this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023

398 points (99.0% liked)

News

23259 readers

3379 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

398

Cummins pickup truck engines systematically tricked air pollution controls, feds say (www.usatoday.com)

submitted 10 months ago by CowsLookLikeMaps@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 77 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They basically all did it, some just got caught earlier. I said it back when they all hit on Volkswagen: It is not like that all the other companies have found the magic trick to get emissions miraculously down, and just VW was to stupid to find it somehow, and had to cheat. This time it's Cummins they caught. All you have to do is look closely, and you'll find that they cheat, because in reality, none of them have that magic trick.

[–] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

That's what diesel exhaust fluid is for, it reduces NOx emissions.

The VW engines were small and didn't have DEF, so everyone was like "how did you reduce NOx enough to meet U.S. EPA standards?" And VW was like "we're just super smart like that", which turned out to be bullshit.

Cummins knew better and had better emissions controls available, so this is full on stupid on their part.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

in reality, none of them have that magic trick.

Yes they do. It's called an electric motor. But that requires revitalizing infrastructure in order to accommodate fast charging across an urban landscape so utility trucks can top up whenever needed. And, of course, a company like Cummins being willing to make them.

But we can't get off that oil teat.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's called walking, better than any car. Having cars in major cities is so stupid. And before you say contractors need to have trucks, sure the do. But, I'm tired of companies sending out service vehicles to make almost 200 mile round trips, just so the competitor doesn't get the job.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

This is about utility vehicles, which are needed in cities even with robust transportation systems. Cargo still needs to be hauled the last mile.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Okay and everywhere else?

I'd love for cities to go full on mass transit. Even bringing in light freight to business areas so restaurants and the like could just use a handcart. But there's a lot of people and businesses in the US that will never cover.

[–] CabbageRelish@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Although these trucks are regularly bought just for vanity, they’re also the go-to trucks for cross country hauling. And regardless of infrastructure, current electric tech doesn’t do so hot there.

Although, part of their draw compared to others in their class was that they had the “best engines”…

[+] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world -18 points 10 months ago (4 children)

You still need to get that electric from somewhere and like half the country still runs on either coal or oil.

Earlier this year I saw that NY State is outlawing gas stoves and gas and oil (hot water) heaters in new residences. The funny thing is that NY State gets over 50% of its energy from oil fired energy plants. So instead of smaller places using gas and oil maybe a few times a day, they're going to be putting increased loads on an already stressed system (at least in the case of NYC, where this is largely targeted since it contains a good amount of the state's population). They're not really helping anything.

[–] nikita@sh.itjust.works 24 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Electric appliances are generally more efficient than appliances powered directly by non renewable sources though. And a single oil/gas powerplant is probably more energy efficient than thousands of individually gas and oil powered appliances. So just changing to electric appliances will already reduce emissions.

And it sets the city up to upgrade to renewable energy in the future.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

NY apartments also notoriously have zero ventilation

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

We should be moving away from gas and oil entirely instead of just saying "no one can install these in your homes anymore", it's just shifting the load.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If you insist on waiting for that magical “silver bullet” That will fix everything with no downside, you’re not getting anywhere. You’ll never improv. Things will never get better. You’re frozen in over-thinking.

“No more new gas hookups” is a tiny step forward. By itself, not too significant and would take over a century to have an impact. Nevertheless, it is a step forward. As we talked more such steps, we’ll be able to move right along

You could also argue “no new gas hookups” as a consumer protection thing, whatever is the consumer of that. You’re saying that we don’t expect the new infrastructure to be productive long enough to justify the cost

Then there’s the medical impact, at least for inside appliances. You may try to argue it but the best medical knowledge has a strong correlation of childhood asthma and other lung problems with indoor gas appliances.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The problem is "public health" vs "private funding from businesses with interest" and we know the latter almost always wins. It's two steps forward and one step back, which is still progress, but self defeating progress.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's never been how technology shift or legislation works though. Everything comes in phases.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

True, but we both know that the oil and gas industry has a stranglehold on the US in pretty much every way, shape, or form. It seems like this is just another "look we're doing something good for the environment!" when in reality it's just "theater".

[–] evranch@lemmy.ca -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Sadly, no. Your electric heater is 100% efficient, yes, but that thermal power plant is lucky to hit 50%, especially if it's old tech which many are.

On the other hand, burning natural gas at the point of use can be done at 95% efficiency by a condensing boiler or furnace.

That's not even taking into account transmission losses. With them in play, even a ground-source heat pump has higher emissions than a natural gas furnace.

The only way electrification of heating makes sense is to decarbonise the grid, which should be the first priority. Nuclear and hydro baseload with solar/wind peaking and elastic loads and load shedding to take advantage of the variable supply.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You can’t complain about electricity loses without considering natural gas losses, especially the affect of methane on global warming
Why would you have to do one thing, then the other? Everyone agrees we need to both electrify homes and de carbonize the grid. However we also realize both are a long complex, expensive transition with many many pieces. It only makes sense to do both at the same time: an electrified house already reduces its impact on global warming, and just keeps getting better over time as the grid continues to be de-carbonized

[–] ratman150@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Since we're talking efficiency I'm sure you also know that several smaller consumers are gonna be far less efficient than one big consumer.

I'm not sure where you're getting that information about a heat pump being worse than a literal fire burning furnace but that fire burning furnace is still less efficient as a small appliance than the power generation. What's also important here is the heat pump can run on natural gas electricity, nuclear electricity, hydro etc. it is energy agnostic which the furnace is absolutely not.

[–] evranch@lemmy.ca -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

several smaller consumers are gonna be far less efficient than one big consumer

That's the point I'm making. It's counterintuitive. They are actually far more efficient, even though that "feels wrong".

Thermal power generation is limited by the Rankine cycle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle with a MAXIMUM efficiency of only 42%.

You are burning fuel, turning a temperature differential into motion, into electricity, transmitting the electricity, then turning it back into a temperature differential.

In the specific application of heating, it makes far more sense to burn the fuel on site, where you are running at far lower temperatures and capable of condensing the exhaust to hit 95% efficiency.

I've worked with heat pumps, even built my own custom unit and I know that with the right refrigerants, low temperature distribution and oversized ground loops you can hit as high as a COP of 7. But the average affordable crappy air sourced unit is more like 2-3 and in a Canadian winter will not function at all, falling back on resistive heating at COP 1. And let's face it, nobody has $20-50k for an amazing oversized ground sourced system and a rework to hydronic floors. They're buying a reversible mini-split, DIY installing it and being disappointed when their heating bill goes up.

So with a COP of 2 and a power plant efficiency below 50% you are not even back to where you started if you were just burning the fuel in a furnace. And that's best case, perfect conditions at the plant, no transmission losses, warm day, no Iosses in the heat pump.

It gets worse if your power comes from burning coal like ours does.

I'm just saying there's no perfect drop-in solution, you can't just handwave heat pumps in as a magic problem solver. In many cases there are bigger gains to be had from efficient furnaces than a massive electrification program, at least in the short to mid term.

[–] nikita@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

Thanks for your comment. Very informative and insightful.

However, your argument only works when electricity is sourced from 100% non renewable sources. If your city power uses some hydro, nuclear or other renewable sources, the efficiency of electric appliances goes up and will likely be at least comparable with the average gas powered home appliance. And it will keep going up as power plants become renewable and thermal plants are decomissioned.

[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You probably don’t know that having a gas stove in your house is the benzene/cancer equivalent of a cigarette smoker sitting in your fucking kitchen blowing smoke in your face while you cook dinner.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I've seen that referenced like once before. I don't see you backing that up, only getting angry.

[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c09289

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thanks

[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431055/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764546/

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

A. That powerplant is far more efficient

B. There's no reason NY can't change to renewable sources.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The problem is that tens (or probably hundreds) of thousands of gas stoves and oil burners still exist and are used daily, this also doesn't cover restaurants or commercial businesses, so the impact is pretty minimal.

Your "B" suggestion is hilarious because if they wanted to they could have done it already, there are (at least) two nuclear reactors in NY State IIRC, but they have been constantly blocked at every turn from building new ones for the past few decades by the oil and gas industry. Hydroelectric plants are already in use, along with wind turbines. If it was as simple as "build renewable power plants" don't you think we would have done that everywhere by now (where it's feasible, obviously)?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

So because we haven't done it yet, we shouldn't do it now? That's just the inverse of we do it this way because we've always done it this way. Both are piss poor reasons not to change now.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Publications/Energy-Analysis-Reports-and-Studies/Electric-Power-Transmission-and-Distribution-Reports/Electric-Power-Transmission-and-Distribution-Reports---Archive/New-York-Power-Grid-Study/Story-of-Our-Grid#:~:text=70%25%20of%20this%20electricity%20comes,resources%20that%20include%20nuclear%20generation.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 43 points 10 months ago

If I'm doing my math right, $1.675B/630k vehicles is around $2.5k/vehicle. Barely cutting into the profits on what I assume is Dodge's most successful line.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if enforcing the destruction of human-viable-planet could be considered either

Crime Against Humanity

or, an

Act of Terrorism

They escalate to kill more of the next-generation,

then ENFORCE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR ACTUAL CRIME, if integrity is still any part of the "law" that is held to "rule".

_ /\ _

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 1 points 10 months ago

Oh, haha, first time in capitalism, huh?

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We can't let our customers access the EMS! They'll spoof emissions! /s

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe 1% of 1% of people would actual play with their cars and tune them. Even then, most wouldn't make the cars into polluting machines.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I think it'd be significantly more than that, but that's probably bias from the kind of people I tend to be around. I'm thinking maybe as much as 5%.

That said however, we do have the assholes who like to "roll coal".

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I guess they did see it cummin.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I came here for this.

[–] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I came

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You mean rolling coal on bubba’s F350 wasn’t supposed to do that Freedom Cloud™️?

[–] iconic_admin@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

RAM is made by Dodge. F350 is Ford.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

... hundreds of thousands of 2013 to 20199 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup trucks.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. They really have those future sales locked in.

[–] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They should also look at the 5.0 liter Cummins that Nissan used in their Titan trucks.

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'd say go a step further an look at all their tier IV engines (the ones that are currently in everything from genrators to locomotives to construct equipment). If they aren't in compliance outside of testing that could open them up to lawsuits from customers and competitors on top of the fines.

[–] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Do generators et al have emissions standards they need to follow?

[–] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, but as to what those standards are depends on the horsepower, type of use, and fuel

[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

that will be 35cents fine which your company can pay with loans over the next 9999 years thank you