The future of diesel?

[geraldrobins]

Maybe ban cars with emissions over say 190 from city centres as well.

 

[Alex240]

Thought this might be of interest to the thread. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-38274792

 

[Craiglxviii]

Maybe ban cars with emissions over say 190 from city centres as well.

Emissions of what? The CO2 emissions metrics were (almost) purely political in nature.

 

[geraldrobins]

Emissions of what? The CO2 emissions metrics were (almost) purely political in nature.

CO2. CO2 emissions are roughly proportional to consumption and other pollutants.

 

[LostKiwi]

CO2. CO2 emissions are roughly proportional to consumption and other pollutants.

But are not representative of overall pollutants.
Diesels put out less CO2 than petrol engines but significantly more NOx and particulates. LPG puts out far less than CO2 than petrol with similar NOx to diesels. CO2 emissions were only ever a political fudge to get diesel to be more acceptable. It was never less polluting than petrol.

 

[geraldrobins]

But are not representative of overall pollutants.
Diesels put out less CO2 than petrol engines but significantly more NOx and particulates. LPG puts out far less than CO2 than petrol with similar NOx to diesels. CO2 emissions were only ever a political fudge to get diesel to be more acceptable. It was never less polluting than petrol.

Agreed. I was suggesting we ought to limit petrol and LPG pollutants as well as diesel
CO2 emissions also led to petrol engine cars with lower emissions I would suggest and initially diesel engines had a 3% addition to benefit in kind rates.

 

[d215yq]

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/

This research shows that the increased risk is pretty much due to age, it becomes almost exponential.

Please provide fact and data behind your opinions?

There are villages out here in rural spain which had a very basic rural way of life until about 30-40 years ago. Cancer was unheard of then.

Just as in recent history it wasn't known cigarettes, DDT, asbestos etc were bad, it is almost impossible that none of the almost endless inventions and materials incorporated into our lives are going to cause cancer.

I can't provide fact and data on such things that have yet to be discovered because obviously if I had that then they wouldn't be undiscovered! I can, however, suggest the rather excellent book The black swan which explains the danger in assuming we know everything when we actually don't have the full picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book)

If people had never thought in the past that we might not know everything we would still think the world was flat. The answer to everything cannot be found from links on the internet.

 

[Craiglxviii]

There are villages out here in rural spain which had a very basic rural way of life until about 30-40 years ago. Cancer was unheard of then.

Just as in recent history it wasn't known cigarettes, DDT, asbestos etc were bad, it is almost impossible that none of the almost endless inventions and materials incorporated into our lives are going to cause cancer.

I can't provide fact and data on such things that have yet to be discovered because obviously if I had that then they wouldn't be undiscovered! I can, however, suggest the rather excellent book The black swan which explains the danger in assuming we know everything when we actually don't have the full picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book)

If people had never thought in the past that we might not know everything we would still think the world was flat. The answer to everything cannot be found from links on the internet.

My point is this. The risk of a cancer developing is almost directly proportionate to an individual's age. Yes there are contributory factors, but all things being equal (ie. A control group) the older one gets, regardless of other factors, the higher the risk of a cancer developing. The advances in technology- industrial, medical etc. have all brought about a significantly increased lifespan in the developed world- thus increasing the incidence of cancer without anything else contributing.

I can make a direct parallel with your Spanish experiences and my family in Italy. 70 years ago cancer was unknown, but most people then died in their 50s and 60s. Later on their lifespans extended out into their 80s and 90s but people started dying of The Cancer or developing it more often.

Now add industrial pollutants into the mix- health risks all around HOWEVER please to remember that what is running around in developed Western countries (from cars to industrial plant) is typically newer, cleaner, more efficient, and less polluting than in other parts of the world because we tend to be held to much tighter regulatory frameworks by choice as much as anything else.

So the big question is, how does the per capita incidence of cancer in each age bracket vary around the world as a function of time?

By the way I'm pretty sure that diesel emissions aren't to blame at least on their own. There are plenty of other much nastier emission byproducts out there in far larger concentrations and volumes than DERVs.

 

[d215yq]

My point is this. The risk of a cancer developing is almost directly proportionate to an individual's age. Yes there are contributory factors, but all things being equal (ie. A control group) the older one gets, regardless of other factors, the higher the risk of a cancer developing. The advances in technology- industrial, medical etc. have all brought about a significantly increased lifespan in the developed world- thus increasing the incidence of cancer without anything else contributing.

I can make a direct parallel with your Spanish experiences and my family in Italy. 70 years ago cancer was unknown, but most people then died in their 50s and 60s. Later on their lifespans extended out into their 80s and 90s but people started dying of The Cancer or developing it more often.

Now add industrial pollutants into the mix- health risks all around HOWEVER please to remember that what is running around in developed Western countries (from cars to industrial plant) is typically newer, cleaner, more efficient, and less polluting than in other parts of the world because we tend to be held to much tighter regulatory frameworks by choice as much as anything else.

So the big question is, how does the per capita incidence of cancer in each age bracket vary around the world as a function of time?

By the way I'm pretty sure that diesel emissions aren't to blame at least on their own. There are plenty of other much nastier emission byproducts out there in far larger concentrations and volumes than DERVs.

Cancer rates in younger people are on the up so although a lot of cancer is explained by old age not all of it is.

I would agree that plant and industry is cleaner now than ever with the caveat that only when based on metrics that we now know is harmful. We do not know explicitly that this cleaner plant and materials and plastics we have introduced do not have as yet unknown consequences, and the fact that cancer is up in younger people despite the "cleaner" stuff suggests maybe this could be the case.

I would guess that processed foods, excess sugar intake and lethargic lifestyle may explain some of it, however it would be naive to suggest that we have not introduced something into our lives which will in time be found to cause cancer, as has happened through the history of industrial development. Think of the exposure to synthetic chemicals we have now compared to other generations, both in terms of length of time to exposure and the variety of chemicals out there. It would only take one material used in the construction of phones/Pcs/car interiors to have a consequence that would take a while to prove but could have devastating results for the health of people.

I would also agree (in fact I think my point proves it) that DERVs are unlikely to be that big a deal in light of the potential of an unknown thing we have introduced. I personally think that the haze of grey smoke that comes out of my 30yr old W124 diesel every time I cold start it is probably less harmful than the fumes of the plastic interior I have to breathe when hiring a new car. My throat/airways certainly feel a lot better after 3 hours in my car compared to 3 hours in a new hire car, despite the occasional whiff of burnt diesel when going up hills!

Conclusion is I think too many people fear knowns which by definition are already controlled. It's the unknowns that are what really tends to cause the most damage to people/species. As such more prudence should be used when evaluating new technologies even if there is no link when the technology is released (which by definition would be impossible to know at the time as there would be no causation correlations at the point it is introduced)

 

[Craiglxviii]

You're forgetting one thing... as science improves we get better at either predicting or discovering the unknowns. For instance, petrochemicals in daily life (plastics)- there are very few new forms of polymers introduced, and anything such new already has to go through ever more rigourous toxobiological screening BEFORE it is introduced that "most" things get detected way before there's anything harmful running around in the general population. That is part of what I meant when I mentioned the regulatory frameworks... look at the hoops one has to jump through to get new pharmacalogical packaging introduced, it's something like an 8 year introduction loop nowadays to get all of the relevant testing completed; that testing comprises the health effects of whatever material the packaging is made of. Never mind the pharma it contains or how the packaging and pharma interact which is also a very rigourous round of long term testing.

Just about anything new that is introduced to the general public has this sort of screening undertaken. It catches a lot of issues.

 

[davemercedes]

Thought this might be of interest to the thread. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-38274792

Not a single word in this article to point out that about 80% of pollution in cities comes from dirty old buses and lorries, easpecially aged London Transport dirt guzzlers (and old cars, of course). London Mayor Sadiq Khan (who has said he has no authority to ban diesel vehicles from the streets anyway) has been make well aware of that and has set up a bus-scrapping process - good for him - see report below.
- But that doesn't fit very well with the publicity required for the Doctors' demonstration/demands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38157860

End of the road for London's 'dirty' diesel buses - 30th November
To be phased out starting from 2018. The article includes a pretty posed picture of the smiling Mayor... nothing changes very much really.

 

[Alex240]

Not a single word in this article to point out that about 80% of pollution in cities comes from dirty old buses and lorries, easpecially aged London Transport dirt guzzlers (and old cars, of course). London Mayor Sadiq Khan (who has said he has no authority to ban diesel vehicles from the streets anyway) has been make well aware of that and has set up a bus-scrapping process - good for him - see report below.
- But that doesn't fit very well with the publicity required for the Doctors' demonstration/demands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38157860

End of the road for London's 'dirty' diesel buses - 30th November
To be phased out starting from 2018. The article includes a pretty posed picture of the smiling Mayor... nothing changes very much really.

I'm not saying the BBC is reliable, thorough or accurate. Just thought I'd add the article to the mix.

 

[Botus]

don't jet planes pretty much run on diesel and produce similar filth? this is why the third runway at Heathrow will never happen. But you PM is saying it will... Much the same reason Khan says he won't be banning diesels in London

the idea is to keep the peasants busy worrying about rubbish so their true crimes can be peddled whilst you're not looking. Perhaps its time to wake up and smell the roses???

 

[LostKiwi]

Parrafin neatly falls into the gap between diesel fuel oils and lighter fuels such as petrol. Whilst a diesel will run on parrafin it will burn much hotter and have issues as a result.
Any decision on third runways or diesel busses will be driven very much by economics rather than being seen to be green but you can guarantee they'll put some kind of green spin on it.

 

[PovertySpec]

regulatory frameworks... look at the hoops one has to jump through to get new pharmacalogical packaging introduced, it's something like an 8 year introduction loop nowadays to get all of the relevant testing completed; that testing comprises the health effects of whatever material the packaging is made of. Never mind the pharma it contains or how the packaging and pharma interact which is also a very rigourous round of long term testing. Just about anything new that is introduced to the general public has this sort of screening undertaken. It catches a lot of issues.

Lots of issues, lots of industries, more regulatory is a Good Thing

 

[Craiglxviii]

don't jet planes pretty much run on diesel and produce similar filth? this is why the third runway at Heathrow will never happen. But you PM is saying it will... Much the same reason Khan says he won't be banning diesels in London

the idea is to keep the peasants busy worrying about rubbish so their true crimes can be peddled whilst you're not looking. Perhaps its time to wake up and smell the roses???

Kerosene.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Lots of issues, lots of industries, more regulatory is a Good Thing

When it comes to safety, yes very much so. This is why genetically modified crops have taken so long to be allowed; we cannot yet be sure what the long term effects of such mutations are.

 

[PovertySpec]

This is why genetically modified crops have taken so long to be allowed

GM is old and busted.

New crop technology is redefining regulatory

 

[davemercedes]

When it comes to safety, yes very much so. This is why genetically modified crops have taken so long to be allowed; we cannot yet be sure what the long term effects of such mutations are.

Well, I've been eating GM veg for years and years and it hasn't done me any harm. Except now and then, one of my left arms shakes a bit and my third foot gets a rash if it rains sometimes.

 

[Botus]

Kerosene.

LostKiwi said, I thought it was the same stuff. It all seems a bit confusing. There's quite a bit of contradictory stuff on wiki but must be quite similar, as LostKiwi said its a light oil and other bits say its derived from petrol

Heat of combustion of kerosene is similar to that of diesel fuel; its lower heating value is 43.1 MJ/kg (around 18,500 Btu/lb), and its higher heating value is 46.2 MJ/kg.

JP-8, (for "Jet Propellant 8") a kerosene-based fuel, is used by the United States military as a replacement in diesel fuelled vehicles and for powering aircraft. JP-8 is also by the U.S. military and its NATO allies as a fuel for heaters, stoves, tanks and as a replacement for diesel fuel in the engines of nearly all tactical ground vehicles and electrical generators.