VW Faces $17B Fine for Emissions Scam

We have a ton of diesel oilies where I work. They really don't seem to give a rip about any smog/epa/scandal issues. To that genre most consider the fuel economy as the end all-beat all - and the dirty air is just the byproduct - regardless of whether it's necessary or unnecessary.

 

That duping put us in an awkward place. We kept questioning how the tech could possibly achieve that and got harassed when pointing out detail shortcomings. Things just plain didn't add up, which contributed to the intentional misleading. When facts aren't addressed...

Anywho, it's quite clear now that diesel is not a contender for personal transport. We're seeing the shift toward something with a battery from every automaker in some fashion.

 

But that tech does achieve low emissions, VW not withstanding.

Here is a comparison of EPA in-use testing...

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4
0	Emission (g/mi)	2015 BMW 328d	2015 Prius	2015 Camry Hybrid
1	NMOG/NMHC (FTP)	0.0009	0.0032	0.0068
2	NMOG/NMHC (HWY)	0.0000	0.0000	0.0002
3	CO (FTP)	0.028	0.036	0.049
4	CO (HWY)	0.007	0.027	0.0004
5	NOx (FTP)	0.021	0.003	0.002
6	NOx (HWY)	0.001	0.002	0.005
7	PM (FTP)	0.0003	Not Reported	Not Reported
8	PM (HWY)	0.00006	Not Reported	Not Reported

Not really any significant difference between the vehicles, at least for those two test cycles.

You may be right that it's too expensive to be used in widespread personal transport, but it's potentially viable in larger SUV/pickup truck applications, along with the other technologies. What's wrong with more choices?

 

certainly, for people who can afford the expense and extra maintenance of a properly designed diesel it's a fine alternative. and those parameters will likely lessen as time goes by.

 

Thank you.

There seems to be contempt by some for any diesel owners though, VW or not. The current-model BMW diesels are demonstrably low emission, and I don't see why anyone would care if someone wants a diesel car even if they come with the expense of higher-priced fuel, DEF, and higher initial cost for the vehicle.

 

Their belittling of hybrids would do that. It was the specific diesel owner's choice, in the past.

Now, there's no contest. The addition of a plug results in far higher MPG. It raises the question of how diesel will compete. After all, the growing traffic congestion from population increase makes having an engine running non-stop very difficult to argue in favor of.

So... how will diesel compete?

 

I've never bashed hybrids or any other technology for that matter.

How will diesel compete? From an environmental perspective? Post first-generation biofuels.

 

That's what makes you an excellent person to get info & ideas from... because I certainly haven't taken that stance.

For me, it's been a crusade to point out shortcomings early on. That way the goal of actually reaching the masses can be achieved without too much waste along the way. Both Honda & Ford learned lessons fairly quick, agreeing with the real-world research many of us had been a part of early in the hybrid years. There was struggle and setbacks, but they were always on course. GM on the other hand, talking about the golden example of repeating mistakes. That's why we are so intrigued by what VW will do next... make things right or fight progress?

The definition of "clean" is an issue still. There's an emission rating scale for a reason. There's also a fundamental difference between smog & carbon pollution.

As for "first-generation" biofuels, what does that mean? We are decades into ethanol here in Minnesota. Heck, I remember the Ford Ranger produced here back in the late 90's. All of them, (yes 100%) were flex-fuel. We supported locally produced ethanol (for E85 use) long before the rest of the nation got involved. Biodiesel has had mixed success. The colder weather here combined with the small increase in NOx emissions doesn't make it as good of a fit as some had hoped.

 

What do you say about EPA estimate of upstream GHG emissions (CO2, NOx, Methane)? They are also based on GREET model, sure we don't have insight into NOx, HC, PM, CO, SOx, but one would expect upstream CO2 to be at least on par with the same MPG vehicle, but here we can see that 36 MPG diesel uses more oil and emits more GHG than 32 MPG petrol:



Did EPA get the "wrong" GREET model?

 

It mentions that EPA uses GREET version 1.8. The most recent version is GREET_2015.

Upstream ("well-to-pump") emissions are usually reported per mJ or mmBTU. According to GREET_2015, here are the upstream emissions of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and E10 gasoline...

ULSD vs. E10 well-to-pump (WTP) emissions (@2016; w/well infrastructure; per mmBTU)

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
0	Parameter	ULSD	E10
1	Energy (BTU/mmBTU)	226622	301920
2	VOC	9.639	31.591
3	CO	24.815	30.675
4	NOx	35.583	45.290
5	PM10	3.137	4.516
6	PM2.5	2.235	2.814
7	SOx	27.749	42.646
8	GHG	18194	19834

The urban share of those emissions according to GREET...

Urban WTP emissions

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
0	Parameter	ULSD	E10
1	VOC	3.910	17.220
2	CO	2.745	3.932
3	NOx	5.529	8.281
4	PM10	0.606	0.793
5	PM2.5	0.447	0.593
6	SOx	8.914	15.850

ULSD has 129,488 BTU/gallon and E10 has 112,194 BTU/gallon, according to GREET1_2015, so the above emissions per gallon would have to be adjusted accordingly.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I actually think hybrid technology is an excellent principle, since it recovers some of the energy that would otherwise be lost.

IMHO, diesel technology is an excellent platform for using biofuel. To answer your question about first-generation biofuels, I was referring to ethanol from corn and fatty-acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel. FAME biodiesel as you noted has limitations.

Have you ever heard of "renewable" diesel fuel? It's actually a second-generation biodiesel without the limitations of FAME biodiesel (renewable diesel is biomass-based diesel-range hydrocarbons, so it is completely compatible in any blend with petro-based ULSD, up to 100%). Renewable diesel is currently being marketed in California as Propel "Diesel HPR". More info is available at About Diesel HPR | Propel Diesel HPR. According to that site, renewable diesel reduces engine-out (uncontrolled) emissions across-the-board, including NOx.

Another post first-generation biofuel process is "Fischer-Tropsch" (although it's actually pretty old technology - Germany used this process to produce diesel fuel in WWII). There's a company in Nevada (Green Car Congress: Fulcrum BioEnergy files LCFS application for municipal solid waste to FT diesel pathway with low CI of 37.47 g/MJ) that reportedly will be producing diesel fuel from organic landfill waste using FT technology. FT diesel is similar to renewnable diesel in that it's a diesel-range hydrocarbon and fully compatible with all diesel engines up to 100%.

FT technology will also be used to produce diesel fuel from forest residues in Europe (Green Car Congress: IH2 biomass-to-liquid hydrocarbons technology licensed to leading European company).

 

No they didn't get it wrong, but it might suffer from the simplification of using averages.

"The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has analysed the full lifecycle GHG emissions of transportation fuels derived from US crude oil and crude oil imported to the US from the most significant exporting countries.
...
This analysis reveals that producing diesel fuel from imported crude oil results in WTT GHG emissions that are, on average, 59% higher than diesel from domestic crude oil (22.6 versus 14.2grCO2eq/MJ). The study concludes that imported crude oils are on average heavier and contain higher levels of sulphur, and the controls on venting and flaring during crude oil production are not as good as in US operations."
- https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Study%20on%20Actual%20GHG%20Data%20Oil%20Gas_Project%20Interim%20Report.pdf

So the US oil indurstry imports this heavy, sour crude from places where they aren't as careful on how it was gotten out of the ground. It takes more energy to get that sulfur out of it than the local light and sweet stuff. Because it is heavy, it takes less energy and money to get diesel out of it than gasoline, so the refinery output likely has a higher percentage of diesel. Combined with the extra transport, this all means the higher GHG emissions for diesel from such crude.

Those upstream values are combined with those of the 'cleaner' diesel for the number used on Fuelecononmy.gov, but this raises the same issues as using a "national' grid mix for plug in emissions. That average pool of diesel isn't all being consumed in the same place. Much of the diesel the US makes is exported. I admit to not knowing which refinery is getting its crude and where it is sending its products, but I bet most of the ones getting that dirty imported crude are on a coast, which makes exporting diesel easier.

Another fact to consider is that the current US gasoline sulfur content is twice that of US diesel, and more than Europe's and many other markets. So the upstream numbers for it aren't paying the higher cost for sulfur removal.

CO2 emissions are purely a factor of fuel economy, and so are those upstream numbers. A diesel vehicle can result in lower CO2 compared to an equivalent gasoline models simply due to better fuel economy. Since diesel contains more carbon per volume than gasoline, this means the diesel vehicle has to get better than slightly better. The BMW X3 28d bests the Rav4 ICE by 5mpg combined, and the total GHG by 11g/mi.

Hybrids can make a big improvement in GHG emissions, but the market reality is that few people are buying them. (I know the above BMW will look like a really poor choice in light of this, but a diesel Rav4 or equivalent simply isn't available in the US for comparison.) When you could buy them, the Golf TDI would be $7000 less than a Rav4 hybrid, and the ICE Rav4 AWD is around $2000 less.

Compare Side-by-Side

Audi also a couple of pilot plants turning CO2, water and excess renewable electricity into methane and what they call blue crude. It is a sulfur free crude that is easier(less energy) to refine into diesel than petroleum.
E-diesel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The methane can be converted to methanol for spark ignition engines, but it can't be directly used in a gasoline engine in large concentrations. The lower energy content also means lowered volumetric fuel economy.

No technical reason on why we couldn't refine the blue crude into gasoline. It will just take more energy to do so. Audi is working with a biotech firm on making a bio-gasoline through microbes though. Too early to tell if the bio-gasoline made will have advantages over bio-made butanol. Of the alcohols, it is the one that requires little to no modification on current engines to work.

 

... in other words it's complicated.

The problem with diesel car is not the fuel but the engine itself, it will always be hard to control older cars if they have fully functional emission control system. In EU there is maybe 3 year warranty on such components and many engine malfunctions (injector problems) have a domino effect on everything that is behind them in exhaust system. The solution around here is simple, DPF-off, EGR-off. There are tuners that will do this without anyone noticing on the yearly inspection (visually no difference, exhaust gases are measured on engine without load). And this "tune up" will get you even better MPG, so many are considering it even if they don't have DPF problem.

 

That problem is actually with the owners. Plenty of people in the US defeat the emission controls on their gasoline cars for better fuel economy, performance, or because it's cheaper than repairing. They are harder to spot on the road than a diesel without the DPF, but there isn't enough diesel cars on American roads to blame them for all the off odors I've come across in traffic.

Something to keep in mind about diesel emission technology; diesel cars that are as clean as any gasoline one have only been on the road within the US for half the time that there have been hybrid cars on them. It is still a young technology in terms of being in the hands of consumers, so the likely hood is that there is still room to improve in terms of performance and cost.

 

but it has a bad connotation because of the hundred years of stinkers, and the trucks, buses and heavy equipment still on the road.

 

This is the fundamental difference, the engine always running regardless of load. It is this overhead that kills urban driving. This is beyond mitigation by having just START/STOP but also partial power operation. It make no sense to pay a 1 kW fuel cost to keep the engine running when the vehicle only needs 1 kW to sustain speed. In effect, these partial power operations let the engine mechanical drag waste the fuel.

It makes much more sense to run the engine at a higher power setting and bank the excess energy. Then turn the dang engine off and continue on the stored energy.

Bob Wilson

If you add a column for the 2016 Prius, I believe you'll see the diesel and 2016 are much closer than the 2015. The reason is we found the "Prius c" seems to have significantly lower emissions than the "2016 Prius." I've long suspected that Toyota could use the 'head room' to tune the engine for greater efficiency at a small increase in emissions.

In aviation, I used EGT to tune the mixture. The safe way was 50F rich of peak EGT. However, some went 50F lean of peak EGT at significant altitudes. You just had to make sure to go over to the rich side at lower altitudes when full power might be needed. . . . it was complicated but technically, as safe as the pilot.

Bob Wilson

 

I think you're right, Bob. The reason I didn't compare the 2016 models is that the Prius is LEV3 certified and the 328d is still LEV2 certified. There are enough differences between the two certifications that it's difficult to compare, or at least misleading.

Edit: I see what you mean from the EPA in-use test results. Here's what I get when adding on the 2016 Prius...

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4	Column 5
0	Emission (g/mi)	2015 BMW 328d	2015 Prius	2015 Camry Hybrid	2016 Prius
1	NMOG/NMHC (FTP)	0.0009	0.0032	0.0068	0.0100
2	NMOG/NMHC (HWY)	0.0000	0.0000	0.0002	0.0012
3	CO (FTP)	0.028	0.036	0.049	0.072
4	CO (HWY)	0.007	0.027	0.0004	0.021
5	NOx (FTP)	0.021	0.003	0.002	0.001
6	NOx (HWY)	0.001	0.002	0.005	0.00004
7	PM (FTP)	0.0003	Not Reported	Not Reported	Not Reported
8	PM (HWY)	0.00006	Not Reported	Not Reported	Not Reported

 

Dieselgate Reaches Daimler: A Defeat Device By Another Name

 

reminds me of the bike racer who just got caught with a hidden motor.

if it turns out all diesels have to be 'doctored' in some way, it could set them back decades, or possibly even spell the end of the technology as we know it.

 

This is bad.

Bob Wilson

 

"Oh - no - it's not bad for MB .... this isn't a cheat ... because it's not designed to defeat the test - it's designed to defeat clean operation during many weather parameters. Protects the engine ... Hehehe ... see the difference ? (wink wink) "


Protects the engine instead of people. Maybe if owners remove all those stupid blue BlueTEC badges off the back of their car & shove them up their CEO's "where the Sun don't shine" - it will wipe that grin right off his face.

That'll keep the badges warm - you know - when the weather's not just right.
.