black smoke on a hill under a hard pull than 25 or more modern rigs.

We've come a long way over the last 45+ years cleaning up air pollution (and water) than many of you young folks realize. I was 18 years old in the summer of 1969 (no I did not go to Woodstock, did think about it though). A friend and I went to the big city (Cincinnati, Ohio) that summer to get a job. On I-75 looking north from the Kentucky side of the Ohio River, downtown Cincinnati was barely visible all summer into early fall due to smog. Driving through town on I-75 was like going from one pollution source to another (Nu-maid, Formica, Proctor & Gamble, etc.). Each emitting its own odors and pollution.

Well, today that is all gone!

When will the bar quit being raised?

I'll admit that it indeed has gotten better. I can always tell when I'm in tracffic behind one of those cars from the 90's. Their exhaust all smells the same. However, there are a lot of old rigs on the road that are exempt from emissions control. I know because I can see their emissions at all times. Often times, this is due to poor engine maintenance (bad rings, valve stem seals, etc). I feel like they should be held to some sort of standard. We still have a colossal amount of emissions coming from cars. You can see it on any given day if you just climb to the 8th floor of any tall building in any city, or fly in an airplane. There is cloud of haze over every single city in this country that I've ever flown out of. In LA, the pollution is so bad, you can see it by just looking two blocks forward. Whenever a truck rolls by and I can see a plume of smoke coming out of it's stack, I just cringe inside. Don't get me started on those "rolling coal" morons Now that trump is president and is dismantling the EPA, I really worry for the future of the planet. Many countries will use us as an excuse to not create their own pollution standards, as we are one of the biggest polluters of all.

nwdiver said:

Different emissions... critters, people and gassers don't emit NOx... diesels do. But I suspect you knew that....



There's a big difference between other fuels and diesel. CNG is incredibly clean... the only emissions are CO2 and H20. Gasoline is nearly as clean. Diesel is much worse since the higher combustion temperatures generate NOx. Eliminating diesel from inside cities is the easiest way to clear up smog.

Click to expand...

And new gasoline engines emit more particulates then diesels. Next argument?

turbovan+tdi said:

And new gasoline engines emit more particulates then diesels. Next argument?

Click to expand...

??? According to who? You have to have a pretty messed up gasoline engine to emit visible exhaust. I occasionally see the exhaust of even new diesels.

You can actually have a cloud of particle emissions without being able to see them. PM from gasoline engines is mostly in the "ultrafine" size category (<100 nm).

Here are some references supporting the modern diesels have lower particle emissions than gasoline, especially GDI, which is the gasoline engine technology that is being pursued by all virtually car manufacturers.


http://papers.sae.org/2016-01-0997/
http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-1077/
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-gasoline-direct-green-choice.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/eu-requiring-on-road-emissions-tests-in-wake-of-vw-scandal/

nwdiver said:

??? According to who? You have to have a pretty messed up gasoline engine to emit visible exhaust. I occasionally see the exhaust of even new diesels.

Click to expand...

Do some reading, its also been covered on here in great depth. The direct injected gas engines produce more particulates because the gasoline doesn't get mixed with the air properly. You will see DPF's on these cars very soon.

If you can see it, you have special eyes,

turbovan+tdi said:

Do some reading, its also been covered on here in great depth. The direct injected gas engines produce more particulates because the gasoline doesn't get mixed with the air properly. You will see DPF's on these cars very soon.

If you can see it, you have special eyes,

Click to expand...

LOL, and if you can smell NOx, you have a special nose.

GPFs are coming for DI gassers very soon. Gasoline also becomes ultra-low Sulphur too, with no more than 10ppm of Sulphur. Gasoline will experience a small but permanent price increase due to the Sulphur reduction on top of everything else. Exactly how much of price increase will occur is unknown.

I'm curious to know what kind of teething pains GPF systems will have. I'm also curious about how active regenerations will be accomplished. Will they do post injection with gasoline(!) to heat up the GPF to burn off soot? The exhaust system might always run hot enough to not need any active regen like diesels do. I wonder what kind of problems they will have when owners baby them by driving gently all the time and/or use the car exclusively for short trips and never get the car up to operating temp. I also wonder what kind of fuel economy hit a GPF-equipped DI gasser will take.

GPFs and ULSG will soon help level the fuel economy playing field again with diesel.

Have fun!