European Automakers defend diesels, call them key to meeting CO2 goals

[jpd80]

Automakers defend diesels, call them key to meeting CO2 goals

Nick Gibbs

Automotive News Europe - LINK

April 13, 2015 06:15 CET

Automakers in Europe are calling for long-term clarity on legislation that affects diesels after some

governments started to discourage buyers from purchasing vehicles that use the fuel because of air

pollution concerns.

“The European industry has invested massive amounts of money to make [cleaner] Euro 6 diesels a

reality. Now we start hearing calls to reduce or phase out diesel. This is unrealistic. This industry needs

a longer-term strategy,” Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn, told Automotive News Europe.

 

Diesel-powered vehicles – which accounted for just over half of all new-car sales in Europe last year –

are popular because fuel consumption is roughly 15 percent to 20 percent better than equivalent gasoline

powertrains. In addition, the fuel is less expensive in many European countries because it is less taxed.

That is about to change as France will gradually align taxes on diesel and gasoline to encourage people

to give up their diesel-powered vehicles. French Energy Minister Segolene Royal says France will move

away from diesel to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), which cause smog. “Air pollution is a

major public health issue,” she said. “Sixty percent of the French population breathes air that isn’t healthy.”

 

Starting this month, the French government also will pay a bonus of as much as 10,000 euros (about $10,780)

to consumers who buy an electric car to replace an old diesel vehicle. Meanwhile, the central London borough

of Islington has started to charge residents with diesel cars more to park outside their homes than those with

gasoline cars.

 

Cleaner diesels

Automakers argue that Euro 6 emissions standards that apply to new model cars that go on sale starting in

September will make diesel emissions a non-issue. “The level of removal of pollutants in Euro 6 is phenomenal,”

FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne told reporters at the Geneva auto show last month. The amount of NOx produced

by new diesel cars sold in Europe has declined 84 percent to .08 grams per kilometer since 2001, according to

the UK’s Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders.

 

Automakers are concerned about the anti-diesel sentiment because they say that the powertrain is crucial to

helping them comply with the EU’s requirement that CO2 emissions from the passenger vehicle fleet drop to

95g/km starting in 2020 from about 123g/km last year. “With no diesel there will not be 95 grams in 2020,”

PSA/Peugeot-Citroen CEO Carlos Tavares told Automotive News Europe. “If we are really sincere about fixing

the global warming issue, why are we putting the focus on destroying the mass-market’s most efficient tool?”

Ghosn also called for a clearer, long-term roadmap to allow automakers to reduce their diesel dependence.

 

Automakers also are unhappy that future legislation over emissions on diesel and gasoline engines is not clear.

The key change is the planned shift to a more real-world representative test cycle called the World Harmonized

Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) that would replace the current New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test.

This is expected to be introduced before 2020, but nothing has been agreed. In addition the so-called Euro 6.2

amendment that sets even tougher emissions goals is set to take effect in 2018 and is scheduled to include an

on-road test for tailpipe pollutants. Preliminary tests show this real driving emissions (RDE) segment could prove

tough for Euro 6 diesels. “The 2018 regulations are far from clear, particularly around particulates, real driving

emissions and conformity factors. There is huge uncertainty,” said Andrew Fraser, manager of gasoline powertrain

calibration at Ford of Europe.

 

‘Enormous risk’

Analyst firm IHS Automotive expects the diesel share to fall below 50 percent by 2020. “The biggest drop will be

in minicar and subcompact vehicles as compliance costs shrink profit margins on anything less than compacts,”

said Pavan Potluri, an IHS senior powertrain analyst.

 

Ultimately, automakers feel diesel fuel is being unfairly discriminated against. Said Marchionne: “I have no problem

with setting standards. Let the standards run, and let people comply with the standards. But do not pick technologies.”

PSA CEO Tavares agrees: “Regulators who are not technology neutral are an enormous risk to OEMs.”

 

Luca Ciferri, Jennifer Clark and Bloomberg contributed to this report

[RangerM]

Just how bad is the air in Europe?

 

I have to wonder if the goal is to reduce emissions or total miles driven; given the limitations of electric cars.

[chucky2]

The problem in EU is they've got a.) really old diesels running around that really do pollute a lot and b.) people bypassing things like the DPF because their fuel prices are so high they're looking for every mpg gain they can get. I seem to remember a post by wxman on another forum that broke down their NOX sources and autos really weren't even that high...sort of reminds me of the CA hysteria against diesels (at least that has good reason, can't have those options standing in way of holy grail of electric power)...

[jpd80]

The Europeans got what they wanted, greater fuel efficiency mostly by people avoiding higher taxes but now countries like

France have decided that they need to recover more tax from the public to cover rising budget costs.

 

Hypothetically, what would happen if ther was an en masse change to electric vehicles - assume for a moment that's possible

and you'll immediately see what happens when the tax on fuel dries up, the government then needs to develop an new tax stream.

[chucky2]

They'd just tack it onto the price of the electric car if/when those take off, or make it a yearly sticker or some other such thing. You're right, the $ has to come from somewhere, it will be had, that much is sure, the only question is how the wealth will be extracted...

[jpd80]

They'd just tack it onto the price of the electric car if/when those take off, or make it a yearly sticker or some other such thing. You're right, the $ has to come from somewhere, it will be had, that much is sure, the only question is how the wealth will be extracted...

Exactly, steer sales in the direction you want and then bring in the tax.

 

A lot of people with older diesel cars will just have them repaired and go again

because the fuel economy is still quite good there's no need to upgrade.

That's why the hefty cash inducement to change is there..

 

I can see a Road tax based on monthly basic and use and linked to GPS mapping,

an extension of congestion tax and no chance of avoiding.

Edited April 14, 2015 by jpd80

[chucky2]

Personally I'd be in favor of GPS mapping based taxing for road use, I think that's the most absolute fair way to tax people. It however has large privacy concerns, so I don't see it taking off quite yet. Once we're 20 years deep in all the autos having cell and GPS built into them, maybe it'll be a different story. Too hard to pull off right now...

[akirby]

What is GPS going to tell you about taxes? Just use miles driven. Simple solution.

[jpd80]

What is GPS going to tell you about taxes? Just use miles driven. Simple solution.

Some Euro states are talking about higher road taxes in more congested areas and less tax in rural areas.

GPS can identify particular routes driven at different times of the day, similar could be done with e-Tag toll systems.

Edited April 14, 2015 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

Already happening in the USA

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/04/georgia_passes_200_electric_car_fee_why_are_states_punishing_people_for.html

[akirby]

Some Euro states are talking about higher road taxes in more congested areas and less tax in rural areas.

GPS can identify particular routes driven at different times of the day, similar could be done with e-Tag toll systems.

 

I understand that but coming up with a way to analyze the data and determine how much time was spent in which areas and mapping that to some type of graduated tax scale is complicated. A toll system would be much simpler and more effective (not that I'm in favor of tolls).

[chucky2]

What is GPS going to tell you about taxes? Just use miles driven. Simple solution.

Miles driven can't accurately apply your road usage, hence the need for GPS. If you have grandma who is only driving locally, none of her usage tax (however that is collected) should be sent to the highway system.

[akirby]

Miles driven can't accurately apply your road usage, hence the need for GPS. If you have grandma who is only driving locally, none of her usage tax (however that is collected) should be sent to the highway system.

 

But you don't have to do that individually. You just calculate the overall average percentage of time driven on each and divide the taxes accordingly. That's easy to determine with simple vehicle counters once every 1-3 years. There isn't a huge difference in the amount of maintenance required on a county road versus a state highway in terms of the impact of a single driver. Not enough to make a difference in the costs to the driver.

 

The simplest solution is usually the best.

[RichardJensen]

Miles driven can't accurately apply your road usage

 

The same thing's true of a gas tax.

[akirby]

 

The same thing's true of a gas tax.

 

Especially with hybrids and electrics using less or no gasoline.

[fordmantpw]

Miles driven can't accurately apply your road usage, hence the need for GPS. If you have grandma who is only driving locally, none of her usage tax (however that is collected) should be sent to the highway system.

 

But, doesn't grandma depend on the highway system to bring food to the supermarket she shops at? Oh, the transportation company pays that fee? Which then gets passed onto the consumer? Hey, let's have the transportation company hire an extra 100 people to track all of that information and keep it all straight.

 

The cost to implement a GPS system like that would be terribly high. Imagine the cost to outfit all vehicles with that, plus the cost of the software to monitor, and the calculations required, plus the people to monitor it. How does the data get uploaded? It would be much more productive to just give a flat rate to everyone based on mileage and put the billions that it would have cost to implement the GPS system into maintaining roads instead.

 

Not to mention, what happens to those rural roads that have few regular drivers, but many people will want to travel on occasion. It's just a bad idea in general.

[akirby]

This reminds me of the problem with people leaving their lights on when exiting a long tunnel in the southwest. There was a diner at the exit and people would stop leaving their lights on while they ate in the daytime causing lots of dead batteries. They went through all sorts of complicated designs including changing led signs with light sensors to tell people to turn off their lights in the daytime but not at night.

 

Somebody finally got smart and they ended up with a simple sign that just said........ "ARE YOUR LIGHTS ON?"

 

KISS

[fordmantpw]

The simplest solution is usually the best.

 

Bingo!

 

Eliminate the gas tax completely. Charge each vehicle $0.02/mile (or something of the sort) driven for upkeep of roads. Collect when updating registration on each vehicle. Distribute as needed to keep roads updated. Simple, really.

[rmc523]

 

Bingo!

 

Eliminate the gas tax completely. Charge each vehicle $0.02/mile (or something of the sort) driven for upkeep of roads. Collect when updating registration on each vehicle. Distribute as needed to keep roads updated. Simple, really.

So what's to stop Joe Schmoe from putting a false/lower mileage at their registration time? I suppose the threat of a penalty if discovered via random check or something?

[chucky2]

 

But, doesn't grandma depend on the highway system to bring food to the supermarket she shops at? Oh, the transportation company pays that fee? Which then gets passed onto the consumer? Hey, let's have the transportation company hire an extra 100 people to track all of that information and keep it all straight.

 

Those companies pay that fee and pass it onto the consumer, which they do anyways with the existing gas tax. If the system is designed correctly, they don't need to really hire tons of people. We don't have tons of people being hired to track I-PASS for our tolls in IL, the system just works. Obviously, if a GPS system was employed, it'd need to be that reliably accurate.

 

 

The cost to implement a GPS system like that would be terribly high. Imagine the cost to outfit all vehicles with that, plus the cost of the software to monitor, and the calculations required, plus the people to monitor it. How does the data get uploaded? It would be much more productive to just give a flat rate to everyone based on mileage and put the billions that it would have cost to implement the GPS system into maintaining roads instead.

Won't really be that much cost at all in a decade or so. GM, Volvo, Audi, and others (not sure I can talk about them) are all rolling out vehicles with cell connected and GPS enabled technologies. Throwaway cell phones are commonplace. What is needed would be a centralized (maintain by Federal most likely, hence the Big Brother concerns) storage and IT system, APIs, standards, etc. that once setup shouldn't need much tweaking. Google maps is likely accurate enough. States can maintain the exception process for people living in those States. Yeah it's overhead but it would be the most fair. I'm not at all saying it's the most cheap, the fuel tax is likely the cheapest way to collect road taxes for fuel (or the electric car stamp is even cheaper I guess), but it would be the most fair.

 

Not to mention, what happens to those rural roads that have few regular drivers, but many people will want to travel on occasion. It's just a bad idea in general.

 

Those responsible for those roads will have to maintain them to the degree they feel they need to be maintained with the money from their bucket, just like they do now. No change there.

 

How does one break up the quoting on this BBS once you've quoted someone?

[papilgee4evaeva]

 

How does one break up the quoting on this BBS once you've quoted someone?

Turn off the WYSIWYG editor.

[fordmantpw]

So what's to stop Joe Schmoe from putting a false/lower mileage at their registration time? I suppose the threat of a penalty if discovered via random check or something?

 

It would have a be a felony, the same way that tampering with an odometer would be. The checks and balances would be done when the title is transferred. If you are out of date on mileage, you pay up when the title is transferred. Or, just have the value reported on the inspection sheet when the required vehicle inspection is completed. That would be the easiest.

 

 

How does one break up the quoting on this BBS once you've quoted someone?

 

You can actually hit the 'quote' button multiple times, then just delete the part you don't want in that quote.

 

I can see your arguments, but I still don't see how that is going to be cost effective or easy to do. I work in IT (as a developer) and I know what it would take to develop a system like that, and the infrastructure it would take to manage the petabytes of data that would be generated through that type of system. Sure, vehicles will have cell connected technologies, but who pays that bill? Are we going to charge the owner of each vehicle $10-20 each month so that they can have a cell signal in their car just to help pay their taxes? That's an amount likely equal to or more than the actual tax collected for that vehicle!

[akirby]

 

I work in IT (as a developer) and I know what it would take to develop a system like that, and the infrastructure it would take to manage the petabytes of data that would be generated through that type of system. Sure, vehicles will have cell connected technologies, but who pays that bill? Are we going to charge the owner of each vehicle $10-20 each month so that they can have a cell signal in their car just to help pay their taxes? That's an amount likely equal to or more than the actual tax collected for that vehicle!

 

As an IT architect, this is spot on. People underestimate the complexity involved in actually implementing and maintaining such a complicated system. You're talking about having software in the car that tracks and reports back to some central database. How do you guarantee network connectivity? What's to stop the person from disconnecting the cellular antenna? What about older cars that don't have it? How do you push new software? Then there is all the code that would have to decode the GPS location information and match that with the map that shows the rates. And that map has to be continually maintained.

 

As opposed to simply turning on the vehicle, reading the odometer once per year and generating a bill with a simple math formula. That's already done in a lot of states either for registrations or emissions testing anyway.

 

This is a rube goldberg design that will never work and would cost a fortune.

[RichardJensen]

 

it would be the most fair.

 

Not if it cost significantly more than a straight up usage fee.

[chucky2]

This is really not that complicated (and yes I work in IT too). Does it have complexity? Sure. Really not that bad. I'd estimate our IT group could have the IT side of the implementation done in a year and a half - that's working at sane pace instead of the we need it yesterday pace we're generally at. Hardware is nothing, it's built into the vehicle because the OEMs are already building it into the vehicles. Hardware on the IT side, who cares? It's boxes, order some up for your 3 locations and be done with it. The hardware aspect of this is a nothing.

 

Don't get me wrong: I don't ever see this solution happening - but not because it's too complex (it isn't). It's just that the privacy concerns are too large, and 'good enough' solutions such as the other options you've pointed out exist. They're not as accurate, but, they are a good enough compromise with the public that they - should - win out.