*Whats the future for diesel engines*

[Joe T]

That is my point, It is my belief that A "Decatted" modern diesel is likely to be an intrinsically much worse polluter than an old school, low specific performance, one that never had any pollution control in the first place.

The "Warmist" agenda has transformed diesel engines from something that was admittedly a bit smelly but at the same time was also reasonably benign into something that is now really quite harmful and whose harmfulness is only partially mitigated by pollution control technology.

We might well have been be a whole lot better off had we just left well alone.

Personally I dont think this is the case at all. Most of the performance increases in modern diesels have come from making them more efficient and getting the most out of each drop of fuel. Couple this with some pretty stringent emissions controls and I think you have a pretty good set-up.

 

[theone8181]

That is my point, It is my belief that A "Decatted" modern diesel is likely to be an intrinsically much worse polluter than an old school, low specific performance, one that never had any pollution control in the first place.

The "Warmist" agenda has transformed diesel engines from something that was admittedly a bit smelly but at the same time was also reasonably benign into something that is now really quite harmful and whose harmfulness is only partially mitigated by pollution control technology.

We might well have been be a whole lot better off had we just left well alone.



Again, this is an important issue.

Just today I saw somebody who was exactly the sort of person who would be badly affected by any retrospective diesel taxation policy. (I considerer changes in fuel duty to be "Retrospective" in this context)

Elderly, Disabled (Blue Badge) 20 year old Mondeo 1800TD. (Immaculate condition) 130,000 miles. (Probably only does 4-5000/year currently, if that)

He would never be able to aford to buy a new car.

Increased transport costs would detract from other parts of his life (Food, domestic heating, socialisation), If he was forced to give it up he would be completly housebound.

Punishing him for owning an old diesel, after 20 years of state propaganda telling us all how wonderful they are and how they are going to save the planet, would be massively unjust.

Surely he would get disability allowance on a new car (one of my wifes friends son has a diaability, i cant remember what exactly but he gets enough for a fiesta titanium so it must be a fair bit). Also what happens if you try to top up the adblue tank 'yourself'?

 

[Orionaut]

Personally I dont think this is the case at all. Most of the performance increases in modern diesels have come from making them more efficient and getting the most out of each drop of fuel. Couple this with some pretty stringent emissions controls and I think you have a pretty good set-up.

They have been made more efficient by achieving better atomisation and by increasing peak combustion pressures and temperatures.

Things that will increase the production of microscopic particles (Old diesels were smoky but, while arguably unpleasant, it isn't the visible smoke that is particularly harmful. It is the smaller smoke particles that you cannot see that damage the lungs)

NOX comes from generating very high temperatures in an Oxygen/nitrogen rich atmosphere. Higher combustion temperatures and pressures=More NOX

(Back in 1945, the Atomic Bomb scientists pondered the possibility that detonating a Nuclear explosion might actually create an exothermic Nitrogen/Oxygen chemical reaction that would consume the Earths entire atmosphere, Fortunately it didn't! )

Like I said, I haven't been able to find any figures regarding "Old" diesel engined vehicles that will either support or debunk my opinion.

But I still feel that modern diesels are fundamentally more polluting than diesels of 20-30 years ago

Yes, If after treatment works effectively and hasn't been tampered with then you can still have a clean vehicle.

But these systems have been shown not to work particularly well outside the lab on smaller vehicles and the performance and reliability downsides are sufficiently severe that very large numbers of people have removed them altogether.

Which is why we are where we are today...

 

[ttaskmaster]

The point I was making was Orionauts odd logic of wanting discourage new diesel vehicles which are getting cleaner all the time with each new euro revision but happy everyone drives round in their filthy versions when the whole debate is about diesel pollution.

So why then would you add MORE polluting diesels, rather than stopping all new ones and letting the old ones die naturally?
That's just bass-ackwards.

 

[Joe T]

They have been made more efficient by achieving better atomisation and by increasing peak combustion pressures and temperatures.

Things that will increase the production of microscopic particles (Old diesels were smoky but, while arguably unpleasant, it isn't the visible smoke that is particularly harmful. It is the smaller smoke particles that you cannot see that damage the lungs)

NOX comes from generating very high temperatures in an Oxygen/nitrogen rich atmosphere. Higher combustion temperatures and pressures=More NOX

(Back in 1945, the Atomic Bomb scientists pondered the possibility that detonating a Nuclear explosion might actually create an exothermic Nitrogen/Oxygen chemical reaction that would consume the Earths entire atmosphere, Fortunately it didn't! )

Like I said, I haven't been able to find any figures regarding "Old" diesel engined vehicles that will either support or debunk my opinion.

But I still feel that modern diesels are fundamentally more polluting than diesels of 20-30 years ago

Yes, If after treatment works effectively and hasn't been tampered with then you can still have a clean vehicle.

But these systems have been shown not to work particularly well outside the lab on smaller vehicles and the performance and reliability downsides are sufficiently severe that very large numbers of people have removed them altogether.

Which is why we are where we are today...

If you're talking about direct injection (which leads to the small particles, which are an issue) then modern petrols have exactly the same problem...

I still fail to see how say EU3 diesels are worse polluters than EU6. It simply doesnt make sense.

 

[Bear]

So why then would you add MORE polluting diesels, rather than stopping all new ones and letting the old ones die naturally?
That's just bass-ackwards.

It is if you're demented. All cars pollute, so according to you we should stop selling any cars with an internal combustion engine as any car is just adding more polluting vehicles

Old dirty ones will eventually die and are replaced with cleaner ones means over time, air quality should improve. Better still, people that only work a few miles down the road should walk or ride a bicycle

 

[ttaskmaster]

It is if you're demented.

No need for insults, kid...

All cars pollute, so according to you we should stop selling any cars with an internal combustion engine as any car is just adding more polluting vehicles

Pretty much, yeah.
If you find out an ingredient in bread is killing people, do you slowly reduce the content of that ingredient over a period of years, or do you ban it as soon as possible and (if needs be) find a replacement ingredient?

So... If it's that much of an issue that thousands of people are dying, surely it's better to stop the pollution as fast as possible?
Whereas you'd have us gradually reduce pollution, by using slightly less evil cars, over a long period but still polluting almost as much..

Old dirty ones will eventually die and are replaced with cleaner ones means over time, air quality should improve.

And how many children will perish while we wait for this air quality to "improve"....? And by how much will it actually improve?

Better still, people that only work a few miles down the road should walk or ride a bicycle

That's never the issue. It's all the mileage outside that commute, along with the large loads that won't fit on a bicycle, the families that can't all piggy-back or ride their own, the commercial haulage and logistics, etc etc etc...

 

[Rilot]

If you find out an ingredient in bread is killing people, do you slowly reduce the content of that ingredient over a period of years, or do you ban it as soon as possible and (if needs be) find a replacement ingredient?

Yes, but bread doesn't cost tens of thousands of pounds and isn't kept in circulation for 20+ years.
If you banned a certain type of bread, people would just buy a different type next time they go shopping. Most people don't have the amount of spare cash that would be required to dispose of their existing car and then just buy a different one.

 

[ttaskmaster]

If you banned a certain type of bread, people would just buy a different type next time they go shopping.

Exactly my point - Because there is a viable alternative and because you have outright banned the bad bread. You haven't carried on making that bread and just slowly reduced the bad ingredient content to phase it out over a long period of time.

Most people don't have the amount of spare cash that would be required to dispose of their existing car and then just buy a different one.

I know. I am one such person, as already mentioned.
But that's still no reason to make brand new diesels, however slightly greener they might be.... you know, if diesel really is the evil people are painting it as, and all that...

 

[Orionaut]

If you're talking about direct injection (which leads to the small particles, which are an issue) then modern petrols have exactly the same problem...

And indeed they do, the next thing in the pipeline is PPF's. So Petrol cars are going to have all the expense and reliability issues that diesel ones currently experience.

I still fail to see how say EU3 diesels are worse polluters than EU6. It simply doesnt make sense.

You are reading what I am saying but clearly not really comprehending it

 

[Alex_6n2]

Nissan has stopped developing any new diesel engines in favour of turbo petrol and hybrid petrol. That should tell you everything you need to know about the future of diesel

 

[Nasher]

Toyota/Lexus also ditched diesel a while ago

 

[Nasher]

And indeed they do, the next thing in the pipeline is PPF's. So Petrol cars are going to have all the expense and reliability issues that diesel ones currently experience.

Petrol engines don't slowly choke themselves to death with soot though, which is what kills a lot of diesel engines. A DPF clogging is just a symptom of that.

Also the particles kicked out by petrol engines aren't nearly as dangerous, which is why we've not heard much on it. The ones from diesels are carcinogenic (cause cancer).

 

[Jonnycoupe]

You might not have, but GPFs are coming thanks to direct injection and we know what issues that has with coking up!

still don't know the issues with smaller PM either, we know they can be found deeper in the lung structure for example.

Audi have already committed to GPF as it also gets continued consideration for EU6 where DI petrol will have PM limited.

 

[Joe T]

You are reading what I am saying but clearly not really comprehending it

I comprehended it just fine . You have a 'feeling' and you have no evidence for said 'feeling' (or anyone who agrees with you ). We can just leave it at that.

 

[Bear]

Pretty much, yeah.
If you find out an ingredient in bread is killing people, do you slowly reduce the content of that ingredient over a period of years, or do you ban it as soon as possible and (if needs be) find a replacement ingredient?

So... If it's that much of an issue that thousands of people are dying, surely it's better to stop the pollution as fast as possible?
Whereas you'd have us gradually reduce pollution, by using slightly less evil cars, over a long period but still polluting almost as much..

And how many children will perish while we wait for this air quality to "improve"....? And by how much will it actually improve?

That's never the issue. It's all the mileage outside that commute, along with the large loads that won't fit on a bicycle, the families that can't all piggy-back or ride their own, the commercial haulage and logistics, etc etc etc...

Ok then, let's take it through from the start. The government in the bid to reduce Co2 emission modified people's behaviour and moved people over to diesels (despite them being given research telling them it was bad for health). People moved over to diesels and pollution related to health went up as a result. Now people are being told diesels are bad and are being persuaded depending on usage to think about not using diesels, which is probably the sensible thing.

You and Orionaut seem to think taking diesel PLG vehicles out of the equation would help fix the problem, and I disagree. If everyone went over to petrol, then Co2 emissions would increase considerably from where we are now and most scientists seem to agree increasing Co2 output is a bad idea and contributes greatly to climate change. Large scale change to electric vehicles is not viable as the grid doesn't have the capacity (rumoured to be as low as 10% at peak usage) and unless it's is being charged by nuclear (which seems to take forever to get approved and who is going to fund it etc) or by renewables (lack of storage) then it's going to be created by something which creates Co2.

Another option is to get more people who make short journeys out of their cars, relieve congestion and stop wasting fuel sitting in traffic going nowhere fast. You can see how different a commute is when the schools are on holidays, imagine how different it would be if kids walked or rode to school (bearing in mind school catchment areas aren't that large) and if people walked or rode to work who are relatively local things could be much better, but most people are too lazy to bother and people wonder why there is so much obesity in children and adults.

So what have you go left, you have diesels that are bad to health due to poor air quality or you have petrols that isn't so good to the environment and not so bad relatively to health. I suggest neither options are great but people need cars to get to work etc so the next best thing is to carry on and force car manufacturers to keep improving the emissions of cars and ensure that they do and not try and cheat the system and that also includes hybrids.

 

[adolf hamster]

so have we touched on the issue that in a diesel-less future petrol's going to get more expensive due to supply/demand?

and at what point should we be suggesting that perhaps investing in better public transport for cities might be a better idea for getting cars off the roads.....

 

[NickK]

Solar panels on the roof of the car perhaps?

In the end it's all down to (a) energy from somewhere (b) energy used efficiently (c) reduction in the need to travel..

 

[Rilot]

If everyone went over to petrol, then Co2 emissions would increase considerably from where we are now and most scientists seem to agree increasing Co2 output is a bad idea and contributes greatly to climate change.

Agreed, but CO2 output from transport contributes only 23% of UK total CO2 output and private cars / taxis is 58% of that figure with the rest being made up by HGVs and vans. So, doing the numbers gives us 13.3% of CO2 being produced by private cars and taxis.
Now, if a wholesale switch to petrol caused CO2 output to go up by 25% that's still only a net rise in CO2 output of 3.3%.

CO2 for domestic vehicles has always been a red herring IMO.

 

[joeyjojo]

Large scale change to electric vehicles is not viable as the grid doesn't have the capacity (rumoured to be as low as 10% at peak usage) and unless it's is being charged by nuclear (which seems to take forever to get approved and who is going to fund it etc) or by renewables (lack of storage) then it's going to be created by something which creates Co2.

I don't agree with this. MSE energy club tells me that the cheapest 100% renewable tariff would only cost me £30 more per year than the cheapest regular. If more people did this we'd have a serious surge in renewable generation. Combine that with some big interconnectors across Europe and North Africa and energy becomes plentiful and very cheap.