
Mitsubishi: We've been cheating on fuel tests for 25 years - sdneirf
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-cheating-fuel-tests-25-years/index.html
======
stegosaurus
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#/m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#/media/File:Euronorms_Diesel.png)

As a layman these sorts of reductions always seemed pretty strict to me. It
seemed like a backdoor way of banning ICE's.

We know that we need to hit zero CO2. I think that regulations on emissions
are the complete wrong way to go about it, though. Health issues in cities are
irrelevant if global warming means the cities are underwater.

Tax the fuel, give incentives to renewable energies and batteries, and let the
market sort it out.

Or, have the government seriously attack on the research front.

It feels a bit like we're sitting here with this 'money' abstraction and
pretending that energy research is too expensive, when realistically,
governments across the world have the might to make clean energy the next
Apollo project. Why aren't they? That would be a fantastic legacy for any
president/prime minister/whatever.

The UK could take bits of land it owns, chuck homes there, give some fresh
university grads in shit economic situations some research to crunch on. Like
Manhattan 2.0.

You can't just say to people 'oh, your car is impossible, let's go and sniff
each other's armpits on the subway, and you'll have to walk to the
countryside'. It just doesn't work.

~~~
nickff
> _" It feels a bit like we're sitting here with this 'money' abstraction and
> pretending that energy research is too expensive, when realistically,
> governments across the world have the might to make clean energy the next
> Apollo project. Why aren't they? That would be a fantastic legacy for any
> president/prime minister/whatever."_

Apollo wasn't very successful. I say this as someone who is personally an
aerospace nut, and owns every space or aviation documentary he can get his
hands on.

Apollo succeeded in getting a dozen men to the moon, but it did not succeed in
promoting the exploration of space, or creating a great deal of technological
innovation which benefited the populace at large (for the amount of money
spent). Apollo was also very unpopular, except for a little while between
Apollo 9 and 12. Most of the population would have been happier with a new
refrigerator or air conditioner, and those appliances would probably have had
a better lasting impact (for a number of reasons).

~~~
drcross
Sorry to sound harsh but your point doesn't meaningfully contribute to the
discussion at hand. We knew what he meant.

~~~
escape_goat
The only way that I can think of to respond to a derailing comment in an
effective and meaningful manner would be to engage its substance while
synthesizing it with the underlying topic of the thread. Otherwise one is just
perpetuating the obfuscation of the original topic of conversation. Whether
the Apollo project was "successful" depends on how one views its nature and
objectives; germane at least insofar as whether this is a plausible model for
research as a strategic state investment, whether such action would be
possible or effective, as contrasted with the alternative course of reframing
the context in which undirected economic activity was occurring so as to
induce a similar degree of investment and subsequent change in the commonly
used technologies.

So what nickff is actually saying is that when considering the Apollo program
as a model for the response to the CO2 crisis, it would be important to
understand the ways in which it failed the putative goal of human expansion
into space. I think that he would view the Apollo program as analogous to the
discovery by Americans that the Chinese had succeeded in generating a net gain
of power for a few minutes from a research fusion reactor. Responding to this
by declaring that the US would build the first commercially functioning fusion
reactor "not because it was easy, but because it was hard" might go a long way
towards quelling the moral panic brought about by the appearance of Chinese
ascendency and American decline, but it might be problematic insofar as
sustainable and optimal investment in energy (source) research was considered.

~~~
deathhand
As a self described "space nut" how can you fail to see the investment in
innovation without the immediate return on ROI that the program brought?
That's what makes the Apollo program special. We did something outside of the
capitalism system but was funded from it, to achieve something no other
company would even touch. That's where the magic lies.

------
basicplus2
Perhaps we are at the extreme limits of emissions reductions and no real
further gains can be made unless more active equipment is used on the exhaust
such as electrostatic precipitators for diesels, and extra direct treatment
like catalytic converters do.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Which is why the penalty to automakers should be to force them to build
electric vehicles.

~~~
voodootrucker
The penalty for automakers should be based on the law as it was written. They
need no exemptions based on the scale of their crimes. If they broke the law
and knew about it, then someone has to go to jail. That's how the law works,
and the only thing that will prevent another 25 years of false governance.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I agree decision makers should still go to jail, but we're not going to
suddenly dissolve automakers who employee hundreds of thousands of people
(witness the US government stepping in to save GM).

If you can't build petrol cars that meet emissions standards, you must build
electric vehicles.

~~~
uremog
It's ok for them to just not make cars if they can't make them right.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
OK for whom? The US gov't clearly does not think its OK. I doubt the employees
think its OK. I don't think its OK. We need cars now. In the present. Not in a
decade or two when the major ones manage to make affordable electric ones and
when our electric grid can handle that.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Battery technology is already five years ahead of predictions. If Tesla can
make a $35K electric vehicle that 400k people are waiting 2 years for, why
can't major automakers?

Also, the current electrical grid (at least in the US) can easily support 100%
of light vehicles if they all transitioned to electric vehicles. The DOE did a
study on this about 6 years ago. Need more power? Build more solar and wind,
and use electric cars to soak it up.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
The major automakers can of course make 100K luxury automobiles, electric or
not. They don't replace the 17 million normally-priced cars the rest of us buy
each year.

Studies and predictions are nice, but to build it and make it work takes
decades. We have a massive infrastructure in the country. And of course, it
won't work the way we planned. Everything changes and pivots, not just SV
startups.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Studies and predictions are nice, but to build it and make it work takes
> decades. We have a massive infrastructure in the country. And of course, it
> won't work the way we planned. Everything changes and pivots, not just SV
> startups.

No, no it does not. Existing overnight electrical generation can satisfy
replacing every internal combustion vehicle with an electrical vehicle, today,
in the United States. Any statements contrary are outright lies.

~~~
teraflop
> Existing overnight electrical generation can satisfy replacing every
> internal combustion vehicle with an electrical vehicle, today, in the United
> States.

This isn't so obviously true that it can be asserted without justification.
Based on the statistics I'm seeing from the EIA, replacing every light-duty
automobile in the USA with a Tesla Model S would increase demand on the
electric grid by more than 50%.

[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=96&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=96&t=3)

[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=gasoline_...](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=gasoline_use)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Three years ago:

[http://insideevs.com/dont-worry-us-grid-capable-of-
supportin...](http://insideevs.com/dont-worry-us-grid-capable-of-supporting-
up-to-150-million-electric-vehicles/)

"The US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
calculated that the grid’s excess capacity will support over 150 million pure
electric vehicles.

150 million means that nearly 75% of the vehicles on our roads today could be
electric and the grid would have the capacity to support them all."

That leaves 25%, right? Right. Considering this is three years ago, it doesn't
take into account the rapid expansion of solar and wind generation capacity
(which is ~98% of all new generation capacity in 2016). The production tax
credit has been extended for another 6 years; you're only going to see more
wind and solar projects on the horizon.

[http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/The-U.S.-Solar-M...](http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/The-U.S.-Solar-
Market-Now-One-Million-Installations-Strong)

“It took us 40 years to get to 1 million installations, and it will take us
only two years to get to 2 million,” said Dan Whitten, vice president of
communications at the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). “This is a
time to mark when the solar industry started to accelerate at warp speed.”

"At the end of 2015, the U.S. solar market hit a total capacity of 27
gigawatts. That represents just 1 percent of the current U.S. electricity mix,
but it could triple to 3 percent by 2020. This year alone, the U.S. solar
market is projected to grow 119 percent, which represents an additional 16
gigawatts of new installed capacity and more than double the record-breaking
7.3 gigawatts added in 2015."

Did you know they give wind power away for free in some parts of Texas because
of the excess power they can't transport out? Delicious, clean wind power for
electric vehicles.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/business/energy-
environmen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/business/energy-
environment/a-texas-utility-offers-a-nighttime-special-free-electricity.html)

So! You said my assertion wasn't obvious. I concede that is correct. The
statistics you're seeing from the EIA are grossly inaccurate for comparing
internal combustion vehicles to electric vehicles when you compare how much
more efficient an electric vehicle is.

I stand by my thesis: the current US electric grid has sufficient generation
capacity to support 100% electric vehicles

------
vhiremath4
The article says:

"Investors responded by pushing Mitsubishi shares down by 10%. The fuel test
scandal has now erased half of the company's market value, and its shares are
sitting at a record low."

Shouldn't a 10% drop in their shares result in a 10% drop in the company's
market value? Not 50%? I don't know much about this kinda stuff - please be
chill.

~~~
brobinson
"has now" = from first news of a scandal to this point

The mentioned latest 10% drop brings them down to about 50% of their market
cap before the scandal broke.

------
enqk
Those small vehicles (kei cars) were reported to be under attack during the
TPP trade agreement negociations because they had special tax breaks.

[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/01/27/business/lower-t...](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/01/27/business/lower-
tax-rates-for-kei-cars-arent-ok-with-american-automakers/#.Vx_hr3qPW70)

