*Whats the future for diesel engines*

[Nasher]

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.

Yea Co2 isn't the issue here. It's NOX, which diesels produce a lot of. NOX is 10x worse than Co2 for global warming AND damaging to health :/

 

[[TW]Fox]

10 times worse for global warming? What?

Does nobody ever check facts anymore?

 

[ttaskmaster]

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.

OK, I'll *think* about it.... but since I can't afford to actually do it, I hope my lovely rainbow thoughts cure your cancer. I really do. Meanwhile - Rev, rev, rev....

You and Orionaut seem to think taking diesel PLG vehicles out of the equation would help fix the problem, and I disagree.

So diesel is killing us and you think stopping diesel will not stop it killing us... Yeah, OK.

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.

But the cancer cars are no longer killing us with cancer.... Would you rather take your chances with two poisons or just the one?

Large scale change to electric vehicles is not viable as the grid doesn't have the capacity

The grid doesn't have the need. Force the change, create the need, drive the capacity increase. There's plenty of power being generated.
Or find something else that works.

imagine how different it would be if kids walked or rode to school

Oh great..... So instead of the occasional cyclist ******* about in the road, I'll now have whole flocks comprising 30-90 sets of very young kids wobbling all over it, escorted by a mother whose bicycle is loaded (and likely pulling a trailer, in addition) with all her work kit, files, the weekly shopping and whatever else?
Do you even drive?

(bearing in mind school catchment areas aren't that large)

Depends on the school.
Mine in Watford drew people from all over the county. That's about a thousand families cycling up to 12 miles each way every day...

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.

You assume that everyone goes straight to work and straight home, without a single spontaneous thought or change in their regime... and that they have 4 hours extra in the day to walk, compared to the 25 minutes the car makes it.

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.

Well, no you don't, because that will all be priced of the road, if certain people have their way. So you'll have a bunch of people who can't afford to get to work, and a bunch of fuel companies rich because of the increased prices but thinking about retirement because no-one can afford fuel any more.

What you need is for governments to eliminate the monetary drive for keeping all this and force everyone to put all they have into developing better, cleaner vehicles and fuels. Have the balls to make it law and force companies to put out viable solutions.

 

[[TW]Fox]

What we need is a situation where fuel tax is not so high that pure efficiency is the number 1 factor that shapes our car market.

Whats the market like for diesel cars in Dubai? Extreme example but it illustrates the point.

 

[bloodiedathame]

Yea Co2 isn't the issue here. It's NOX, which diesels produce a lot of. NOX is 10x worse than Co2 for global warming AND damaging to health :/

Surely it would make sense to reclaim NOX and use as a boost system...

 

[Bear]

OK, I'll *think* about it.... but since I can't afford to actually do it, I hope my lovely rainbow thoughts cure your cancer. I really do. Meanwhile - Rev, rev, rev....

So diesel is killing us and you think stopping diesel will not stop it killing us... Yeah, OK.

But the cancer cars are no longer killing us with cancer.... Would you rather take your chances with two poisons or just the one?

The grid doesn't have the need. Force the change, create the need, drive the capacity increase. There's plenty of power being generated.
Or find something else that works.

Oh great..... So instead of the occasional cyclist ******* about in the road, I'll now have whole flocks comprising 30-90 sets of very young kids wobbling all over it, escorted by a mother whose bicycle is loaded (and likely pulling a trailer, in addition) with all her work kit, files, the weekly shopping and whatever else?
Do you even drive?

Depends on the school.
Mine in Watford drew people from all over the county. That's about a thousand families cycling up to 12 miles each way every day...

You assume that everyone goes straight to work and straight home, without a single spontaneous thought or change in their regime... and that they have 4 hours extra in the day to walk, compared to the 25 minutes the car makes it.

Well, no you don't, because that will all be priced of the road, if certain people have their way. So you'll have a bunch of people who can't afford to get to work, and a bunch of fuel companies rich because of the increased prices but thinking about retirement because no-one can afford fuel any more.

What you need is for governments to eliminate the monetary drive for keeping all this and force everyone to put all they have into developing better, cleaner vehicles and fuels. Have the balls to make it law and force companies to put out viable solutions.

You are just arguing for the sake of it, perhaps you should step back and calm down. If you did you would realise the conclusion you came to at the end of your rant was pretty much what I said if you didn't selectively quote what I said.

Plenty of people cycle to school/work, you only need to look at Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark even France, Spain and Italy where there is a culture of cycling. Of course you will just poo poo it because you're are an angry man that doesn't want solutions but want to drive your filthy car because you cant afford anything better for the environment and only care about people getting in your way.

I don't assume anything about other people's schedules, how would I know what anyone does. I also mentioned people being local. Kids used to walk and cycle to school all the time instead of mum taking the kid to school in a car. Things aren't black and white, if people need to use the car then use the car but people don't always need to use the car for that short journey.

You moan about diesel killing us yet drive a filthy POS, I suggest possibly taking cars off the road and easing congestion by walking or cycling if you are local but you moan about about cyclists getting in your way or having to carry mythical kitchen sinks despite millions of people walking or cycling around the world in more forward thinking countries. Motor vehicles are killing us in more ways than just what specific fuel you happen to use but in reality people in this country are resistant to even consider changing their usage profile, that's the reality. The options are to make the manufacturers continue to make the cars cleaner and as Fox said make them ever more efficient, encourage people to consider their usage and as you said, force the improvement into cleaner fuels as people aren't going to give up their cars any time soon.

 

[Bear]

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.

I read an article from a Scandinavian professor a while back that said if you covered the sub Saharan desert with solar panels (barely anything there with lots of sun) then you could power most of the world. The problem has been transmission losses (assuming the calculations were correct) for large distance distribution which is why you try to have your generation spread out across the country but with discoveries in new materials like graphene who knows what can be achieved in the future.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You are just arguing for the sake of it, perhaps you should step back and calm down.

I am calm. Why, are you not?

If you did you would realise the conclusion you came to at the end of your rant was pretty much what I said if you didn't selectively quote what I said.

Not at all.
You want to keep existing poisonous diesels and allow new, slightly less (but still highly) poisonous ones.

I say, if diesel is THAT BAD that you need to charge people extra for not having a choice in the matter, then you need to remove them entirely, along with whatever else is bad, and replace them with something better.
No phasing out, no gradual reduction, replace outright and replace now.

This cannot happen quickly simply because it will take time to implement, but it will not happen any time soon because too many people are making too much money from all this gradual stuff. If you use law force an immediate swap to different standards or technology, the change is far quicker and those making money from the old ways either adapt fast or go bust. This happens quite frequently in industries, mainly because those companies making money want to continue and if they don't move fast enough other companies will take that place from them.

Plenty of people cycle to school/work, you only need to look at Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark even France, Spain and Italy where there is a culture of cycling.

How nice for them.
Here our infrastructure was bought out and abandoned by companies who make money from roads, cars and fuel, so forcing people into car ownership.

Of course you will just poo poo it because you're are an angry man that doesn't want solutions

Not at all - If you come up with an actual solution, great. All I've heard about is being punished for things beyond my control.

but want to drive your filthy car because you cant afford anything better for the environment

What else am I supposed to do, then?
I have ONE option. Tell me how I do something different with my ONE option. Tell me what my choice are. Choice. Single.

How do I cycle 20 miles on narrow country roads with 200kg of CCTV equipment and PPE?
How do I cover 200 miles and still get to site on time?
How do I cover 48 miles in less than 3.5 hours without it costing me £70?

I don't assume anything about other people's schedules, how would I know what anyone does.

Of course you do.
For example, you assume people are lazy, rather than examining our modern lifestyles and how time-sensitive everything is these days. Most people need a car, not because they can't walk or wait for a bus, but because it takes too long.

I also mentioned people being local. Kids used to walk and cycle to school all the time instead of mum taking the kid to school in a car.

People also lived a lot closer, didn't have to commute from several counties over every day, didn't have the numerous dangers we do now, etc etc...

You moan about diesel killing us yet drive a filthy POS,

Just echoing your own sentiments.
But so what?
Does that mean I cannot still understand and appreciate how I am killing your children with my cancer wagon?
I drive what I drive because it was a gift and I can't afford anything else. Not MY problem if other people price me out of saving the planet... but neither am I going to give up what little I have just so other people can hug trees and feel good about their 5% less emmissions reducing a tiny fraction of the 20%-odd of overall pollution.

I suggest possibly taking cars off the road and easing congestion by walking or cycling if you are local but you moan about about cyclists getting in your way or having to carry mythical kitchen sinks despite millions of people walking or cycling around the world in more forward thinking countries.

Other countries are designed around that. The UK is not. Forcing that on people would create a mess. We could adapt the country to provide for this, but the cost of that change to infrastructure would likely be much more than implementing greener private vehicles.
And by the way, I live 200yds from a school and get to see exactly how those people do it - Most vehicles parking up carry several children and the drivers (usually mothers) picking up frequently have boots loaded to bursting with shopping bags.

Motor vehicles are killing us in more ways than just what specific fuel you happen to use but in reality people in this country are resistant to even consider changing their usage profile, that's the reality.

Because the country has been built around private ownership and the freedoms it comes with.
If I were to walk home right now, it'd take me 2 hours. Cycle, a good 45 minutes (if I don't get run over). Car 10-15 minutes. Motorcycle 10 mins.
I'm just a few miles from one of the largest transport hubs in the country. There are no busses or trains out my way, unless I walk an hour in the opposite direction, followed by walking 2 miles along fast unlit NSL roads with no pavements at the other end of the journey.
If I need to go anywhere outside my house, it requires a car. That includes walking dogs, despite being surrounded by farmlands.
My usage profile is entirely dictated. I don't have the choice.

force the improvement into cleaner fuels as people aren't going to give up their cars any time soon.

They shouldn't have to give up their cars, especially when our lives are designed around reliance on them.
minor improvements in existing fuels will not help, though. Not quickly enough.... We need newer, viable fuels outright.

 

[bloodiedathame]

What's wrong with a 45min cycle?

 

[ttaskmaster]

What's wrong with a 45min cycle?

On these roads... A lot!
The main issue is actually the lack of luggage space, although insane drivers and the narrow roads don't help.

 

[NickK]

Yea Co2 isn't the issue here. It's NOX, which diesels produce a lot of. NOX is 10x worse than Co2 for global warming AND damaging to health :/

Interesting investigate:
a) CO2 output from petrol vs diesel
b) NOx vs N2 output from an AdBlue diesel (supposedly 80%+ conversion)
c) particulates - size and composition - between petrol and diesel
d) NOx vs NO vs CO2 impact on global warming and health
e) UK contribution of the above based on sources (what vehicles etc)

I think there's lots of statements by differing sources all biased for varying reasons - only an objective independent research would be able to provide clarity on the issue.

 

[Bear]

Not at all.
You want to keep existing poisonous diesels and allow new, slightly less (but still highly) poisonous ones.

What else am I supposed to do, then?
I have ONE option. Tell me how I do something different with my ONE option. Tell me what my choice are. Choice. Single.

How do I cycle 20 miles on narrow country roads with 200kg of CCTV equipment and PPE?
How do I cover 200 miles and still get to site on time?
How do I cover 48 miles in less than 3.5 hours without it costing me £70?

Of course you do.
For example, you assume people are lazy, rather than examining our modern lifestyles and how time-sensitive everything is these days. Most people need a car, not because they can't walk or wait for a bus, but because it takes too long.

So lets get this straight, in one sentence you say I want to keep existing diesels and then ask me what to do as you want to keep your existing diesel because what else are you supposed to do? So either I want too keep diesels or I don't. I'm also not telling you to walk or cycle, just that people that live LOCALLY to where they need to get to, to actually consider whether taking alternative methods to get where they need to may be beneficial to reducing congestion, wasting fuel sitting in traffic and improve their health. If you weren't so lame as to actually cut out the parts of my post and take things out of context just so you can reinforce your argument then you would see

I don't assume anything about other people's schedules, how would I know what anyone does. I also mentioned people being local. Kids used to walk and cycle to school all the time instead of mum taking the kid to school in a car. Things aren't black and white, if people need to use the car then use the car but people don't always need to use the car for that short journey.

Your level of cognitive dissonance is tiring and I cant be bothered any more, feel free to rant on.

 

[ttaskmaster]

So lets get this straight, in one sentence you say I want to keep existing diesels and then ask me what to do as you want to keep your existing diesel because what else are you supposed to do?

So, make up your mind.
Are we keeping our diesels, or are we getting bicycles?

I'm also not telling you to walk or cycle, just that people that live LOCALLY to where they need to get to

For a lot of it, I am local.
The problem is that everything has been built around people having cars, so the alternatives are either problematic or nonexistent.

If you weren't so lame as to actually cut out the parts of my post and take things out of context just so you can reinforce your argument then you would see

Your posts are too long for reasonable quotes.

Your level of cognitive dissonance is tiring and I cant be bothered any more, feel free to rant on.

Make your argument clearer, then. It's not that difficult...

 

[Rilot]

Guys, step away from the keyboard and calm down. You are both winding eachother up.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Guys, step away from the keyboard and calm down. You are both winding eachother up.

[Cap'nJackSparrow]
......Only a little
[/Cap'nJackSparrow]

 

[platypus]

Taxation should and is normally used to influence future decisions rather than penalise existing ones. Therefore it makes no sense to apply any punitive measures to existing cars. These cars exist, they are already on the road and nobody is going to scrap a 2 year old car because the tax is more expensive. What should happen instead is measures to change the shape of our future vehicle fleet – because a car that hasn’t yet been ordered is a more important thing to influence than one that already exists.

Plus there is next to no public backlash, whereas if you penalise half the motoring public for decisions they’ve already made, especially decisions they made on the back of 15 years of government policy, is counter-productive, politically stupid and doesn’t achieve the outcome desired anyway. Plus if you tell everyone now that diesel bad petrol good how many of them are going to believe it? ‘Oh yea, like they said about diesel…’.

What we really need is a scheme to encourage end of life older more polluting diesels off the road to be replaced by either newer, cleaner diesel cars, petrol cars or partial EV’s. The tech is not there yet for full EV on a massive scale and whilst we insist on high fuel tax petrol alone isn’t the answer either – so people will continue to buy diesel. Thankfully modern diesel cars are far better than they were – the time for us to get serious about this was 15 years ago when a typical new diesel was a horribly filthy thing rather than now when they’ve finally got much better.

A modern diesel sits in traffic with its engine off, runs a DPF which captures many of the harmful particles and then burns it off outside of the city environment, and has much lower NOX emissions. A recent BBC report showed that in central London for example only 5% of NOX emissions are from private cars – 5%! Commercial vehicles are a much bigger problem.

Internal combustion engines pollute. They emit harmful emissions which damage both the environment and human health. There is no getting away from this and we need to be careful we don’t start pretending that diesel = OMG and petrol = water vapour. So far it seems that other than the odd local council knee-jerking any schemes introduced to combat this seem rational and sensible.

Look at the London ULEZ which comes into force in 2020. It recognises that petrol isn’t perfect, but is generally cleaner, and therefore applies based on differing Euro Emissions standards – no diesels older than Euro 6, no petrols older than Euro 4. This is the way to tackle the problem, by the time it starts in 2020 the oldest Euro 5 cars will be 7+ years old.

I own a diesel car. I didn’t want to, I wanted to own a petrol car. However I live in a market where high fuel prices and a total focus on CO2 has created a situation whereby 99% of larger cars are diesel, not petrol. I had no choice – I had to buy what was available in the market. It’s absolutely right to decide now that perhaps the market needs to change, but changing it must be a future focused exercise. The trouble is nothing really exists to replace diesel in larger cars – diesel was always a stupid idea in small cars but there is no credible alternative in something like a 5 Series unless you are happy with a significant increase in fuel spend which most buyers are not. Some of the partial EV’s look great, I’d live a 530e iPerformance, but it’s brand new out and costs 45 grand!

Look at the introduction of high tax (£500) in 2006. It didn’t apply to people in polluting large engine 2002 cars. It didn’t penalise them, only future buyers of new cars. 10 years on most of these cars which were exempt from the higher tax have now been scrapped anyway and the ones which are not exempt are undesirable on the used market – but no existing owner at the time was impacted.

TLDR: European governments created the diesel problem by imposing high fuel tax and making CO2 a focus of vehicle tax. In markets where fuel prices are low and tax is not CO2 based you find almost no diesel passenger cars. Fancy that.

As much as I want to see punitive fines, or perhaps rather prohibitive costs, for people using engines, this is absolutely right. It can in no way be a tax that affects existing car owners. And yes its important that the short-sightedness of successive governments doesn't swing back to thinking Petrol is a-ok now.

Unfortunately the government has pulled its subsidies for EVs, eg at work they were going to install several charging points but had the funding pulled. There doesn't really seem to be the desire, or desire enough, at governmental level to make the change.

Imposing a load of tax on existing diesel owners will do nothing but raise more revenue under the guise of being seen to do something.

Thats sort of what governments want though, especially with the budget looking the way it is!

 

[Kuros]

The problem with doing anything for previous car owners is it'll screw other hundreds of thousands of "innocent" motorists.

I drive about 30 miles a day into work, taking me on average about 45 minutes. I could cycle, but given I need to get to work at 8am, that would involve waking up even earlier, spending a good 1.5-2 hours each way cycling on busy Birmingham roads. Public Transport is out the question, nothing runs at a time to get me to work for 8am. First bus to Stratford upon Avon gets me to the rail station at 8:00, first train into Birmingham gets me to Moor Street at 9:17am and then another bus will likely get me into work for 10am, two hours late.

If diesels suddenly become a lot more expensive, I'm stuck with a one year old car that I couldn't get rid of because no-one would by a diesel, with no real ability to replace it for anything else.

 

[theone8181]

It would be a laugh if they announced something on April 1st about fining old diesel.

 

[NickK]

Any party that says vote for me and we'll repeal the increase in Diesel will be onto a winner.. however it depends on the length of office vs the length of diesel car existence.

I have a new euro6 diesel (1.6 litre) arriving tomorrow.. registered at £20/year road tax..

 

[easyrider]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/volvo-boss-predicts-death-diesel