Boris Johnson - WTF is he smoking?

[Devil2575]

turbobloke said:

Banning cars won't do anything for air quality whereas banning buses and HGVs would.

Really?

So buses and HGV pollute but cars don't.

[turbobloke]

Devil2575 said:

turbobloke said:

Banning cars won't do anything for air quality whereas banning buses and HGVs would.

Really?

So buses and HGV pollute but cars don't.

Carbon dioxide and water are not pollutants. Banning cars and carrying the same number of people by bus would increase levels of the most dangerous pollutants.

PM10 and NOx pollution is almost wholly a large diesel engine problem i.e. buses and HGVs and the mutagenic carcinogens 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP are almost wholly a bus problem as they are produced when large diesel engines are under load, such as urban bus stops with frequent stop/starts. These pollutants are not linked to small petrol engined cars.

Private cars including Saabs and Porsches clean the urban air they drive through and could conceivably achieve marginally better mpg figures in city driving as a result of the technology.

High levels of pollution in the S and SE that breach arbitrary levels are frequently due to weather systems importing polluted air from continental Europe, i.e. trans-boundary pollution. It's not a car issue.

If you want something to concern yourself over regarding air quality, try indoor air. Research by Dr Jeff Llewellyn of the Government Buildings Research Establishment showed that air in the average UK home is 10 times more polluted than city smog. It's doubtful that anything much will be done about this, as there is little by way of taxes or sociobabble that can be hung on it.

[MarshPhantom]

youngsyr said:

MarshPhantom said:

turbobloke said:

youngsyr said:

Don't blame Boris, blame the EU - London faces £300m of fines for poor air quality, this is one measure to try to avoid having to pay them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/11/...

Indeed as per my post ar 1132 hrs this morning

There are many ways to skin a cat, nobody forced Boris to come up with this ludicrous plan.

If there are "many", let's hear a couple?

Diesel engines are the problem so ban those at peak times.

Significant increase to the cost of the Congestion Charge, with no discount for those living inside the zone.

Option 3, pay the fine. £300 million is a small price to pay for dignity.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Thursday 14th February 18:18

[BJG1]

I don't think anyone's suggesting we shouldn't do anything to make public transport more environmentally friendly, are they?

[youngsyr]

MarshPhantom said:

youngsyr said:

MarshPhantom said:

turbobloke said:

youngsyr said:

Don't blame Boris, blame the EU - London faces £300m of fines for poor air quality, this is one measure to try to avoid having to pay them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/11/...

Indeed as per my post ar 1132 hrs this morning

There are many ways to skin a cat, nobody forced Boris to come up with this ludicrous plan.

If there are "many", let's hear a couple?

Diesel engines are the problem so ban those at peak times.

Significant increase to the cost of the Congestion Charge, with no discount for those living inside the zone.

Option 3, pay the fine. £300 million is a small price to pay for dignity.

You want to ban buses and taxis in central London at peak times? Or are you just talking about banning private diesel vehicles? If the latter, they must be a fraction of the amount of diesel engined vehicles on the roads of at peak times?

The congestion charge only affects a very small area of London - basically the City plus the West End and a little bit south of the river. I doubt reducing traffic in these areas beyond the already taxed levels will have a significant impact on air quality across London, and what will happen to all those journeys - do they just disappear, or do they place strain on the already creaking public transport infrastructure?

As for £300m in fines being a small price to pay, it's 15% of TFL's 2012/13 Capex budget! And that's just the current amount, I daresay there will be future fines if London continues to fail to meet the requirements.

[turbobloke]

'Requirements' which are essentially arbitrary and imposed from the EUSSR for political reasons.

We should do what Club Med does and ignore the idiots in Brussels, though going one step further and leaving the EU would help further on so many fronts.

[IroningMan]

You don't need to ban taxis and buses: you just need to ensure that their manufacturers and operators are under enough pressure to clean them up.

[oyster]

NomduJour said:

BJG1 said:

I'm not suggesting that at all. If you don't want to get a bus you can walk or get a tube. Central London isn't very big.

I'm suggesting you mind your own business and stop trying to tell people what to do. The proportion of people who commute into Central London by car is small in any case compared to those who travel by train and tube, and is ultimately limited because of the parking situation. Instead of banning, why not make the alternative more appealing?

There's surely nothing more appealing than getting from A to B in half the time.

(Doesn't really apply to buses, but does to the tube and to bikes)

[MarshPhantom]

youngsyr said:

MarshPhantom said:

youngsyr said:

MarshPhantom said:

turbobloke said:

youngsyr said:

Don't blame Boris, blame the EU - London faces £300m of fines for poor air quality, this is one measure to try to avoid having to pay them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/11/...

Indeed as per my post ar 1132 hrs this morning

There are many ways to skin a cat, nobody forced Boris to come up with this ludicrous plan.

If there are "many", let's hear a couple?

Diesel engines are the problem so ban those at peak times.

Significant increase to the cost of the Congestion Charge, with no discount for those living inside the zone.

Option 3, pay the fine. £300 million is a small price to pay for dignity.

You want to ban buses and taxis in central London at peak times? Or are you just talking about banning private diesel vehicles? If the latter, they must be a fraction of the amount of diesel engined vehicles on the roads of at peak times?

The congestion charge only affects a very small area of London - basically the City plus the West End and a little bit south of the river. I doubt reducing traffic in these areas beyond the already taxed levels will have a significant impact on air quality across London, and what will happen to all those journeys - do they just disappear, or do they place strain on the already creaking public transport infrastructure?

As for £300m in fines being a small price to pay, it's 15% of TFL's 2012/13 Capex budget! And that's just the current amount, I daresay there will be future fines if London continues to fail to meet the requirements.

Boris is going to permanently ban diesels from the congestion charge zone, why is his proposal better than mine? He's also banning petrol engines too, which aren't really a problem.

Boris's plans also only cover the existing congestion charge zone, as you said in your post above, reducing emissions in this one small will have a very limited impact on air quality.

Paying the fine was a tongue in cheek suggestion, it's a shame the mayor can't grow some stones and tell them to do one.

I just can't see how a plan that means anyone who may one day have to drive into Central London will have to buy a electric or hybrid vehicle is a good idea.

[turbobloke]

MarshPhantom said:

I just can't see how a plan that means anyone who may one day have to drive into Central London will have to buy a electric or hybrid vehicle is a good idea.

It's a bad idea with no basis but it fits the trendy political approach of bowing and scraping to the False Green God while in reality doing little more than taxing and controlling the bejeezus out of the private motorist as an icon of individualism rather than collectivism, a scapegoat and a milch cow.

[Devil2575]

turbobloke said:

PM10 and NOx pollution is almost wholly a large diesel engine problem i.e. buses and HGVs and the mutagenic carcinogens 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP are almost wholly a bus problem as they are produced when large diesel engines are under load, such as urban bus stops with frequent stop/starts. These pollutants are not linked to small petrol engined cars.

I'd suggest any diesel engine produces these pollutants, especially as the a lot of the emission control technology installed on modern diesels only really works well when they do a lot of motorway work.

Sounds like the answer is hybrid buses...

[turbobloke]

Devil2575 said:

turbobloke said:

PM10 and NOx pollution is almost wholly a large diesel engine problem i.e. buses and HGVs and the mutagenic carcinogens 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP are almost wholly a bus problem as they are produced when large diesel engines are under load, such as urban bus stops with frequent stop/starts. These pollutants are not linked to small petrol engined cars.

I'd suggest any diesel engine produces these pollutants

Which pollutants? If you refer to all, your suggestion is wrong.

NOx and PM10 are emitted by both, proportionally more from buses and HGVs, but 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP are large diesel engine pollutants produced when the engine is under load, when the size of the 'reaction vessel' is one factor in determining the likelihood of reactive intermediate moieties hitting the vessel wall, where they would likely be de-energised, before producing some of the more exotic combustion products, it's that sort of thing. Vessel walls can be treated to maximise/minimise such quenching to a degree.

Devil2575 said:

Sounds like the answer is hybrid buses...

Which inefficiently transfer pollution to the source of the power used to charge them, apart from the few percent (as a proportion) where windymills and the like can be identified as the source. Then again those windymills are indirectly killing poor pensioners from hypothermia along with thousands of bats and raptors from either collisions with blades or pressure-change effects on their body. They also interfere with human sleep patterns and impact human health as well as being costly eyesore white elephants.

Why is it acceptable for the metropolitan blinker brigade to sanction this?

[Mojocvh]

TB, in finest Churchillian mode, bleh.

While were at it, lets firebomb some cities full of refugees and set up concentration camps in Saff Afrika as well.....




Getit?

[turbobloke]

Mojocvh said:

TB, in finest Churchillian mode, bleh.

While were at it, lets firebomb some cities full of refugees and set up concentration camps in Saff Afrika as well.....

This, from another thread a few minutes ago, has saved some typing time in responding to tripe.

On the mansion tax thread at 2222 hrs in response to very similar bilge I said:

Such baseless, empty and emotive hyperbole is offered up as reasoning (unfortuntely) more and more often on PH these days.

[Devil2575]

turbobloke said:

Devil2575 said:

turbobloke said:

PM10 and NOx pollution is almost wholly a large diesel engine problem i.e. buses and HGVs and the mutagenic carcinogens 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP are almost wholly a bus problem as they are produced when large diesel engines are under load, such as urban bus stops with frequent stop/starts. These pollutants are not linked to small petrol engined cars.

I'd suggest any diesel engine produces these pollutants

Which pollutants? If you refer to all, your suggestion is wrong.

NOx and PM10 are emitted by both, proportionally more from buses and HGVs, but 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP are large diesel engine pollutants produced when the engine is under load, when the size of the 'reaction vessel' is one factor in determining the likelihood of reactive intermediate moieties hitting the vessel wall, where they would likely be de-energised, before producing some of the more exotic combustion products, it's that sort of thing. Vessel walls can be treated to maximise/minimise such quenching to a degree.

I've read one paper that described 3-NBA as only being down to large vehicles under load but it wasn't refering to buses, just loaded HGVs. I've also read other papers that even mention petrol engines. There is plenty of information supporting it coming from diesel engines.

Turbobloke said:

Devil2575 said:

Sounds like the answer is hybrid buses...

Which inefficiently transfer pollution to the source of the power used to charge them, apart from the few percent (as a proportion) where windymills and the like can be identified as the source.

Power stations are generally quite a bit more efficient at converting fuel into useful energy than the average internal combustion engine.

Further more it's a lot easier to reliably scrub the pollutants from a power station stack than it is from individual vehicle exhausts. Power stations also don't have stacks at ground level in heavily populated areas either.

In addition fuels such as natural gas produce a lot less pollutants that than both diesel and petrol.

Edited by Devil2575 on Friday 15th February 23:51

[speedy_thrills]

bobbylondonuk said:

But what other alternate plan is there to reduce traffic and pollution in london?

Incentives for industries that don't have a big dependency on operating out of London to move out?

The problem is the way road transport systems where planned was insufficient to cope with growth in the number of people using vehicles. The car is just such a damned good way to travel, lets stop pretending it's not for one reason or another and get on with making cities work with the car.

[turbobloke]

Devil2575 said:

I've read one paper that described 3-NBA as only being down to large vehicles under load but it wasn't refering to buses, just loaded HGVs.

Large diesel engines don't exist in buses? And they're not under load when repeatedly pulling away from bus stops? Just have a little think about it.

Here we have bus stops (buses stopping/starting) and traffic calming (HGVs slowing and accelerating) increasing pollution levels involving the two most mutagenic carcinogens known to science. Officialdumb never acted so dumb.

Never mind it's only human cancers. And it's good to see you're finding out some information to go with the preconceived notions, but that pre-prejudice is clearly still active. It still seems preferable to do the research before adopting a position. Keep going it will only take a few years to catch up.

[Devil2575]

turbobloke said:

Large diesel engines don't exist in buses? And they're not under load when repeatedly pulling away from bus stops? Just have a little think about it.

Here we have bus stops (buses stopping/starting) and traffic calming (HGVs slowing and accelerating) increasing pollution levels involving the two most mutagenic carcinogens known to science. Officialdumb never acted so dumb.

Never mind it's only human cancers. And it's good to see you're finding out some information to go with the preconceived notions, but that pre-prejudice is clearly still active. It still seems preferable to do the research before adopting a position. Keep going it will only take a few years to catch up.

It seems to me that it is you who has found the data to support your previously held views.
As I said, there is plenty of data out there linking those two pollutants to diesel emissions. How about providing me with the link to the source that states that only buses and HGVs are responsible?

If you really want to reduce pollution in urban centres then get rid of internal combustion engines altogether.

Catch up with you? You are right, it would take me years to build up a knowledge of misinformation, cherry picked data and rubbish science to rival yours.

[turbobloke]

Devil2575 said:

turbobloke said:

Large diesel engines don't exist in buses? And they're not under load when repeatedly pulling away from bus stops? Just have a little think about it.

Here we have bus stops (buses stopping/starting) and traffic calming (HGVs slowing and accelerating) increasing pollution levels involving the two most mutagenic carcinogens known to science. Officialdumb never acted so dumb.

Never mind it's only human cancers. And it's good to see you're finding out some information to go with the preconceived notions, but that pre-prejudice is clearly still active. It still seems preferable to do the research before adopting a position. Keep going it will only take a few years to catch up.

It seems to me that it is you who has found the data to support your previously held views.

Wishful thinking knee-jerk, true to form. The data came first - I was writing about 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP in terms of polluted urban air in the mid- nineties and early noughties. If you were a car enthusiast around at the time you will almost certainly have read about it, so given your new state of awareness perhaps you're not much of a car enthusiast or weren't out of school back then?

Devil2575 said:

As I said, there is plenty of data out there linking those two pollutants to diesel emissions. How about providing me with the link to the source that states that only buses and HGVs are responsible?

Red herring alert.

They're not 'only' responsible, diesel locomotives are also implicated.

Varying amounts of these combustion products will likely be in all diesel emissions due to the nature of that combustion process, the issue is where the major sources are and Hitomi Suzuki found that large diesel engines under load are a good source.

Small petrol engines have lower combustion temperatures, different fuel and different combustion chemistry.

Devil2575 said:

If you really want to reduce pollution in urban centres then get rid of internal combustion engines altogether.

Not necessary surely? If there was a hydrogen bus passing by, only water would be emitted. The trouble arises with hydrogen production.

Devil2575 said:

Catch up with you? You are right, it would take me years to build up a knowledge of misinformation, cherry picked data and rubbish science to rival yours.

No, wrong again, you're there already - it's your stock-in-trade. I've always given references/authors in comments where applicable, data and evidence isn't misinformation so that slur is plain wrong. No doubt you'll be runnning off to play catch-up the next time another of your received wisdom myths gets busted. Have fun!

[DJRC]

turbobloke said:

Devil2575 said:

turbobloke said:

Large diesel engines don't exist in buses? And they're not under load when repeatedly pulling away from bus stops? Just have a little think about it.

Here we have bus stops (buses stopping/starting) and traffic calming (HGVs slowing and accelerating) increasing pollution levels involving the two most mutagenic carcinogens known to science. Officialdumb never acted so dumb.

Never mind it's only human cancers. And it's good to see you're finding out some information to go with the preconceived notions, but that pre-prejudice is clearly still active. It still seems preferable to do the research before adopting a position. Keep going it will only take a few years to catch up.

It seems to me that it is you who has found the data to support your previously held views.

Wishful thinking knee-jerk, true to form. The data came first - I was writing about 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP in terms of polluted urban air in the mid- nineties and early noughties. If you were a car enthusiast around at the time you will almost certainly have read about it

Seriously? Really? Ive never heard of the fkers till this thread and the pseudo-intellectual willy waving. Quite wtf they had to do with wanting to lick an F40 from head to toe I have no idea. You are always worth reading, you do come out with some fantastic tripe I genuinely often have trouble figuring out who talks more crap, the lefty morons crankedup and blue, the look-at-me uselessly pedantic twins Derek and Eric or you. Its an amusing contest everyday