Concern over diesel powered vehicles

[whole diary]

[grahame]

As told to the Daily Rail:

The transport secretary has said roscos considering buying diesel trains should take a "long, hard think".

Chris Grayling made the remarks to the Daily Rail, which said the government was considering a scrappage scheme for older diesel trains.

Concerns over nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions from diesel vehicles have been raised in recent years.

Oops - typo.  As told to the Daily Mail

The transport secretary has said drivers considering buying diesel cars should take a "long, hard think".

Chris Grayling made the remarks to the Daily Mail, which said the government was considering a scrappage scheme for older diesel cars.

Concerns over nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions from diesel vehicles have been raised in recent years.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I rather dread to think what the Daily Wail would make of any such story offered to them. 

[Thatcham Crossing]

Concerns over nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions from diesel vehicles have been raised in recent years

Newer diesels like mine that use AdBlue to counter the NO2 emissions at least partly deal with this issue, or so we are led to believe.

[welshman]

Diesels are an abomination in the sight of the Lord for the reasons now being given.  I remember the late great LJK Setright, hero of James May among others, writing articles to that effect in Car magazine in the 1970s and 80s.

[LiskeardRich]

Concerns over nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions from diesel vehicles have been raised in recent years

Newer diesels like mine that use AdBlue to counter the NO2 emissions at least partly deal with this issue, or so we are led to believe.

But all the filters cause Diesel engines to run less efficiently. Talking to a director of a bus operator recently, the company's new super green double decker buses do less than 50% the mpg of a 20 year old Volvo Olympian.
Unless someone is doing 1000s of motorway miles the filters will clog and become a expensive repair- many are reporting 60,000 miles and this was reflective of my own experiences my last two cars being 1.6 hdi from a large French manufacturer, one needed expensive replacement at 62000, the other at 59000.
Our current cars, one is a petrol so no such issues are expected, the other a 10 year old BMW diesel is on 62500 and showing the signs the others have given prior to failure.
My petrol is a 2 year old big heavy mpv with a 1.8 petrol engine but is returning almost 45mpg. We shall not be returning to diesel cars as the better economy is no longer sufficiently better to cover additional servicing costs and increased initial outlay with diesel cars being more expensive than their petrol equivalents

[Rhydgaled]

So now, in a panic about the impact on human health of burning dirty diesel, we will burn an increased amount of petrol (and diesel in vehicles with worse fuel economy due to filters) and cause more extinctions and make life harder for future generations instead. Neither sounds like a good option, and it isn't clear which the lessor-of-two-evils is in this case.

Going back to Grahame's original post, what can the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) do about this? Shame the high-output electrification train didn't manage to accelerate electrification the way we thought it had...

[Red Squirrel]

Diesels are an abomination in the sight of the Lord for the reasons now being given.  I remember the late great LJK Setright, hero of James May among others, writing articles to that effect in Car magazine in the 1970s and 80s.

Indeed:

"Unlike petrol, which evaporates very quickly, diesel oil is persistent in its liquid form. When it is spilled on the filling-station forecourt, it remains where it falls, spreading in puddles which soil the shoe-soles of all who pass by and notably making slippery the soles of the driver when he gets back in his car and addresses the pedals. When it is spilled on the road, it remains there for ages, and when it eventually sinks into the pores of the tarmac it will be floated up to the surface again by the next rainfall. So long as it persists, it is the most dangerous skid-inducer of modern times, having in particular killed a multitude of motorcyclists and maimed many more. Spilt diesel is indeed the most criminal of noisome emissions, but not the only one for which the engine can be blamed: there is much evidence that its exhaust fumes are strongly carcinogenic, but because early emissions legislation was aimed only as such exhaust ingredients as aggravated smog, this accusation was largely ignored. Efforts to revive it [emissions legislation, presumably] have been actively resisted not only by the engine manufacturers but also by the transport industry whose heavy goods vehicles rely on diesel to the exclusion of all else."

From "From Drive on! The social history of the motor car by L. J. K. Setright (2002: Palawan Press; 2003: Granta)", quoted by Honest John.

As an aside, I note that the Daily Mail online is linked to from time to time on this forum. If, as may be the case, you do not support the Daily Mail and its particular viewpoint, you should be aware that every time you click a link on that website you generate advertising revenue for them.

[Thatcham Crossing]

writing articles to that effect in Car magazine in the 1970s and 80s

I am a great admirer of Setright, but he was writing in the '70's and '80's and modern diesels are a lot different. Even in the '80's diesel cars (the few that there were) were agricultural at best.

People above referring to filters are I assume referring to the DPF, which all modern diesels (as far as I know) have.

AdBlue is a completely different technology and more diesels are starting to adopt it aswell, in order to meet "Euro6" compliance levels.

Additionally, I tow a caravan (brick-bats awaited!), and the torque and low-down power of a diesel is way-better suited to those rigours.

[ellendune]

As an aside, I note that the Daily Mail online is linked to from time to time on this forum. If, as may be the case, you do not support the Daily Mail and its particular viewpoint, you should be aware that every time you click a link on that website you generate advertising revenue for them.

Interesting - does it generate advertising revenue for them if you have an adblocker on?

[JayMac]

I am a great admirer of Setright, but he was writing in the '70's and '80's and modern diesels are a lot different. Even in the '80's diesel cars (the few that there were) were agricultural at best.

People above referring to filters are I assume referring to the DPF, which all modern diesels (as far as I know) have.

AdBlue is a completely different technology and more diesels are starting to adopt it aswell, in order to meet "Euro6" compliance levels.

Additionally, I tow a caravan (brick-bats awaited!), and the torque and low-down power of a diesel is way-better suited to those rigours.

Doesn't change the dangers caused by spilt diesel. I've recently gone for a burton on my local garage forecourt. My uncle broke his leg and spent weeks in traction, and months on crutches, after coming off his motorbike on a patch of diesel.

[rower40]

As an aside, I note that the Daily Mail online is linked to from time to time on this forum. If, as may be the case, you do not support the Daily Mail and its particular viewpoint, you should be aware that every time you click a link on that website you generate advertising revenue for them.

Interesting - does it generate advertising revenue for them if you have an adblocker on?

Depends how much AdBlue you use.

[grahame]

Going back to Grahame's original post, what can the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) do about this? Shame the high-output electrification train didn't manage to accelerate electrification the way we thought it had...

My "Daily Rail" was of course false news - taking the Daily Mail reference in Chris Grayling's comments about diesel road vehicles and seeing how the same logic would look with diesel rail vehicles.

Other forms of self-generated traction effort which doesn't generate particulates have been looked an and tried in the past, and indeed there's a run by on such traction form, using a 2008 built power source, next Wednesday.  But such power sources have other problems; there's still a lot of CO2 and their utilisation tends to be low (lots of servicing), initial cost high, and they require double manning on the power source unit alone.   They were actually rather common up until the 1960s but went away rather quickly thereafter.

On board storage of electricity, and nuclear, are other technologies that could be looked at; the on board storage was tried on the Ballater branch before it closed, and has been re-tried since; I understand the Russians have tried nuclear.   Then you have flywheel drive but where that might work in Stourbridge, it probably doesn't scale up to Bristol to Thingley.

I *am* posting in the lighter side.

[welshman]

Thanks to red squirrel for that quote from Drive On, which remains true today.

My experience of diesel engines is that they don't do what is said on the tin.  I had a (new) Volvo C30 2.0D and its lifetime fuel consumption was about 38 mpg averaged over 35,000 miles or so, almost entirely travelling one up and lightly loaded.

My current 1.4 turbo petrol engined vehicle used in the same way (and at the same speeds) does almost 41 mpg averaged over 30,000 miles.

[Red Squirrel]

Interesting - does it generate advertising revenue for them if you have an adblocker on?

Moot point that - your adblocker will most likely prevent a chargeable event being generated (thus denying 'per click' revenue), but your visit will add to audited page traffic, thus  making ad agencies more likely to place ads with said organ.

[didcotdean]

Regarding particulates, tyres and brake pads are a significant source and both have had very little attention paid to them for their reduction. Tyre wear rubber dust can be up to 60% of air pollutant in some cities.