Can anyone explain why a vast ammount of money is spent on developing 'cleaner' diesels, and trying to get them to the same level in refinement as petrols, when this money could be spent on more eco-friendly (hatefull noun I know) such as dual fuel cars, hydrogen fuel cells?
As far as I know, Diesels are still very polluting, PM10 particles or somethink, yet these seem to being promoted as the future.
How come?
Kev
|
Kev wrote:
>
> Can anyone explain why a vast ammount of money is spent on
> developing 'cleaner' diesels, and trying to get them to the
> same level in refinement as petrols, when this money could be
> spent on more eco-friendly (hatefull noun I know) such as
> dual fuel cars, hydrogen fuel cells?
>
Yes, but I can't be bothered.
Ian
|
Ian
Not your usual helpful self this evening?
|
Sorry, Darcy and Kev. Not exactly a bad day - you know how it is.
Still, I'm going round my mate's house tonight to help him fix his computer. I'll start with checking the oil and water, before I move on to the glow plugs.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
Because they already work, there are lots of diesel vehicles already about, the fuel is already available and because it's easy. The others will come when the price is right. I wish the Govt would invest (with the rest of the EU countries) in electric vehicles. Then Europe rather than the USA could become wold leaders in this technology.
|
You must be joking when you say you wish the government would invest in electric vehicles. The govt should keep it's nose out of technology and leave all such investments to private company's and individuals, who will invest in such schemes when the time is right and when they know they can make it work. I do not want my taxes used by idiots any more than they have to be.
The history of government interference in industry is best exemplified by the headstones over the graves of BL and Triumph, to name but two. (And before anyone points out Triumphs revival, the old and new company's have no connection whatsoever)
|
Tom
Right! Plus the fact that EV's are a dead end. Pollution is only displaced - they are not zero emission, range is limited, and refuelling can never be up to liquid fuel standards. Work out the energy transfer rate of the average petrol pump, and then consider that as an electric current.
Given the generation and transmission losses, plus the battery efficiency and the overall fuel efficiency isn't that wonderful either
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
Why do people keep batting on about this "earth is round" idea? It's obvious it's flat or else we'd all fall off, wouldn't we?
Bernard
|
|
|
Electric vehicles still require fossil fuels to recharge them.
Hydrogen is the future.
|
But hydrogen requires electricity to make it in the first place! The only source of power that doesn't require any input from fossil fuels is solar power, and that's a lot of use in this country.
Andy
|
|
Wave power,wind power,no need for coal or smelly diesel.
|
Oh no...... the wind powered car...haven't we been there before?
David
|
Well David, I can't eat any more beans, cheese and brussel sprouts, somebody has to help here.
Maybe T Lucas doesn't like diesels because he keeps putting coal in the tank, works much better with diesel IMHO.
|
Flat in Fifth wrote:
>
> Well David, I can't eat any more beans, cheese and brussel
> sprouts, somebody has to help here.
>
FIF, you forgot the draught Bass!
Ian
|
|
Alcohol fueled cars should be looked into. Excellent efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Tony
I can't understand how somebody with the surname Lucas can have such a big downer on diesel
VW are now promoting it in mags and on tv and the government have designed the new BIK system so that all company cars will eventually be diesel
|
|
|
|
|
PM10 = particles which have a mean diameter of <10 micrometres
Of concern because they are deemed 'respirable', and can be drawn deep into the lungs. Larger particles don't make it that far.
Regards
john
|
|
|
Why? Because Diesel is the only chance we've got of maintiaing the fun of motoring whilst saving the environment we know...
Diesel is allready cleaner than modern petrol cars and is showing the promise of much more development potential. Its either that or start your compost heap!
When diesel motors have had as much r&d as todays petrols, they will be untouchable
|
Which is safer?
Should I hold my breath behind petrols or diesels? Or both? *
Which is more likely to kill me?
The recurring image of a diesel engine to me is one pouring out a cloud of black smoke, followed by a rattle, then a bus appearing out of its own smokescreen.
Kev
* Helpful tip- always hold breath behind Black cabs, whatever they shuvel into them, it aint either petrol or diesel.
|
Kev wrote:
>
> Which is safer?
>
> Should I hold my breath behind petrols or diesels? Or both? *
Probably both. Both pollute, different pollutants, can't be arsed hunting out he science right now. One man's poison and all that. The PM's argument is not closed, petrol engines produce even smaller and potentially more harmfull particulates, some PSA diesels now include a particulate trap.
> The recurring image of a diesel engine to me is one pouring
> out a cloud of black smoke, followed by a rattle, then a bus
> appearing out of its own smokescreen.
>
Image is exactly the point. MODERN buses (eg in on routes 68 and 59 in London) produce no visible smoke, as do many modern diesel cars.
|
|
I've seen gas (gas, that is, not petrol) buses that don't emit smoke, but never a diesel one. Same goes for cars - they ALL do it, especially when they've been idling.
|
|
|
|
|
First time I've ever seen the words 'fun' and 'diesel' in the same sentence...
|
|
|
|
There was a suggestion before on this site, from a well respected contributor, for a perpetual motion Volvo using magnets.
I fear it didn't get of the ground (drive) though.
Now who could that be????
|
|
Well Kev, I certainly would be a lot more concerned about the stuff coming from a modern catalysed petrol than a diesel. The really poisonus stuff coming from a petrol cannot be seen. Thats far scarier than any little puffs of smoke a tired diesel produces.
|
No connection with the old firm!
Tomo
|
|
|
|
Dave.
Don't tempt fate.
The scourge of tyneside has been noticable by his absence - after the vicious lashing he received with regards his yahoo auction.
Well, I ASSUME that is the only vicious lashing he has received lately. Perhaps we should be told...
|
Dave N said.....Now who could that be?
More like who is that persona now?
David
|
|
|
Mark
Many thanks for what I will dare to call the "rhetorical"(since I had a little bet with myself) answer!
He's a proud man but, if I can get him at a weak moment, I'll try to extract a confession. He's actually asked me to help him take delivery, so let's hope the roads are too not muddy that day .....
Regards, and hope CV is well and thriving. I am assuming that she was not exposed to the rigours of life in UK, including/especially the Fens, Mr Kipling's cakes, or the C5. BTW did I miss any response in the C5 thread to Double Decker's question regarding baseball bat stowage? In this very thread, Ian (CT) and David W were both tempting fate on that front between 9 and 10 am yesterday .....
Ronnie
|
|
|
|
|
Diesels can, and are, run on vegetable oil. This has been discussed here frequently.
Hydrogen will need a fossil or nuclear power station. Fossil fuels may become difficult to obtain.
|
Cant you just split water or something? Sure ive heard that its possible......
Guess who perved at girls in Chemisty...... ;-)
Kev
|
|
Yes but that requires energy which comes from ?
|
|
|
|
|
Bit risky if hydrogen fueled car has accident and all that flammable hydrogen escapes!
|
|
|
|
Ford are doing something with hydrogen. Remember seeing a programme which explained in great detail how it worked (i've forgotten), the only emission was water.
|
|
You've still got to source the stuff somehow. Splitting H2O into its components requires electricity - be alright once we've got nuclear fusion sorted!
|
|
You heard it here first:
Next summer in Tokyo the Toyota FCHV - 4, a hydrogen fuel cell car will be on the market for commercial use.
Refuelling stations are at this very moment of time being set up.
Said to have a top speed of 150kph and a cruise range of 250k.
Also said to be modelled after Toyota's Kluger V Sports utility and the N Amercican Highlander.
Bye bye Diesel.
DVD
|
|
|
|
It is in fact a combined effect of petrol and deisel that are the real concern. Diesels do give out PM 10 and other particles of various sizes. These are not a huge concern as they are basically soot like particles. They can however be covered in unburnt hydrocarbons from petrol engines/fuel lines ect. They then are coated in toxic things and get into the bottom of your lungs. Not good. We should go for all petrol or all deisel.
|
|
|
Alcohol-fuelled cars are OK.
It's alcohol-fuelled drivers that are the problem!
|
|
|
I received a leaflet from Camden Council (London) yesterday which states that they are "supporting proposals for a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) across London to improve air quality. certain typesof vehicles, e.g. lorries, vans, taxis and coaches may only enter the LEZ if they meet specified exhaust emission levels. If agreed the LEZ might operate from 2005"
Great, so they will run their own super-MOT. Bye-bye national standards. Will each city now be checking vehicles at their border?. Will the lower standard be uniform or vary from town to town?.
I can see tourist coaches avoiding London for a start, and delivery lorries not wanting to risk a fine. We take in supplies from a fair distance away. What if a lorry gets turned back because it meets the MOT, but not the GLA?
Sounds like a recipe for the demise of London as a commercial and tourist centre.
|
|
The bottom line is that both types pollute - but the invisible muck that comes from modern petrol burners is proven to be far worse than the things coming out of a diesel cars exhaust. What amazes me is the tremendous effort going into cleaning the last vestages of pollution from the latest and greatest diesel cars, when the vast majority of old, worn and unserviced buses,lorries and hgv's are pumping out such filthy rubbish. If some money was thrown at cleaning them up we would reap much more than will be gained by the ever tightening (but allready tight) new car emissions levels.
|
|
|
|
Diesels are a known design, so it's quicker and cheaper to develop than an unknown one. More efficient than petrol, with the potential to be cleaner.
A lot is made of sooty particles from diesel engines, but that's because people react to what they see. How many times do you see cooling towers featured in TV programmes about polutuion?
Petrol motors throw out finer and even unhealthier particles.
I don't see any imminent design coming forward which doesn't require fossil fuel being burnt somewhere in the energy process. In which case, we should concentrate on engines which provide the best efficiency against fuel burnt, and then making them as clean as possible.
|
|
cooling towers throw out water vapour which I do not think is a pollutant
|
Exactly. But the TV crews always show them because they think the average Joe won't know. People who are anti diesel engines take a similar view. Unfortunately, the worst pollutants are invisible.
That isn't to say that we shouldn't try to clean up ALL emissions, including visible (and invisible) soot.
|
|
|
Are you sure about that? There is hard documented evidence about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. . .
www.dhmo.org/
|
|
|
Are you sure about that? There is hard documented evidence about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. . .
www.dhmo.org/
|
Derek - sorry didn't get your angle first time round.
Neil - I went on to the www.dhmo.com but gave up as I couldn't face reading all those big words. Can you simplify it?
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Only when you put too much in your whisky.................
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Dihydrogen monoxide, dihydrogen monoxide everywhere, but not a drop to drink" doesn't quite have the poetic ring, does it!
|
|
|
|
At the Tokyo Motor Show a concept car powered by hamsters was shown. The hamsters as expected ran round in wheels which drove electrical power. Scepticism has been expressed by critics who pointed out that an awful lot of hamsters would be needed to achieve significant power output and also that hamsters like to sleep a lot. Animal rights campaigners have also raised vociferous objections.
|
|
|
To Kev who started this thread: Check the price of the base model Yaris D-4D and then tell me how that's wasting money?
HJ
|
Sorry HJ and all who are confused, I should have added 'Developing'
Diesel vs Petrol has been debated to the death and beyond, I meant why are we spending so much money developing Diesels which will always pollute, rather than developing a new polpulsion unit....
Kev
|
|
Who says diesels will always pollute? You can allready by a diesel car (2.2 peugeots and citroens) which emit no particulate matter - and GM have said they could build a zero-emissions diesel within 5 years...
|
|
But it will still be a diesel, with a useless power-band, noise, vibration and harshness, so why bother?
|
|
You've obviously not driven a next-gen diesel then
|
Or a decent 14 year old one!
David
|
|
The last one I drove was one year old, with turbo and intercooler, and although it was quiet inside, it still made the usual racket outside (another sort of pollution). Anything with 20:1 compression will vibrate and although the power came in strongly, it disappeared just as quickly, so I was forever changing gear. In my old Audi, I can be doing any speed from 15 to 100mph in a single (third) gear - that's not how I drive, but it's nice to have the flexibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Well obviously I haven't driven a next-generation one...
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware, fuel cell, hydrogen, and alternative forms of propulsion have been in development in tandem with development of petrol and diesel engines.
The reason why diesel and petrol engines are developed further is because the development is based on existing and proven technology. No single solution to propelling a vehicle presents itself as readily as internal combustion. In fact, part of the FORESIGHT programme for the chemical industry suggested that homes would have their own little, efficient chemical factories, manufacturing from raw(ish) materials all the cleaning and other products used in a modern home. The model of efficiency used to promote this concept was that of the motor car and its IC engine.
Let's not be so naive to think that engineers aren't investigating many possible routes simultaneously: there are both short-term and long-term visions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what happened to gasahol? (petrol with a decent percentage of ethyl alcohol). I was under the impression that it burned cleaner and gave more power and didn't require mixture adjustment. I assume the problem is political rather than practical....
|
|
|
Why do we get sooooo many stupid unsupported spiteful anti diesel posts from contributors with ISP ---.ilford.mdip.bt.net, T Lucas being just one example of the idiots involved?
Why can people not accept its horses for courses, sometimes petrol is the best solution, sometimes diesel, sometimes LPG and so on. Bit more tolerance and forbearance needed if you want my opinion.
Can you imagine someone visiting the site proud as punch having just taken delivery of their new/used whatever, bought because they simply like it, only to see comments which quite frankly could be quite hurtful and do the contributors and the back room no credit at all.
|
|
So because we don't like them, we're stupid? Pots and kettles...
|
Dictionary definition of stupid= lacking judgement (amongst other things)
Read my post, think about it, take a calmer wider considered view.
OK so for you noise might be the overall critical success factor required in an IC engine. For others it may be less important. Can say the same about rev range. But then there are other factors which may be unimportant to you but others might give higher priority. To give one example what mpg at 100 in 3rd? Not a lot I suggest.
I'm not proposing diesels above all else, perhaps you did not understand that, but its my opinion if you used true judgement you would perhaps not make such black & white statements.
The point I'm trying to make is that I do not understand why anti diesel posts very often, but not always, are dogmatic and spiteful, the pro diesel very often are more considered technically and more moderate.
Secondly there seems to be a preponderance of anti diesel posts from one ISP, and the main protagonist recently of these one liners is as mentioned. No comment just an observation.
So just to spell it out in short words, put simply, I did not say *you* were stupid, but that I thought some of these comments were stupid, ie lacking judgement.
|
Fair enough. I did have my tongue slightly in my cheek, and am quite happy to agree to differ. However, I think those who participate in this arena need moderately thick skins - all human life is here, and not all of it wholly reasonable!
Also, diesels have been touted as being particularly green, when the reverse may be true! These things need discussing...
|
|
Yes and on that we really do agree, these things do need discussing, re the greenness (is that a word?) the jury really is out.
|
|
|
|
Taking up FIF's "rant" about the disillusionment of the proud purchasers of new cars reading comments about the same model as their pride and joy in this forum, there is indeed a real risk of upset here.
Last week I very strongly recommended the Back Room to a very dear friend who is also a keen motorist - he runs an MB 300SL softtop (1987), a Rover 414 diesel (1990), and a much modified Morris Minor pickup (NV) with, I *think*, a 1489 cc engine.
This week, I discover that, whilst he has *not* had time to look at the Back Room, having been abroad, he *has* apparently ordered a new Freelander diesel to replace the Rover ....
Question: what do I do now - lose a friend, or emigrate - perhaps to Brazil!?
Ronnie
|
|
|
>>Question: what do I do now - lose a friend, or emigrate - perhaps to Brazil!?
Don`t you be coming anywhere near Brazil. If immigration find out that your friend has a Freelander, you'll never get in.
I would be interested in why he bought it though.
|
|
|
>>Double Decker (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com)
>>Ronnie
CV is very well thank you; sleeping most of the way through the nights now, which is good (about 11:30 - 7ish);
I went to the UK on my own this time, although we are visiting in May which will be CV's first introduction.
Still looking to move back to the UK in the July/August time. Not sure how we'll get on, its been years. But it will be fun to try and we can always leave agian if we don't like it.
M.
|
|
|
