Pet peeve: "clean diesel" greenwashing
 

The marketers are doing diesel a disservice with the whole "clean diesel" greenwashing campaign.

"Cleaner"? Sure.

But "clean"? Nuh-uh!

Pisses me off every time I read or hear that description. Actually creates a negative impression in my mind of the companies using that tactic. (Probably not what the marketers want to hear. But then again, likely not how the majority reacts.)

And for fairness sake: I'll also say I don't like it when EV's are marketed as having "zero emissions" (reminder: I have an EV).

It's all sneaky greenwashing that serves to create ammunition for opponents.

(Also: I bet this topic has come up before. I'm so behind the times. :) )

What's you beef with the "clean" label? You don't think modern diesels are clean compared to what? Gasoline vehicles?

"Clean" in terms of smoke? other emissions? CO2?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTzk3ibvQeo


are you talking about commercials like these? I really don't see an issue with trying to change the way people think of diesel especially when you compare the 15ppm ulsd of today to the 750+ ppm sulfur diesel of the 70's and 80's. the engines and the fuel have come a long way-

No objection to education.

My beef is: nothing with emissions is "clean" - gas, electric, or diesel.

The description "clean" implies the task of dealing with emissions is complete! Things are as good as they need to be! Might as well call them "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" diesels.

We know is not true. In 20 years the current crop of engines will probably be considered gross polluters.

That's my point. They are definitely "cleaner" (a relative term - compared to previous engines). They are not "clean" (an absolute term).

(Feel free to dismiss my pet peeve as semantics.)

I don't remember which car it was but about 20 years ago, there was an "Ultra Clean" car who's exhaust was "cleaner" than the intake air:eek: I was in LA back then at Hughes Aircraft and from our hill top we could only see Long Beach about once a month:mad: I was happy to leave that city in the rear view mirror. So yeah clean is a relative term.
Ed :turtle:

I remember something about that...

I think it might have been a Saab (Subaru?) They even fed its intake straight from the exhaust from an earlier (2-stroke?) model, yet the output from the tailpipe was still cleaner than the ambient air at that time.

Was a neat display for sure.

Well, in one sense that's close to being true (not counting CO2). North American and European diesel emissions regulations started in the late 80's & early 90's. The regulations are typically announced ~5-10 years or so ahead of time in order to give manufacturers time to develop the technology. The last phase-in in North America wraped up in 2010. EuroIV will roll out in 2014 (almost in production now). While many of the other parts of the world are catching up, I haven't heard any rumors of any further tightning of the emissions standards in North America & Europe (and I work in diesel R&D). Keep in mind that if you compare these latest regs with the original ones (around 1990), the emissions levels are around 50-60 times less. Yes, that's 50-60 times (not percent). We're talking about pollutant levels that used to be measured in the thousands of parts per million (ppm), that are now measured in the single digits. If you're still using an internal combustion engine, there literally isn't much more that can be done to make them much cleaner. Depending on where you're driving, you really are looking at the tailpipe emissions being almost as clean as the ambient air.

CO2 regualtions are, of course, still tightening, but that's a topic for another thread.

I do get your point, however, that nothing's is truly and completely "clean"--including humans--which put out CO2 & methane:D

Just as an FYI, the term "clean diesel" can mean different things to different people, however, my understanding is that the first origin came with the advent of the ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel (ULSD), which came in 2007 in the US. Previously, everybody ran low sulfur diesel which had <500 ppm sulphur. ULSD has <15 ppm sulpher. While that change did result in a reduction in sulpher dioxide emissions directly, the big change was that it allowed the manufactures to use various forms of aftertreatment with catalysts. Suphur poisons catalysts and can also form sulphuric acid in aftertreatment. So removing the suphur from the fuel enabled the use of diesel particulate filters (DPFs), diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs), selectic catalytic reduction (SCR), and lean NOx adsorbers. The use of those devices has brought down the emissions by at least an order of magnitude. Of course they've also reduced the fuel efficiencies of the engine and increased the cost substantially. I was just reading an article in Diesel Power magazine about diesels being sold in 1/2 ton pickups in the US. The diesel exhaust/aftertreatment system cost more than the total cost of the gasoline engine & transmission combined.

The new crop of diesels with DPFs have cleaner emissions, that's a fact. Unfortunately, they are still filthy in terms of the amount of petroleum they are designed to burn. The cursed VW TDI is warranted to use ONLY 5% biodiesel -- I will never buy one unless I can convert it to burn 100% biodiesel like any good diesel should.

Diesel_Dave -

I have no problem with it because "clean diesel" is the corollary to the old moniker of "dirty diesel". I also think that the "dirty diesel" label preceded greenwashing.

CarloSW2

...to put some perspective on it: Just how "green" can a power-plant be that requires "piss" (urea) to be dumped into its exhaust system?

...almost makes the 'old' diesel smell "sweet" by comparison, don't it?

The term Zero Tail Pipe Emissions is an accurate statement because our EV's do not have tail pipes.
The same way "clean" is a relative term, after I wash my dishes they are "clean" but if I washed them a 2nd time they would be "cleaner" right? every time I wash them they will get cleaner and cleaner.

a virgin virgin, or a virgin·er virgin?

You don't have to wait 20 years for them to be dirtier - every engine becomes less clean as it ages. European emissions standards take this into account and now have different limits for when the brand-new car leaves the factory and when it is being exploited on the road.
I totally agree with MetroMPG that no diesel (or any other fuel) powered vehicle is technically clean until its tailpipes emissions are exactly the same as intake air, molecule for molecule. When buying a "clean" car we only trying to pick the lesser evil.

New diesels with DPFs increase fuel consumption and aren't too reliable, as Euromodder can testify. They also require cesium and/or urea based fluids to work properly.
PSA (Citroën/Peugeot) says its HDi turbodiesels can take up to 30% biodiesel, but it has to be premixed - you can't just pour 7 gallons of regular diesel, followed by 3 gallons of 100% bio, into your tank. Plus normal fuels here in the EU (not sure about the US) already have 5% biocomponents in them, more to satisfy the farming lobby than for cleaner emissions.

Untruth in advertising is almost as old as the oldest professsion known to mankind.

Think snake oil and permanent waves.

regards
mech

I thought "Clean Diesel" refered to before you burn it. Looking a diesel today it is almost clear, where years ago i thought it was more like used motor oil.

The urea used in SCR systems turns into N2, CO2, & H20 before it goes out the tailpipe. Occasionally some ammonia slips out, but that's typically limited to less than 5 ppm or so. The primary reason it's not allowed above that is just so nearby people don't smell the ammonia.

I'll agree with the increased fuel consumption and decreased reliability of DPF systems, however, urea is used for SCR--not DPF. Some vehicles (including mine) were manufactured with a DPF, but not a SCR. The DPF is for particulates while the SCR is for NOx. My truck was made with a lean NOx trap (adsorber) rather than an SCR system.

Acording to Euro standards, they are less polluting than gassers.
Looks like Cali is reinvestigating diesel exhaust.
Gasoline worse than diesel when it comes to some types of air pollution
Some plusses and minuses of both.

Still, nothing is "clean" just cleaner.

A few years ago I heard talk of DPFs for gasoline engines as well. While gas engines may not have visible particulates like unfiltered diesels, the tiny particulates they do produce are equally as nasty, if not worse.

Diesel Dave -- I can't argue pro or con with your SCR/DPF statements, but I base my original comment on the fact that when I walked through our local VW dealership and one of the diesel engined vehicles was started-up by the salesman for another customer, there was an immediate "...latrine..." (piss) odor in the air. Don't recall which VW vehicle it was however. Doesn't VW use the same "blue-juice" that the Mercedes-Benz Bluetec diesels use?

@Old Tele man -- No, Dave is correct. The VW diesels with DPF do not use the urea for NOx treatment.

...hm-m-m-m, then there must have been a 'polecat' hiding under that VW when it was started (ha,ha).

My Jeep CRD has a strange exhaust smell as well, maybe similar to the new VWs, and I attribute it to the catalytic converter. No exhaust fluid for my CRD either.

Isn't it only the smaller VW diesels that use the NOx absorber as opposed to SCR? I believe (at least) the Touareg uses SCR.

What's the difference between this and any other engine sold right now? Every engine, gas or diesel, smells like something bad when they fire up cold.

I am around SCR engines all day. Under normal circumstances, I have never smelled ammonia by being around them, unless someone was filling the DEF tank. When started cold, DEF isn't metered into the decomp tube until SCR catalyst inlet temp is pretty hot, like 400F or so. It takes a few minutes, as it is all post DPF, so the last thing to warm up. So smelling "piss" on a cold startup? Either something is seriously malfunctioning or the rank smell is merely the nastiness that goes on whenever a bunch of unburned fuel hits a cold catalyst, gas or diesel - aka: normal cold startup.

Not that I am an absolute advocate for SCR. I just think it is a decent solution compared to other solutions.

I haven't read the entire thread yet so pardon me if this has already been discussed. My recollection is that it was a Volvo, that the comparison was specifically in terms of NOx, that it was some city or another in Cali, and that it was due in no small part to the quality of the air going in.

...Huge Aircrash Company (HAC)? When were you there? The HAC corporate offices were sold off years ago. I joined HAC over here in Tucson, AZ, but made quite a few trips over to the 'Atrium-on-the-Hill' (huge open central space). Back then, HAC was considered "...the Cadillac of the aerospace industries..."

Re "Greenwash"

We're gonna drill till we die (as a species) . . so hand-wringing or purity in the midst of the consumer society (as distinct from living in one composed of an informed citizenry) is off-putting. Simeon Stylite. We could go on all day about common misconceptions in the image-driven, non-literate world. One can point out the discrepancies, but facts (if indeed they are so) don't sway people, especially fine distinctions.

None of us are exempt from advertising having formed our world would be the salient point.

And on the scale of importance where propaganda is at work ("war": is it physical force exclusively or do large financial maneuvers also count in the definition?) clean diesel is accurate enough in a relative sense as has been noted above per historical references. On that, there is no question. One might as well call it "modern diesel", but "clean" is truly more accurate, thus applicable.

By it's very definition as a chemical compound diesel is dirty. Always will be, a priori, even if perfectly consumed by a motor. But among refining methods, are some better that others? (would be the actual question).

Were this my concern I wouldn't ever concede that the arguments which arise in naming or labelling should be discounted. Or turned, Manichean-like, into black::white distinctions. They don't exist, except for those same benighted un-thinking masses to be swayed. Walter Lippmann and Edmund Bernays (Freud's son-in-law) covered this so long ago that my fathers marketing classes read them as a matter of course more than sixty years ago.

Is it clean diesel? Only by every existing definition. That marketers are doing a disservice couldn't be more wrong (headed).

Gettin hung up on details of "purity" like this is always a little beside the point, is it not? If there were a cheap way to convert bunker fuel powered vehicles to "clean diesel" we'd be all over it, wouldn't we . . as someting to be proud of.

.

Maybe we just need to work on water power/steam more!

Plenty of rain water to work with around here! (smile!)

Too bad you still have to burn stuff to make steam.

...not if you "start" with geothermal steam!

UFO -

It looks like 2012 VW TDIs will have the urea injection system (in place of the DPF?!?!?) :

2012 VW Passat 101: What you need to know
CarloSW2

...to be honest, I don't recall if they were 2011 or 2012 VW models that I was walking through last year (?!?) but, I do know what a latrine smells like (re: Chu Lai, RVN), and of the two, I prefer the odor of diesel over piss.

Not in place of the DPF, but IN ADDITION to the DPF. The DPF takes care of the particulates. The SCR takes care of the NOx.

I think SCR was inevitable for VW. There's only so much NOx that a NOx sponge can take care of. Future emission standards will require SCR in one form or another because of its effectiveness and simplicity.

mechman is correct. A DPF is for particualtes, while SCR is for NOx.

Here's my attempt at a quick summary. Diesel emissions mainly come down to NOx and particulates (PM).

PM can be controlled somewhat by changes to the engine itself, but in order to meet modern on-highway regs, it's almost always necessary to have a DPF to clean up the PM after it comes out of the engine.

NOx can be controlled on-engine by using EGR, which can get the levels low, but only to a point. If EGR alone isn't good enough, then the NOx has to be taken care of in the tailpipe either by SCR or a NOx adsorber (aka lean NOx trap). The SCR is extremely effective (95%+ reduction in NOx), but it requires the use of urea, aka diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) and is more expensive and bulkier than a less-effective NOx adsorber.

Different configurations make sense for different applications with different regs. I've seen all the following (for current regs):

1) EGR & DPF
2) SCR only
3) SCR & DPF
4) EGR, SCR, & DPF
5) EGR, NOx adsorber, & DPF

I don't know of any vehicles out there that meet the 2010 North American emissions regs with option 2. I know there are some Euro5 applications that use option 2, but I doubt anybody will make it work for Euro6. Option 1 is getting very difficult to do as well. I think Navistar is the only one using this for 2010+.

Keep in mind that all of these give a different tradeoff between fuel economy, initial cost, & DEF usage. Fluctuating fuel and/or DEF prices also affect which option makes the most sense. For example, SCR gives better fuel economy than EGR, but requires DEF usage--so if fuel is "cheap" EGR may make sense, while high fuel prices make SCR more attractive.

...pretty soon, we'll be carrying more "additives" around than actual diesel fuel.

ever wonder why they came up with urea usage in the first place.I wonder if it was to get rid of it,they do have too clean up the feed lots somehow. nah

If I recall correctly, SCR (with urea) was used for emissions contol first on power plants. In order for the process to work ammonia is required and urea is the "best" way to make it available in a vehicle.
Selective catalytic reduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been operating a clean diesel for fifteen years. They have gotten even cleaner during that time. If you go out of your way to criticize small diesel technology, you are in league with a lot of dummies. A lot of gas-guzzling, pedal-stomping, SUV-driving dummies.

It's a red herring to talk about what happens when a diesel starts - that's obviously the weakest link, but it's not significant to the overall emissions footprint. It's how much and what kind of emissions per passenger mile.

WoW whats with all the lambasting undata, follow the money D D gave a link. 1928-32 research on corn beetles in cow shi- the gov says clean it up. now you have extra chems lets find a use for them,why dont we just burn it .ask yourself what did they do with all the superfund cleanup site chems that had to be gotten rid of can you say vulcanus I, II .or lets just put 1gal in each fuel tanker load and call it an additive(top secrete) no no pump it back down the hole fracking anyone. I'll stop now