The war on NOx and diesel...
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
clowesy said:
which have contributed to significantly worse air quality in towns and cities.
Other than the fact air quality hasn't actually got worse! Air quality has improved year on year for the last 25 years, due to a reduction in heavy industry and ever cleaner cars! The reason some of our towns are occasionally failing some of the EU air quality directives is that in 2012 the limits were halved.........It is also relevant as to what is being measured. Obviously lignite particulates in urban air has fallen hugely since the clean air act but these are far less toxic than diesel particulates due to the structural nature of various partical ashes and what that means in terms of the toxic elements they can carry into the lungs.
Look at black coal partiical ash under an SME and it is all lovely little spheroids that not much can adhere to. Look at diesel and it is jagged, high surface area and can carry many more times of toxins. Brown coal surveys in the old Eastern Block and all the lung disease and related illnesses have shown us for years the dangers of specific types of partiical ash.
The government said buy diesel its the way forward so the major manufacturers spent millions developing efficient diesel engines. The public believed the government and bought them in the millions.
Then when the government had everybody by the b
ks the cost diesel skyrocketed. Because of this stupid green bks diesels are cheap to tax and seen as everybody now pays cheap tax the government need to find a new way of fking over the motorist.
Why do you think LPG cars never took off, no one want to get bummed twice.
Then when the government had everybody by the b
ks the cost diesel skyrocketed. Because of this stupid green bks diesels are cheap to tax and seen as everybody now pays cheap tax the government need to find a new way of fking over the motorist.Why do you think LPG cars never took off, no one want to get bummed twice.
DonkeyApple said:
Everyone also remembers catalytic converters arriving in the early 90s.
Everyone in London remembers the lobbying to prevent taxis and buses bellowing out plumes of smole
Anyone who spent any time in London in the 70s will remember the black snot , it used to be awful Everyone in London remembers the lobbying to prevent taxis and buses bellowing out plumes of smole
I'm just wondering if it's as bad now but because it's a gas we don't see it
The figures for the car driven in London were very high
Jasandjules said:
Put harsh emissions testing on the buses..... Then watch the air quality improve.
But, if you divide the output of a bus by the average number of people being transported then unfortunately it becomes glaringly obvious that buses are not the issue. They are just very big, bright red and often seen with smelly exhaust plumes but they are not the offending articles. Taxis, minicabs and vans. Those are the particulate emitters that are mostly responsible.
None of these vehicle types specifically need Diesel engines. If you omit vans on the grounds of being borderline and lesser in number, neither taxis or minicabs need to be diesel. One simple spot of legislation and they could all be petrol within a few years. And for vans, they will need proper particulate filters as will PLGs.
My worry is that like CO2, NOx will become the new bogey man for taxation when the basic reality is that NOx isn't really the issue. The monoxides oxidise by mid morning into mostly harmless dioxides. What is causing the pollution and long term damage are the particulates that carry the heavy metals, free radicals and other toxins into our lungs and lodge in there to sit and do continuous health damage.
It is the particulates that need to be reduced.
kambites said:
Good! Diesels in city centres are hateful things.
Fixed that for you. 
I think a lot of the legislation over recent years have driven a lot of "improvement" in diesel engines, leading to much more complex engines and reducing reliability (but nowhere near as badly as many on here seem to believe IMO), however petrol engines are starting to go the same way with small capacity high pressure turbo/supercharger engines that are likely to be a reliability issue in the future too.
<Cynical Mode> Quelle Surprise! After years of propaganda (... mmm Claudia Brucken 
) and VED changes persuading the buying public to opt out of larger petrol vehicles and into derv to the point that it now makes up the majority (and the majority of new car buying options), the political lobbying is going to slowly but increasingly build on getting Joe Public to now (of course correctly) accept that actually diesel is nasty, nasty stuff and is very bad for health, the environment etc. Of course as this achieves greater mainstream acceptance, HMG can start loading additional taxation in various guises on their (temporarily at least until swop-out time) captive market. Back in the day, ISTR diesel was cheaper to buy than petrol initially, right up until it became apparent the market was increasingly switching to the black pump.., never miss an opportunity to milk that cash cow a bit more.
I fully expect that as soon as minimal emission petrol / EL or Hybrid cars tale up the slack from swopping-out diesel drivers there will suddenly be some form of assertion that the most popular technology has 'environment issues' of some kind- you can certainly guarantee HMG isn't going to give up the tax-take from the motorist that easily. That or expect some form of road pricing to get the tax back somehow. </Cynical Mode>
) and VED changes persuading the buying public to opt out of larger petrol vehicles and into derv to the point that it now makes up the majority (and the majority of new car buying options), the political lobbying is going to slowly but increasingly build on getting Joe Public to now (of course correctly) accept that actually diesel is nasty, nasty stuff and is very bad for health, the environment etc. Of course as this achieves greater mainstream acceptance, HMG can start loading additional taxation in various guises on their (temporarily at least until swop-out time) captive market. Back in the day, ISTR diesel was cheaper to buy than petrol initially, right up until it became apparent the market was increasingly switching to the black pump.., never miss an opportunity to milk that cash cow a bit more.I fully expect that as soon as minimal emission petrol / EL or Hybrid cars tale up the slack from swopping-out diesel drivers there will suddenly be some form of assertion that the most popular technology has 'environment issues' of some kind- you can certainly guarantee HMG isn't going to give up the tax-take from the motorist that easily. That or expect some form of road pricing to get the tax back somehow. </Cynical Mode>
Here's an idea.
Why not scrap the current VED scheme and tax cars solely on engine capacity size?
Make petrol and diesel the same price at the pumps.
Scrap manufacturers quoting combined MPG figures and instead quote only the urban and extra urban figures.
This way, the public can make an informed decision on whether choosing a diesel or petrol engine.
If they do low miles in the city, then they would be able to see that a petrol would be better. If they have a high annual mileage, with mostly motorway driving, they should be able to see that a diesel would be better.
This way the amount of diesels in city centres would decrease, thus lowering NOX levels in the city centres but we'd still have plenty of diesels on the motorway, keeping the CO2 levels down.
Why not scrap the current VED scheme and tax cars solely on engine capacity size?
Make petrol and diesel the same price at the pumps.
Scrap manufacturers quoting combined MPG figures and instead quote only the urban and extra urban figures.
This way, the public can make an informed decision on whether choosing a diesel or petrol engine.
If they do low miles in the city, then they would be able to see that a petrol would be better. If they have a high annual mileage, with mostly motorway driving, they should be able to see that a diesel would be better.
This way the amount of diesels in city centres would decrease, thus lowering NOX levels in the city centres but we'd still have plenty of diesels on the motorway, keeping the CO2 levels down.
Edited by The Turbonator on Tuesday 27th January 10:04
matt5791 said:
I think the diesel engine is very adaptable, and manufacturers will respond with solutions.
USA has much tighter laws on diesel emissions than UK/Europe. Yet again, "those stupid Americans" are actually well ahead of us. It was the same with catalytic converters back in the day. For instance, Mercedes diesels sold in USA have an additional system on the car to clean up their exhausts. Check out this link for details of the Blue-TEC system which injects a chemical (AdBlue) into the exhaust, breaking down nasty Nitrogen Oxide into harmless Nitrogen and Oxygen. Obviously the supply of AdBlue needs to be refilled from time to time.
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/green/diesel_bl...
Mr2Mike said:
The Turbonator said:
Here's an idea.
Why not scrap the current VED scheme and tax cars solely on engine capacity size.
Turbocharging and odd engines like wankels make a mockery of displacement as a taxable measure.Why not scrap the current VED scheme and tax cars solely on engine capacity size.
The Turbonator said:
Mr2Mike said:
Turbocharging and odd engines like wankels make a mockery of displacement as a taxable measure.
Power output then?liner33 said:
Mr2Mike said:
The Turbonator said:
Here's an idea.
Why not scrap the current VED scheme and tax cars solely on engine capacity size.
Turbocharging and odd engines like wankels make a mockery of displacement as a taxable measure.Why not scrap the current VED scheme and tax cars solely on engine capacity size.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff