Diesel driving bans. The Plaque Republic.

The situation is dramatic. 300.000 used Euro 5 Diesel are at the dealers on heap. Demand in Germany tends to zero, only when exporting something. In addition, the prices for diesel vehicles continue to fall. Leasing returns are expected to be around 15% among the calculated residual values lie. A ticking time bomb for trade and consumers.

Saab 9-5 Diesel
Saab 9-5 Diesel for sale in Freital. Future: uncertain. Photo Credit: Ronny

The drama, whose development is anything but surprising, already took 2008 its run. With the Air Quality Directive 2008 / 50 / EC the living conditions of EU citizens should be improved. Better air in the inner cities and metropolitan areas, a plus in quality of life. A great opportunity and the signal for a departure into the future. For politics the possibility to show will to design. Germany, the enormously rich country that has virtually invented the car, could once again have been groundbreaking. A future laboratory that delivers not only hardware but complete solutions. Mobility as a service, the next big thing for the future, right in the heart of Europe for a better planet.

10 years have passed since then. Instead of boldly investing billions in the future of the country with visions for the future, politics relied on stricter emission standards. Until recently, diesel was sold as an alternative to achieving environmental goals, the Internet being called new territory. Digitalization perceived only as an opportunity. Fast internet, the backbone of the digital revolution, is more desirable than reality for many places in Germany. Other countries did better and created structures. In Helsinki, plans include a fleet of autonomous pods to 2025, the British capital relies on electric taxis and extends the emission-free public transport. Paris gradually banishes burners from the metropolis, and China is a big laboratory of new ideas.

The Plaque Republic

And Germany is discussing. About badges that could be blue. Maybe even dark blue and light blue, so you can distinguish between Euro 5, 6 and 6d temp. For Euro 5 drivers, the ADAC found out, could sue for a free ride on Euro 6 diesel. And would probably win. A Euro 6 diesel should be just as clean beyond the test bench as a Euro-5 make. Badges have a certain tradition in Germany. If politicians have no more ideas, then let us stick plaques.

Does anyone remember the Ozone plaque? Superfluous, but effective in terms of media. And then the green, yellow and red badges. For free travel through the environmental zone, or not. With their launch of 2008, millions of diesel vehicles were canceled because they did not receive a green badge. A destruction of national wealth, then already. And diesel drivers should not say that they had not been warned.

Today you can watch videos like Euro 5 Diesel at Exploiters land, Good vehicles that could still be on 10 or 15 years. Here not only assets are destroyed, here also the environment is rendered a bad service. The exchange of an older diesel for a new, slightly less polluting vehicle uses the economy alone. The production of a new car devours more resources than it would ever bring in the switch from an 5-year-old vehicle to a new car. Sustainability and responsible use of raw materials is different.

In the coming weeks you will see if there are driving restrictions. It's moving a lot and it's hard to keep track. In politics, it seems that there is a need to come to terms with hardware upgrades. 70% of the 15 million diesel approved in Germany in the year 2017 Euro 5 or worse. Too big a mass to devalue them in one fell swoop. Moreover, beyond the campaign against diesel vehicles, it is slowly dawning that this kind of drive could have a future.

The diesel is battered, his reputation ruined for now. You should not write it down yet. Because the Measurements for vehicles that meet the Euro 6d standard are surprisingly good. Under the massive pressure of events, the industry is now offering seemingly clean diesel, which can significantly undercut the new standards. A mistrust remains nevertheless. Are the new ones really clean now? Or is a shutdown device waiting for activation somewhere in the software?

Diesel owners should wait

There is uncertainty at the moment. There are no legal guidelines for retrofitting, the legislature is in the duty. Only when the conditions are, you should rate what is. The prices for used Saab 9-5 NG Diesel, which correspond to the Euro 5 norm, are in the basement. They continue to decline, and trade-ins are called low prices. The demand for a 9-5 NG diesel is zero. If there is a hardware upgrade, the courses rise again. It is not impossible to exclude, the diesel from the GM group were also installed in the Opel Insigina, and there is a high need for retrofitting.

If you own a Saab Diesel with Euro 4 or worse, you should also stay in waiting. Driving bans are the most extreme means that car companies and politics would like to avoid. Anyone who lives outside the affected areas and does not commute daily, is better advised to keep what he has. Discussions, the past has shown, calm down again and again.

And should the new Euro 6d diesel be really clean, then the campaign will subside. However, and that should be clear to all of us, diesel discussion and the impending driving bans are only the harbinger of a new era.

The individual traffic itself is facing an era. Anyone who wants clean inner cities in the metropolitan regions, they will not get them, if we continue to live as before. The car itself will disappear from the core areas. Not immediately, but faster than some of us would like to admit. It does not matter whether you drive a diesel, a hybrid or an electric car in the future. The future is digital, and intelligently managed mobility from the cloud becomes a service.

Who does not believe this: 32% of the particle emissions from road traffic come from brakes and tires. A topic that is now for the first time examined becomes. And in a few years maybe the next big thing for driving bans.

23 thoughts too "Diesel driving bans. The Plaque Republic."

  • 22. March 2018 at 2: 09 PM
    Permalink

    Not to forget, the tax office earns heavily on VAT, that was the same with the first scrapping wave, the national assets were destroyed, the tax office got more VAT as the scrapping bonus was worth ... ..
    ….great right? But with such transport ministers and so short-sighted policy, no wonder




    0



    0
  • 22. March 2018 at 2: 17 PM
    Permalink

    Let the diesel panic. I have just purchased a 9-3 convertible from 2011 with few km, the price was there of a diesel Nachlass but nothing to feel !!! On the contrary, the car disappeared from the market after 3 days, and if I had not accessed, the car would have been quickly gone. So I have two convertibles, both 196 horsepower, and the turbo diesel drives just so much of rapid - there is the petrol engine against a snail.

    From a driving ban I see far and nothing, and my Jaguar Diesel I will not give, but this drive, as long as it is possible - also to the 3 liter gasoline engine, which I had before, no comparison - Tempo 130 at 1500 speeds. Why should I forget all this because the press is spinning? Do not let go crazy, as always, is the motto. The other motto is - who still has no diesel, can now access cheap.




    0



    0
  • 22. March 2018 at 2: 29 PM
    Permalink

    Even though 2 has a diesel engine for my 3 registered vehicles, I think diesel engines in a car have not lost anything. Would I find a nice 9k or 9-5SC with LPG, I would sell the diesel immediately, no matter how high the loss of value would be. Main thing with the tractor. Anyone who decides to buy a vehicle that is in demand abroad, however, can currently drive eg Euro3 Diesel almost without loss of value. Buy cheap here and then sell after use at attractive prices abroad. So I sold our Volvo to Hungary before 1,5 years and the car is still running at a satisfied owner.




    0



    0
  • 22. March 2018 at 4: 05 PM
    Permalink

    This is completely stupid, now the total hysteria in Germany has broken out again.
    Let's wait, maybe some manufacturer in the near or distant future will come around the corner with a new catalyst technology that may be able to pretty much clean the diesel exhaust, but many are now throwing their old car treasures on the scrap.
    Do the haulage companies now also dump their trucks in large numbers on the scrap, or have not hysteria yet broken out?
    I also do not really see that our great government is going to build a large number of electric charging stations or promote other alternative drives.
    So I would not drive my old diesel to scrap, first wait and see what comes in the future or not ...




    0



    0
  • 22. March 2018 at 5: 15 PM
    Permalink

    Do not let it unsettle you. Wait and continue dying. I never make my 9-3 Aero Diesel.
    The next car madness is already funded by the government. The e-car. We do not know yet where all the old batteries will be disposed of later, or if enough electricity will be available. The main thing is to do as many new businesses as possible.




    0



    0
  • 22. March 2018 at 5: 21 PM
    Permalink

    Such madness works only in Germany. The German is "obrigkeitshöhrig" and accepted everything. Years ago we were told that the diesel is the best alternative in transport and today it is the devil's stuff? How schizophrenic is that?
    With this bullshit, only the economy should be boosted. But we Germans will join in this nonsense again. I continue to drive my Saab Diesel. Even if a ban should come.




    0



    0
  • 22. March 2018 at 5: 39 PM
    Permalink

    A super great article. Compressed and to the point ...

    All I would like to add is that the calorific value of diesel is higher than that of gasoline or E85. Meaning, instead of demonizing the diesel, you could even start to tax him at least CO2-fair ...

    A government that demonizes the diesel concept while still taxing it? ? ?

    Fairer competition, be it technological, ecological or purely economic, certainly looks different.

    "Badge Republic" brings it in my view perfectly to the point. And I annoy me daily about the green in my windshield, because it is now cracked and the license plate is not readable for years. , ,

    As drivers and citizens have received a new task. Thank you, thank you, thank you, dear "Plaque Republic". How nice that we have saved the world!

    This is then also loosely worth the one or the other pedestrian or cyclist who came in the blind spot of the badge, well, to death. , ,

    The windshield is indeed not about the driver to the front ahead. No, it is completely safe and intended exclusively for posters. Also for the toll on trips through the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany in the future. Just stick everything in front and it's good. , ,

    And if somebody accidentally still sees something, then we just drive the next pig through the village and stick it on the glass too. At some point she is sure to be tight. , ,




    0



    0
    • 22. March 2018 at 11: 29 PM
      Permalink

      at least as far as Austria is concerned, it has improved, the Vignitte is now also available in digital online form to buy and thus only on the plate. Nothing more with gluing on the windshield




      0



      0
  • 22. March 2018 at 7: 12 PM
    Permalink

    The ozone plaque (for me G-Kat was on it, but there was also no imprint, right?) I scratched years ago of my youngtimer, I was just too ugly in the long run. Maybe you should have stuck them, as a contemporary document.




    0



    0
  • 22. March 2018 at 11: 31 PM
    Permalink

    As for the 9-5NG TID or TTID, so real bargains, so full equipment, not too many miles, at a great price, I have not found on the German pages. But maybe that will happen.




    0



    0
  • 23. March 2018 at 7: 21 AM
    Permalink

    Recently, a pneumologist was heard about the nitric oxide debate on ÖR Radio.

    In his view, debate is completely out of control. It makes no sense, if at workplaces 8 hours a day may be breathed multiple times. A smoker would inhale as much nitric oxide with a single cigarette as a non-smoker who breathes 2 for weeks. And that, without getting the cigarette right away.

    He does not even consider it proven that nitric oxide is at all cause for anything, since nitric oxide always occurs in conjunction with other pressures. About the fine dust in traffic. He has not read a single study in which health effects could be reliably attributed to nitric oxide.




    0



    0
    • 23. March 2018 at 8: 42 AM
      Permalink

      Out of the rudder here probably only the pneumologist has run ... or how should I understand the really meaningless comparison with the smoker? The smoker harms himself voluntarily and consciously. Someone who has the misfortune to live on a busy street can not choose this. Maybe the Mr. Pneumologist would like to move into such a street? No, he probably lives where the air is nice and clean.




      0



      0
      • 23. March 2018 at 8: 53 PM
        Permalink

        Do not shoot the messenger ...

        I did some research myself. And it's not that easy. So are nitrogen oxides also in the summer smog (ozone) and were formerly, when there was much more, probably also significantly involved in the "acid rain". So they are not completely harmless ...

        And yet, the pneumologist just wanted to dampen a little the hysteria. And there I can still understand his statements even ...

        It makes no sense, if one and the same legislator finds it okay that in different situations and at different times of the day (for instance at the workplace) every citizen should be expected many times over.

        If you retire to sleep after work on a "busy road" and there is supposed to be threatening death, even though you only breathe a fraction of what was previously completely harmless for 8 hours, then that does not matter anyway Sense, right?

        To label the pulmonologist as a complete idiot would probably be too easy. Or not?

        And that's why I do not find his comparison with the smoker quite so meaningless. If the number is correct (a single cigarette), then an average smoker (about 10 cigarettes in a single day) would inhale more nitrogen oxides within a year than any other human in 127 could cope with ....

        Consequently, there should be no smokers surviving their vices for more than a year ...

        So if the numbers are correct, then the pneumologist here might well be in full possession of his brainpower. Maybe not at the helm, but maybe he would belong there much sooner, than some other self-appointed helmsman?




        0



        0
  • 23. March 2018 at 10: 31 PM
    Permalink

    Now please do not twist my contribution. I did not call the pulmonologist an idiot. I only criticized his comparison. There is no doubt that there are definitely more toxic gases and substances than nitrogen oxides. But I also do not stand up and say that you do not need to worry about nitric oxide because heroin is even more harmful ...
    Not all people work in occupations where there is a high level of nitric oxide pollution. It's not about the emissions, but about limits. That the limits in the workplace may be higher than on the main road may not lead to the conclusion that one says: "Everything is so half wild". Maybe you should rather think about the limits in the workplace ...
    Again, the smoker usually smokes voluntarily, the cyclist or the mother with prams in Stuttgart is stunk, whether he / she wants to or not.
    Nobody also said that one dies after one year due to nitrogen oxides ... it is also not an intoxication by nitrogen oxides. The point is that this can lead to a number of secondary diseases, such as smoking (lungs, heart / circulation, etc.).




    0



    0
    • 24. March 2018 at 8: 47 PM
      Permalink

      Like I said, do not shoot the messenger ...

      The discussion, whether the limits in the workplace include lowered, or those of the road are hysterical, please you and the pulmonologist between them. I lack the necessary knowledge ...

      As I understand the Lord, but he was not at all concerned that it (quote Daniel) "are quite more toxic gases and substances than nitrogen oxides."

      The man was certainly not so simple and polemical knit and I'm reluctant to assume that I had put such things in his mouth ...

      On the contrary, the Mr. Pneumologe has very factually related solely to nitrogen oxides and doubted the existence of different marginal and empirical values.

      Road traffic, workplace, smoker. I do not care. I do not own a diesel and have never owned one. And yet I found the clues and observations of the pulmonologist interesting. Above all, that the (alleged) effects of nitrogen oxides from any single study known to him would be derived.

      On the other hand, he did not claim that road traffic is effective in terms of health. I believe that all of us would be very helpful if all harmful things were reliably identified. And I understand all statements of the pulmonologist in this sense ...

      What if the true traffic-related causes of cardiovascular disease were primarily noise? And those for respiratory especially in particulate matter? Yes, what would be?

      Then one would have to admit at some point that the current focus on nitrogen oxides was hysterical. And in this and no other sense, I understood the pulmonologist. The man simply wanted to make a professional contribution to the best of his knowledge and belief.

      I enjoyed that. And that's why I shared the information. If you have nitrogen oxides and their effects more
      know, then please tell it.




      0



      0
        • 27. March 2018 at 11: 39 AM
          Permalink

          No studies? Neither the pneumologist said that, nor did I put it in his mouth ...

          The point is, what the studies actually say or prove. The pneumologist certainly spent more than 5 minutes studying. Nice for you, if you come faster to reliable statements. Hats off!

          STILL: Nitric oxide pollution is associated with other pressures. Of course, therefore, there is a statistical relationship between nitrogen oxides and diseases ...

          Nevertheless, the other substances could be responsible for the diseases. Neither the smoke of a cigarette nor the stresses of road traffic consist exclusively of nitrogen oxides. That is the point.

          It is therefore important to identify the health-effectively effective burdens. Nobody would be served with it, if the identification did not succeed, did not correspond to the facts. Nobody would be served if (again) the wrong sow was driven through the village.

          Therefore probably the hint of the pulmonologist on the smoker. Of course, this was not about playing off a voluntary self-harm morally against third-party debt. That would be silly too. And it's silly too! But it was also your reasoning (not mine) ...

          No, the example was chosen because it shows very drastically how many nitric oxides a person can get in a very short time without suffering from them. I can understand this train of thought well. You obviously not?

          Maybe you know more about statistics and sows, driven right or wrong, through villages? Good for you! But I have doubts ...

          Please, therefore, check that I am still inclined to follow the pulmonologist. Your reasoning seems rather arbitrary, unqualified, unreflective and obedient ...

          I am very confident that a pulmonologist interviewed in the ÖR, be it critical or mainstream mouthpiece, has been more intensively involved in the subject than a Mr. Daniel ...

          And I would like to leave it that way. For me, the discussion is over here.




          0



          0
          • 28. March 2018 at 9: 13 AM
            Permalink

            It would help to read the own comments again ... quote Herbert Hürsch: "He has not read a single study in which health effects could be attributed reliably to nitric oxide." Followed by quote Herbert Hürsch: "No studies? Neither the pneumologist said that, nor did I put that in his mouth ... "The second study I've cited deals specifically with NOx.
            I would therefore be more careful to accuse other than unqualified, etc. which quickly falls back on one. Also this nonsensical "don't shoot the messenger". "Facts" in the world and then behind "I did not say yes" hide. Is this the level to be discussed on?




            0



            0
  • 28. March 2018 at 9: 45 AM
    Permalink

    Complementary: There is also a press release from the German Society for Pneumology from February this year, which for respiratory diseases assesses the risk of particulate matter significantly higher than nitrogen oxides and ozone, but it is also pointed out that nitrogen oxides have a negative effect on lung function and therefore quote: "cities and towns must take measures that improve the air quality in urban areas
    "Healthy people are not particularly affected, but children and the chronically ill.

    In addition, lung diseases are not the only relevant area in which can show consequences.




    0



    0
    • 28. March 2018 at 12: 06 PM
      Permalink

      Why should I read my comments again? Everything is right!

      Please distinguish between my statements and my pulmonary rendition, if you quote me ...

      Also, I see no substantive content. Neither I nor the pulmonologist ever claimed that there were no studies.

      On the contrary, the pneumologist has explicitly referred to existing studies and that's exactly how I reproduced them. He comes only to other conclusions than you, the politics and the mainstream ...

      And whether you like it or not, in the meantime you will even find yourself in the same horn! ! !

      If the risk of particulate matter is much higher, should priority be given to particulate matter reduction or not?

      Quote I (first comment on the topic of nitrogen oxides): "He does not even see it as proven that nitric oxide is at all cause for anything because nitric oxide always occurs in conjunction with other pressures. Like the fine dust in traffic. "

      That's the way I understood the pulmonologist. He wanted to focus on the pressing issues. I still can not recognize anything wrong. Why should it hurt if priorities are set correctly? And this issue can probably also reduce our entire communication ...

      Quote Daniel: "But I'm not down and say that you do not need to worry about nitrogen oxides because heroin is much more harmful ..."

      You can do it with the "heroin" you want! Or with the burden of birch trees. Others prefer to think about the right priorities ...

      And it can not hurt to put fine dust and nitrogen oxides in the right order. Fine dust does not just emit the diesel.

      Heroin? Birch? Come on! As I said, I do not want to discuss the issue with you ...




      0



      0
      • 28. March 2018 at 3: 10 PM
        Permalink

        It was never about any priorities ... It was about the crude comparison with smokers and limits in the workplace (apart from the fact that limits and actual loads are two pairs of shoes). They have quoted the Lord as saying, "A smoker would inhale as much nitric oxide with a single cigarette as a non-smoker who breaths 2 for weeks. And that without immediately getting the cigarette. "
        Now you can of course if you want to deduce a very low toxicological potential of NOx (-> because the significantly unhealthier living smoker also not ill immediately (in this direction, the statement should also be understood)), but at the same time you can also claim that smoking is not harmful for these reasons (I know you did not say that, that's not the point). It goes and was me from the beginning to this comparison the mumpitz is because he says nothing about the toxicological effect of NOx as a substance.
        Therefore, I am not surprised that they have not understood the, admittedly somewhat provocative, comparison with heroin.




        0



        0
        • 28. March 2018 at 4: 51 PM
          Permalink

          Quote (s):

          1.) It was never about any priorities ... "

          2.) "(...) at the same time, however, one can also claim that smoking is not harmful for the reasons mentioned.
          (I know you did not say that, that's not the point). "

          3.) "So I'm not surprised that they did not understand the, admittedly somewhat provocative, comparison with heroin."

          I think the only one who knows what it is all about is you!

          to 1.) I was very much concerned about whether priorities are set correctly or not.

          to 2.) That's right, I did not say that. That's right, that's not the point ...
          So what do you mean by that? ? ?

          to 3.) Yes, that's true. In fact, I do not understand what your personal heroin use (or third party) has to do with the burdens of road traffic ...

          And again, I do not want to discuss your heroin use or your smoking behavior with you any longer. The thematic relevance (nitrogen oxides in road traffic) of your comments opens up to me less and less ...




          0



          0

Comments are closed.