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.
Theres a quite simple way to clean diesel engines from soot and NOx. Its about 1000-2000 dollars. The companies thought of spare some money and fake the results of testing. So the companies are to blame not the diesel!
There’s some serious drawbacks with the addition of a Diesel Particulate Filter (really an expensive vac bag stuck up the exhaust) as well as Adblue to assist in controlling NOx emissions, with the DPF problems discussed here-
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/fuels-environment/diesel-particulate-filters
That’s come on top of the previous addition of EGR valves and that coupled with higher oil blow-by in diesel engines has caused intake clogging over time which largely defeats the purpose EGR was designed to overcome, as the engine begins to choke itself the moment it leaves the showroom-
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=diesel+intake+manifold+clogging&qpvt=diesel+intake+manifold+clogging&qpvt=diesel+intake+manifold+clogging&qpvt=diesel+intake+manifold+clogging&FORM=IGRE
When the vehicle goes into limp mode from excessive clogging like that your local Dealership will want to replace the intake manifold as WHS and environmental rules will prevent most from decarbonising it. As a consequence savvy diesel owners will add an oil catch can and some form of EGR delete (physical or electronic) to their diesel engine.
Here’s a typical example of Regulatory supply creating its own demand (strictly for off-road or competition use you understand..nudge, nudge, wink, wink…)
https://chiptuning.com.au/dpf-removal-service/
So this really was science fiction 😉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lso-fQIR_M8
Studied this subject in thermodynamics and then practically in vehicles, so the thread is interesting, as people appear to be genuinely learning. Here’s some of thoughts on the facts, my 2 pennorth, or 2.6¢ in American money. Most of the latter stuff above on igniton and pre ignition, use of lead, etc, is good, As with waste incinertation, it also strikes me that more efficient a combustion proces is, the smaller the particulates get, and the harder to filter off, because more of the heavy compounds gets burnt or filtered out by filters, cats, ec.
nb: And I don’t mean the heat and moisture vapour the ignorant and/or deliberately deceitful BBC media et al show as “hidden pollution” on the news, in fact IR images just showing heat, you can’t see small particulates emission with IR or visual imaging on normal scales. Mostly, with dramatic cobblers spoken over the top by sensationally irresponsible know nowt “science corespondents”, mostly despicable lefty gobshites with arts degrees who could never get a value adding job in the private sector, IMO. (FYI Great example is BBC’s clueless Science Editor David Schuckman, who reports the BBC’s fake science green propaganda, is the first science editor ever, and took the technical incompetent’s degree, geography, similar to the PPE degrees our hard of mathematics politicians take. All good on debate, abysmal on facts. They also think you can debate proven science without understanding it, on the internal contradiction that is “consensus” science. Phlogiston lasted 100 years like this in the ignorant vacuum of the populist French revolution that executed Lavoisier who had disproved it, etc. No such thing as populist science fact. Jusr science fact. But I digress….
NOT that diesels are good in cities. Always a bad idea.
But I spent my early life tailng London buses on my bike to and from school, warmer, drier, faster, easier, inhaling diesel while vigorously excercising. I loved the smell of the 127/213 in the morning.
Stiil alive, at 75. Sadly the clean;electric trolley busses were too much for me with max torque at 0 rpm and me with only a steel frame regular Raleigh with a Sturmey Archer 3 Speed – only rich kids had derailieur gears. And weak kids died young, all classes.
NO reason not to use short range electric cars for city commutes, transfer the emsissions to the power stations where a few people occupy much more airspace, and accept the awful inneficiency of carrying heavy and expensive batteries around you have to change every few years, and are mostly not recyclable, etc. Too many people in cities now for hi density IC propulsion. . For longer haul and country use, batery power is impractical and pointless as there are few people to affect, the infrastructure would be too expensive in low populations densities, as roads and phone lines are now, and there is a lot more air to dilute emissions. Replacing motorways with car trains between population centres might be a way after fossil? Countryside use can use synthetic fuel of some kind, all very doable, bit pricy though. If you want to live outside cities, you will have to p;ay the price, or buy a bike/horse.
Anyway, it is a fact that the search for efficient combustion has caused the prolems of smaller particulates, which create a different environmental problem.
Couple of interesting things about flame fronts vs. detonation. Without lead in high compression petrol engines the noise you got from pre-ignition used to be called “dieseling” by some, bad for pistons, Diesel combustion is closer to detonation vs. deflagration, or something like that, faster flame front, more violent, less progressive. Bang not woomph. Very important in gas pipeline explosions. Especially on oil ro igs. The simplicity of diesels and the lack of need for water sensitive ignition made them great for trucks, agricultural and military vehicles when ignition was single coil with contact breakers, plug leads and distributors.. Of course this is much less the case with direct ignition and lower voltage electrocks right up to the individual coil packs.
The transition to diesel by taxation was so Germany could single handedly conserve the worlds fuel resources (ignoring the effect of Americans and their vastly greater number of gas guzzlers – their own ground transportation technology that had recently come back to flattten their irrational belief loving country)
And all this was before the global UN co-ordinated climate change protection racket was invented to replace peak oil with a bigger and better fear exploitation industry. This blames CO2 by law but can’t be proved or disproved by science, so is a perfect scam for officials to run for their lobbyists, as long as people don’t look at the reality of the supposed solutions imposed by law that make the important measurements they calim to improve worse in fact, vs better untaxed solutions. Fortunately the governments can rely on easilly manipulated public not to try to undertsnad the hard facts and swallow the easier to believe deceit.
At least peak oil. one day, was real, but didn’t know about fracking, so timing way out. Claimte change from CO2 is junk science. S Consider – the atmosphere heats the 1,000 times greater heat capacity oceans, and controls the long term climate that way? Always thought the opposite was the case. basically a religious belief scam demanding sacrificies to the climate gods to somehow change global climate, based on uprovable beliefs that claim correllation = causation as a science , which is good for the priests but bad for those paying. Anyone pointing out the facts is sacrificed as an Infidel/heretic in Climate change Jihad/Inquisition, etc.
Perfect scam when people are fat and lazy, complacent, well enough off, ignorant or lazy minded, so easy to manipulate in their comfortable bubble wher they lack little.
Not that the rest of the world was that interested in German self harming by diesel, of course. Or cliamte change if it stopped them developing as the West had. Whatever works in fact, cheapest. The 3rd World who want to be developed are using the enrgy that got the first world ahead, all they need, when they need it. Not stupid. They will build and buy what works best for them. In fact diesels aare getting really goo now, and ,as above from someone, the more effeicient you make the petrol engine, the smaller and more dominant the particaulate emission will get. I’m off now, it’s holiday here. Hope I got this right and only upset the deceitful and opinionated know nowts. Technical correcetion and insight most welcome. CEng, CPhys, MBA.
We have a 2016 Mercedes Benz GLE 300d (mid-size all wheel drive SUV with a 2.1 liter turbo four cylinder engine). 15,000 miles on it so far. Fantastic vehicle, with great torque and fuel mileage in high 20’s to low 30’s (miles per gallon). It starts instantly, even in our cold climate here in North Dakota (no engine block heater needed), warms up quickly (unlike older diesels we have owned), and has no exhaust smoke or smell, ever. It’s a little noisier than a gasoline model, but that just gives the vehicle some character! The DEF tank is refilled at each 10,000 mile service. Sadly, because of all this controversy, MB isn’t importing any diesels at this time, and may not do so in the future.