The 20 Jan issue of New Scientist has an article on the petrol v/s diesel and its effects on air quality in the UK.
It seems that the UK vehicle tax, with its emphasis on carbon dioxide emissions, has encouraged an increase in diesel ownership by 21% by 2005. Diesels engines tend to emit less CO2 than petrol, so the reduction in emissions between 2001 and 2030 is estimated to be up to 7 megatonnes. But, diesels emit more particulates, which will rise by 12 kilotonnes in the same period. Particulates are implicated in causing respiratory and heart problems, and are estimated to cause 90 extra deaths each year?. Discuss.
|
You have hit the nail on top of the head.
What you are talking about is exactly the view that the Americans take on pollution from motor vehicles. The consider that the european bias on reducing CO2 emissions is not very constructive at all - particularly when they consiider things like NOX & Particulates to be much, much more serious.
MTC
|
It's a view I have held for some time (and been crtiticised on this forum for doing so) that diesel fumes are more dangerous for people than petrol fumes. (I used to like reading type s's views on it as well where ever he/she is now).
I know my local council did an air quality assessment in the area recently and were alarmed at the high concentration of particulates and Nox in the air - associated with the increase in diesel vehicles on the road. It was especially worrying as the high levels were also near to schools.
I personally think the eu have got it all wrong and whilst I do not agree with the US gas guzzling approach I think their views on diesel emmissions are more sensible than the eu.
In addition to this I also think the special emphasis on air and car travel is wrong when the biggest causes of CO2 increase are homes, industry and de-forestation.
|
|
To say diesel causes 90 more deaths is a complete load of rubbish, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE, it is impossible to show that the fume will cause x more deaths, it shows it is junk science, what they need to prove is a mean reduction in life expectancy caused by the fume, and they won't be able to, as life expectancy is increasing, so if they really want to use junk science, I will too and say that since diesels became more popular, it has caused an average of 4 years increase in life-expectancy!
|
'WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE'
Well,you could have broken it to me a bit more gently....
High concentrations of NOX and particulates around schools could be due to diesel being the most popular(I'm guessing)motive power for school run vehicles.
|
|
|
What do you drive, Ashok ?
I think that the authors intended to convey that the increase in particulates would result in an increase in lung and heart complaints.
The Americans certainly don't have all that many diesel cars, but they certainly have a lot of diesel trucks.
|
>>but they certainly have a lot of diesel trucks.<<
The US has a very comprehensive rail system for delivering goods around the country and all the driving I have done in & around different cities within the US recently demonstrated to me that there were very few trucks on the road. That was my observation anyway - oh and there were loads of Hondas and Toyotas - it's obvious why these 2 are so profitable.
I also disagree with Ahsok above in his dismissing the research - I would have thought it obvious that more rubbish in the air would cause more respiratory problems with people - similar to passive smoking in a sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This comes round again and again and again. Leaving aside that more diesels are now fitter with particulate filters to reduce further emissions of PM10s, the reports always skip the whole issue of petrols producing PM1s (which are 1/10th the size and even easier to absorb into the body). Bottom line is burning any fossil fuel is going to cause problems in some way. But the air quality now is many times better than it was in the 1960s despite the huge growth in road transport, electricity generation and overal energy consumption.
|
Thank you cjehuk for pointing out that petrol engines emit particulates. Perhaps those who use "particulates" as their main reason to criticise diesel engines might remember this for next time - as you say, the subject does come up time and again.
As for impact on respiratory disorders etc, I posted a bit about my own experiences recently - if anyone's interested they can do a forum search for posts under my name.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
Off course petrol emmissions contain particulates and although alot smaller than diesel particulates they are also less hazardous (although not ideal) to your health than diesel particulates. We have all read the stuff on diesel particulates being carcenagenic for a start.
That is exactly why we are seeing an increase in the fitment of filters to diesel cars and companies investing in new diesel exhaust technology such as bluetec from MB and the new system from Honda & DCAT from Toyota.
Only by using this technology will diesel start to become as clean as petrol (which as I say is not ideal).
I fully support these developments but the only downfall with these technologies is MB relies on topping up a tank of adblue which is why some states in the US are not keen because if you do not fill up with adblue you are back where you started and the Honda system is 2-3 years away before becoming production ready.
To dismiss the debate and say that diesel particulates are no more dangerous than petrol suggests that car makers are investing in this technology for no reason at all - something I doubt very much - clearly the legislation and car companies think there is a problem or we would not see the developments currently happening.
And apologies to the guys above - I did forget that once something is discussed on this site and the regular posters call a halt to the discussion it seems it is no longer open for debate - and here's me thinking this was called a discussion forum - still as the man says I have posted my experiences and can't be bothered to discuss so go away and read them.
It would be better guys if you discussed with facts - it would indeed be a poorer site if we all agreed with each other but to just try and dismiss the debate when you run out of logic is not the point of the site - or is it ?
|
"Off course petrol emmissions contain particulates and although alot smaller than diesel particulates they are also less hazardous (although not ideal) to your health than diesel particulates. We have all read the stuff on diesel particulates being carcenagenic for a start."
Petrol particulates aren't carcinogenic, then? What makes you think they are less hazardous? That isn't meant to sound confrontational, I'm just interested in the basis for your opinion. There is a school of thought that petrol particulates are actually more harmful, due to being more easily absorbed into the body. Plus I have no desire to encounter benzene in any quantity, even 1 ppm.
"And apologies to the guys above - I did forget that once something is discussed on this site and the regular posters call a halt to the discussion it seems it is no longer open for debate - and here's me thinking this was called a discussion forum - still as the man says I have posted my experiences and can't be bothered to discuss so go away and read them ... to just try and dismiss the debate when you run out of logic is not the point of the site - or is it ?"
Well, it was nearly 2 in the morning when I wrote that and I wanted to go to bed, so yeah - at the time I couldn't be bothered. Plus I did think what's the point in repeating myself so soon. However, the sarcasm is appreciated.
But tell you what, just to show willing, here's the link to the previous thread going back to early December - I've just looked it up using the Forum Search feature.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=47176&...f
If you do wish to debate this, great. However I won't be participating if it decends into snide comments and veiled insults rather than sharing ideas and debating theories and facts - the former has become a lot more common on this site recently, and it's not that I'm sensitive, I just can't be bothered with it. Hohum.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
|
|
Another concern is that diesel engines do not seem to be very well maintained. I see loads of diesel cars that are only a couple of years old and they spew huge clouds of black smoke. I trust the New Scientist article over anyone here on this forum who just rants "we are all going to die anyway" - yes, I already know that. I just dont want me or my children to die before they are due!
|
www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=...5
I think this once again hi-lights the fact that all fumes are bad but I do agree with the last sentence that states it's more to do with just cutting CO2 which the eu and our narrow minded government have been driving for with tax reductions for diesel car drivers.
It also make me feel a bit for companies like Honda who have been producing much cleaner engines than most for some time but generally go unrecognised for it.
Quote from Union of Concered Scientists - a body working for clean energy.
"Honda increased its overall lead by building vehicles that produce less than half the smog-forming pollutants of the industry average and 18 percent less heat-trapping emissions."
|
|
Honda may have low tailpipe emmissions, but they appear to be a wasteful company, they seem to mess around making Assimo robots and suchlike using untold resourses. Let's face it, these robots are just male jewelry.
|
|
The UCS seem to be unaware that Honda look good only because the US car industry persists in producing SUVs with large engines. Besides, they fail to look beyond their own shores, in typical US fashion. Honda and Co are not so striking when compared to European manufactured vehicles.
|
nortones - I would be interested in the data that demonstrates your statement on the comparison with european manufactured vehicles - can you point me to it please.
Also Ashok - I am not particularly interested in defending Honda but I do disagree with your views on Asimo. They are using it as a vehicle to develop car safety technology and as an aid to disabled people - in what way do you consider this to be a waste ?
|
|
Minor clarification: I read page numbers from my pdf reader. See page 6 of the document plus the summary on page 7 re Japanese performance. Nissan for example is majoring on SUV styles: poor timing?
|
But this report only focuses on CO2.
I think that is where we are at cross purposes becuase I was refering to the whole range of emmissions - NOX etc as well.
Apologies for the confusion.
|
|
>>Honda and Co are not so striking when compared to European manufactured vehicles.<<
According to the 2005 green fleet awards Honda were car manufacturer of the year. In the 2006 greenfleet awards the best european car manufactures in terms of less polluting vehicles are 1. Citreon, 2. Toyota & 3. Honda.
That would suggest that Honda compare very favourably to european manufactured vehicles (as they do manufacture in europe).
|
|
But the point you were making earlier was that Honda & Co surpassed all others. They might do in the States, but are only in the pack in Europe. The 2006 awards referred to seem to be devoid of facts, so the list of 3 doesn't indicate how they compare, whether it is comprehensive, nor the terms of their decision. On a side issue, is NOx emitted related to fuel consumption linearly, or is there any Honda technology other than EGR and filtration at play, in current petrol cars?
|
This is the calling note for entrants to the 2007 Green Fleet Awards: The Green Fleet Awards 2007 is the industry?s main showcase event to promote the manufacture and usage of environmentally friendly fleets - both large and small - in the public and private sectors.
Hosted by London Borough of Tower Hamlets, and taking place at East Winter Gardens on September the 6th, the awards represent the year?s best opportunity for suppliers and users alike to enter their latest Bio-Diesel, LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas), LPG (liquefied Petroleum Gas), CNG (Compressed Natural Gas), Dual Fuel and Hybrid fleets, and gain the recognition of owning the greenest fleets around.
Seems limited to "alternative" fuels - so may not be mainstream?
|
|
>>Honda and Co are not so striking when compared to European manufactured vehicles.<< According to the 2005 green fleet awards Honda were car manufacturer of the year. In the 2006 greenfleet awards the best european car manufactures in terms of less polluting vehicles are 1. Citreon, 2. Toyota & 3. Honda.
According to the table refered to above FIAT top the list having already reached the 140% reduction target, ahead of Citroen with 115%.
Is it just another case of lies, damn lies, and statistics??
Or are FIAT making some nice economical engines these days?
|
Going back to diesel emissions , rather than a car manufacturer comparison, surely one of the major problems is that many existing commercial vehicles (often buses and taxis) are old and of course have no catalysts?
They may be relatively small in number but high in emissions and big in size...
I would be interested to see the figure for trains and aeroplanes...
madf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
