[IB885588]

Burning it elsewhere might not help when it comes to CO2 emissions (though if it ends up being burned in a much more efficient engine/powerplan, at least you get more useful work out of it), but it can help a lot when it comes to health[1]. Diesel is particularly dirty, and burning it in densely populated areas should definitely be phased out. Long-haul trucking might make sense, but buses and garbage trucks should at the very least run on hybrid natural gas, until they are electric.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5352477/

[pedrocr]

>Diesel is particularly dirty, and burning it in densely populated areas should definitely be phased out.

The latest EU diesel standards for passenger cars are actually on par with the gasoline standards. Don't know what the standards are for heavy trucks though.

[smiley1437]

> The latest EU diesel standards for passenger cars are actually on par with the gasoline standards. Don't know what the standards are for heavy trucks though.

Can we trust any of the big automotive manufacturers to actually meet those standards without cheating?

Look at how widespread the issue is [Dieselgate](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/dieselgate-timeli...)

[driverdan]

Yes, because of Dieselgate. There is much more scrutiny now and the costs were high.

[aoner]

Not sure if they learned though

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/07/26/carmaker...

> The automotive industry says it has cleaned up its act. But this week the European Union’s executive branch, the European Commission, revealed it has discovered a whole new form of cheating – this time on CO2 emission tests. The 2016 scandal concerned air pollution tests on diesel vehicles, where automakers were using so-called ‘defeat devices’ during tests to make the cars seem like they were emitting less pollution. Now, the carmakers are accused of doing the opposite – artificially inflating the level of carbon emissions produced by new cars coming onto the market now. Why would automakers want their cars to look more emissions-intensive than they are? Because a new EU law will require automakers to reduce their fleet average CO2 emissions by 15% by 2025 and 30% by 2030 – based on 2021 levels.

[pedrocr]

They've gamed the tests quite a bit over the years. Yet so far, even after all the scrutiny, VW is the only one that was actually caught cheating. VW is probably enjoying the muddy message everywhere that "everyone does it" but so far only VW has actually been found to be cheating.

[usrusr]

Heavy duty are supposedly cleaner (per unit of fuel) both on paper (standards) and in reality, because manufacturers don't shy away from exposing business customers to the maintenance burden of exhaust treatment systems. But trucking is a border-crossing low-margin business, corners will be cut at every opportunity.

[lovich]

I wonder if there's data on the difference between engines with factory settings, and vehicles that have been modified to roll coal. My hometown had a number of people change their trucks to roll coal and it would get noticeably hazy in busy intersections

[zrobotics]

I used to work at a 4 wheel drive shop in a previous life- there are likely more modified diesel trucks out there than you think. The idiots that purposely modify trucks to 'roll coal' are a minority compared to owners who have bypassed pollution controls for increased reliability and fuel economy. A truck with the EGR bypassed or DPF removed spews more particulate than stock, but this isn't visually apparent. Most of the smoke from rolling coal is unburned fuel in the exhaust gas, this phenomenon seemed to be mainly restricted to younger people, especially oil field workers.

I know this is anecdata, but at least in CO, UT, WY area there are more modified trucks than what is immediately apparent, since often a truck w/ bypassed emissions equipment isn't heavily cosmetically modified.

[msisk6]

I live in a small Texas town outside of Austin. I think my diesel pickup is the only unmodified one here. It's really that common. The exhaust after-treatment and DPF systems are fairly complex and most owners just take 'em out. There's emissions inspections in this county, but diesel vehicles are conveniently exempt.

[alliao]

why do they take them out? and when do they take them out? when it broke?

[msisk6]

A bit late to the reply, but mostly it's perception: when the urea-injection exhaust-aftertreament systems first came out in 2013 or so there were a few reliability issues that dealers didn't do a good job of fixing. It's much improved now and my truck hasn't had any issues at all.

And, I'm sad to say, some folks just like the whole "rolling coal" thing and the ability to put out huge plumes of black smoke.

[lovich]

That's not even something I would argue. I guess my real question would be "what is the difference between a car that passes emissions tests and a car that is modified about 30 minutes after an emissions test"

There are a fair amount of people who will actively pollute because you asked/told them not to, and I wonder if they have a significant effect on the environment