High Court Rules UK Air pollution plans unlawful

[The utility cyclist]

Government loses yet another court case and is admonished again for not meeting targets or even doing much of anything to meet them, in other words unlawful actions.
Let's spend £Billions on roads and other nonsense guff but sweet fanny adams on the one thing we all know will make a huge difference.

There should somehow be forced legislation for a billion pound a year to be spent on cycling infra (not walking AND cycling) and getting people onto bikes. Certain parties who aren't capable of fighting the corner for proper infra should stay well away #turbogate viewtopic.php?f=6&t=84180&hilit=Bedford+turbo

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... s-unlawful

[fastpedaller]

Interesting, as there are draft proposals (which have only been given 1 month to respond) response ending 2nd March.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... safety.pdf

These are receiving some attention on kit car forums (another of my hobbies), because they are looking to tighten emission rules on kit cars (which represent about 0.00005% of cars on the road), and may cause builders of new kit cars to spend 000's on parts to comply, the manufacture of which will make lots of pollution. Anyway, the main gripe is that the DOT haven't taken action against VW for their intentional emission dodging - one poster says (quite reasonably) that VW should be fined the difference between highest and the existing VED on every car they have sold for the life of that car (say 13 years). As it is VW have in the UK been 'let off'. The DOT (as part of the new proposals) intend to fine any future transgressions. But VW knew the rules existed. 'OK GUV I've murdered someone, but hey ho let me off once' surely just doesn't seem correct some how?

Cue the move to electric cars... which will be made in countries such as China, using electric made at highly polluting coal and gas-fired stations. Hmm that's sensible then!

[RickH]

Anyway, the main gripe is that the DOT haven't taken action against VW for their intentional emission dodging - one poster says (quite reasonably) that VW should be fined the difference between highest and the existing VED on every car they have sold for the life of that car (say 13 years). As it is VW have in the UK been 'let off'. The DOT (as part of the new proposals) intend to fine any future transgressions. But VW knew the rules existed.

My understanding, whether you agree with it or not, is that VW have made a major commitment to transferring development away from ICE entirely to electric vehicles as an alternative to a large corporate fine. The first model of the ID range should be out next year, followed by a number of other models. Would that have happened with the prospect of tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of Euros/dollars in fines?

It also may have spurred other major vehicle manufacturers to invest heavily in electric vehicles. Of course it may partly be the way the market is shifting anyway, plus the huge Chinese market which is being pushed heavily by the government towards EVs, it is difficult to isolate individual factors.

[thirdcrank]

I'm not at all clear what the result of the High Court action will be in that I cannot see a mechanism to enforce change. Presumably, the govt., prepares another plan, i n t h e f u l l n e s s o f t i m e and anybody who doesn't like it can have another day out at court, always providing that the govt., doesn't tinker with the legislation. A fine example of kicking something into the long grass while treading water.

Put another way, with a quantifiable loss, there's compo; if something is being done wrong, it can often be stopped, but making the govt., do something is a bit different.

[fastpedaller]

Anyway, the main gripe is that the DOT haven't taken action against VW for their intentional emission dodging - one poster says (quite reasonably) that VW should be fined the difference between highest and the existing VED on every car they have sold for the life of that car (say 13 years). As it is VW have in the UK been 'let off'. The DOT (as part of the new proposals) intend to fine any future transgressions. But VW knew the rules existed.

My understanding, whether you agree with it or not, is that VW have made a major commitment to transferring development away from ICE entirely to electric vehicles as an alternative to a large corporate fine. The first model of the ID range should be out next year, followed by a number of other models. Would that have happened with the prospect of tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of Euros/dollars in fines?

It also may have spurred other major vehicle manufacturers to invest heavily in electric vehicles. Of course it may partly be the way the market is shifting anyway, plus the huge Chinese market which is being pushed heavily by the government towards EVs, it is difficult to isolate individual factors.

That resolution is hardly an incentive to companies keeping to the law though - The outcome is that by saving previous development costs they have given themselves a kick-start compared to their competitors! Where has Britain's backbone gone? First the Banks, now this, what next?

[Tangled Metal]

Aren't most brands commuting to all hybrid or electric cars by 2020 or 2022? I understand vw were one of these companies following from JLR announcing this first.

Didn't the high court make similar rulings against the government before to no effect?

[squeaker]

Interesting, as there are draft proposals (which have only been given 1 month to respond) response ending 2nd March.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... safety.pdf

Thanks for the heads-up

[Stevek76]

Anyway, the main gripe is that the DOT haven't taken action against VW for their intentional emission dodging - one poster says (quite reasonably) that VW should be fined the difference between highest and the existing VED on every car they have sold for the life of that car (say 13 years). As it is VW have in the UK been 'let off'. The DOT (as part of the new proposals) intend to fine any future transgressions. But VW knew the rules existed. 'OK GUV I've murdered someone, but hey ho let me off once' surely just doesn't seem correct some how?

Why just VW? They've all been cheating, VW just did it a little more brazenly.

If you look at real world emissions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt ... ar_exhaust A nissan qashqai is far worse!

What VW did was to actively detect the test conditions and switch out the engine map entirely, the other manufacturers were 'only' using the tried and tested 10 year old method (used to game the mpg figures) of optimising the parts of the engine map the car visits during the test for efficiency/emissions and the rest for power or whatever.

[fastpedaller]

It's debatable whether the authorities have taken/allowed the car companies down a good route anyway! Let me explain.....Many years ago I worked in R&D for a major car manufacturer - we were working on 'ultra lean burn' technologies - In effect we were well on the way to getting the same performance from an engine with much less fuel use and a much 'cleaner' burn, basically by carefully controlling and getting all the fuel to burn well in the cylinders (rather than most as at present) - That's as much detail as I'm prepared to go into! If you recall your chemistry lessons at school a catalyst speeds up a reaction that would otherwise happen anyway. Engine produces CO which converts in air to CO2 (but not immediately). Digging up acres of land (and trees which turn CO2 into oxygen) to get precious metals to create a car exhaust catalyst is therefore not a good idea.(well not for the World as a whole, but maybe locally) The catalyst legislation came from USA (high city pollution) and the idea was a quick fix to rid the cities of CO ('replaced' with less-harmful CO2 via catalyst) and (connection?) one of the World's largest producers of catalyst is based in USA?
If the uS gov (and subsequently others) hand't stepped in, we may have had a much better solution.

[squeaker]

It's debatable whether the authorities have taken/allowed the car companies down a good route anyway! Let me explain.....Many years ago I worked in R&D for a major car manufacturer - we were working on 'ultra lean burn' technologies ....If the uS gov (and subsequently others) hand't stepped in, we may have had a much better solution.

But lean burn produces high NOx - right?

[fastpedaller]

It's debatable whether the authorities have taken/allowed the car companies down a good route anyway! Let me explain.....Many years ago I worked in R&D for a major car manufacturer - we were working on 'ultra lean burn' technologies ....If the uS gov (and subsequently others) hand't stepped in, we may have had a much better solution.

But lean burn produces high NOx - right?

Potentially, yes. We were working on an AFR of 26-30. As with all these things we have to look at the whole picture of emissions, and of course one person's opinion of what is more harmful may differ from another's. Somewhere on DVD taped off TV I have a documentary (Horizon or similar) where an eminent US scientist produced a lot of evidence stating that CO2 doesn't lead to global warming, but that global warming (as a result of Sun activity) causes more CO2 (as a consequence of warming the oceans mainly). It's an old tape (he may not be alive any more?) but IIRC he was expelled from the scientific groups he was a member of I have also worked on other techs eg Direct Injection Petrol, which although being used at the time by a couple of manufacturers looked to be flawed (in terms of emissions, which became a lot higher after a few thousand miles!)

[squeaker]

Just watched this from Toyota - note the comment at 2m00s - have they managed to get lean burn with low NOx? I suppose NOx generation would be low at part load. Nice video anyway

[fastpedaller]

Just watched this from Toyota - note the comment at 2m00s - have they managed to get lean burn with low NOx? I suppose NOx generation would be low at part load. Nice video anyway

Interesting video. One of the issues with Direct Injection Petrol is that deposits build on the back of the inlet valve. It looks like Toyota have minimised/resolved this using the second indirect injector in the intake tract. This is very much a balancing act with the EGR which is feeding back into the inlet manifold - The EGR lowers Nox, but carries sooty deposits.... Hey it's all coming back to me now (15 years since I left the industry!)
The CVT system is a variation on the old DAF variomatic, it's unclear why they call it 6 speed, as surely it's feature is that it's infinitely variable (between extremes). There are other, similar CVT systems (probably still in development). With moves towards electric is would seem there is very little future for CVT's - most (all?) haven't been successful to date.

[Cunobelin]

Anyway, the main gripe is that the DOT haven't taken action against VW for their intentional emission dodging - one poster says (quite reasonably) that VW should be fined the difference between highest and the existing VED on every car they have sold for the life of that car (say 13 years). As it is VW have in the UK been 'let off'. The DOT (as part of the new proposals) intend to fine any future transgressions. But VW knew the rules existed.

My understanding, whether you agree with it or not, is that VW have made a major commitment to transferring development away from ICE entirely to electric vehicles as an alternative to a large corporate fine. The first model of the ID range should be out next year, followed by a number of other models. Would that have happened with the prospect of tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of Euros/dollars in fines?

It also may have spurred other major vehicle manufacturers to invest heavily in electric vehicles. Of course it may partly be the way the market is shifting anyway, plus the huge Chinese market which is being pushed heavily by the government towards EVs, it is difficult to isolate individual factors.

Doesn't alleviate the present problem where the present Qashqai is emitting 18 times the limit for emissions

And, as before EVs are merely a placebo to make us feel better, particle emissions are only slightly less than those for the ICE driven equivalent

[squeaker]

The CVT system is a variation on the old DAF variomatic, it's unclear why they call it 6 speed, as surely it's feature is that it's infinitely variable (between extremes).

Possibly because that's how they intend it to be used ie with 6 defined gear ratio points (which could be application specific) to avoid the parasitic losses from the transmission always searching for the sweet spot?
PS: thanks for the reminder about EGR driven inlet valve fouling.