German power play – silly EU CO2 rules for cars delayed at least till 2024

Posted: October 16, 2013 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

The k2p blog

It’s the right decision of course. The proposal was for yet another one of the many EU rules where the benefits are doubtful and the implementation would have had no measurable effects on the desired outcome.

But entirely due to German protectionism for its performance car industry – and much to the disappointment of Ford– the limit of 95g of CO2 per km for any vehicle’s emissions has now been delayed at least till 2024!  Well Done Germany!

“The emissions limits are part of the EU’s drive to switch Europe to a low-carbon economy and slow the impact of climate change.”

The EU’s CO2 restrictions proposals for power plants and for aircraft and this one for cars are part of of a long line of  “feel-good” proposals which the Greens are so fond of — full of sound and idiocy, accomplishing nothing. So far the EU has not proposed…

View original post 282 more words

Comments
  1. Zeke says:

    “Weakening the agreed 2020 limits [95g of CO2 per km for any vehicle’s emissions], which have long been known, is a shameful sop to German car manufacturers and will slow the development of new technologies to deliver more efficient and less polluting cars,” Ms Harms said after the ministers’ vote. ….

    Co2 is not a pollutant. Combustion of fuels is not a class privilege for an extractive, useless aristocracy to regulate out of other people’s lives.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Shame, I quite liked the idea of Germans screaming down the autobahn at 110 mph in their government-imposed mini-cars.

  3. PeterMG says:

    Tallbloke this is like Déjà vu and this exact sort of delay has happened before and is nothing new for the Germans. Back in the 80’s, after the successful implementation of regulations (started in the US) to clean up the harmful emission from petrol engines, mainly CO a deadly poison and the best way of committing suicide back then and NOx,(nitrous oxides) the main cause of smog, regulators turned their attention to diesel engines.

    Given diesels produced no direct poisonous gases they had initially been ignored but in California where climatic and geological conditions created areas of still air where NOx in particular built up and caused server smog regulators had required diesels to meet reduced NOx levels in the 70’s. Back then the technology to meet these limits was a double edged sword. Reductions in NOx resulted in an increase in fuel burn (increasing overall NOx but reducing the amount per bhp hour) and increases in particulates and reduced service intervals. I know I worked on these engines.

    Come 1987 and the US introduced its first country wide emissions standards for diesel engines. Technology had improved but one company; Detroit Diesel introduced the first electronic diesel engines and stole a march on Cummins, market leader, and CAT the market Leader for mussel machines. Suddenly Detroit owned then by Roger Penske had an engine that met both the emissions limits and delivered improved fuel economy and reliability and durability. The Europeans were to introduce their own limits at the same time but the date kept being put back due to pressure from Daimler Benz who could not make their then current engine platform deliver both improved emissions and keep its mediocre performance and fuel economy. I know because I tested them all.

    Finally 1993 was agreed as the date for Euro 1 introduction, regulations which were a bit of a watered down EPA 87 level. By then the US EPA 91 levels had been released and Cummins in particular had released a full electronic heavy duty line up to try and claw back market share in the US. In the UK Cummins produced electronic engines in Shotts in Scotland for UK Truck builders (we still had them back then) and these engines were head and shoulders above their European competitors. The canny Roger Penske managed to get Daimler Benz to invest in his fuel system technology company and eventually to buy Detroit Diesel outright. By by another independent firm that was once a leader in innovation; by by customer choice but that’s another story.

    The other point about this Tallbloke is that regulators of diesel exhaust emissions (and spark ignited engines) have largely done their job. NOx is miniscule, CO eliminated (was never an issue in a diesel) particulates gone, lead gone (dubious benefits given the replacements but that’s yet another story) un-burnt hydrocarbons gone. So what is left; water and carbon dioxide? Regulators have just enough brain cells to realise that they would look really stupid regulating water, but think that with all the hullabaloo over Climate change they can regulate away CO2 in the same way they regulated NOx HC CO and particulates. They no longer rely on any scientific understanding of combustion, but have descended into fantasy land.

    The absurd thing is all these manufacturers know it’s utterly impossible to regulate CO2 which is directly related to how much fuel you burn and what type of fuel, but have said nothing. And regulating CO2 is going to distort taxation and promote using inefficient gas and petrol spark ignited engines rather than the vastly more efficient diesel. It’s also rather galling that these self-same manufactures have been falling over themselves to demonstrate just how green they are whilst it suited them, to our collective detriment, encouraging regulators with full frontal lobotomies to impose completely unnecessary costs on energy then squawk like pigs when they finally realise that what’s being proposed is impossible which as I said they have known all along.

    Euro 6 emission for diesels comes into being next year. This in my opinion is a step too far, increases complexity for zero gain, they are reducing NOx from a practical zero level to half that zero level. Far more benefit would have been gained in locking limits at Euro 5 and incentivising reduced fuel burn, which if we went back to euro 4 levels could be as high as 20%.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Peter, thanks for the well informed comment. It’s a bit like the aircon story isn’t it? We know the ozone hole is a solar related thing and that cfc’s have bugger all to do with it. Yet the regulators ban Freon (just as DuPont’s patent was running out) and insist we use a refrigerant which requires much higher pressures to operate. Which means aircon systems in old vehicles can’t use it, and new cars have to burn more fuel to get the same aircon effect. Nuts.