What did they pour in the engines of cash for clunkers cars? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Beamin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2018, 11:15:52 pm
content: Does anyone know what the magic fluid was? I heard they would start the engine and pour something in the oil and the engine would seize in 30 seconds. This must be some sort of epoxy activated by hydrocarbons or non polar solvents. Usually things like water or things with oxygen (ep-OXY is an O containing ligand or group) activate glue not that other way around. Would be a fun prank to switch the oil containers for sale at a store you didn't like. Be worse ten places like Jiffy Lube that can "Guarantee you they get the job done in 20 minutes" but can't guarantee they will put oil back in it.PS?What does this do?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2018, 11:21:21 pm
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_SystemThe motor oil is drained and replaced with a sodium silicate solution, then the engine is started and run until the solution, becoming glass-like when heated, causes engine internals to abrade and ultimately seize.IMHO this is a prime example of wasting perfectly good cars which could have served people in lesser developed countries.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2018, 11:31:09 pm
content: On the upside, it made used cars more valuable for those who kept them.Do you still drive cars like these?

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2018, 11:57:10 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 03, 2018, 11:21:21 pmIt also happened to remove many pre-engine-management-computer cars from use. Resulting in more rapid market share gain for cars with mandated computers, GPS and always-on GSM modems.In other words, cars that will support future government moves towards pay-to-drive, monitoring of vehicle movements, and ability to remote-brick vehicles if the owner does anything the government doesn't like. Not to mention the ability to remotely hack and cause the car to 'suicide' the driver at will, a la Michael Hastings.The good news for me: I just finished getting major repairs and blue slip registration done on my 1993 model pre-computer Subaru, and it's back onroad.In the meantime I had been driving a couple of other newer cars, one very new. A Mazda 'sky-active' model. It talks to you. Human female voice. No way to shut it off. I find it utterly insufferable, highly distracting and disturbing, and would never, ever purchase such a car. Even if I was stupid enough to want to buy a new car, as opposed to a minimal outlay old car that doesn't matter if I scratch up the interior, or get dings in the outside on rough roads.The new Mazda also has the absurd driver distraction of a large bright LCD screen top-center in the dash. Which I solved by permanently draping a black cloth shopping bag over it. And don't get me started about 'iStop' engines and no-key electronic fobs.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 02:28:02 am
content: Related video about what it does to the engine parts:

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 02:34:09 am
content: Quote from: helius on March 03, 2018, 11:31:09 pmThanks for posting! A real blast from the past. I enjoyed this segment of the TV program when I was a kid. BTW the first car they show (a Citroen 2CV) is only 6 years old according to the voice-over.But no we don't drive cars like these anymore. An annual environmental and safety check put an end to horribly unsafe cars on the road.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 02:44:29 am
content: What I think was the worst part is that the requirements for the new car are way too loose. As implemented, it was possible to have a trade where the MPG improvement barely even exists. They should have required the new car to get at least 40 MPG highway.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 03:03:11 am
content: I did a cash for clunkers sale with my '91 Chevy S-10 pickup. They paid me about $100 and hauled it away. It had 500k miles and needed a new water pump. We had too many vehicles so I let it go. There was no requirement to replace it with a new vehicle.I like my 2017 Chevy Bolt. The lane change warnings, rear end collision avoidance (and warning), lane tracking and the cameras make the car a fun thing to drive. Backing up with a camera requires a period of adjustment but it is really nice!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 03:27:41 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on March 04, 2018, 02:44:29 amOne problem would be that the mileage numbers are easily and enthusiastically manipulated. If there's a large scale trade program, you can bet manufacturers suddenly have a range of conveniently compatible cars available.Besides, consuming less fuel isn't always better. As I understand it there's a trade-off between what harmful gasses get exhausted and the fuel efficiency, though there are also gasses where the relation is linear.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 05:52:35 am
content: The program was criminally wasteful. The requirements were pretty clearly designed not to remove "clunkers" from the road, but to destroy as many perfectly good used cars as possible as a thinly veiled bailout for the auto industry. Most of the people driving the true clunkers could not afford to buy a brand new car even with the rebate, it was mostly middle and upper middle class people turning in good used cars to buy something new with marginally better fuel economy. It drove up the cost of the remaining used cars, keeping quite a few polluting worn out old clunkers on the road.I have a very big moral issue with the act of deliberately destroying good stuff just to keep it out of someone else's hands. Those responsible for creating the cash for clunkers program should be removed from society and locked up.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 06:20:45 am
content: Quote from: james_s on March 04, 2018, 05:52:35 amAgreed. I can't stand waste, even when someone else is paying for it.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 07:53:27 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 04, 2018, 03:27:41 amGiven the short notice, the program would be long over before any of the "improved" cars get to market. Also, the 40 MPG mark is very reasonable and many cars were already able to exceed it for years before the program was announced.The MPG level required for an old car to qualify as a clunker is pretty low and would not be a good choice for the poor who drive a lot. The age limit doesn't make much sense but perhaps it's to try to prevent real classics from being destroyed.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 07:57:36 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on March 04, 2018, 07:53:27 amThe short notice isn't a problem. Changing numbers on paper is easy.

author: Beamin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 10:03:24 am
content: People say how wastefull that is but that was nothing compared to haliburton in Iraq. They would buy a $120,000 18 wheeler and not buy any oil filters or spare tires for it. When it needed an oil change or got a flat tire they would torch the whole truck in $4.00 a gallon marked up gasoline and bill the tax payers for a new one under a "cost plus" contract. So they would spend $120,000 plus a 25% bonus of $29,000. So a hundred dollar tire would cost tax payers almost $150,000 or the cost of food stamps for 729 people for one month. They did that with EVERY thing costing almost a trillion dollars. Cash for clunkers was nothing.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 11:42:20 am
content: Quote from: Beamin on March 03, 2018, 11:15:52 pmI've always heard that if you put some sugar in the fuel the engine would seize.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 12:12:16 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on March 04, 2018, 11:42:20 amhttps://www.snopes.com/autos/grace/sugar.asp

author: The Doktor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 12:24:38 pm
content: The sodium Silicate wasn't just to destroy the engine, it was to make the engine non-rebuildable. When the engine got hot and the water started evaporating, glass like deposits would be left inside the crankcase and especially all the oil passages. These deposits are extremely hard to remove completely. If the block were rebuilt, these deposits were likely to break loose eventually and trash the engine.I found this program completely disgusting & wasteful. Many of those cars would have been good transportation for low income people to drive to work. Not to mention that there is an environmental cost to producing a new car which negates some of the "greenness" of replacing the old cars. And remember, all eligible cars were new enough to have cats & computerized engine controls. They were not heavy polluters.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 01:06:18 pm
content: In the UK we have threats that diesel cars may be banned from city centres. This after diesels were heavily promoted as being 'lower pollution' (Meaning CO2) and given all sorts of tax breaks. Many people also looked towards biodiesel as a greener form of transport. So basically it's a vicious backstab for people who thought they were doing the right thing by the environment.Yet, if you check the official DEFRA figures you find that transport pollution levels have consistently fallen during the diesel sales boom era.It doesn't add up.I don't think there is any doubt that the Green Party, the main people behind this along with Greenpeace etc, are being given backhanders by the auto industry. In an about-face from their previous obsession with bicycles they are now heavily promoting battery cars. Go figure.I guess they realise the climate scam is nearing its end, so they need another source of funding.http://iwrconsultancy.co.uk/blog/diesel

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 01:49:39 pm
content: Quote from: Beamin on March 03, 2018, 11:15:52 pmWalks.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 03:18:42 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on March 04, 2018, 01:06:18 pmBut bikes are limited by stamina. I can't see the average Joe biking 12 miles to work every day. Plus, humans emit more CO2 when biking.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 03:34:52 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 04, 2018, 07:57:36 amA "relisting" of the MPG right after the announcement of the program would definitely look suspicious.

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 03:54:44 pm
content: Cash for clunkers ended up lowering the net income of many poor and retired persons. It to this day has still raised the cost of used cars in poor areas.A year after turning in a otherwise decent Ford Ranger that had a rusted out leaky roof, I really regretted it whenIt came time to look for another used car.Steve

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 04:18:22 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on March 03, 2018, 11:57:10 pmFortunately that's mostly untrue, as few cars of the cash for clunkers era could be remotely disabled like that. They might have all had computers, but not all had GPS, GSM modems or Internet connectivity. Even the cars which have all of that aren't designed to be remotely disabled, although I'm aware that attack vectors do exist, which can do that with some models.Quote from: james_s on March 04, 2018, 05:52:35 amI agree. There was a similar scheme here in the UK a few years ago and it resulted in some very expensive historical cars being scrapped, for no reason.Quote from: Beamin on March 04, 2018, 10:03:24 amI haven't seen any figures, but would suspect the value of cars scrapped in the US, exceeded the waste in Iraq, unless you're talking about the whole war, which is more plausible.Quote from: IanMacdonald on March 04, 2018, 01:06:18 pmI don't think that was intentional.Climate change due to increased CO2is very real and is a separate issue to air pollution. The problem was, no one foresaw the diesel emissions scam. Diesel engines are more efficient, than petrol engines and produce less CO2, per mile, so were given tax breaks. Regulators thought they had dealt with the higher emissions, with more stringent regulations. The problem was manufactures cheated, which forced the authorities to clamp down on them.I disagree with banning diesel cars outright, because it would increase waste and which wasn't what was originally intended. The original policy was to ban the manufacture of diesel cars, not stop people from driving them. Unfortunately some city authorities have decided to ban diesel cars from their streets, which will result in more wastage.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 05:36:01 pm
content: As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. People come up with these plans to fix X, Y or Z, and neglect to consider the side effects. Building a new car consumes resources and emits pollution, scrapping an older car consumes resources and emits pollution, not everything can be recycled and recycled materials are usually lower grade than the virgin stuff. There is some threshold where replacing a serviceable older car with a new, cleaner more efficient car is a net negative environmental impact.In the case of the clunkers program, the politicians owed a favor to the auto industry, they promised a bailout and disguising it as an environmental thing and a campaign to help the working people is what allowed them to push it through. I knew several people at the time who drove actual clunkers, crappy beat up old cars that really should have been replaced. They were of course not eligible for the rebate, and these same people couldn't afford a brand new car even if they had been eligible. On top of that, the program destroyed many nicer, cleaner running cars that could have replaced the real clunkers. The whole thing was a scam.

author: Beamin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 05:53:32 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on March 04, 2018, 01:06:18 pmI thought climate change denial was just republicans in the US? I guess any country with a strong oil and gas industry could have one. Imagine someone from the Maldives who's house is under ocean water saying global warming isn't happening?Wonder what they say aboutt in Nigeria or if the country is too fucked up to care. Maybe they think the change in climate is normal?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 06:05:52 pm
content: Are the houses in the Maldives under water?

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 06:08:51 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on March 04, 2018, 04:18:22 pmDiesel cars did and still do reduce CO2 emissions. It's just that they are worse polluters of NO2 and particulate emissions, especially on the older vehicles that will still be on the road for many years, which are more deadly to humans in immediate terms.The end solution will be to ban all engines that produce toxic emissions from major city centers, as people shift to new technologies. Which in many cases just relocates pollution to places less occupied, since the energy still has to be produced somewhere.

author: Beamin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 06:34:43 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on March 04, 2018, 06:05:52 pmYes. There is a picture on google of fishes swimming in someone's kitchen in knee deep ocean water. There are crops from salt water.Diesels can make less CO2 if there MPG is 50 mpg vs 30 for the same size car. gas and diesel are basically the same thing: O2+H2C->CO2+H2O. Technically the closer to methane you get the more water you make CH4 with the other end of the spectrum being coal which is just C and really long chains of CH2. Every carbon chain has a termination of CH3 so the ends net two additional hydrogen so one additional water per unit burned. Diesel is slightly longer hydrocarbons then gas but very negligible as far as extra water made. NO2 takes energy to make so that extra energy is usually the form of a spark heat.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 07:01:35 pm
content: Quote from: Beamin on March 04, 2018, 05:53:32 pmSadly they're everywhere. We've just had some cold weather so I suspect they'll use that to support their claim that global warming is fake, but they would be ignoring the fact that temperatures have been considerably above average in the arctic.One thing to note about the weather is, if if one location suddenly experiences higher or lower than average temperatures, another place will have the opposite. This is because the amount of thermal energy on earth is relatively constant. There are things which can cause it to change such as CO2levels, solar activity and volcanic eruptions, but they generally take a little longer to have an effect, than the weather.Quote from: Nusa on March 04, 2018, 06:08:51 pmI know.QuoteSelfishly speaking, as a cyclist, I would benefit from banning diesel cars in town, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good policy. The problem is it will cause people to scrap their diesel cars, which is not an environmentally option. Banning their manufacture of diesel cars is one thing, but forbidding their use, is another and is bad in general.

author: Beamin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 07:12:18 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on March 04, 2018, 07:01:35 pmIt's not all bad. If you like fresh fish and live in the Maldives you can sit at your kitchen table with your fishing rod catch a fish dangle it into the frying pan then dangle it on to you plate. Ten minute fresh fish. Yes you will have to get your feet wet but they have been wet since you poured the water out of your shoes when you picked them up off the floor..

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 09:36:28 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on March 04, 2018, 07:01:35 pmI don't entirely agree with this. The signs that diesel cars would be banned within a couple of years have been on the wall loud and clear for many years. Because of that I bought a gasoline car instead of a diesel a couple of years ago.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 09:41:19 pm
content: Quote from: The Doktor on March 04, 2018, 12:24:38 pmSome of the greenness? I doubt you'll get an environmental return on investment within the typical life span of a car. Producing a car takes a massive amount of energy and doing a few more miles on the gallon means it takes ages to get even.Not to mention people might adapt their behaviour to the lower fuel costs, simply driving more.

author: sidspop
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2018, 11:34:21 pm
content: I was told that the emissions produced by a motor car over its' entire life is something like 90% production, 10% usage. How true that is I do not know.If it is the case, it makes more sense to keep older cars on the road.Not forgetting that new cars attract taxes, which every government welcomes with open coffers

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 12:40:06 am
content: Quote from: sidspop on March 04, 2018, 11:34:21 pmA cursory search found this article, which has a ballpark figure of the manufacturing CO2 emissions of a car being about the same as 3 years of driving. This would indicate that over the typical lifespan of a car, the emissions from driving strongly outweigh the manufacturing emissions.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 12:56:33 am
content: Quote from: tooki on March 05, 2018, 12:40:06 amConsidering the average age of a car in the US is about 12 years, even with those numbers the car would have to be at least 25% more efficient to break even. That's not even taking the aforementioned effects of people driving more when they have to spend less on fuel into account. It should be noted that carbon is not the only metric of interest, though.However, it seems pretty obvious that the Cash for Clunkers program was a bailout. I don't think many people doubted that to begin with.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 02:23:38 am
content: It would be interesting to see a nut for nut bolt for bolt manufacturing pollution survey between a petrol clunker and a Tesla. I think the Tesla loses on one particular significant point.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 05:18:02 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on March 04, 2018, 03:18:42 pmThat's not quite the same because the CO2 came from the air to begin with a short time before it returns. Remember that plants absorb CO2 as they grow. (The sustainability or lack of it in modern farming practices is a separate issue.) Hence why my friend Allie Moore can consider herself an environmentalist even though she eats a lot. (There's also the issue that people can't exactly alter their genetics but they do have some choice over lifestyle and buying practices.)That's also why biofuels, done right, are considered carbon neutral. In the US, ethanol is one example of a good idea implemented badly. They should have used a more efficient process like starting from switchgrass.It's also worth mentioning that it's possible to run bicycles on electricity. And, of course, making it truly carbon neutral by sourcing that electricity from rooftop solar panels. Rinoa Super-Genius has done many videos covering that.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 09:42:46 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 04, 2018, 09:36:28 pmWhat about those who already have diesel cars? If they weren't banned in cities, they could have sold them, but in the legislation will render them worthless and destined for the crusher.Just banning the manufacture of new diesel vehicles, including buses, vans and lorries and allowing the continued use of old ones, is a more sustainable option. The old diesel vehicles will eventually be replaced with alternatives, without the need for unnecessary waste.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 09:50:39 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on March 05, 2018, 09:42:46 amYeah, but that'd take planning and effort. Why would you do that if you can just have citizens foot the bill?

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 10:12:27 am
content: The simple fact is that fossil fuels have transformed human life out of something that was unpleasant, brutal and short into a civilised existence for most people. Even in the 'third world' living conditions are steadily improving. A return to pre-industrial life, which the Greens seem to hanker after, would not be the paradise they seem to think.In fact this experiment has already been tried, google Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward. A disaster which literally killed millions.Fossil fuels are not perfect, but they are infinitely better than no fossil fuels. The current anti-diesel propaganda agonizes over piffling levels of pollution compared to the London smogs of the open coal fire era.Source: DEFRAI lived in Edinburgh in the 70's and the pollution there was pretty horrible. Then again, that had been the case since at leas the Victorian era. (It was known as Auld Reekie) Going there today, you don't even notice any pollution. The city pollution problem has largely been solved. I guess that causes a problem for the Greens, because it leaves them without a bandwagon to crusade from. So, guess what? They invent one.Since they have ties to the battery car manufacturing sector, it makes sense that they would demonize some form of fossil fuel powered vehicle in order to promote sales. (And when you think about it, promoting cars in any form is an about-face from their previous love affair with the bicycle. A car of any kind is the same level of hazard to a cyclist. -Correction, an electric car more so because you can't hear it approach.)Instead of wasting time and resources on'forward-to-the-past'technology such as windmills, it would make more sense to take a longer term view and spend money on developing realistic replacements for fossil fuels such as thorium or fusion. It will take maybe a decade or two to perfect these, but the sooner we start, the sooner we shall have them.In the shorter term, fuel cell powered vehicles make more sense than battery cars. A fuel cell that used liquid fuel would be ideal.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 10:18:19 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on March 05, 2018, 09:42:46 amAs I wrote before: ban on diesel has been coming for a long time so people already had time to adjust. Many people buy diesels to drive a lot so the cars will wear out quicker on average.

author: senso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 10:41:52 am
content: And gasoline direct injection emit a lot more fine particulates, so back to square one on the emission soap opera..

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 11:07:35 am
content: You want to ban diesels? Cool. Let's vote that and see and do for once what the people want.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 11:18:04 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on March 05, 2018, 11:07:35 amThe problem is that the majority isn't always good in long term results. Nobody wants to pay taxes, but not paying them on a nation wide scale tends to not work out.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 12:03:49 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2018, 10:18:19 amNot true. The government was talking about banning the manufacture of new diesel cars in 20 years time, not prohibiting their use in the immediate future, which was a nasty surprise to those who already had them.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 12:56:40 pm
content: Exactly. Nasty. And surprise.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 02:33:47 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 05, 2018, 11:18:04 amGood. Let's not vote that, then.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 02:51:14 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on March 05, 2018, 02:33:47 pmWhere's the straw man here? Not everything that doesn't suit your story is a straw man. I'm simply pointing out that this is a case of the tragedy of the commons.If you are going to ask what people want, you will need to ask them about their goals. Not whether certain means are suited to reach those goals. That's for experts to decide. If you have society micromanage decisions like these, your course is going to be all over the place.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 02:54:25 pm
content: Hopefully by 20 years' time we'll have fuel cells which can run from gasoline, alcohols or other liquid fuels. Provided the cost isn't excessive that technology should then gradually replace the IC engine of its own accord. If we have thorium or fusion we can synthesise the fuel.Taking a positive step forward is always preferable to banning things.Imagine if the steam engine had been banned once the Victorians realised that it caused LOADS of pollution. Where would we be now? With no industrial revolution, would slavery still be legal?Also, nobody wants to pay taxes, but I'd rather that if I do, the money goes on useful public works and not on the fantasies of pipedreamers. Like the Edinburgh trams for example, 3/4 of a billion spent to serve just one route, and at the same time to create a death trap for cyclists.

author: dmills
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 03:09:16 pm
content: Fuel cells for road transport?Been there, worked on it, more effective for getting government pork then for powering cars....I worked on a hydrogen fuel cell hybrid back around 2000, H2 is a purely crap road fuel (Which all the engineers knew), low volumentric energy density at any pressure you would want to deal with, does bad things to the metallurgy of common materials, and if you cryo cool the stuff to get reasonable density then the energy required for the cooling is ~50% of that eventually released in the reaction, so a great start to efficiency there!Direct methanol has some interesting rare earth requirements and is madly prone to contamination, bearing in mind that you are getting the oxygen from air (And if you were tanking LOX (With the public filling the tanks no less!) we could all think of a better way to build a vehicle - two turbopumps and a thrust chamber)!The other nice trap, is that the majority of car trips are short, and there are thermal constraints on the cell membranes (PEM for example does not produce useful power below 75C or so), so on startup you have to dump a load of the battery power into heaters to get the coolant up to temperature, quite painful when you are just doing a short trip to the shops.The joke among the engineers was that we were doing it because the big car companies found throwing a billion at alternative fuels research was cheaper then finding a Californian senator that would stay bought.Regards, Dan.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2018, 04:01:52 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on March 05, 2018, 10:12:27 amThe big difference is that a lot of the technology alternative energy relies on was not available back then. The next move is to accelerate the replacement of fossil fuels with renewables starting where it's easiest to do.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 01:47:43 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on March 05, 2018, 12:03:49 pmI wonder where you have been for the past decade if banning diesel cars is news to you. In Germany they have been banning poluting cars since 2008 and these measures have been announced much earlier on. Ofcourse such bans get extended, expanded and copied by other places and countries. Like I wrote before: the signs have been on the wall loud and clear for a long time (over a decade!). Anyone who bought a diesel car in the last decade could have known that they bought a car which they might not take everywhere at some point in the future.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 04:41:15 am
content: Doesn't the considerably higher fuel economy of a diesel car more than offset the increased NOx and particulate pollution? They were never very popular over here for other reasons, but diesel power is universal amongst large trucks, locomotives and other large vehicles.The modern high efficiency gasoline direct injection engines also produce a lot of NOx. If I were one of those conspiracy nuts I'd probably be suspicious that the pendulum swings from one side to the other as a means of pushing everyone to buy new cars.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 06:38:15 am
content: Quote from: james_s on March 06, 2018, 04:41:15 amExcept that NOx emissions from gasoline engines have been nicely handled by 3-way catalytic converters that have been standard equipment since about 1980. Diesels have had to find different technologies to control NOx, as there's too much oxygen in their exhaust for the catalytic solution to work. And those solutions or partial-solutions have only been in place for a decade or so, depending on what jurisdiction we're talking about.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 07:31:37 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2018, 01:47:43 amThe problem is that what's considered polluting changes every few years. Sometimes it's carbon, sometimes it's nitrogen oxides, sometimes it's particles. Whenever there's a new report coming out and some political party wants to score points, they come up with another metric to ban something arbitrarily.The fact that the policies have been all over the road makes it unfair to make sudden changes without a reasonable term to anticipate the changes. A car is hugely expensive and you can't expect civilians to just keep adjusting to legislation that can't quite make up its mind.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 07:51:29 am
content: Quote from: Nusa on March 06, 2018, 06:38:15 amThe problem is, it seems, that even with the "catalytic converters that have been standard equipment since about 1980" in place, "The modern high efficiency gasoline direct injection engines also produce a lot of NOx".

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 07:54:23 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 06, 2018, 07:31:37 amHa, and you told me: "If you have society micromanage decisions like these, your course is going to be all over the place.", remember?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 08:14:34 am
content: I think the policy makers' policies making goes like this:1) Devise a plan to make the tax payer pay some more taxes2) Find an excuse to dress it properly in the eyes of the tax payers3) Make it law4) Go to 1If they run out of ideas the lobbies come to help, in this case the car makers. E.g., we're almost there, quasi ready to ship the new EVs, let's begin to ban, progressively, everything with fossil fuels. The macro economy numbers will look wonderful if everybody buys a new (EV) car.It's not only that they think we are imbeciles, they know that even if we are not, there's nothing we can do to stop them.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 10:39:52 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on March 06, 2018, 07:51:29 amPoint me at some vehicle emissions data to support that statement. This sounds like an exaggeration at best, as if it really were "a lot" it would fail standards testing and be unsellable.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 11:48:47 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 06, 2018, 07:31:37 amYes, back in 2008, diesel cars were billed as an environmentally friendly alternative to petrol, because they emit less CO2. There wasn't any serious talk of banning them until the emissions scandal and even then, the original idea was to phase out diesel cars, not prohibit their use.In my experience, it's buses and lorries which are the worse offenders, pollution-wise in town. Every morning I cycle past buses jammed in traffic, pumping out all sorts of crap, which makes me cough and wheeze. They should be banned in town, long before diesel cars.In reality all transport is polluting. It's just different types of pollution which have different effects. CO2is a global issue, and particulates are local. People living in towns and cities will be more concerned about local pollution, whereas farmers will worry more about climate change. Neither form of pollution should be overlooked in favour of the other.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 11:53:07 am
content: Quote from: Nusa on March 06, 2018, 06:38:15 amIt is more complicated than that. The biggest problem is that it is nearly impossible to get the emissions (particles and NOx) of a diesel engine under control in an economic and reliable way. After about 150k km the emission control systems on a diesel engine start to fail and need costly repairs (many people have the emission control systems disabled). Why do you think so many manufacturers tried to fool the regulatory bodies by using software which detects a test cycle?For example: this is a picture of the intake manifold of my 1999 turbodiesel car when I bought it. There is a 5mm thick sludge on the inside due to oil and soot (from the EGR).Imagine what happens when the intake gets clogged up further.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 12:20:37 pm
content: You can always clean the EGR and nowadays a new DPF (every 5..7 years or so) is less than 500€, not a big problem imo.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 12:27:25 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on March 06, 2018, 10:39:52 amGoogle is our friend. I've read it somewhere, it's the problem of "downsizing" the engines, they run hotter and at higher compression (as a diesel) => moar NOx (like a diesel) and moar particulate, too. Why? It seems they run "lean" => more oxygen available in the chamber to react with the nitrogen in the air (as a diesel).

author: Beamin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 12:38:47 pm
content: I think banning diesels will backfire (see what I did there)People protested nuclear energy so much in the 1970's that all we ended up doing was not building any new reactors. That would be good right? No we were still dependent on the ones we have so instead of building newer water reactors making them safer or even thorium, salt or other reactors that can't melt down we kept the old ones up and running. Then fukushima and who knows what else is going to happen. The last RBMK Chernobyl style reactor in Lithuania was only shut down a few years ago and those things were ticking time bombs. Also nuclear makes very little carbon: the carbon comes from mining and processing of fuel. Ironically coal plants emit more radiation and cause far far more deaths then nuclear. Some one dies in a coal mine in china every week.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 12:59:46 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on March 06, 2018, 12:20:37 pmFor that price? Don't think so. That sounds more like the price to have them permanently disabled. Last time I looked at a diesel car replacing the DPF was quoted at 1100 euro (the price of the used car was 6000 euro).

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 01:10:57 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2018, 12:59:46 pmIDK, I bought one for my kuga just the other day, 380€. Just remove 4 bolts to replace it. Here's one for a Volvo for 220 pounds:https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VOLVO-XC70-2-4D-Diesel-Particulate-Filter-DPF-05-to-07-D5244T4-Soot-BM-30713210/332358042948?epid=1139123971&hash=item4d62154544:g:vsoAAOSwNd9ZzqqSIf you've got an expensive car, say Macan or a Cayenne or something like that, that may explain it though... but that's to be expected, isn't it?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 01:16:09 pm
content: I'm talking about a bog standard Ford with the very common 1.6TDCI engine (from Renault).

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 01:23:37 pm
content: Here's one for a focus for £160:https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/FITS-FORD-FOCUS-1-6-TDCi-07-04-07-11-EEC-DIESEL-PARTICULATE-FILTER-DPF-CAT/311946155369?fits=Car+Make%3AFord%7CCars+Type%3A1.6+TDCi&hash=item48a1709569:g:BoMAAOSwGY1Zn~FT

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2018, 01:59:55 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on March 06, 2018, 01:23:37 pmBut that isn't an original part. My experience with non-original parts isn't very good. They break very quickly so end up costing more in the long run. I'm not saying you should buy parts from the dealer because original parts can be bought on Ebay relatively cheap as well.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2018, 03:34:43 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on March 06, 2018, 12:27:25 pmAlready had tried Google and didn't find any obvious support for the claim, which is why I asked you to point me at the not so obvious support for the claim.