Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Diesel drivers are the new anti christ?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,318

    Diesel drivers are the new anti christ?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39088631

    So the government promotes diesel cars. Pollution goes up (or more likely fuel revenues go down),
    and so it's time to punish diesel drivers?
    Come on government. **** or get off the pot. If diesel is so bad
    how about banning all diesel vehicles in the next ten years?
    Oh wait, that would mean replacing all the trains, trucks, buses, farm vehicles, constructions vehicles...
    Better idea. Say it's bad. Do nothing. Tax diesel drivers.
    Nailed it!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    8,825
    And some wonder why people turn cynical/conservative/anti-overintrusive government.

    Yes, they do good work and are necessary but a lot of the time they are making stuff up as they go along.

    In the U.S. they have very struck diesel emission rules which is why many Euro-spec engines aren't offered there.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    The problem with Diesel emission is well known. I myself worked aside of that subject and raised awareness as early as 2001. Numbers were already alarming with a 10 fold difference b/w engine type. 17 years ago... I am sure that people involved in combustion research and with an healthy civic sens had done the same in all corner of the industry. Fact are that nobody cared much among the public that kept seeing the cost incentive* as a rare sacred cow.

    Then there was the industry and the political sphere seeing the massive switch to Diesel as a discreet protectionism measure. France and Italy nosed dive on this producing often the dirtiest Diesel engines for general consumer cars upon the very last day of a new regulation entrance (France) and the national oil industry began producing Diesel products by its own, securing their respective national market. It was seen by many as a win win strategy and those who raised alarm were simply dismissed.

    The worst was when taxes incentive were applied only to Diesel - all private cars included. The market went down the cliff for really cleaner engine and the Eu R&D in that domain entered an Ice age.

    The worst disaster is to come sadly. People generally figure it as another climatic thingy but both effects will have a synergistic effect, plaguing certain cities periodically to the point that Health and local economy will be affected. The forest of fingers will then start to raise pointing at each other and this could potentially become an international matter aptly discussed at the end. But then who will have another look at that ridiculous cost incentive?
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 26th February 2017 at 05:51.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,727
    JB, we have a conservative government. How would turning conservative be a reaction to the actions (or lack of them) of conservatives?

    I know it has been just that (cf Trump) but I despair at the ignorance that drives this vicious spiral rightwards.

    Not you, but the phenomenon. I can see how people might get cynical!

    It seems the right only have to frustrate and disappoint the populace in order to keep the populace to the right. The trick is to blame the 'other' - liberals, non-conservatives, the media, foreigners - for every frustration or disappointment. Interesting times indeed.
    Last edited by Beermat; 26th February 2017 at 19:38.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,076
    Quote Originally Posted by hampden98 View Post

    So the government promotes diesel cars. Pollution goes up (or more likely fuel revenues go down)
    That is rather oversimplifying things.

    Diesel was promoted as a way of lowering CO2 emissions, one of the causes of climate change for the whole globe that could most easily be tackled.

    But now the has been so successful that NOx emissions (and particulates) from diesels which are locally injurious to health have reached levels were people in cities are actually being harmed.

    EV and fuel cell vehicles will have to be encouraged in cities, we can see this in the way that EV are congestion charge exempt in London.

    See all the evil plots behind the move you wish, but the facts are far simpler.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    The CO2 reduction has always been a false excuse in that case. A way to bypass any debate regarding Nox and particulates.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,076
    You don't believe we need to reduce CO2 emissions?

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    Quote Originally Posted by Moggy C View Post
    You don't believe we need to reduce CO2 emissions?

    Moggy
    No I don't say that. Obviously not. But CO2 are inherent to all combustion process. Rejects are only a function of the rpm and volume of cylinders (Air Admissions = X% fuel injection). With an engine functioning at a lower rpm range and mostly small diesel fitted inside cars, the game was tricked.

    Diesel fuel have a higher percentage of chemical components that will combine to create Nox components and their inherent partial combustion process is central to that and leads to the massive reject of particles.

    The usage of Diesel in internal combustion engines is justified only with big block fitted on vehicles that are able to cruise mostly at low rpm (truck, planes etc...). Trapping a peanut sized engine inside a small/medium or even a large car is simply an ecological disaster That's what was done for years in a total hypocrisy.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 27th February 2017 at 04:12.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,076
    That's clearer, thank you.

    So just as well it is put right sooner rather than later.

    Moggy

    Owner of a 2.7 and a 1.9 diesel
    (Mrs Moggy has just gone over to 3.2 litre petrol in anticipation of Cambridge bringing in a diesel surcharge)
    Last edited by Moggy C; 27th February 2017 at 08:58.
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    WestNorEastSouth
    Posts
    5,584
    As always it depends how the data is collected/collated - my town had a huge headline about it being the in worst 10 scottish towns for air pollution,the fact that a Main trunk road runs through the town centre might have something to do with it - but tbh the worst thing about walking through our town is having to walk through all the smokers smoke and stink.
    When I actually look at the pollution monitor readings - most of the time it is Low/within limits but presumably (say) if you look at the readings for a warm windless summers day it might be slightly over for particulates,the particulates readings would presumably be lower if everybody quit smoking (I cannot understand why people still do it ???)
    I have driven many diesel cars over the last 40 years - many of them fitted with the superlative VW 1.9 tdi,at any speed this engine gives in the region of 55 mpg as a genuine average (measured brim to brim - not a reading from a mickey mouse on board computer readout).
    At the moment we have a 2002 VW polo 1.4 petrol which just about achieves 42mpg (measured average),although it is a nice little car and very comfy - I would really like another diesel for long relaxing journeys with cruise control.My last modern -ish diesel used to lope along at approx 2,800 rpm @ er 70 ,while the 1.4 petrol polo is buzzing along at 4,000 rpm@ 70.
    Not sure what the guvmints next move is on diesel - we shall see LOL

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,723
    Simple, cost effective solution to ground level atmospheric pollution (CO2) is to plant more trees. The French have known and practised this method for centuries.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,076
    Quote Originally Posted by bazv View Post
    Not sure what the guvmints next move is on diesel - we shall see LOL
    You can bet the farm that it will be nothing good.

    Quote Originally Posted by bazv View Post
    the superlative VW 1.9 tdi
    I think that's what I have in the Ute (Skoda version of the Caddy). I get about 40 mpg, but this is made up for by the fact it runs quite happily on cooking oil so when Lidl have their 10 litres for £10 offer I'll often top up there. Less so these days whilst diesel is a bit cheaper.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Green View Post
    Simple, cost effective solution to ground level atmospheric pollution (CO2)
    Splendid if a little long term. But it's the NOx and particulates that are driving the diesel bans or penalty charging, not CO2.

    Moggy
    Last edited by Moggy C; 27th February 2017 at 23:14.
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    WestNorEastSouth
    Posts
    5,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Moggy C View Post
    You can bet the farm that it will be nothing good.
    Absolutely LOL

    I think that's what I have in the Ute (Skoda version of the Caddy). I get about 40 mpg, but this is made up for by the fact it runs quite happily on cooking oil so when Lidl have their 10 litres for £10 offer I'll often top up there. Less so these days whilst diesel is a bit cheaper.
    You may have the 1.9 SDI in the ute,if so - not as powerful or economical as the TDI - but a good solid old engine.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South East Essex
    Posts
    4,602
    On the flip side, there are a number of light aircraft being converted to diesel.
    Mostly for use in countries where avgas is difficult to come by.
    Engine Failure:.... A condition which occurs when all fuel tanks mysteriously become filled with air.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by John Green View Post
    Simple, cost effective solution to ground level atmospheric pollution (CO2) is to plant more trees. The French have known and practised this method for centuries.
    I doubt anybody had heard of atmospheric pollution 'centuries' ago!

    Anyway the real reason that there are trees along French roads...

    ...is because German soldiers like to march in the shade!
    WA$.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Moggy C View Post
    You don't believe we need to reduce CO2 emissions?

    Moggy
    I believe we do but more positive action needs to be taken.
    Investment in new engine technology with a view to replacing diesel and petrol by 2037.
    If it was made law worldwide it would happen. Not sure how the Middle East would react though.
    Taxing me will not reduce my diesel consumption. I have to use my car.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    Fact is if you have combustion, you will get CO2 AND if you do use petrol derivative, you will get NOx. So it is all about managing how we do use combustion in engines. It's a multi-prongs approach: behavior, efficiency, the fact that it is relevant or not in certain domain, identifying how we can do better usage of the resource, find alternatives and on the other end of the kill chain (of the ozone layer), how we can act to better this layer resilience (flight path and increased acute regulation for planes, space launches (next), reduction of methane (an easy, low cost that have a lower negative footprint on the industrial/agricultural chain but that pack a punch into the problem etc...

    This is why the CO2 cap-and-trade system for CO2 made initially sense (the is the relevant and efficiency approach) until the prevention of NOx was mixed in it and blurred (just like the Diesel problem, it is not because you reject less CO2 that you are cleaner in term of much harmful rejects of NOx).
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 12th March 2017 at 20:03.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,292
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by John Green View Post
    Simple, cost effective solution to ground level atmospheric pollution (CO2) is to plant more trees. The French have known and practised this method for centuries.
    I have to admire your ability to talk absolute nonsense with such emphatic self confidence.

    I'm struggling here to think of a single French proto-environmentalist.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,723
    Before operating mouth do your research. Here's a clue: Plane trees.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,318
    Are there any figures that show Pollution, Impact on the planet and health. Versus consumption and predicted oil reserves?
    I bet that the oil will run out long before it has any long lasting effect on the planet.
    Not much consolation to anyone that suffers now of course.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,076
    That's the thing. The switch to diesel was to avoid long term damage to the planet (and consequently to people)

    Diesel is killing people today in built-up areas.

    Neither is great, electric or hydrogen, generated in as undamaging a way as possible will be the answer.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    As it turns out, though, those [airplane] contrails “create long-lasting, and sometimes extensive, clouds that would not normally form in the atmosphere, and are believed to be a factor in influencing Earth’s environment,” according to NASA. And a major driver of those contrails is soot emissions, which often come from fossil fuels.

    ” … The observed particle reductions we’ve measured during [this study] should directly translate into reduced ice crystal concentrations in contrails, which in turn should help minimize their impact on Earth’s environment,” said Bruce Anderson, ACCESS project scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia.

    Planes that participated in the study used a 50-50 blend of traditional aviation fuel and a renewable alternative biofuel. “This was the first time we have quantified the amount of soot particles emitted by jet engines while burning a 50-50 blend of biofuel in flight,” said Rich Moore, lead author of the Nature report.
    Source:
    Yahoo.com

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,125
    One of the problems there is going to be if governments or environmentalists decide that diesel is 'bad' is what are we going to do with all the diesel we no longer want?

    You cannot simply decide that you'll only extract petrol from the ground! 'Crude-oil' is a cocktail of different grades of hydrocarbons and the refining process can only do so much to produce the ones you want; you're always going to be left with a significant proportion of 'diesel' (or kerosine / heating-oil)...

    ...so what do you do with it if you don't burn it?

    And what happens to the price of petrol?

    I think you get much more diesel out of your average barrel of crude-oil than you get petrol; if the number of private cars stays the same, or increases as is predicted, the owners are all going to be trying to buy the same amount of available petrol. Surely that will cause the price to rise drastically?
    WA$.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,076
    Diesel will always have a use. Out at sea and out in the countryside the NOx and particulates don't build up, so are less injurious to health.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,125
    True, but if the government starts to control its use by prohibiting its use in towns or by changing the duty on it drastically, what then?

    I live 'in the countryside' and both my cars are diesel but if I can't take them into London, for example, where I have family, my next car is going to have to be a petrol isn't it?

    Looking at the global picture, because oil is a global business, it depends what other countries do; if diesel faces widespread restrictions across the globe there will be a glut of diesel and a shortage of petrol surely?

    I think the UK and Europe have the highest proportion of diesel cars anyway so not sure of the impact really.
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 21st March 2017 at 10:31.
    WA$.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES