Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The Wall Street Journal published an excellent article further exposing the climate alarmist political idiocy behind Germany’s growing dieselgate scandal where diesel engine powered vehicles were falsely portrayed and promoted as environmentally superior to combustion engine powered vehicles.
As the WSJ article noted:
“Switching to diesel from gasoline, the monumental regulatory effort launched by the European Union in the late 1990s, ended up delivering only thimbles-full of avoided greenhouse pollution compared to competing gasoline engines. But it made the air in European cities significantly less breathable thanks to diesel particulates and nitrogen oxides.
Yet there has been no inclination to question the cost-benefit basis of the anti-carbon crusade. Instead, Europe is doubling down by forcing car makers to build electric cars, while Der Spiegel is trying to shift the blame for the diesel experiment’s failure to alleged anticompetitive actions by German car makers.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was busy trying to distance herself from her role in creating this debacle by claiming that the car industry threw away “incredible public trust” and that it was their job to “win it back” thereby pretending that these problems that were entirely manufactured by German climate alarmist politicians belong solely to industry.
The WSJ article exposes how the German press have disguised and obfuscated the fact that politically mandated commitments to meaningless CO2 emissions reductions have driven the industry’s great green disaster.
“The prominent German magazine Der Spiegel has spent much of the summer hoarsely condemning VW, BMW , Audi , Mercedes and Porsche.
First it accused them of running an illegal cartel because they cooperated in meeting certain technical obligations related to Europe’s mandated insistence on diesel vehicles. In installment two, the magazine accused them of besmirching the reputation of “Made in Germany” in the eyes of the world.
Never mind that such besmirching is hardly obvious from record global sales lately of BMW and Mercedes cars.
Also missing from the magazine’s 9,000-word diatribe is a recognition that Germany’s dieselgate and associated scandals arise entirely from European politicians’ politically-correct pursuit of meaningless reductions in CO2.”
“Once politicians and regulators decided to make diesel the star of their fake climate show, they turned to providing loopholes to ensure their cars remained marketable.
VW’s behavior (as uncovered by U.S. regulators) was egregious, programming its engine software to draw on the AdBlue tank only when its car was on a test-bed for regulators seeking to confirm (wink, wink) that its emissions were OK.
Except it has now become clear that other car makers engaged in similar cheating, including some that could not be part of any German cartel because they weren’t German.”
“All this, we repeat, so Europe’s politicians could pretend to be doing something about global warming.”
The WSJ article suggests that this entire climate alarmist driven political diesel swindle will simply be swept under the rug to promote yet more politically driven escapades pushing EVs as the answer to making further car industry meaningless CO2 emissions reductions in support of climate alarmism idiocy.
“Now comes a new chapter. How will the public-relations damage be apportioned between carmakers and the political class over a grotesque boondoggle? Don’t be surprised when this scandal is swept imperceptibly toward the memory hole once Ms. Merkel has been safely returned to office, as every poll suggest she will.”
“Why? Because, from Berlin to Beijing to Sacramento, Calif., governments are already engaged in a new and even more implausible magic act: How to preserve their car industries and jobs while simultaneously mandating that car makers produce electric vehicles that can only be sold to the public at a steep loss in a world where oil is $50 a barrel and gasoline engines continue to make impressive efficiency gains.”
“In short, a car wreck is coming that will make dieselgate look like a fender bender.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How can a diesel engine be superior to a “combustion engine” when it is, itself, an internal combustion engine? The difference is that a diesel engine ignites the diesel fuel by heat of compression rather than by an ignition device such as a spark plug and that it uses diesel fuel rather than gasoline.
There are more and more substantial differences. Diesels always burn in oxygen excess,for one. Diesel fuel has has more energy per mass. Diesel fuel is less complicated of infrastructure and less expensive to refine for use.
Ignorance can be cured, but if it was easy then everyone might do it.
Doug Huffman
I was not comparing the differences between the engines, but pointing out the simple fact that a diesel engine IS a “combustion engine”. I don’t know to whom you are referring as “ignorant”, but I take your insinuation as such.
Yes Don, that glaring error jumped out me too. Note that steam engines would also be included since he forgot the word “internal” as well.
Doug’s point is valid that “carbon” was not the only reason for using diesel engines. They give more miles per gallon and are inherently more efficient due to the elevated compression ratio.
Don’t be fooled by the PM2.5 hullabaloo, it’s just a follow on from “carbon”. The real aim is attack any fossil fuelled vehicle and they will produce whatever “science” is necessary to justify doing that.
Diesels burn an excess of air not oxygen, hence the NOX produced. Fixed it for you.
Ironically, as the text says, Diesel emits particulates and nitrogen oxides. I’m not sure how lethal the oxides are, but I do know that the main particulate of diesel is simply free carbon, or simply soot.
I don’t think CO2 is a dangerous gas, but floating particulates of carbon or soot most certainly damage ones lungs etc.
In fact soot emissions are a definite danger to ones health, but are seemingly conveniently ignored!
Excuse me “cough” “cough” “cough” “cough” “cough” “cough” “cough”
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Don is right, of course. The comparison is between Diesel and Otto engines, both of which are combustion engines. There are others (Wankel, OPOC, etc.).
You get more mechanical energy from a fuel when you achieve a higher temperature. Diesel uses a higher temperature, so it is more fuel-efficient. On the other hand, as long as you burn in the air a higher temperature creates more nitrogen oxides.
” The comparison is between Diesel and Otto engines”
HUH? So Otto Diesel invented two types of engine: one called Otto engine and the other called a diesel engine.
Could you outline the main differences for us please?
“You get more mechanical energy from a fuel when you achieve a higher temperature. ”
The increased efficiency comes from an increased compression ratio. This is what determines the theoretical maximum efficiency determined by the Carnot cycle.
Diesel’s first name was Rudolf, not Otto … I hope that clears things up 😉 Seriously, the Otto engine is the one with spark plugs and regular gasoline, and the Diesel is the one without spark plugs and ignition by compression. To avoid premature ignition, it uses fuel with a higher flash point, i.e. Diesel fuel.
Oh, I never noticed that Carnot cycle was about compression. Never too late to learn 😉
The best way to avoid premature ignition is a precise timing of fuel injection.
Greg,
Greg on August 27, 2017 at 11:18 am
” The comparison is between Diesel and Otto engines”
HUH? So Otto Diesel invented two types of engine: one called Otto engine and the other called a diesel engine.
___________________________________
Sure you know Diesel invented the Diesel machine after
Otto developed the Otto engine.
Hyundai has apparently come up with a much more efficient gasoline engine that uses compression instead of sparks. I believe 2019 is year the first model will hit the market.
Actually it’s Mazda who developed the superior engine. They do not plan to license the technology to other manufacturers.
Almost all small(<2.5 l) engines now use turbocharging and some variant of the Atkinson cycle along with direct injection. The turbo charging makes up for the Atkinson cycle's lower power at low revs.
They are finding now that direct injection in gasoline also causes much increased particulates like a diesel. I don't think that is on EPA's radar yet.
The high tech, high power small engines also can have new problems. The early 4cylinder Eco Boost engines had a problem with the EGR system design that caused buildup of varnish inside the engine, sometimes requiring a complete rebuild or replacement.
I believe they are using a hybrid version. It will use both compression and a spark plug to control the sweet spot where the explosion happens in the cylinder. and yes, I it is Mazda
Here’s the link to my August 19 comment in the ROAD TRIP / Open Thread thread describing the Mazda innovation in some detail (followed by four comments by others on the topic):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/19/road-trip-2/#comment-2585831
I don’t fully understand it, but diesels typically can and do run at much higher compression ratios than Otto cycle engines. 20:1 vs maybe 10:1. That results in greater efficiency. More work out from the same amount of heat energy produced.
Maybe someone who has a better grasp on this can explain it clearly or link to some site that does.
The efficiency of a combustion engine such as these goes with the 3/2 power of the compression ratio. Higher compression ratio also produces higher expansion; more energy is extracted by more expansion. You get more out than you put in because you compress the gas cold and expand it hot. All heat engines, internal combustion or external combustion (Rankine, Brayton, Stirling) engines included. BUT, peak temperatures are higher with higher compression. At these higher temperatures, oxides of nitrogen are more common, and it’s these that are the bane of diesels. This also means that hydrogen burning engines will make as much NOx as a gasoline (spark ignition) or Diesel (compression ignition) engine at the same compression ratio.
It’s the nitrous oxide emissions N2O, that become the real pollutant instead of the fake CO2 “pollutants”.
Higher compression means the air will reach the ignition point of gasoline earlier in the compression stroke and will combust too early. That can result in holes in pistons and other engine destroying badness.
The more volatile gasoline detonates at a much lower pressure than diesel fuel, a light oil. This means they are inherently less efficient in converting chemical energy to kinetic energy.
This was the reason for the lead additives in gasoline , it allowed running at a slightly higher compression ratio.
Obviously, high compression engines need to be carefully designed, and accurate valve timing and lift is imperative, if the engine is not to be come damaged, and good quality high octane fuel is required.
That said, high compression engines are nothing new. I have a 48 year old Lancia with 11.5:1 compression. It was meant to run on 102 octane, but of course that is no longer available. Back in the 1960s, an 8 or 8.5:1 compression was typical running on 95 or 97 octane.
I recall reading that the higher the compression the more NOX is produced, and that is why diesels are singled out.
It’s not the compression ratio which matters but the expansion ratio. That’s where the Atkinson cycle (as used by Mazda) wins. Compression ratio has to be limited to avoid detonation and other problems. In the Atkinson cycle compression doesn’t start until the inlet valve closes, which it does part way up the compression stroke. Once the piston reaches the top the fuel mixture is ignited and expansion continues all the way down the whole of the stroke until the exhaust valve opens. It’s the much greater expansion which makes the Atkinson cycle more efficient.
Diesels compress only air so preignition cannot happen. Direct injection gasoline engines are similar during low load demands. Full power in GDI engines injects some fuel into intake air but less than lower flammability point 1-2% by mass.
I, also, don’t understand. If a diesel engine requires twice the compression of a petrol engine, is not some (or most) of the extra power developed absorbed by the need for the reciprocal cylinder/s to force the compressing cylinder to the higher ratio? Just a thought.
I am a bit out of touch with the latest technology, re- Petrol engines but was taught at college that the higher efficiency of Diesel (35% rather than 25%) was due to the controlled injection of fuel directly into the combustion chamber, allowing CONTROLLED combustion and higher compression with no risk of pre-ignition (as in Petrol). In Petrol engines the fuel enters the cylinder ready mixed, by injection or carburettor before the inlet valves. resulting in an uncontrolled ignition cycle (apart from the timing of course). If the compression is too high in petrol, Pinking (pre ignition) is the result.
ATTENTION !!!
German Government has banned the use in Germany of gasoline or diesel internal combustion engines by 2030 !
This law refers to ” INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES !! ” trains,trucks ships, etc
oh how stupid BUT, you get what you voted for.
So external combustion engines must be still lawful, there are going to be some serious steam powered vehicles on the road. Burning oil, coal even wood as electric semi’s would be less than useful.
Obviously, some journalists cannot differentiate between the various cycles for converting heat into work and confuse internal combustion engines for Otto cycle engines, instead of noting which internal combustion engine is an Otto cycle, Diesel cycle, Miller cycle, Atkinson cycle, or Brayton cycle.
As the internal combustion engine in most passenger cars is an Otto cycle engine it is an understandable and forgivable error to think that internal combustion engines refer to gasoline powered vehicles and diesel engines are something else.
It is still an error though.
I still think that we should have fuel cells that run on hydrocarbons before we force car manufacturers to stop selling new internal combustion engined cars, so we can refuel our fuel cells AND continue to drive legacy vehicles. If Greyhound or a large trucking fleet operator experimented with hydrocarbon fuel cells, saw the potential savings, and voiced a desire to deploy more of them, they could generate a lot of support from truck stop operators who could support hydrocarbon fuel cells at a much lower cost than adding battery storage and swapping facilities (there being no other practical way for long haul trucking to go electric-only).
Common sense once again lacking. If you are stuck behind a badly maintained diesel vehicle it is an extremely unpleasant and and unhealthy experience. If a diesel powered vehicle is driven for short journeys only the Diesel Particulate Filter will not regenerate and the life of the vehicle will be a lot shorter than it should be and it will be more polluting.
So what have UK and France just announced they will do by 2030 ? well ban sales of all new diesel CARS. and leave an exceptions for buses and trucks.
IMO the risk from a well maintained, modern diesel car is just a fictitious as the CO2 problem.
There are other political motives behind this, it is nothing to do with pollution.
Sorry Greg but….
The Governments want to ban new cars powered by petrol and diesel engines from 2040.
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/motoring-issues/2017/uk-to-ban-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2040/
&
https://www.ft.com/content/7e61d3ae-718e-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9
Good article. This situation is one of the best examples of what happens when scientific reality is replaced by a politically motivated regulatory- and subsidy-defined regime. We seem genetically predisposed to bite the hand that feeds us (in this case the motor industry) rather than valuing and celebrating it. A similar Alice in Wonderland scenario is being played out in the power generation industry, and our economies will soon be nosediving into bankruptcy.
~That is real objective of the greeny zealots. They think they can destroy capitalism by shouting about CO2. They have not stopped to think what will then fund the welfare services of which they are so fond.
Sure they have. They’ll just print more money. Easy.
Green control of the EU media seems pretty secure. You’d assume they’d hear a counterpoint from the USA/Global media, but that’s been taken care of as well. How long does it take the average person to realize that they’re being continually lied to?
It became obvious to me about 10 years ago.
Another reason I voted to leave te EU, as well as much of the above on energy in general. We need to get engineering and science fact driving our econolmy or we are doomed to the 3rd World future the brureaucrats in Brussels are imposing on the technicaly ignorant groupthink masses of the continent, and the UK while we stay and our government is in Brussels.. Good luch with real science denying religion as the basis for the EU enrgy policy, in every aspect. The US will wake up now Trump the Barbarian has allowed the decit to be questioned, the UN money that pays to pseudo scientist priests for profit will reduce, and the 3rd World ain’t stupid and will use, is using as they find renewables funded with “aid” can’t work as advertised. They will use what works from Russia or CHina to catch up with the complecent and undeserving populations in the 1st World – who support all this real energy science denying nonsense and deny the facts of how they became developed. etc. You can’t fix stupid, in the is case bureacrats in Brussles and the scientific illiterati of the developed world’s liberal elites. etc.
Put another way. We chose to do those things, not because they were easy, but because they were hard, and only high energy proven science could deliver prosperity. Then forgot how economicsuccess is driven in 2 generations of lazy minded mass populist democracy, run by bureaucrats who think the laws of physcs can be changed by subsidy and their laws, and oppose the truth whenever it appears…
I remember being told by a post doctoral fellow in the Chemical Engineering Department of Imperial College that inhaling a lungful of diesel particulates was as carcinogenic as smoking a packet of cigarettes. That was in 1976 and he was German. They knew then.
Well in fairness Diesel engines did get cleaner since then – they just aren’t going to be as clean as an Otto engine.
A lot depends on how well the engine is maintained. Where I live, many school buses emit a nice plume of black soot, right into the faces of the waiting children, and nobody cares. Just cleaning up those old stinkers would do more for public health than the whole hassle of regular emission testing for passenger cars.
Michael Palmer – August 27, 2017 at 5:57 am
The above is a true fact for just about every Public School facility in the US of A that uses diesel powered School Busses.
But don’t let anyone get caught “smoking” a cigarette on school property, especially while at the same time breathing in the black soot and other carcinogenic content of the diesel exhaust ……. because they will surely be arrested, expelled, fined, defamed, etc., for being a perpetrator of such a dastardly deed that endangers the lives of other students and school employees.
Or vaping that hideous greenhouse gas, water vapor.
Samuel Cogar
Just to prevent another wave of fake refugees from the U.S.: I live in Canada, and it’s the same up here.
It is not the soot, it is the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, hideously carcinogenic. Benzene and its fellows, indeed, hold your breath if you can smell Diesel exhaust, and avoid it as soon as possible.
You can suck up more benzene at filling stations than when a vehicle passes you. I understand that benezene is collected at the pump in CA via a special filler nozzle.
The soot and the PAH are correlated – incomplete combustion produces both. The soot is visible, the PAH are not.
Benzene is not good for you, but polycyclics like benzpyrene are a lot worse. You don’t those from uncombusted gasoline.
“inhaling a lungful of diesel particulates was as carcinogenic as smoking a packet of cigarettes. That was in 1976 and he was German. They knew then.”
They knew what? A lungful of diesel particulates nor a pack of cigarettes will cause cancer – just don’t make a habit of it.
Steve Milloy has shown quite clearly that fine particulates, while unpleasant, are not dangerous.
What on earth is a “a lung full of diesel particulates” supposed to mean? If you lungs are full of soot you are dead. No need to wait for cancer.
Are they saying sucking on an exhaust pipe you get more noxious particles than smoking , possibly, but who does that?
This is designed to read like you will get more pollution at the side of the road than by smoking and that is BS. It imprecise wording designed to mislead. Just like most enviro propaganda these days.
Steve Milloy has shown quite clearly that fine particulates, while unpleasant, are not dangerous
Hmm, I learned back in the day that the invisible fine particulate emissions from coal fired power plants stacks using scrubbers with no bag houses attached were indeed the main health issue, not the visible stack emissions. This was fully acknowledged by the power companies we were doing research for.
https://junkscience.com/2017/08/smoke-choked-seattle-not-experiencing-more-asthma-cases/
YUP, the anti-cigarettes – tobacco wackos have known for years that the inhaling of diesel exhaust is a far worse health hazard to young children and senior citizens than is inhaling smoke from burning plant biomass, to wit:
@ur momisugly Greg – August 27, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Greg, don’t you realize that iffen the inhaling of the smoke from burning plant biomass was actually dastardly dangerous to human health and/or their life expectancy, ….. then the species of Great Apes known as humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) would never have survived their post-discovery and use of fire for cooking their food and keeping themselves warm.
Most young people have forgotten or never learned the “FACT” that, ….. up until the early part of the 20th Century, ……. 98% of the worlds’ population of humans were still inhaling copious amounts of “smoke” most every day of their lives, …… that resulted from their burning of dead biomass.
Those that live in the country and smoke have the same chance of getting lung cancer as people who live in a city and do not smoke. Those are the statistics so something in cities causes it.
What the public is told to insure that “Cash Cows” are not killed ….. is not the same as what the medical professionals know to be factual, ……. to wit:
Simon
Your post doc friend was pulling your leg. No one had any idea what effect diesel exhaust was compared with cigarette smoke 40 years ago. Even now, there is very little data, even for limited population cohorts, for PM exposure.
Claims for health impacts are based on a concatenation of six models with numerous heroic assumptions, including the questionable assertion that all PM2.5 is equally toxic regardless of source. And here the guy is saying diesel is worse. That conflicts with the EPA’s assumption of equitoxicity. Well, which is it?
The recent unmasking of the fraudulent lung disease papers, that fake data scandal, on mouse lungs and particulates a few months ago only adds to the confusion. They got millions of grant dollars to produce ‘the right’ evidence. Turns out you can buy the right evidence without conducting any experiments. Who knew.
Quite: further debunking of the anti-diesel hysteria here:
http://euanmearns.com/mortality-from-diesel-car-pollution-in-the-uk/
and here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/follow-up-to-air-pollution-scare-story/
and here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/claims-of-40000-deaths-from-air-pollution-debunked-by-death-statistics/
Well now, ya’ll, ….. the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) ……. disagrees with your claims about diesel exhaust.
You can read all about @ur momisugly https://oehha.ca.gov/air/health-effects-diesel-exhaust
Crispin… – Right on about the PM2.5 ‘issue’. There is a HUGH difficulty in determining exactly what PM2.5 IS! There is a clue in the definition – ‘PM’ stands for pico meters – very very small particles so small they can barely be collected and once they are, are very hard to determine what chemicals they are made of. And THEN, it must be shown (in the scientific world, not the climate world) that is is THOSE chemicals, in THOSE sizes which cause demonstrable damage to a specific population. So far the regulators who write the rules are ASSUMING that because they can be found, they are BAD, in ANY amount. That assumption has not been validated.
The Mazda folks recently announced they have a compression ignited gasoline engine near commercialization so we can finally have the best of both worlds. Thank goodness. I sleep better now.
For DECADES, the world’s underground mining industry has been actively involved in research aimed at cleaning up diesel engine exhausts.
Breathing in the nasties in the middle of a city is one thing, but the confines of an underground mine are infinitely worse.
The last time I was underground in a mine where diesel engines were used, the exhaust was bubbled up through a water bath. The mine manager – then in his 80s – assured us that this was a perfectly safe practice.
“But it made the air in European cities significantly less breathable thanks to diesel particulates and nitrogen oxides.”
But did it – or is that just another lie? Certainly in the UK (no reason any other European city would be any different), all these ‘harmful’ substances continued to fall in the likes of London according to official gov. stats. It was 1998 that Labour started to promote diesel cars in the UK.
Even stats. for individual pollution hotspot roads in various UK cities only show a leveling off in recent years, not any real increase – but this is explained away as ‘it should have decreased’ because traffic has declined! Again an assertion without proof or consideration of other sources.
The reason we are failing limits is because the limits have been lowered, not because pollution has increased!
The demonisation of diesel was and is just another carefully coordinated campaign by the same eco-loons behind the CAGW scam. They realised the warming/weather scare wasn’t working so they decided to shift the narrative to your fossil fuel use is poisoning your/your neighbours’ children.
MrGrimNasty
“The demonisation of diesel was and is just another carefully coordinated campaign by the same eco-loons behind the CAGW scam.”
On 81 roads, of the thousands, in the UK.
And I’ll wager at least half of those are in the London & surrounding areas.
So the country is, once again, dictated to by the urbane Westminster elite.
“The demonisation of diesel was and is just another carefully coordinated campaign by the same eco-loons behind the CAGW scam. ”
Exactly. Thanks for the graph.
The inmates are running the asylum.
what’s the surprise?
Legalistically, I don’t see the problem. The politicians said “these are the tests your car must pass”, and the automakers produced cars that passed them. Then everybody cries foul when the law of unintended consequences bites them.
And the unintended consequences bite a lot of more caremakers, not alone Mercedes and VW. In Germany there was a real test on the street and in that test, Mercedes and VW lied both on the best places, while Fiat, Chrysler, Ford and Toyota diesels are at the last places. This reminds me very much of the spell “holding the thief”. Just because VW and Mercedes (also Audi and Porsche) can not meet the idiotic political requirements (even with the latest diesels, even if they are cleaner) with diesel, but other countries have not even done the implementation of the guidelines, The German Michel is a pioneer in the fulfillment of political guidelines (if it is a question of fulfillment or idiotic), and falls on the nose again. I am personally sorry for the good Mr. Liang, who has been sentenced to four years of imprisonment (he has two children and a wife) Obviously there are still Obama’s accomplishments in the US courts, because the sentence was even higher than the prosecutor’s request.
Mr Liang knew that he was doing wrong. Shoulda thought about wifie and kids before committing a crime.
When caught, the politicians typically tell you to “do as I intended, not as I say.” They never claim responsibility for what they say or do.
When caught they claim they were merely incompetent. Time to move forward, etc.
The tests and the acceptance values have always been based on testing representative pre production models in production configuration – is a specific engine together with a specific transmission, etc. The test results were then extrapolated using arbitrary and hopefully representative start/stop and power cycles to arrive at a FLEET wide limit of the pollutant (as defined by the regulation) over the ASSUMED life of the vehicle. As long as the numbers were below the acceptance value the car passed.
There were/are NO regulatory requirements for further qualification tests after production was begun. Only limited tests on production vehicles are required. This protocol was known ahead of time therefore some (all?) of the manufacturers designed their vehicles to pass the tests and ALSO designed features that would make the cars more attractive to the buyers ie power, mileage etc. These buyer features were carefully fitted to the vehicle with due regard for meeting the letter – if not the intent – of the rule.
Ms. Merkel has now said that she wants to phase out combustion engines altogether. No date yet, but that will be supplied once she wins the election and negotiates a coalition government with the Green party. Madness.
I would also say, however, that industry leaders have shown too little backbone and not spoken with one voice about this. Each time one of them tried to raise this issue with the government and the public, someone from the competition would cozy up and assure them of their undying commitment to the green cause.
Germany has a date of 2030, after which only electric vehicles can be sold; the Netherlands starts in 2025 and the UK and France in 2040.
Shame that the IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute study came after these decisions; it shows that the CO2 released during manufacture of an electric car (lithium ion) battery are equivalent to 8 years driving a normal car – If 50% renewable energy is used to manufacture the battery. (15 – 20 tonnes of CO2 from each Tesla battery)
Calculations based on the IVL research and UK statistics show that in 2048 the switch to electric vehicle only will have Increased UK CO2 emissions by between 18% and 37% over 2015 levels. That is without finding the power generation for these ….
But when you look at the Paris Climate Agreement which allows for a 46% Increase in global CO2 emissions by 2030 (India Trebling and China Doubling theirs) then you have to ask if, apart from the propaganda, there is any concern at all about CO2 levels ……….. smoke and mirrors
Yes, and don’t forget, Merkel has pushed the phase-out of nuclear electricity generation, and building new coal burners. This means that the electric cars will be recharged with coal power, not exactly the best way to reduce CO2 emissions (if you care), and she says she cares.
Somehow, I don’t think Elon’s battery factory isn’t going to shut down on cloudy days when the wind isn’t blowing. (cue: mental image of hundeds of workers lounging about in the cafeteria drinking soft drinks and watching a giant videa screen tuned to The Weather Channel hoping for environmentally sound power to come back on line.).
But, heck, I’m wrong sometimes.
Germany has no death line für gasoline and diesel. Link for this please. Only the green party ( staying at time by 9 % of the voters) wants this deathline to be sure. France has also no deathline. They (France) has great car manufacurers. Only GB with only marginal car manufacturers has a deathline for diesel and gasoline, but not for hybrid cars.
Hans-Georg
The dates above for Germany, France, the Netherlands and the UK have been widely reported in UK press.
No, Old England. There you have a misunderstanding ( or the newspapers you read) . As far as I know, UK is the only (still) EU country to issue seriously (?) such a deathline, in France it was the new enviromental minister at the beginning of July to came out with a 2040 death line. But since then many water had flowed down the Seine. Macrons Poll is down by 36 Percent, and you hear nothing more over this death line. Also the french car- industrie is opposite this Announcement. It was a simple “Quick shot”. In Germany, it was today that Merkel herself explained in a talk on Sunday (Sonntagsgespräche) that the diesel is still indispensable for several decades. What then in the year 2100, be, what developments there then are, is not yet to be seen yet!!! ” So nothing more with the goal for e-cars, after she had realized that these are by no means accepted by the German car drivers. So she went to the knees before the car industry and the car drivers. One week ago, I read a statement from a KIT (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) researcher on diesel motors. He said the diesel has even a great future. Firstly because of the lower fuel consumption compared to gasoline cars and secondly because of the greater power development by l/ fuel. The problem could be solved at shorttime with urea over the entire service life of the engine and in the medium term some engine additions were planned, which made the diesel even cleaner. In addition, the German diesel are the cleanest, in an ADAC test it was the foreign models, which had the most NOx outporing: https://www.produktion.de/nachrichten/unternehmen-maerkte/das-sind-die-diesel-hersteller-mit-dem-hoechsten-nox-ausstoss-101.htm
The diesel pollutant as a fine dust producer has been abandoned, as scientific studies have shown that the diesel in Germany contributes a total of only 21 percent to this problem. And in this case, all old diesel engines without particulate filters, which are gradually replaced, are also included.
This was a bad link, i hope this is better: http://www.kfz-betrieb.vogel.de/adac-test-stickoxid-ausstoss-bei-importeuren-besonders-hoch-a-635689/
To Dan no longer in CA: ” Merkel has pushed the phase-out of nuclear electricity generation, and building new coal burners”. Maybe that Merkel is looking beyond 2050. With present consumption, the oil and gas reservoirs are finished by 2060. Then there is only coal left from the fossil fuel family. In the name of green energy, the Germans are building a huge capacity for coal fired power plants. When the other countries do not know, what to do, Germans have the old faithful coal energy.
But coal can be gasified to provide liquid fuel for ICEs. It was done in WWII in Germany.
This is not solely a question of co2 policy – diesel engines are simply the best for larger and heavier cars. The petrol alternatives to the TDI engine in our 7-seat Volkswagen simply aren’t good enough.
“VW’s behavior (as uncovered by U.S. regulators) was egregious, programming its engine software to draw on the AdBlue tank only when its car was on a test-bed for regulators seeking to confirm (wink, wink) that its emissions were OK.”
Well, in the case of our car it certainly wasn’t that bad, it used a LOT of AdBlue also before it got the updated software.
Clearly, your fault for having kids.
/Sarc
Damn greens are socialists who don’t understand who will be paying for their retirement.
Exactly. I have an Audi Q7 turbo diesel that is absolutely fantastic. It has gobs of torque, gets 30 MPG on the highway. It also seems to run exceptionally cleanly, no visible emissions ever, no diesel exhaust smell either. Never mind all about though, it’s caught up in the ridiculous Audi emissions scandal, and has to be retrofitted with some additional emissions control.
Med Bennett
I have just sold my 2014 Mercedes E Class, 220CDi estate. Fantastic car. Returned 40 MPG when cruising at 95 MPH.
The tragedy of all this London centric hysteria about diesel is that diesel DERV’s are around 25% more efficient than their petrol engined equivalents. In essence, the human race burns 25% less fossil derived crude oil. 25% less is manufactured (petrol refinement is a more costly exercise than diesel refinement) and there is 25% less transported across the globe. DERV’s themselves carry 25% less than petrol engined vehicles, which reduces their weight, increasing efficiency.
In any other environment other than inner cities, Euro 6 compliant vehicle emissions of any type are inconsequential. And in inner cities the main emitter of noxious substances are domestic heating systems, the worst being the now trendy wood burning stove yet this is accepted as a credible means of climate change mitigation.
Hot Scott: Diesels get 25% more miles on a volume of fuel than gasoline engines. About 40% of that is due to diesel fuel being higher density than gasoline. The remainder is due to higher thermodynamic efficiency, created by higher compression ratios. The tradeoffs are weight, noise, NOx, and particulates. The flip sides are fuel quality, and improvements in Otto cycle compression ratios.
Med Bennet
You should consider a (gasoline) BMW – my 2017 BMW 540i turbo gasoline engine is absolutely fantastic. It has gobs of torque, 0-60 4.7 sec, gets 30 MPG on the highway. Obviously It has no diesel exhaust, or smell…
Javert, 30 MPG on the highway is not bad for a petrol car, but when driving on highways with speed limits our VW 7-seater diesel often manges more than 40 MPG. And even for Autobahn trips it never goes below 30 MPG. And no, there’s no visible exhaust and no bad smell 🙂
And just think, oil will be at 30 dollars. Deja vu all over again..
This article is predicated on the belief that government can be wrong.
I reject the belief that electric cars are/are not superior on the basis of emissions. I consider emissions a minor (and not entirely clear) issue.
That WSJ graph is totally obsolete , not to mention incredibly simple-minded – using battery costs versus gasoline costs as the only criteria of cost of ownership. What the graph SHOULD indicate is the current battery prices for EVs, produced by LG (GM) or Tesla. NOT some “estimate., which displays a cost of $275 per kWhr, a figure that should evoke uproarious laughter amongst the battery engineers of those two companies. As of a couple months ago, GM issued information concerning their Bolt EV and stated that they are paying $150 per kWhr for batteries for the current year (it wasn’t clear if that was just for the cells, or for the whole battery pack). A few weeks later, Tesla chimed in and stated that they are spending $190 per kWhr for their battery packs, but that included all of the paraphrenalia (cooling system etc) , not just the battery cells.
Tesla further stated that they expect to reduce battery costs by a third when their gigafactory gets rolling at full speed, for the new format batteries used in their Model 3.
Right now, I would venture to say that EVs are fully competitive with ICE’s in the $35K price range, especially in cost of ownership. Although one cannot be certain exactly what is driving prices of used vehicles in this segment, the Tesla Mode S resale values have held up better than other high priced ICE vehices. When one looks at the two opposing drivetrains, which is the main point of difference between EVs and ICEs (excepting the systems found in ICE’s but not EV’s – exhaust, fuel, etc) it is patently obvious that an EV is a much simpler, more reliable and overall superior
method of pushing a vehicle down the road. About to be deployed is Tesla’s V3 supercharger
technology (350 Kilowatts I believe) , capable of 80% recharges in less than 15 minutes. The two other EV recharge technologies (this is ridiculous) will closely match this. If the world’s govts had not spent all of their efforts trying to get EVs on the road, and instead created recharging standards for DC fast recharges (standards for level 1 and 2 – 120v and 220v (AC) already exist in current electrical codes, at least in the U.S.) , we wouldn’t have the situation we have today, where recharge stations like Chargepoint have to have several DC fast charge plugs. A mess the govts allowed to happen. They regulate everything under the sun, including how you sit in a public bus seat, but can’t establish standards for a simple recharging system.
A recent article included a statement by one of Merkel’s Austrian economic henchmen that German automakers are not trying hard enough to match Tesla’s success in the EV marketplace.
Apparently this idiot doesn’t pay attention to current events in the automaking world. BMW, a very German automaker,will be releasing their Series 3 EV at about the same time Tesla’s Model 3 production starts ramping up. It is,without question, fully competitive with the Model 3 in every respect, including price and driving range (although it doesn’t have the Model 3’s $9,0000 extra large battery pack option) . Mercedes is also moving right along and I’m quite certain that VW
will jump in before long.
Reject all you want, but the facts remain the same.
Easy way to test this. Cut out all government subsidies for buyers.
I believe EV are a proper car for those that want them. My point for you is if GM and Tesla say it costs them 150, the price for the consumer is anywhere from 300 to 600 dollars.
Roger Knights
I dreamed up something similar in secondary school in the 70’s only to be told by my Dad it had been discovered many years before.
It still doesn’t overcome the combustive nature of fossil derived fuel. Although I will be interested in understanding how horizontal combustive motion can be converted to motive power without some sort of lever system, which is what a crankshaft is.
A link would be helpful.
Agreed that electric drive train is vastly more mechanically efficient than a clanky crankshaft. This efficiency is why a Tesla has modestly smaller Carbon footprint than my ~50mpg hybrid, even after factoring in the 30% transmission loss through the electric grid.
Yet to achieve serious net savings in energy/Carbon with electric cars, either the transmission efficiency through the grid must be improved (superconductivity), or the line transmission distance reduced (solar shingles or local fuel cells).
Many urban cars are parked with their owners at work during peak insolation. A seemingly workable way to deal with excess solar capacity during peak insolation is to send it into the batteries of EV’s…locally.
“Agreed that electric drive train is vastly more mechanically efficient than a clanky crankshaft.”
The advanced ICE engine that Bill Gates (among others) is backing and which will be in production in a year or two eliminates the crankshaft and puts a pair of pistons together in a structure so that the expansion of one causes the compression of the other. Several pairs can be bundled in an engine.
arthur4563
It takes X amount of energy to move X amount of mass over X amount of distance.
Electric motive power or otherwise, that equation is set in stone until we discover perpetual motion.
That being the case, until a non intermittent means of power provision which at least meets our existing methods, at equivalent costs, energy generation for electric vehicles will be extortionate.
Sadly, both the EV’s you so desire, and the renewable energy required to run them are all heavily taxpayer subsidised both in production and sales. e.g. I understand the US government subsidises each car Elon Musk makes, then the UK government subsidises the purchase of the cars by some £5,000. Being that Musk is running a ‘private’ company which couldn’t exist without government subsidies, you can be certain he and his fellow investors are making healthy profits on taxpayer money. Never mind the profits generated from selling the cars themselves.
So whilst you may feel righteous in running your EV, just remember who is paying for it. The whole of society, from the very poor to the very wealthy. And guess who it impacts the most?
And whilst I don’t entirely disagree with the concept of socialism (the armed forces, police, fire service, our NHS and welfare etc. are excellent) I do vehemently object to taxpayer subsidies being imposed on communities to achieve an ideological objective that has yet to be proven.
There is not on shred of empirical evidence available which demonstrate CO2 causes global warming. Many have tried, and all have failed.
And diesel, or any other vehicle emissions are dwarfed by power station emissions, even without the extra load imposed by a national EV scheme. Furthermore, the emissions of vehicles are largely confined to cities, in open countryside they cause no problems. So once again we are lumbered with the urban liberal elite dictating to the rest of the country because they choose to live in cities which, since time began, are pollution centres, in every respect, from airborne particulates to bacterial, viral, social, and mental illness.
There is not one meaningful power station or windfarm within the London/M25 area, yet it’s probably the most energy dense place in the country.
But so as not to offend the urbane elite’s sensitive dispositions, London energy is largely provided by coal/gas/nuclear power stations/windfarms sited in the countryside. Out of sight, out of mind.
They would of course object to Big Ben or St. Paul’s Cathedral being obscured by lines of waving windmills, or the prospect of a central coal fired power station polluting their air, but it’s OK for country folk to suffer these monstrosities sited in pristine Scottish/Welsh/Irish or English countryside.
You are evidently a member of the lefty liberal elite, and your hypocrisy stinks.
arthur: Late last year, General Motors (NYSE:GM) … explicitly stated that its EV battery cell costs were already as low as $145/kWh. * * *
First off, it’s important to note an important distinction between battery cell costs and battery pack costs. The $145/kWh figure that GM shared was the battery cell cost, but then you have to manufacture and assemble the actual battery pack, which includes a wide range of other important subsystems like microcontrollers and a thermal management system, among other things.
* * * Jon Bereisa, GM’s former chief EV engineer and current CEO of Auto Lectrification … estimates Tesla’s pack costs at $260/kWh (he estimates GM pack costs at $215/kWh). … Evanson [Tesla’s head of investor relations] added that Tesla’s pack costs are already below $190/kWh. Both [UBS analyst Colin] Langan and Bereisa were skeptical about the figure.
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/26/teslas-battery-pack-costs-are-cheaper-than-you-thi.aspx
Some might mention the environmental cost of mining/disposing Lithium. I believe it’s significant.
Arthur 4563 – useful and informative comment.
Might as well do as the alarmists do and tally the lives lost due to soot emissions in European cities from green government mandates to breathe such air.
This would have never happened if government had forced them to test efficiency and pollution at the same time. An idiot could see that. But somehow the government did not?
If you look at UK cities a very significant amount of pollution is caused by the local govrenment transport policies – something that motorists have no control over.
Speed humps, traffic lights deliberately phased to stop motorists at the next one they reach, cycle and bus lanes – these all cause stop/start motoring and it is during acceleration and at idel that the worsk emissions and highest particulate levels occur.
But politicians prefer to blame the motoris rather than take the simple and positive steps they could which could lead to a signifcant reductioin pollution in a matter of months.
It is now some 9 years since the London Ambulance Service study found that more lives were being lost each year as a direct result of ‘traffic calming’ measures (designed to improve road safety) than were being saved by them. The extra lives lost each year because of road safety measures were because of the very extended response times they forced upon ambulance and fire and rescue crews.
A not-insignificant percentage of the ‘early deaths’ from vehicle pollution are the direct fault of politicians and their highway schemes.
Old England
Laughably, the policy of ‘saving lives’ by installing traffic calming measures, is now being reversed because of the pollution consequences of start stop motoring. Central government is now paying local authorities to remove road humps/chicanes etc. in an effort to halt the climates natural tendency to heat and cool.
Yep, you read that right, and the first of several road humps has been removed from outside our local primary school. I expect to see the rest go soon. There are also 3 secondary schools in the immediate vicinity served by these traffic calming measures.
Personally I agree with the initiative to keep traffic moving, but it shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place.
Interestingly enough, it will pose a ethical dilemma for young parents. Do I care more about my child’s safety, or do I care more about climate change? The first kid to be mowed down by a car after a road humps have been removed will cause a national outcry and throw the question into the arena along with the gross waste of taxpayers money on persistent government flip flopping on every issue imaginable.
So called “common sense” is not all that common.
The other possibility is “regulatory capture”…
Can you believe that sanity is in such short supply? There seems to be something about the German psyche that compels self-destructive behavior. Evidence for it is there throughout recorded history. And I, by the way, have German ancestors who somehow managed to escape to America in the early eighteenth century — more than 300 years ago.
Would the political correctness be a German thing?
Absolutely…. Since ” correctness” has two “rr”s it sounds like an older language, a political fullfillingness cost it what it want. A rolling “r” is the trademark of the old “Fuehrerness”.
ThomasJK
And to think, Brussels is proposing an EU army, with Germany as industrially and politically powerful as it is.
I’m sorry, but that could only end badly.
This is why I’m still trundling around in a 21 year old diesel van that lacks any and every electronic gizmo and gadget. It’s mechanical I can fix mechanical and I still get approximately 40mpg (imp gallon) and am told it’s emissions are low for a vehicle it’s age.
James Bull
A few updates here:
– Diesel is about 25% less consuming thanks to its higher compression factor. Same for CO2 emissions.
– Diesel has a much higher torque at lower rpm, thus better for heavy duty work like towing a caravan.
One has done a lot for reducing the emissions: particulate filtering, recycling of exhaust gases (to reduce excess oxygen and thus NOx), AdBlue to further reduce NOx,…
– Gasoline has its compression limits as for higher compressions, the pre-mixture explodes before the spark comes in and the motor “knocks” as the highest pressure of the heated gases is before the piston reaches its highest point. Bad for performance and bad for the motor’s life expectancy.
– Modern gasoline motors (at least in Europe) were increasing performance by increasing the compression and injecting the fuel, instead of pre-mixing. Result: particulates at 10-100 times that for modern diesel motors. They simply forgot (?) to test for it, until an independent lab did it for them. NOx still low as they use a stoichiometric mixture (just as much air as can be used by the fuel).
– Electric cars have no exhaust, but their pollution is at the source of the power. That shows enormous differences from source to source and from country to country.
– Besides the source of the power, the heavier weight due to batteries gives more dust from brakes and tires.
– Performance of electromotors is superior, as the maximum torque is at zero RPM and remains quite high at all RPM’s.
– Main problem: weight/volume against performance plus pollution from the manufacturing of the batteries and necessay raw materials compared to an internal combustion car…
At this moment, EV’s perform better on (particulates, VOC’s and NOx) pollution in only a few countries, where a large part of power is produced by hydro and geo energy, like Norway and Iceland. Of course also on CO2 emissions, as far as that is a negative… In most other countries, one only shifts the pollution from towns and roads to the power plants. Which in general are more easy to control, IF they do that…
Until now, I haven’t seen any overall Life Cycle Analyses for EV’s vs. IC cars for the same performance where everything is taken into account: from raw meterials and full life use to end of life discarding…
Ferd: I suspect that the “knock” is what the gasoline diesel is seeking. That is preignition only if you have an ignition system.
The idea is to inject fuel at the right moment.
texasjimbrock,
Modern diesels have a continuous high pressure (1500-2000 bar) common rail fuel system, where the injection per cylinder is electronically steered for demand-driven performance: the injection starts at the right moment so that maximum pressure is reached when the piston is at its highest point. Thus the fuel is burning relative slowly from the start to the end of the injection.
In the case of a diesel engine, the high pressure ratio (20-25:1) makes that the air is already heated by the compression to make the fuel burn spontaneously. For cars, mostly not hot enough for a cold motor start (trucks and ships have higher compression factors up to 40-45:1 for heavy fuel burning ships motors), but that is aided by glower plugs. These are cut of from battery power once the motor is running and the air in the cylinder gets hot enough to burn the fuel without the aid of an electrical heated surface.
For gasoline cars, the pre-mixture of air and gasoline vapor is compressed at much lower ratio (8-10:1) and the spark plug is sparking electronically, again on demand for maximum pressure at the highest point of the piston.
If for any reason the compression is too high for the fuel/mixture used, then the mixture already starts to burn, even more explosively, before the spark ignition and the highest pressure is reached before the highest point of the piston. That is the “pingle” you can hear sometimes at high load of the motor (low RPM, full gas on a steep slope) or if you use low octane gasoline in a high compression motor that must run on high octane fuel.
There are more and more in-between forms in the make and running, like higher compression and injection of gasoline and a few days ago here on WUWT the anouncement of Mitsubishi for a motor with full diesel compression with lean gasoline mixtures and spark ignition at the right moment…
Comparison here:
http://euanmearns.com/mercedes-b-class-electric-and-diesel-cars-compared/
A lot to correct in this article. First and most importantly, diesel engines do not need to be dirty. They are dirty because the German auto makers, at least, colluded to avoid installing the necessary anti-pollution technology (large AdBlue tanks), preferring instead to cheat on lax emissions tests, which has now cost them mightily. The problem was that large enough AdBlue tanks (for NOX emissions – particulates have been separately resolved with filters) to last between 30k maintenance intervals were too large for convenience, and re-filling the tanks in between, as trucks must – well, you can’t expect a Mercedes driver to do that, can you? Then, diesels are more efficient than gas engines and do save on fuel and CO2 emissions. Still, even the most efficient diesel converts only half of the fuel it burns into motion… Then, the EU and the country governments (Britain, France, Germany) did not dictate diesels to the auto industry. It was the other way around. The German industry especially wanted to position the diesel against the hybrids. And my Renault diesel, for example, does get 39,2 mpg – not bad for a family van in mixed use. Too bad that the German auto industry is run by a bunch of criminal idiots. Oh, and finally – the German auto industry did not just get together to chat about how to meet government standards, nor did Spiegel present anything in the way of “fake news” or a diatribe. The German manufacturers colluded on, among other things, not making their diesels clean, which suppliers should get which contracts, what kinds of technology road plans in many various areas everyone was happy with, quite generally, how to stiff both the public and the government while making life as pleasant and cooperative for themselves as possible. Anti-trust violations of the first order. In fact, Mercedes pulled out when their lawyers got too scared about what was going on, and both VW and Mercedes accused themselves to the government, in a race to be first, in hope of lenient treatment.
It is not just the German Government going down this ludicrous path, we have had the French and UK Governments announcing the death of the petrol/diesel engine by 2040. This is all EU driven and will finish up with Europe sinking and becoming a third world area, helping by its uncontrolled immigration policies. There was a very good recent article on the ‘notalotofpeopleknowthis’ blog looking at the impact on the UK petro chemical industry as a result of the stupid UK Government’s announcement. One can also see the same will happen to German and French petro chemical industries. Worth a read to see what the wider impacts of these decisions are going to have.
any chance we can straighten out what we’re supposed to be talking about?
is, I presume, talking about petrol (gasoline) engines versus diesel engines.
It gets even worse as another word used for diesel in the UK is ‘gas-oil’, never to be confused with gasoline.
And UK gas-oil becomes gazole (gaszole) on the continent – or what you will see written on the filler cap of any European built diesel engined vehicle.
Like VWs for example. As I drive.
Is there *really* no way to put a cat on the exhaust of a diesel?
But then, with the modern common-rail injections, the diesel engine really does become what its inventor intended – it will burn anything,
Surprise surprise, even tho it takes guts to try it, modern diesels will run on petrol.
Classically just a whiff of the stuff was instant wreckage but computers are so clever (car computers at least) that they can, will and do adjust automatically to the different fuels.
In the high fuel-tax environment that Europe is and when the Arabs last had a hissy greedy fit, plenty folks ran their cars on vegetable oil bought from supermarkets. Less than £1 per litre vs £1.45+ that diesel got to.
No need to scrap all the diesels – just get the engine management computer remapped to burn petrol, bolt on a cat and the job’s a good-un.
But, it gets worse. (This is Climate Science, what did you expect?)
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/29/gas-cars-much-dirtier-expected/
And why do they want electric cars?
Certainly not so they can control your every movement, know where you are, controlling your speed and (possibly) ‘hours at the wheel’, what/where/when to charge ‘congestion’ charges, tolls to collect.
And there’ll be plenty because electrification of everything makes it all so simple.
But first they need ‘Smart’ electric meters are installed in everyone’s houses to reach in and charge what they like, when they like and generally be interfering & nosey Big Brothers. Supposed to be complete by 2020 here in the UK
All for ‘safety’ of course.
Welcome to the Borg
Peta of Newark,
Thanks for the particulates link of gasoline motors, didn’t find it back that fast…
I was going to let this go, but I can’t.
Modern diesel vehicles need to deliver fuel at high pressure in order to get adequate atomisation for close-to-ideal (most efficient) combustion. The pumps achieving this pressure absolutely depend on the lubricative properties of diesel fuel (which is, in fact, a light oil). Petrol / gasoline has close to ZERO lubricative ability. If you put petrol in a diesel car it will scour out the fuel system and your finely toleranced pumps will rapidly wear out. The wear particles will progress to the injectors and terminally block them. This will cost you several thousand dollars to remedy.
Anecdotally, I am aware of people who put a few litres of petrol into a tank of diesel and experienced no ill effects. Maybe they didn’t wait long enough or maybe they were lucky. You are seriously dicing with diesel engine death if you think that remapping the ECU and bolting on a ‘cat’ will do the trick. You will need a properly designed system that can handle a lubrication-destroying liquid like petrol.
Mazda may be on the threshold of achieving this significant step towards automotive Nirvana, but anyone possessing a normal diesel engine would be well advised to stick with dedicated diesel fuel.
P.S. If you put diesel fuel in your petrol car you may ‘gum up’ the system and have to part with a couple of hundred dollars to get it cleaned out, but this is likely to be the worst you will suffer for this piece of carelessness.
The huge advantage of a diesel engine in a variable load application (cars and trucks) is that it is not a throttled device like a gasoline engine. Diesel engines do not meter air so the piston does not have to pull in air against a vacuum. This pumping loss is significant in a gasoline engine limiting thermal efficiency to ~25% whereas a diesel engine can be 40% thermally efficient.
Diesel fuel also contains more energy per gallon (the correct unit of measure for fuel economy) than gasoline at 132,000 Btu/gal vs gasoline at 115,000 and ethanol at 76,330 Btu/gal. Diesel engines also run at 14 to 21 compression ratio compared to 9:1 CR for gasoline engines further increasing diesel engine thermal efficiency (Carnot Cycles issues).
Finally, there is less energy loss refining diesel fuel to meet ASTM specifications than there is in refining gasoline. There are many more constraints, both legal and technical, on gasoline than there are on diesel fuel plus local gasoline regulations further complicated marketing gasoline (CARB gas specs, etc.).
Diesel passenger vehicles now meet the same regulated exhaust emissions as gasoline vehicles so there is no difference in “pollution”. Also, the studies about diesel exhaust being carcinogenic are exaggerated as are most EPA studies. Railroad engineers exposed to diesel exhaust from uncontrolled RR engines are no more likely to get cancer than the general population. But if they smoke, they are 20% more likely to get cancer. Therefore efforts should be made to regulate smoking rather than further control diesel exhaust, but that will never happen.
On another note, California Air Resources Board’s own data on EV’s shows that from source to end use, they are only 40% more “efficient” in terms of GHG emissions than gasoline vehicles. And that is only when they are powered using California’s very low GHG producing electric power grid which is based on hydro and nuclear more than other grids (and renewables for what they are worth). Take that EV out of California and use power from other states and the GHG emissions become greater than conventional gasoline vehicles. But they will not tell you that.
So the $1.5B given to Tesla to support EV production really hasn’t changed anything except for Elon Musk’s pocketbook.
Tesla !!!! IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute study shows that the CO2 released during manufacture of an electric car (lithium ion) battery is equivalent to 8 years driving a normal car – If 50% renewable energy is used to manufacture the battery. 15 – 20 tonnes of CO2 released during manufacture of each Tesla battery. (150 kg – 200 kg per 1kWh of lithium ion battery storage capacity)