Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday January 29 2017, @11:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the cheaper-to-keep-driving-the-whole-time dept.

If you drive a diesel vehicle, life is about to get a lot more expensive.

Why? Because you're set to be charged an extra 50% to park in a central London area as of April 3. Ouch. And its all in the aim to reduce air pollution, which has been blighting the capital.

Westminster City Council is set to trial the price hike in parking bays in Hyde Park, Marylebone and Fitzrovia. Visitors in diesel cars will have to pay £7.35 per hour compared with the standard £4.90.

Source: Metro


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Monday January 30 2017, @08:48AM

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Monday January 30 2017, @08:48AM (#460571) Journal

    Indeed.
    I was recently in the market for a new car. At the garage, I mentioned (off-hand) that diesels were taxed higher than petrol because they're more pollutant. "Oh no! They're less pollutant than petrol cars" was the reply.
    That person may have been wrong about that, but definitely believed it. They weren't trying to spin it for me (especially since this raised more questions than just agreeing would've).
    If the folks you trust to maintain your car believe that, I'm inclined to trust them on it.
    On the other hand, some recently agreed environmental zones in Europe allow older petrol cars, but are stricter on diesel cars.
    (e.g. Antwerpen).

    Can anyone point to anything definitive?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Unixnut on Monday January 30 2017, @09:12AM

    by Unixnut (5779) on Monday January 30 2017, @09:12AM (#460579)

    Diesels produce less CO2 per mile driven because they are more efficient heat engines than petrol engines, and Diesel has a higher energy density per litre.

    However Diesels produce more NO2 and particulate emissions than petrol engines.

    In their rush reduce CO2 (because in the eyes of the greens, CO2 is not only a pollutant, but it is the one and only pollutant we care about) diesels were promoted as the "green" alternative.

    However NO2 and particulate matter, while better for the CO2 figures, are worse for health of animals. Fundamentally diesels are dirty engines. They need lots of filters and additives in order to not spew crap everywhere. When idle they generate a lot of NO2, when under load they generate black smoke (soot).

    If you want to see how dirty a Diesel engine is, take one apart. Or just look at what happens when you remove all the filters. That strange "rolling coal" thing in the US, with cars who have had their filters removed are driven hard to generate thick black smoke is an easier way to see. Every diesel engine's exhaust looks like that, just that they have filters to trap all those particles. If you ever see a Diesels car's filter start failing, it will start giving out black smoke under load.

    Thing is, on big vehicles, Diesel makes sense, because they have the power and the extra weight of all the filters, urea injectors/tanks etc... are less weight proportionally, and make more sense.
    Likewise for long distance trips they are better. Out in the open road with well maintained systems, they work great. But for a small city car, where thousands of them will just sit and idle, Diesel has got to be the worst option IMO.

    So it is really a choice, reduce CO2 and increase localised pollution, or reduce localised pollution but increase CO2 (ignoring electric in this case, but in theory electric motor cars are great for small city commuter cars, no energy draw at idle, short distances to travel, and, in my city at least, an average top speed of 5mph wherever you go. Shame they still insist on battery technology for energy storage)

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Monday January 30 2017, @03:01PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday January 30 2017, @03:01PM (#460655) Journal

      The coal roll thing on modern trucks is purposely exaggerated by "boost foolers".

      In the old days, like on my 1961 Mack B61 with an ENDT673 turbo diesel, there was no adjustment of the fuel relative to boost. So when you lean on the throttle it will throw a cloud of black smoke. At idle, it also smokes and stinks up the place. But its an old design and I don't expect it to run clean.

      Later on they incorporated a puff limiter which was a fuel limiter driven by boost pressure. A hose from the intake manifold ran to the back of the injector pump on the governor housing. The low boost pressure at idle limited fuel until the turbo spooled up and built boost. Some guys bypassed that with a valve on the dashboard that fooled the puff limiter into thinking there was full boost at idle allowing for a bit more power on take off under heavy loads. Though, some trucks simply had their limiter or injectors go bad and smoked like friggen tire fire. It wasn't a perfect system and you still got some black smoke though much less.

      Another notoriously smoky engine were the two cycle Detroit Diesels. Very interesting design, modular to a degree (e.g. the heads on a strait 6 (6-71) were also the same heads on a V12 (12V71)) and had a very unique exhaust note. Their problem was oil consumption and blowing lots of smoke. Anyone who rode the bus in the 90's and prior probably remembers the unique diesel sound, still dubbed into TV and film for buses, and the smoke they belched. They were almost always powered by Detroit diesel 6V92's from the 80's onward until the late 90's. Before that they were the powered by the smaller 6V71's or 8V71's. They also leaked oil all over too. Very dirty engine but quite reliable and last I heard, parts available until 2040 due to their prevalence. Common engine series were the 53, 71 and 92, the number indicating displacement in cubic inches. Available in strait and V configurations from 1 cylinder to 32 cylinders by bolting a few blocks together.

      Now with electronics, they measure boost and adjust fuel accordingly. Though the jokers with their dumb coal rolling penis extension pickups use mods to fool the boost sensor (usually a resistor inline or parallel with the boost sensor). It does nothing but waste fuel and pollute the air with particulate matter and unburnt fuel. There are plenty of diesel modders who hate coal rollers and proper builds will run as clean as factory. Though with modern emission controls, it becomes a challenge.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday January 30 2017, @06:25PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday January 30 2017, @06:25PM (#460734)

      There are hybrid electric+diesel cars for this reason. Electric helps the stop and go, and diesel is the most efficient way to get range.
      They're expensive drivetrains with boatloads of torque very low.
      But "diesel" is a dirty word, so Diesel Hybrid doesn't have great marketing appeal.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by pTamok on Monday January 30 2017, @10:09AM

    by pTamok (3042) on Monday January 30 2017, @10:09AM (#460582)

    'Pollution' isn't a single scale, as different engines and fuels having differing outputs of oxides of sulfur (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulates in various profiles of size. It is difficult to obtain a correct generalisation regarding whether 'diesel' engined vehicles are more or less 'polluting' than petrol engined vehicles.

    Historically, diesel engined road vehicles have generated more particulates than petrol engined vehicles, but several things have modified this:

    1) The use of particulate filters and particulate oxidisers to reduce diesel particulate output.
    2) The possible increased use of direct injection of gasoline in petrol-engined road vehicles to improve efficiency.

    The use of low-sulfur fuels and catalytic converters have decreased the problems associated with SOx and NOx - especially for diesels, which have historically generated more NOx as a result of their higher combustion temperatures, however, the use of catalysed reduction by urea can reduce NOx emissions dramatically.

    However, particulates are a problem. While the correct use of particulate filters can reduce the mass of particulates emitted, they often increase the number of smaller particles emitted, and it is the smaller particles e.g. PM2.5 and smaller which have the most physiological effect as they are drawn deeper into the lungs, and expose a larger surface area per mass than larger particles.

    This article gives more background:

    http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/GDI%20Briefing_final_T%26E_revised.pdf [transportenvironment.org]

    There is a battle being fought over improving fuel economy and reducing particulate emissions to meet air quality standards. Electric vehicles may well help a great deal in this regard.

    However, even if we go all electric, in cold climates, vast amounts of particulates are generated by the use of studded tyres on the road surface. This is a significant contributor to poor air quality in cities like Oslo and Stockholm.

      - Studded tyres and air-quality in Norway: http://stro.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Vegdirektoratet-presentation-of-VTI-test-EDEN-Group-meeting-25.09.25.pdf [stro.se]

      - Studded tyres blamed for poor Stockholm air: http://www.thelocal.se/20110929/36430 [thelocal.se]

    Particulate emissions are a huge and insidious public health problem.