The war on NOx and diesel...
Discussion
liner33 said:
DonkeyApple said:
Uxbridge is not central London.
No but I commuted TO Central London and from central London spending a lot of time IN central London , I was making the point that no car is very economical in heavy city traffic , but a car like the Prius by its very nature will be more ecomomical than most others. Of course if you live IN Central London and work in Central London why someone would want a car for commuting anyway defeats me
DonkeyApple said:
You are not getting the point. This is not about residents of Zone 1 who have bought hybrids.
It is about whether the Prious tech would be better in a Black Cab than just a modern, small petrol unit.
Well assuming the cabs are kept somewhere they could be plugged in during breaks / overnight it would definitely be a benefit as you would get 30-50 miles of electric driving without needing the engine. It is about whether the Prious tech would be better in a Black Cab than just a modern, small petrol unit.
TheAllSeeingPie said:
DonkeyApple said:
You are not getting the point. This is not about residents of Zone 1 who have bought hybrids.
It is about whether the Prious tech would be better in a Black Cab than just a modern, small petrol unit.
Well assuming the cabs are kept somewhere they could be plugged in during breaks / overnight it would definitely be a benefit as you would get 30-50 miles of electric driving without needing the engine. It is about whether the Prious tech would be better in a Black Cab than just a modern, small petrol unit.
It would be interesting to hear from central minicab users of hibrids as to whether without the tax breaks a Prius is significantly cheaper than a more conventional minicab.
Pan Pan Pan said:
I worked there for ten years, and clearly remember the dirt that accumulated on my clothes, and in my nose every single day, and I worked in an office on the 3rd floor of an architectural practice in Grays Inn at the time.
London was like this when I got here in 1988. There were no cats so plenty of unburnt petrol and of course monumental amounts of diesel soot.It's much cleaner today in terms of visible pollutants and the smell of unburnt hydrocarbons has gone.
All we have now in a massive increase of Nox and invisible particulates from people who have switched en mass to diesels. Thanks guys.....
DonkeyApple said:
Possibly but unlike minicabs they have no base and constantly drive around searching for fares. It's the nature of how a black cab spends its working day that raises the question as to whether the complexity and weight of a hibrid solution offers any benefits as the engine will be running constantly, versus something like an EcoBoost petrol unit.
Prius EV system allows it to run the far more efficient Atkinson cycle anyway.AC43 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I worked there for ten years, and clearly remember the dirt that accumulated on my clothes, and in my nose every single day, and I worked in an office on the 3rd floor of an architectural practice in Grays Inn at the time.
London was like this when I got here in 1988. There were no cats so plenty of unburnt petrol and of course monumental amounts of diesel soot.It's much cleaner today in terms of visible pollutants and the smell of unburnt hydrocarbons has gone.
All we have now in a massive increase of Nox and invisible particulates from people who have switched en mass to diesels. Thanks guys.....
and of course taxis.
When you say thanks guys, don't you mean thanks Gordon Brown, for making economically necessary for companies to switch to diesels for their fleets, whether they liked it or not.
Taking the long term view, I would say the emphasis on CO2 is effective.
It has driven people into dramatically more fuel efficient cars over the past 15 years. It has forced manufacturers to develop far more efficient (albeit very complex) powertrains.
Over the long term, there will have been a spike in NOX emissions in the early 2000s but everything is moving towards hybrids and full electric, so those emissions will subside. In 10 years' time, one can easily foresee that diesel cars (and hopefully some buses and light commercial vehicles too) will have become a lot rarer as people shift to hybrids and electric - again, VED focussed on CO2 emissions will help drive this.
It has driven people into dramatically more fuel efficient cars over the past 15 years. It has forced manufacturers to develop far more efficient (albeit very complex) powertrains.
Over the long term, there will have been a spike in NOX emissions in the early 2000s but everything is moving towards hybrids and full electric, so those emissions will subside. In 10 years' time, one can easily foresee that diesel cars (and hopefully some buses and light commercial vehicles too) will have become a lot rarer as people shift to hybrids and electric - again, VED focussed on CO2 emissions will help drive this.
braddo said:
Taking the long term view, I would say the emphasis on CO2 is effective.
It has driven people into dramatically more fuel efficient cars over the past 15 years. It has forced manufacturers to develop far more efficient (albeit very complex) powertrains.
Over the long term, there will have been a spike in NOX emissions in the early 2000s but everything is moving towards hybrids and full electric, so those emissions will subside. In 10 years' time, one can easily foresee that diesel cars (and hopefully some buses and light commercial vehicles too) will have become a lot rarer as people shift to hybrids and electric - again, VED focussed on CO2 emissions will help drive this.
Electricity is currently the least efficient fuel in terms of CO2 emissions, based on the current mix of generation. Only when we have gone completely nuclear for our electricity generation will hybrids or EV`s be the best option in terms of pollution.It has driven people into dramatically more fuel efficient cars over the past 15 years. It has forced manufacturers to develop far more efficient (albeit very complex) powertrains.
Over the long term, there will have been a spike in NOX emissions in the early 2000s but everything is moving towards hybrids and full electric, so those emissions will subside. In 10 years' time, one can easily foresee that diesel cars (and hopefully some buses and light commercial vehicles too) will have become a lot rarer as people shift to hybrids and electric - again, VED focussed on CO2 emissions will help drive this.
At present all they do is `transfer' their pollution to the power station down the road.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Electricity is currently the least efficient fuel in terms of CO2 emissions, based on the current mix of generation. Only when we have gone completely nuclear for our electricity generation will hybrids or EV`s be the best option in terms of pollution.
At present all they do is `transfer' their pollution to the power station down the road.
Is CO2 really pollution though? We know that monoxides, sulphides, ozone, free radicals and particulates are serious pollutants that do clearly documented damage to humans. As does noise. But what direct damage does CO2 do to a population? The answer is absolutely none. At present all they do is `transfer' their pollution to the power station down the road.
DonkeyApple said:
Is CO2 really pollution though? We know that monoxides, sulphides, ozone, free radicals and particulates are serious pollutants that do clearly documented damage to humans. As does noise. But what direct damage does CO2 do to a population? The answer is absolutely none.
Look up the definition of pollution. Anything that occurs in unnatural concentrations is pollution. You can even have light pollution and water pollution (too much water)!Regardless of whether you believe there is a debate to be had about global warming or not, high CO2 concentrations are already damaging aquatic life etc. At these levels, humans can breathe it, sure, but there is more to this planet than just humans. I like coral reefs.
DonkeyApple said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Electricity is currently the least efficient fuel in terms of CO2 emissions, based on the current mix of generation. Only when we have gone completely nuclear for our electricity generation will hybrids or EV`s be the best option in terms of pollution.
At present all they do is `transfer' their pollution to the power station down the road.
Is CO2 really pollution though? We know that monoxides, sulphides, ozone, free radicals and particulates are serious pollutants that do clearly documented damage to humans. As does noise. But what direct damage does CO2 do to a population? The answer is absolutely none. At present all they do is `transfer' their pollution to the power station down the road.
But more people die from Hospital acquired infections than respiratory problems caused by particulates. When this is also set against those who `deliberately' introduce these elements into their systems, by smoking, the problem begins to be set into perspective
Mr Gear said:
Look up the definition of pollution. Anything that occurs in unnatural concentrations is pollution. You can even have light pollution and water pollution (too much water)!
Regardless of whether you believe there is a debate to be had about global warming or not, high CO2 concentrations are already damaging aquatic life etc. At these levels, humans can breathe it, sure, but there is more to this planet than just humans. I like coral reefs.
But I'm not referring to global warming in any way. This thread is arguably all about direct pollution to human. Ergo the relevant question as to whether CO2 is a pollutant within this particular aspect of discussion. Which it isn't. Regardless of whether you believe there is a debate to be had about global warming or not, high CO2 concentrations are already damaging aquatic life etc. At these levels, humans can breathe it, sure, but there is more to this planet than just humans. I like coral reefs.
There are plenty of other threads where CO2 as a relevant pollutant is being discussed.
DonkeyApple said:
But I'm not referring to global warming in any way. This thread is arguably all about direct pollution to human. Ergo the relevant question as to whether CO2 is a pollutant within this particular aspect of discussion. Which it isn't.
There are plenty of other threads where CO2 as a relevant pollutant is being discussed.
Sure, and I agree that on a local level, CO2 from cars is not much of a problem.There are plenty of other threads where CO2 as a relevant pollutant is being discussed.
Air quality is falling, life expectancy too and sea levels rising as is temperatures as evidenced by all this snow so hopefully
The next government will find a way of taxing that that is obviously causing this ie personal transport luckily politicians know what's good for us!! Hurrah!!!
The next government will find a way of taxing that that is obviously causing this ie personal transport luckily politicians know what's good for us!! Hurrah!!!
Mr Gear said:
Sure, and I agree that on a local level, CO2 from cars is not much of a problem.
It can be a considered a proxy for fuel consumption, however, which is why it's relevant. Even if one thought the whole climate change debate was a conspiracy to tax people and justify science research grants, it would be silly to deny that lowering a country's average fuel consumption (and dependence on oil) is a good thing.That is what the UK has achieved, but it has caused local NOX and particulate pollution problems, which in turn will be addressed by the move to hybrid/electric (and some petrol).
Mr Gear said:
Look up the definition of pollution. Anything that occurs in unnatural concentrations is pollution. You can even have light pollution and water pollution (too much water)!
Regardless of whether you believe there is a debate to be had about global warming or not, high CO2 concentrations are already damaging aquatic life etc. At these levels, humans can breathe it, sure, but there is more to this planet than just humans. I like coral reefs.
You do realise how small 400 parts per million actually is?Regardless of whether you believe there is a debate to be had about global warming or not, high CO2 concentrations are already damaging aquatic life etc. At these levels, humans can breathe it, sure, but there is more to this planet than just humans. I like coral reefs.
TX.
braddo said:
Mr Gear said:
Sure, and I agree that on a local level, CO2 from cars is not much of a problem.
It can be a considered a proxy for fuel consumption, however, which is why it's relevant. Even if one thought the whole climate change debate was a conspiracy to tax people and justify science research grants, it would be silly to deny that lowering a country's average fuel consumption (and dependence on oil) is a good thing.That is what the UK has achieved, but it has caused local NOX and particulate pollution problems, which in turn will be addressed by the move to hybrid/electric (and some petrol).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff