Talk:European emission standards

Untitled

under construction this week. Jens Nielsen 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

TO DO
translate sample dieselnet tables with http://diberri.dyndns.org/html2wiki.html
Add sections:
*Standards applying for cars
*Standards applying for lorries
*Standards applying for nonroad vehicles
*effectiveness (illustrating problems with cycle beating, slow penetration of new vehicles in whole fleet

MC standards

Any info on the motorcycle/moped standards would be great. 213.28.235.4 07:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RE "the European Commission announced that it was working on a proposal for a new law to limit CO2 emissions from cars [3]"

I do not believe that this statement is verifiable by the sources cited - can this be clarified?

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The layout is not very good. The article contains too many tables. It should comply with Wikipedia:Embedded_list. My advice is to move all tables into separate stub-like articles leaving only prose here. The "See also" section is also too long. It contains links to wiki pages that are already wikilinked in the text, and it should be shortened. The "In the media" subsection should be removed or merged with "External links" section. My general impression is that the layout of the article should be thought through carefully and then revised.

2. Factually accurate?: The list of references is in a bad shape. It's better to use templates instead of demonstrating long web links. The last two references are in the form of [1], which is not good either.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes

5. Article stability? Yes

6. Images?: OK

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Ruslik 08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

False data in table "Europ. emission standard for passeng. cars..." ? The dates listed in that table (the new type approval dates) differ up to three years from the very similar table in the German Wiki-version of the same article. This data needs checking!

Hypocritical Classifications

I am sure enough of the data here to put this on the main page but I didn't feel comfortable doing so as it is my opinion that this is a problem and other may disagree on that, this is the only issue, the facts are straightforward. The issue is well documented and can be seen through a simple comparison of the latest data from the UK site VCA: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/downloads/may2007.asp and the emission standards information on this page. If you check any 4x4 SUV type vehicle you will find that almost invariably they do not conform to the Euro standard for passenger vehicles, and yet they are on the list as (in most cases) conforming to the latest standard (IV). Carefully checking each one led me to the conclusion that these vehicles are being classified as "light commercial vehicles". The standard defines commercial vehicles as “vehicle designed and equipped for the transportation of goods”. This is absurd to me as an SUV is just a passenger vehicle. The whole point of emissions standards like this is to make people think twice about drive cars that emit a lot of pollution. How is this to be achieved when the worst polluters of all get exempted from the standard by a stupid loophole. The best example is the Mercedes GL class which is actually just a station wagon with slightly raised suspension. The emissions for this vehicle are PM=0.034 HC+NOx = 0.27-0.36 NOx = 0.26-0.35. Does this mean if I buy a station wagon in Europe and fit slightly higher aftermarket suspension that means it is now designed and equipped for transporting goods? We are letting people drive giant gas guzzling tanks spewing out poisonous gases while taxing or fining people who are using less gas and making less pollution just because they dont have an ungainly ride height and an ugly pug-nosed lack of aerodynamics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenduncan (talk • contribs) 06:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Debatepedia external link

Would a link to Debatepedia's article on the debate between a carbon tax and cap-and-trade be acceptable here on this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.98.193 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The link fails our external links guidelines being to a relatively new and lightly edited wiki. -- SiobhanHansa 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

clarification

This statement that currently appears -

"Currently, emissions of Nitrogen oxides (NOx), Total hydrocarbon (THC), Non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), Carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) are NOT regulated for most vehicle types, including cars, lorries, trains, tractors and similar machinery, barges, but excluding seagoing ships and aeroplanes"

Isn't this factually incorrect? Shouldn't the "NOT" be removed - because all of these gasses are included under the standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.242.134.237 (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is removed. Chris81w (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

List-defined refs no longer in use: listed here in case needed again.

The following references are no longer in use in the body of the article, but were still part of the list-defined refs. Because of the number of them and how recently their use in the body of the article was removed, I've listed them here in case they end up being needed again.

• <ref name="Transport Env 1">{{PDF|[http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Press/2007/2007_02_12_te_letter_environment_council.pdf 517  Transport Environment.org Letter from the European Federation for Transport Environment. 02/12/07 - Re: transport and climate change policies in Environment Council of 20 February in Brussels]}}</ref>

• <ref name="TEReport">{{cite web|url=http://www.transportenvironment.org/Article250.html |title="How clean is your car brand?" Transport and environment, 25 October 2005 |publisher=Transportenvironment.org |date=2006-10-25 |accessdate=2011-02-02}}</ref>

• <ref name="Eur-lex 1">{{cite web|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0116:EN:NOT |title=European Commission Directive 93/116/EC of 17 December 1993 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 80/1268/EEC relating to the fuel consumption of motor vehicles |publisher=Eur-lex.europa.eu |date= |accessdate=2011-02-02}}</ref>

• <ref name="Parl">[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-0433+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN European Parliament resolution on "Winning the Battle Against Global Climate Change"], 16 November 2005</ref>

• <ref name="CommCO2">[http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061103/sc_afp/eutransportauto_061103190746 "EU to introduce legislation as car makers fail on emission targets" AFP], 3 November 2006 {{Dead link|date=November 2012}}</ref>

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Railway locomotives

I object to the deletion of this section by Prof. Haddock on 18 August 2014. The fact that it is UK-specific is not a reason for deletion. It would be better to expand it to include information about other countries. I believe that the UK operators got a derogation so the dates for compliance in other EU countries may be different. Biscuittin (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Information about derogations would be a good addition. But I don't think info on individual orders or classes is a good idea - it's unmaintainable and other issues.Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What does "unmaintainable" mean and what are the other issues? Biscuittin (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Unmaintainable" means that if you included coverage of one type of locomotive, then the expectation would be to cover others - otherwise the section is an indiscriminate collection of information (Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information) eg "why is one type being covered and not other?"

The option of covering all examples is problematic because it's likely it won't be carried out, and because it just becomes a list of "all locomotives in the EU made after 2015".

The other issues are that the article becomes a WP:COATRACK for a list of locos when the article is supposed to be about emissions standards; it also creates unbalanced coverage in the railway field, when other sections do not have lists.

Other issues is that the coverage is wrongly organised. Emmissions are primarily (but not exclusively) a function of the engine used, not the locomotive, a list of engines might make sense.

Another issue is that the presentation is wrong - categories might be a better choice eg category:EU Stage III compliant engines makes sense.Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know there has been no derogation - eg see https://blogs.reading.ac.uk/railways-and-law/2014/02/20/eu-emission-limits-bite-for-new-freight-locomotives/ - however there is a "flexibility scheme" which is very similar (in the article).Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Regulation (EU) No 333/2014

This page is not up to date because of "Regulation (EU) No 333/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO 2 emissions from new passenger cars ". Perhaps someone who knows what they're talking about could make the necessary amendments? Stoxsl (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

LCA CO² emissions higher than standards

This article doesn't state that the emission targets are made for vehicle use only. Appearantly, even an electric vehicle emits more than allowed if the figures would be for the entire life cycle assessment (191 grams of CO² per mile; see page 17 of http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf ) Xovady (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It says "acceptable limits for exhaust emissions" - exhaust emissions are important becasue they are much more difficult to control than the power generation emissions. The diagram on page 17 clearly illustrates the variance, depending on the power generation mix. The table on the bottom of page 15 shows that "California mix" would be under the figure you quote, while "US mix" would be well above. Implementation of carbon capture at power stations or other changes in the mix would give different results

Figure 10 at the top of page 14 shows the comparison of BEVs with gasoline or hybrid vehicles, under various assumptions.

Also relevant of course are other emissions, NOX, SOX, and particulates mainly, which have human health implications.

This would probably be well worth covering in another article with a see also here.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

Compatibility

What if, for example we use EURO4 fuel on EURO6 car. Will that car damage?(Please answer with referencing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadsdtmnd (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as EURO4 fuel. If your car's user manual says use 95 octane then you should use 95 octane (best) or higher (more expensive, no benefit but also no problem). Using lower octane fuel may or may not damage your engine (pinging) depending on your actual vehicle (some detect the lower quality fuel and run in a lower power mode, some do not).  Stepho  talk  23:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Testcylce Bus and Truck

I think for "Euro VI" the text cycle in the table should be changed to WHTC / WHSC. 192.102.17.50 (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have changed it. Chris81w (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Motorbikes

What happened to the Euro standards for motorcycles? I haven't got much time right now, can someone try to recover the section? Best, --Minoa (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you remember approximately when it was there? I skipped around a bit back to 2012 and couldn't see it.  Stepho  talk  12:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot about WikiBlame again. I think definitely needs to be included since the London ULEZ affects motorbikes (Euro 3 or better). Best, --Minoa (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Without an approximate date I can't help.  Stepho  talk  21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Dead external link

t&e -- Even though an archive.org link was used, the 11 years old article still appears blank on my phone. It should be removed... •ː• 3ICE •ː• 08:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed No need to delete.  Stepho  talk  21:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Around the world

Trigenibinion has put some good effort into European_emission_standards#Around_the_world. However, this article is about European emission standards. The world content would be better at Vehicle emission standard.  Stepho  talk  22:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The section is precisely about how the Euro standards are used around the world, not other ones. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Add to around the world?

The Israeli bus company "Metropolin" has made a promise that all of their buses comply with euro 5. Maybe add it? I'm not sure if it's not a promise and is a law. TomGoLeen (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's an admirable goal. But they are only one company in one country. Do we want to bloat the article listing every company in Europe with an EV fleet?  Stepho  talk  01:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Excess cites

@Trigenibinion Nice try but you have not broken the record Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Is this a record for excess cites? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)