In the  Sunday Times today is a long 2 page story regarding the problems of pollution from diesel engines. The only vehicles tested by the paper that produced less than 0.08 grams per kilometer was the 2.0 diesel in the Golf and a Mercedes they were EU6 engines but were so much better that some others.  Is the Golf engine the same engine that is in the Octavia.  It would appear that some manufactures are testing vehicles on rolling roads and not in the real world. As something will have to be done because the EU says so the diesel car and owners could be in for an expensive ride particularly in the part exchange price of a vehicle which is only EU5 or worse. 

The 2015 Greenline came close, with a claimed 85 g/km with its Euro 5 engine, but with the Euro 6 engine in the 2016 model this has gone up to 90 g/km. Similarly, the combined economy figure has dropped from 88.3 mpg to 80.7 mpg.

The tests have not been representative of normal driving conditions for many years and all the manufacturers optimise their vehicles for the test conditions and are allowed to make some apparently surprising adjustments for the test conditions. Some information is available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle and particularly the Criticism section of that article.

I think it's MY16 that sees the introduction of the next generation of diesel engines which will meet the new harsher EU6 emission standards

I think it's MY16 that sees the introduction of the next generation of diesel engines which will meet the new harsher EU6 emission standards

The 2.0 TDI 184, 1.4 CNG and 1.8 TSI engines have been EU 6 in the MY15, but the rest will follow starting in MY16

My 2014 1.8 TSI was already Euro 6.

Bread and circuses, don't fall for it. When that volcano in Iceland grounded thousands of flights, it pumped LESS pollution into the atmosphere than the grounded aircraft would have produced. A gaming PC rig will produce the same Co2 as driving 400Km a month, due to the energy required to produce the electricity to run the PC.

 

The main issue is global energy usage, and while personal transport is part of the problem, it is only a tiny part of the problem.

 

What this planet needs, and it needs it now, is a method of cold fusion. Also a massive reduction in global population. If we don't do it, mother nature will.

Bread and circuses, don't fall for it. When that volcano in Iceland grounded thousands of flights, it pumped LESS pollution into the atmosphere than the grounded aircraft would have produced. A gaming PC rig will produce the same Co2 as driving 400Km a month, due to the energy required to produce the electricity to run the PC.

 

The main issue is global energy usage, and while personal transport is part of the problem, it is only a tiny part of the problem.

 

What this planet needs, and it needs it now, is a method of cold fusion. Also a massive reduction in global population. If we don't do it, mother nature will.

Interesting statements.

Sources please....

Especially for a 500w PC producing the same CO2 monthly as ~5 gallons of fuel.

We don't *need* cold fusion, but we could really do with building more modern nuclear stations.

Interesting statements.

Sources please....

Especially for a 500w PC producing the same CO2 monthly as ~5 gallons of fuel.

We don't *need* cold fusion, but we could really do with building more modern nuclear stations.

Volcano incident from Stephen Fry on QI

PC figures from Power Chute UPS energy usage logs ( I run an UPS to ensure SSD reliability) the software for the UPS logs wattage drawn every second.

 

Cold fusion would be the 'holy grail' and the nuclear industry is in tatters after Chernobyl and Fukushima.   

The volcano info sounds feasible, but the CO2 was not really the "pollution" issue. Sulphur Dioxide I think was, and I suspect it did release a lot more that relatively low sulphur jetfuel.

Some quick maths, 500w 8 hours a day, 30 days = 120kw/h, you could do 400km on that, but I'd want to factor in generation efficiency and I just don't know that.

Cold fusion as a mainstream method is not within 50 years - as far as my general understanding goes.

I wouldn't say nuclear industry is in tatters, two big failures in 30 years with a relatively trivial effect on health compared with burning coal.

Only the scientifically illiterate should have a problem with nuclear power generation - alas this includes most of the worlds politicians.

I don't pretend for a moment to understand comparative emissions, and I'd agree 100% that the issue is far more complex and nuanced than politicians tell you.

But perception is everything, and the perceived excesses of diesel (i.e., particulates) will be homed in on by politicians. That will be partly for tax reasons (government needs the money) and partly because air quality in cities isn't as good as it should be.

Car manufacturers aren't stupid, and I'd be amazed if giants like VAG didn't have tech on the shelf already that can make inroads into the particulates problem.

Governments can't afford to kill off vast employers like car industries (an incovenient truth which seems to elude idealistic green groups), but nor can they ignore either diesel emissions or the nonsense of the current testing regime.

All of which is one of the reasons I bought a 1.4 TSi DSG.

Edited 25 May, 201511 yr by MorrisOx

There are 1.4 Billion cows in the world constantly F**ting,  " Are cows EU 6 compliant ?

 

Think of the emissions there kicking out

There are 1.4 Billion cows in the world constantly F**ting,  " Are cows EU 6 compliant ?

 

Think of the emissions there kicking out

Cows might not be but I remember reading that they're changing the composition of cattle feed to reduce greenhouse emissions.

 

Some farms even use systems to collect said emissions for energy production and resale.

Edited 25 May, 201511 yr by kallekilponen

There are 1.4 Billion cows in the world constantly F**ting,  " Are cows EU 6 compliant ?

 

Think of the emissions there kicking out

Also don't let the termite off the hook, biggest producer of methane.

 

10 years ago Co2 was the enemy, now it's Nox, particulates from EU5 and onwards are not a problem. The tree huggers will continue to shift their focus, until we are all riding bicycles, and or living in caves, The general public are now all to aware of so called 'green taxes'. Taxing a problem will not stop the so called health issues. 

 

It's a very complex issue, owning a dog, is the equivalent of running a large SUV, The underlying problem, is world population versus resources. 

The big shift to diesel cars is because of the increased fuel efficiency over petrol to the point Gordon Brown brought in the extra tax on diesel.  

 

This government is likely to increase the tax on diesel over petrol, (shifting car sales towards petrol) while bringing in lower emission levels that will hit diesels. My 1.4TSI is almost as fuel efficient as my 1.6TDI CR.

 

Average residuals between diesel and petrol cars are already very close, diesel 38.9 and petrol 38.3 after three years and over the coming years are likely to swap.

It's all just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The fact is that technology exists to have electric cars but the oil companies run the world and have massive influence over governments.

Until it's all run out we'll be driving some kind of car that needs fuel in it. Petrol, Diesel, rape seed oil, chip fat whatever it is you'll be paying for it and governments will tax you for it...

Electric cars are not so environmentally friendly as some try to say, yes, the car itself might be better, but, the making of the car, the making of the batteries and the disposal if such, the chemicals in the batteries and then add the environmental costs of producing the electricity to charge those batteries, plus the fact that full battery powered vehicles have a short mileage, and they are heavy.

Look at the Mitsubishi p-hev, only works for up to 20 miles, after that, the petrol engine with poor miles per gallin, due to the weight, then the battery power doesn't work in cold climates, the Mitsubishi won't run on battery if the car is cold, or you need the heater and lights on, or you need air con running.

Then add to this the cost of disposing of the batteries, the cost of replacing said batteries makes electric cars currently expensive and poor overall

Methanol or hydrogen generated from nuclear power stations would be my way of the future.

Car manufacturers aren't stupid, and I'd be amazed if giants like VAG didn't have tech on the shelf already that can make inroads into the particulates problem.

All of which is one of the reasons I bought a 1.4 TSi DSG.

 

Particulates are almost zero in Euro5 compliant cars with DPF, the main problem now is Nox which is causing the poor air quality in cities.

Until recently CO2 was the "baddie" from car emission which is one of the reasons diesel was much more popular than petrol.

Now, the next EU target is Nox for which the technology has existed in the truck industry & in the US car industry for some time.

 

 Petrol, Diesel, rape seed oil, chip fat whatever it is you'll be paying for it and governments will tax you for it...

 

Exactly, for governments its just a easy way to "tax".

It doesn't mater if your car runs on air & produces water as emissions you will still be taxed.

This government is likely to increase the tax on diesel over petrol, (shifting car sales towards petrol) while bringing in lower emission levels that will hit diesels. My 1.4TSI is almost as fuel efficient as my 1.6TDI CR.

 

Hmmm... Mine ain't, wonder why ?

 

Oh yeah, I don't have a filthy smog belching oil burning tractor to compare it too !!!

We are so far behind the times in Australia you can still buy brand new diesel cars that do not have particulate filters, although most Euro sourced cars are equipped with DPF.

Our fuel is sourced from South East Asian wells and most is refined off-shore as well. Both our petrol and diesel contains very high levels of sulphur compared to Europe.

Coming back to the problems of nox generated by diesels I thought that there were a number of ways of addressing the problem?

Urea based substances like Adblue are capable of reducing nox outputs by 90%.

Other initiatives while not as effective can achieve worthwhile reductions, such water/methanol injection to reduce burn temperature and/or increased use of EGR.

Even the Mazda 'skyactive' diesel technology running reduced compression ratios of 15:1 have an effect of reducing nox output.

Injection of small amounts of LPG into the diesel combustion process offers a more complete burn, so more power/economy and less nox.

Or we run diesels on different fuels such as CNG or aviation jet fuel (kerosene) as Renault have for a few years now in light aircraft (I have no idea how clean they are though)

Edited 26 May, 201511 yr by Gerrycan

There are 1.4 Billion cows in the world constantly F**ting,  " Are cows EU 6 compliant ?

 

Think of the emissions there kicking out

 

Better get rid of the Houses of Parliament then, it's full of old farts (greenhouse gases), copious amounts BS (methane/greenhouse gas), mind you the large amount of hot air that that lot produce, might be good for thermal energy production.

We are so far behind the times in Australia you can still buy brand new diesel cars that do not have particulate filters, although most Euro sourced cars are equipped with DPF.Our fuel is sourced from South East Asian wells and most is refined off-shore as well. Both our petrol and diesel contains very high levels of sulphur compared to Europe.Coming back to the problems of nox generated by diesels I thought that there were a number of ways of addressing the problem?Urea based substances like Adblue are capable of reducing nox outputs by 90%.Other initiatives while not as effective can achieve worthwhile reductions, such water/methanol injection to reduce burn temperature and/or increased use of EGR.Even the Mazda 'skyactive' diesel technology running reduced compression ratios of 15:1 have an effect of reducing nox output.Injection of small amounts of LPG into the diesel combustion process offers a more complete burn, so more power/economy and less nox.Or we run diesels on different fuels such as CNG or aviation jet fuel (kerosene) as Renault have for a few years now in light aircraft (I have no idea how clean they are though)

All motor manufacturers are now in the process of adding Urea tanks to their vehicles to spray it into the exhaust hot end to reduce NOX

Interesting that China doesn't buy diesels, only petrols.

Electric cars are not so environmentally friendly as some try to say, yes, the car itself might be better, but, the making of the car, the making of the batteries and the disposal if such, the chemicals in the batteries and then add the environmental costs of producing the electricity to charge those batteries, plus the fact that full battery powered vehicles have a short mileage, and they are heavy.

Depends on the car and the tech used to build it. Tesla is probably the most environmentally friendly of the electrics, especially when their "gigafactory" is completed and they control the battery manufacturing themselves from start to finish. (They also take back their batteries and recycle them to make more.) And as for the electricity production, all of the energy used by Teslas SuperChargers comes from solar power*. Range is not really a problem for them either...but they are heavy there's no denying that.

 

That said, I'm not interested in Teslas for environmental reasons as such. They're just simply amazing to drive, their UI is lightyears ahead of other cars, and their approach to constantly upgrading their cars is something sorely needed in the car world.

 

I'm just waiting for them to start production on the Model ≡. It'll probably be my next car after the Octy, if it's anything like the Model S to drive.

 

*(Not the actual electricity for obvious reasons, but they use the solar electricity to pay for the power their charger network uses.)

Edited 26 May, 201511 yr by kallekilponen

Look at the Mitsubishi p-hev, only works for up to 20 miles, after that, the petrol engine with poor miles per gallin, due to the weight, then the battery power doesn't work in cold climates, the Mitsubishi won't run on battery if the car is cold, or you need the heater and lights on, or you need air con running.

Doesn't surprise me but that really us poor. I considered looking at this when I got my Octy but can't reliably park outside my house so charging would be a pain. I seem to see a couple of these every day now so they're obviously selling well!

I went for diesel again this time on the basis that it was the best compromise position, as I accept that I can't have a car that's truly "green". Not yet, anyway. I'm hoping the current political shift will mean there are more options when I come to replace my Octy in a few years' time.

It's this emissions debate that's making me err which engine to have in my next car, whether to stay with petrol or go back to diesel.

 

My mileage isn't high around 7500 last year, but I just love the economy of a diesel and it would for me mean filling up once every two months, rather that twice a month now.

 

The problem comes with the way that "they" are now thinking about the diesel engine and the particulates etc and whether they're going to cause serious health issues and the flipside of it of course being the rapid devaluing of any diesel engined car because of it.