And me Martin. I've just spent another bucketful of money on the old, virtually non-polluting Range Rover to try and keep it going for another couple of years.
Hello Clive,
I was specifically thinking of the Outlander PHEV. (There are similar systems available from other manufacturers) I believe it uses an all electric drive train, so the petrol engine is optomised to be a generator. The driver can select whether to run just on battery (limited range at best about 30 miles), or on 'series' charge, where the engine only recharges the battery, or on parallel hybrid mode, where the engine delivers electric power directly to the motors, and the battery just adds power for high demands. You can select regenerative braking, and power saving modes to protect the battery charge. So an effective technology is already available. From the caravanner's perspective, the added weight of a battery driven car would be attractive with regards to the towing ratio, but the Outander PHEV is limited to 1500kg towed weight.
Given the abysmally slow average speeds and stop start nature of traffic in London and other urban areas, I'd guess the actual distance travelled by a London taxi is no more than 250 miles and often much less. Tesla have already proven that an all electric vehicle with a decent range can be produced, if the Tesla battery was used with a far more modest motor, I'd guess a London taxi could manage on a single charge per day.
LTI who manufacture the infamous black cab, have today (Daily Telegraph 13 Dec 2016) announced a hybrid version, which only uses an on board generator, but not plug in!☺
I was specifically thinking of the Outlander PHEV. (There are similar systems available from other manufacturers) I believe it uses an all electric drive train, so the petrol engine is optomised to be a generator. The driver can select whether to run just on battery (limited range at best about 30 miles), or on 'series' charge, where the engine only recharges the battery, or on parallel hybrid mode, where the engine delivers electric power directly to the motors, and the battery just adds power for high demands. You can select regenerative braking, and power saving modes to protect the battery charge. So an effective technology is already available. From the caravanner's perspective, the added weight of a battery driven car would be attractive with regards to the towing ratio, but the Outander PHEV is limited to 1500kg towed weight.
Given the abysmally slow average speeds and stop start nature of traffic in London and other urban areas, I'd guess the actual distance travelled by a London taxi is no more than 250 miles and often much less. Tesla have already proven that an all electric vehicle with a decent range can be produced, if the Tesla battery was used with a far more modest motor, I'd guess a London taxi could manage on a single charge per day.
LTI who manufacture the infamous black cab, have today (Daily Telegraph 13 Dec 2016) announced a hybrid version, which only uses an on board generator, but not plug in!☺
Prof,
We are almost there then. May start to look out for a nice pre-loved Outlander PHEV.The Black Cabs development has been compromised by TFL's insistence on certain requirements which have effectively stifled competition. Nissan suspended their option pending further discussions with TFL.
We are almost there then. May start to look out for a nice pre-loved Outlander PHEV.The Black Cabs development has been compromised by TFL's insistence on certain requirements which have effectively stifled competition. Nissan suspended their option pending further discussions with TFL.
From what I have read the PHEV is only more e3fficient on short runs. On longer ones you are basically running on the petrol or diesel so it makes no difference. Basically what you get is a very efficient vehicle for short journeys if that is what you need but otherwise you will never recover the extra cost.
Raywood what you say is correct, and could be applied to many "electric" or hybrid vehicles. If your driving is a mix of short journeys and linger/town trips then the electric element would be of benefit for entering emissions zones or lower "fuel" cost for electric use but only where you charge up off the grid. If the petrol engine is used to recharge then thats going to cost more. Owners of Prius hybrids expressed surprise when they did achieve the expected economy, but with such a small battery pack most journeys were being undertaken on petrol.
So the trend to electric/hybrid will go towards reducing NOX and PMs but with the possible detriment to CO2, and the motorists wallet.
So the trend to electric/hybrid will go towards reducing NOX and PMs but with the possible detriment to CO2, and the motorists wallet.
Prof, that all sounds absolutely horrendous to my old brain!ProfJohnL said:
And all it would need would be one thirty-bob relay to stick, and bring the whole lot to a shuddering halt!
I'll stick to good old suck, squeeze, bang and blow thank you!
Being the age I am it's not a problem to me and I guess not to many younger than me.
For a moment forget cars, and let's assume roughly roughly that pollution is proportional to engine capacity given the engines are of the same basic design and equipped with the same class of anti-pollution filters additives etc.
Then think about the number of HGV's long distance buses, DMU trains, tractors, etc. not to mention big ships (they have to come into port) and the death of the diesel will not be for many many years. I am not aware of any hybrid HGV's in service (city vans, yes, longhaul, no.
So in the shorter term it may come down to zone charges in cities. Now almost by definition there are not many caravan sites in cities and a far proportion of us live outside cities too.
So it would be unfair and more importantly unpopular with the voters to penalise all diesel users across the piece. Those who want to two through or visit cities will just have to accept the extra charges as they do for parking, price of a pint etc.
It seems to that the high torque petrol engines are mainly to be found in moderately up market aka expensive cars whereas the turbo diesel can be found across the range - I'm talking tow cars, not everything.
So the Freelander 2 issafe for more years yet
For a moment forget cars, and let's assume roughly roughly that pollution is proportional to engine capacity given the engines are of the same basic design and equipped with the same class of anti-pollution filters additives etc.
Then think about the number of HGV's long distance buses, DMU trains, tractors, etc. not to mention big ships (they have to come into port) and the death of the diesel will not be for many many years. I am not aware of any hybrid HGV's in service (city vans, yes, longhaul, no.
So in the shorter term it may come down to zone charges in cities. Now almost by definition there are not many caravan sites in cities and a far proportion of us live outside cities too.
So it would be unfair and more importantly unpopular with the voters to penalise all diesel users across the piece. Those who want to two through or visit cities will just have to accept the extra charges as they do for parking, price of a pint etc.
It seems to that the high torque petrol engines are mainly to be found in moderately up market aka expensive cars whereas the turbo diesel can be found across the range - I'm talking tow cars, not everything.
So the Freelander 2 issafe for more years yet
My response to towns or cities that introduce congestion charging is to not go there, that is what they want so the powers that be will be satisfied. It means I will not be spending any money with businesses in the prescribed zone,I feel sorry for businesses caught in such zones but the politicians will push through their plans regardless.
Raywood said:
One of the Outlander PHEV's selling point was that it cost no more than the Diesel version to purchase, so in this specific case the cost argument is a non starter.. The face the petrol generator is optimized (Anderson cycle) for charging the battery means that whilst its t not quite as economical as teh Diesel on long trips, its actually better than petrol only by quite a margin.
Motoring data shows that most people who use cars to get to and fro work tend to live within ten miles so its all electric range will work for many, and coupled to theh fact its Zero Road fund Tax and with very low CO2 per mile its in teh lowest band for company car tax, suddenly it can make a lot of sense.
Several reviews do make the point that if you are doing high mileage on motorways all the time then the Diesel Version wold be a better option.
emmerson said:...
And all it would need would be one thirty-bob relay to stick, and bring the whole lot to a shuddering halt!
I'll stick to good old suck, squeeze, bang and blow thank you!
All it would need is And all it would need would be one thirty-bob filter to block, or spark plug or fuel pump relay to fail........I'd venture to suggest the risks are no greater just different.
As I said earlier a number of manufacturers are making clean diesels so clean they attract a zero road tax rate.
Have I missed something
Have I missed something
Dustydog said:As I said earlier a number of manufacturers are making clean diesels so clean they attract a zero road tax rate.
Have I missed something
Morning Dusty.
Hmm it depends on your definition of clean. Road tax is based only on CO2 produced, It fails to take into account all the other pollutants in the exhaust, like nitrous oxide and particulates.
However the more efficient an engine, it is likely to produce less of everything, but the proportions of what they produce may change, meaning a high efficiency vehicle may produce less CO2, but it may produce proportionately more of other nasties, and possibly even more of some compounds than a less efficient engine.
Thanks Prof.
I have now read that Patrick Mc Loughlin the transport minister wants to rejig all the road tax bands next year.
Ironically SWMBO car churns out next to no CO2 but the NOx is present although not particularly high. Also good old VAG in spite of their recent problems in the main are producing the cleanest vehicles pollutant wise.
I have now read that Patrick Mc Loughlin the transport minister wants to rejig all the road tax bands next year.
Ironically SWMBO car churns out next to no CO2 but the NOx is present although not particularly high. Also good old VAG in spite of their recent problems in the main are producing the cleanest vehicles pollutant wise.
RayS said:
Ray,
Before going in to liquidation earlier this year Hardstaff haulage of Kingston on Soar worked on duel fuel technology if fact I think that side of the business is still operating, they had 17tonn Fodens powered by propane gas, in fact nothing new fork trucks have been converted over to propane from diesel for years, right now the great and the good are trying to find a solution to the battery problem to power trucks at 44 ton, and the thing is I will tell them for nowt 'It will never happen', same old story a two bob relay goes and the job stops, can you imagine the size of the battery you would need to supply the power for truck that heavy, I suggest battery power should stop at Milk Floats,
I object to the persistent reference to relays failing and implying that electric vehicles will be more prone to breakdowns compared to other forms of motive power. Utter twaddle. and head in sand attitude. The fact is that all other forms of motive power rely on electrics in some form or another which have to be controlled, and if a relay in any of these systems fails it will compromise or stop the vehicle, but also there are plenty of other electrical and pure mechanical components that would have the same effect, and in fact as IC engines have many more moving parts the chances are there are more possibilities of failure compared to electric powered vehicles.
The risk of failure is ever present in all vehicles, it's just that different parts might be the cause of it. There is a strong probability of electric vehicles actually being more reliable than others becasue there are less moving parts. So stop scaremongering.
As for battery capacities and all electric HGV's. lets consider the Tesla Model S where to find a conventional car with similar performance you would be looking at "supercars" with peak power in the regions of 600bhp. That is not dissimilar to the peak power of some of the large HGV's on our roads, and the Tesla produces max torque at 0rpm, so in many ways electric power would be good for heavy haulage. However where as the Tesla will only use its peak power for a small proportion of its journey (I'd hazard a guess at less than 10%) and yet it's capable of about 250 Miles Heavy HGV will be using it for more like 80% of a journey which means a Tesla battery pack would only last about 30 to 40 miles in an HGV.
I'm guessing but I suspect that part of the weight of a tractor unit is added ballast to get its weight up, in which case if you could replace that ballast with additional battery packs, and you could produce and HGV with a practical range of about 200 to 250 miles. The down side would be the time it takes to recharge such a large battery, and a 250 Mile range would not suit the long haul industry. So with current technology all electric Long Haul HGV's are not yet practical - but then there is the electric train!
Hybrid technology would suit long distance HGVs. As peak power is not required all the time, install an IC engine capable of maintaining forward motion at normal road speed with just a bit extra capacity. Use the extra capacity to charge a battery. Then use the battery power to assist when needed such as during acceleration. This is the process used in FI cars KERS systems.
Short haul distribution vehicles can manage with lower power, and we are seeing some all electric vans for local deliveries It's a bit like deja vu
with milk floats and the old BR three wheel electric delivery vehicles.
Battery technology is one of the fastest developing areas of motoring, and we will see higher power density batteries that allow smaller size and weights, better power management to increase vehicle range and faster recharge processes.
I predict we will see an increasing number of all electric cars with entirely practical ranges and an increasing number of fast recharge points across the UK.
The risk of failure is ever present in all vehicles, it's just that different parts might be the cause of it. There is a strong probability of electric vehicles actually being more reliable than others becasue there are less moving parts. So stop scaremongering.
As for battery capacities and all electric HGV's. lets consider the Tesla Model S where to find a conventional car with similar performance you would be looking at "supercars" with peak power in the regions of 600bhp. That is not dissimilar to the peak power of some of the large HGV's on our roads, and the Tesla produces max torque at 0rpm, so in many ways electric power would be good for heavy haulage. However where as the Tesla will only use its peak power for a small proportion of its journey (I'd hazard a guess at less than 10%) and yet it's capable of about 250 Miles Heavy HGV will be using it for more like 80% of a journey which means a Tesla battery pack would only last about 30 to 40 miles in an HGV.
I'm guessing but I suspect that part of the weight of a tractor unit is added ballast to get its weight up, in which case if you could replace that ballast with additional battery packs, and you could produce and HGV with a practical range of about 200 to 250 miles. The down side would be the time it takes to recharge such a large battery, and a 250 Mile range would not suit the long haul industry. So with current technology all electric Long Haul HGV's are not yet practical - but then there is the electric train!
Hybrid technology would suit long distance HGVs. As peak power is not required all the time, install an IC engine capable of maintaining forward motion at normal road speed with just a bit extra capacity. Use the extra capacity to charge a battery. Then use the battery power to assist when needed such as during acceleration. This is the process used in FI cars KERS systems.
Short haul distribution vehicles can manage with lower power, and we are seeing some all electric vans for local deliveries It's a bit like deja vu
with milk floats and the old BR three wheel electric delivery vehicles.
Battery technology is one of the fastest developing areas of motoring, and we will see higher power density batteries that allow smaller size and weights, better power management to increase vehicle range and faster recharge processes.
I predict we will see an increasing number of all electric cars with entirely practical ranges and an increasing number of fast recharge points across the UK.
Regarding the reliability of electric I recall a major maritime procurement in the late 1990s where the ships replenishment rigs and propulsion were specified to be electric. Hydraulics and gearboxes were deemed to be non-complaint. In their period in service those ships have been infinitely more reliable than the previous classes. (not the infamous Type 45 destroyer). Of course the ships prime movers are still diesel generators, but while i accept that diesels will be around for many years to come, the reliability of modern power electrics is very high. Lexus and Toyota hybrids consistently feature very high in the reliability surveys. After having three off road 4WD cars with their plethora of low range boxes, diff locks, LSD etc with microswitches galore etc I think i would prefer the relative simplicity of a couple of motors driving the back wheel when required.
Well if that's the case that we are all going to be driving round in electric cars and all the trucks, taxi's, buses, 4x4's, long distance coaches, and my Asda delivery van are all going over to electric then I think we should start being even nicer to the French and Chinese and ask them to build us a few more power stations,
The key question for me that nobody seems to be asking (until pitpony just now) is where is all of the electricity needed to power all of these vehicles going to come from?
At present about 60% of the UK's energy is imported and the existing power stations across the world can only produce so much. Therefore prices will inevitably rise as demand increases, reducing the cost-effectiveness of electric power relative to petrol and diesel. And if the treasury continues to subsidise the difference it will go bankrupt.
Is the electricity going to be generated by nuclear power? Burning of coal? That's less harmful to the environment than burning petrol or diesel, is it?
Also the batteries for electric vehicles need nickel and cadmium inside - both of which are toxic and have to be shipped round the world to the car production lines. Then the batteries have to be disposed of when they're spent.
This to reduce the NOx emissions from diesel car engines. But as I understand it, about 60% of the UK's NOx emissions don't come from road transport and of the 40% that do, logic suggests that the majority will be from diesel-powered trains, HGVs, buses etc. The engine in your tow car will make no noticeable difference.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud the way that more environmentally sustainable solutions to personal transport are being looked at. But I don't think electricity is the answer, nor do I see the end of diesel for a while yet.
At present about 60% of the UK's energy is imported and the existing power stations across the world can only produce so much. Therefore prices will inevitably rise as demand increases, reducing the cost-effectiveness of electric power relative to petrol and diesel. And if the treasury continues to subsidise the difference it will go bankrupt.
Is the electricity going to be generated by nuclear power? Burning of coal? That's less harmful to the environment than burning petrol or diesel, is it?
Also the batteries for electric vehicles need nickel and cadmium inside - both of which are toxic and have to be shipped round the world to the car production lines. Then the batteries have to be disposed of when they're spent.
This to reduce the NOx emissions from diesel car engines. But as I understand it, about 60% of the UK's NOx emissions don't come from road transport and of the 40% that do, logic suggests that the majority will be from diesel-powered trains, HGVs, buses etc. The engine in your tow car will make no noticeable difference.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud the way that more environmentally sustainable solutions to personal transport are being looked at. But I don't think electricity is the answer, nor do I see the end of diesel for a while yet.
SamandRose said:
Sam&Rose,
Thank you and I only left school with two 'O' levels,it's easy to work out about all the extra energy what we would need in this country to keep the tree huggers happy, one of my 'O' level's was in metal work and the other was in Biology, do you know anyone that wants a Cat welding, :lol: :lol:
I'm guessing but I suspect that part of the weight of a tractor unit is added ballast to get its weight up, in which case if you could replace that ballast with additional battery packs, and you could produce and HGV with a practical range of about 200 to 250 miles. The down side would be the time it takes to recharge such a large battery, and a 250 Mile range would not suit the long haul industry. So with current technology all electric Long Haul HGV's are not yet practical - but then there is the electric train!
Read more at http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/general/53946-is-this-the-end-of-diesel-tow-cars#lbdmoBm7lUqdVSig.99
I am afraid HGV's do not carry ballast but they rely on the weight imposed by the load to keep the drive wheels from slipping on the road surface. The imposed weight is limited by law and is part of the problem in snow and ice when many simply do not have enough weight on the drive wheels to restart or complete a journey up a hill. These vehicles are often sold partly on their weight, or lack of it as the less the vehicle weighs the more it can carry. This rules out electric batteries certainly at the current weights for all but a few specialist vehicles operating in cities although because they operate at lower weights it can be done with buses.
Must admit the additional generating capacity needed if electric vehicles became the norm had passed me by but it is a point worth asking when anyone advocates them as a near complete replacement for the current traffic.
Read more at http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/general/53946-is-this-the-end-of-diesel-tow-cars#lbdmoBm7lUqdVSig.99
I am afraid HGV's do not carry ballast but they rely on the weight imposed by the load to keep the drive wheels from slipping on the road surface. The imposed weight is limited by law and is part of the problem in snow and ice when many simply do not have enough weight on the drive wheels to restart or complete a journey up a hill. These vehicles are often sold partly on their weight, or lack of it as the less the vehicle weighs the more it can carry. This rules out electric batteries certainly at the current weights for all but a few specialist vehicles operating in cities although because they operate at lower weights it can be done with buses.
Must admit the additional generating capacity needed if electric vehicles became the norm had passed me by but it is a point worth asking when anyone advocates them as a near complete replacement for the current traffic.
Raywood said:
Hello Ray,
You appear to have misinterpreted my use of the word ballast. I was not suggesting additional separate weights were added to vehicles, more the fact that for an HGV to do its job it has to have a certain minimum ULW. Manufacturers could actually produce a vehicle that is physically strong enough to do the same job but is too light for legal compliance.
By using the weight of battery packs the desired ULW could be produced.
The OP was asking about the demise of Diesel. In reality its the not about the end of diesel but more eradication of dirty Diesel combustion engines.
The Diesel problem would not exist if it were possible make an engine that did not create pollutants, or if we were able to practically collect them from the exhaust gasses as they are produced. successive versions of EURO engine compliance have moved towards this goal, but there is still a long way to go. There are processes that can actually do this but and continued development will reduce size and cost to the point where thy may be viable and can be fitted to vehicles, but at the moment they are not viable.
So what other strategies are there that could make a significant impact now?
The most draconian would be to ban all private transport and move people and goods onto public transport. But we all know how impractical this would be. But moves towards this sort of strategy are being implemented in some places, along with additional charges for entering restricted areas, as if charging additional money actually tackles the problem, as the money does not go to pollution.
The trend towards vehicles that cut their engine when the vehicle is stationary certainly does make a measurable difference in the most highly congested areas, and of course it improves city mpg figures, but does little for the long distance commuter.
Hybrids are another way to reduce pollution, but how effective they are depends on the technology used. If the electricity is harvested from a conventional IC engine, brakes and transmission, the emissions wont be as low if a an Atkinson cycle IC engine is used.
The Atkinson cycle is still an IC engine but it optimised for running at a small range of RPM, Its less effective when big RPM differences are called for, making it a worthy contender for recharging batteries.
The only other realistic proposition is Hydrogen power, but whilst there are provisions being put in place for H power, its vastly expensive and the infrastructure (Hydrogen refilling stations) only presently serve parts of London.
However as Pitpony implies; we must also consider consequence of any change to the status quo. Assuming electric power does take a leading role, then we should consider how that power is produced, and the capacity of the generating system to recharge the batteries.
In terms of present generation capacity, The National Grid has little spare capacity for the daytime and early evening demand, but overnight off peak the released capacity could be used to recharge motive batteries. Perhaps if every one converted to electric drives we may have excess demand problems, but I suspect that a 100% electric transportation system is not a practical prospect, so there is still considerable scope to extend the present electric take up.
Still the biggest drawback to all electric vehicles is range limitation and the time it takes to recharge.
The idea that by taking IC engines off the road and replacing them with electric vehicles, raises the question of are we simply moving the source of pollution from the streets to the power stations? On the face of it yes, but there are several other important factors that should be considered.
The fact we can't collect all pollution form vehicles because of the size of the equipment, but size is less of an issue at a generating stations. The way fuels is burnt also affects the amount and type of pollution created. IC engines burn under high compression which tends to produce more harmful emissions, where as fossil fuelled power stations will use lower pressure or atmospheric combustion, so a more effective pollution control could be implemented more easily at power stations.
Power stations are optimised far more precisely than most IC engines in vehicles, so the generation efficiency is higher.
Some of those issued can be mitigated further by using renewables, or even nuclear, but that produces its own problems, but because it takes place in a single locality it can be managed and controlled more easily.
However its not all positives, batteries are not 100% efficient at retaining the all the power you show them, It depends on the technology used but you are only likely to get back 80% of the power you put in.
On balance I believe it's still more efficient and cleaner to use electrical power from a central generator than to burn fossil fuel in a vehicle, and as time and technology matures the benefits will continue to grow.
The Diesel problem would not exist if it were possible make an engine that did not create pollutants, or if we were able to practically collect them from the exhaust gasses as they are produced. successive versions of EURO engine compliance have moved towards this goal, but there is still a long way to go. There are processes that can actually do this but and continued development will reduce size and cost to the point where thy may be viable and can be fitted to vehicles, but at the moment they are not viable.
So what other strategies are there that could make a significant impact now?
The most draconian would be to ban all private transport and move people and goods onto public transport. But we all know how impractical this would be. But moves towards this sort of strategy are being implemented in some places, along with additional charges for entering restricted areas, as if charging additional money actually tackles the problem, as the money does not go to pollution.
The trend towards vehicles that cut their engine when the vehicle is stationary certainly does make a measurable difference in the most highly congested areas, and of course it improves city mpg figures, but does little for the long distance commuter.
Hybrids are another way to reduce pollution, but how effective they are depends on the technology used. If the electricity is harvested from a conventional IC engine, brakes and transmission, the emissions wont be as low if a an Atkinson cycle IC engine is used.
The Atkinson cycle is still an IC engine but it optimised for running at a small range of RPM, Its less effective when big RPM differences are called for, making it a worthy contender for recharging batteries.
The only other realistic proposition is Hydrogen power, but whilst there are provisions being put in place for H power, its vastly expensive and the infrastructure (Hydrogen refilling stations) only presently serve parts of London.
However as Pitpony implies; we must also consider consequence of any change to the status quo. Assuming electric power does take a leading role, then we should consider how that power is produced, and the capacity of the generating system to recharge the batteries.
In terms of present generation capacity, The National Grid has little spare capacity for the daytime and early evening demand, but overnight off peak the released capacity could be used to recharge motive batteries. Perhaps if every one converted to electric drives we may have excess demand problems, but I suspect that a 100% electric transportation system is not a practical prospect, so there is still considerable scope to extend the present electric take up.
Still the biggest drawback to all electric vehicles is range limitation and the time it takes to recharge.
The idea that by taking IC engines off the road and replacing them with electric vehicles, raises the question of are we simply moving the source of pollution from the streets to the power stations? On the face of it yes, but there are several other important factors that should be considered.
The fact we can't collect all pollution form vehicles because of the size of the equipment, but size is less of an issue at a generating stations. The way fuels is burnt also affects the amount and type of pollution created. IC engines burn under high compression which tends to produce more harmful emissions, where as fossil fuelled power stations will use lower pressure or atmospheric combustion, so a more effective pollution control could be implemented more easily at power stations.
Power stations are optimised far more precisely than most IC engines in vehicles, so the generation efficiency is higher.
Some of those issued can be mitigated further by using renewables, or even nuclear, but that produces its own problems, but because it takes place in a single locality it can be managed and controlled more easily.
However its not all positives, batteries are not 100% efficient at retaining the all the power you show them, It depends on the technology used but you are only likely to get back 80% of the power you put in.
On balance I believe it's still more efficient and cleaner to use electrical power from a central generator than to burn fossil fuel in a vehicle, and as time and technology matures the benefits will continue to grow.
Prof,
I've got to give you 10/10 for your replies and your side of the discussion which you put forward, we had a news bulletin on electric powered buses in Nottinghamshire this week and when I saw the driver just plugging the bus in to a socket (to fuel it up) for the next shift, I just thought about all the times when I was working on nights and trying to fill up with diesel in the rain and the dark and went home covered in diesel, you might have a point about leccy powered vehicles,
I've got to give you 10/10 for your replies and your side of the discussion which you put forward, we had a news bulletin on electric powered buses in Nottinghamshire this week and when I saw the driver just plugging the bus in to a socket (to fuel it up) for the next shift, I just thought about all the times when I was working on nights and trying to fill up with diesel in the rain and the dark and went home covered in diesel, you might have a point about leccy powered vehicles,
all of this reminds me of that old song, "there was an old man who swallowed a fly" .... Diesels are indeed pollutant and today its all about nox. yesterday its was CO. the day before suphur dioxide !!! and each time some short sighted "expert" were used to facilitate these idiotic short term fixes that then highlighted old and indeed newly created dangerous mixtures of pollutants simply by the fact new technology created more of these other pollutants in larger numbers, it is so short sighted to lay blame on diesel cars solely, and by doing so we end up back with the man who swallowed a fly then a spider ect ect, each power source be it Diesel petrol Electricity battery packs ect ect brings its own pollutants in one form or another and to solely look at diesel as the main problem actually means the other get over looked until,well until the damage is done. i'm amazed nothing has been done about petrol particulates back in the 1990s it was stated that although diesel had more and indeed larger particles those from petrol cars because of their size could do more lung damage as they go deeper into ones lungs and cannot be coughed back up,unlike the majority of diesel particles... So the question is, as bad as diesel fumes NOX is, how on earth are the scientist carrying out test to quantify how many if any of the so called people of london paris ect ect are being effected not by the diesel NOX but particles from petrol cars. or do as normal have to wait till diesel is totally banned to be informed opps the air is still crap because of petrol car and battery packed electric cars ect ect.... the maths doesn't add up never has but then folk believe the best explained reason ,even if its flawed...
You are absolutely right in that even petrol cars emitt small particles and NOX. But its interesting that LEZ and ULEZs still allow older petrol cars to enter so its likely that their emissions aren't as bad as diesels. Viz Londons ULEZ will allow petrol cars up to 15 years old to enter, whilst EU 6 diesels up to 5 years old will be allowed to enter. Regarding the newer petrol cars that use direct injection the German TUV ran some tests in 2013 which showed that a simple particle filter was so effective in cleaning up their exhausts that the report stated that levels close to ambient were achieved. Whats surprising is that Governments aren't pushing the car makers to fit such devices. They are much simpler than the diesel DPF as they only catch the particles and one report stated the cost to be around €40 and they don't need complex regeneration cycles.
Heres the link to the TUV report if you want good bedtime read!http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TUV-Technical_report.pdf
Heres the link to the TUV report if you want good bedtime read!http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TUV-Technical_report.pdf
Facebook
Twitter