I think having this sensor in many cars with likely make drivers more aware about the emissions that their car are emitting. Knowing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases you are producing would help some drivers look for cleaner alternatives.
Thomas - http://www.carid.com/
OBD (on board diagnostic) is used to check for the health of the automotive. However, still this equipment does not remove the need to take the vehicle for the check/monitoring where the OBD is read using some equipments. The article talks about removing such barriers so that user as well as pollution monitoring authorities can have a real-time tab on the pollution that a vehicle might be exhausting.
What is the point of this article?
I thought this article was going to present some new suprisingly low cost emission sensor technology. Without that, the idea of real-time sensing is just a dream. With that, the ECU could constantly adjust its controls to keep the emissions within limits so there would be no need for reporting and/or logging. The vehicle would ALWAYS be within limits.
The vehicle owner can not control the calibration of the ECU. Why would we punish or reward a driver for something over which they have no control? If this system reported that the emissions limits were exceeded, what would an owner do to correct it?
The driver's only control of emissions is with the throttle pedal. We already measure fuel economy which is a darn good indicator of driver behavior and the driver gets beat with the "stick" every time they fill up.
S98765 is right, OBD already requires monitoring of all emission related components. When an emission control sensor or actuator fails, it must be corrected to keep the vehicle in compliance.
Doesn't the existing OBD-II systems on all late model US cars and light trucks already do something like that, at least in the sense that it stores any fault (emission related or not) codes until cleared? When I take my vehicle in for its emissions test, the testing station just hooks up to the OBD-II port and reads any codes that may have been set. There is no measurement of exhaust gasses, at leat on late model vehicles.
Hi Rick. You are right of course. I think there would be some resistance in any country. But there will be carrots as well as sticks to incentivise people. e.g. Lower vehicle registration fees, lower road tax, and/or no inspection requirement for those who comply. Higher registration fees, higher road tax, and/or mandatory inspection fees for those who don't.
Continuous monitoring rather than periodic inspections is certainly the way forward. The European Commission for example has a stated goal of Continuous Compliance. But the approach described here is impractical.
The "alternative" approach of using the data from the engine control and management unit is the only viable one. There is no need for an independent system when the On-Board Diagnostics system already in place performs the same function. And OBD is already a requirement for vehicle type-approval in every developed country around the world. Many US states already use OBD instead of tailpipe emissions tests during their Inspection & Maintenance programs. All that is needed for real-time monitoring is a smart cellular device connected to the OBD port.
The aspect of this architecture that sends "out of compliance" information directly, via wireless technology, to a government authority could receive some resistance in the U.S. A portion of the population is very resistive to government "intrusion" into their lives, as part of the country's tradition of personal freedoms.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.