Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Winston Churchill famously defined an appeaser as someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. In the debate about global warming, business, especially large corporations, is the largest sector of appeasers and some, like Volkswagen, are now, rightfully, paying the price.
Churchill was talking about Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement with Adolf Hitler. In a classic example of the claim that fact is stranger than fiction, it was Adolf Hitler who sketched the design for the first Volkswagen (Figure1).
Volkswagen was caught programming their performance monitoring computers to give lower readings on exhaust emissions when subjected to government testing. The rest of the time the program was set to provide optimum fuel performance for the driver. They deserve every admonition, fines, and loss of sales, for a totally self-inflicted wound. It’s what happens when you try to serve two masters. A few heads will roll, but the German government has already essentially determined that Volkswagen is too big to fail and is using the public purse to bail the fail. In a further addition of insult to injury and with a clear demonstration that they don’t know what they are doing, Chancellor Angela Merkel is providing assistance with incentives to produce electric cars.
Sir Walter Scott (1771 – 1832) wrote,
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!
Volkswagen’s deception was a self-deception because with some of the best engineers and scientists, they chose to accept the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Clearly they did not look at the IPCC reports because if they had they would discover what Klaus-Eckart Puls discovered.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” ”Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
If they looked at the IPCC Reports and didn’t reach the same conclusion, then they are grossly incompetent, or the corporation took a political decision with their tacit approval.
They, like all automotive producers chose to pursue CO2 reduction as a marketing tool rather than examine the science and make the proper decision. Figure 2 shows their, now laughable, attempt to exploit the marketing opportunity.
Volkswagen was not alone in the decision to capitulate to the green lobby and government deception about climate change. Almost all industry chose to cow and beg forgiveness for their sin of using fossil fuels. It was precisely what Maurice Strong and the other creators of Agenda 21 and the IPCC wanted. Chapter 30 of Agenda 21 titled Strengthening The Role of Business and Industry tells them their role and obligations.
Business and industry, including transnational corporations, play a crucial role in the social and economic development of a country. A stable policy regime enables and encourages business and industry to operate responsibly and efficiently and to implement longer-term policies.
Business and industry, including transnational corporations, and their representative organizations should be full participants in the implementation and evaluation of activities related to Agenda 21.
Maurice Strong knew business would capitulate to such moral suasion. He knew from his business activities how to exploit the seams between business and government. As Neil Hrab explained
Mainly using his prodigious skills as a networker over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups, Strong has honed his networking abilities to perfection.
The lack of involvement of the business community is a combination of Strong knowing they would capitulate and then not providing the opportunity for input. Look at the participation list for the 2009 Conference of the Parties 15 held in Copenhagen. Business is placed in the Observer Organizations group as a Non-Government Organization (NGO) as follows.
The NGOs represent a broad spectrum of interests, and embrace representatives from business and industry, environmental groups, farming and agriculture, indigenous populations, local governments and municipal authorities, research and academic institutes, labour unions, women and gender and youth groups.
This does not equate with the statement in Chapter 30 that business plays “a crucial role in the social and economic development of a country.”
Business and industry were marginalized and then chose to exploit that position, as Strong knew they would. They surrendered to the eco-bullying even promoting what they had to know, or could easily discover, was bad science. They abjectly backed away despite simple and plausible options – they became appeasers. Like all appeasers, they only created bigger problems for themselves and society.
The crocodile is now eating them. Consider the case of Exxon. They totally surrendered to the ridiculous charge that they spent $16 million on climate change research. A simple comparison with government spending on climate research offsets the charge of bias as Joanne Nova so ably exposed. Couple this with the legitimate argument that understanding climate and climate change is basic research and development essential for any energy company. No sensible investor would put money into a company that was not doing such research. Now compare Exxon’s behavior with that of the insurance industry. They spend millions, to great praise, funding documentaries and promoting and exploiting severe weather threats for the sole purpose of selling more products.
On the back cover of Chris Horner’s book The Politically Correct Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Richard Lindzen wrote,
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”
It is beyond ironic that a major contributor to this bemusement is the scientists, engineers, and corporations that promoted and benefitted from the industrial age. In their criminality, Volkswagen is guilty as an accessory before and after the fact.
In this age of control by extremist fringe groups, Heywood Broun’s (1888-1939) comment about appeaser’s is likely more appropriate than Churchill’s.
“Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian.”
Vegetarians are part of the NGO group at the COPs right alongside business. The tail always wagged the dog, now the flea on the hair on the tail, is wagging the dog. Onward to Paris!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is just to lighten up the tone a bit, I actually think smart cars are a smart commuting option:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206834854846740&set=a.1589517214650.84125.1137421954&type=3&theater
If the squirrel wasn’t so indecisive on which way to run, it all could have been avoided.
That’s the aftermath of slamming one into a large chunk of concrete at 70MPH. The steering column is made to pull forward in a collision, but with a hit that hard it just slammed right back. No matter what kind of safety equipment the driver could possibly have in such an impact – dead. A passenger might survive with a NASCAR type harness, helmet and HANS.
The ‘Smart’ car and similar sized vehicles simply don’t have the size required for effective crumple zones to gradually absorb impact, nor do they have enough bits and pieces to break off for getting rid of kinetic energy as is done with Indy, Formula 1 and other race vehicles.
Have crumple zones? I see them on the road and view them as additional crumple zones for every other vehicle on the road.
pbh
You can see this playing out with fossil fuel companies as well. Shell, Exxon et al spent a huge amount of money funding, legitimizing and listening to the demands of a group of people who are now essentially manufacturing their own controversy through media outlets like the LA and New York Times. Every inch they gave the most rabid of our current “environmental” movement took and now backed onto a precipice they have either fight back against a determined enemy or possibly perish.
The only bright side (assuming you are bitter and revenge driven like myself) is that some of those, such as Steyn, Buffet and the Rockefellers who are funding the current movement seem to think they will be forever immune. I personally doubt that. In the event some of these more radical organizations actually get what they want I’m sure another even wealthier billionaire or monarch will come along and those twits will find themselves next on the hit list.
Styer, not Steyn.
One thing that I personally keep coming back to is WHY did the EPA keep the VW NOx thing stashed on the shelf for two whole years ? – and why bring it out now?
Banking PR antidotes ? nah……. couldn’t be.
My cousin is a vegetarian until she comes east from CA to Easton PA, we go to Pberg (Phillipsberg, NJ) across the Delaware River and get a special Philly cheese steak. I have been there several times with her…
500 phrases people use to make insignificant results seem significant. https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/
Downright precious list
Thanks
This one was one of my favorites
“at the brink of significance (p=0.06)” … you’d need to wear a tie, and perhaps a meaningful pin of accomplishment and and have moving graphics to make this one hit the sweet spot in the brain.
In many cases the word “significance” can be replaced by “insignificance” without changing the meaning.
Since adding CO2 to the atmosphere is beneficial to the biosphere, Volkswagen didn’t do anything wrong. Yes, they broke the law, but it is the law that is in error, not Volkswagen.
So when Tim Ball says that “…some, like Volkswagen, are now, rightfully, paying the price”, he is absolutely wrong. There’s nothing wrong about adding the “gas of life” to the atmosphere.
People need to wake up.
The CO2 emissions were not the problem. The problem is the NO2 emissions which are notorious in diesel engines because the fuel burns at a lower temperature than in petrol engines.
Diesel burns hotter in an engine than petrol. Diesel has a lower in open air flash point than petrol, ~210c/diesel ~250c/petrol. One of the reasons diesel is economical is that it burns hotter when injected in to a compressed air cylinder. It’s another reason why turbo chargers work well with diesel raising the air temperature in the cylinder faster before injecting fuel.
Something wrong there.
You are talking about autoignition temperatures of the fuels not their flash points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_point#Examples
Yes, you are right. I stand corrected.
“programming their performance monitoring computers to give lower readings on exhaust emissions when subjected to government testing”.
This way of presenting it suggests they fiddled the data, but that is not the case. They programmed the engine computers to run the engine in a lower NO2 emission mode (but slightly less energy efficient, because the car doesn’t move and therefore it doesn’t matter) when the software figures out that the engine is being tested (for instance by knowing that the car doesn’t move). They tuned the engine to give the desired emission outcomes on the test bench but concealed that under road conditions, requiring a different tuning for efficiency, those emissions can be quite different.
What a strange post. VW tricked the Nitrous Oxide regulation, nothing whatsoever to do with CO2, really guys? Diesels have a higher compression ratio, hence higher temps inside the combustion chamber, which is the source of their economy in the first place. VW did not contribute any more to so-called Global Warming, NOx has nothing to do with Global Warming/Climate Change. How is it that only one other commenter pointed this out?
And, it is not Horse Piss, it is a urea injection which will be required to put the newer VW’s back into compliance. Lots of Diesels have this system already.
Dr. Tim Ball why did you write this?
Mazda “Sky Active” system uses a mandrel bent gas flowed exhaust system for both petrol diesel engines. Both petrol and diesel use a compression ratio of 16:1 (If my memory serves).
Exactly. It’s bizarre that he would in effect blame this on the green lobby instead of VW. VW blatantly cheated to avoid complying with the NOx regulations, which by the way are in place for well documented health reasons.
“What a strange post. VW tricked the Nitrous Oxide regulation, nothing whatsoever to do with CO2, really guys?”
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/11/vw-emissions-investigation-widened-bmw-mercedes-ford
In particular-
‘VW admitted in September to cheating tests for emissions of nitrogen oxides and the scandal widened with the company’s revelation last week that it had also understated carbon dioxide emissions.’
Here-
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/04/vw-volkswagen-shares-slide-10-carbon-dioxide-revelations
And every car owner knows the rated fuel consumption figures and hence the emissions are nonsense in real world driving as the carmakers have been gaming the laboratory tests for years. Consequently the German Govt naturally wants to protect its signature carmaker from bankruptcy by showing carmakers have all been doing it to some degree. In that regard there’s safety in numbers for VW, similar to dodgy banks with the GFC.
VW tricked NOx levels in order to get CO2 emissions down.
I never knew Hitler sketched that drawing for the “people’s car”. Funny how so many Germans paid in to the system, but never got to even buy one let alone drive one. The first people to actually drive a “Beetle” were allied commanders.
Two internet hoaxes in 1 comment : 1. Hitler sketched the first design for the VW,
2. Allied commanders were the first to drive a Beetle.
Point 1. Refer to Dr. Tim Ball for the label on fig 1 in the post. Point 2. No “internet” hoax. You should do some more reading, in a library.
BTW Hitler was an artist.
@Patrick MJD,
1. The basic design for the Beetle was done by Béla Barényi in 1925, five years before Ferdinand Porsche perfected it, and some eight years before Hitler decided to use Porsche’s design for “his” Volkswagen.
2. During WWII a limited amount of Beetles were produced for the Nazi elite. (It is true that they weren’t mass-produced until after the war, and that the factory survived the first year by producing cars for the British army).
O yes, Hitler started out as a landscape painter, but that doesn’t make him a car designer.
Thanks for the update. I never said he was a car designer, just an artist, and not a good one either.
And thanks for pointing out the fact that many Germans who paid into the system didn’t get to own nor drive a “Beetle”.
I find it rather ironic that the Greens want everyone to be a vegetarian and yet want to reduce CO2 to starvation levels….for plants.
Business is Business? With a placard for a name, and not holding to normal standards of freedom or democracy, the corporate agenda is to make money. Every time mere people expect them to obey social rules that have been set by the democratically elected government (that they have great control over). They whinge and make a fuss like a frantic tree hugger.
Two interesting interviews on the SKY news this morning.
Germany can’t gain too much steam over and above Greece, VW has to pay the piper. The piper of course are its currency makers in Belgium. With market forecast looking so dull car manufacturers (and all manufacturers for that matter) love new regulations that charge people more to maintain older models.
Tim Ball:
I usually enjoy your essays but I disagree with the one above. You say
Sorry, but that is wrong. Whether or not VW “chose to accept the claims of the IPCC” has no relevance to what VW did and why VW did it.
VW made a commercial decision on how best to comply with EU Directives and national legislations concerning CO2 emissions, but VW’s decision included a small legal mistake with large repercussions for VW.
A car can operate in more than one mode and the modes can be changed by the computer which operates a modern car engine. One mode provides low CO2 emissions and low fuel consumption but poor performance. Another mode provides high CO2 emissions and high fuel consumption but good performance.
EU Directives, national legislations and advertising of car sales to potential purchasers each demand low CO2 emissions and low fuel consumption. But car owners want good performance. VW achieved these objectives by
(a) having each vehicle normally operate for good performance with high CO2 emissions and high fuel consumption,
and
(b) setting the computer to detect when emissions were being monitored and to then operate in the mode that provides low CO2 emissions and low fuel consumption but poor performance.
The automation of this switching is deemed to be “cheating”, and VW is being penalised for having automated it.
Many other vehicles obtain the same objective in the same basic way but are deemed to not “cheat” because they do not automate the switching between modes. For example, on the dashboard of my Peugot 308 cc there is a button adjacent to the ignition switch and pressing the button changes the car from its low CO2 emission mode to its good performance mode. This is not deemed to be “cheating” because a driver has to consciously alter mode for good performance by pressing the button, but every driver presses the button when turning on the ignition.
VW is suffering major repercussions from having made a small legal mistake in complying with legislation while attempting to sell vehicles people want.
Richard
The BBC almost agrees with you, in that it hysterically cries cheat, while quietly admitting it maybe legal in Europe.
VW cars can also cheat European emissions tests, BBC learns:-
“VW has admitted it used the device to rig tighter pollution tests in America.
But it’s been more ambiguous about whether it used the same tactics to actively cheat official European tests.
Panorama’s results suggest that it did.
It could have huge implications for the company, which says it is still yet to determine whether the cheating software even breaks the law in Europe.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34857404
Contrary to what Tim Ball wrote the VW ‘cheating’ has nothing to do with CO2. The issue is the reduction of NOx, in fact by running the Diesel engines in a more efficient mode the VWs were consuming less fuel and therefore producing less CO2. The difficulty with the lean burn Diesel engines is that they either produce soot or NOx, there is a ‘sweet spot’ in operation where both are minimized but not enough to meet regulations.
Consequently a catalytic/reactor system has to be used, VW chose a system which ran in a low pollution mode during testing, but a high efficiency mode during road operation. One reason being that the low pollution mode consumes more urea and they wished to reduce the recharging with urea for consumers.
Phil.
The NOx issue is only pertinent because in the US it revealed the ‘cheating’.
If it makes you happier then substitute ’emissions’ for ‘CO2 emissions’ throughout my post.
Richard
You’re wrong Richard, the ‘cheating’ was to beat the NOx emissions limits not the CO2, it’s what the whole issue is about, CO2 has nothing to do with it! In fact when the ‘defeat mechanism’ was activated to increase NOx the CO2 was lower.
Phil.:
I refer anybody who wants details of your pedantic point to the above post in this thread by Ferdinand Engelbeen and the subsequent posts in the resulting sub-thread.
I stand by my brief explanation of the issue and my statement that said
VW is suffering major repercussions from having made a small legal mistake in complying with legislation while attempting to sell vehicles people want.bold
Richard
I strongly suspect that industry plays along with, lobbies for and welcomes these kind of strict regulatory controls on products.
Major corporations in the EU are heavily involved in the process of setting standards.
Ideally standards should be tough to comply with.
The reason for this, is that their purpose is to exclude certain competitors and entrepreneurs and innovation and new entrants to the marketplace.
Now that VW has revealed a part of the hoax, the goalposts will doubtlessly be moved to allow VW back into the game.
What VW and the German government would have really preferred would have been a mandatory requirement that all cars can pass a “made and tested in Germany” test.
Mazda’s RX-8 was unable to jump through any of these hoops, and was thereby eliminated. Hurrah!!
This is exactly why the strict emissions contest is so keenly needed by the companies which pretend to cooperate:
“The sales of the RX-8 ended in 2010 in Europe after failing to meet increasingly demanding emission standards”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8
P.S. I can’t prove that the above is true. But it is as plausible an explanation as any.
It cuts both ways though and US carmakers more heavily invested in EVs and petrol cars have a strong incentive to push the EPA to throw the book at VW in order to seriously wound or get rid of a pesky competitor. It’s why the German authorities will be eager to show most or all carmakers have been cheating the rules-
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/91132/20151004/it-s-not-just-volkswagen-ford-volvo-renault-other-automakers-defy-eu-emissions-standards.htm
Now compare Exxon’s behavior with that of the insurance industry. They spend millions, to great praise, funding documentaries and promoting and exploiting severe weather threats for the sole purpose of selling more products.
Yet from the link we get ““Our business depends on us being neutral. We simply try to make the best possible assessment of risk today, with no vested interest,” says Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist of Risk Management Solutions (RMS)”
These companies cannot survive unless they are neutral. They know that if they over-estimate risk, it raises the cost of insurance and reduces the amount of insurance sold. That is standard economics. They have zero incentive to over-estimate risk.
Yet they say “But even in the short term, Muir-Wood’s team has determined, the risk of a variety of disasters seems to have already shifted. “The first model in which we changed our perspective is on U.S. Atlantic hurricanes. Basically, after the 2004 and 2005 seasons, we determined that it was unsafe to simply assume that historical averages still applied,”
This is the hard-headed, practical , bottom-line focused world of business, not wooly thinking academics.
seaice:
The hokey you have swallowed is NOT “neutral” but is – as you assert – “the hard-headed, practical , bottom-line focused world of business”.
Higher premiums provide insurance companies with greater income so long as the premiums are not so high as to deter insurance purchases. And hypothetical future risks – such as dangerous man-made global warming – provide an excuse to raise premiums.
There is no evidence of any kind that damages from man-made global warming have occurred. Indeed, in recent decades storms have reduced in number and in severity. So, Muir-Wood’s team is making an assertion to excuse higher premiums when they claim to have determined that the risk of a variety of disasters seems to have already shifted in a manner that would increase future risks.
Richard
You don’t believe the insurance market is competitive then? The only way an insuance company in a competitive market can make money is to asses the risks correctly. If they over-estimate the risks, then they will be undercut by other companies offering lower premiums. This is basic economic stuff and applies to insurance as it does to oranges. Increase the price you reduce the sales. There are such things as market failures, but what has failed in this market to allow some companies to raise the price and increase sales?
If I were running an insurance company and I believed the other companies were selling premiums at an inflated price, I would simply undercut them.
seaice:
Of course I “believe the insurance market is competitive”.
Clearly, you don’t understand how competition works.
What successful businesses do is relevant and what you would do is not.
Price is NOT the only marketing consideration.
Richard
Please explain why the rules of competition would not work as usual in this case then. Why would a company offering lower premiums not attract a greater share of the market and out-compete the competitors?
To help you out, one way this could happen is by a cartel. All insurance companies get together to fix the rates. This establishes effectively monopoly conditions – a well known market failure that results in excess profits and a reduced supply.
Do you think the insurance companies are operating a cartel (which is illegal)? If not, then explain why normal competition would not work.
Otherwise you are left with hand-waving.
Google
Tennessee Governor Phil Breedesn
Volkswagen
TVA power purchase agreement
Silicon Ranch
Nice neat and corrupt
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesgonneau/21701657951/sizes/z/
Corporations know that as long as all companies are hit with the same regulations, they will be able to pass the costs on to the consumer while at the same time reaping the praises of govt and media alike.
Even better, big corporations know that they can absorb the cost of regulations more easily can smaller companies, which puts them at a competitive advantage.
Finally, if they are big enough, they can use their influence to shape regulations to their own advantage. That is, they get hurt less than do their competitors.
To some, this is evidence that corporations have too much influence with govt and regulators. So they seek to write regulations to limit the influence of corporations. The problem is that the same corporations that are currently influencing regulators will have strong influence on the writing of these new regulations.
As long as govt controls the market, the first thing that will be marketed are regulators and regulations.
That’s basic human nature and there is nothing govt can do to change that.
The only solution is to reduce regulations to the point where govt power is no longer worth buying.
I designed the vehicles to operate at maximum efficiency. At a stopped/idle there is no reason for power, so the engine operation was programmed as such. For the acceleration and higher fuel mileage considerations, I programmed the engine operational parameters for maximum efficiency.
We apology for, and deeply regret, the incompetence in not realizing that the government mandated testing methodology would result in an inaccurate representation of the overall (and average) emissions. Our own statistical analysis, although now obviously flawed, showed that we were honestly trying to do the right thing (but no, you can’t review it because you just want to pick it apart)
There was no intent to deceive (and no, you cannot look at any internal e-mails or correspondence).
Now that I think about it, I don’t apologize. If my bosses will just provide with me with more resources and time I will be able to show that there really weren’t any emissions of concern.
My apologies in advance for this lengthy post. There are a number of misconceptions on this thread. Let me try to clear up a few.
There are macro-motives and micro-motives that determine the way the various players act.
Macro-motives are [not a complete list]:
– Regulatory environment as far as CO2 is concerned. This is driven by the European Commission in Brussels and has a direct impact on fuel consumption. The allowable grams of CO2 emissions per kilometer (0.62 miles) are continuously being reduced. In the US this is driven by the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Consumption) standards. It is essentially 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. It goes in the same direction.
– Regulatory environment as far as NOx is concerned. This is driven mainly by the EPA and by the California EPA (and 9 other states aligned with California). EPA rules regarding NOx are much stricter than what Brussels allows, in CA they are even more strict. Europe is planning to play catchup in the NOx field.
– Export markets: how important are they for your national champions and what is their regulatory environment?
– What type of cars does your economy produce in terms of market segment, price, weight, power, desirability?
– What footprint does your auto industry have in terms of employment and contribution to GDP and tax revenue?
Micro-motives are – depending on your rank and responsibility in the organization [not a complete list]:
– How do I get re-elected? This applies to politicians?
– How do I appease my voters with environmental concerns? See #1 above
– How can I get an unelected job in Brussels where I make a ton of money and don’t pay taxes on it? That applies to the European Commission – EC – and their staff.
– How can I accrue the utmost power in my unelected office and expand my budget and staff?
– How can I gain a competitive advantage for the country (not necessarily my own) whose support put me in this position of power, thus guaranteeing their continuing support? That applies to the EU Commissioners.
– How can I keep my shareholders happy and maximize profit? [Any CEO]
– How can I keep the environmentalists off my back? [Management of any corporation]
– How can I build a product that fulfills all safety, environmental, safety, and other requirements and keep the cost so low that we can sell it for a profit.
– How can I make my boss happy and keep my job?
Let me flesh out the above.
Behind the scenes in Brussels there is a war going on between the German automobile industry on one side and the French and the Italians on the other side. The others in Europe are either bystanders or supporters of one side or the other, depending on where the assembly plants and suppliers are located and how they are being bribed with subsidies or political horse trading.
In general the German auto industry is better financed and is driving technological progress based on higher profits and larger scale. France and Italy are trying to drive allowable CO2 emissions per kilometer down because their industry mainly produces small, lightweight, cheap cars with little premium appeal and small profits per unit. Volkswagen and its subsidiaries Skoda and SEAT, not to mention Porsche, Audi, etc. can sell cars with more appeal for a higher price due to higher resale values and better financing options. Lower CO2 emissions means a competitive advantage for the French and Italian OEMs.
There are opportunities for haggling. If your cars on average exceed the allowable CO2 emissions limit on a fleet basis, then there are offsets available based on the number of electric cars and hybrid cars you are selling. How much you can offset is determined by a number of fudge factors negotiated essentially between the governments and the EU Commission. Germany can line up a large number of countries in support based on the large footprint of the German industry in other European countries, but they cannot dictate the rules. Also their own green lobby stabs German industry in the back.
In a way, while pretending to be sensitive to the environment CO2 is merely a battle space for national advantage and for environmental NGOs to extract funds.
Between low CO2 limits in Europe and lower NOx limits in the US, and even lower limits in California and its fellow traveler states :-), VW is caught between a rock and a hard place. The US is an important export market for the German auto industry, not so important for the Italians, and completely unimportant for the French. Outside of Europe the Italian and French auto industry typically sell in markets with less stringent environmental rules.
Now, let’s look at engine technology:
Gas engine: higher CO2 output per km or mile than a Diesel due to lower efficiency than a Diesel. This depends a bit on the operating environment. In general the exhaust temperatures of a gasoline engine are higher than those of a Diesel as less actual energy is extracted for propulsion from the potential energy. Since the higher exhaust temperatures keep the catalytic converter within good operating range a gasoline engine is a better fit for a hybrid, especially a plug-in-hybrid, than is a Diesel. In addition the exhaust treatment is much simpler as you need only a fairly cheap to make catalytic converter that deals mainly with CO (Carbon Monoxide) and UHC Unburned Hydrocarbons. A typical 3-way catalyst only has 1/7th the amount of Platinum of a Diesel and mainly uses a combination of PGM metals (Platinum Group Metals), typically Palladium and Rhodium. Newer lean burn engines with modern turbochargers and engine-transmission controls give you lots of low end torque, a well balanced torque curve, and good fuel mileage.
Diesel engine: lower CO2 output due to higher efficiency and better conversion of potential energy in energy for propulsion, but much higher NOx emissions due to surplus of oxygen, especially so in lean burn mode.
There are some detriments to a Diesel:
– The higher cost of manufacturing Diesel engines as they require tougher specs in engineering.
– The higher cost of the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) due to the amount of Platinum needed to remove CO & UHC.
– Low exhaust temperatures are not beneficial for use in a hybrid as the engine cannot maintain operating temperatures well.
– The necessity of one or two additional exhaust treatment systems to deal with NOx reduction.
THIS LAST ITEM ABOVE IS CRUCIAL IN THIS CONTEXT!
VW was betting on the Clean Diesel technology in the US, betting they could achieve the required emissions targets while making a profit, instead of competing in the Hybrid space. This would have allowed them to spread their R&D and manufacturing costs over a larger number of engines. It would seem that this decision was mainly made by management and that then the engineers were told to make it happen, or else….
There are currently two systems being used to achieve reduction of NOx emissions in a Diesel engine:
– LNT = Lean NOx Trap
– SCR = Selective Catalytic Reduction
LNT functions by running the engine in lean mode (high NOx) for about 30 seconds and storing this exhaust in an adsorption sponge. Then you run the engine in rich mode for about 90 seconds and release the exhaust trapped in the adsorption material using the excess fuel as a reduction agent. This technology does not require a lot of space or cost, but it is limited to engines with a maximum displacement of 2 liters. A disadvantage is the fuel consumption which is higher than if the engine was running in lean mode all the time.
VW installed an illegal defeat device by installing the software that would switch to test stand mode under certain driving parameters. It has been mentioned above that VW made a “small legal error”. Not so! This was a deliberate attempt to deceive. Why they did so and who initiated it and who knew about it and when did they know about it is the question here.
VW could have used the SCR technology, and they do in their 3 liter 6 cylinder engines and in the 2 liter engine in the US version of the Passat. This Passat is much larger than the “Rest of the World Passat” and was specifically developed for the US to compete with the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. SCR works while running the engine in a very fuel efficient lean burn mode all the time. As a reduction agent you inject a urea-water solution, trade name AdBlue among others. However, this requires room for a rather large tank for urea to last you between annual inspections based on an annual usage of 10,000 to 12,000 miles. In my Mercedes ML-320 Bluetec they used the space of the spare tire, which they eliminated to install a 40 liter (10.57 US gal.) tank. This was needed as the filler cap is in the trunk space. As a consumer you do not want to fill this up yourself unless you have great manual dexterity. Hint: it smells really bad if you spill it as the term “urea” implies. There was no external filler cap as the design of the vehicle preceded the SCR implementation. In the US you had a hard time finding the catalytic agent (AdBlue) at gas stations and you don’t want to drive to the car dealer for a fill-up all the time either. That’s why they made the tank so large.
However, putting an SCR catalyst requiring a large tank in a small car is difficult both from a space and cost point of view. In addition, in the older Golf and Jetta models it would have required the redesign of the platform / chassis, a redo of the crash tests and following all attendant federal and state regulations to re-license the vehicle. The cost was prohibitive and one needs to ask oneself the question why they just didn’t forego the sale of Diesels in the US until a new platform specifically designed for SCR and or a new engine design functional with LNT was available.
The newer car designs also have the advantage of external filler caps. You don’t make a mess when you refill. And at least in Europe there is a EU requirement for these external filler caps and the availability of AdBlue / Urea solution at gas stations, at some point even from a pump, just like water or air. This would allow a much much smaller tank for urea and it would open up more design solutions for the car maker.
The SCR emissions treatment had one additional decided disadvantage from the point of view of VW. It suffered from NIH = Not Invented Here. It was a technology mainly developed by Daimler (Mercedes), and VW management apparently, the story goes, hated it. The NIH syndrome is very wide spread, both in business and in government.
It has been mention in an earlier post that most cars exceed allowable NOx limits, and that is true. The driving cycles do not reflect reality. BMW was able to achieve real life NOx emissions much lower than most others. In some vehicle types BMW has implemented a combined LNT & SCR technology, something that may have to come to other vehicles as well in order to meet government mandates. As a manufacturer in the Premium segment of the market BMW can afford to do so. It is a pricey solution, but many BMW buyers want what they want regardless of the price. The same is true for virtually all buyers in this price segment.
The additional cost of exhaust treatment with ever tighter regulations makes it increasingly difficult for the Non Premium brands to compete in the Diesel space. Attempts by local governments, such as the City of Paris, to lower soot and NOx levels show in which direction this is going. And here is a tidbit that probably is surprising to US readers: in the upper reaches of the German Premium brands (Audi A6 & A8, BMW 5 & 7 series, Mercedes E & S Class, Large SUVs) the percentage in Germany sold with a Diesel engine is typically between 80% – 90%. These vehicles are mainly used for business and they give you long range at high speed with great mid-range torque. The increasing efficiency and torque of the newer gasoline engines nibbles away at any Diesel advantages for small cars.
Getting back to Micro-motives and VW engineers. It seems that a fairly small number of VW engineers and executives were involved. The CEO, Mr. Winterkorn, had at some point promised a fleet fuel consumption reduction of 30% until 2020 (I think), and apparently made it clear that this goal was mandatory. He was known not to want to hear the words “it cannot be done”, according to various press accounts. Some managers and engineers in charge of the engine lines were under a lot of pressure to achieve this and it could not be done. So they cheated, maybe to keep their jobs. Talking about a Micro-motive in the larger scale of things.
According to what I have heard a number of other OEMs could not achieve the results published by VW as far as emissions and mileage are concerned. They wondered why VW’s numbers seemed to be so much better. Now they know why, VW cheated.
This puts also a different spin on the events of March of 2015 when Ferdinand Piëch, the then head of VW’s supervisory board, tried to get rid of Mr. Winterkorn, the CEO. Ferdinand Piëch, a grandson of Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, and a man not to be trifled with, and voting more than 25% of the VW shares [the Porsche side of the family controls another 25%], lost the first round of the battle and withdrew from the supervisory board, as did his wife. In hindsight it would seem that this was about the current emissions issue, back then not known by the public but it had to be know by then to VW. Piëch tried to put new management in in order to do some house cleaning and be proactive before this issue reared its ugly head. It certainly would have given them a head-start with the EPA and other players. One can see why he didn’t mention the reason for his displeasure with Mr. Winterkorn back then. Now it is damage repair, but Mr. Piëch looks vindicated at the cost of several billion Dollars of his own fortune . After all, VW shares are trading at about 40% of their 52 week high. But it did give him the opportunity to expand the family’s shareholdings at a better price.
Currently Bosch as a supplier of Diesel fuel injection pumps and software for the ECU (Engine Control Unit) is under pressure by the EPA. Bosch originally supplied the software to VW with the proviso that it must only be used for test purposes and must not be used in an actual engine sold commercially. VW apparently disregarded that.
Getting back to Dr. Tim Ball’s proposition, I don’t think the corporations have much choice when governments tell them they must comply with rules and regulations. Had VW not done so, or pretended to do so, it would not have been able to sell their cars in most markets in the world. The IPCC, wrong or right, plays no role. I am not aware of German government subsidies for VW to weather this storm – VW sits on a large pile of cash and continues to generate profit, but there will be political support. This will have an impact on the fines being assessed by the EPA and others. At THAT point this will be decided between the heads of state/government in a typical horse trading session.
Sorry for the long post! 🙂
There are pollutants reduction mandates and CO2 reduction mandates. Minimising CO2 production minimises fuel consumption, but I wonder what it does to energy consumption overall.
All this added complexity and fragility must have an energy cost. At some point the increase of energy use of the industry must dominate any fuel energy decrease.
Agreed! A very good point. In addition it drives costs and lengthens the replacement cycle. The result is a higher average fleet age as many people push out replacing the old car with a new one.
Many environmentalists consider that a good thing though as making a car also has an environmental impact. I guess you can only make them happy if you kill yourself, insist on a burial in a recyclable cellulose bag, and leave all your money to them, as any other action will have an impact on someone somewhere.
I believe that the powder of firearms is very polluting. After the great war, many soldiers were intoxicated by heavy weapons smoke.
What is the clean way of killing yourself?
I was in tanks. When on maneuvers I found the deep rumble of the engine and the combined smell of gasoline (an old M48 tank with a 24 liter 12 cylinder, 840 hp engine, a veritable Ronson lighter in case of war), steel, oil, spent machine gun and tank ammo, quite intoxicating. Wouldn’t want to be in one in case of war though.
Manfred Schropp:
Thankyou for your very fine post.
My main reason for commenting on your post is to commend people to read it because some skip over long posts and yours deserves attention.
I also write to reply to your saying
I think it is my post(s) that you are disputing. I said
and
What VW did is agreed as being illegal and the illegality is costing VW much so could be considered to be very serious: indeed, every lawyer would consider it to be serious. However, I consider what VW did to be “a small legal mistake with large repercussions for VW” because the vehicle’s actual performance in use is not illegal: it is the automated switching which is illegal because it is assumed to have the intention of “deceiving”.
Richard
Thank you for the compliments and commendation, Richard! I have often noticed your posts and they are always materially contributing to the topic and I pay close attention to them.
I am not a lawyer, but at least in the US, including the People’s Republic of California, where I have the honor of living 100 miles south of our host Anthony, such a defeat device is illegal, automated or not. And that seems to be the main issue here. Now, VW made indeed a small legal mistake in their applications for the 2016 6-cyl. Diesel engines which are all SCR de-NOx’ed. As a result they will likely not be able to sell them soon although they may actually be in compliance with the NOx emissions limits in the US and CA. These cars include all 3 liter Diesel engines of Audi, Porsche, & Volkswagen.
The main problem in terms of numbers of cars produced or sold are the VWs sold with their 2.0 liter Diesel engine in the US. These are almost all LNT de-NOx’ed. Some use SCR, such as the Passat (current generation). What they did there was clearly illegal.
The interesting thing is that with SCR VW didn’t have to cheat, but they may be out of compliance anyway as the ECU may contain code not even applicable or active in the 3 liter engines. The question is did even the engineers know what was in the code that a prior generation of engineers had left them. I assume that the software switch for switching into test mode was not documented at all and that the code was never thoroughly reviewed by internal or external audits. This goes back to about 2007. The current guys may not have known.
In Europe VW also cheated wrt CO2 emissions, even in gasoline engines to meet the gram CO2/km limitations. They did this by inflating tires beyond recommendations (less rolling resistance) and adding Diesel fuel into he motor oil to reduce friction. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THE PUBLIC! This reduced fuel consumption as tested and gave VW a leg up in meeting the European CO2 rules.
The issue is, how good or bad is the internal revision at VW and how could a potentially very small number of people circumvent all these safeguards. BMW seems to have much tougher safeguards in place. A few rogue engineers could not bring the company down like that. Ultimately this comes down to the management culture in the company and if you are in danger of being fired for bringing bad news to your boss. Scuttlebutt has it that at least one manager who dared to speak up to Mr. Winterkorn was fired on the spot. That sends a clear message to all employees via the water cooler messaging system.
Richard and Manfred
I have made a comment a bit below. I do not know enough about what VW did, or what the test regulations are, to form a view on whether VW did something illegal, or not.
It may be that people are jumping to conclusions.
For starters, how does the engine know it is being tested? Does it get feedback from GPS thereby knowing that the car is in a test centre/ Does it have sensors attached to the exhaust, thereby realising that a device is being fitted to the exhaust to measure exhaust gases?
I suspect that the engine does not know that it is being tested, but rather it has a mode of performance that applies when the engine is running in a mode that it would be running in, if it were to be tested.
I suspect that the engine has a different mode of performance if the engine is being operated in conditions that it would encounter when being driven on the roads.
To me, that is something rather different, and not necessarily illegal, but simply good engineering design.
The engine knows exactly when it is being tested (see below for an explanation).
Volkswagen has admitted culpability because they are clearly culpable. This has nothing to do with the ECU adjusting to different load or driving conditions, and it is quite well understood and even allowed that the vehicle will emit more NOx under certain driving conditions. The government agencies, whatever you think of them, do have some connection to reality.
What VW did applies to three different scenarios:
– they admitted to cheating on a small number of cars (they are not entirely sure how many yet, but believe it to be below 100,000) on CO2 emissions to get a better, meaning lower, rating in emitted grams of CO2 per km to meet Brussel’s fleet requirements. This applies essentially only to Europe.
– there are now questions, let’s call them speculations, if the larger Diesel engines equipped with the SCR system (urea solution injection into the exhaust stream) were programmed as advertised. They could theoretically, and we are not sure of it yet, have programmed the ECU so that less urea solution is injected. You can do that also via a test only mode. That way more NOx would have been emitted in real life but the benefit to the customer would have been a money saving through fewer refills of urea solution. This applies to the US, but possibly also to Europe.
– but what VW did was program the ECU specifically so that it had a “defeat device” in cars equipped with LNT de-NOx systems. This is clearly spelled out in EPA guidelines as illegal. This software can recognize when it is being tested because all these tests are performed under certain parameters, just like a SMOG test is at your local station. Except that OEMs self-certify and the EPA tests only a small sample of models.
The ECU will know that it is being tested because some or all of the following conditions are being met:
– the wheels on the axle providing motive force are moving
– the wheels on the non-driven axle are standing still (2WD only)
– the steering wheel is pointing straight but is not being moved
– the diagnostic port is connected to a device
– the engine RPM follow a certain prescribed protocol
– others I am not aware of
What VW did with this “defeat device” is switch to a test only mode. This is specifically significant in Models with a Diesel engine with Lean NOx Trap (LNT) technology. The tests, both US and Europe, are well defined and it is easy to program the ECU to recognize it.
In test mode the engine switches between about 30 seconds or so of lean mode (high NOx emissions) during which the exhaust is adsorbed in a sponge like trap = ergo Lean NOx Trap. Then it switches for about 90 seconds into rich mode, consuming more fuel, but providing via the excess fuel a reduction agent to reduce the NOx being released from the adsorption material.
In non-test mode, i.e. in regular driving mode, these engines emit high NOx levels as the LNT technology is essentially switched off, it would seem, in order to obtain high mileage. It is as if these cars had no de-NOx system at all. These violations apply to the US and also to cars sold in Europe.
richard verney:
It seems that you and I have similar opinions on this matter.
You say
Your suggestion is precisely what I have been trying to say about the engine modes and their operation. Hence, my comment concerning the manual switching of the engine modes of my diesel engined Peugot 308 cc.
But it seems clear that VW has accepted that the automated switching between engine modes is illegal in the US.
As I said
And that fits with your suggestion.
What I call “a small legal mistake with large repercussions for VW” you call “good engineering design” that is “not necessarily illegal”. I think we are both right because it is accepted as being illegal only in the US while no other country has yet claimed it is illegal according to its laws. And that is why I think the explanations provided by Manfred Schropp are so very helpful to understanding.
Richard
Apparently they are not just illegal in the US, but in Europe as well. While NOx levels allowed under European rules are higher than in the US, VW and possibly others (we will find out) are probably also in violation of European rules. Prepare for lower mileage after they have fixed this.
In the US they can fix the 2 liter engines by just changing the programming of the ECU. In Europe they will need to put in new higher pressure fuel pumps into the 1.2 liter and 1.6 liter Diesel engines. The supplier needs to make a few million extra of those first.
Manfred
“Ultimately this comes down to the management culture in the company and if you are in danger of being fired for bringing bad news to your boss.”
An ethics challenge that never goes away.
Guess its been around since the first time somebody first pushed the rock up the hill for the boss.
It is a little different these days as centralized decision making becomes the latest rage in management.
There is the hubris that real time data decision making can save money and improve quality while minimizing that unreliable human element. I guess it will work till it doesn’t.
I think we are witnessing the beginning of that wave.
Amen to that! When will we ever learn?!
Not sure anytime soon.
As an example, today I sat in on an engineering firm describing why they have to overbuilt a project item.
It was already designed to spec, but the insurance company threatened to raise the rates unless the design was overbuilt annnnd of course the bank won’t lend the money unless the insurance is in line. Felt like extortion to me. The lawyers call it the price of doing business in a litigious society. Doesn’t seem very sustainable, but someone up there is making bank and everyone else pays.
Keep your chin up and money in the bank.
Some people (such as Richard Courtney) suggest that VW have acted illegally, but I do not consider that any of us know sufficient background facts to make such claims.
I have not seen the rules and regulations, but I am not sure why what VW did is illegal. I suspect that it was not illegal, but to challenge matters would be bad PR, and to challenge matters would also produce enemies in high places. It may well be that VW have taken a commercial decision not to refute the allegation that they acted illegally, and that is something rather different.
As I understand matters, they designed an engine system that was specifically capable of assessing when the engine was running in a mode that it would be running in, if the engine were to undergo testing, and they specifically designed the engine when running in that mode to comply with test specifications laid down, which test specifications were not said to be applicable in other conditions, but merely assumed by Government Legislation that they would be applicable in other conditions.
And it is not clear to me whether the engine knows that it is undergoing a test, and therefore switches to a different mode/different engine mapping on the ECU. I do not know how the VW system works, but it may simply work on whether the engine is under load, or not.
For example, at tick over, an engine is not under load and may be running at about 800rpm. So it may that the ECU has one profile dealing with circa 800ppm no load characteristic. It may also be that CO2, and other gasses are tested at say 2000 and 3500 rpm, but again when there is no load on the engine. This is the case in the UK when a car undergoes its yearly MOT, it is tested in no load on the engine mode. So again, the ECU may have a different mapping covering a number of different rpms which it applies when there is no load on the engine (and it apples a different map when the engine is under load) .
Indeed one would expect there to be different engine maps which come into play depending on the load on the engine. For example, if the car is doing 30mph downhill and the driver accelerates then a different response is called from the engine than if the car is doing 30mph uphill and the driver accelerates. The optimum air fuel mixture in these two scenarios is different. Likewise the advance of the ignition and if one has variable valve timing, the setting of valve timing and overlap between inlet and exhaust valve timing (the latter only possible with a twin cam engine where each camshaft can be advanced or retarded differently and thereby one can change the inter-relationship between inlet and exhaust valve timing).
With old cars, the carburettor had a number of different jets that came into play, idle jets, slow running jets, fast running jets, accelerator pump jets etc (see; http://www.dellorto.co.uk/product-category/dellorto-car-carburettors-parts/parts/dhla-parts/) and this was designed to cover a range of situations in which the engine may be operated. But is was very much a compromise. modern engines are much more sophisticated and can have tailored responses covering a much wider range of circumstances in which the engine may operate.
Some modern cars, especially performance ones, have different settings that the drive can switch in, touring, fast road, race, full race etc. These alter engine characteristics, suspension, and possibly clutch response and bite etc. Of course, the amount of ‘pollutants’ that the engine puts out, and its consumption, will vary in all these different modes.
But it may be the case that VW have done no more than having a different mapping characteristic which is applicable to no load on the engine demands. This just makes the engine more efficient and better suited to the no load environment in which it is being used. It may be that VW have a different mapping profile that is applicable to different load conditions under which the engine operates. It may well be the case that the Government tests are carried out in no load conditions such that one set of mapping is produced whereas in real world operating conditions, ie., when the car is driven on the road, the engine is not being operated in no load mode and hence a different set of mapping is being used by the engine when actually being driven on the road, but on the road performance is not the scenario being tested.
That all sounds rather sensible to me and may indicate that VW have not done anything illegal, merely that they have designed the engine to operate as efficiently as possible in the appropriate loading conditions that the engine encounters.
richard verney:
I have answered your point in response to your earlier post above, and my response is here.
VW accepts that its action is illegal in the US and the conclusion of my response to you says
Richard
“VW accepts that its action is illegal in the US and the conclusion of my response to you says …”
Locked into one and ONLY one possible scenario again are we?
_Jim:
You quote me and ask me
No. I stated a fact and not any “scenario”.
And to what do you refer when you say “again”? Or are you merely providing untrue smearing inference?
Richard
Richard
I noticed that Jim has a pattern
1. He promotes distracting and convoluted logic in an effort to minf__k the listener.
2. When annoyed, he succumbs to an air of intellectual arrogance.
3. When confronted with an inconvenient fact, he claims ignorance and plays a hide and seek making you lay it out. He does this to bring you back to item number one.
The pattern is very common among the CAGW shapeshifters.
And it is not clear to me whether the engine knows that it is undergoing a test, and therefore switches to a different mode/different engine mapping on the ECU. I do not know how the VW system works, but it may simply work on whether the engine is under load, or not.
My understanding is that the on-board computer determines that it is under test when the drive wheels are turning and the other wheels are not, and there is no input to the steering wheel.
You’ve not seen the ‘code listing’, so how are we so cock sure?
Volkswagen’s deception was a self-deception because with some of the best engineers and scientists, they chose to accept the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I’m not sure that it is a case of VW ‘accepting’ anything.
Regardless of ‘acceptance’ or otherwise within VW, they have no choice. ‘Standards’ become progressively tighter at the behest of the bureaucrats and VW have no choice but to comply if they wish to continue making vehicles.
I really don’t think that VW will be found to have been alone in ‘fudging’ results. As the demands become increasingly impossible to meet, more manufacturers will ‘fudge’ results. They have no choice. If you are already pushing the limits of what is possible, and no doubt VW are, then two choices face you … Fudge the results or get out of the business.
3×2, I mostly agree with you.
There are all kinds of things that are possible technologically if cost is no issue. But are they feasible within certain defined cost parameters? Less likely.
The continuing tightening of NOx standards will make it impossible for small, typically low margin, cars to be equipped with a Diesel engine. Besides the cost it is also a question of space for all that equipment. The Diesel engine will be replaced with small gasoline engines that are turbocharged, possibly in a hybrid or mild hybrid configuration. Be prepared to see a lot of 3-cylinder engines, and even some all electric cars.
In the bigger vehicles, especially those with Premium appeal, you may see Diesel engines with both LNT and SCR technology. You pay a higher price as a consumer, but if you want range and torque you pay for it.