Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

So what do we think of diesels now?

Wikiposts
Search
Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

So what do we think of diesels now?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 27th Feb 2017, 06:55
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Light aviation contributions to pollution are so small as to be insignificant, I did see figures that suggested that the annual U.K. GA fuel burn was equal to the fuel burn for an hour on the M25 at rush hour.

I don't know the sorce of these numbers but I think it sums up the scale quite well.
Did facts ever keep politicians away from stupid decisions?

I just read in a German newspaper they plan to ban Diesel powered cars from Stuttgart if they do not comply with Euro 6 regulations - their contribution to pollution in that town was estimated to be less 5% ... It is all about ideologies, not reality. I will be allowed to burn 100LL on top of their heads, but can not take the 2 year old car of my friend there to drive into town?
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2017, 12:05
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The Wild Blue Yonder
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alright, I'll continue the thread drift; can someone fill me in on how diesel cars are so bad that cities are looking at measures to ban them?
Diesel CO emissions are half of petrol, diesel particulates (the sooty stuff?) is the same, but their NOx levels are slightly higher.
I believe the NOx / CO difference is down to the difference in the chemistry of petrol / diesel burn, but I'm open to being educated.
The_Pink_Panther is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2017, 12:16
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alright, I'll continue the thread drift; can someone fill me in on how diesel cars are so bad that cities are looking at measures to ban them?
Diesel CO emissions are half of petrol, diesel particulates (the sooty stuff?) is the same, but their NOx levels are slightly higher.
I believe the NOx / CO difference is down to the difference in the chemistry of petrol / diesel burn, but I'm open to being educated.
First, it is a political and ideologic hunt, not a facts driven one.

Second, NOx is that tad higher that Diesel qualifies as "we make the world better" pretend-carrier.

Third, a problem is soot. As long as we had the old Diesel engines, soot was only a problem for the mom with her clotheline very close to the streets, but - every dumb idiot was able to see the black stuff. Then they invented the Diesel cat, the visible soot disappeared, but the physics got a lot worse as Diesels now produced tiny and airborne particles instead of the black rocks collected at the curbstone. They invented a bigger problem by solving a visible unseemliness. Then somebody even found out that tiny particles could have a medical impact and boom, next wave. Had they left it at the old soot throwers, we would not face the problem.
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 09:38
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Theresa May pledges to protect diesel drivers | Daily Mail Online
A scientific adviser, who has now admitted that he was wrong, was driven by an obsession with carbon emissions.
Can we really believe any of those characters? Do they first come up with a conclusion and then go about 'proving' it?
Glad to see that the PM is, at least, talking the talk; we shall see if she puts rhetoric into practice and stands up to money grabbing city councils.
Basil is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 11:40
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: southern England
Age: 66
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Southampton has spent years solidifying the traffic in order to justify a congestion charge. I shall be keeping my twenty year old Diesel. It will cost the planet much more to melt it down and replace it than it will ever pollute.
m.Berger is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 12:13
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Up't Norf
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
Light aviation contributions to pollution are so small as to be insignificant, I did see figures that suggested that the annual U.K. GA fuel burn was equal to the fuel burn for an hour on the M25 at rush hour.

I don't know the sorce of these numbers but I think it sums up the scale quite well.
The stat I saw was that the total fuel that evaporates from Car fuel tanks via the breathers exceeds total consumption of 100LL across the whole of Europe.
arra_halc is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 13:15
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
100LL is widely available in Europe and the USA but in most of Africa it is virtually unobtainable, making GA impossible without having 200 litre drums trucked in to any airfield that you plan to visit in advance and at great expense.
Diesel engines for light aircraft are the only way forward in these areas and they are becoming increasingly popular.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 14:21
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Faversham
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More thread drift ☺

Received new format AOPA members magazine at weekend. Looks a nice "face-lift" to mag and includes an article talking about Warter being the only producer of UL91? I thought there were other players .....Total, Air BP etc but notice less and less airfields stocking, and no longer any price advantage. But a question I never really got the answer to, is whether by running my O-360 on UL91, do I get any less power output? Without any price difference is there any remaining advantage with the exception of being green?

What does the team think?
Curlytips is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 14:37
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most of these policies are driven by green campaigners, many of whom make snake oil salesmen look respectable. The difficulty is that quite often they demand that something be banned e.g. Lead in petrol. However they don't then follow through and consider whether the solution (carcinogenic additives and CAT full of toxic heavy metals) might be worse than the problem.
Johnm is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 20:48
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newark'ish
Posts: 108
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by DirtyProp
I want one of these:

Steam Car Club Dobles

But with a slightly more modern body, chassis, brakes, suspensions, etc.
Steam cars ? nourishing obscurity

DP.......try the Pelland for size!
mikemmb is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 23:17
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The stat I saw was that the total fuel that evaporates from Car fuel tanks via the breathers exceeds total consumption of 100LL across the whole of Europe.
This statement is completely incorrect, as petrol-powered vehicles have had totally-enclosed fuel systems since the early 1970's to prevent excessive fuel evaporation losses.

The system is called Evaporative Vapour Emission Control (EVAP) and is one of the earliest emission control systems fitted to petrol-powered vehicles.

The primary vapour control device is a charcoal-filled canister that is fitted either in the engine bay, or close to the fuel tank.

Howstuffworks.com - Evaporative Emission Control System
onetrack is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2017, 00:43
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,955
Received 144 Likes on 87 Posts
The air in Putney high street is among the most polluted in London. Despite the introduction of hybrid buses, the mayor has taken to rerouting them to avoid the worst spots. There are calls to scrap all of London's diesel buses, but what would you do with all of them?
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2017, 08:26
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChickenHouse
Did facts ever keep politicians away from stupid decisions?

I just read in a German newspaper they plan to ban Diesel powered cars from Stuttgart if they do not comply with Euro 6 regulations - their contribution to pollution in that town was estimated to be less 5% ... It is all about ideologies, not reality. I will be allowed to burn 100LL on top of their heads, but can not take the 2 year old car of my friend there to drive into town?
Consider their choices. By (European) law they HAVE to do something to reduce the emissions. So what can they do? Ban ALL diesel cars? No, because there would be an outcry. However by targeting a selection of vehicles and claiming these are dirty, this allows the Greens to claim the moral high ground without a blanket ban on all diesel cars, ensuring that sufficient vehicles have been eliminated from the city in order to clean up the air.

Personally speaking (and that's only cos I drive an EU6 car) I'd prefer that approach than that favoured by our favourite deluded hypocrite Khan, saying he's going to charge 24 quid a day for diesels to enter his Londonistan, irrespective of emissions. As if a tax ever helped the environment......

What I find interesting is that your friend's two year old car doesn't meet the limits for the EU6 regulations, but my 3 year old car does......
Steve6443 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2017, 08:42
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by jolihokistix
The air in Putney high street is among the most polluted in London. Despite the introduction of hybrid buses, the mayor has taken to rerouting them to avoid the worst spots. There are calls to scrap all of London's diesel buses, but what would you do with all of them?
Because it's usually at a standstill!
Must be bad to reach all the way to Japan
Basil is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2017, 09:25
  #35 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes on 222 Posts
Removing HGVs from roads would help. Unfortunately, petrol engines aren't really an option for heavier vehicles.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2017, 10:19
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,955
Received 144 Likes on 87 Posts
Tokyo has been working on this for 20 years at least:
Tokyo Metropolitan Government's Efforts to Control Diesel Vehicle Emissions | Japan for Sustainability
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2017, 10:48
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Basil
Theresa May pledges to protect diesel drivers | Daily Mail Online
A scientific adviser, who has now admitted that he was wrong, was driven by an obsession with carbon emissions.
Can we really believe any of those characters? Do they first come up with a conclusion and then go about 'proving' it?
Glad to see that the PM is, at least, talking the talk; we shall see if she puts rhetoric into practice and stands up to money grabbing city councils.




The 'scientific adviser' who was wrong, is a long time proponent, adviser and activist on climate change !
Capt Kremmen is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2017, 11:09
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jolihokistiks
The air in Putney high street is among the most polluted in London. Despite the introduction of hybrid buses, the mayor has taken to rerouting them to avoid the worst spots. There are calls to scrap all of London's diesel buses, but what would you do with all of them?
You convert them to run on CNG, the same as we have done in Australia. It is an economic move, it just requires initial capital outlay - but the benefits are there in greatly reduced emissions and a reduced fuel bill.
onetrack is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2017, 16:41
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen
The 'scientific adviser' who was wrong, is a long time proponent, adviser and activist on climate change !
The thing is, when he gave that advice, the evidence was in that climate change was going to globally destabilise the climate if we didn't our reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but not so obvious that the emissions from diesel engines would be locally so bad for health. That's what scientists do: go where the evidence takes them.

Incidentally, global warming induced changes, such as the meandering jetstream, and increased water vapour in the atmosphere, are not going to improve flying conditions for GA.
soay is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2017, 08:24
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by soay
... but not so obvious that the emissions from diesel engines would be locally so bad for health. ...
I think that is a difficult to sustain position. The impact of diesel pollution and the challenges of making abatement equipment that worked for start/stop local journeys has been well understood for a long time.

There is a common view that the risks of climate change are of such an existential nature that it is worth taking significant pain now (local pollution, forgone development, lower material output, etc, - but not the use of nuclear power) to attempt to reduce the longer term impact. I suspect it was this conscious trade-off that drove the recommendations.
mm_flynn is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.