Diesel drivers should pay up to £800 more VED

[Aspman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3486925/Diesel-drivers-pay-800-road-tax.html

 

Not just the Daily Fail btw.

 

 

Vehicle excise duty (VED) should be raised for new diesel cars in an attempt to improve air quality, a think-tank has said.

Policy Exchange claimed VED for diesel vehicles should be increased by up to £800 to reflect the higher level of air pollution they cause, compared with petrol cars.

The proposal said this could generate £500 million additional revenue each year, which could be used to fund a new diesel scrappage scheme.

 

That's diesel resale prices in the pooper for a while then.

[Llanigraham]

Oink Oink Flutter Flutter!!

[moley]

Where do they dream up such  moonshine?

It wouldn't raise £500 million because diesel car sales would drop off of a cliff. As the think tank have only included cars, Lorries, buses, taxi's and vans would be unaffected, but cities with poor air quality would improve because  Lorries, buses taxi's and vans would be banned I presume?

[lol-lol]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3486925/Diesel-drivers-pay-800-road-tax.html

Not just the Daily Fail btw.

That's diesel resale prices in the pooper for a while then.

 

Some would say that this is needed and new sales do not need to go south as there are choices in many areas ie VW have just started to do petrol version of the Transporter in the UK (below) again.  

The importance of improving air quality of NOX and PMs is more important that the second hand market for light diesels.  Large trucks, buses etc are being bought as or converted to Ad Blu and have been for a few years now so the focus must be to modifying light diesel sales and eventual their access to built up areas during and between rush hours to get air quality acceptably good.

 

 

https://www.volkswagen-vans.co.uk/about-us/press-releases/2014/20150416-world-premiere-of-the-sixth-generation-volkswagen-transporter

The petrol options are four-cylinder engines with a displacement of 2.0 litres and are offered with 110 kW / 150 PS or 150 kW / 204 PS. Across the whole model series, the new engines save a litre of fuel per 100 km compared to the previous generation. All Euro-5 and Euro-6 engines have a stop/start system as standard meaning overall fuel consumption could be reduced by 15% on average.

Edited 12 March, 2016 by lol-lol

[Breezy_Pete]

More CO₂  for less NO_x, worsening a global problem for the benefit of those who choose to live or work in big cities. About as fair as MPs/bankers/board-butterflies giving themselves big pay deals in times of austerity.

[Dr Zoidberg]

It's a "Think Tank" that has no influence or responsibility - they can claim anything they want and this is just a bit of attention seeking.

 

[lol-lol]

More CO₂ for less NO_x, worsening a global problem for the benefit of those who choose to live or work in big cities. About as fair as MPs/bankers/board-butterflies giving themselves big pay deals in times of austerity.

Well I would be interested to see the figures of how much CO2 wiesels actually are quoted as producing for one thing and another would be how much they actually produce as another.

My fabulous Dacia Logan TCE produces 116 gms of CO2 per kilometer. It has a luggage capacity of near 600 litres, cruises at 75 easily, does 50 mpg without much effort, 65 mpg if you take it easy. I would say with diesel cars and vans "what is the point?" (unless you tow maybe) when fuel is similar price, diesels are usually more expensive to buy and come with horrendous health issues ie NOX and PMs reckoned to cause 40K premature deaths in the UK and 3M world wide? (Jaag is a bit naughty but then even that can do 40 mpg and NOX is only 34 mg/km which is better than many diesel both in the lab and on the road it looks).

Agree on the MPs/Bankers etc, if they were paid on results ie increasing UK National debt and falling share prices they would be lucky to get minimum wage.

Edited 12 March, 2016 by lol-lol

[bilun777]

Doesn't it make a bit of sense to increase tax on older diesels,i.e. euro 4/5 or older.

and have scrappage for euro 6 replacement?

Not high taxes on new diesels,because existing owners will just hang on to the older "VW" etc polluters?

[Breezy_Pete]

Well I would be interested to see the figures of how much CO2 wiesels actually are quoted as producing for one thing and another would be how much they actually produce as another.

...

I thought it was solidly in the realm of fact that diesel engines have overall average mpg significantly higher than petrols; it's just the thermodynamics of higher compression. (Edit: and more energy-dense fuel, I nearly forgot)

Better mpg means lower CO₂ emissions.

Maybe sweet little boosted petrol engines are narrowing the gap, but it's still there, and will be for a while I think.

Edited 12 March, 2016 by Wino

[lol-lol]

I thought it was solidly in the realm of fact that diesel engines have overall average mpg significantly higher than petrols; it's just the thermodynamics of higher compression. (Edit: and more energy-dense fuel, I nearly forgot)  Better mpg means lower CO₂ emissions.  Maybe sweet little boosted petrol engines are narrowing the gap, but it's still there, and will be for a while I think.

 

I found there were more factors than initially thought when weighing it up.   It is not right to compared the same CC of engine as, in general, it it right to compare a petrol engine of about 2/3rd or 3/4 of the capacity as the power would be about the same ie 1.2 TSI with a 1.6 TDI.  With the 0.9 TCE it stacks up well against the 1.5 DCI.  Same horsepower and the fuel consumption is closer than comparing same CCs.

 

In fact even for the same horsepower the petrol version is usually half to full second quicker to 60 mph so even comparing same horsepower is not a fair comparison.  With a petrol engine, designed to do the same task, it not only can be smaller capacity but can even have one less cylinder as proved by the award winning at the Engine Symposium each year. Then in the real world, driving the TSI to TDI  or TCE to DCI, I have found, that I just found the petrol cars nicer to drive ie did not have to rev the smaller diesels to make good progress.  When given a 1.6 TDI as a loan car I found I could get 70 mpg if a did not press the throttle more than 1 cm.  If I drove it as time is money, which it normally is when I am driving, I had these diesels in the 45-50 mpg and so may as well have the petrol and enjoy it and save a grand on the lower buy price.  

 

Anyways as to VED on all vehicles I think it would be right to have all those cars in the 100g to 120 gram have their road tax doubled as the step from 120 to 121 grams is just silly.  My bike pays more (£72) road tax than two of my cars which are in the 116-120 CO2 range.  Madness.

[james0james]

Burnt Diesel will always produce some harmful products,

 

That's why I drive a petrol car :clap:​.

[lol-lol]

Burnt Diesel will always produce some harmful products,  That's why I drive a petrol car :clap:​.

 

It is the high compression that is causing the Nitrogen to form a bond with Oxygen and create the dangerous gases.

 

Lower compression engines may have higher CO2 but generally have lower NOX and petrol cars do not have the issue with particulates.

 

I have been amazed how good I can get the 2.5V6 Jaag ie well over 40 mpg and still travelling at near the NSL.   And its NOX is only 34 mg/CO2, seems unfair it has to pay £300 a year road tax.   A road tax that combines CO2, NOX and even PM rating sounds fairer. 

[Aspman]

With powerful cars with crap lab figures it seems to be trivial t beat the paper mpg with a bit of careful driving.

 

Eco cars on the other hand it seems to be nearly impossible to get close to their lab figures.

 

So you end up with cars like the VRS that can actually get better mpg than the eco boxes. Stupid. Not surprised you can do well with the Jaaag.

[Fab Estate]

The people in this Think Tank are just trying to justify their existance.A good excuse to raise taxes for this government. I also thought that people are living longer, so if diesel is really  killing 40,000 people in this country each year give me one piece of evidence.

[moley]

 if diesel is really  killing 40,000 people in this country each year give me one piece of evidence.

The 'experts' claim that diesel fumes NOx and particles cause the premature deaths of 40,000 people in the UK (the government suggest 23,000). What we're not told is how premature (10 minutes or 10 years) it's possible that 80% of the deaths are of people who smoked 20 a day for 40 years. 

It's estimated that around 100,000 deaths a year are caused by smoking related diseases, but people are allowed to walk down the streets smoking while you breath in their smoke.

[lol-lol]

The people in this Think Tank are just trying to justify their existance.A good excuse to raise taxes for this government. I also thought that people are living longer, so if diesel is really  killing 40,000 people in this country each year give me one piece of evidence.

 

 

Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

 Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution (full report) 4.23 M

 

The report starkly sets out the dangerous impact air pollution is currently having on our nation’s health. Each year in the UK, around 40,000 deaths are attributable to exposure to outdoor air pollution which plays a role in many of the major health challenges of our day. It has been linked to cancer, asthma, stroke and heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and changes linked to dementia. The health problems resulting from exposure to air pollution have a high cost to people who suffer from illness and premature death, to our health services and to business. In the UK, these costs add up to more than £20 billion every year.

 

 Key facts

• Nitrogen dioxide and particulates from diesel engines have been poorly controlled and these remain a problem. In the UK today, about half of cars run on diesel. This is the trend across Europe, but not in the USA or Japan. Nearly all buses, vans and lorries, forms of water transport, and many trains, use diesel in the UK, along with construction and farm machinery.

• Each year, inhaling particulates causes around 29,000 deaths in the UK, which, on recent evidence, may rise to around 40,000 deaths when also considering nitrogen dioxide exposure.

Edited 13 March, 2016 by lol-lol

[mdon]

They should do away with VED and add it to the fuel price. As for diesel harmful bla bla bla I don't care, I'll still drive diesels as the perform much better mid range. If they want to save the planet etc perhaps the government should have put a couple of nuclear reactors in the new aircraft carriers instead of oil burners. Cars make up such a small amount of diesel users compared to busses, lorrys, trains, boats, plant, farms, oil fired power plants. The list is endless.

[threadbear]

I have driven diesel cars for 22 years. I have driven diesel ambulances for 16 years in St John Ambulance. I have worked around high polluting diesel trains for 22 years. I walk down busy roads with diesel buses and trucks. I have no chest or breathing difficulties even if I am a bit over weight.

99% of the unhealthy people I know are smokers and most of them continue to smoke. I find cigarette smoke thoroughly disgusting and I have to tolerate that every time I walk down a busy street past a pub or restaurant.

How can all the premature deaths be put down to NOX?

My next car will be a diesel.

[Tech1e]

Burnt Diesel will always produce some harmful products,

 

That's why I drive a petrol car :clap:​.

As do petrols, direct injection produces particulates. Before I left my last job we had started on GPFs (gasoline particulate filters).

[moley]

Booked another cruise this year, the ship is diesel electric with 5 diesel engines total power 58000 KW. Some ships run gas turbine engines, but only for higher speeds, the main power is still diesel engines.

[lol-lol]

They should do away with VED and add it to the fuel price. As for diesel harmful bla bla bla I don't care, I'll still drive diesels as the perform much better mid range. If they want to save the planet etc perhaps the government should have put a couple of nuclear reactors in the new aircraft carriers instead of oil burners. Cars make up such a small amount of diesel users compared to busses, lorrys, trains, boats, plant, farms, oil fired power plants. The list is endless.

Aircraft carriers and cruise ships do not tend to drive through urban areas and it is those areas that the diesel vehicle add high NOX and PMs. Also many of the big diesels in buses and lorries have been converted to having wee wee injection so the NOX is about a tenth of wiesel without SCR and the expanding Low Emission Zones and ULEZs will only allow those cars with compliant exhaust systems unless a large penalty payment is paid.

If you live/drive in the sticks will not be an issue. those of us whou regularly drive and work in London, and perhaps other big cities will follow their lead, will make user we have compliant cars ie petrol, hybrid or SCR fitted wiesels.

Edited 13 March, 2016 by lol-lol

[Doofy]

Doesn't it make a bit of sense to increase tax on older diesels,i.e. euro 4/5 or older.

and have scrappage for euro 6 replacement?

Not high taxes on new diesels,because existing owners will just hang on to the older "VW" etc polluters?

No because some of us are not made of money and cannot afford to scrap their cars and buy something a little more soothing to public opinion!

[logiclee]

The extra emission systems required on diesels to pass the new 2017 regulations may well price diesel out of the market for most private buyers.

 

Something the £800 VED lift on new vehicles is designed to do.

 

A change in BIK tax for company drivers is needed to make a real difference though.

 

Lee

[classic]

I agree that the think tank ideas are extreme nonsense, but it is clear that it's the beginning of the end for diesel cars. The manufacturers have taken them as far as they can go, to the point that previously reliable designs are saddled with egr, dpf and stop-start systems which are, at best, Heath Robinson set ups.

I predict there will be a gradual turning of the screw against Diesel - gradual road tax/fuel duty increases, city congestion charges etc.

[gullyg]

I agree that the think tank ideas are extreme nonsense, but it is clear that it's the beginning of the end for diesel cars. The manufacturers have taken them as far as they can go, to the point that previously reliable designs are saddled with egr, dpf and stop-start systems which are, at best, Heath Robinson set ups.

I predict there will be a gradual turning of the screw against Diesel - gradual road tax/fuel duty increases, city congestion charges etc.

 

The problem is short of hydrogen cars what's the answer for heavier vehicles, 4x4s, vans, lorries etc? 

 

Batteries are an environmental nightmare and at best only push the problem on to an almost overloaded and not very clean power grid.  Petrol whilst better for small cars (they should never have been diesel imho) just doesn't seem practical for bigger vehicles.

 

Whilst there shouldn't be anywhere near as many big vehicles like 4x4 "chelsea tractors" on the road and "bigger" cars are getting lighter I can't see us getting rid of the need for vans and lorries any time soon.

 

LPG seemed like a nice option for a while but appears to be disappearing again.