News1 min ago
Does Diesel Deserve To Demonised?
12 Answers
http://
personally I think it should be for trucks, trains, tractors, boats etc, not private cars.
personally I think it should be for trucks, trains, tractors, boats etc, not private cars.
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@ToraToraTora
The table at the foot of that article, showing the emission standards 1 to 6 shows the extent to which output limits have been slashed by around 90% since the 90s. I don't have the statistics for the corresponding increase in diesel vehicles on our roads but, if I did, we could draw a conclusion on whether bulk quantities of NOx are up or down. That would enable me to say if demonisation was unfair or not.
As an alternative measure, one could look at petro company's combined sales figures for diesel, 1992 to present, normalise the data according to typical NOx output of available engine technology, assessed year-by-year and see whether our air is improving or worsening.
One aspect of that article which doesn't help answer your question is that it doesn't even touch on the issue of particulates and PM10s, which I always thought was everyone's chief concern about diesels.
Personally, I hadn't made the link between vehicular NOx and asthma conditions, which are famously on the increase amongst the under-25s, so thank you for drawing this to my attention.
The table at the foot of that article, showing the emission standards 1 to 6 shows the extent to which output limits have been slashed by around 90% since the 90s. I don't have the statistics for the corresponding increase in diesel vehicles on our roads but, if I did, we could draw a conclusion on whether bulk quantities of NOx are up or down. That would enable me to say if demonisation was unfair or not.
As an alternative measure, one could look at petro company's combined sales figures for diesel, 1992 to present, normalise the data according to typical NOx output of available engine technology, assessed year-by-year and see whether our air is improving or worsening.
One aspect of that article which doesn't help answer your question is that it doesn't even touch on the issue of particulates and PM10s, which I always thought was everyone's chief concern about diesels.
Personally, I hadn't made the link between vehicular NOx and asthma conditions, which are famously on the increase amongst the under-25s, so thank you for drawing this to my attention.
@woofgang
If only things were that simple. In the era when they only wanted kerosene for lamps, gasoline was a waste product which they poured away. When you refine oil, you unavoidably produce diesel fuel in bulk. Either you throw it away, as above, or you find a use for it, which we do. It used to be cheap because demand was low and clever marketing has created the demand which, ultimately, drove up its price.
Admittedly, its increasing use brings its downsides to the fore, just due to the sheer quantities involved (trace level problems become noticeable problems) but you could say the same for products like sugar.
If only things were that simple. In the era when they only wanted kerosene for lamps, gasoline was a waste product which they poured away. When you refine oil, you unavoidably produce diesel fuel in bulk. Either you throw it away, as above, or you find a use for it, which we do. It used to be cheap because demand was low and clever marketing has created the demand which, ultimately, drove up its price.
Admittedly, its increasing use brings its downsides to the fore, just due to the sheer quantities involved (trace level problems become noticeable problems) but you could say the same for products like sugar.
Things are rarely black & white (as it were).
All fuels create waste and most are no good for you. It's a question of degree.
I don't believe one should demonise diesel (or the owners of diesel vehicles for that matter) but if it is felt that it is not a good choice, then the government could provide incentives/laws to ensure no more diesel vehicles are sold here, and await natural attrition to remove those already in use.
All fuels create waste and most are no good for you. It's a question of degree.
I don't believe one should demonise diesel (or the owners of diesel vehicles for that matter) but if it is felt that it is not a good choice, then the government could provide incentives/laws to ensure no more diesel vehicles are sold here, and await natural attrition to remove those already in use.
The problem was that the government was behind on what the motor manufacturers were doing.The manufacturers had already started selling 'lean burn' super clean diesels before the 'war' on diesel started. The government was complaining about a technology that was already out of date and being replaced.
@eddie51
I've often wondered how much the invention of the jet engine was a case of, as with the history petrol, "we've got this worthless fraction from oil refining, can you come up with a way to get useful work out of it"?
Notwithstanding the pollution levels being higher, lean-burning of fuel at high altitudes (thus low drag) is more fuel efficient than 'n' hundred people doing the same journey by road or rail (pending mag-lev technology).
I've often wondered how much the invention of the jet engine was a case of, as with the history petrol, "we've got this worthless fraction from oil refining, can you come up with a way to get useful work out of it"?
Notwithstanding the pollution levels being higher, lean-burning of fuel at high altitudes (thus low drag) is more fuel efficient than 'n' hundred people doing the same journey by road or rail (pending mag-lev technology).
@Eddie
Well, with electric light winning the game, kerosene was a thing in need of a purpose but it was pure coincidence, as you suggest. Odd to think that Whittle had his testbed runing ca. '36, a time when all-metal fighters were only just coming on stream. Any earlier and the use of wooden frames and doped fabric would have caused his ideas to be rejected, out of hand.
Well, with electric light winning the game, kerosene was a thing in need of a purpose but it was pure coincidence, as you suggest. Odd to think that Whittle had his testbed runing ca. '36, a time when all-metal fighters were only just coming on stream. Any earlier and the use of wooden frames and doped fabric would have caused his ideas to be rejected, out of hand.
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Damn Savage Why Is This Only Common...
Law15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.