The future of diesel?

[Craiglxviii]

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.

Yup. JP-1 through 8 are all variously interchangeable with different additives to achieve different things (freezing, flashpoints etc). JP-6 used to be the ship- standard AvTur due to its higher flashpoint for instance.

All are replaceable in an emergency with 105 octane AvGas believe it or not, but the engine life between full overhaul reduces by around 98% as a result.

 

[range rover]

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.

I have often thought, what would be the solution if sometime in the future it is discovered that plastic is not a wise conduit for water, just as we now know lead was a definite no no? Don't say it couldn't happen plastic and it's families give off some pretty nasty fumes in a fire.

 

[Craiglxviii]

I have often thought, what would be the solution if sometime in the future it is discovered that plastic is not a wise conduit for water, just as we now know lead was a definite no no? Don't say it couldn't happen plastic and it's families give off some pretty nasty fumes in a fire.

Define "plastic"

Seriously, there is a LOT of research that has been and still is done, concerning what chemical compounds affect the human body and how they affect it. Plastics derived from petrochemicals are non soluble in water (fairly simple test) and their effects have been closely studied for something like 60 years now. If there were some dreadful effects I think that they'd have been pointed out by now, the authorities tend to move pretty damn quick in cases like these.

 

[d215yq]

Define "plastic"

Seriously, there is a LOT of research that has been and still is done, concerning what chemical compounds affect the human body and how they affect it. Plastics derived from petrochemicals are non soluble in water (fairly simple test) and their effects have been closely studied for something like 60 years now. If there were some dreadful effects I think that they'd have been pointed out by now, the authorities tend to move pretty damn quick in cases like these.

If, however, their affects over a long time were a slight increase in cancer then there would be no way of knowing even over 60 years and that could explain the higher cancer rates in younger people.

I am in no doubt of the testing that goes on, it's just we don't know everything and to rule out future discoveries that contradict what we know would be to ignore the whole history of industrial/product development

Nobody knew CO2 would cause the problems it has already started and no-one knows completely how bad the consequences will be in the future (and despite 98% of climate scientists saying otherwise some still continue to argue it makes no difference at all!).

We may have more checks and balances than ever but we've created such an interlinked and complex world that has drastically changed all our lives and the planet's that it is a certainty that we're also introducing unknown negative consequences in the future. I can't understand how anyone would discount that possibility

 

[Yugguy]

Perhaps the increased cancer rate is linked to the huge increase in the availability and consumption of processed meat?

In the 70s when I was a child the only "fast food" was the chippie, which for all its faults was still fresh food.

 

[Brizzle]

I would really love to do that and I've considered offerings over the years; I nearly bought a Grand Cherokee Jeep 3-4 years ago - that looked like it had just come out a new car showroom but it got sold while I thought about it doh!.

But LPG's a commitment and a half though, because you never know when the tax/price advantage will disappear - and if you've lashed out on a four/five litre motor and you suddenly have to pay petrol price for LPG you might as well commit hari kari on your wallet!

I had two Discovery V8's on LPG - they ran like silk and the engine oil looked as clean after 6000 miles as it did when I put it in. At less than 20mpg thought yu needed at least 2 x 40l tanks to make sure you could bet from one fillup to the next

I'd have another in a heartbeat

 

[Craiglxviii]

If, however, their affects over a long time were a slight increase in cancer then there would be no way of knowing even over 60 years and that could explain the higher cancer rates in younger people.

I am in no doubt of the testing that goes on, it's just we don't know everything and to rule out future discoveries that contradict what we know would be to ignore the whole history of industrial/product development

Nobody knew CO2 would cause the problems it has already started and no-one knows completely how bad the consequences will be in the future (and despite 98% of climate scientists saying otherwise some still continue to argue it makes no difference at all!).

We may have more checks and balances than ever but we've created such an interlinked and complex world that has drastically changed all our lives and the planet's that it is a certainty that we're also introducing unknown negative consequences in the future. I can't understand how anyone would discount that possibility

If their results were a slight increase over a long period, what makes you think it wouldn't be picked up in the research being done into defeating cancer? Being serious, simply due to the industrial requirements of it in our everyday lives, there is a huge amount of data available over something like 50 years now in how plastics interact with the human endocrine system. It's a massively profitable field of study- one of my best mates is a leading chemical researcher in this field - and one which data has been developed and maintained for over a very long period, literally since plastic medicine bottles started being used.

I have to poke some massive, enormous holes in the bolded bit. Sorry to cherrypick but if your point is to include current scientific understanding, there is very little consensus on the effects of increased CO2 levels on the biosphere. The reality isn't 98%, it's more like 60% and a great deal of that 60% are toeing a political line. "Climate change" entered the vocabulary through Thatcher's Green Tax proposal, it was not bandied around before then. In addition to that, methane is a much more efficient greenhouse gas (and no-one regulates the amount that the global beef/ milk herd farts, do they? It's a significant contributor...); increases in CO2 along with supposed increases in global temperature <should> spur chlorphyll-based life to increase oxygen output too. We're not seeing that happen either...

 

[Botus]

Perhaps the increased cancer rate is linked to the huge increase in the availability and consumption of processed meat?

In the 70s when I was a child the only "fast food" was the chippie, which for all its faults was still fresh food.

the preservatives used on ham and bacon does indeed give you cancer... one should regularly look at WHO info they often say what one should and shouldn't do but no one seems to care... the governments aren't going to help, their purpose is to make you scared and worried, then they want you to die once they have extracted as many work hours out of you as is practicable. They neither want a state pension to pay out, nor their own shares in annuity firms to suffer by you living too long.

 

[LostKiwi]

I had two Discovery V8's on LPG - they ran like silk and the engine oil looked as clean after 6000 miles as it did when I put it in. At less than 20mpg thought yu needed at least 2 x 40l tanks to make sure you could bet from one fillup to the next

I'd have another in a heartbeat

I had a RRC on LPG and later a Toyota Landcruiser Colorado on LPG.
Both ran well on it and as remarked the oil was always clean even after 6000 miles or more.
The RRC had a 60L tamk (which was a pain) and the Toyota a 70L one (which was less of a pain).
I also sold an FC101 that was not quite converted and that had twin 60 litre tanks


The biggest issue I found with LPG was the lack of local filling stations. The nearest to where we live is a half hour drive and not on a regular route. In the end sold the Toyota because of the inconvenience.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Perhaps the increased cancer rate is linked to the huge increase in the availability and consumption of processed meat?

In the 70s when I was a child the only "fast food" was the chippie, which for all its faults was still fresh food.

This is looking very much more likely than just about anything else. From my understanding, some fairly recent research has shown elevated cancer risks from embrined pork products (bacon, ham, gammon) in comparison to its unembrined counterparts (pork belly, leg meat etc).

Big field of study in the health effects of minimizing the steps food takes from "field to fork" and also minimizing whatever processing the food might take too.

 

[Taffy7hfa]

Salmonella, Trans fats, Power lines, Aspartame, Nitrites, the list goes on and on. The knee- jerk reaction we have seen since the VW emissions scandal has all the hallmarks of a health scare. Diesel engines have become the latest convenient political & social “whipping post”. Current technology is easily capable of producing extremely low emissions diesel engines, I sometimes wonder if we accept too easily what our experts tell us ? they seem to change their minds at an alarming rate.

 

[silestanix]

Diesel (& Torque) for life. Just my opinion, driven petrol cars recently and compared to even a 200k diesel like mine there's just no torque.

 

[3146bj]

Salmonella, Trans fats, Power lines, Aspartame, Nitrites, the list goes on and on. The knee- jerk reaction we have seen since the VW emissions scandal has all the hallmarks of a health scare. Diesel engines have become the latest convenient political & social “whipping post”. Current technology is easily capable of producing extremely low emissions diesel engines, I sometimes wonder if we accept too easily what our experts tell us ? they seem to change their minds at an alarming rate.

All you have to do to start a scare is get the right statisticians together to show there is a link to a health problem, or even a potential link, and the media will run with it, find a couple of dozen "experts" to support the argument and have half the population running around like headless chooks condemning everything that is not "natural". Science is no longer about challenging proposals, but about getting a paper published in a some inconsequential "scientific" magazine to get your name up in lights. Bad news always sells papers, however unbelievable it may be

With respect to the advantages/disadvantages of the various fuels, they all have their own problems with each being suited to particular applications, e.g. diesel is more suited to long life commercial vehicles, petrol to small (2-7 seat) non-commercial and higher performance vehicles, LPG to cars in cooler climates, electricity for short range urban use. Most have to be modified for certain uses, for example, lower waxing temperature diesel for use in cold weather, low volatility petrol for sale in areas where petrol sniffing is a social problem. No fuel suits all applications for all people.

Whatever we write here, the market will decide what is the best fit, although there will always be somebody with an over-hyped opinion of where he/she/it fits in the scheme of things who believes they have the right to tell everybody else how to live their lives.

 

[d215yq]

If their results were a slight increase over a long period, what makes you think it wouldn't be picked up in the research being done into defeating cancer? Being serious, simply due to the industrial requirements of it in our everyday lives, there is a huge amount of data available over something like 50 years now in how plastics interact with the human endocrine system. It's a massively profitable field of study- one of my best mates is a leading chemical researcher in this field - and one which data has been developed and maintained for over a very long period, literally since plastic medicine bottles started being used.

I have to poke some massive, enormous holes in the bolded bit. Sorry to cherrypick but if your point is to include current scientific understanding, there is very little consensus on the effects of increased CO2 levels on the biosphere. The reality isn't 98%, it's more like 60% and a great deal of that 60% are toeing a political line. "Climate change" entered the vocabulary through Thatcher's Green Tax proposal, it was not bandied around before then. In addition to that, methane is a much more efficient greenhouse gas (and no-one regulates the amount that the global beef/ milk herd farts, do they? It's a significant contributor...); increases in CO2 along with supposed increases in global temperature <should> spur chlorphyll-based life to increase oxygen output too. We're not seeing that happen either...

OK so we have to believe the scientists when they state that plastics are safe but we can't trust scientists when they say man made climate change is happening (and 98% of them do say that it is happening and is man made)?? And if it is politically convenient to believe in climate change (it's actually quite unpopular to convince a world to use less oil!) maybe it's politically popular to say the chemicals used don't do any damage too?

Now I completely agree with you that very little of climate change has anything to do with car tailpipe emissions, eating meat, industry, consumerism is far more contributory, but that is a totally different question. In fact as meat production contributes 50% of all of climate change it would be better to tax it and tell people to eat less and not worry about the cars they drive.

I don't doubt your knowledge of industry and I find your posts very interesting and informative. But coming from the economics profession in my previous life there were people who could explain every thing from models formulated for 50 years of data stating that the global financial crisis couldn't happen and they had erradicated risk. I remained sceptical because as they became better at understanding everything they knew they started ignoring the fact there might be external discoveries/mechanisms at play which came as a shock. As I say, The black swan really is an interesting read that explains such phenomenon.

I would rather assume there is some risk in anything new we do even if it is not qualified yet and therefore use things with prudence.

 

[Craiglxviii]

All you have to do to start a scare is get the right statisticians together to show there is a link to a health problem, or even a potential link, and the media will run with it, find a couple of dozen "experts" to support the argument and have half the population running around like headless chooks condemning everything that is not "natural". Science is no longer about challenging proposals, but about getting a paper published in a some inconsequential "scientific" magazine to get your name up in lights. Bad news always sells papers, however unbelievable it may be

With respect to the advantages/disadvantages of the various fuels, they all have their own problems with each being suited to particular applications, e.g. diesel is more suited to long life commercial vehicles, petrol to small (2-7 seat) non-commercial and higher performance vehicles, LPG to cars in cooler climates, electricity for short range urban use. Most have to be modified for certain uses, for example, lower waxing temperature diesel for use in cold weather, low volatility petrol for sale in areas where petrol sniffing is a social problem. No fuel suits all applications for all people.

Whatever we write here, the market will decide what is the best fit, although there will always be somebody with an over-hyped opinion of where he/she/it fits in the scheme of things who believes they have the right to tell everybody else how to live their lives.

I'm not a big fan of his, but Michael Crichton wrote a book called "State of Fear"- his science as ever is a bit ditzy to say the least, but the book makes a really good point- corporations and governments can (and almost certainly have- see VAG comments above) manufactured continuous crises and issues to keep the general public around the globe demanding a certain direction, certain standards etc. which bear no relation to the truth/ reality.

 

[d215yq]

I'm not a big fan of his, but Michael Crichton wrote a book called "State of Fear"- his science as ever is a bit ditzy to say the least, but the book makes a really good point- corporations and governments can (and almost certainly have- see VAG comments above) manufactured continuous crises and issues to keep the general public around the globe demanding a certain direction, certain standards etc. which bear no relation to the truth/ reality.

Adam Curtis has made many excellent documentaries regarding this as well.

 

[Wozza14]

Just spoken to my father back In the uk and Southampton city council are planning to charge £10 for diesel cars to enter the city.....maybe they can pick all of the rubbish off the roadside and fix all the pot holes...

 

[Noelmc]

Just spoken to my father back In the uk and Southampton city council are planning to charge £10 for diesel cars to enter the city.....maybe they can pick all of the rubbish off the roadside and fix all the pot holes...

Southamptons problems of pollution are unusual in that the worst polluters are the Ocean Liners at the quay side, and the fuel oil they consume.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Just spoken to my father back In the uk and Southampton city council are planning to charge £10 for diesel cars to enter the city.....maybe they can pick all of the rubbish off the roadside and fix all the pot holes...

Yeah right. Chance'd be a fine thing!!! LGBT Legal Migrant Outreach Coordination doesn't fund itself you know!!!

 

[gizze]

Diesel (& Torque) for life. Just my opinion, driven petrol cars recently and compared to even a 200k diesel like mine there's just no torque.

I think this is the problem for many, more than any genuine concerns for pollution, it is about which one feels quick and cheapest.

However, I don't agree with the above anymore, things have changed in the last 2-3 years.

Nearly all new petrols are forced induction these days, they no longer feel lacking in any torque.


Back in 1996 I had a choice between the A4 in 1.8i or 1.9tdi guise, they were both 90hp, both did the 'sprint' to 60mph in 11 seconds but one did 25mpg and the other 55mpg. It was a no brainer.

However, roll on a few years and the difference between my 530i and 530d was more like 28mpg and 33mpg.

Roll on a few more years and the difference between 535d and 335i was sod all.

And currently I am in a 350 cgi e class, it was the cdi before that, and the difference is around 10%, which also tells me that petrol tech has moved on at a faster rate than diesel tech.
I am sure if we didn't have to worry about emissions we would be seeing lots of 100mpg diesels, but at the moment it seems the advances in mpg are simply being wiped out by the need for emission controlling gadgets.


Then you have things like the VAG 1.4tfsi, it is lighter, smoother, revs better, sounds better and has a nice clutch attached than the 2.0tdi and yet gets exactly the same MPG, in fact during sub 10 mile journeys it is slightly more efficient than the diesel.


I am seeing less and less of a reason to buy diesels now. However, it may take a while for customers to realise this.