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, the development of which is anything but surprising, began in 2008. With the Air Quality Directive 2008 / 50 / EC the living conditions of EU citizens should be improved. Better air in city centers and metropolitan areas, a plus in quality of life. A great opportunity and the signal for a departure into the future. The possibility for politicians to show the will to shape. Germany, the enormously rich country that practically invented the car, could have been groundbreaking again. A laboratory of the future that not only supplies hardware, but complete solutions. Mobility as a service, the next big thing for the future, right from 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, politicians relied on stricter emissions standards. Until recently, diesel was sold as having no alternative for achieving environmental goals, and the Internet was described as uncharted territory. Digitization only perceived as an opportunity. Fast Internet, the backbone of the digital revolution, is more a wish than a reality for many places in Germany. Other countries did better and created structures. In Helsinki, plans include a fleet of autonomous pods by 2025, while the British capital is relying on electric taxis and expanding emission-free local public transport. Paris is gradually banning combustion engines from the metropolis, and China is a great 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 in videos how Euro 5 diesel was used 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 we will see whether there will be driving bans. There's a lot going on and it's hard to keep track of things. In politics, there seems to be a widespread understanding that hardware retrofits must be carried out. 70% of the 15 million diesels registered in Germany were Euro 2017 or worse in 5. Too large a mass to devalue in one fell swoop. In addition, beyond the campaign against diesel vehicles, it is slowly dawning that this type 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

At the moment there is uncertainty. There are no legal guidelines for retrofitting, the legislator is required. Only when the framework conditions are in place should you evaluate what is. The prices for used Saab 9-5 NG diesel, which meet the Euro 5 standard, are in the basement. They keep falling, and low prices are quoted for trade-ins. The demand for a 9-5 NG diesel is zero. If there is a hardware upgrade, prices rise again. It cannot be ruled out, the diesels from the GM group were also installed in the Opel Insigina, and there is a high need for retrofitting there.

Anyone who owns a Saab Diesel with Euro 4 or worse should also remain on hold. Driving bans are the ultimate remedy that car companies and politicians would like to avoid. Those who live outside the affected areas and do not commute every day are better advised to keep what they have. The past has shown that discussions always calm down.

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.

Private transport itself is facing a turning point. If you want clean inner cities in the metropolitan regions, you won't get them if we continue to live as we have before. The car itself will disappear from the core areas. Not right away, 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 controlled mobility from the cloud is becoming 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 on "Diesel driving bans. The Plaque Republic."

  • Quote (s):

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

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

    3.) "I am therefore 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 didn't say that. That's also true, that's not the point ...
    So what do you mean by that? ? ?

    to 3.) Yes, also true. In fact, I don't understand what your personal heroin use (or that of third parties) has to do with road traffic pollution ...

    And again, I don't want to discuss your heroin use or smoking habits with you any longer. The thematic relevance (nitrogen oxides in road traffic) of your comments is becoming less and less clear to me ...

  • It was never about any priorities ... It was about the crude comparison with smokers and limit values ​​in the workplace (apart from the fact that limit values ​​and actual exposure are two different things). THEY quoted the Lord as saying: “A smoker would inhale as much nitric oxide with a single cigarette as a non-smoker who breathes the permissible limit value for 2 weeks. And that without getting sick immediately from the cigarette. "
    Now, of course, if you want to, you can derive only a very low toxicological potential of NOx from this (-> because the clearly unhealthy living smoker does not fall ill immediately either (this is the direction in which the statement should be understood)), but at the same time you can also claim that smoking is not harmful for the reasons mentioned (I know you didn't say that, that's not the point). From the beginning I was concerned with this comparison, which is stupid because it says nothing about the toxicological effects of NOx as a substance.
    Therefore, I am not surprised that they have not understood the, admittedly somewhat provocative, comparison with heroin.

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

    Please distinguish between my statements and my rendering of the pulmonologist when quoting me ...

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

    On the contrary, the pulmonologist referred very explicitly to existing studies and that's exactly how I reproduced him. He just comes to different conclusions than you, politics and 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?

    I quote (first comment on the subject of nitrogen oxides): “He doesn't even consider it to be proven that nitrogen oxide is the cause of anything at all, since nitrogen oxide always occurs in connection with other stresses. For example the fine dust in road traffic. "

    This is exactly how I understood the pulmonologist, and no other. He wanted to focus on the pressing problems. I still can't see anything wrong with that. Why should it hurt if priorities are set correctly? And our entire communication can probably be reduced to this point of contention ...

    Quote Daniel: "But I don't stand up and say that you don't have to worry about nitrogen oxides because heroin is much more harmful ..."

    You can stick with the "heroin" as you like! Or with the strain from 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 pollen? Come on! As I said, I don't want to discuss the subject with you any further ...

  • As a supplement: There is also a press release from the German Society for Pneumology from February this year, which estimates the risk of fine dust for respiratory diseases to be significantly higher than that of 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 to improve air quality in metropolitan areas
    improve." Healthy people are not particularly badly affected, but children and the chronically ill are.

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

  • It would help to read your own comments again ... Quote Herbert Hürsch: "He has not yet read a single study in which health effects could be reliably attributed to nitric oxide." Followed by a quote from Herbert Hürsch: “No studies? The pulmonologist didn't say that, nor did I put it in his mouth… ”The second study I cited deals in particular with NOx.
    I would therefore be a little more careful to accuse others than unqualified etc. that quickly falls back on you. Also this nonsensical “don't shoot the messenger”. Put “facts” into the world and then hide behind “I didn't say yes”. Is that the level to be discussed?

  • No studies? The pulmonologist didn't say 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!

    AGAIN: the nitrogen oxide pollution goes hand in hand with other pollution. Of course there is a statistical connection 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.

    Hence the pulmonologist's reference to smokers. Of course, it was not about playing off voluntary self-harm morally against external negligence. That would be silly too. And it's silly too! But it was also your argument (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 that are right or wrong driven through villages? Good for you! But I have doubts ...

    So please check me out that I am still inclined to follow the pulmonologist. Your argumentation seems to me to be arbitrary, unqualified, unreflective and submissive ...

    I am very confident that a pulmonologist interviewed in the ÖR, be he critical or the mouthpiece of the mainstream, has dealt more intensively with the topic than a Mr. Daniel ...

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

  • As I said, don't shoot the messenger ...

    The discussion as to whether the limit values ​​in the workplace should be lowered or those of road traffic are hysterical must be made between you and the pulmonologist. I don't have the necessary knowledge ...

    As I understood the Lord, it wasn't at all about the fact that (quote from Daniel) “there are definitely more toxic gases and substances than nitrogen oxides.”

    The man was certainly not that simple and polemical and I am reluctant to be assumed that I would have put something like that 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 deny with a single syllable that road traffic is beneficial to health. I think we would all be very helpful if everything harmful could be reliably identified, and I understand all the pulmonologist's statements 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.

  • Now please don't twist my post. I didn't 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 don't stand up and say that you don't have to worry about nitrogen oxides because heroin is much more harmful ...
    Not all people work in professions where there is a high level of nitrogen oxide exposure. It's not about emissions either, it's about limit values. The fact that the limit values ​​at the workplace may possibly be higher than on the main road should not lead to the conclusion that one says: “It's not that wild”. Perhaps one should rethink the limit values ​​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 has said that one dies from nitrogen oxides after a year ... it is also not about poisoning from nitrogen oxides. The point is that this can lead to a number of secondary diseases, such as smoking (lungs, heart / circulation, etc.).

  • Don't shoot the messenger ...

    I did a little research myself. And it's actually not that simple. Nitrogen oxides are also found in summer smog (ozone) and, in the past, when there were much more, were probably also significantly involved in “acid rain”. So they are not completely harmless ...

    And yet, the pulmonologist just wanted to dampen the hysteria a little. And I can still understand what he said ...

    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 on a “busy street” after work and there is allegedly suddenly death threatened, although you only breathe a fraction of what was previously completely harmless for over 8 hours, then somehow nobody does that either Sense, right?

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

    And that's why I don't find his comparison with the smoker quite so senseless. If the number is correct (one single cigarette), then an average smoker (approx. 10 cigarettes in a single day) would inhale more nitrogen oxides within a year than another person could handle in 127 years….

    Consequently, there shouldn't be any smokers who survive their vice 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?

  • Probably only the pulmonologist got out of hand here ... or how should I understand the really meaningless comparison with the smoker? The smoker harms himself voluntarily and consciously. Someone who is unlucky enough to live on a busy street can unfortunately not choose that. Perhaps the pulmonologist would like to move down such a street? No, he probably lives where the air is nice and clean.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

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

    I would just like to add that the calorific value of diesel is higher than that of gasoline or even E85. That means, instead of demonizing the diesel, you could start by taxing it 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.

    In my opinion, “Plaketten-Republik” sums it up perfectly. And I get annoyed every day about the green one in my windshield, because it is now cracking and the license plate has not been legible for years. . .

    The drivers and citizens have been given a new task. Thank you, thank you, thank you, dear “plaque republic”. How nice that we 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. , ,

  • Such madness only works in Germany. The German is “subordinate to authority” and accepts everything. Years ago we were told that diesel is the best alternative in traffic and today is it 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 wouldn't scrap my old diesel, first wait and see what's coming in the future or not ...

  • 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.

  • Stop the diesel panic. I have just bought a 9-3 convertible from 2011 with just a few km, but there was no sign of a diesel discount at the price! On the contrary, the car disappeared from the market after 3 days, and if I hadn't taken it, the car would have been gone quickly. So I have two convertibles, both 196 hp, and the turbo-diesel just drives something faster - the gasoline engine is a snail against that.

    I don't see anything of a driving ban, and I won't give up my Jaguar Diesel either, but drive it as long as possible - also no comparison to the 3 liter petrol engine that I had before - speed 130 at 1500 rpm. Why should I forget all of this because the press is nuts? Don't let yourself go crazy, as always, is the motto. The other motto is - if you don't have a diesel, you can buy it cheaply now.

  • Not to forget, the tax office earns a lot from the VAT, it was the same with the first wave of scrapping, the national wealth was destroyed, the tax office received more VAT than the scrapping premium was worth ...
    ….great right? But with such ministers of transport and such short-sighted politics, no wonder

Comments are closed.