• EU relaxation of diesel emission limits was illegal, court rules
    19 replies, posted
The new generation of so-called “cleaner” diesel vehicles can be banned from Madrid, Paris and Brussels after a ruling by European justices. City authorities can now stop Euro 6 diesel vehicles from entering their cities. The European court of justice has overruled a decision by the European commission to allow new diesel vehicles to emit higher levels of nitrogen dioxide. The justices said the original limit of 80mg/km must be maintained and that a 2016 relaxation of car emission limits was illegal. The three cities took the European commission to court over its proposal to allow a 168mg/km limit following pressure from national governments. EU law had previously set a 80mg/km limit. ... “The commission did not have the power to amend the Euro 6 emission limits for the new real driving emission tests,” the court said. The decision means plans by the three European cities to ban new diesel vehicles can go ahead. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/13/eu-relaxation-of-diesel-emission-limits-was-illegal-court-rules
It’s a shame that Diesel became so popular in passenger vehicles here and in Europe; the reaction to Diesels in those cars also has ramifications for utilities, where you absolutely want a turbodiesel and you’d be a bloody idiot to instead go with petrol/‘gas’.
In the early 2000s diesel was heavily incenticised because of the lower CO2 emissions. I guess it seemed like an easy win for tackling climate change, without having to look into electrification of transportation.
Diesel wasn’t really incentivised (I hate that word) here. It was always more expensive that petrol, at least until a few years ago. And rebates or bonuses or whatever on new car sales have never really been a thing here, either. But Diesel became popular in passenger cars here because yeah, ‘the environment’ and also better range. Turbodiesels have always been very popular in utes though, especially because of range and torque. I don’t think there’s such a thing as a Ford Ranger, Mitsubishi Triton, Toyota Hilux or VW Amarok with any engine other than a turbodiesel. I’d dare wager that if the Ford Falcon Ute and Holden Ute were offered with turbodiesels, each of those makers would still be building cars in Australia today.
In spain everyone was cashing in for diesel. I was looking for a cluster for my 1998 petrol car and it seems impossible anywhere.
The only way a Diesel engine could be environmentally friendly is if it didn't exist, for it to be cleaner it'd have to be a Hybrid at least.
Diesels get better MPG at a similar performance. Also it was cheaper than petrol for quite a while and now it is same or 1-2 cents more expensive. . Also some people run tax free agricultural diesel that doesn't include road taxes and due to that is ~25% cheaper. Note: that's illegal and highly controlled actually. When 1/4 or more of your paycheck goes into your tank every month, buying a diesel that gets 7l/100km vs a petrol that can get 9l/100km or more on the same drive, thinking about the enviroment is secondary. I have seen a rising popularity of LPG and CNG cars now though.
And electrification of transportation seems like an easy win now compared to widespread use of and improvements to public transportation, which is what is actually needed. I guess going straight to the optimal, required solution isn't really an option when it comes to environmental issues.
Electrification of transportation includes public transportation, as well as private transportation.
Not sure what that has to do with my point. If people, by and large, keep relying on individual transportation, electric or not, we won't manage to reduce our CO2 emissions to reasonable levels.
Public transportation is important, but I don't think it's realistic to massively reduce personal car use in most parts of the world. EVs are also several orders of magnitude lower in emissions, and will get cleaner as power generation becomes cleaner. Public transportation has to become electric fast as well, especially busses. If your country has a cleanish power grid then EVs are better CO2 wise than a bus, even with single occupancy.
And if your area relies heavily on coal that EV is no better than the ICE car it replaced. Just moves the CO2 emissions from its own arse to the power stations supplying the grid it's hooked to.
Except EVs are much more efficient, so it's still a reduction. https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/ElectricyMixesClimateChange%20%281%29.png Of course you also remove local emissions.
You don't need to reduce it in "most parts of the world", surface area wise. You only need to reduce it for most people, and given that the world population keeps concentrating in urban areas, where public transportation is viable (and often the most convenient alternative), I have no idea why you believe that greatly increasing its use is unrealistic. What? That's a completely ludicrous statement. Public transportation is often an order of magnitude lower in emissions. Metros and trains - which makes for the major part of covered distance in any proper public transportation network - emit around 4 gCO2eq/km in France. According to your own chart, that's 10 times less than an individual EV. In other countries, assuming that all CO2 emissions for electric trains come from direct energy use, which is an excessive estimate in favor of EVs, you still get: 2gCO2/km for trains in Sweden vs 33gCO2/km for EVs, -94% emissions for trains. 20gCO2/km for trains in Belgium vs 70gCO2/km for EVs, -70% emissions for trains. 29gCO2/km for trains in Spain vs 87gCO2/km for EVs, -67% emissions for trains. 31gCO2/km for trains in Italy vs 91gCO2/km for EVs, -66% emissions for trains. 38gCO2/km for trains in the Netherlands vs 105gCO2/km for EVs, -64% emissions for trains. 41gCO2/km for trains in Germany vs 111gCO2/km for EVs, -63% emissions for trains. 65gCO2/km for trains in Poland vs 159gCO2/km for EVs, -59% emissions for trains. As you can see, the greener a country's energy mix is, the more CO2 efficient train-based public transportation is compared to individual EVs. So if, as you claim, power generation can only become cleaner from this point on, then it's even more of a sad waste to focus so much on electrifying individual transportation rather than on developing more extensive and efficient train/metro/tram networks. As for ICE buses, they're estimated at around 100gCO2/km (a number which would obviously go down if more people used them). So even if they're the only mode of public transportation available, it's still preferable to use them over EVs as a single occupant if you're in a country with a dirtier energy mix than the Netherlands. Anywhere else, electric buses would obviously be a better choice than individual EVs, so once again, I'm not sure why we should push for individual transportation, electric or not, when the public alternative is simply much better with identical technology anyway. And let's not even talk about other alternatives such as biking, which are basically carbon free, and would greatly benefit from a little help when it comes to giving them more safety and space on the road. Something which a push for individual EVs won't exactly help.
Portugal still has way too many incentives for diesels, especially older diesel cars. As I said in the Italy thread... "Fun" fact, its cheaper to run a diesel car with a big engine from 18 years ago, which supposedly wouldn't be good for the environment at all, than it is to run a petrol car with a 1.0 liter engine from 2018. 43€ for a diesel car between 1.501 and 2000 cubic cm, and 101€ for a 2017/2018 petrol car that goes up to 1.250 cubic cm and outputs a number that is either equal or less than 120g/km. The same but in diesel is just 5 euros more expensive, but since diesel is increadibly cheap in comparison to petrol, who the fuck cares lol We are starting to see petrol getting cheaper faster than diesel, but its still a long way. The efforts of brands like Audi only releasing new vehicles with petrol engines is good, but it feels like they only do it because of dieselgate. Can't wait till Audi has a "cheapish" EV option, and for the time having an EV is THE choice to have on all fronts. I'll be honest, I love ICEs, but lately, whenever I feel exhaust fumes from any kind of vehicle, my whole body just recoils in disgust over the noxious air.
Electrified transportation is great in all forms, especially trains. I think we need to push rail electrification even more, especially here in the UK. All the rain lines around me are just old diesel trains, which have emissions responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths a year. Since the government dumped the Midlands train electrification efforts a few local groups have popped up (which I don't support), campaigning to close the train station because of it. To clarify my statement on EVs being orders of magnitude lower in emissions, I meant in comparison to ICE passenger vehicles. Diesel needs to go in all forms. I'll agree that reducing car use further within cities is achievable, although not something we can eliminate. Encouraging carpooling would also be a way to help things further as well.
To clarify, "an order of magnitude less" basically means about 10 times less. So for EVs to be orders of magnitude lower in emissions than ICEs, you'd need to have at the very least a 90% reduction in emissions, which, even on a perfectly carbon neutral grid, wouldn't be attainable at all according to your graph. Shame about UK trains, from what I've seen it looks like it went down the drain ever since they got privatized. Kinda worried that France might go down the same road.
Perfectly possible in some countries utilizing renewables and nuclear, or those of us charging off our own power from rooftop solar. With companies like Tesla aiming to power their factories off of renewables as well, that further reduces the carbon footprint for the battery production in a massive way.
No, you don't get it. According to your own graph, as of today, even if you have a personal fusion reactor in your backyard to power your EV, it will still emit the equivalent of 13+13+3.1=29.1gCO2/km on average during its life cycle, which is only a 85% reduction compared to an ICE car. That's not orders of magnitude less, contrary to what you claimed here: As for this part: I'm frankly skeptical. Tesla factories mostly seem to use solar, which is basically the worst kind of "renewable" CO2 wise, and a far cry from nuclear. On top of that, consider the batteries required to supply the factories during renewable downtime, further driving up CO2 costs, and all the direct emissions that come from the industrial process itself and not electricity consumption (and which is a significant part of solar's emissions, too). That won't cut it to get to the level of 2-3gCO2/km, which is about what's required for EVs to output orders of magnitude less than ICEs.
Solar "emissions" again come mostly from energy, as you know. EVs lifespans will also likely expand over time, further reducing the manufacturing impact. I'm not claiming EVs are carbon neutral (nothing really is), but it's a significant enough reduction that we can meet climate targets. They are pretty much a requirement to meet climate targets.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.