• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

DIesels Arghhhhh

Page 3 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
"Why exactly should fossile fuels cost more pro rata than now or in the past?"

Easy, it's the law of supply and demand. With emerging countries like India and China having an ever-increasing thirst for oil, the world market will supply to whoever is willing to pay the most. Don't forget that road traffic competes with the chemical and power industries for the oil that's on the market. In addition, the governments of nearly all developed countries have adopted long-term policies of directing the economy away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources. Whether this is for ecological reasons or just to to extend the availability of oil for longer, the most powerful tool they have at their disposal are taxes.
 
"the most powerful tool they have at their disposal are taxes"

The most powerful tool they have is the people of their country, those politicains and rulers that forget that fall!
 
When I was younger I used to believe that, now I know better.

Politicians of all parties coudn't give a stuff what the voters think.

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

Amazing how you can found all that stuff without once finding a proper site to controdict it!

I am glad you mention the toyota, typical example of only giving half the story! as this uses batteries/petrol? not lpg ? !

So thats your example.!

Amazing really some one who knows his chemistry, but ignore cambridge ! clearly you did not look hard enough so heres the link, again form cambridge!

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/environment/guidance/vehicle.html
 
Gio - sorry mate, but you have really shot yourself in the foot on this one! Shame you did not bother to read all of your link as I did.

I DID read this and whilst it makes bald statements the empirical data I have seen does not tally with what it says.

I quote from the link you post:-

"LPG has lower CO and CO2 emissions than petrol, but higher NOx emissions. In comparison with diesel, LPG has lower emissions of NOx and particulates but higher emissions of CO and HC. LPG is cheaper than petrol and diesel due to reduced levels of taxation"

However later in section 2 they agree ENTIRELY with what I have previously stated! Again I quote:-

"The Department of Health (COMEAP, 1999) guidance states that '...definitive advice as to the preferability, on health grounds, of diesel vs petrol-powered light vehicles is not possible.

However, concerns about the effects of particles on health in urban areas currently tip the balance in favour of petrol'.

Also, Friends of the Earth does not recommend diesel for cars that are predominantly used for driving in towns."

So Gio - are you sure it was a good idea to give us all a link to this site? I was being kind in not quoting all this back at you! - but seeing as you seem to want to play games then have a look at another quote from your reference source!!!!!!

"9. Recommendations

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

(See what I mean Gio! You handed this to me on a plate but I was initially too nice to refer it back to you! It then goes on to say:- .......)

"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."

So!

Where does that leave us?

Well seeing as the data that I refer to states that the CO2 levels of LPG are much the same as diesel, I suggest that those of us that "have seen the light" carry using our LPG powered cars for both town and long journeys because thanks to Gio - we can all see that LPG is best in towns and if the CO2 emissions are much the same as diesel (as I say they are) but with no particulates then on the emission front LPG is better than diesel on long journeys.

Oh! And we must not forget it is half the cost of diesel either!

I suggest we let this one rest now.
 
I forgot to point out that the link that Gio quotes is not to an academic paper derived from the research of scientific minds.

No it is an internal publication from the:-

Estate Management and Building Service

of Cambridge University.

Now these are fine people - but they run the admim, caretaking, finance and human resources function of this great institution.

This document should not be confused with the scientifically assessed and checked data that appears on the DTI sponcored BOOST website or the LPGA.
 
I'm afraid one will have to get used to the idea that, in these days of globalisation, the government is not only accountable to the people but also gets the screw put on by other governments, too. Even if the UK were to leave the EU, there is no way it could go it alone, even if it wanted, without serious repercussions for the economy. So, regardless of which government is in power, their hands are somewhat tied, with only limited room for manoeuvre.
 
Most certainly true and I for one am pro the EU.

But when I am an EU citizen I do wonder why it is that when France has withdrawn its RFL and put it on the price of fuel, diesel in France is still some 20/25% cheaper than in the UK?

And then there is the fact that oil is bought in $US.

Err! is it just me that notices that we now get 2 $US to the
 
You may have a point if oil prices were staying constant in the USA. But even there, the price has gone up sharply. When I lived there in 1999 I was paying just under $1 a gallon (US). Now it's well over $2.50 and has already broken the $3 barrier in San Francisco and Chicago.

Even the big USA is not able to adopt a go-it-alone approach and they've got an even bigger task to try to convince the people that the days of their beloved V8 gas guzzlers are numbered.
 
As for France, part of the savings for not having a Car Tax is made up for by tolls on their motorways but even the French government is under pressure to find a solution how to promote the use of low emissions vehicles at the expense of older environmentally unfriendly ones. At the moment they levy an extra vehicle registration tax on new company cars dependent on the level of exhaust emissions.
 
Steve W. People just take a bit of pushing, you seem to have forgotten the poll tax.

$3 plus a gallon in the US, oh what hardship.

That's exactly what makes a nonsense of climate change and fuel tax's, the world biggest user of cars and fuel pays
 
Darce.

lets be clear here, i said and stick by it, that diesels have lower co ratings than both petrol and lpg, you claimed first that lpg should burn cleaner and later that it had the same co2 rating as diesel.

You first used the toyota as rebulk to my vw, when talking about co2 then when i noted to you that obviously you are talking about a vehicle that uses batteries as well, you did not come back on the subject?. note had toyota built there car usig a diesel hybrid its co2 would have been lower still.

But the are no tax incentives to do so.

I clearly stated at the beginning that ALL fuels are evils with poisons, and only counter any statement that claims lpg to be better on co than diesel. check out all those duel fuel vehicles

eg. volvo to see there co2 rating.

Now why is i am only concerned with co2? simple this is the boggest problem we have, whilst nox and the likes are harmfull, they are only used by those who would like to show the diesel engine in a bad light compared to other fuels!

And yet no one counters [and why should they co2 is the main problem and those that try to hoodwink around this are doing the genarel public no good whatsoever]

Diesel has lower co2 lower hc, benzine ratings are lower too,why are we not talking about benzine?

Its particles [becoming irrelevant as there are more and more vehicles being fitted with traps] are larger than those from petrol,therefore as a rule the lungs car cough them up.

Those smallar particles in petrol will almost certainly get stuck deep down in the lungs with no chance of expolsion.

What about the environment? without both petrol and diesel, lpg would not be so cheap to start with,as a general by product if there is no market for petrol and diesel then lpg would not be available A. cheaply B. in enough supply, so its not a major player just a case of using what is readily available.

So the only piont I made was about co2,there are those out there that use other minor piosons only to attack diesel,and whilst black soot or nox are indeed harmfull, individuals have never mattered [i know its not fair]so if its not worth making a big think about the tiny particles that come out of petrol engines,and its not a big think when talking about substances like benzine,then the same shoulds apply to diesel piosons.

co2 is the main/largest enemy we have for us as humans and the planet.

And diesel gives the best most effiecent use of our supplies with the lowest co2 rating.and i will not get side tracked or hunwinked by those who want to confuse the issue.
 
I do not want to confuse the issue and have to say that your last post is the most confusing I think I have ever read!

Especially as the very source you quote actually says totally the opposite of what you then go on to say.

As for CO2 being the main culprit as you try to make out - yes we should be reducing our emissions - but please note that CO2 is a required substrate for plant Photosynthesis - without it the plants die.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the planet survived.

As Elliot in the first post on this thread so ably puts it - we seem to be sacrificing our air quality by allowing diesels to belch out hydrocarbon particulates on the alter of CO2 reduction.

Let me quote some points from the DTI Boost website:-

"LPG emits similar CO2 to diesel and considerably less than petrol. It is also much cleaner than diesel in terms of NOx and particulates which impact on our local air quality. A 400,000 Euro emission programme has recently completed, comparing the emissions from petrol, diesel and LPG vehicles:

Compared with petrol, vehicles running on LPG emit about 20% less CO2.

Compared with diesel, one diesel car is equivalent to 20 LPG cars with regard to NOx, and 120 LPG vehicles with regard to particulates.

Diesel emits substantially more fine particles than LPG.

and then from the very website you tried to use to prove your dubious point I believe this rather shoots what you say down in flames:-

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

and:-

"However, concerns about the effects of particles on health in urban areas currently tip the balance in favour of petrol'. Also, Friends of the Earth does not recommend diesel for cars that are predominantly used for driving in towns."

Please understand one thing Gio - I am not out to confuse or annoy anyone. But is does strike many of us that it is odd that diesels are hailed as the new way forward to combat Climate change when this particular (no pun intended but it does make me smile!) is the dirtiest of the lot when it comes to local air quality re particulates and Nitrogen compounds.

Compared with diesel, one diesel car is equivalent to 20 LPG cars with regard to NOx, and 120 LPG vehicles with regard to particulates. - Source DTI Boost website

And then LPG cars can enter the congestion charge zone in London without charge - why is that I wonder?

Westminster Council and many other councils allows free parking for LPG fuels cars - why is that I wonder?

I pay lower Road Fund Licence because my car runs on LPG - why is that I wonder?

There is full documentary evidence to show that because of its clean burn credentials LPG fuelled engine oil stays cleaner for longer and so less engine wear - why is that I wonder?

If there is a spill of diesel or petrol the local effects on the environment are long term and catastrophic. If you have an LPG leak, of course it is dangerous, but one advantage is that it just vents to air leaving no residual pollution.

And finally I REALLY DO ENJOY running my vehicle on an inexpensive waste product of the manufacturing process required to produce the dirty smelly stuff that seems so bizarrely popular at the moment! Especially as there are so many financial incentives to do so!

As I say I am not seeking to confuse anyone, just take part in an open debate, but based upon your last post it seems clear to me that I would not have to anyway! 😱)

So please Gio - do not take my preference for LPG as a personal insult.

Just look at what I say and please consider if I have a valid point. We can always agree to disagree but in my view there is no need for the aggression that seems to come across in your post of 11 Oct 2007 06:40 PM
 
Here we go! Same old story. Until others get their finger out nobody does anything. Probably waiting until the big crunch. And then there shall be "much wailing and gnashing of teeth".

That aside, the story is even older than you might expect. Here's an excerpt from the Anglo Saxon Chronicle of A.D. 1052:

That tax distressed all the English nation during so long a time, as it has been written; that was ever before other taxes which were variously paid, and wherewith the people were manifestly distressed.
 
My oh my what a to do ..... well for what its worth I have to agree with STEVE W when he says:

"It will be a cold day in hell before the British get of their arses and actually do something instead of just moaning about it.

There is more chance of my bum hole healing over than the British having a revolution, I wish I had been born French, now theres a Nation that really puts the wind up their politicians."

Well apart from wishing I was French of course lol.

We see/hear people all the time on forums, in newspapers, on the TV etc etc who have an opinion and love to talk about what is wrong and how/why it is the Governments fault but ..... TALK IS CHEAP.

Perhaps if all the people who constantly complain actually got off their backsides and did something about it i.e. use their VOTE, things might change.

Steve
 
My oh my what a to do ..... well for what its worth I have to agree with STEVE W when he says:

"It will be a cold day in hell before the British get of their arses and actually do something instead of just moaning about it.

There is more chance of my bum hole healing over than the British having a revolution, I wish I had been born French, now theres a Nation that really puts the wind up their politicians."

Well apart from wishing I was French of course lol.

We see/hear people all the time on forums, in newspapers, on the TV etc etc who have an opinion and love to talk about what is wrong and how/why it is the Governments fault but ..... TALK IS CHEAP.

Perhaps if all the people who constantly complain actually got off their backsides and did something about it i.e. use their VOTE, things might change.

Steve
Click to expand...
Amen to that Meister!
 
You don'tnhave to get off arse to do something. You are paying politicians to do that, so write to them at www.writetothem.com.

If they then do nothing the site audits their response and you know what to do at the next elections.
 
I think we all know what to do come the next election, but when will that be, that's the big question. Browns not a complete fool, nobody issues invitations to an arse kicking party until he's forced to, so about another 2 to 3 years to go.

Steve W
 
I think you are being a bit naive if you believe there will be a really major change in government policy whichever party is in power. Politicians of all sides talk a lot but in the end they are content with the status quo, making just a few minor adjustments depending on the direction of their particular party. As nobody can foresee the true full repercussions of anything major, they are too afraid of taking anything but small steps. It's the fear of unpredictable backlash that may prevent them from winning the next election.
 
I am certainly not naive about politicians, I don't believe a word any of them say. You can always tell when a politician is lying, their mouth moves.

Steve W
 
If diesels are sooooo dangerous, why is it that petrol carbon monoxide fumes will kill their victim but diesel fumes won,t??? I dont think this arguement quite holds water!!!
 
For a atart it's not politicians that came up with the issue of global warming, recycling and emissions. It was the environmental science community. Politicians just picked up the subject and took it more or less seriously, depending on their political stance. In his time, Blair decided that the UK would take an international lead on envirnomental protection and it would be very difficult for Brown or any subsequent prime minister to withdraw from that promise without seriously harming the UK's image abroad, as that could have equally serious consequences for UK trade.
 
There are some serious flaws in your post Lutz.

---- "Environmental science community"

or Environmental science Industry ?

----"Politicians just picked up the subject and took it more or less seriously"

or Politicians picked up the subject and took it as an opportunity to lay blame on people and rip the a*** out of them tax wise?

"to withdraw from that promise without seriously harming the UK's image abroad"

What Image? Blair and Brown destroyed what little image the UK had left.

In earlier post Lutz you spoke of UK people sitting back and not leading the way.

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.

There are of course lots of scientists who dispute global warming and climate change being any more than a natural occurence, but Politicians and others wouldn't make any money from them.

Having researched some of your posts I assume you are German Lutz?

German car industry still turns out a glut of fast powerful oversized CC capacity gas guzzlers, so the Germans are not exactly listening to "Little Britain" are they.

Where eactly do I buy the range of LPG powered eco friendly BMW, Audi, Mercedes or Opels?

I believe the only luxury car running LPG as standard is the Bristol, Brits leading the way yet again whilst Mercedes and BMW supply gas guzzlers to lots of the world politicians and despotic leaders!
 
OK, going through your statements one by one:

The environmental industry would not have emerged without the research that preceded it. After all, why should investors sink money into the industry if there was no demand? For example, the world demand for wind powered generators is so great that Germany has become the leading producer by far and so many people are now employed in this and allied industries that a major change in policy by a new government would be unthinkable. A start was made while the Green Party was in government. Although they have since been voted out and have been in opposition since 2005, the new government would be unable to go back to where it came from, even if it wanted to, because the environmental movement has since gained so much momentum.

My reference to sitting back an doing nothing was not aimed at the UK in particular, but just a general statement that applies wherever they are.

I fail to see any justification for going into Iraq. It was purely a ploy by Bush to ensure continued access to oil from that country. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a mere excuse. There were no signs that Saddam Hussein was planning an second invasion of a foreign power to follow the one in Kuwait. Blair only joined in because, as an ally of the USA, he felt committed to do so. Besides, I see no relevance of the Iraq conflict with global warming, etc.

Of course, one is not going to change people's habits about buying big cars overnight and so long as the German car industry sees profits in building them, they'd be silly not to do so and leave it to others. That doesn't mean that they are not taking the issue seriously. The limits set for corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) in the car industry and future emissions legislation leave both Mercedes and BMW, and other manufacturers primarily of larger cars, no alternative.

Offering LPG-powered variants is no long-term alternative. While the emissions may be cleaner, LPG is made from oil and therefore does not reduce the demand for oil. That's why it is true that few manufacturers in Germany offer LPG variants. On the other hand, most offer CNG powered models, at least on their home market. Although CNG is a natural resource, too, just like oil, the reserves are significantly larger. Other manufacturers like Mercedes and BMW are taking a different route altogether and are looking into other technical solutions that are both cleaner AND at the same time protect our natural resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Back
Top