Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Something I'm finding is that I can smell what seems to be far more pollution these days, in particular that diesel smell and the worst offenders seem to be older cars, older vans, taxis (bloody awful) and some buses. I used to drive with my window down a little but not anymore because it stinks. I'm not sure if it's a case of more older diesels being on the road or it's just a cumulative effect of pollution building up over the years but it's definitely getting worse. I don't smell much from new diesels though.

I'm changing my car in a few months and the one I want only comes in diesel which is a bugger as I really wanted petrol.
 
gman said:
Something I'm finding is that I can smell what seems to be far more pollution these days, in particular that diesel smell and the worst offenders seem to be older cars, older vans, taxis (bloody awful) and some buses. I used to drive with my window down a little but not anymore because it stinks. I'm not sure if it's a case of more older diesels being on the road or it's just a cumulative effect of pollution building up over the years but it's definitely getting worse. I don't smell much from new diesels though.

I'm changing my car in a few months and the one I want only comes in diesel which is a bugger as I really wanted petrol.
Click to expand...

More likely you're more consciously aware of it because there is less other vehicular pollution. City air seems cleaner to me that it ever did before.
 
gman said:
Something I'm finding is that I can smell what seems to be far more pollution these days, in particular that diesel smell and the worst offenders seem to be older cars, older vans, taxis (bloody awful) and some buses. I used to drive with my window down a little but not anymore because it stinks. I'm not sure if it's a case of more older diesels being on the road or it's just a cumulative effect of pollution building up over the years but it's definitely getting worse. I don't smell much from new diesels though.

I'm changing my car in a few months and the one I want only comes in diesel which is a bugger as I really wanted petrol.
Click to expand...

you're are so right sir, even our town in Yorkshire which would be considered borderline rural stinks of diesel fumes at junctions
 
Ah yes, woodburners like the ones mentioned in the Guardian earlier this month? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution
The truth, though, is less pleasant than those hygge fantasies. Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.

Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.

According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.

The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.
Click to expand...
I paid the extra for a Euro 6 as a longer term investment.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Something I'm finding is that I can smell what seems to be far more pollution these days, in particular that diesel smell and the worst offenders seem to be older cars, older vans, taxis (bloody awful) and some buses. I used to drive with my window down a little but not anymore because it stinks. I'm not sure if it's a case of more older diesels being on the road or it's just a cumulative effect of pollution building up over the years but it's definitely getting worse. I don't smell much from new diesels though.
Click to expand...
When I compare what it's like in central London now to 40 years go, or central Bristol now vs when I came here 30 years ago, the air is so much better nowadays, so I find the complete opposite to what you're experiencing.
 
onomatopoeia said:
When I compare what it's like in central London now to 40 years go, or central Bristol now vs when I came here 30 years ago, the air is so much better nowadays, so I find the complete opposite to what you're experiencing.
Click to expand...

yes but that is before we even knew about how toxic certain things were in minute amounts, particulates from diesel engines you can easily educate yourself on these matters.

a lot of the danger now from these particles is hardly visible they are so small they lodge in the airways of the lungs.

https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/health_pm.php

http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/ocs/200-299/oc292_2.htm
 
onomatopoeia said:
When I compare what it's like in central London now to 40 years go, or central Bristol now vs when I came here 30 years ago, the air is so much better nowadays, so I find the complete opposite to what you're experiencing.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more in the last 10 years, perhaps I'm just more aware of it now? But looking further back and judging from the state of some sandstone buildings I can imagine just how polluted things were half a century ago +
 
Some environmental protection act from 1990 seems to be mentioned as when burning tyres was made illegal. Plus clean air act from 1993 mentions not being able to burn things like that either.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
There are already many Teslas and Leafs (and I'm sure others) out there with well over 100k miles with very little battery degradation.

Regarding your second point, proportionally, there aren't actually that many countries that aren't producing more than 20% of their energy from renewables. There are many countries who are almost exclusively renewables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
Click to expand...

I see Scotland isn’t on the list.
Just United Kingdom.
We produced enough electricity at one point to power the entire county on renewables.
 
The Big Yin said:
We produced enough electricity at one point to power the entire county on renewables.
Click to expand...
(My bold)


But Dumfries and Galloway doesn't use much power! :p
 
The Big Yin said:
We produced enough electricity at one point to power the entire county on renewables.
Click to expand...

Really? Care to show your working? At the best point in last year we produced 19.3Gw, half the power demand of 35.4Gw. We just aren't there yet, averaging about 20%
I think the bit missing from your statement that peak power generated last year was enough to power the country in 1958...
 
Byker28i said:
Really? Care to show your working? At the best point in last year we produced 19.3Gw, half the power demand of 35.4Gw. We just aren't there yet, averaging about 20%
I think the bit missing from your statement that peak power generated last year was enough to power the country in 1958...
Click to expand...

I said at one point. It was only a day, and the windiest day in a long time.
But enough energy was produced to run the country for a day as far as I remember.
 
The Big Yin said:
I said at one point. It was only a day, and the windiest day in a long time.
But enough energy was produced to run the country for a day as far as I remember.
Click to expand...

We have a team working on wind and solar farms as part of our business. It's never been that much, so I googled for you.

Enough for 1958 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...1958-green-electricity-electric-a8220671.html
Even drax got in on that one: https://www.drax.com/press_release/...lectricity-power-entire-country-60-years-ago/

Renewables significantly more power than coal: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/28/renewables-power-coal-2017-uk-figures

Only 50% of requirement at best: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...new-renewable-energy-record-wind-solar-surge/
Or the Govts figures give 53.4% in latest report:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/647750/Press_Notice_September_2017.pdf

Currently, Solar has dropped right off - snow on the panels, but wind has picked up
http://gridwatch.co.uk/
 
The thing with EV is that a small improvement in renewable electricity generation gets a big effect across the whole fleet of EV. The consumer doesn't have to change, yet their carbon footprint is reduced significantly over time.

Whereas it will have to take 5 more years for Euro6 diesels to be common place. Mazda's SkyActiv-X is only 1 engine design from 1 manufacturer, it's hardly going to make any difference. Most budget constrained Mazda 1's will still get the cheaper polluting engines. Over ~10 years lift-time of any ICE vehicle, it will not magically reduce emission over time.


Sadly, the grid and charging infrastructure isn't ready for EV yet. But it's not to say driving an EV within its daily range is fool's errand. Far from it. My family runs a diesel for longer trips and an EV for local runs. The 1-5 miles local trips throughout the day is sooooooooooooo much cheaper and nicer in the EV (preheating!). Cherry on top is we bought the EV for £9000 (inc battery), similar price to a second hand petrol town runabout, so why would anyone choose the latter?
 
wuyanxu said:
My family runs a diesel for longer trips and an EV for local runs. The 1-5 miles local trips throughout the day is sooooooooooooo much cheaper and nicer in the EV (preheating!). Cherry on top is we bought the EV for £9000 (inc battery), similar price to a second hand petrol town runabout, so why would anyone choose the latter?
Click to expand...

(My bold) because a lot of people will only have one car, so that one car needs to be able to do both longer and short runs.
 
I know a couple of people who don't own a car at all. On the rare occasion they need to make a journey that necessitates a car rather than public transport, they rent one for a day or 2. Avoids all the costs of ownership.
 
wuyanxu said:
... so why would anyone choose the latter?
Click to expand...

Because not everyone does the same journeys as you as I've explained earlier. They don't have the range characteristics yet to suit my requirements at a budget I can afford.
 
wuyanxu said:
The thing with EV is that a small improvement in renewable electricity generation gets a big effect across the whole fleet of EV. The consumer doesn't have to change, yet their carbon footprint is reduced significantly over time.
Click to expand...
Is that taking into account manufacturing and mining of rare earths for batteries? Or just based on emissions?

Ignoring just the CO2 for a moment, the chemicals involved in mining and production of the battery metals is highly polluting too. Not to mention the lack of lithium battery recycling.

Electric cars aren't the environmental savour some think they are.
 
They do get the (undeniable) pollution away from centres of population though.
 
In the Jiangxi rare earth mine in China, Abraham writes, workers dig eight-foot holes and pour ammonium sulfate into them to dissolve the sandy clay. Then they haul out bags of muck and pass it through several acid baths; what’s left is baked in a kiln, leaving behind the rare earths required by everything from our phones to our Teslas.

At this mine, those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent—now contaminated with toxic chemicals—is dumped back into the environment. That damage is difficult to quantify, just like the impact of oil drilling.

And, as in every stage of the process, mining has hidden emissions. Jiangxi has it relatively easy because it’s digging up clay, but many mines rely on rock-crushing equipment with astronomical energy bills, as well as coal-fired furnaces for the final baking stages. Those spew a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the process of refining a material destined for your zero-emissions car. In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found.
Click to expand...

source: https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/


Norilsk is rated one of the most polluted cities in the world, thanks largely to the 350,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide emitted annually by the city’s nickel factory, which was decommissioned last year. In 2016, Norilsk Nickel made headlines when an overflow of oxidised nickel waste turned the city’s Daldykan river red.
Click to expand...

the Cerro Matoso mine in Colombia, where residents of nearby communities and mine workers have reported elevated rates of deformities and respiratory problems associated with exposure to pollution generated by nickel mining and smelting
Click to expand...

source: https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...en-environmental-cost-electric-cars-batteries

.
 
Of course single-car family will be different, I'm pointing out as a second car, EV makes perfect sense.


neil_g said:
Is that taking into account manufacturing and mining of rare earths for batteries? Or just based on emissions?

Ignoring just the CO2 for a moment, the chemicals involved in mining and production of the battery metals is highly polluting too. Not to mention the lack of lithium battery recycling.

Electric cars aren't the environmental savour some think they are.
Click to expand...
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-ne...mit-more-lifetime-co2-than-a-petrol-supermini

Lifetime emission of Tesla Model S (not the greenest EV) has similar emission to a supermini
 
wuyanxu said:
Of course single-car family will be different, I'm pointing out as a second car, EV makes perfect sense.



http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-ne...mit-more-lifetime-co2-than-a-petrol-supermini

Lifetime emission of Tesla Model S (not the greenest EV) has similar emission to a supermini
Click to expand...

Not if both cars have to be used for distance. It only works out if your second car is used for local journeys, as I said it suits your particular situation.
£50K plus for a second hand Tesla S. Thats not an affordable price for most people.

Not sure where you got the same - the article says more, although that is in midwest US. You need a significant electricity supply from renewables before they produce less.

The Tesla Model S has been found to emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) over the course of its whole life than a petrol powered supermini in areas where electricity production is particularly reliant on high CO2-emitting sources. A new study has revealed that in such areas, the lifecycle CO2 emissions of the Model S are higher than those of a Mitsubishi Mirage with a petrol engine.

Then the issue is the range of the cars, which manufacturers recognise as a limiting factor so are fitting larger batteries, which in turn require more lithium and cobalt. The mining and turning this into batteries is recognised as having a significant environmental impact, from both the manufacture and the distance travelled of the components to make the batteries.
 
Last edited:
Wish it was cheaper! I could be interested for 30 or so but 50 is a bit rich for me. Still tempted by a 2nd hand Leaf for 10-12 but would (obviously) need a test drive first.
 
ancient_mariner said:
More likely you're more consciously aware of it because there is less other vehicular pollution. City air seems cleaner to me that it ever did before.
Click to expand...
Mr Bump said:
you're are so right sir, even our town in Yorkshire which would be considered borderline rural stinks of diesel fumes at junctions
Click to expand...

I'm with ancient_mariner on this one. Badly burnt diesel is not a pleasant nor healthy smell, but like anything else is most easily detected in clean air. When I go on my mountain trips where there is almost no traffic I can smell even a trace from my own car. Whereas in hellholes like Birmingham or London you barely notice only the worst offenders. That is because the noses adapt and "tone down" the response exponentially. If you sit long enough in the toilet it appears less awful than it is.

Badly burnt petrol is actually worse than diesel for health. Its the multitude of super toxic small volatile organic compounds that really hit the health very hard. Petrol engines typically burn richer fuel mixture that diesels and older ones in particular are terrible offenders.
 
Peter B said:
Ah yes, woodburners like the ones mentioned in the Guardian earlier this month? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution

I paid the extra for a Euro 6 as a longer term investment.
Click to expand...

The oncoming legal framework will treat E6 almost as badly as E5. Only the yet non-existent Euro7 will be more immune to this witchhunt

Byker28i said:
Not if both cars have to be used for distance. It only works out if your second car is used for local journeys, as I said it suits your particular situation.
£50K plus for a second hand Tesla S. Thats not an affordable price for most people.

Not sure where you got the same - the article says more, although that is in midwest US. You need a significant electricity supply from renewables before they produce less.

The Tesla Model S has been found to emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) over the course of its whole life than a petrol powered supermini in areas where electricity production is particularly reliant on high CO2-emitting sources. A new study has revealed that in such areas, the lifecycle CO2 emissions of the Model S are higher than those of a Mitsubishi Mirage with a petrol engine.

Then the issue is the range of the cars, which manufacturers recognise as a limiting factor so are fitting larger batteries, which in turn require more lithium and cobalt. The mining and turning this into batteries is recognised as having a significant environmental impact, from both the manufacture and the distance travelled of the components to make the batteries.
Click to expand...

Sure, if electricity is generated in coal or diesel power plants EVs are terrible choice for overall emissions. They may shift the problem from urban areas and this could have a positive effect on the the health so may be worth adding to the equations. We need more nuclear and ideally thermonuclear power. That is the answer. Yet the moron politicians do exactly the opposite.

Byker28i said:
Which model did you buy?
Click to expand...

I'm happy enough to walk a mile or so into town when I need. Zero emissions, zero cost. There is no point wrecking the diesel engine and wasting time at the lights. But its always there if I need to carry a heavier load.
 
IIRC Wuyanxu has a Leaf bit IMWNRC!
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Badly burnt petrol is actually worse than diesel for health. Its the multitude of super toxic small volatile organic compounds that really hit the health very hard. Petrol engines typically burn richer fuel mixture that diesels and older ones in particular are terrible offenders.
Click to expand...
A typical petrol engine has an AFR of 14.7:1, whilst diesel is 14.5:1, so there isn't a great deal in it. Petrol engines only tend to run richer still above 4000rpm to keep exhaust temps down but it also allows for a more advanced spark which improves the burn.
Modern diesel engines are only capable of improving the combustion of the fuel by injecting several smaller amounts of fuel at different times during the compression stroke, whilst on a petrol both the timing of the fuel injection and the spark can be varied to give a cleaner burn.
Diesel engines have had to have dpf's since 2007 to meet emissions regulations, petrol engines didn't because the amount and size of particulates produced are less. It is only to meet future emissions levels etc that petrol engines are now having to have gpf's and egr systems fitted.
 
wuyanxu said:
Of course single-car family will be different, I'm pointing out as a second car, EV makes perfect sense.



http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-ne...mit-more-lifetime-co2-than-a-petrol-supermini

Lifetime emission of Tesla Model S (not the greenest EV) has similar emission to a supermini
Click to expand...
Nope, not just single car families. A lot of families have multiple cars that both need to do both long and short journeys, and at the same time too.
I do 25-30k a year so EV is not an option. My wife meanwhile works a little closer and could on quite a few days get away with an EV but then again needs to do longer journeys in her car too so an EV is not an option for her either.
 
Nod said:
Wish it was cheaper! I could be interested for 30 or so but 50 is a bit rich for me. Still tempted by a 2nd hand Leaf for 10-12 but would (obviously) need a test drive first.
Click to expand...
Do take a test drive. Try out Eco mode with B "gear". It's the most relaxing drive ever. You can almost one pedal drive (Leaf 2 has E-pedal which is based on similar principle), no need to touch the brake except for emergency stop. The 0-30 performance when you floor it might also surprise you :)

Byker28i said:
Which model did you buy?
Click to expand...
64 reg 18k odometer 95% battery health Sunderland built Leaf Tekna 24kWh. PCP is £114 per month for 8k annual miles 36 months. But including my trade-in value, the grand total I will pay for the car will be £9100, then I'll own the car outright. Finance deal includes 2 years free servicing, 1 year free warranty including MOT and free home charger install. I also have solar panels on my roof and pay 100% renewable electricity company for my imported electricity.

PaulF said:
Nope, not just single car families. A lot of families have multiple cars that both need to do both long and short journeys, and at the same time too.
I do 25-30k a year so EV is not an option. My wife meanwhile works a little closer and could on quite a few days get away with an EV but then again needs to do longer journeys in her car too so an EV is not an option for her either.
Click to expand...
Of course, it's different for everyone. Excuse my genalisation. But in your situation, how long is your other half's occational long journey? How often does she do it?

I've been driving the Leaf on my daily commute of 60 miles, mostly motorway (which uses more power on EV). Most days when outside temperature is higher than 5c I can comfortably do the journey with range to spare. Low temperature affects the battery chemistry, on coldest days I'll need to visit a (free) rapid charger during lunch time, 20min later I'll be back to 80%. So in that sense, when I do bother to use the free rapid charger, about a third of my commute is free (at the moment).

I've read somewhere the average commute is 20 miles (probably on PHEV adverts advertising their 25 miles EV range). So a Leaf 24 is suitable for vast majority of commuting drivers who owns a driveway.
 
Byker28i said:
Not sure where you got the same - the article says more, although that is in midwest US. You need a significant electricity supply from renewables before they produce less.

The Tesla Model S has been found to emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) over the course of its whole life than a petrol powered supermini in areas where electricity production is particularly reliant on high CO2-emitting sources. A new study has revealed that in such areas, the lifecycle CO2 emissions of the Model S are higher than those of a Mitsubishi Mirage with a petrol engine.

Then the issue is the range of the cars, which manufacturers recognise as a limiting factor so are fitting larger batteries, which in turn require more lithium and cobalt. The mining and turning this into batteries is recognised as having a significant environmental impact, from both the manufacture and the distance travelled of the components to make the batteries.
Click to expand...
The report says “if we consider the US average electricity mix, the CO2 emissions intensity of the Tesla Model S is significantly lower than that of the Mirage.” I simplified it to "the same" to lean towards your views :)

The battery production is indeed the most polluting part, this is why EV need to go as far as possible. Then the battery can be re-conditioned to be stationary storage solutions. For example: https://www.nissan.co.uk/experience-nissan/electric-vehicle-leadership/xstorage-by-nissan.html

The mining argument against EV often forgets fossil fuel is mined from middle east at great cost as history have told us. The fuel is then refined using vast amount of electricity. Finally delivered by generation more pollution. Electricity infrastructure is already installed. EV can be used to smartly balance the grid and even reduce the strain on infrastructure. Tests are underway: https://electrek.co/2018/02/21/renault-smart-electric-island-electric-vehicles-v2g-energy-storage/
 
neil_g said:
Is that taking into account manufacturing and mining of rare earths for batteries? Or just based on emissions?

Ignoring just the CO2 for a moment, the chemicals involved in mining and production of the battery metals is highly polluting too. Not to mention the lack of lithium battery recycling.

Electric cars aren't the environmental savour some think they are.
Click to expand...

Now you’re into scope 3 emissions of the supply chain. If you’re going to do that then it needs to be compared with the supply chain emissions of ICE fuel extraction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top