Volkswagen CEO: there's no future in diesel

unkel

Questions spending further money on developing diesel. It will become more and more expensive (particularly for VW obviously ) to further limit emissions.

If the boss of the worlds biggest producer of car diesel engines says diesel will soon be gone, you can bet it will soon be gone...

Article

Special Circumstances

Beta Ray Bill

Mercedes as far as I know are in the same boat

They are pushing more economical yet powerful petrol engines.
My Dad got a new C class last year, it has a 207bhp petrol engine and it's about €270 a year to Tax (Band B1)

The Problem with Diesel is that it has low CO2 emissions but high "Everything Else" emissions

So when the CO2 rules came in across europe it made sense for everyone to buy Diesel cars. That combined with the economy you got out of them becuase of the higher energy density, gave them the appearance of Green

However in doing this they actually created more pollution than they would have had most people bought petrol cars.
They have clearly copped this now and are again changing tack
Euro 6 emission stanadards were very restictive, they obviously know Euro 7 is on it way (in 2020)!

Hindsight... It's a marverlous thing! LOL

Special Circumstances

grahambo wrote: »

Hindsight... It's a marverlous thing! LOL

No hindsight was needed - just some common sense and scientific cop on.
The promotion of >70% of vehicles being diesel has made a mockery of "green" scientific credentials.
Anybody who couldn't see that diesel wasn't clean, shouldn't be making decisions affecting the environment.
It's a necessary evil for heavy duty work - "heavy duty" doesn't mean hauling a car load to the junior B match.

Beta Ray Bill

Special Circumstances wrote: »

No hindsight was needed - just some common sense and scientific cop on.
The promotion of >70% of vehicles being diesel has made a mockery of "green" scientific credentials.
Anybody who couldn't see that diesel wasn't clean, shouldn't be making decisions affecting the environment.
It's a necessary evil for heavy duty work - "heavy duty" doesn't mean hauling a car load to the junior B match.

Exactly!

Diesel shoud be for:
Trucks
Big Vans
Busses
Trains
Boats
Excavators
Tractors
etc

Sure if they wanted to be Green they should tax you based on how much you use. Obviously that would be difficult with border on the North, but with Brexit, you never know! could be a runner!

Green party brought in CO2 emission changes... MORONS!

deathtocaptcha

There's no future in petrol either... the future is all about electric cars...

They're cleaner, safer, faster and cheaper to run and maintain than their gasoline counterparts. It's a no brainer in the long run.

Special Circumstances

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

There's no future in petrol either... the future is all about electric cars...

They're cleaner, safer, faster and cheaper to run and maintain than their gasoline counterparts. It's a no brainer in the long run.

I guess we're in the "CFL lightbulb" stage of "green-ness".

"ye can't be using them oul incandescent things!"

"but LEDs as a decent alternative won't be viable for several years"

"tough, we'll rig the taxes and legislation so everyone buys mercury containing, horrible yokes and calls it 'green'"

Dravokivich

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

There's no future in petrol either... the future is all about electric cars...

They're cleaner, safer, faster and cheaper to run and maintain than their gasoline counterparts. It's a no brainer in the long run.

They're only as clean as your electricity provider, or which ever provider is hooked up to where ever else you charge it.

Wibbs

grahambo wrote: »

Green party brought in CO2 emission changes... MORONS!

You can generally leave out the strike through bit.

Beta Ray Bill

Dravokivich wrote: »

They're only as clean as your electricity provider, or which ever provider is hooked up to where ever else you charge it.

True,

But you also need to take into consideration the environmental costs in producing such vehicle.
They need a lot of rare earth metals such as Lithium and Nickel.
Mining and Purification of these elements is very environmentally unfriendly
That, coupled with the fact that a lot of rare earth metals are being mined in China (who actively ignore environmental safeguards) mean that the inital environmental cost of these vehicles is high

That being said, if they are used over a long period of time they should techically be better for the environment.

Question is though:
Have you ever had a rechargable battery in any appliance that's lasted more than 4 or 5 years (being recharged regularly that is)
I sure haven't.

I think they have a hell of a long way to go.

Also it should be noted that a large amount of Electricity in the world is produced by coal (I think in the US it's nearly 45%)
If coal is being used to generate the electricity your car uses you may as well buy a car with a V8

Dravokivich

OSI wrote: »

They'll be cleaner regardless, energy mass produced is more efficient and cleaner than energy produced on an individual local basis.

I'm more so getting in on the split between providers that do renewable energy and such. Tarrifs will just be pushed out based on who you get it from.

The Sidewards Man

Danny Healy Rae needs to provide a link or credible source that it's God is responsible for climate change so that we can loose the hard on for lower emissions.

H3llR4iser

grahambo wrote: »

The Problem with Diesel is that it has low CO2 emissions but high "Everything Else" emissions

So when the CO2 rules came in across europe it made sense for everyone to buy Diesel cars. That combined with the economy you got out of them becuase of the higher energy density, gave them the appearance of Green

Quick correction - the CO2 taxation the way Britain and Ireland choose to go; other EU countries have different means of taxation and the whole "Co2 reduction" is something that was mandated by the Kyoto protocol, which is an international treaty. Some countries applied tax breaks on diesel fuel, such as Italy and France. Most people bought diesel cars for the low cost of the fuel and higher efficiency compared to petrol; Also the low-down torque gets in the mix, you'd be surprised how many people believe a 1.4 TDI 75HP Skoda to be faster than a 150HP 2.0 petrol because it has more "ooomph" at 30 km/h.

grahambo wrote: »

Exactly!

Diesel shoud be for:
Trucks
Big Vans
Busses
Trains
Boats
Excavators
Tractors
etc

Of all things, trains are the easiest to be moved to electricity as they move on a predetermined path and need no batteries.

grahambo wrote: »

Green party brought in CO2 emission changes... MORONS!

Absolutely!

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

There's no future in petrol either... the future is all about electric cars...

They're cleaner, safer, faster and cheaper to run and maintain than their gasoline counterparts. It's a no brainer in the long run.

Electric cars have a lot of issues still, and the range isn't one of them - most people don't drive more than 100 km/day.

The batteries are a bigger issue than most want to admit. Electricity can't be stored, only converted - and the conversion back and forth is inherently inefficient. Unless you recharge the batteries with exclusively renewable generated energy, the issue is only moved a few miles off the road, not solved.

Also as we know, they decay over time. ICE cars often survive over 10 years, sometimes 20, without needing major rebuilding; Can we say the same about electric cars? Or will they need new batteries in a few years? If so, what happens to the old ones? We don't really know yet. There's the potential for a big f-up there.

The power grids need to be uprated before EV can be widespread. What do you think it'd happen if tonight 2+ millions cars where plugged in to recharge at the same time, on top of the normal load? Bring your candles out.

All in all, the electric car will make sense as a mass adoption when it can do without the battery; Either by generating its energy directly on board, or by drawing it from the road/infrastructure, more or less like electric trains do.

I also question the "cheaper to maintain" thing. They still have suspension, tires, brakes and steering organisms. Bearing in electric motors can fail too, and often you have four of them - 4x the chances of something going wrong, and they rely on a lot of electronics which ain't cheap to begin with. Sure you don't have to change oil and filters, but that's really it...

Beta Ray Bill

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Of all things, trains are the easiest to be moved to electricity as they move on a predetermined path and need no batteries.

Not so much

Estimates on electrificiation of an existing line from Connolly to Hazelhatch came in around €1.5 Billion if my memory serves me.
That works out at €60 million for kilometer... Not Cheap
Cost makes it finanically unviable for most applications.

That plus, the fact that the overhead lines require maintanence every so offten mean that electric trains are fairly restricted to:
1) Densly populated areas (DART, Luas, London Underground)
2) Applications where train needs to be fastest possible means of transport (TGV, Shinkansen, etc)

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The power grids need to be uprated before EV can be widespread. What do you think it'd happen if tonight 2+ millions cars where plugged in to recharge at the same time, on top of the normal load? Bring your candles out.

Excellent point,
Never thought of that!

Stallingrad

From being utterly ambivalent to a hybrid or electric powered car a short time ago, thanks to Tesla and BMW I'm now looking forward to my first one.

Alanstrainor

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I also question the "cheaper to maintain" thing. They still have suspension, tires, brakes and steering organisms. Bearing in electric motors can fail too, and often you have four of them - 4x the chances of something going wrong, and they rely on a lot of electronics which ain't cheap to begin with. Sure you don't have to change oil and filters, but that's really it...

I don't think this point has any weight. They are surely far cheaper to maintain. Engine maintenance accounts for a huge percentage of cost in any petrol/diesel car. You mention oil and filters, but forget to include clutch, timing belts, plugs, gaskets, cooling systems, injectors, fuel pumps, etc etc. You just don't have that with electric cars, and having a motor completely fail is something I haven't heard of yet at least. They are inherently reliable and simple, and even in the case of a complete failure it likely wouldn't negate the savings over a petrol/diesel.

Even braking components will wear less quickly on an elec due to regenerative braking. And even when they do wear, they're nothing to worry about in terms of cost to replace.

The main issue for people is range and recharge times. Even if the average motorist only drives 50km on a typical day, they still want to be able to drive long distance when they need to.

H3llR4iser

grahambo wrote: »

Not so much

Estimates on electrificiation of an existing line from Connolly to Hazelhatch came in around €1.5 Billion if my memory serves me.
That works out at €60 million for kilometer... Not Cheap
Cost makes it finanically unviable for most applications.

That plus, the fact that the overhead lines require maintanence every so offten mean that electric trains are fairly restricted to:
1) Densly populated areas (DART, Luas, London Underground)
2) Applications where train needs to be fastest possible means of transport (TGV, Shinkansen, etc)

China, Russia, Germany, India, France, Spain and Italy have almost entirely electrified networks catering to every kind of traffic - not just "special" requirements or high speed connections; 60% of railway traffic in the UK is electrically powered. Although initial costs are higher, it clearly compensates over time, as I highly doubt that planners/engineers in all these countries are completely clueless. Same goes for maintenance costs.

Now, if we're talking about feasibility in Ireland, then I agree it's a different story as outside of the Dublin metropolitan area, railway traffic is scarce to non-existent.

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I don't think this point has any weight. They are surely far cheaper to maintain. Engine maintenance accounts for a huge percentage of cost in any petrol/diesel car. You mention oil and filters, but forget to include clutch, timing belts, plugs, gaskets, cooling systems, injectors, fuel pumps, etc etc. You just don't have that with electric cars, and having a motor completely fail is something I haven't heard of yet at least. They are inherently reliable and simple, and even in the case of a complete failure it likely wouldn't negate the savings over a petrol/diesel.

Even braking components will wear less quickly on an elec due to regenerative braking. And even when they do wear, they're nothing to worry about in terms of cost to replace.

The main issue for people is range and recharge times. Even if the average motorist only drives 50km on a typical day, they still want to be able to drive long distance when they need to.

I see what you mean, but how often does an engine completely fail in a ICE car? Suspension, steering and brakes work CAN be very expensive, unless all EV are built to lowest-common-denominator specs. Something like a P90D isn't, quite clearly.

You also use the term "yet" very well here - the reality is that we don't know yet what's gonna happen. Maybe EVs run trouble free for 8 years, and then are ready to scrap due to the batteries being totally gone. Or a motor seizes up due to heat / overstress, electric motors aren't invulnerable. I wouldn't be pushing the "low maintenance" point as much, at least not until there's plenty of real world data.

Cordell

Diesel/Petrol/whatever other type of flammable mixture based engines have no future just because their efficiency is below 40%, in other words you only use about a third of the fuel you buy for moving the car, the rest is just wasted as waste heat. This is how a thermal engine works, you cannot have 100% efficiency, not even theoretically. So sooner rather than later we should move to something better.

Zillah

Even if your national power grid is only 10% renewable, at least that means your car is running on 10% renewable power, as opposed to 0% with petrol or diesel.

10% of course is very pessimistic. Some countries have 50+% renewable, and a rare few are approaching totally renewable. And it is only going to get better. The more electric cars we use the more dramatic the impact of expanding our renewable grid is - it gets multiplied across all of those cars.

Rare Earth Elements and their mining is not ideal, but the existential threat - the big bad of energy production - is CO2, that's the one that can truly screw up the environment across the whole planet. Some dodgy Chinese mining company dumping mercury into a river is very bad, but the consequences are localised and ultimately temporary. And that can all be improved with time.

Sh1tbag OToole

grahambo wrote: »

Not so much

Estimates on electrificiation of an existing line from Connolly to Hazelhatch came in around €1.5 Billion if my memory serves me.
That works out at €60 million for kilometer... Not Cheap
Cost makes it finanically unviable for most applications.

That plus, the fact that the overhead lines require maintanence every so offten mean that electric trains are fairly restricted to:
1) Densly populated areas (DART, Luas, London Underground)
2) Applications where train needs to be fastest possible means of transport (TGV, Shinkansen, etc)



Excellent point,
Never thought of that!

In most places it wouldn't cost 60m per Km though. There is a massive Ireland premium included in that as well as a massive Dublin premium and the fact that CIE and the government are behind it means several troughs need to be filled with dosh for consultants

Beta Ray Bill

H3llR4iser wrote: »

China, Russia, Germany, India, France, Spain and Italy have almost entirely electrified networks catering to every kind of traffic

Those places are densly populated with the exception of Central/Eastern Russia :pac:

Zillah wrote: »

Some dodgy Chinese mining company dumping mercury into a river is very bad, but the consequences are localised and ultimately temporary. And that can all be improved with time.

No it can't improve and it's not temporary!
Fish ingest the mercury, It can't be disgested and it stays in their system
Humans then ingest the fish, same thing applies!
This in particular applies to Tuna, which is sold all over the world.

Larger sholes of fish move around, looking for food. There is potential for it to affect the whole region.

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

In most places it wouldn't cost 60m per Km though. There is a massive Ireland premium included in that as well as a massive Dublin premium and the fact that CIE and the government are behind it means several troughs need to be filled with dosh for consultants

True!

Zillah

grahambo wrote: »

No it can't improve and it's not temporary!

But it literally is. Over time regulations and their enforcement can get better so that it happens less and less. Bioaccumulation is real and very bad but once the source is dealt with it will resolve over time.

I'm talking about the long game. In 100 years when the oceans are rising, entire island nations are vanishing, major cities are writing off huge sections of their waterfront, countless species have gone extinct, sections of the Middle East, Africa and Asia have become completely uninhabitable, and trillions of dollars have been wiped out of the global economy, it will seem silly to have fixated on localised pollution by dodgy mining companies who could have been brought to heel.

There is a reason climate change is the subject of international agreements. It is a slow-motion global catastrophe. If one cost we pay for reducing CO2 output is more REE mining then so be it, it is by far the lesser of two evils.

H3llR4iser

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

In most places it wouldn't cost 60m per Km though. There is a massive Ireland premium included in that as well as a massive Dublin premium and the fact that CIE and the government are behind it means several troughs need to be filled with dosh for consultants

I suspected so...

grahambo wrote: »

Those places are densly populated with the exception of Central/Eastern Russia :pac:

But density only has a relative impact - it's not like all electrified railways are metropolitan / local transports with stops every km or so, quite the contrary; Most of them (notable exception being Italy for political reasons) also move a considerable amount of freight traffic, which is taken off the road and ICE vehicles.

Again, I'm sure than electrifying the line for the "goes once in a blue moon" Dublin-Cork train wouldn't make much sense, but it's also quite absurd to see Dublin Commuter diesel trains going around, exactly in the high density/frequent stops/quick turnaround environment that would make ETRs quite a lot more efficient.

Beta Ray Bill

Zillah wrote: »

But it literally is. Over time regulations and their enforcement can get better so that it happens less and less. Bioaccumulation is real and very bad but once the source is dealt with it will resolve over time.

I'm talking about the long game. In 100 years when the oceans are rising, entire island nations are vanishing, major cities are writing off huge sections of their waterfront, countless species have gone extinct, sections of the Middle East, Africa and Asia have become completely uninhabitable, and trillions of dollars have been wiped out of the global economy, it will seem silly to have fixated on localised pollution by dodgy mining companies who could have been brought to heel.

There is a reason climate change is the subject of international agreements. It is a slow-motion global catastrophe. If one cost we pay for reducing CO2 output is more REE mining then so be it, it is by far the lesser of two evils.

I understand what you are saying but:
A) If electirc car production scales up, this is not going to be a "localised problem"
You can't just throw the rule book out the window cut CO2 emissions.

They (Irish government) reduced tax on low CO2 vehicles and everyone bought Diesel's which turns out, are more polluting.
I agree that CO2 needs to be brought down but it needs to be planned out and done correctly. Based on you logic "Means to and end/Lesser of two evils" we'd be better off having a world War to reduce the planets population.

Ya can't just go on the attack to reduce CO2 in any way possible.
Nor can you turn a blind eye to the Mecury and Sulphur Pollution in China.
You'll end up destroying the world trying to save it.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Again, I'm sure than electrifying the line for the "goes once in a blue moon" Dublin-Cork train wouldn't make much sense, but it's also quite absurd to see Dublin Commuter diesel trains going around, exactly in the high density/frequent stops/quick turnaround environment that would make ETRs quite a lot more efficient.

Agreed!
But then again... €60 Million per KM is a lot bread!

Marcusm

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Of all things, trains are the easiest to be moved to electricity as they move on a predetermined path and need no batteries..

Quite large batteries are needed for the regenerative braking systems even on diesel powered rail vehicles.

Zillah

grahambo wrote: »

A) If electirc car production scales up, this is not going to be a "localised problem"

It is though. Spilled mercury doesn't render species on the other side of the planet extinct.

You can't just throw the rule book out the window cut CO2 emissions.

But that's just a strawman, I didn't advocate that. I am saying the side effects of mining REE are bad, should be mitigated where possible, and are worth the price of curbing climate change.

They (Irish government) reduced tax on low CO2 vehicles and everyone bought Diesel's which turns out, are more polluting.

My understanding is that they are more polluting for some toxins but their CO2 output is lower. There isn't much value in lumping all types of pollution into one metric.

I agree that CO2 needs to be brought down but it needs to be planned out and done correctly. Based on you logic "Means to and end/Lesser of two evils" we'd be better off having a world War to reduce the planets population.

Ya can't just go on the attack to reduce CO2 in any way possible.
Nor can you turn a blind eye to the Mecury and Sulphur Pollution in China.
You'll end up destroying the world trying to save it.

Please stop putting words in my mouth and making it sound like I'm some extreme nutjob, I didn't advocate any of that. There's no point in having a conversation if you're just going to set up a caricature of what I'm saying.

Guy:Incognito

Dravokivich wrote: »

They're only as clean as your electricity provider, or which ever provider is hooked up to where ever else you charge it.

The Sun.

ba_barabus

unkel wrote: »

Questions spending further money on developing diesel. It will become more and more expensive (particularly for VW obviously ) to further limit emissions.

If the boss of the worlds biggest producer of car diesel engines says diesel will soon be gone, you can bet it will soon be gone...

Article

Toyota have stopped development of their new small diesel to replace the 1.4d4d. Apparently there is no future in it for them. No more diesel engines from here on in.

skywanderer

We should be thankful for our current tight Euro Emissions controls, go to any Asian country and see the disgraceful effect Diesel has, the buildings are black with soot from those cars and engines. Petrol and LPG is a great combination for clean air.