London Emmisions Surcharge - 'The Banger Tax'
Discussion
frankenstein12 said:
.........
Yes there are vehicles which pollute london massively. The overwhelmingly most polluting vehicles are busses, taxis and HGVS.
Can you show us some links to surveys that back up this view ? I'm not saying you're wrong - but what this thread/subject notably lacks is some facts....Yes there are vehicles which pollute london massively. The overwhelmingly most polluting vehicles are busses, taxis and HGVS.
gavsdavs said:
Can you show us some links to surveys that back up this view ? I'm not saying you're wrong - but what this thread/subject notably lacks is some facts....
Indeed, while simultaneously being composed of unrealistic alarmism.I live in and own a car in London, but I'm not too thick/victim-complexed to think that this is all about "TFL's war on the motorist". Jeez, some of the reactionary crap being spouted here is embarrassing!
gavsdavs said:
frankenstein12 said:
.........
Yes there are vehicles which pollute london massively. The overwhelmingly most polluting vehicles are busses, taxis and HGVS.
Can you show us some links to surveys that back up this view ? I'm not saying you're wrong - but what this thread/subject notably lacks is some facts....Yes there are vehicles which pollute london massively. The overwhelmingly most polluting vehicles are busses, taxis and HGVS.
The primary claim was pollution from vehicles driving through the old towers was damaging the building and the proposal was to ban all vehicles from driving through or past except buses.As part of that I did research into the reasons behind the stated change.
I spent a great deal of time researching articles on pollution and the differences between pollution from petrol or diesel and its effects on humans and lcal environment but i didnt keep the articles and only vaguely recall the details..
The most startling detail to come out of it was that the particles to come out of diesel vehicles were something 3-4 x more harmful than those from petrol vehicles to both humans and environment. One of the more unpleasant side effects of diesel is the nasty black soot that covers buildings. The particles get into all the cracks and when damp absorb the moisture and expand which is what causes the flaking of the masonry.
The soot particulates have the same effect in human lungs albeit without the flaking but they get into your bloodstream and can cause cancers etc etc not that emissions from petrol cars wont.
In terms of in London. My comment is a generalisation in that if they really wanted to reduce pollution of the worst type then removing or reducing the use of diesel vehicles based on the fact that diesel vehicles are far more environmentally harmful than petrol. That would make an immediate difference.
I dont hate cars and am not unreasonable either in fact I love cars and used to have a diesel for work which i did 40-50k miles a year in till i did my research to fight my local council. I felt so strongly about the effects of diesel pollution I sold my diesel car and bought a petrol.
I guess what I was after (and I'm not sure it exists) is which type of vehicles cause the most pollution in London *in the last 12 months*.
My observation is that
- busses are now not the worst offenders, if you've been near a modern London bus it smells like a swimming pool because of the Urea.
- There are more hybrids (Prius, etc) in London than there are black cabs.
- Yes there are HGV and vans and tippers, etc which I'd say are probably the worst culprits.
I kind of agree that (non-euro5) diesel is largely the most unpleasant fuel to be around, but Petrol is not nice either with regards to the cause of the smog that's got Khan so upset.
It would be nice if some good survey data existed - which classes of vehicle there are, what proportion of them are Euro-4/Euro-5 rated, which are nasty old oil burners and so on. I don't know if this data exists and a lot of the decision making is emotion based as a result.
My observation is that
- busses are now not the worst offenders, if you've been near a modern London bus it smells like a swimming pool because of the Urea.
- There are more hybrids (Prius, etc) in London than there are black cabs.
- Yes there are HGV and vans and tippers, etc which I'd say are probably the worst culprits.
I kind of agree that (non-euro5) diesel is largely the most unpleasant fuel to be around, but Petrol is not nice either with regards to the cause of the smog that's got Khan so upset.
It would be nice if some good survey data existed - which classes of vehicle there are, what proportion of them are Euro-4/Euro-5 rated, which are nasty old oil burners and so on. I don't know if this data exists and a lot of the decision making is emotion based as a result.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...
"In fact, according to a presentation by The Danish Ecological Council which has looked into the use of wooden stoves: "Just 16,000 wood stoves in Copenhagen (600,000 inhabitants) emit as much fine-particles pollution in one winter, as all traffic emit within one year."
It also says: "New low-emission stoves cause much higher emissions (above 500.000 part/cm3) than new trucks with particulate filters (below 1.000 part/cm3)."
"In fact, according to a presentation by The Danish Ecological Council which has looked into the use of wooden stoves: "Just 16,000 wood stoves in Copenhagen (600,000 inhabitants) emit as much fine-particles pollution in one winter, as all traffic emit within one year."
It also says: "New low-emission stoves cause much higher emissions (above 500.000 part/cm3) than new trucks with particulate filters (below 1.000 part/cm3)."
NomduJour said:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...
"In fact, according to a presentation by The Danish Ecological Council which has looked into the use of wooden stoves: "Just 16,000 wood stoves in Copenhagen (600,000 inhabitants) emit as much fine-particles pollution in one winter, as all traffic emit within one year."
It also says: "New low-emission stoves cause much higher emissions (above 500.000 part/cm3) than new trucks with particulate filters (below 1.000 part/cm3)."
Same as these new government subsidised wood chip burning "eco friendly" power stations "In fact, according to a presentation by The Danish Ecological Council which has looked into the use of wooden stoves: "Just 16,000 wood stoves in Copenhagen (600,000 inhabitants) emit as much fine-particles pollution in one winter, as all traffic emit within one year."
It also says: "New low-emission stoves cause much higher emissions (above 500.000 part/cm3) than new trucks with particulate filters (below 1.000 part/cm3)."
And that doesn't include the environmental damage being caused by the companies supplying the wood chips who are cutting down trees in areas they shouldn't be.
NomduJour said:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...
"In fact, according to a presentation by The Danish Ecological Council which has looked into the use of wooden stoves: "Just 16,000 wood stoves in Copenhagen (600,000 inhabitants) emit as much fine-particles pollution in one winter, as all traffic emit within one year."
It also says: "New low-emission stoves cause much higher emissions (above 500.000 part/cm3) than new trucks with particulate filters (below 1.000 part/cm3)."
Many years ago at university I studied fly ash. Rock and f"In fact, according to a presentation by The Danish Ecological Council which has looked into the use of wooden stoves: "Just 16,000 wood stoves in Copenhagen (600,000 inhabitants) emit as much fine-particles pollution in one winter, as all traffic emit within one year."
It also says: "New low-emission stoves cause much higher emissions (above 500.000 part/cm3) than new trucks with particulate filters (below 1.000 part/cm3)."
king till! I here you cry. 
But the ash particle itself isn't all that relevant. We can hoover up vast quantities of particles into our lungs and be absolutely fine. The health danger is defined by three key characteristics, the size and shape of the particle itself, the texture of its surface area and what compounds are present when it is formed.
The size and shape are important as that defines what they do in our lungs, blocking the alveoli and not being processed out etc. The surface texture is absolutely vital and generally defined by heat as the hotter the burn the more smooth and vitreous the surface which means they have less stickiness but crucially cannot hold other toxins on their surface. And the final bit is what other chemicals are present when the flu ash is formed and whether this creates toxins that can adhere to the fly ash surface and effectively the fly ash becomes a delivery system of poisons direct to the blood via the lungs.
So, something like brown coal from Eastern Europe burns at a too low a temperature to create small smooth fly ash and it has a large and jagged surface area that grips in the lungs while also carrying very high levels of toxic heavy metals and other compounds from the very impure, low calorific value coal. In contrast, domestic coal burns hot enough to produce spherical ash partials with low surface area and the coal is far purer.
Breathing in either is not an activity you'd generally find at a health spa but what it shows is that some ash particles are hundreds of times more toxic than others.
Wood ash tends to be jagged as it's lower temp but it is not typically laced with heavy metals or toxic compounds and I believe that it's somewhat larger particle size means it has less ability to be trapped in the alveoli. In contrast, diesel fly ash is the perfect size, has high surface area and is laced with toxins. One of the key problems with diesel ash is that it is the perfect size to f
k up our lungs. And of course, you have to consider demographics. Wood burning typically takes place in depopulated areas of low tax revenue (because there is a grim money aspect to co spider) whereas diesel fly ash is a large urban pollutant where obviously many magnitudes of people are poisoned and the cost impact in terms of loss of tax revenue and high healthcare spend are huge.
The final aspect is that because of the sums of money at stake there will be huge numbers of Libby groups funding research and commissioning specific results for the marketing dept of institutions impacted.
DonkeyApple said:
NomduJour said:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...
"In fact, according to a presentation by The Danish Ecological Council which has looked into the use of wooden stoves: "Just 16,000 wood stoves in Copenhagen (600,000 inhabitants) emit as much fine-particles pollution in one winter, as all traffic emit within one year."
It also says: "New low-emission stoves cause much higher emissions (above 500.000 part/cm3) than new trucks with particulate filters (below 1.000 part/cm3)."
Many years ago at university I studied fly ash. Rock and f"In fact, according to a presentation by The Danish Ecological Council which has looked into the use of wooden stoves: "Just 16,000 wood stoves in Copenhagen (600,000 inhabitants) emit as much fine-particles pollution in one winter, as all traffic emit within one year."
It also says: "New low-emission stoves cause much higher emissions (above 500.000 part/cm3) than new trucks with particulate filters (below 1.000 part/cm3)."
king till! I here you cry. But the ash particle itself isn't all that relevant. We can hoover up vast quantities of particles into our lungs and be absolutely fine. The health danger is defined by three key characteristics, the size and shape of the particle itself, the texture of its surface area and what compounds are present when it is formed.
The size and shape are important as that defines what they do in our lungs, blocking the alveoli and not being processed out etc. The surface texture is absolutely vital and generally defined by heat as the hotter the burn the more smooth and vitreous the surface which means they have less stickiness but crucially cannot hold other toxins on their surface. And the final bit is what other chemicals are present when the flu ash is formed and whether this creates toxins that can adhere to the fly ash surface and effectively the fly ash becomes a delivery system of poisons direct to the blood via the lungs.
So, something like brown coal from Eastern Europe burns at a too low a temperature to create small smooth fly ash and it has a large and jagged surface area that grips in the lungs while also carrying very high levels of toxic heavy metals and other compounds from the very impure, low calorific value coal. In contrast, domestic coal burns hot enough to produce spherical ash partials with low surface area and the coal is far purer.
Breathing in either is not an activity you'd generally find at a health spa but what it shows is that some ash particles are hundreds of times more toxic than others.
Wood ash tends to be jagged as it's lower temp but it is not typically laced with heavy metals or toxic compounds and I believe that it's somewhat larger particle size means it has less ability to be trapped in the alveoli. In contrast, diesel fly ash is the perfect size, has high surface area and is laced with toxins. One of the key problems with diesel ash is that it is the perfect size to f
k up our lungs. And of course, you have to consider demographics. Wood burning typically takes place in depopulated areas of low tax revenue (because there is a grim money aspect to co spider) whereas diesel fly ash is a large urban pollutant where obviously many magnitudes of people are poisoned and the cost impact in terms of loss of tax revenue and high healthcare spend are huge.
The final aspect is that because of the sums of money at stake there will be huge numbers of Libby groups funding research and commissioning specific results for the marketing dept of institutions impacted.
Bump for this - there's a survey you can now do:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-q...
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-q...
Looks like you can submit as a male lesbian.Quick bump for this: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/mayors-tc...
The Standard said:
Posters are going up on the Tube to highlight to motorists that the £10-a-day levy, to tackle toxic air, will start from October 23. It will apply between 7am and 6pm on weekdays to cars registered before 2006.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff