Volkswagen used software to CHEAT on AIR POLLUTION tests, alleges US gov

The US government has accused Volkswagen of using software to duck emissions testing for certain air pollutants on nearly half a million of its cars. The German manufacturer was slapped with a notice of violation (NOV) of the Clean Air Act from the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday and ordered to fix its emissions …

[JeffyPoooh]

I'm guessing that...

I'm guessing that all those VW and Audi TDI vehicles are about to have their on-the-road performance trimmed back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm guessing that...

Exactly what I was thinking. Nitrogen oxides increase as the combustion temperature increases - because nitgrogen only reacts with oxygen at high temperatures and some of the oxides are endothermic anyway - so either a very significant modification in terms of catalytic converter is needed, or peak power will be way down.

Half a million cars. The eventual cost could run into billions.

[DanielN]

Re: I'm guessing that...

Cost of billions? Maybe. You have to remember that the EPA is led by the worst sort of political hacks, whose lies can rarely be distinguished from their incompetence.

They say "up to 40 times the standard". Not on average 40 times the standard. It could be as simple as VW responding to 100% accelerator pedal input before the catalytic converter has warmed up, at high altitude and high air temperature. The fix could be a trivial loss of peak power under rare start up conditions. The EPA's press release is deliberately thin on information to vilify VW.

We also have to look at the timing. The US EPA is involved in a major scandal where they tried to remediate an abandoned mine and instead dumped heavily contaminated water into a river. They were apparently conducting the work with minimal planning and supervision. So they need something to trot out in the press to distract mister voter.

[Munkeh]

Re: I'm guessing that...

That's a valid point and this is the same EPA that turned off the Ghostbusters containment chamber - look how that turned out.

[JeffyPoooh]

Re: I'm guessing that...

"US EPA is involved in a major scandal where they tried to remediate an abandoned mine and instead dumped heavily contaminated water into a river."

Not exactly a 'scandal'. It's just not the correct word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm guessing that...

'scandal' was probably more polite than 'cluster fuck'

[Unhandle]

Re: I'm guessing that...

Wrong on all counts. The cars were tested extensively by a university group which did the testing on a drive from southern cal up to Seattle. After that, EPA was brought in. The results are no fluke and even 2 times over the standard would be a disaster.I don't care if they screw the gas pedal to the floor. It is not supposed to happen. Period. We are talking about an exceptionally well-engineered deception which actually gives the finger to air quality in this country and now VW is going to pay for that. It was an audacious move that has to be responded to with an equally impressive fine and prosecution. In terms of disrespecting a nation, it would be as if we went over to Germany and snatched somebody off the street because we couldn't get him legally...oh...wait...we did that. Nevermind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm guessing that...

Half a million cars. The eventual cost could run into billions.

From the NYT:

"Under the terms of the Clean Air Act, the Justice Department could impose fines of as much as $37,500 for each recalled vehicle, for a possible total penalty of as much as $18 billion."

[Destroy All Monsters]

Re: I'm guessing that...

From the NYT

Reminder that this is the "paper of record" that detects Nigerian yellowcake in Iraq, Russian tanks in Ukraine, Nuke testing at Parchin and a Russian landing force in Syria.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm guessing that...

The cost would only hit billions if the EPA does some insanely high fines. I've read that they can fine $37,500 for each occurrence, but what defines "occurrence" is a bit of a gray area. Is each car an occurrence? They were threatening to fine a local farmer $37,500 each time it rained, for having some runoff problems, and others have been fined $37,500 a day until a condition was corrected. So I guess if you combine all that they could fine VW $37,500 each time any car affected is driven, going back to when the cars were first sold, and get a judgment for trillions!

The cost of fixing should be pretty small - the owner will just bring in the car, have a software update that corrects this. This might hit owner satisfaction, if the update causes a significant change in the behavior of the car. It isn't clear how much it would since "up to 40x" could mean "worst case if you start your car in below zero weather and immediately drive away without letting it warm up" but be far less under the vast majority of cases.

[Pookietoo]

Re: have a software update that corrects this

A software update could obviously remove the cheat, but presumably the cheat was implemented to improve performance in some way that wouldn't be possible while complying with air quality requirements, so the fixed cars will have some sort of performance deficit.

[david 12]

Re: have a software update that corrects this

Aus. is watching this with various degrees of outrage and indifference. My understanding is that the cheating engines still meet Australian standards, and I'm guessing that the Aus. 'fix' which has been promised to owners here, will be just altering the software so that it doesn't report dishonest values during testing.

Due to Aus population and weather patterns, this is less of an immediate helath issue here than it would be in Bejing/London/LA

[Ian Bush]

Re: I'm guessing that...

Nit from a chemist: All nitrogen oxides are thermodynamically unstable ("endothermic") w.r.t. the elements

[Voland's right hand]

Re: I'm guessing that...

That and that they employed some software developers who worked on Nvidia or Radeon drivers in the mid-noughties.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm guessing that...

That and that they employed some software developers who worked on Nvidia or Radeon drivers in the mid-noughties.

Or the one that got the Toyota World Rally team banned in 1995 for an illegal intake restrictor, which only restricted during scrutineering.

That was me, although I didn't know about it at the time - I developed software to allow the creation and downloading engine maps to the ECU, and it was triggered by just another multi-dimensional map with a German name I didn't understand.

[Dodgy Geezer]

Re: I'm guessing that...

....and who were working for some of the anti-virus companies in the nineties...

[ZootCadillac]

It's about time someone with power took the EPA to court to challenge them. Any body that decides life-essential CO2 is a pollutant does not deserve to be wasting public money on ideology. ( which is a separate issue from the article, I know. The EPA just grinds my gears )

[Anonymous Coward]

Life-essential? Last I checked, CO2 is toxic to humans at concentrations above 2% and fatal above 10%.

[Barely registers]

OK - I'll bite, now reel me in.....

I suspect Zoot means that without CO2, there would be no plant life, hence no food, hence no life.

In that respect, CO2 is a very good thing, but yes, you can have too much.

[kiwimuso]

Re: OK - I'll bite, now reel me in.....

@ Barely registers

Ahh! You can always have too much of a good thing - which is what tends to cause obesity - or so I am told.

Off topic I know but couldn't resist. And maybe it's not a joke anyway.

[ZootCadillac]

And where are you going to find concentrations like that? Current atmospheric concentration is approx 400ppm, 0.0382% currently. ISS astronauts live in concentrations of 5000ppm peaking higher, submariners regularly live in concentrations of 8000ppm often higher. The average family TV room in the evening has a CO2 concentration of 1000ppm whilst little Johnny enjoys the show. Your argument is spurious. All substances can be made to be toxic in theoretical conditions including something as simple as drinking water. To poison a human being with the levels you suggest would mean placing them in an airtight enclosure and altering the ratio of Nitrogen and Oxygen, to a trace gas by an abnormal amount that could never exist in atmospheric conditions merely to prove a point.

As for life essential? most plant growth will shut down below 200ppm. Much lower than that and you will get major biomass die off. No plants? No insects, no humans. Even at current levels CO2 can be considered dangerously low by paleoclimate standards. Rising CO2 has been nothing but good for the planet as evidenced by the increase in greening on previously barren areas of Earth.

Ask an honest climate researcher ( if you can find one ) to show you the correlation proving CO2 increases temperatures by a definitive and proven amount and you won't find one because the honest answer remains "we don't know". And given that man's contribution to that 0.0382% part of the atmosphere is an uncertain 2.3-5% of the already trace levels then to assert that man is directly affecting temperature to any statistically significant or measurable effect is just plain fraud.

Do a bit of research.

[ZootCadillac]

Addendum to the above. Current percentage of atmospheric CO2 as measured by Mauna Loa for August is 0.0398%. That's what I get diving into arguments and working from memory.

And I'll take all the thumbs down you like. Facts don't become incorrect just because you don't like them.

[John Savard]

The greenhouse effect is not a recent or controversial discovery.

Ever since the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer have been discovered, it was a possibility that human activity is on a large enough scale to have global consequences.

Because of national borders, changes in the average temperature of only a few degrees could affect the food supplies of some people living in tropical Third World countries, creating serious refugee problems and the like.

Furthermore, since the greenhouse effect works by reducing the amount of heat the Earth radiates out into space at a given temperature, a small increase in carbon dioxide levels might take decades before giving rise to the ultimate new equilibrium temperature for the Earth that it will bring about.

We have a way to avoid huge human and economic consequences from reducing fossil fuel use. We can maintain high levels of energy use despite doing so. Fission power, using breeder reactors, can provide all the power we need from abundant resources; unlike fusion power, thorium breeders are just an engineering problem, and they will make the resources even more abundant.

[ZootCadillac]

That reads familiar and could be a copy/paste from elsewhere but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You'll get no argument from me regarding the greenhouse effect. I'm not a dragon slayer. What is uncertain is the theory that CO2 is the main driver of temperature and that the anthropogenic part of that trace gas is responsible for one of the two periods of warming since the beginning of the 20th Century.

We can't agree on what the temperature increase from a doubling of all atmospheric CO2 is with peer reviewed papers suggesting anything between 1 and 7 degrees Celsius! The error bars on those conclusions is even greater than the spread of supposed increase. Which means we simply do not know the effect to a cast iron number. To then suggest that the 3-5% anthropogenic portion of that uncertain amount has a definitive number is just plain crazy. You can hypothesise all you like but the truth remains that we don't have a clue what, if anything we are doing in relation to atmospheric CO2 and temperature. ( I'm not talking about land use or UHI I'm just perplexed that the EPA can label CO2 a pollutant. It's been demonised with no evidence to prove anything one way or another )

FYI I'm English and my politics are left of centre. Because I know that sadly means something to some Americans.

[beanbasher]

Read the F'ing article

"This results in cars that meet emissions standards in the laboratory or testing station, but during normal operation, emit nitrogen oxides, or NOx, at up to 40 times the standard."

That's right NOx not COx, also do you work for VW and just shilling?

[ZootCadillac]

Re: Read the F'ing article

Read the response where I stated that I know that the EPA and its attitude to CO2 has nothing to do with the article.

I'm not defending or even discussing VW.

[Adrian Midgley 1]

Increased CO2 forces temperature

upward.

Correlation

Definitive

Proved amount

Define you as a denialist.

Done the research.

[ZootCadillac]

Re: Increased CO2 forces temperature

Show your correlation. Because you can't find it in the satellite record.

You can't find it in the paleo record where Vostock core samples definitively show CO2 lags temperature rise ( a well understood process as ocean sinks give up their CO2 as they warm ) by as much as 800 years.

I don't deny anything. I just look at the data. You can't argue with the data if they are not adulterated.

You make your conclusions based upon the data, you don't fit the data to your preconceived notions.

[Scroticus Canis]

Re: "..you don't fit the data to your preconceived notions." @ ZootCadillac

Well you obviously are not a climatologist from East Anglia then are you!

[ZootCadillac]

Re: "..you don't fit the data to your preconceived notions." @ ZootCadillac

You may claim your prize because I am indeed not Phil Jones :)

[ZootCadillac]

Vic,

That is still not the toxic levels discussed and although i can't speak for the sweetness of your breath i doubt it has the ability to kill. Unless you are capturing your breath for measurement then exhalation to atmosphere won't be anywhere near such a concentration.

And no, I did not confuse CO2 for 02. I'm well aware of how things work otherwise it was a wasted education. The fact remains that without CO2 or even at dangerously low levels of CO2 below 200ppm plants, and more importantly the phytoplankton which provide up to 75% of the O2 we require to live from find it increasingly difficult to survive given that they draw upon CO2 for photosynthesis.

So my original assertion that started off this merry-go-round of conversation stands. CO2 is essential to all life on earth. Be that directly or as a result of the food chain.

[ZootCadillac]

Re: Vic,

The 'nonsense' as you like to call it, came after the fact and during later conversation. The original comment stands.

regarding the 'nonsense' all of those statements above regarding CO2 and atmospheric concentrations are hard fact.

And your breath still will not contain anywhere near that level of CO2 unless you capture it for measurement in the same way as you will never find toxic levels of CO2 occurring outside of experiment or accidents in enclosed spaces.

I'll be alerting the WHO now that they must tell people they can no longer use mouth to mouth because Vic asserts it's toxic. Use a mint.

[Uffish]

Re: concentration of CO2

Natural carbon dioxide concentrations in the Chauvet-Pont d'Arc cave* regularly exceed 3%.

However, to my mind, the problem is not how much damage Volkswagen has done to the world and it's population it is how much illegal cheating and deception Volkswagen management judges acceptable. They seem to have set the level a bit high and, I think, should be discouraged from continuing that strategy.

* The replica tourist cave is worth the detour.

[Anonymous Coward]

[pedant]

Strictly speaking, CO2 is not toxic in that it doesn't cause any damage to the human body; same as Nitrogen. Death basically results from lack of oxygen.

[/pedant]

[ZootCadillac]

Thank you. CO2 does not kill but rather the lack of oxygen asphyxiates you.

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 has an LC(LO) of 90 parts per thousand, and this can occur even with otherwise-normal oxygen present, IINM, which you'd think would point to something other than asphyxia.

[IvoryT]

10% CO2 will kill you very quickly even with normal O2 levels. (I am an anaesthetist.)

[DaDoc]

That's actually wrong. High levels of carbon dioxide in the blood render you unconscious, irrespective of the oxygen level in your blood. Carbon dioxide is in itself toxic to human beings at high levels. This toxicity shows itself in people with most severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who retain carbon dioxide when breathing.

[ZootCadillac]

IvoryT abd daDoc.

Thank you for the education. My understanding, which could be entirely wrong as it is poorly remembered from my days working in submarines and ships in the 80's and the enclosed space work I had to do often in CO2 rich environments, was that yes CO2 will at some point render you unconscious but death almost always occurs from asphyxiation because the person usually falls down into the denser CO2 layer so that exacerbates the lack of oxygen but that also at a certain level of CO2 in the lungs it prevents them from being able to absorb O2 which leads to death, again by asphyxiation, technically.

Happy to be told I am wrong.

[Scroticus Canis]

CO₂ Toxicity

Blood pCO₂ affects it's pH from the formation of carbonic acid; more CO₂ more acidic. Known as acidosis. To low a pH will adversely affect lots of biochemical reactions necessary for life. Can't remember if there are other toxic effects.

[Joe Gurman]

Please

Don't try to argue facts, particularly scientific ones, with the climate change-denying monkeys. They will only throw scat.

[werdsmith]

Eco or Ego ?

Nobody can and nobody does deny climate change, because climate changes regardless of whether humans are producing C02.

The climate of the entire earth been hotter and it's been colder. The global atmospheric currents have been different from how they are now and they will be different again in the future.

Climate will change because that's what it does. Human activity may accelerate it a bit, but it's still going to change. We might even get a major volcanic eruption somewhere in the world and head straight into perennial winter for years on end.

it's no use focusing on the CO2 that cars make, because that's like trying to extinguish a burning haystack by pissing on one corner.

The fundamental that is ignored and denied is the fact that the planet is overpopulated by humans and nature will one day correct that problem and when it does the problem of CO2 will also be consequently taken care of.

So, even if by eco-hairshirt zealousness we manage to extend the current form of human civilisation on the Earth by another few thousand years it will get us eventually and in terms of the life of the planet itself humanity will be just a flicker.

We may be the most advanced species to have walked the earth but in the grand scheme of things we are actuall fuck all.

But don't worry, it's all going to be OK because I switched my TV off at the wall.

[Big Ed]

Re: Eco or Ego ?

@Werdsmith; and some day scientists will explain the correlation between CO2 levels and global warming, and the dawn and end of the ice age <not>.

There was a movement decades ago to limit population growth by limiting each family to one child. Sadly the civilized world gave up on the push and only China <yes those evil, godless, commies> has the vision to continue to pursue.

[Vic]

Life-essential? Last I checked, CO2 is toxic to humans at concentrations above 2% and fatal above 10%.

It is CO2 production (specifically, the pH of the blood) that drives the breathing cycle. More CO2 production (e.g. during exercise) makes you breathe more.

4% is the expected CO2 output in human breath at 1 bar. The percentage decreases with increasing ambient pressure (because ppCO2 is supposed to be constant).

That said - I think the OP has confused CO2 with O2.

Vic.

[Vic]

4% is the expected CO2 output in human breath at 1 bar.

Well, the block downvote seems to be out.

For all you lot who are busy thumbing down without actually saying why, here are a few links to substantiate my post:-

• Wikipedia
• BBC
• paramedicine

You can search for many more - this is hardly disputed territory.

Vic.

[Charles Manning]

Last I checked, CO2 is toxic to humans at concentrations above 2%

Stupid argument.

O2 (oxygen) is also poisonous to humans above a partial pressure of around 2 bar. That's why old style rebreather apparatus could nopt be used below 10 metres.

So should EPA also call O2 poisonous?