The case for transitioning away from (was: banning) diesel: It hurts you and especially your kids.

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › The case for transitioning away from (was: banning) diesel: It hurts you and especially your kids.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 13

Mad Scientist
29827 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6089

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1602136 1-Aug-2016 12:21

I'd love to ban diesel. I don't like the smell. But you need alternatives that are fit for purpose ... Lithium ion battery packs are not. Oh and you better inform the oil companies too ...

Can't they come up with a better way like use something to catch the harmful gasses and neutralise within the exhaust?

D1023319

524 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

ID Verified

#1602145 1-Aug-2016 12:44

Keeping vehicles for longer reduces carbon emissions.
My 1993 - diesel ute which I service regularly has covered about 420km.
If the OP gets their wish and diesel is banned - I will have to buy a new one which will emit a lot of carbon in its manufacture.

I am surprised ( pardon if I missed it) that the OP is pushing for coastal shipping rather than Rail electrification.

Wiki has a good section on it already been electrified - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Island_Main_Trunk

MikeAqua

7787 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3623

#1602208 1-Aug-2016 13:10

To be fair OP is concerned about local toxic pollution, as distinct from climate change and CO2.

Mike

Sidestep

1017 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1602268 1-Aug-2016 14:04

Linuxluver:

I am fascinated that overriding health issues (for me) are overlooked by most commenters. Doesn't even register.

I don't think we're ignoring the health consequences of dirty fuels. But while being aware of the dangers of diesel - and many other things, we try to balance those risks while living morally, economically & financially successful lives.

For me, the knee jerk solution of 'ban diesel' overwhelmed the rest of your statement. Pushing that argument to an extreme, we could achieve an even better result by 'banning all transportation' while ignoring the fact that would leave us with a non functioning society. Does your electric car have tires? When you replace those tires do you ever wonder where that 5mm of rubber tread that's worn off has gone? That rubber dust's forming a non-biodegradable sludge, floating in the air as nano-particles, polluting our environment causing health risks. Everything's shades of grey.

I love the idea of clean, renewable alternative energy. As a solar powered creature - living on a water planet, I particularly like the thought of a solar/hydrogen economy.
There's something pure & zen about capturing energy from the hydrogen powered fusion reactor in the sky, carrying it as bonded hydrogen molecules, releasing it with a pure water byproduct.

Is that how I'm going to power the excavator anytime soon? Nope. This morning I pumped 90l of diesel into it, this afternoon it'll have used that up.
That's approx 1000 kWh of energy I'll have burned today in one small machine to load crushed gravel into the truck, raw rock into the crusher (both of which also run on diesel)
It's sitting in a quarry, 50km from a fuel station, 10km from a power line. Plugging it in is not possible.
That same fossil fuel investment's gone into every piece of gravel used to create the road you drive on, all the hydro and geothermal power stations, the lines that carry energy to your car's charger.

Living in a - relatively - compact city, not directly burning fuel for your job, it's easy to underestimate the extent of infrastructure change that's going be required to move the whole economy off fossil fuels.
And even if the tech became available tomorrow to replace my machine with an electric one, I couldn't.. it would also have to be financially viable.
I expect 20 years from my equipment, estimate running & repair costs, depreciation & resale value before purchasing it. I can't afford to buy new machines the way city people churn cars.
Farmer and owner/operator friends who make a living with their trucks & machinery are all in the same boat. There's massive financial and technological investment in legacy equipment across New Zealand and the world.

In short - I do care deeply about leaving the world a better, less polluted place for my kids to inherit. But I have to balance that with housing, feeding, educating them.
Right now the only path to providing them with a viable future involves burning fossil fuels.
My wife and I plant more trees every year in our little never-to-be-harvested eco-sourced carbon sink forest, belong to a bunch of do-gooder organisations, trap feral animals, eat organic fair trade food. Because the key is chipping away at the problems, incremental change - while hoping for some huge scientific breakthrough that'll change the world..

I'd be fine with city trucks having better particulate filters. And maybe my Daughter, raised in a fossil fuel world, will be a scientist in the team that creates the world's first miniaturised, transportable fusion reactor!

TwoSeven

1649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 262

Subscriber

#1602411 1-Aug-2016 18:20

MikeAqua:
TwoSeven:

I understood that Electric and steam trucks were around long before diesel trucks. The steam trucks were quite common into the 1950s. While electric trucks were common up until the 40s, they were replaced by a combination engine based on diesel or petrol and an electric engines. The former is still used in trains and the latter in hybrid cars.

I would suggest that because of the compression ratio used and the high torque that produces, diesel is popular in load carrying scenarios, but I would suggest an electric engine would be more efficient both in size/weight and torque per watt as well as byproduct produced as an effect of use - diesel typically produces particulate and nitrogen oxide where as electricity only produces heat as a by-product as far as I am aware.

I think long term it really comes down to the charging infrastructure, both in the availability and in time-to-charge (fast charging points).

Electric motors are wonderfully efficient, batteries are not.

Assume two vehicles that are identical except for their drive trains.

The diesel drive train has a mechanical efficiency of 33% and diesel has an energy density of 48MJ/kg .

The electric drive train is 80% efficient with a battery that has an energy density of 2MJ/kg.

For the two vehicles to carry the same load, the same distance, at the same speed without stopping ....

The EV's battery has to weigh about 10x as much as the diesel's fuel.

And then it gets even worse ...

(1) The additional mass of the battery has to be carried in addition to the load.

(2) We therefore need more energy to complete the task.

(3) But more energy means a bit more mass of battery ... i.e. more work.

Theoretically this feedback loop will eventually stabilises with a very big, very heavy battery. In reality we have legal upper limits for the weight of certain classes of vehicle. In practice EV manufactures compromise any or all of load, range or speed.

If you are carrying a light load, short distances and stopping a lot - an EV may win.

Currently we see hybrids in that role commercial but not full EVs.

NZ post are about to change that with fleet of micro EVs for local mail delivery. But their line haulers, couriers, rural posties and aircraft will still burn fossil fuel.

There have been electric trucks in the past, and even with old technology worked quite well. Electric vehicles tend to be designed for purpose. For example the old English milk float was a battery electric vehicle, it didn't need to move quickly.

Electric vehicles today don't use the same design and components, so any additional weight from batteries is offset by not having the weight of the engine and drive train. Also, instead of being BEV design, trucks are often use different electricity generation methods.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

gzt

17344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6349

Lifetime subscriber

#1602425 1-Aug-2016 18:31

Pre-order yours now:

https://nikolamotor.com/one

Electric with CNG turbine.

darylblake

1165 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 407

Trusted

#1602431 1-Aug-2016 18:39

I think banning diesel sounds like a knee jerk reaction to solving air pollution. Sorry guys if we started down this road today, it would take a minimum 30 years to implement and would be close to impossible to police.

Sorry man, on paper it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but in reality its a pipe dream.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1602550 1-Aug-2016 21:59

The other big problem - to either ban diesel, or make particulate filters mandatory on all diesel engines. You would have to confiscate private property rights. In otherwords - All of the diesel powered cars, trucks, generators, boats, earthmoving equipment ect. That don't have particulate filters because they were never required to be fitted when they were first made / sold. Would then be illegal to operate after a ban. Sure there is the argument that this is necessary for the overall wellbeing of the population.

But then you have the baby boomers in the rich parts of Auckland who don't want the unitary plan to come into force. As they are worried about their property rights (house values). Even though we all know that the city must be allowed to intensify. They are trying to block it. This same group would also have the most to gain and the least to loose by a ban on diesel. (Or at least a ban on diesel engines that don't have particulate filters). As they live close to work in urban areas, so would benefit from reductions in urban pollution. And have benefited from rising house values. So they can easily afford to buy new compliant cars. Live close enough that electric cars will be viable. Or otherwise can easily use public transport. And can easily afford the increase in food and energy prices.

But people living in rural areas, small towns, outskirts of major cities ect. Will probably have lower incomes, Less likely to have benefited from rising house values. Yet less likely to live close enough to work for electric cars or public transport to be viable. Having a lower income means you are statisticly more likely to spend a bigger % of your income on food and energy. And would be unlikely to be able to easily afford to buy a compliant car. Yet since there is less particulate pollution in rural areas due to the spread out population. Any reductions in particulate emissions will have less of an improvement in health.

Executive summary - those with the most to loose under such a policy have the least to gain. And the even bigger question - Instead of banning diesel - Are there other things we could do that would reduce premature deaths by the same amount. Yet would be cheaper to do?

*More restrictions on smoking and tobacco.

*More restrictions on alcohol consumption.

*Restrictions on junk food.

Just 3 possible options.

Scott3

4019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2800

Lifetime subscriber

#1602585 1-Aug-2016 23:03

Aredwood:

The other big problem - to either ban diesel, or make particulate filters mandatory on all diesel engines. You would have to confiscate private property rights. In otherwords - All of the diesel powered cars, trucks, generators, boats, earthmoving equipment ect. That don't have particulate filters because they were never required to be fitted when they were first made / sold. Would then be illegal to operate after a ban. Sure there is the argument that this is necessary for the overall wellbeing of the population.

Pretty much all regulations take away private property rights. This is the only way to avoid the "Tragity of the Commons"

For example, I can't set up a chemical plant, hazardous waste facility, or garage fission power plant at my residential address.

We already have laws restricting the import of vehicles biased on emission standards, and we have laws requiring air discharge consents for industrial operations.

It is simply a question of where we draw the line.

I was largely going to ignore off road diesel engines (other than perhaps marine). The bulk of them are either generally located away from busy urban area's or see very little run time (i.e. building fire pumps & backup generators).

I think emissions testing to catch the "Gross emitters" would give be well worth the effort.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1602628 2-Aug-2016 00:58

Scott3:

Pretty much all regulations take away private property rights. This is the only way to avoid the "Tragity of the Commons"

For example, I can't set up a chemical plant, hazardous waste facility, or garage fission power plant at my residential address.

We already have laws restricting the import of vehicles biased on emission standards, and we have laws requiring air discharge consents for industrial operations.

It is simply a question of where we draw the line.

I was largely going to ignore off road diesel engines (other than perhaps marine). The bulk of them are either generally located away from busy urban area's or see very little run time (i.e. building fire pumps & backup generators).

I think emissions testing to catch the "Gross emitters" would give be well worth the effort.

I don't see how that is relevant. As im pretty sure that you were never allowed to set up a chemical plant, hazardous waste facility, or garage fission power plant at your residential address. So if you did have a need to do any of those things you would have instead of bought an industrial zoned property where the council does allow those things. (although still not the fission plant).

What im talking about is stopping you from doing something that you were previously allowed to do. Imagine you paid $40,000 for a brand new car, 6 months later the government tightens up the emissions rules. Because your car doesn't comply with the new rules. The government says that you are not allowed to drive it anymore. Meaning your car is now almost worthless. You have to sell it for scrap and spend another $40,000 on a new car, not knowing if the rules will change again next year.

The main thing that separates first world countries from banana republics is certainty of the law. You can buy a residential house knowing that your neighbour won't be allowed to build a chemical plant next door to you. Yet if you wanted to build your own chemical plant, you can buy some industrial land, Get the necessary consents, and spend the money building your chemical plant knowing that you will be allowed to operate it long term. So you can recoup the money you spent building it.

If the government made major law changes every 5 min. Meaning a high risk of assets ending up "stranded" (worthless due to a law change). Then no investment would ever happen and the economy would crash.

Yet by changing emissions rules to force cars off the road that previously complied you are "stranding their assets" and in a way stealing the value of their car from them. Which is completely different from getting someone to fix a car that used to comply with an emissions rule, but no longer does due to not being maintained.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1602653 2-Aug-2016 07:59

D1023319:

Keeping vehicles for longer reduces carbon emissions.
My 1993 - diesel ute which I service regularly has covered about 420km.
If the OP gets their wish and diesel is banned - I will have to buy a new one which will emit a lot of carbon in its manufacture.

I am surprised ( pardon if I missed it) that the OP is pushing for coastal shipping rather than Rail electrification.

Wiki has a good section on it already been electrified - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Island_Main_Trunk

Calculate the emissions from a year of typical fuel use and you generally find that amount of CO2 that went into the manufacture is soon dwarfed by the emissions from ongoing usage. But either way, the toxic aspect of the fuel itself is the main point of this thread. Three years from now you'll likely be able to buy an electric Ute you can charge at home, requires MUCH less mechanical maintanence (a feature of simpler EV design) that can drive 400km on a charge and a charge is cheaper than petrol or diesel. It's a no-brainer. Cheaper, more reliable, cleaner and damned quiet, too. Certainly more convenient for farmers and people in remote areas. No need to haul fuel in. Just plug it into the mains every night.

This is where things are headed...and quickly.

As for trains there has been an extended discussion around electrification of rail for long-haul freight and local distribution (within 200km) via EV trucks (like the new 26 ton Mercedes heavy truck). This would return things to how they were in NZ prior to 1983 (referring to mainly rail with local truck haulage). But not talking about a return to an NZ Rail as a badly run government department used to soak up unemployment. That was a perrenial National Party thing until late in the Muldoon's last term.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1602671 2-Aug-2016 08:21

darylblake:

I think banning diesel sounds like a knee jerk reaction to solving air pollution. Sorry guys if we started down this road today, it would take a minimum 30 years to implement and would be close to impossible to police.

Sorry man, on paper it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but in reality its a pipe dream.

You assert a lot of stuff there you probably believe to be true.

It (almost certainly) isn't.

Any ban wouldn't be overnight unless people were getting cancer in 15 minutes of diesel exposure. They aren't. It's more of a lottery. People with susceptible DNA will get cancer faster...and people with more robust DNA will get it more slowly or not at all. Cancer is about DNA disruption....and that depends on one's own DNA 'composure' for want of a better word. So let's say we don't care much about the relatively small number of people who are most vulnerable. We don't know who they are (or if we are them)....so stuff them. We don't actually say that....but our actions make it clear. We don't care if we do nothing and they die.

Any transition away from diesel would be just that: a transition. Like Norway. Currently talking about banning all fossil fuel based vehicle sales after 2025. That's a shot across the bows of vehicle makers and vehicle owners: "Prepare for this in thought and deed". They have 8 years.

Across a decade vehicle makers can - have time to - plan for the post fossil-fuel era to come...and people who buy vehicles can plan to make appropriate purchasing choices as the time progresses and new, compliant vehicles come onto the market. This process is already underway with virtually every major vehicle maker already announcing electric options for 2018, 19 and beyond....and with ranges that start at 300km and are more commonly 400km and above. That's one charge between Auckland and Wellington.

By 2030 there may well be no sense at all in buying a diesel vehicle of any kind.....even if they were available. By then the electric equivalents will hopefully be dominating new vehicle sales...and the second-hand market as well.

This is no pipe dream. It's already happening......just below most people's radar.

Someone made a patronising comment earlier in the thread about me liking my electric car.....and I do. But it's more than that. The experience around it has been throught-provoking and a lens into a different way of seeing transportation energy / fuels. A car like the Nissan LEAF is *already* - since 2010 - more than able to meet the daily (car) transport needs of 90% of people. They just don't know it yet. I do, because I bought one. I can't get the thing below 50% battery most days...and I drive double the average daily distance of 28km.

This is why I've always tended to be an early-adopter. Step through the mirror into the world someone else thinks is a "pipe dream"....and wave. You're already there. But that isn't something easily explained in a post on Geekzone. Everyone comes to change differently.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1602673 2-Aug-2016 08:30

Linuxluver:

D1023319:

Keeping vehicles for longer reduces carbon emissions.
My 1993 - diesel ute which I service regularly has covered about 420km.
If the OP gets their wish and diesel is banned - I will have to buy a new one which will emit a lot of carbon in its manufacture.

I am surprised ( pardon if I missed it) that the OP is pushing for coastal shipping rather than Rail electrification.

Wiki has a good section on it already been electrified - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Island_Main_Trunk

Calculate the emissions from a year of typical fuel use and you generally find that amount of CO2 that went into the manufacture is soon dwarfed by the emissions from ongoing usage. But either way, the toxic aspect of the fuel itself is the main point of this thread. Three years from now you'll likely be able to buy an electric Ute you can charge at home, requires MUCH less mechanical maintanence (a feature of simpler EV design) that can drive 400km on a charge and a charge is cheaper than petrol or diesel. It's a no-brainer. Cheaper, more reliable, cleaner and damned quiet, too. Certainly more convenient for farmers and people in remote areas. No need to haul fuel in. Just plug it into the mains every night.

This is where things are headed...and quickly.

As for trains there has been an extended discussion around electrification of rail for long-haul freight and local distribution (within 200km) via EV trucks (like the new 26 ton Mercedes heavy truck). This would return things to how they were in NZ prior to 1983 (referring to mainly rail with local truck haulage). But not talking about a return to an NZ Rail as a badly run government department used to soak up unemployment. That was a perrenial National Party thing until late in the Muldoon's last term.

The Mercedes EV truck is slated to be for urban delivery. The NZ terrain especially the North Island is just not suitable for EV Trucks as they stand now and in the medium future, eventually that may change but for at least the next 1.5 decades Diesel is the only viable fuel for industrial, long and medium haul transport, construction and military vehicles.

Regarding Rail I doubt many New Zealanders are prepared to tolerate an increase in taxation (labour will do that anyway as that's their wheelhouse) to fund an upgrade to our rail dinosaur or the return to the inefficient and utterly useless rail transport unless it goes to private enterprise and vastly improved.

That said I dont disagree re the dangers and need to change from fossil fuels but we are a very long way off general uptake of this, the failure of the Holden Volt and the Nissan EV in NZ are examples of that. They simply dont suit most of NZ

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1602679 2-Aug-2016 08:38

MikeB4:

The Mercedes EV truck is slated to be for urban delivery. The NZ terrain especially the North Island is just not suitable for EV Trucks as they stand now and in the medium future, eventually that may change but for at least the next 1.5 decades Diesel is the only viable fuel for industrial, long and medium haul transport, construction and military vehicles.

Regarding Rail I doubt many New Zealanders are prepared to tolerate an increase in taxation (labour will do that anyway as that's their wheelhouse) to fund an upgrade to our rail dinosaur or the return to the inefficient and utterly useless rail transport unless it goes to private enterprise and vastly improved.

Let's see how fast this technology progresses. The Mercedes truck is just the start. There are battery technologies emerging today that can hold ten times the charge and acquire it much more rapidly. We're close to some major breakthroughs. I can absolutely agree that in 15 years diesel trucks as we know them today will be well on the wane.

As for terrain....It's no real problem if the EV truck can pause at the roadside at a Tesla (or other) supercharger for 15 minutes and be good to go for another 300km. Consider also autonomous deliveries. You can have more and smaller trucks if they don't require drivers.

This government has spent $8 billion on roads to - essentially - subsidise the trucking industry. It wants to spend another $1.85 billion to get from Howick to the Airport in Auckland....and without raising taxes. They are talking about tax cuts.

Investing in rail won't require any tax increases.....it just needs a government who stop subsidising trucks and instead invest in more efficient and cleaner modes of transport. Once the trucking companies have got rid of the drivers, there won't be so many people clinging to diesel for their livelihood anyway.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1602743 2-Aug-2016 10:33

Coincidentally, here is a major move just announced to move logs to port in Wellington by rail rather than by truck.

Extract:

CentrePort is owned by Greater Wellington Regional Council, whose chairman, Chris Laidlaw, was delighted with this development.

"This is a really progressive initiative, it gets logs off the roads and there will be a substantial drop in overall emissions," he said.

"It will reduce congestion and it raises the question as to how much better can we use rail networks."

This is one of the questions asked in this topic as part of a discussion around reducing / eliminating diesel emissions. Granted the train from the Wairarapa is probably diesel, but vastly more efficient in terms of emissions than trucks. Hopefully the line will also be electrified in the near future, if it isn't already.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 13