Read the forum code of contact
By: - 26th February 2017 at 03:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: - 26th February 2017 at 05:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
By: - 26th February 2017 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: - 26th February 2017 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
By: - 26th February 2017 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The CO2 reduction has always been a false excuse in that case. A way to bypass any debate regarding Nox and particulates.
By: - 26th February 2017 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You don't believe we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Moggy
By: - 27th February 2017 at 03:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: - 27th February 2017 at 08:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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)
By: - 27th February 2017 at 10:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
By: - 27th February 2017 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: - 27th February 2017 at 23:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
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
By: - 28th February 2017 at 10:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: - 28th February 2017 at 10:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: - 28th February 2017 at 17:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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!
By: - 2nd March 2017 at 19:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: - 12th March 2017 at 19:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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).
By: - 14th March 2017 at 06:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We need these; http://www.ev-info.com/ev-car/3543-cree-ev
By: - 20th March 2017 at 14:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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. :confused:
By: - 20th March 2017 at 14:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Before operating mouth do your research. Here's a clue: Plane trees.
By: - 20th March 2017 at 19:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 2,536
By: hampden98 - 25th February 2017 at 22:22
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!