
A "major breakthrough" in diesel technology significantly reduces emissions - montrose
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/951029/diesel-car-breakthrough-emissions-engine-UK-fuel
======
scrooched_moose
The article from autoblog is far better:

[https://www.autoblog.com/2018/04/25/bosch-diesel-
emissions-b...](https://www.autoblog.com/2018/04/25/bosch-diesel-emissions-
breakthrough/)

Everything in this article is pure marketing nonsense.

>Bosch says its technology uses a combination of advanced fuel injection, a
newly developed airflow management system to recirculate exhaust gases, and
intelligent temperature management, and it requires no additional new
components. It says the technology drops nitrogen oxide emissions to one-tenth
of the amount set under the stricter 2020 limits for Europe, even in real-
world driving conditions. Bosch says the results hold consistent regardless of
driving conditions, weather or how aggressively the vehicle is driven.

~~~
pmyteh
The Express is now a seriously disreputable paper, and you should be sceptical
about anything they print. It's been losing readers and journalists for years,
and is now largely full of sensation and puff pieces.

~~~
jabl
But hey, they publish important world affairs (TM) like
[https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/950139/jeremy-corbyn-
Ka...](https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/950139/jeremy-corbyn-Kate-
Middleton-royal-baby-labour-live-update-hospital-Duchess-of-Cambridge)

(Or perhaps I just don't get the extent to which you English people fawn over
your royalty, and a lot of you REALLY think it's OUTRAGEOUS that Corbyn took
SEVERAL HOURS before congratulating?)

------
mojomark
Reducing NOx is one a fine and noble effort, but there's not much new in this
BOSCH corporate press release. However, there are plenty of technologies for
reducing diesel engine NOx (1), including Selective Catalytic Reducers
(SCR's), Exhaust Gas Recirculaters (EGR), and even injecting water into
atomized diesel.

Further, reducing NOx is one thing, but you still have other harmful emissions
notably SOx and black carbon. So to Dr Volkmar Denner, CEO of Bosch, who says:
“There’s a future for diesel. Today, we want to put a stop, once and for all,
to the debate about the demise of diesel technology." I respectfully argue
that until you can make Diesel as clean as H2 fuel cell, the push to eliminate
diesel burning engines will go on.

For my money, the best environmentally sustainable 'fuel' is electric via
Hydrogen/Air powered fuel cell, in which the hydrogen is generated by
electrolysis powered by renewable generators (wind, solar, hydro). We've seen
a significant push in the Maritime sector towards conversions of diesel
engines to LNG-fueled engines. However, LNG (which may have significant
methane slip - a really BAD greenhouse gas - if you're not careful) isn't
nearly as clean as H2.

1\. [http://clean-carbonenergy.com/nox-emissions.html](http://clean-
carbonenergy.com/nox-emissions.html)

~~~
wallace_f
>For my money, the best environmentally sustainable 'fuel' is

Of course there's also lots of really cheap, clean fuel, and ways to reduce
GHG emissions, such as bicycling, sky sails, stairs/walking, telecommuting,
etc.

I've never really seen the evidence that command and control style planned
economies work very well.

Since undergrad, I've never heard a good argument as to why we shouldn't do
what Musk recently supported: a tax on pollution.

Then let the market figure out where is best to put the money to solve the
issue..? Then, if your ideas are correct--and they sound like they are--they
would be more-widely adopted, and more efficiently implemented than
bureaucrats would, as well.

~~~
krageon
Pollution is a problem for the whole planet - we already know this. What is
the sense in "letting the market decide" (whatever that means. Markets don't
make any decisions, but I digress) if we already know the outcome we want.
Legislate what we want to do and let's move on with our lives.

~~~
aidenn0
We don't want H2 cars or bikes or cleaner diesel engines. We want less
pollution. Making it more expensive to pollute than to not pollute is the most
direct way of attacking the problem. "Letting the market decide" just means
that the government ought not care _how_ we reduce pollution.

To respond to the GP post, IMO something like Cap and Trade makes more sense
than tax for most forms of pollution; taxes only make sense for pollution when
we have the ability to clearly quantify the harm done by the pollution. Most
of the time we merely want to cap the amount of pollution, and cap-and-trade
will more easily meet that goal than taxation.

~~~
wallace_f
Thanks for explaining the economics to the other user

>IMO something like Cap and Trade makes more sense than tax for most forms of
pollution

Economists argue about this at length. Among those who write a lot to the
public, you'll find figures like Mankiw among the most vocal supporters of a
tax, and DeLong as one of the biggest supporters of cap and trade. Krugman,
from what I have seen, seems to just want either one of them.

IMO the problem with Cap and Trade is that it _needs_ to be implemented
perfectly. So far it has had problematic corruption. For example, in some
cases the greatest offenders (coal generators) have been handed allowances...
For free... Which they can then sell on the market at their fair market value.
So if anything, it has been a reward for being the first to harm others.

Not only that, then you have Wall St entering the picture, and in 2008 they
proved their marketplaces dont always work so well. Bureaucrats and
politicians, attorneys and accountants, endless committees, and endless
meetings... It's going to be another War on Poverty all over again, where
trillions are spent and the problem is not only never solved, but there has
arguably never been evidence the problem has even been _reduced._

Finally, how would cap and trade reward and incentivize micro and household
economics? Are we going by an honor system on our tax returns to tally up our
carbon allowances and deduct how many car pools, telecommutes, bike rides,
stairs, cold showers, etc? This is all lunacy. Why try to do this in a heavy-
handed way when this is the type of thing which markets are actually brilliant
at solving. Probably because all those industry experts dont want to be
obsoleted overnight.

~~~
aidenn0
Yes, handing the credits to companies for free is stupid. They should be
auctioned off. Giving the coal companies credits is tantamount to saying those
companies own the environment!

For CO2 at least the microeconomic incentives are simple because the amount of
CO2 generated by burning fuel is fixed, so you can just require that retail
sales of fuel come with a CO2 credit. For NOx, the emissions of which depend
on many variables it's much more complicated, but I can't think of a good way
of taxing those either.

------
bmcusick
/Looks at wind power 1/5th the cost of coal, and still falling

/Looks at batteries 1/5th the cost of what they were 10 years ago, and still
falling. Just another 1/2 reduction to being cheaper than an ICE engine

Yeah.... even if this made diesel cleaner than baby smiles I don't think this
is going to save diesel.

~~~
throwaway5752
You're unlikely to find a bigger proponent of clean and renewable energy than
me, but there's a long time before that is going to hit industrial end use
where there are certain constraints.

The energy density of li-ion is .05ish mj/l, vs 50ish for diesel. EVs are
about twice as efficient at converting that energy than gasoline ICEs but
that's still a large gap (and diesel is much more efficient, but I don't have
that ratio handy) where weight and volume are constraints. Also, refueling
time is hard to get down economically (you can trade out a full set of battery
cells for new/charged ones, but more vehicle weight/complexity and infra to
accommodate that).

A more efficient diesel is more meaningful to vehicle trends in Europe than
the US, but I think regardless of type of hydrocarbon fuel sources, commuter
use cases are closer aligned with EVs and you're right there that this
development won't stop the trend there (and non-commercial vehicle usage is an
enormous, perhaps largest, source of CO2 pollution).

~~~
Retric
IC engines with transmissions take up vastly more space and weigh quite a bit
more than electric ones do which limits the impact of energy density.

Electric has ~4,200 lb to work with before weigh for components before you
consider the weight of fuel.
[https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-620-april-26-2010-...](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-620-april-26-2010-class-8-truck-
tractor-weight-component)

Mack trucks get ~6.5 mpg, so a 350 mile range would take ~5 Tesla battery's
~6,000 lbs. That's a little low, but far from useless just add how battery
swaps and it's completely viable.

Long term, the move to in road charging means electric trucks will actually
save significant weight over IC engines while also having unlimited ranges.
[http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/18/technology/uk-electric-
cars-...](http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/18/technology/uk-electric-cars-
roads/index.html)

~~~
throwaway5752
That magnetic induction charging embedded in lanes in roads is really
interesting and I didn't know about it. Thank you!

To be fair, 350 is low. Don't semis vary around 150 gallons of fuel capacity?
There will also be a balance to update roads vs choosing rail in a multimodal
logistic chain. Maybe the smaller EV range would be appropriate there for last
mile. Anyway, I know it's complicated but I sure hope we solve this urgently.

~~~
bmcusick
Tesla initially had a battery-swap feature at its earliest Supercharger
stations, but no one used it. For consumers, the recharge time was good enough
even then.

Long haul trucks will probably use it.

------
shaqbert
That article is light on how they tackle the thermal aspects of NOX exhaust.

The key challenge to diesel engines is that the combustion is essentially a
chemical reaction in vastly different thermal conditions depending on the
outside temperature. Every engine has a "sweetspot" thermal range where they
are really efficient in burning diesel fuel and washing out NOX from the
exhaust fumes. Once you're outside that sweetspot, there is little you can do.

------
Theodores
The problem is this :

[http://english.gov.cn/policies/infographics/2015/06/02/conte...](http://english.gov.cn/policies/infographics/2015/06/02/content_281475119391820.htm)

China plan to have 80% of the EV market in next to no time with 80% being of
all sales globally. If Chinese EV cars are just a better product than diesel
banger style cars then diesel is dead. The switchover would happen more like
the death of analog film, economics kicks in at some point and the network of
fuel stations goes much like how the network of places you could get film
processed has utterly vanished.

Film people thought it was all about SLR lenses and film grain, petrol heads
are the same except they think about the joys of a manual transmission and the
silly fart noises that come out of their exhaust. Much like how nobody would
give up the camera on their phone for some 35mm SLR camera it will be the same
with electric cars, nobody would give up their electric car to drive
exclusively diesel or petrol. That is where that analogy ends, nobody was
subsidised to give up their 35mm camera to go digital.

The Bosch press release is indicative of attitude problems, although
petrol/diesel may be 98% of the market now that can be changed with a fall
from being relevant much like what happened with analog film. It takes a
generation to come along and the Luddites eventually shut up or die.

Although Bosch do amazing 'leccy powered systems for cars the manufacturers
have not been quick to start using those components. Maybe this is a bit like
a new CPU, e.g. when the Z80 came out in '76 it took a few years before the
mass market ZX Spectrum came along to use it. Zilog didn't go ahead and make
their own complete system, they just waited a few years for others to do that.
Maybe this is where Bosch are now with their EV goodies. It is all going to
work out fine, we will all be driving Chinese electric cars.

------
shaki-dora
If you break it through application of force, then replace it with electric,
Diesel actually does pretty well.

Kidding aside: this is a vacuous press release regurgitated by a tabloid, and
doesn’t deserve attention.

------
billfruit
How will this tech alter the standing of diesel against petrol in terms of
environment friendliness?

------
watertom
If diesel is less refined than gasoline how is it possible that it could
produce __less* pollution, than gasoline?

Diesel has always been an illusion to me, like turning lead into gold.

------
mtgx
Does it reduce them as much as EVs do? If not then, it's not enough.

~~~
macintux
Agreed. Pollution management should always be more cost-effective when done at
power plants, vs distributed across every vehicle on the road. Let's get there
as soon as we can.

------
devhead
I Think Volkswagen already figured this out... all they need to do is have a
testing mode that applies more filters and turn it off when you're driving
around and can pollute freely w/o government telling you what to do with your
freedom. problem solved?

