# Scrap Diesel cars



## woodpig (17 Feb 2017)

Looks like the UK is starting to get serious about getting rid of Diesel cars:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38931671


----------



## novocaine (17 Feb 2017)

is it reelection time already?


----------



## lurker (17 Feb 2017)

Maybe he would be better to get his own house in order first. London transport should get rid of all their diesel buses 
I think I read somewhere recently that lorries & buses were resonsible for around 80% of emissions in cities


----------



## woodpig (17 Feb 2017)

lurker":20my1zhe said:


> I think I read somewhere recently that lorries & buses were resonsible for around 80% of emissions in cities



Not according to this.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... data-shows


----------



## lurker (17 Feb 2017)

woodpig":1v3icfhm said:


> lurker":1v3icfhm said:
> 
> 
> > I think I read somewhere recently that lorries & buses were resonsible for around 80% of emissions in cities
> ...



I think thats comparing new buses & new cars, but thanks for pionting it out

I might be wrong but but judging form what my eyes are telling me old buses & trucks are spewing out visible filth


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Feb 2017)

I seem to recall a big hoo-ha a few years ago concerning the mandatory fitting of catalytic converters to new vehicle exhausts - at great expense - for the specific purpose of reducing pollution. Did they turn out to be a load of bullocks or something?

This whole debate about 'dirty diesel cars' has a whiff of environmentalist virtue signalling about it. Anybody genuinely trying to address pollution in cities would look to reduce the use of internal combustion engines across the piece (good luck with that one!). The targeting of private cars just looks like a tactic to pick off the easy victims rather than address the problem as a whole.


----------



## Keithie (17 Feb 2017)

lol...but we bought our two diesel cars because the government told us it was better for the environment ...where's my compensation...I'm totally devastated that I've been damaging the environment because of the advice the government gave me!

That aside, surely this is just the latest smoke & mirrors thing? Uk needs to respond to EU rules on us failing to meet pollution standards. Uk needs to present an action plan. Once we're out of the EU we wont need to comply with the rules or implement any such plan.

If global economies (governments or corporates) gave a hoot about environmentalism things would be very different...but politics is politcs and money is money.


----------



## woodpig (17 Feb 2017)

Cheshirechappie":3nujdvzx said:


> This whole debate about 'dirty diesel cars' has a whiff of environmentalist virtue signalling about it.


Hardly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ar-UK.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... roads.html


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Feb 2017)

Cheshirechappie":19xt9w81 said:


> I seem to recall a big hoo-ha a few years ago concerning the mandatory fitting of catalytic converters to new vehicle exhausts - at great expense - for the specific purpose of reducing pollution. Did they turn out to be a load of bullocks or something?



I did read a long while ago that it was thought that the mining of the platinum used in them caused pro rata more pollution than the catalytic converter saved in its lifetime.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Feb 2017)

woodpig":j870aeyu said:


> Cheshirechappie":j870aeyu said:
> 
> 
> > This whole debate about 'dirty diesel cars' has a whiff of environmentalist virtue signalling about it.
> ...



Why only target cars, though? Are delivery vans, HGVs, buses, taxis, portable and emergency generators, construction equipment and so on not contributing to the problem? Why victimise one group of internal combustion engine users, but not the others?


----------



## woodpig (17 Feb 2017)

Cheshirechappie":15dwpext said:


> Why only target cars, though? Are delivery vans, HGVs, buses, taxis, portable and emergency generators, construction equipment and so on not contributing to the problem? Why victimise one group of internal combustion engine users, but not the others?



https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... data-shows

Car drivers have a choice of petrol or Diesel. HGV and bus drivers don't. :wink:


----------



## stuartpaul (17 Feb 2017)

woodpig":25jslbuv said:


> Cheshirechappie":25jslbuv said:
> 
> 
> > Why only target cars, though? Are delivery vans, HGVs, buses, taxis, portable and emergency generators, construction equipment and so on not contributing to the problem? Why victimise one group of internal combustion engine users, but not the others?
> ...


And whilst in remains overall cheaper for me to run my diesel that's what I'll continue to do. However, I suspect the cowardly politicians will simply tax diesels off the road in due course.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Feb 2017)

woodpig":81uqm1ds said:


> Cheshirechappie":81uqm1ds said:
> 
> 
> > Why only target cars, though? Are delivery vans, HGVs, buses, taxis, portable and emergency generators, construction equipment and so on not contributing to the problem? Why victimise one group of internal combustion engine users, but not the others?
> ...



Not true. There's no immutable rule that either HGVs or buses must be powered by diesel engines. There's petrol, LPG, electrics (milk floats!). Many military vehicles during WW2 were petrol-engine, even including the biggest tanks and tank transporters, so as to avoid confusion over fuelling and reduce supply problems. No reason at all why modern larger vehicles couldn't be. Except fuel efficiency.....

I rather agree with Stuartpaul. The cowardly politicians are going after car drivers because they're an easy target, not because it will solve the problem. Hence - environmentalist virtue-signalling, rather that a comprehensive range of measures to tackle the problem properly.


----------



## woodpig (17 Feb 2017)

Cheshirechappie":vvdl4vxp said:


> Not true. There's no immutable rule that either HGVs or buses must be powered by diesel engines. There's petrol, LPG, electrics (milk floats!). Many military vehicles during WW2 were petrol-engine, even including the biggest tanks and tank transporters, so as to avoid confusion over fuelling and reduce supply problems. No reason at all why modern larger vehicles couldn't be.



Yes it is true. HGV and Bus drivers don't have a choice, they drive what they're told to!

They are slowly building electric buses but don't expect to see petrol trucks anytime soon.

Diesel car drivers can choose to stop driving Diesel cars when they buy their next new car. :wink:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Feb 2017)

You're confusing 'drivers' with 'vehicle owners and operators'. If gummint legislates to exclude diesel-engine vehicles from cities, then vehicle owners and operators will demand non-diesel powered options, and manufacturers will react accordingly. 

By the way, government hasn't put forward any legislation to ban or over-tax diesel cars (yet). The current debate is just people flying kites.


----------



## woodpig (17 Feb 2017)

Cheshirechappie":39has1wd said:


> By the way, government hasn't put forward any legislation to ban or over-tax diesel cars (yet). The current debate is just people flying kites.



Don't hold your breath (unless you drive a diesel) higher taxes will be on the way for Diesels soon enough.

A car dealer on TV last night said the resale value of Diesels has dropped and diesel sales of new cars is also down according to the dealer where I just bought my new car.


----------



## woodpig (17 Feb 2017)

There's a petition here:

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/page/s ... iesel-cars

For anyone that values health above a few extra mpg.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Feb 2017)

woodpig":3bz0hkb5 said:


> There's a petition here:
> 
> https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/page/s ... iesel-cars
> 
> For anyone that values health above a few extra mpg.



Greenpeace, eh? We can be absolutely sure there won't be the merest whiff of environmentalist virtue-signalling there, then!


----------



## Trevsf1 (17 Feb 2017)

We all know why these guys make dont make an impact http://waterpoweredcar.com/[url].
...ere bought by Shell Oil
The power of the $$$


----------



## t8hants (17 Feb 2017)

Ah Greenpeace who campaigned so that we all adopted unleaded petrol, one of the most toxic fluids in general use.
Based on a scientific report allegedly sponsored by the oil companies that showed lead levels in the blood streams of inner city kids was about the same as that endured by the Anglo Saxon's therefore it must be because of traffic pollution and not elderly paint and plumbing.
It is also entirely coincidental that since the adoption of unleaded petrol insect life and bird numbers have taken a downward trend.
Perfectly good arable land taken out of food production for solar farms, but the replacement food is now shipped or flown in from Asia.
If the greens ever have an idea that is good for the environment and public health it will be a first.


----------



## Keithie (17 Feb 2017)

I remember when, if you drove a fair distance, car bonnets and grilles and even windscreens used to be covered in flies and other insects.

What happened?

is that due to diesel and unleaded fuels or something else like gm crops?


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2017)

Cheshirechappie":25jtdsrf said:


> I..... has a whiff of environmentalist virtue signalling about it. ......


 :lol: 
Neat little bit of Telegraph cliche simplistic nonsense soundbite there! 
How about "politically correct" or has that gone out of fashion on the right?
You can tell what paper a person reads by the cliches he echoes!

If you are a "science sceptic" about climate change, lead pollution, deisel pollution, you name it, you can believe what you like but it means you are almost certainly quite wrong about everything and you will have difficulty in understanding the world.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Feb 2017)

Keithie":1cx5w93c said:


> I remember when, if you drove a fair distance, car bonnets and grilles and even windscreens used to be covered in flies and other insects.
> 
> What happened?
> 
> is that due to diesel and unleaded fuels or something else like gm crops?



Aerodynamic vehicles.


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2017)

t8hants":rid0zzfe said:


> Ah Greenpeace who campaigned so that we all adopted unleaded petrol, one of the most toxic fluids in general use.
> Based on a scientific report allegedly sponsored by the oil companies that showed lead levels in the blood streams of inner city kids was about the same as that endured by the Anglo Saxon's therefore it must be because of traffic pollution and not elderly paint and plumbing.
> It is also entirely coincidental that since the adoption of unleaded petrol insect life and bird numbers have taken a downward trend.
> Perfectly good arable land taken out of food production for solar farms, but the replacement food is now shipped or flown in from Asia.
> If the greens ever have an idea that is good for the environment and public health it will be a first.


I agree - lead is good for you. Ask a Trumptard!

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... level-lead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

nb it wasn't Greenpeace it was the scientific community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson


----------



## Beau (17 Feb 2017)

woodpig":3h5svlc6 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3h5svlc6 said:
> 
> 
> > Why only target cars, though? Are delivery vans, HGVs, buses, taxis, portable and emergency generators, construction equipment and so on not contributing to the problem? Why victimise one group of internal combustion engine users, but not the others?
> ...



Yep 

Just been through buying a pickup truck for work. Settled on an Isuzu Dmax as it was supposed to be cleanest most efficient of the options. Had to get rid of it as the filters used don't like my driving style as I do a lot of short journeys. When looking for an alternative looked for a petrol one but they simply don't exist in the current UK market and ended up getting a much older truck without the filter but I know this is a bad thing for the environment  

Sure in the not too distant future electric commercials will be viable but sadly not yet.


----------



## themackay (17 Feb 2017)

I get a whiff of an excuse for more revenue raising here


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2017)

themackay":25pxumt0 said:


> I get a whiff of an excuse for more revenue raising here


You mean a good reason for raising tax levels? I agree. 
Keep it simple; increased revenue could be fed into alternative energy resources, so it'd be win, win.


----------



## Beau (17 Feb 2017)

themackay":3eci6qck said:


> I get a whiff of an excuse for more revenue raising here



Our city's air quality is dreadful and something needs to be done. Yes what we have been recommended to do has been changed a few times over the years but I think it just follows the the scientific recommendations of the time. Recon our air pollution would be one hell of a lot worse it we did not have unleaded fuel, catalytic converters DPFs etc.


----------



## themackay (17 Feb 2017)

Jacob":juiaay2o said:


> themackay":juiaay2o said:
> 
> 
> > I get a whiff of an excuse for more revenue raising here
> ...


I would like to think that would be the case but this government has a poor track record on alternative energy.


----------



## DiscoStu (17 Feb 2017)

The reason Petrol vans and lorries don't exist is because it was more economical to buy diesel. I bought a Land Rover Discovery in 2004 there was a petrol option but they sold almost zero because it was much cheaper to have diesel. If the government didn't want us to have diesel then they should have made it more expensive and then manufacturers would make petrol vans etc. I recently bought a new Discovery and there wasn't even a petrol option (in the UK) but in other countries there is. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## graduate_owner (17 Feb 2017)

The Telegraph article which stated that London's Mayor would be introducing hydrogen powered buses was interesting though. If it is now realistic to burn hydrogen in an internal combustion engine safely ( I suspect fuel storage is the issue) then surely that is the way to proceed. Possibly an electric vehicle with hydrogen back up? So where do we get the hydrogen from? Oh yes, electrolysis using off peak surplus energy, especially surplus energy from those unreliable sources such as wind and solar farms. Pollution free production of hydrogen, burning in a vehicle to produce pollution free water as an exhaust gas. What what? Now we can't possibly have that, can we? Pie in the sky stuff. New fangled nonsense. This government couldn't possibly back research into that. Let's go back to good old diesel. You know where you are with tried and trusted technology. Ah well, we can always dream. I feel very lucky to live about 40 miles from the nearest city.

Just one point though, if the government, any government, were serious about reducing pollution, they would be pushing the electric car option more than they currently (currently - sorry, couldn't resist) do. Electric vehicles are just too expensive and battery replacement likewise. We need drastic government financial incentives but that costs money - but taxing the diesel motorist is easier and raises money instead.


K


----------



## t8hants (17 Feb 2017)

Jacob":35zuz07b said:


> t8hants":35zuz07b said:
> 
> 
> > Ah Greenpeace who campaigned so that we all adopted unleaded petrol, one of the most toxic fluids in general use.
> ...



Never said lead was good for you, but unleaded is no better. When I was doing my nurse training we were told quite categorically ingesting unleaded fuel will cause stomach tumors eventually, so no more siphoning.
It was the fuel industry that wanted unleaded because there is more profit in it.

Asbestos, engine oil, old tyres are things that we do not want littering about the countryside but thanks to the greens sacred mantra of 'The polluter must pay' thats what we get. Instead of the more sensible, this stuff is nasty, so lets reward people for their safe disposal. Increased fly tipping and inappropriate disposal is a direct result of green policies-.
Bio fuel - thousands of acres of forest cut down.
Just as we get to the point where a car can last a reasonable time they want to scrap thousands prematurely because they don't like the engine, no mention of offering a petrol conversion. The industry will make tens of thousands of new ones, shipped halfway around the world, full of compounds of lead and mercury and other nastiness for their eco batteries and at least the inner cities will breath easier, but no one will look at the overall environmental costs


----------



## Jacob (17 Feb 2017)

t8hants":7ku4sut8 said:


> ......
> It was the fuel industry that wanted unleaded because there is more profit in it.....


No it was the health industry who wanted unleaded because lead is highly toxic. 
Unleaded is no doubt toxic too especially if ingested, but much less so without lead and less environmental lead pollution. 
It is very well known and documented. It's been known about from early days. 
it's science, like it or not, you can't just choose what to believe.
I agree about bio fuel - a disaster in the making.
NB Fly tipping is hugely decreased . It's a serious offence nowadays


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Feb 2017)

Fly tipping decreased? In our area it's probably running at five times what it used to.


Fly tipping statistics (2013/14), Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

A 20% increase in fly tipping over 2012/13 figures, with Local Authorities dealing with 852,000 incidents, two thirds of which were household waste.
The most common place for fly tipping is highways (47%), however the last year has seen a 15% increase in tipping on footpaths, bridleways and alleyways.
Approximately a third of all incidents consisted of small van loads of waste material.
Local authorities estimated cost of clearance of fly tipping at £45.2 million, a 24% increase on 2012/13.

Or a more up to date figure from Surrey

District councillor Alun Jones said fly-tipping was already a big problem in Surrey, having risen 40% in the past year ...


----------



## Lons (17 Feb 2017)

woodpig":2r72hmo0 said:


> Yes it is true. HGV and Bus drivers don't have a choice, they drive what they're told to!
> 
> They are slowly building electric buses but don't expect to see petrol trucks anytime soon.
> 
> Diesel car drivers can choose to stop driving Diesel cars when they buy their next new car. :wink:



There are a large percentage of drivers who very definitely don't have a choice although I don't know the figures without research these are the company car drivers who have a choice of diesel or diesel. My son being one of them with a new diesel Insignia just a few weeks ago.


----------



## graduate_owner (17 Feb 2017)

I seem to remember a radio article saying the guy (American, Thomas Midgley) who invented the idea of using lead tetraethyl as an anti- knock additive also invented the use of Chloro Fluoro Carbon compounds as a refrigerant in domestic and industrial freezers to replace the use of inflammable gases. So according to this radio article, just one guy was responsible for two of the greatest pollutants of the 20th century.

K


----------



## Lons (17 Feb 2017)

DiscoStu":26no4wm5 said:


> I recently bought a new Discovery and there wasn't even a petrol option (in the UK) but in other countries there is.


Not just the Discovery Stu.

We were actively encouraged top buy diesel because it was "better for the environment" which it now apparently isn't and those who chose to do so paid a hefty premium for the diesel version in the hope it might be recovered through fuel savings. The government at the time soon realised they were losing revenue so put an extra tax on diesel fuel to make up the shortfall at a time when all other European countries were doing the opposite, still were in Spain when I was there a few months ago and diesel was, as it should be cheaper than unleaded petrol.

Manufacturers catered to the demand and as said petrol versions are sometimes not available. In may case, I bought an Audi A6 Avant in November and there are only 2 versions on sale, a 2 ltr and a 3 ltr diesel unless you buy a high powered RS version.

Like everything else from food to medical, what's recommended today is condemed tomorrow, I take everything at face value and believe nothing unless I've personally researched it to the death.

Maybe they should start taxing some of the verbal diarrhea to balance the books and spend that on environmental remedies! :wink: 

Bob


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Feb 2017)

An interesting letter from The Times today -
Before the UK government starts spending taxpayers’ money on a diesel scrappage scheme, it should tackle the heaviest polluters, transport refrigeration units (TRUs), and the fuel subsidies they receive. TRUs are secondary diesel engines used to provide cooling on the refrigerated trucks and trailers delivering food to supermarkets, restaurants and our homes. TRUs are almost entirely unregulated, and emit 93 times more nitrogen oxides and 165 times more particulate matter than the emissions limits of a new diesel car. TRUs not only cause much more pollution than cars but are entitled to run on half-price “red” diesel. So we not only tolerate their grossly disproportionate emissions but subsidise them.

Toby Peters

Visiting professor, transformational innovation for sustainability, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh


----------



## misterfish (18 Feb 2017)

I wonder how much of the original decision to push diesel engined cars was down to the test figures showing lower pollution - the figures now found to be 'modified' by manufacturers' software when tests are carried out. As this is being perceived as a fraud (with huge penalties levied on some manufacturers) then maybe the perpetrators of this fraud should be liable for the costs of a buyback scheme.

Hopefully wkth the development of better batteries and a countrywide decent rapid charging infrastructure there will be a move towards electric vehicles.

Misterfish


----------



## themackay (18 Feb 2017)

Is the problem not caused by older vehicles if new cars are as clean as they claim having said that the problem is not going to go away due to the sheer volume of traffic


----------



## Jacob (18 Feb 2017)

Lons":37j7xfld said:


> We were actively encouraged top buy diesel because it was "better for the environment" which it now apparently isn't ....b


It was "better for the environment" because of higher mpg, reliability, and being lead free. The pollution issue now overrides this. 
It's not that experts change their minds just to annoy Telegraph readers (entertaining though that is :lol: ), it's about ongoing research and development coming up with new information. 
It takes a lot of study, over a long time period, to satisfactorily prove many of these things. And new developments change the picture - electric vehicles, sustainable energy sources etc.


----------



## bugbear (18 Feb 2017)

graduate_owner":34bcep77 said:


> I seem to remember a radio article saying the guy (American, Thomas Midgley) who invented the idea of using lead tetraethyl as an anti- knock additive also invented the use of Chloro Fluoro Carbon compounds as a refrigerant in domestic and industrial freezers to replace the use of inflammable gases. So according to this radio article, just one guy was responsible for two of the greatest pollutants of the 20th century.
> 
> K



Yes - written about in some detail (and rather wittily) in A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.

BugBear


----------



## custard (18 Feb 2017)

So if you're buying a new car today should you choose petrol or diesel? If a diesel scrappage scheme was introduced (the "carrot"), surely it would be accompanied by the "stick", a material hike in diesel duty?


----------



## woodpig (18 Feb 2017)

custard":1k83endn said:


> So if you're buying a new car today should you choose petrol or diesel? If a diesel scrappage scheme was introduced (the "carrot"), surely it would be accompanied by the "stick", a material hike in diesel duty?


Diesel sales are declining thankfully.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38880019


----------



## Keithie (18 Feb 2017)

custard":3sze0rqd said:


> So if you're buying a new car today should you choose petrol or diesel? If a diesel scrappage scheme was introduced (the "carrot"), surely it would be accompanied by the "stick", a material hike in diesel duty?



If it's a car then I guess you 'should' choose electric or hybrid.


----------



## Lons (18 Feb 2017)

Jacob":2b045fv3 said:


> Lons":2b045fv3 said:
> 
> 
> > We were actively encouraged top buy diesel because it was "better for the environment" which it now apparently isn't ....b
> ...



What has reliability got to do with being better for the environment? Higher MPG still is important in any case as you're using less fuel every mile travelled, also important in respect of diminishing resources and if you really believe that these decisions are made purely on the basis of long term research to "prove" all of these "facts" then you're a bit naive. I don't read the Telegraph, or the Mail but your bias and prejudices are showing again btw. :wink: 

Decisions are often made for political, commercial and financial reasons rather than on "proven" facts and what the hell is a "proven fact" anyway when the experts are so often divided on opinion and arguing among themselves.

You can read whatever you like in published figures and statements of "fact" and I read a fairly comprehensive research paper recently where the concluding statement was.............


> We can fairly conclude that whether or not buying an EV is an environmentally friendly decision depends on where you are in the world, and how sustainable power is there. EVs are significantly more pollutant than ICEVs in production phase; but they will make up for it over the course of their usage if they run on relatively clean power. If they do not, then they are found both to pollute more and cause more deaths than ICEVs.


( EV = electric vehicle, ICEV = internal combustion) This of course looked at the bigger picture including production and disposal impact and including the environmental cost of mining and transporting the battery components which are extremely harmful to the environment and expensive to recycle.

I won't be buying an electric car any time soon, at least until we are a lot further down the road with technology. I would have bought a petrol had it been available as I cover only £5000 miles a year and am paying a premium for diesel and I would definitely consider a Hybrid petrol / electric in the type of car I like.

The jury is still out as far as I'm concerned

Bob


----------



## Jacob (18 Feb 2017)

Sorry lons wasn't particularly thinking of you when I was being sarcastic abt telegraph readers!


Lons":o47kj3ed said:


> ....
> What has reliability got to do with being better for the environment?


Last longer so less wasteful. My first diesel (Peugeot 305 van) did 250k miles (possibly more the speedo broke) before it exploded


> ...... what the hell is a "proven fact" anyway when the experts are so often divided on opinion and arguing among themselves.


Which divisions did you have in mind?


> You can read whatever you like in published figures and statements of "fact" ....


No you can't. That's the whole point. If you believe that you can believe anything - and unfortunately people do!



> Decisions are often made for political, commercial and financial reasons


yes of course. And some aren't - for instance the cost of obesity, alcohol, tobacco etc on health services is very high. Some action is taken but taxing sugar and alcohol much higher would pay for itself in no time. Similarly road speed reductions etc.


----------



## Lons (18 Feb 2017)

Jacob":amegv31r said:


> Lons":amegv31r said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



* Then by the time your van had covered 250k it had to be poluting badly if as you say technology is moving on then a newer vehicle would have been more environmentally friendly, shame on you for poluting your area. :wink: Getting old vehicles off the road is one of the main objectives is it not?

* Do some more research, divisions in all fields from food. health and environment. I'm not going to do it for you and I've already quoted one of the conclusions. Maybe you should buy a Telegraph or Daily Mail to update you Jacob.

* Well it appears you believe everything you read unless you're trolling. I believe nothing and take what I think is reasonable from all the different views. Whether right or wrong I'm not "Donald Trump" enough to think my view is the only correct one. :lol:


----------



## Jacob (18 Feb 2017)

Lons":nem8s385 said:


> ...
> * Then by the time your van had covered 250k it had to be poluting badly if as you say technology is moving on then a newer vehicle would have been more environmentally friendly, shame on you for poluting your area. ...:


Fair point! It's swings and roundabouts.



> Maybe you should buy a Telegraph or Daily Mail to update you Jacob.


I've been looking at the mail for sensible advice about immigration. Very informative! I'm sure they are just as objective and trustworthy about other issues.


----------



## Lons (18 Feb 2017)

Jacob":1mh3l6vm said:


> I've been looking at the mail for sensible advice about immigration. Very informative!



:lol: :lol: Now there's where you're going wrong Jacob! That's not the Mail it's The Express. You need to go to Specsavers. (hammer) 

Agree those articles don't help anyone. It's what you get for spending 10p


----------



## custard (18 Feb 2017)

Keithie":3vo6mq2c said:


> custard":3vo6mq2c said:
> 
> 
> > So if you're buying a new car today should you choose petrol or diesel? If a diesel scrappage scheme was introduced (the "carrot"), surely it would be accompanied by the "stick", a material hike in diesel duty?
> ...




Not that easy. I used to live in London and had a hybrid which worked fine as well as avoiding the congestion charge, if I was still in London working in my previous job I'd have an electric car. But now I live in a more rural area, furthermore as a full time furniture maker I need a large estate car. The current mileage range of electric cars, the absence of estate configurations, and the lack of rural recharging points, means electric isn't viable (yet) for my needs.

So I'm still left with the dilemma, petrol or diesel?

If I buy a diesel then I might soon find the mileage advantage eroded by higher duty, I might be prohibited from driving into London or be faced with a whopping congestion surcharge, there could be more widespread parking surcharges for diesel vehicles, the residual values might crash if the tide turns further against diesel, or any of a million other restrictions that haven't even been dreamt up yet.

On the other hand currently diesel works out cheaper, so if nothing changes that's the hands down rational financial choice.

Maybe the sensible move is to postpone buying a new car for a while until things become clearer, that or buy on some kind of short term lease deal where many of the risks are carried by a third party?


----------



## Jacob (18 Feb 2017)

Lons":sicmlpdt said:


> Jacob":sicmlpdt said:
> 
> 
> > I've been looking at the mail for sensible advice about immigration. Very informative!
> ...


Oh yes so it is! Same difference though.

Going back to the discussion; scepticism is good; science is based on scepticism; doubt everything , test everything, whatever is left may be the truth. 
But it isn't the same as cynicism. e.g. climate change "sceptics" aren't actually sceptical, they have given up thinking and are just cynical.


----------



## Beau (18 Feb 2017)

custard":mhos4cin said:


> Keithie":mhos4cin said:
> 
> 
> > custard":mhos4cin said:
> ...




Driven diesels all my life but think they they are on the way out. Last family car we bought was a petrol as modern diesels don't like doing short trips. It's not as economic as we are used to but buying SH petrol cars is way cheaper than diesel ones and as low milage users the economy is not a big deal. To improve the emissions of modern diesels they have a lot of tech and so the lovely traditional simplicity of them has gone. Don't know how long it's going to be before diesel cars are going to be using Add-blue just to improve emissions.


----------



## selectortone (18 Feb 2017)

custard":1pk4kruy said:


> ...I might be prohibited from driving into London or be faced with a whopping congestion surcharge



I used to regularly drive into central London 20 years ago. Did the same trip a while ago and vowed I would rather be boiled in oil than do it ever again.


----------



## petermillard (18 Feb 2017)

custard":1bowqp0g said:


> Not that easy. I used to live in London and had a hybrid which worked fine as well as avoiding the congestion charge, if I was still in London working in my previous job I'd have an electric car. But now I live in a more rural area, furthermore as a full time furniture maker I need a large estate car. The current mileage range of electric cars, the absence of estate configurations, and the lack of rural recharging points, means electric isn't viable (yet) for my needs...


Tell me about it. I looked into this last year and the only small electric van worth considering (for me) is the Nissan NV200e, but like 60-odd percent of London homes, I don't have off-road parking, so would either be using public 'slow-post' chargers (of which there are a few, to be fair) or drive half an hour or so to a Nissan main dealer in the hope that I could use their (one) rapid charger. The £2K installation charge (commercial innit?) to fit a charging point in my workshop makes that a non-starter, even if I could persuade the landlords to let me park on the loading bay overnight to charge. And all this for small van that does ~80 miles (real world) to a charge. No matter how much I'd like my immediate environment to have cleaner air, that's a tough sell, but when you factor in my low mileage and the average lease cost for an electric Nissan being roughly £90/month more expensive than the equivalent diesel version, it goes right out of the window.

Cheers, Pete


----------



## Lons (18 Feb 2017)

Jacob":3h75j6ic said:


> Oh yes so it is! Same difference though.
> 
> Going back to the discussion; scepticism is good; science is based on scepticism; doubt everything , test everything, whatever is left may be the truth.
> But it isn't the same as cynicism. e.g. climate change "sceptics" aren't actually sceptical, they have given up thinking and are just cynical.



Are you saying I'm a cynic then Jacob or just reading from an encyclopedia? 
I certainly have never said I don't accept climate change or the reasons put forward, what I do say is don't believe everything I read as being absolute fact.


----------



## worn thumbs (18 Feb 2017)

Call me cynical if you like.The only thing the dealers are interested in is getting customers signed up to personal lease schemes.The manufacturers will build cars that meet the standards called for.The enthusiasm for electric vehicles overlooks the need for a lot of extra generating capacity simply to meet current needs.Has there been a proposal for a new power station that didn't cause a protest movement?

I have been in a city recently when environmental conditions caused a bit of a haze and the official position was that those with respiratory problems should keep away and so should diesel cars.All very well in its way.At least one European city limited it's ban to vehicles over twenty years old and reference to the table at https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/ld.php shows how much cleaner current Euro 6 engines are than those from 2000.
What alternative has better environmental credentials,taking account of the penalties of extracting minerals for batteries and catalysts?


----------



## Lons (18 Feb 2017)

Beau":336dngb7 said:


> Don't know how long it's going to be before diesel cars are going to be using Add-blue just to improve emissions.



They already are surely. My 2016 Audi A6 uses it as does the Merc C220 2015 that my mate has just bought. I just assumed it was for emissions reasons. :? 

I'm a 4000 - 5000 miles pa user so a diesel doesn't make financial sense for me but no choice being the make, size and style I want. We did have a choice for my wifes car and chose petrol, the diesel version of that would have been an extra £2300 in any case.

We have to use cars as the bus service through our village is very poor but the environmental footprint of my car is relatively small due to the low mileage and as I keep my cars up to a maximum 3 years old they are also clean compared to older models. 
Compare that with Jacobs boast that his Peugeot diesel van covered 250k before "exploding". It would take me at least 50 years to cover that mileage and with much cleaner vehicles. Might as well compare apples and pears which is why I question everything before accepting what's written.

Bob


----------



## Jacob (18 Feb 2017)

Lons":y07wkl58 said:


> ..... what I do say is don't believe everything I read as being absolute fact.


Quite right too. 
In science there are no absolute facts - the nearest you get is the best hypothesis, or working theory/description.
Only religions claim absolute truth.


----------



## Lons (18 Feb 2017)

Jacob":3f76c3q4 said:


> Lons":3f76c3q4 said:
> 
> 
> > ..... what I do say is don't believe everything I read as being absolute fact.
> ...



That's why I'm not religious Jacob.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Feb 2017)

I have read that the least polluting vehicle is the one you already have - whatever pollution it causes while it still runs is still less than the pollution caused by the manufacture of the vehicle you replace it with ...


----------



## Deejay (19 Feb 2017)

Afternoon all

Any petro-chemical engineers on here?

I believe that diesel oil is a by-product of the process which distils crude oil. By that, I mean a component which is automatically produced, regardless whether or not it is wanted.

If this is true, what will we do with it if we all stop using it for road fuel?

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Feb 2017)

The price of heating oil would drop. Power generation?


----------



## Duncan A (19 Feb 2017)

A month or two back I read about a report by a reputable (unbiased?) body which had concluded that a large part of the particulates in urban air was from the wear of tyres, brakes, and the road surface - and that diesels were contributory but not necessarily the greatest factor.
More information needed! Unfortunately, politics will probably drive the decision as much as scientific findings


----------



## woodpig (19 Feb 2017)

Duncan A":1lcnaekj said:


> A month or two back I read about a report by a reputable (unbiased?) body which had concluded that a large part of the particulates in urban air was from the wear of tyres, brakes, and the road surface - and that diesels were contributory but not necessarily the greatest factor.
> More information needed! Unfortunately, politics will probably drive the decision as much as scientific findings


Quite likely. I don't think they included things like tyre wear and pollution when they promoted diesel cars.

The last time I had new tyres the fitter said that front wheel drive diesel cars get through tyres a lot quicker than petrol engines. He said this was due to Diesel engines being heavier than petrol.

It's only a matter of time...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ution-case


----------



## Lons (19 Feb 2017)

Well there's no question that extra taxation will appear and be taken up by numerous councils even if just another easy way of extracting cash under a "green" banner, just as they do from camera vans but it's also quite likely that there will be delays until after Brexit when "adjustments" can be made to legislation.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Feb 2017)

I know that a few years ago a major study on comparative vehicle pollution was based on the premise that all cars had one person in them and all buses and coaches were full - so the per capita pollution was dramatically skewed. (Possibly by Greenpeace - they seem to have an unfortunate habit of making figures say what they wish them to.)


----------



## Jacob (19 Feb 2017)

Lons":1sdkhw6j said:


> ... another easy way of extracting cash under a "green" banner, just as they do from camera vans ....


It's a bit tedious this endless cynicism. You do need to look at facts and not just groan about things you don't like - can't be doing you any good!
Speed cameras are highly effective in reducing speed, not just a cunning wheeze to extract cash. If that was the case they wouldn't put them in obvious speed problem places (built up areas 30 mph) they'd put them on safe main roads where everybody is slightly over the limit. 
I think everybody who gets caught (including me) usually admits that the cameras were well sited in places where people should be driving slower, and as a result they drive more slowly in future.
Green issues are real issues and reductions in pollution saves lives and health bills improves quality of life etc. enormously.
I don't see the point in just not believing anything you don't like, especially if taken up by Greenpeace.


----------



## Keithie (19 Feb 2017)

I realise everyone has their own perspective on quasi-facts (unless you know a lot of maths you're gonna find facts tricky ...can you prove 1+1=2 ? ...in every scenario ? .. if so, you've not got any rigour) and how they perceive stuff like science and morality and how we are possibly trashing the planet for future generations.

But why not chill...who will know what will be ...this might be rubbish : 

http://inhabitat.com/groundbreaking-mag ... -10-years/

but it might not be.

The whole 'your car polluted more than mine' or 'your car costs more to run than mine' is a laugh...who gives a hoot ? Just get what you reckon will suit you best for the next decade or so.

p.s. Dont think Ironman is just silly fun..its not much of an extrapoltation from 'current science' ...where do you think they get the ideas from? )

edit : after a bit of digging it seems MIT lost their funding to progress fusion (why?) but good old South Korea (wonder who helps them to accentuate the north / south divide!) have sustained over a minute of high productivity fusion..

http://inhabitat.com/south-korea-sets-t ... an-energy/

so maybe France's $40bn planned fusion reactor will be smaller, cheaper, sooner?

http://www.electronicspecifier.com/powe ... pproaching


----------



## Lons (20 Feb 2017)

Jacob":3ap5s41f said:


> Lons":3ap5s41f said:
> 
> 
> > ... another easy way of extracting cash under a "green" banner, just as they do from camera vans ....
> ...



*That's simply bullsh*t Jacob* and more evidence that you just accept what you read as fact. Instead of accusing other people of being cinical you should look back at some of your own posts over the last few years. I put it to you it's the pot calling the kettle black. (hammer) 

Firstly I am a supporter of speed cameras, not a cinic. They are effective but the proviso to that is that they should be sited appropriately in accident blackspots, to save lives. Whilst this is usually but not always the case with fixed cameras, the same can not be said of mobile vans although I can only speak from personal experience of course.

Not far from me there are 2 locations where a mobile van has been parked no less than 23 times in the 18 months up to December 2016, ( it was there again last week). Neither of those locations have had a single incident never mind a serious accident in the last 5 years whilst the opposite is true of the 60 mile stretch of a main A road running through our village which has had 9 serious accidents, including one with 3 fatalities over that 18 month period during which the van was deployed on *only 2 occasions*. When asked for reasons, the answers received are scripted and evasive. The road has some serious speeding issues and parts are winding and hilly with blind corners which makes it perfect racing ground for the numerous motorcycle hoards every summer. It also has more than it's far share of HGVs, tractors and slow doddering pensioners on the market garden routes.

Our county councillor obtained the figures from the authorities, with difficulty, as we have had a campaign for years for the vans to be sited instead where they are likely to save lives, they do after all call them "safety cameras" do they not! They don't take a blind bit of notice because the revenue they get from those 2 sites is obscene, ( I know the rough amount but can't prove it so won't say).

To put that into perspective: Of course the motorists were over the speed limit, no dispute but 93% of those fined were under 35mph, ( a friend was caught a few months ago doing 33 ). One location is just before you reach the end on the 30 limit and immediately before you must accelerate to join a busy dual carriageway and the other out of town where there are only 3 houses well set back from the road and almost no pedestrian traffic. The road is also equivalent to 3 lanes wide btw. Many local residents believe that stretch of road should be 50 rather than 30mph.

I found out last week that the council which currently funds the vans to the tune of £110,000 is withdrawing that despite the fact it receives 17% of the fines back and always receives more than it pays but when talking to a policeman friend a few days ago he told me that another partnership in the north where that happened they immediately doubled the number of vans and employed extra staff to cover the shortfall in revenue. He works for that force and I have no reason to disbelieve him.

I got a ticket 46 years ago for doing 33 in a 30 limit, I contested it and it was thrown out, I have never had one since and try very hard to adhere to the limits but can't say that's 100% as it's easy in a modern car to go too fast.

The above is fact not media reporting and in my area, I suggest you look closely at your own before believing everything you read on the internet of whatever rag it is that you subscribe to.

Bob

Edit: Who the hell mentioned Greenpeace - certainly not me! :roll: and thanks for concerning yourself with my welbeing but no need, I'm in the best of health thank you! :wink:


----------



## beech1948 (20 Feb 2017)

I have always found that the best way to solve a problem is by taking the time to DEFINE the problem in as brief a way as possible. Once defined then the solutions come more easily.

The current definition revolves around pollution from motor vehicles mainly in cities. Thus the problem could is best defined as How might we make cities cleaner and more pleasant places. Several ideas come to mind eg wear a mask..uggh. Only use hydrogen cars....dangerous. and many more.

However, the most obvious and simplest solution is to ban all internal combustion engine motor vehicles from the cities for a 3 mile radius from the centre. 

What would replace them:-

Golf carts
Milk floats
Electric bikes
Electric cars
Electric walk ways
Walking on roads and pavements
Push bikes

Exceptions might be needed for very heavy loads.

Most people can easily walk 3 miles in 1 hour. A golf cart would do that in about 25 minutes. Trains would still be used but buses would be disallowed.

As a solution this has many benefits but is probably too simple for the body politic and unpalatable for the companies selling fuel. 

It is after all a matter of WILL and not just idle chatter as an excuse for confusion and no action.


----------



## lurker (20 Feb 2017)

The mention of "other country's" fusion research;
You might be surprised to know that the UK lead the way in some respects.
http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/


----------

