From an environmental point of view which fuel caues the least harm I know diesels produce less CO2, but what about other emissions?
Any suggestions?
|
It is a con just to look at tailpipe emmissions.
The products from refining oil come in fixed quantities, they can be manupulated by expensive hydrocracking but at the end of the day the oil that comes out of the ground is burned, so does it matter who's tailpipe it come out of?
|
I have no technical knowledge, just more questions. Diesel always seems (unjustly IMO) to have a dirty reputation in this country and this is often used to explain the higher (?) tax rates for diesel than Petrol. On the continent, they almost seem to encourage diesel use through lower taxes.
Why is it good for the rest of Europe but bad for us?
Splodgeface
|
|
Petrol produces more CO2 (because it burn less efficiently) and diesel more hydro carbons (due to the constituents of the fuel) however it seems to me that if you burn a lower volume of fuel you are causing less harm, i.e the better the MPG the less the harm, on which basis diesel is better.
|
Petrol produces more CO2 (because it burn less efficiently) and diesel more hydro carbons (due to the constituents of the fuel) however it seems to me that if you burn a lower volume of fuel you are causing less harm, i.e the better the MPG the less the harm, on which basis diesel is better.
Buring diesel produces LESS HC's than Petrol with a cat. Diesels do however produce more Nitrogen Oxides. Diesels also produce lots of particulate matter (compared to only a trace for petrol engines).
|
This month's What Car had an interesting supplement on Diesels. It seemed to suggest that the particulate matter in diesels was larger, hence more notice-able - but petrol cars still produced it. To combat this, all Euro IV compliant cars had to have a filter fitted that would get rid of this.
Have you investigated gas or the electric hybrid cars?
|
|
|
Buring diesel produces LESS HC's than Petrol with a cat. Diesels >> do however produce more Nitrogen Oxides. Diesels also produce lots of particulate matter (compared to only a trace for petrol engines).
I stand corrected re HC's however the simple fact that the average diesel burns only 60% by volume relative to a similar petrol vehicle is fundemental.
It is worth noting that diesel and petrol are in effect both by products of the refining of crude oil, a big imbalance in demand would be an issue for the refiners.
|
|
Diesel exhaust products are more visible because they are larger. Petrol exhaust products are less visible because they are microscopic but are also more dangerous for the same reason. Microscopic petrol fumes are more easily absorbed through the skin and lungs.
|
|
|
|
|
CO2 is a product of complete combustion and hydrocarbons and particulates are the products of incomplete combustion.
So petrol burns much more efficiently than diesel.
Diesel contains more energy per volume however and that combined with the different characteristics of a diesel engine results in more mpg.
However the other environmental costs of diesel such as sulphur and particulates probably mean that petrol is a more environmentally kindly fuel.
Of course walking and cycling are even better!
|
CO2 is a product of complete combustion and hydrocarbons and particulates are the products of incomplete combustion. So petrol burns much more efficiently than diesel. Diesel contains more energy per volume however and that combined with the different characteristics of a diesel engine results in more mpg. However the other environmental costs of diesel such as sulphur and particulates probably mean that petrol is a more environmentally kindly fuel.
This is countered by the fact that you need up to 80% more petrol by volume to do the same job.
Of course walking and cycling are even better!
>>
Agreed on the basis of journeys of a mile or two, if you have 250 miles to do in a day then petrol or diesel acme into there own.
|
|
|
Re "CO2 is a product of complete combustion and hydrocarbons and particulates are the products of incomplete combustion. So petrol burns much more efficiently than diesel." I don't follow that argument. If petrol burned much more efficiently, it wouldn't produce CO and HC in larger amounts than diesel - but it does: when accelerating, when richer mixture is provided to prevent misfires, when misfiring, especially when cold, and also when being filled!. As for particulates, its been said earlier: petrol engine particulates have been little measured except for the mass of particles, which showed petrol in a favourable light, but its now established that ultrafine particles are the important ones for health. These are produced by both types of engine. The total amount of particulates in relation to the fuel consumed doesn't indicate how well the fuel has burned, unless the engine is malfunctioning. In normal running the particulates seem, IIRC,to be formed from the sulphur compounds in the fuel and lubricating oil in the combustion chamber. As ULSD is now widespread the total amount of particulate matter from diesel is far lower than before, and particulate traps will reduce it even further. As for petrol ultrafines: they'll need treatment too, I suspect, as the research into emissions continues.
|
Easy way to end this arguement:
Small car: diesel >> useful with manual
Big car: petrol especially if mated to an auto box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![2023 MG MG3 1.5 VTi-TECH Exclusive 5dr [Navigation]](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/0713150a244c1fdbbf263f74dfbb451c/fe35a19f64650aa6e6902e020e596b52.png___.jpg)
