Just to add to my original post.
I was thinking more along the lines of the implications of car ownership in the future.
( But agree fully about environmental concerns)
Germany is basically stating that 15yr old diesel cars are finished ( well its my definition of finished if you cannot take your car into the city to go to work) Environmental / Heath? Good decision of course, no argument there.
But it seems to me that if a big EU country like Germany can do this, that there may be wider normative pressure for other EU members to start considering it as an option.
Great for the environment and I`m all for it.........
But how best to protect ones self from personal financial loss.
I`m thinking of how the UK has always seemed to set emission standards and left them at that, just allowing older cars to fade away as it were from the nations car pool. ( But if it can come up with road pricing *roads for the rich* anything is possible)
But retro fit emission systems on older diesel cars? Its OK for company car drivers, buying new, but for someone who buys his own ( or used car market) and keeps long term, what is now the safest option in trying to have a reasonable estimate of costs over say 15 years.
IMHO this applies to a lot of people taking early/retirement. How many times will the bolt on (hundreds of pounds) afterburner fail in this time, as statistics from testing must be available)
Whats going to be best for predictable ( rather than absolute) running costs? Petrol or Diesel?
|
I've not heard (yet) of anyone proposing new legislation for existing private cars.
Commercial vehicles and public transport are likely to be hit first. In London, they're busy cracking down on taxis, fwhich they can do by making it a licensing requirement: www.tfl.gov.uk/pco/taxi_emissions.shtml
And some of the taxis are really filthy - often rather old, and they didn't have cutting-edge engine technology when they were new.
It's hard to say whether the government would crack down on private cars or not. They'd probably like to, as even if old diesels are only a small percentage of the total on the road, they can produce 10 or 100 times as much emissions as a state-of-the-art modern diesel. So getting those cars to clean up their act (or taking them off the road) could produce a larger benefit than another 30% reduction in the already-very-clean new car standards. And once there's only a relatively small number of them around, they're not going to be annoying too many voters by forcing them to fit equipment.
Over 15 years, it's quite possible you'd find yourself having to fit a particulate filter. But you can get cars with particulate filters now - a Euro IV diesel with filter bought now is unlikely to be hit by further legislation in its lifetime, I would have thought.
Personally, I went for a Prius - low fuel consumption without the noise and emissions of a diesel (and being automatic was a prime consideration too). But that's probably far from the cheapest lifetime cost option.
|
Oh dear, another sucker for the Prius hybrid humbug.
The production costs of these cars are ridiculous. Have you seen the devastation caused by the production of its expensive batteries? What will you do when your expensive battery dies out of warranty? And what mpg do you REALLY get? Do you put on a mask to stop the benzine in petrol giving you cancer when you fill up? (it is a proven carcinogen, after all)
I had to laugh when David Miliband (Transport Minister?) said on Radio 2 last week that he had travelled to the studio in a Prius that gave out virtually nil emissions. So, you see, you're not the only one to fall for it.
Give me a 109g/km CO2 Aygo over a 109g/km CO2 Prius any day of the week!
|
I seem to remember similar stories when cats first hit the scene, "Every car of XX age will have to be retro fitted with a cat".
It did'nt happen in this country and I doubt this will either, sleep well, don't have nightmares. ;O)
|
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Bob Geldof and Bono, I don't give any money to foreign charity, but I do know that the cost of a single one of these environmental contraptions such as the particle trap or Prius's system could probably save many many lives in some countries.
In some countries a whole family will toil all day every day and end up too hungry to feed their own children due to crop failure, well, that may be their bad luck, yet people here will get some sort of smug 'kick' out of buying a Prius or AAA rated dishwasher, and wasting hundreds or thousands of pounds on materials, energy and other resources in the process.
|
>>Well said Ashok I agree with you. All this CO2 stuff is getting a bore.<<
I agree too - it certainly is what they are doing in the USA where a number of states have banned diesel totally because of the damage diesel fumes do.
The USA are obviouly on the same thread as you guys - way to go !!!!!
|
>>Well said Ashok I agree with you. All this CO2 stuff is getting a bore.<< I agree too - it certainly is what they are doing in the USA where a number of states have banned diesel totally because of the damage diesel fumes do. The USA are obviouly on the same thread as you guys - way to go !!!!!
This is not what I meant at all. Modern diesel engines are perfectly clean, not like old buses ans trains.
If the US are banning diesel cars it is because they do not make any. I have been to the US, and could not help but notice what huge gas gusling cars and SUV's they drive, even for the shortist distance. When my wife an I went for a walk in a town in Arizona, people looked at us as if we were idiots.
|
|
|
|
I've just noticed the !!!!!!!, you have wound me up you naughty type's'.
|
"Do you put on a mask to stop the benzine in petrol giving you cancer when you fill up?"
I wouldn't get too excited about that - the benzene spec for petrol these days is very tight (1ppm IIRC).
--
RichardW
Is it illogical? It must be Citroen....
|
>>I've just noticed the !!!!!!!, you have wound me up you naughty type's'.<<
Yes sorry quizman - It was just meant as friendly banter - in agreement with what you were saying generally - and a sarcastic dig at the US approach to diesels and the huge volumes of CO2 they generate overall - especially with their gas guzzlers - No offence intended at all.
|
Quote: >>>Anyone who is worried about the emissions of any modern car, needs to GET A LIFE! big time.
There are far more important issues at home and abroad than this tosh.<<<
The problem of emissions is not tosh, but I do agree there are more important issues, such as the inescapable fact that oil is a finite resource that will run out or become become in short supply because someone else (e.g. China) wants it.
Another far more important issue is the terrible death and injury toll on the roads around the world, which probably exceed the number of people who die from starvation each year.
|
My own view for a long time has been that the diesel engine is the future as far as the internal combustion engine is concerned. The trend has been more or less constant since its introduction of heavy lorries in the 1930's. Heavy lorries, then buses, then medium and light trucks, farm tractors, then vans, then cars and this year the Le Mans winner was a diesel!
The spark ignition (as with petrol) engine would become on the rise again if hydrogen as a fuel ever becomes a commercial reality. A push for hydrogen powered I,C, engines could run alongside any roll-out of fuel-cell cars, that would, ideally, use the same fuel.
|
>>No offence intended at all.
None taken old boy.
Most of my posts are meant with a bit of humour, but written down they sometimes come over differently.
|
"Anyone who is worried about the emissions of any modern car, needs to GET A LIFE! big time.
There are far more important issues at home and abroad than this tosh."
Cheers Ashok. Permit me to illustrate why I do take an interest. I have asthma, which can become acute from time to time - my latest trip in an ambulance was in late September. I've just missed over a week of work because a of stupid, piddling chest infection that would cause some people to grumble for a few days, but reduced me to struggling to get up the stairs at home and being out of breath for a good five minutes after I get there. That's not a bid for sympathy, just an occasional fact of life for me. Thankfully it doesn't happen all the time and the upside is that I can do a great imitation of Muttley, the dog from Wacky Races ...
Anyway, I went back to work today and parked about a quarter mile from the office. The street I was on is an arterial route with a flyover crossing the motorway, which also has on- and off-slips. As I walked over the bridge, the combination of traffic fumes from the street and the motorway was so choking to me, it triggered a coughing fit that left me literally gagging in the middle of the street, so violently that I thought I was going to throw up. I forced myself onwards to get further from the heaviest traffic flow and detour down a side street to get my breath back. I had to just stand there for a bit, as I couldn't walk on immediately in case I keeled over from the dizziness. Took the shine right off returning to work.
I live on a hill in the sticks for a reason - I couldn't cope with the traffic fumes of the city. I couldn't even work there full time, let alone live there. So, although you may feel I need to GET A LIFE! big time, personally I'll be happy to hang on to the one I have.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
|
Have the causes of asthma been determined yet? I thought the high rate on Tristan da Cunha throws doubt on the effects of pollution. Or was that St Helena? Somewhere in the Atlantic.
|
|
Diet and man made fibres. Rid the house of carpets.
|
If we're talking polution, then check this link out. Sure has been in other threads but if this is a true picture of the environment due to battery production pollution for the Prius... well I suppose as long as it's not in the drivers' backyard.
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news....0
But lets not forget mobile phones used to use nickel so we've all contributed to this. But a Prius will have a bit more nickel.
I do wonder what the costs for replacing the batteries in the Prius will be - and they will need replacing. Lots of threads on here about Mondeo TDCI repair costs. Wonder what how the battery costs will compare? Remember nick type batterie have a "memory" and constant charging without full discharge not good.
|
Dietary changes haven't made any difference sadly, but thanks for thinking of it. There isn't a single carpet in the house! All wooden floors. Exhaust fumes always go for me, as do aerosols, strong perfume, dust, smoke (I only go to the pub in the south of Ireland where there is a smoking ban - roll on April here in the North!) and so on. I find the exhaust fumes from biodiesel much easier to cope with than those of petrol or diesel, eg I can reverse with the windows open without reacting to any fumes that blow in. Can't do that on mineral diesel. Petrol's worse again, which is why I like it when I'm at the head of the convoy when out on a trike run.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
The great irony is that 'diesel' fuel (appropriated from it's inventor)
was never intended as the fuel for Diesel engines, that honour was meant for
vegetable oil . When Diesel engines are finally designed to the inventor's
original 'spec' then parhaps the NOX/particulates argument will go away
Diesel fuel is filthy because it's derived from petroleum
~woodbines
|
We hear lots of complaints about diesels - probably because you can see the smoke.
We never see anyone complaining about the additives they put into petrol to replace the lead they used to use! For health problems it is probably the petrol engine which should be banned!
|
All the research I have read on the web suggests otherwise. Diesel does produce less CO2 liter for litre against petrol engines but is far more damaging to your health than petrol. There is a common myth as well that I read on here that benzene is far more concentrated in petrol and again all the reading I have done with the epa and equivalent bodies suggests differently.
I attach one article for reference.
www.scorecard.org/env-releases/def/hap_diesel.html
I am not for one minute suggesting that petrol fumes do not harm you - I am just suggesting that diesel pumps out fa more - both cancer causing and non cancer causing pollutants
Diesel is having an easy ride in the Eu currently because their focus is on CO2.
Removing lead from petrol was done because of the damage it could do to childrens brain devlopment - it was not replaced with something equally dangerous - it was removed because it was damaging in the first instance.
I'm not sure your petrol argument Ian is well founded but loo forward to your response if you think I am wrong.
|
I'm not sure I'd lay much store in that site. It's one of those American "tree hugging" sites and seems a bit out of date with the latest Euro emissions and other regulations for diesel engines.
Research suggests that cigarettes are more polluting than diesel exhaust. www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6312
|
The same new scientist web site had the following to say:-
"From a single set of particles, you could find 150 different major chemicals on their surfaces," says Holgate. Finding out whether these chemicals are toxic and whether different sizes of particles are responsible for health problems is vital if industry is to find the best way to improve fuels and engines, Holgate says. "If they knew the toxic fraction, they could do it," he says.
Filtering effect
A common source of particulates is diesel engines, says Tony Burgess of the Combustion Research Group at University College, London. Particles measuring tens of micrometres and less are formed when combustion of the diesel is incomplete and the fuel does not have enough oxygen to burn efficiently.
In May, a second COMEAP study found that cutting levels of fine particles by five per cent could increase life expectancy by between three and 6.5 months for a million people vulnerable to their effects.
Strangely enough it seem to agree with the American tree huggers !!
|
As I understand it, burning petrol produces smaller less vsisble particles (PM 25s) than diesel (PM 5s and PM10s).
The petrol particles are less visible but the jury is still out as to what damage they may (or may not) do when lodged deeper in our respiratory systems than PM 5s and PM10S).
|
Quick search produced this among others - source is Australia so probably reasonably robust.
www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/12...l
Having read this would you want to live, and bring up a family, near a major road?
Diesels get the attention because the man in the street can see the smoke, the things that cause the most harm are generally the things you cannot see (e.g. asbestos is dangerous because of the fibres you cannot see - and I have lost a few friends to it).
|
|
|
|
|
