So what do we think of diesels now?
 

HM government is now suggesting we "think carefully" before buying a diesel car, and already London will introduce emission charges on top of congestion charges. So could the future mean increased tax on diesel fuels in future?

And what does that mean for aviation? Do those new diesel-powered aviation engines look less attractive (and are they worse than our 100LL polluters)?

Should any of us, Avgas or Jet A1 users, feel guilty when probably every bus in the capital is diesel powered (even though some are bio-fuel)? And here's my real question for the team.......

When jet aircraft (airliners, air force or whatever), are turning and burning, are they contaminating the atmosphere with nitrous oxide or anything, and does it fall to the surface to join in with our city pollution levels?

And shipping? - virtually burning tar - ie fuel that has to be preheated before it can be injected into cylinders.

But that must be exempt as they transport materials needed for car battery construction from one side of the world to he other!

I'm was burdened with feelings of guilt knowing my 6 cylinder, 3 liter Land Rover Discovery engine was being choked of fresh oxygen with all that exhaust return CSV valve emmission shyte the factory put on it . Bypassing it allowed both myself and the Landy to breath easier.

Diesel? DIESEL??

Simply NOT an Officer's fuel, old boy...:=

DEATH BEFORE DISEASEL!!

The main reasons to burn Avtur IMO is a reduced risk of immolation in an accident + reduced greenhouse emissions. The main environmental reason not to burn 100 leaded is that it's toxic enough that I don't like splashing it on myself. Despite the recent diesel scandal these reasons still stand and I'd opt for a heavy fuel aircraft engine if they were affordable.

FWIW I believe diesel buses and lorries are meant to have less particulate and NO2 emissions than most diesel cars.

Airliners do emit similar nasties, but at least spread them equitably about over the highlands and Atlantic ocean rather than just London and similarly built up areas, which makes it somewhat less harmful.

They transport petrol from one side of the world to the other in much the same way. The difference is they need to do so every time you need a tankful whereas batteries can be recharged. It's easier to recycle batteries than petrol too!

An electric car? No thanks.

Here in my city Down Under, we burn CNG in most of the 1300-strong bus fleet. Not only because it is much cleaner, but because we also have oodles of it under Australia and our coastal waters (Australia has the 2nd largest supply of NG in the world, behind Qatar as No. 1).

As to diesels, they are a dying engine type. Just looked at a new Isuzu D-Max, they now have a particulate filter in the exhaust, that needs to be run through a "burn-off" phase - every 500km!

Diesels were once famous for simplicity, long life, high torque, and economy.
With every "advance" in newer diesel engines, fuel economy worsens, complexity increases to petrol engine levels, and the sheer costliness of maintenance and repair on them makes your eyes water.

It's highly unlikely that diesel will ever be removed as a power source from the heavy industrial power side of things (heavy trucks, earthmovers, ships) - but diesel power in small road vehicles has always been an "iffy" equation - particularly where the average urban dweller only travels a few kms or a few miles in each trip.

Aircraft diesels have only ever been a "flash in the pan" and they will never amount to anything. The weight required for diesel engine strength will always work against them.
I personally believe the future will see more hybrid engines, and a rapid increase in electric motive power.

One only has to look at the advances in electronics and electrical design in the last 30-40 years to see that electrical design still has great potential for efficiency and weight-saving, as compared to liquid fuels that are near the peak of their design.

Who recalls when computers were the size of a room and could only handle basic calculations, and only then by highly trained operators utilising special computer language?
Yet today, we carry in our pockets and purses, mini-computers that connect us to the entire world in seconds, that provide detailed maps, and which provide video, photo-and movie-taking, all in the one little hand-held device. The old computer designers and electrical engineers of the 60's and 70's would be amazed at the speed and breadth of electrical and electronic development of today - as we will be, with new major advances in electrical power technology in the next 20 years.

Just imagine if a clean fuel for oceangoing ships could be found? No, that'll never happen...

http://www.rk-marine-kiel.de/images/...z/preussen.jpg

That might be true in the tame parts of the world, i.e. (parts of) Europe and North America, but if you want to fly anywhere more interesting then fuel availability means that an aero-diesel is a no-brainer. The SMA first generation one has a couple of annoying flaws, and we all know about the issues with Thielert, but more modern engines are looking pretty good.

To answer the OP, 'diesel' GA aircraft run on Jet A-1 (i.e. kero), not diesel. Jet A-1 specs are not yet changing to address environmental concerns, but its only a matter of time.

As for shipping, fuel environmental specs have been tightening for years and are continuing to do so. Google "Marpol Annex VI" and "ISO8217" if you want more information.

There has certainly been some amazing advances. One of the most significant being the reduction in the amount of energy needed to power those devices.

Unfortunately physics dictates how much energy an aircraft needs for it to fly. Reducing energy consumption like they have for computers isn't an option.

The answer lies in developing the best (cleanest, safest, highest energy for volume/weight) fuel. The fossil fuels are hard to beat right now. Battery technology isn't exactly environmentally friendly either.

It's my guess the future will be batteries or fuel cells once they can store 12 to 14 hours of energy for a 787 size aircraft.

Some can, the Thielert at least and I think the Wilksch too (if that is still around, which I doubt). In fact I can't see why ANY kerosene engine could not also run on diesel fuel, which is only slightly "thicker" making it a better lubricant.
There have even been reports of recreational fliers running their diesel on "red" heating fuel oil - identical to road diesel but for the colour.

The SMA in our C182 was great (with some limitations) but clearly the plan was then dropped by Cessna.

I run an extremely ugly but extremely cheap Fluence EV (100% electric) which is interesting with both positives and negatives...

Battery capacity/size/weight is the key issue - once this is sufficiently advanced things will change very quickly...

The Mayor conveniently forgets the proliferation of wood burning stoves which seems to be in fashion. These are just as polluting as diesel cars as the fuel isn't refined in any way, unlike the various grades of 'smokeless' coal produced in the aftermath of the smogs of the '50s.

Man takes diesel car in for MOT test having recently filled it with Jet A and forgotten about the emissions test. Realised his error, but too late to back out.
Tester "the figures on this are really low never seen one this good before"

True story

With current discussion after VW-Dieselgate we do not need to discuss facts, physics or chemistry, decision will be taken on ideologic and political abstraction layer. Even further with all that biological waste put into diesel I fear to put that solylent green into an aircraft. Yes I do drive a diesel car, but I try to feed it on biological free diesel, avoiding what is called Dieselpest. Jet-A is not diesel, but quite close, so I believe our politicians are completely unable to tell the difference. As big as I would like to see a more environmental approach for aviation fuel, I do not see what the alternative is, yet.

I want one of these:

Steam Car Club Dobles

But with a slightly more modern body, chassis, brakes, suspensions, etc.

@DP: YMMD, thx! But why a modern body, the old ones are just fine. These cars are from an era after Siemens found out that electric street transportation is not such a good idea - what he was convinced of in the beginning of 1881. The reasons why he abandoned are still valid.

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.