DIesels Arghhhhh

[Darce]

Wow! - an awful lot of displacement activity/reasons to do nothing/leaving things as they are Lutz!

But getting back to the point - yes LPG is an oil based recourse and yes it is linked to the oil process - but that does not mean we should ignore it as a fuel source. For a start being a simple hydrocarbon it would be as simple (different process) to produce from vegetable matter as bio-diesel.

When you think back a decade or so, remember all the oil rigs with their characteristic flame flaring away, day and night.

Well that was LPG just being burnt as a waste product. Now I do not suppose burning it like that did a great deal to keep the planet cool and now that we have a simply capture process we can use it as a clean fuel to get from A to B. Surely a great deal better than just flaring it off.

Are you really saying that just because it is oil based we may as well just use diesel/petrol??

I can not believe that is what you mean - but that is how I read your post.

And governments are now taking steps to access the benefits of what was once a waste product of the oil process. Just look at the LNG pipeline from the Welsh coast into the midlands.

A superb development that will be hidden underground when completed that takes a clean fuel that would otherwise be wasted straight to where our industry needs it.

Yes a few NIMBY's and numpties object but most of us say "Great!" a slice of energy resource that we will not be dependent on Russia for.

When I travel in France and see LPG everywhere and here in the UK LPG stations are ever more frequent - I really just do not get it why more people do not WANT to use a far, far greener cleaner fuel that costs them far, far less, reduces there RFL (not by much I admit!), and allows travel through Red Kens Rip Off Zone without being charged and also park in some boroughs either for free of reduced charge.

I disagree with your view Lutz that LPG use does not reduce the demand for oil - it does reduce it by using what was burnt off as a fuel it makes our use of the resource more efficient. It is obvious - if I did not run my car on LPG, I would need to run it on petrol.

As for it not being a long term solution - have a look at how easy it is to produce such simple fuels from vegetation.

 

[Meister]

JAZZMAN:

I must take issue with one of your points when you say:

"You seem to forget that UK people have lead the way in WW1, WW2, Iraq, human rights and a wealth of modern day industries and ways of life and inventions.

Exactly what thanks have we had from the French who kept us out of the common market for years the Anericans, Germans, Italians and others. Blair took Brits in to Iraq leading the way with the US, where exactly were our Euro friends apart from hiding in the shadows."

I think you will find that the UK people did NOT lead the way in Iraq. In fact there were HUGE demonstrations by THE PEOPLE AGAINST going into Iraq.

You are however, correct when you say that Blair to Brits in.

Please remember that it was NOT the people BUT it WAS Blair.

Thanks

Steve

 

[Lutz]

Reading your reply, Darce, one could get the impression that there are oil fields in Wales that used to flare off LPG until a market was found for it for cars. I take it you were referring to the two oil refineries in Milford Haven and Pembroke because oil fields still flare off unwanted gasses as there is no ecomonic way of conveying them. The pipelines are dedicated to oil or gas but not both, and besides, the stuff that the oil rigs flare off is not of a quality that would be useable in cars and would therefore require refining, too. Maybe Rob_jax, through his connections to the oil industry will correct me, but to my knowledge, LPG is not an otherwise unwanted by-product but it is custom made from crude oil and therefore it doesn't make an awful lot of difference whether petrol, diesel or LPG is produced from it.

While, as you say, it is possible to produce diesel or LPG from vegetation, the amount of agricultural land available for its production is nowhere near sufficient to cover the demand.

 

[giovanni_5060838]

Darce,sorry for the late reply, been away in the caravan.

Yes,i have taken everthing in,can only assume you are clive v,or a close relation ! also surprise surprise, only now do you make mention of using lpg yourself, earlier posts made reference to diesel and petrol cars in your household but not LPG,why was that then?.

I will now assume you can help me understand these issues,so will start by asking you some simple questions.

Q1. how do the DOT measure the emissions of cars?

Q2. how do the manufacturers come up with their ratings?

ie. co2 rating of 165g/km or mile.

Q3. why are these DOT emission tests worthless once a vehicle is actualy moving along and using its gears.?

Q4. why are these manufacturer ratings worthless?again once a car is finally warmed up and moving along?

Q5. how come you still make an attack on diesel particulates,something the manufacturers are trying to sort out.

Yet make no mention of those smallar ones in petrol engines,either to agree or disagree with me.?

Q6 we all have concerns of other pisions, you use NOX to show your concerns,whilst not being too bothered abot HC or substances like benzine! Why? is it so you can show lpg up in its best light? i think i have mentioned my concerns of ALL posions not just those from Pro lpg sites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q6.I assume that all your info comes from that greater source the greens and pro lpg sites! Have never yet found a test that stated "similar" as a scientific answer! [ i am refering to your claims of lpg having lower co2 levels to diesel! then similar levels to diesel!]Make your mind up, i will help you,both answers are wrong.Bit like that al gore chappie shares a nobel prize,whilst getting 9 scientific facts wrong! well its the thought that counts,not the accurancy of the info being given out! and thats something you both share.

Note.

The answers to question3 and 4,do obviously show diesels up in a far greater light.

So i am assuming that being as you know your chemistry,you have the ability to work out these answers.

PS. yes i have a diesel car, i have a petrol car and ran lpg as long ago as 1985!

For me they all have there place,i do not object to any of these fuels.

What i do object to is when someothers single out one type of fuel over the others in a lame attempt at being green or showing one as being more harmfull than the others.

In the big picture there are no winners,just lossers.!

 

[Darce]

Lutz

The LNG pipeline is for imported LNG - see:-

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Gas/Pipelines/milfordhaven/
Apart fom that caused by sheep and the wonderful after effects of Brains beer, I do not think the Welsh produce their own natural gas - but I may be wrong.

After all, there is an oil well in Dorset.

 

[Darce]

Gio - I really am getting tired of your rather desperate attempts to prove something that frankly does not need proving!

And I find your aggression tiresome as well.

I refer you to my previous answers and references all of which are excellent sources of well researched data.

The only website you referred me to was an internal report by the administration department of Cambridge University, not their research or academic department and even this totally contradicts what you say!

We don't you stop digging yourself into a hole and just agree to disagree.

As for my vehicles how you can say what you do is beyond me! I have already stated that I have a V8 Dual Fuel Discovery, and an old 200Tdi and well as a petrol run-around.

Please do not try to pick a fight with me over some weird and obscure slight you somehow manage to infer I have said.

Now pack it in! PLEASE!

 

[giovanni_5060838]

Darce, i do not believe it is your place to tell me to "pack it in} Thats the moderators job.

I have merely asked you some questions.

Of corse you are entitled not to reply,either because you do not wish to, or because you clearly do not know the answers,either answer is ok with me.i just assumed someone who seemed to know what they where talking about and quoting so called facts would also know what i was getting at,and because of you apperent concerns regarding co and nox,would like to know more.

Clearly, that is not the case,but the questions are open to anyone. unless that is darce you do not wish people to be enlightened? just merely lead?

 

[giovanni_5060838]

and darce concering your dual fuel discovery.as i have stated you did not mention this on your third post,this was your first post concerning which vehicles you own. only in a later post did you actually mention it was lpg,so please it is you who are doing the twisting.

And can you not found anything on HC or benzine on your greens sites?

Clearly you are ONLY for promoting LPG,rather than a true concern to do with pollution.

Any road nice to see clive v back..

 

[Lutz]

Whether LPG is imported or not, it is made from crude oil and it does need to been refined somewhere. There is a big difference between natural gas and LPG. Natural gas is the CNG that the majority of gas or dual powered vehicles use that are on the market in Germany.

 

[Jazman]

Lutz & Meister.

I no more supported the Iraq affair than many others, but it is Brits on the ground laying down their lives not Blair or Politicians.

My point was re sitting back and not taking a lead, you can take a lead and that does not guaranteee that others follow. Politicians are not always right and with automotive issues there are billions of

 

[Darce]

And I do not think you have any right to say the following Gio:-

"DARCY. i gave you my link,and you did what i asked you not to do, go running to the greens!"

You also accuse me of not saying I run a duel fuel car. What a shame this is just yet another example of your inability to read what is there:-

From my post of 8 Oct 2007 04:03 PM

"Meanwhile those of us on LPG run far cleaner cars at half the cost on a fuel that is a waste product of petrol and diesel production."

And who can forget your impassined plea to read an article from Cambridge - the one that actually says the following:-

"9. Recommendations

The most attractive option in terms of environmental performance and running costs is for LPG / Petrol dual fuel vehicles.

Where LPG is not viable, it would be advisable to have a mixture of diesel and petrol cars to enable staff to select the one most appropriate to the journey involved, given the competing priorities surrounding the conflict between CO2 emissions (Global Warming) and other pollutants (Local Air Quality).

In general, petrol cars would be better for short journeys in and around Cambridge where local air quality considerations are paramount. Diesel cars would be better for longer journeys where fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions are more important.

Any new vehicles should meet least Euro III emission standard and preferably the Euro IV standard. Consideration should also be given to exploring the feasibility of alternative powered vehicles, particularly electric powered cars for journeys in and around the city centre."

And no wonder they come out in favour of LPG when the data they refer to states the following:-

"Recent Pan European tests on a range of vehicles running on LPG, petrol and diesel have shown that on a well to wheel basis on the Climate Change gas of CO2, the vehicle running on LPG were on average 20% better than petrol and nearly 2% better than diesel.

Of greater significance for our nations health are the air quality pollutants of NOx and particulates. In respect of NOx, vehicles running on LPG were 120% to 180% better than petrol and 2000% better than diesel - In other words, one diesel vehicle emits the same NOx as over 20 LPG vehicles. On average particulate emissions from diesel vehicles are 99% higher than LPG."

So for goodness sake Gio - Give it a rest - you have your views - I have mine - accept it.

 

[Darce]

Lutz many economies are looking towards cleaner fuels for our existing engines. It makes sense to do so.

Running a Toyota Prius on LPG reduces its CO2 output to just 92g/km - see http://www.conocophillips.co.uk/stations/autogas/Latest_News/LPG_Prius_CO2_emissions_only_92g_per_km.htm

And then look at what is happening on a more global basis:-

Citroen wins duel fuel deal

Interserve Facilities Management just ordered 20 Berlingo dual fuel vans as part of a plan to improve its environmental performance and cut operating costs.

The Nicholson McLaren engines converted Berlingo vans have 1.4 litre dual fuel power plants, running on petrol and LPG they can cut 180% of nitrogen oxide, 50% of carbon monoxide and 24% carbon dioxide.

The firm is also taking another 22 Citroen vans including Enterprise, Berlingo, Dispatch and Rrelay models. Citroen City, in Whitechapel did the deal, with all the vehicles on a four year 50,000 mile no maintenance contract hire deal through Arval UK Ltd

Source: SMMT

LPG BMW record breaker

SAARBRUECKEN: A German research and development team is planning to build a record-breaking car based on the BMW 1 Series car using an engine which runs on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

Tuning firm Hartge in Saarbruecken says the car at the centre of the project "V300+" will be able to top 300 km an hour, making it the fastest LPG-driven car to date.

The liquefied gas-engine is set to develop 550 brake horsepower. Engines fuelled on LPG burn much cleaner and in many cases they produce more power and torque than petrol-driven engines of a similar capacity.

Along with the engineers from the tuning company, the team includes experts from the University of Technology and Economics in Saarbruecken, the German environment ministry, state economics department officials and automotive and energy specialists.

Source: The Economic Times

China leads the world with LPG buses and taxis

All buses and taxis will be LPG-fueled in GUANGZHOU city by 2010.

"Guangzhou will host the 2010 Asian Games, promoting clean energy for public vehicles is part of the city's strategy to improve the environment and to usher in the grand sports event," Xian Weixiong, director of Guangzhou communications commission, said.

He said 85 percent of the city's buses and taxis, 6,500 and 16,000 respectively, have already converted to LPG. The city now has the most LPG-fueled vehicles in the world.

When the conversion is completed, it will cut Guangzhou's annual diesel and gasoline consumption by 471,000 tons. Consumption is 2.50 million tons at present.

The city will also continue to find technological ways to lowering the LPG consumption of public vehicles, Xian said.

Guangzhou's target of LPG consumption per 100 km is 62 liters for buses and 12 liters for taxis by the year 2010.

Statistics show the city's buses used 65 liters of LPG per 100 km last year, compared to 83 liters in 2003. Taxis used 13.2 liters of LPG per 100 km compared to 16.6 liters for the same period.

Total LPG consumption for buses last year was 29.21 million liters less than 2005, a saving of 100 million yuan ($13.16 million).

"Extensive use of clean energy such as LPG and efforts to lower energy consumption for public vehicles can only be beneficial to the population and the city," Yang Weiqiang, an environmental protection researcher with the Guangzhou Academy of Social Sciences, said.

Yang said Guangzhou will be able to cut the emission of carbon monoxide by 22,000 tons; hydrocarbon, 2,430 tons; nitrogen oxides, 1,779 tons; and particulate matters, 417 tons, when all its buses and taxis become LPG-fueled.

Source: China Daily

I note that all of these references quote that oxides of Nitrogen are less with LPG.

 

[Lutz]

I have never claimed that LPG is not a cleaner solution but it can only be an interim one. Reserves of CNG will probably last rather longer.

The German car industry is certainly not sitting back and doing nothing, as Jazman seems to read out of my response. But a reduction in fuel consumption, whether it be petrol, diesel, LPG or CNG, is just as important (less fuel = less emissions).

 

[Darce]

Agreed Lutz - I was reading about Mercedes and their "DiesOtto" (I think I have that correct) engine. This starts on an ignition system then somehow reverts to a diesel cycle when on the move.

The article also said that they were linking the engine to an eclectic motor type transmission as this was far more efficient than the prop/drive shafts we have at the moment.

Which is not surprising seeing as the rumour is that LR have a prototype that has each wheel driven by an eclectic motor and an engine just their to feed the batteries when needed.

As you say - what we need to do is stop using the oil. My point is that in the interim period, why use diesel with all its many pollutants when LPG is available, cheaper and far cleaner.

Why spend all that money on trying to clean up diesels?

Why say that Bio-Diesel will be used more and then sit back and watch the rain-forests of the world disappear to grow the Soya to power our cars?

When we have a far cleaner fuel available until the newer technologies take over - as they will.

 

[rob_jax]

Hi Darce,

You asked why not power everything from LPG? Well a few reasons:

LPG has a low energy density and consequently you achieve less miles burning the same weight of LPG as you would burning diesel.

LPG is a natural constituent of crude oil, and typically from a sweet light crude (say Brent crude oil from the North Sea), the compositional ratio is 100 Naphtha (or what will become petrol after further processing), 75 Diesel and 25 LPG. This ratio becomes more skewed towards diesel and away from LPG as you factor in the more common heavier crude oils (like those in the Middle East)

So aside from the important energy density issue, a very good reason to not heavily promote LPG as a motor vehicle fuel is the relative scarcity of LPG in crude oil. Ultimately LPG is a short term solution.

CNG (Methane) is a different story - there are substantial reserves of Methane all over the world - and whilst CNG as a car fuel has mostly replaced LPG in Sweden and Norway, it has an even lower energy density that LPG.

CNG (Methane) would be best used converted to Methanol and used in a fuel cell / electric engined car (some low power Methanol fuel cells are commercially available as power packs for motorhomes), or in modified spark-ignition engine or possibly passed through a GTL plant to make one of the new family of synthesised diesels.

The higher efficiency of the diesel engine compared to spark ignition has been targeted by the petroleum companies in the GTL ("Gas to Liquid") process - which converts Ethane (from bio-mass or wood chips or unwanted crop material) into a (pretty much) perfect diesel fuel

Aral Ultimate was the first example of a GTL or synthesised diesel - which burns as cleanly as LPG, but gives more mpg, and fuels of this type offer sustainability.

Bio-diesel and bio-ethanol are short term solutions - they take one part of the plant (the seed in the case of bio-diesel) and convert that into a fuel that can be blended with petroleum fuel - which in the case of bio-diesel means unaltered operation of a diesel engine, and also the bio-diesel can replace the need to add lubricity additives. Instead of taking one part of the plant, it's more efficient to use the whole plant to create fuel - which is why I like the new GTL processes.

Robert

 

[Darce]

Hi Darce,

You asked why not power everything from LPG? Well a few reasons:

LPG has a low energy density and consequently you achieve less miles burning the same weight of LPG as you would burning diesel.

LPG is a natural constituent of crude oil, and typically from a sweet light crude (say Brent crude oil from the North Sea), the compositional ratio is 100 Naphtha (or what will become petrol after further processing), 75 Diesel and 25 LPG. This ratio becomes more skewed towards diesel and away from LPG as you factor in the more common heavier crude oils (like those in the Middle East)

So aside from the important energy density issue, a very good reason to not heavily promote LPG as a motor vehicle fuel is the relative scarcity of LPG in crude oil. Ultimately LPG is a short term solution.

CNG (Methane) is a different story - there are substantial reserves of Methane all over the world - and whilst CNG as a car fuel has mostly replaced LPG in Sweden and Norway, it has an even lower energy density that LPG.

CNG (Methane) would be best used converted to Methanol and used in a fuel cell / electric engined car (some low power Methanol fuel cells are commercially available as power packs for motorhomes), or in modified spark-ignition engine or possibly passed through a GTL plant to make one of the new family of synthesised diesels.

The higher efficiency of the diesel engine compared to spark ignition has been targeted by the petroleum companies in the GTL ("Gas to Liquid") process - which converts Ethane (from bio-mass or wood chips or unwanted crop material) into a (pretty much) perfect diesel fuel

Aral Ultimate was the first example of a GTL or synthesised diesel - which burns as cleanly as LPG, but gives more mpg, and fuels of this type offer sustainability.

Bio-diesel and bio-ethanol are short term solutions - they take one part of the plant (the seed in the case of bio-diesel) and convert that into a fuel that can be blended with petroleum fuel - which in the case of bio-diesel means unaltered operation of a diesel engine, and also the bio-diesel can replace the need to add lubricity additives. Instead of taking one part of the plant, it's more efficient to use the whole plant to create fuel - which is why I like the new GTL processes.

Robert

Hi Robert

I certainly agree that the gas to liquid technology is excellent, though I thought that the main front runners here were SASOL Chevron and they used natural gas not biomass derived gas.

But I did not mean to infer that we should all be running on LPG in my post above

What I am saying is that at this point in time diesel as a fuel is far far "dirtier" and yet we have LPG as an alternative that is certainly as economical as well as being cleaner.

I just do not understand why it is that diesel fuel is seen as being green when it pumps out so much cr*p!

And for that reason I agree 100% with Elliott who simply says that being near a diesel on start-up is a truly obnoxious (again no pun intended but again it makes me laugh !!) is a truly awful place to be.

And yes I hope we do develop better fuels and GTL is an option - but why not just pressurise the gas and use that?

It seems to me that SASOL are simply using the technology they developed to produce fuel from coal during the sanctions period of the old Apartied regime.

Fair play to them but is it the total answer when hydrogen fuel cells offer so much more?

I agree that LPG is not the long term solution - but neither is converting a gas to a liquid however clean that liquid may be. Which is about as clean as the gas used in the first place!

 

[Darce]

Sorry posted in comments by mistake

Hi Robert

I certainly agree that the gas to liquid technology is excellent, though I thought that the main front runners here were SASOL Chevron and they used natural gas not biomass derived gas.

But I did not mean to infer that we should all be running on LPG in my post above

What I am saying is that at this point in time diesel as a fuel is far far "dirtier" and yet we have LPG as an alternative that is certainly as economical as well as being cleaner.

I just do not understand why it is that diesel fuel is seen as being green when it pumps out so much cr*p!

And for that reason I agree 100% with Elliott who simply says that being near a diesel on start-up is a truly obnoxious (again no pun intended but again it makes me laugh !!) is a truly awful place to be.

And yes I hope we do develop better fuels and GTL is an option - but why not just pressurise the gas and use that?

It seems to me that SASOL are simply using the technology they developed to produce fuel from coal during the sanctions period of the old Apartied regime.

Fair play to them but is it the total answer when hydrogen fuel cells offer so much more?

I agree that LPG is not the long term solution - but neither is converting a gas to a liquid however clean that liquid may be. Which is about as clean as the gas used in the first place!

 

[Darce]

Agreed Lutz - I was reading about Mercedes and their "DiesOtto" (I think I have that correct) engine. This starts on an ignition system then somehow reverts to a diesel cycle when on the move.

The article also said that they were linking the engine to an eclectic motor type transmission as this was far more efficient than the prop/drive shafts we have at the moment.

Which is not surprising seeing as the rumour is that LR have a prototype that has each wheel driven by an eclectic motor and an engine just their to feed the batteries when needed.

As you say - what we need to do is stop using the oil. My point is that in the interim period, why use diesel with all its many pollutants when LPG is available, cheaper and far cleaner.

Why spend all that money on trying to clean up diesels?

Why say that Bio-Diesel will be used more and then sit back and watch the rain-forests of the world disappear to grow the Soya to power our cars?

When we have a far cleaner fuel available until the newer technologies take over - as they will.

eclectic??? - should be electric of course!

 

[rob_jax]

Hi Darce,

There's no black and white answer to this, just a gradation of greys.

Probably the most important pollutant - or the one that everybody has heard about - is Carbon Dioxide. And in this case, the most energy dense fuel coupled with the most efficient engine will win - and today that means diesel

Alongside this are the other pollutants like the Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons - including hydrocarbons that leak from the fuel tank and re-fuelling losses - and particulates.

Old technology diesel engined vehicles running on low grade, high Sulfur fuel - think of the USA - are particularly bad in this other respect. And was the main reason that Toyota built their hybrid technology around the less efficient petrol engine. If they had used an equivalent Euro IV+ diesel engine, they should have achieved another 20% fuel economy - but it wouldn't have been popular or usable in the USA

A modern Euro IV+ diesel engine, running on a synthesised diesel fuel, is practically indistinguishable from a gasoline / LPG / CNG spark ignition Euro IV engine.

I disagree that all diesel engines are obnoxious during start-up, both our cars are Euro IV+ diesels, and are much less obnoxious that Brenda's BMW Mini was - but I'm sensitive to the Aromatics in petrol that escape before the catalyst reaches operating temperature

The SASOL technology was a good first attempt, but they were working from coal like substrates and a technology that produced Methane as the output - and it's difficult (energy intensive) to zip Methane molecules together. The GTL process wins hands down because it zips Ethane molecules together - it's just so much easier to make longer molecules when starting with Ethane.

Diesel smoke and pollutants comes from the interaction of Sulfur compounds and branched hydrocarbon molecules in diesel fuel produced by simply distilling crude oil. The linear chain hydrocarbons - like Cetane - burn as cleanly and completely as Methane, and are the basis of GTL fuels.

I have a lot of faith in Methane (as Methanol) in a fuel cell / electric car, and GTL diesel or bio-fuels in a more conventional car.

I don't have a lot of faith in Hydrogen fuel cell technology - the car fuel tanks are not fully developed (the metal sponge absorbers don't have a good life expectancy yet) - and the logistics of distributing large quantities of liquid Hydrogen are a serious problem.

And whilst there is similar cleanliness between LPG and GTL diesel, the crucial difference is the better economy of around 20% to 30% burning the same weight of carbon as GTL diesel

Robert

 

[Darce]

Sounds good of course but from what I have read - production can only amount to about 2 to 3 % of current consumption.

So at best all GTL will do is reduce the cr*p conventional diesel pushes out by the ratio it is mixed by.

Also I seem to be reading that its lubricating abilities is far poorer than mineral based diesel so that if more can be produced, it will require considerable development of the engine to be undertaken.

As it seems a viable additive for is improving what we use now.

As for H fuel cell we have them now see:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6333729.stm
What we need is a greener way of producing the Hydrogen and a way of packaging it. Some way off I grant you - but look at the battery technology of mobile phones compared to a decade ago.

 

[rob_jax]

GTL diesel will "never" be blended with standard diesel - and by never I mean I know of no plans to do so - not whilst it attracts a premium price.

Currently there are a limited number of companies offering GTL diesel - BP Ultimate (Aral), Shell and Total - and all of this is currently sourced from petroleum sourced Ethane. The first two GTL refineries or processing plants might be a better description - are undergoing commissioning trials in Germany.

Standard diesel and GTL diesel both need lubricity and anti-foaming additives - no differences there.

I'm aware of Hydrogen fuel cell technology - it's 40 year old technology - the issue is with storing the Hydrogen in the vehicle and that hasn't been solved. Nor has the distribution issues - transporting Hydrogen as a gas under high pressure is terribly inefficient (a standard J size cylinder - almost as tall as you or me - weighs 40 kg and transports 2 or 3 kg of gas) and there's no infrastructure to transport liquid hydrogen - possibly local generation is a way forward.

And unfortunately what appears in the news or other sources is often (by necessity) a simplified or sanitised version of reality.

 

[Darce]

Hi Rob

have been away

All that I have read indicates that GTL fuels are not available other than as a very small percentage within normal diesel.

You seem to think that a pure GTL diesel is available?

Not sure this is correct.

One of many such references to this:- http://ect.jmcatalysts.com/documents/Reducingemissionsartp2-3.pdf

 

[giovanni_5060838]

All i know [which is not much apparently] is that diesel is the fuel attacked for its pollutants! petrol is left well alone,which of corse seem natural considering that without the higher co2 polluting petrol engine, you cannot have the lpg runner!!

But bare this in mind, scientist are at a loss to explain why the seas[they are infact our major defence against co2] seem to be at a piont of saturation! This should be of serious concern to everyone. more so than nox or particles which can of corse be lowered through better exhausts and particle traps,and this beggars the question. If they are indeed of such a great concern why do the governments not do more about it? particle traps are available,why have they not been made compulsary?there ending the debate on particles?

I am sure NOX levels coming out of the exhausts of diesel could also be lowered by using some sort of cat?

That way we could then concentrate on the major issue of CO2,[which just so happens to be pretty good on diesel enginesbut still room for improvement] and maybe start debating how to lower the co2 from the less efficent petrol engine.

Just a thought.

 

[Darce]

Hi Gio

I think one of the problems is that whilst you can clean up a diesel engine it does make it more expensive and complicated. And we all know what happens to old cars - people run them into the ground and do not get them serviced properly in the main. So those filters could be the first to go. And to say that diesel is better because of a fairly small CO2 advantage but an enormous disadvantage in overall air quality from NO and particulates just does not make sense.

Now I do not want a big debate on what is better - because as I say, I have both a diesel 200Tdi and an LPG V8 Discovery, and a petrol car. So until I get an H powered vehicle I think I can say I use the lot without any real bias! My sons 54 plate Passat is a joy to drive and is most impressive. Compared to the 200Tdi it is an amazing jump forward in diesel technology. But I still do not ever want to stand behind it on start-up - which is the comment that started all this.

What I do know is how well the V8 runs on LPG and how clean it is. The engine oil in particular is wonderfully clean after several thousands of miles.

And because LPG is so clean, it is only taxed at about half the rate of petrol/diesel and that from my pockets point of view means that my V8 is more economical than all my other vehicles and is pretty damn close to the Passat.

But the Passat struggles to tow our TA. Whereas the V8 does it with ease.

A final point - I think this subject is one where we must just agree to disagree. I see little point in arguing about what fuel is better based upon a bit of research that indicates the sea is no longer such a big "sink" for CO2 when frankly there is ****** all difference between all three fuels and we could and should do more by simply travelling less.

If anyone is worried about CO2 - just look at what our homes produce - it is far more than vehicles ever do or are likely to produce.

 

[giovanni_5060838]

I actually agree, [posions all] read my second post, i think it was.

And i agree with the issues concerning ALL our wastage and useage, never liked the word carbon footprint but it has it merits,and i do not mind,too much if the government was to implement higher taxes on usage[no really] as long as they give incentives[lower taxes] for those who do or try to conserve or lower their co2 outputs. but i never see it happening. I see the taxes coming in, but i see the poorer households suffering and i don't believe these taxes will be used accordingly.they will just find there way into the general coffers.

of corse the other point is the governments will firstly target the motorist,saying there is an individual choice to transport ie public transport!, but households? well we all need houses