The Decline of Diesel.....Ongoing.

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › The Decline of Diesel.....Ongoing.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2044850 27-Jun-2018 15:58

Can we all bathe in the glory of diesel for one moment. Seems pretty heated in here.

EV's are a pain in the rear at the moment. Diesel's are not great, nor are Coal Fired plants. Heck, have you seen the numbers behind the emissions coming from a single cruise ship or cargo ship? Maybe we should start putting our fingers in that pie?

I think this planet is too far gone, humanity is accustomed to our way of living and society & economy depends on too many fossil fuels to cut them out.
Queue the Fallout game theories.

MikeAqua

8030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

#2044851 27-Jun-2018 16:01

That's awesome. Love the smokescreen effect. Very James Bond.

Mike

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#2044861 27-Jun-2018 16:24

kryptonjohn:

....CO2 emissions worldwide from solid fuel are significantly higher than those from liquid fuels. The worldwide energy sector is by far the largest emitter - about 4 times that of transport. Cars are only a fraction of transport. Mom and pop driving their car is a small part of the overall CO2 profile...

Your statistics are like a bikini - what they reveal is interesting, but what they hide is critical. Stat's like this are simply a deflection technique away from the elephant in the room.

Yes, solid fuel emissions are higher, but that is simply because more of it is burnt. Liquid fuels burnt in vehicles is burnt very inefficiently (less than 25% efficiency), where as your typically power station burning coal, burns it far more efficiently, harvesting more energy on a kg to kg comparison of emissions. Just because vehicles burning liquid fuels emit less TOTAL CO2 does not mean they are pulling their weight and should escape scrutiny.

An EV charged entirely from a reasonable coal power station still emits less total CO2 per KM than a petrol or diesel. Numerous studies have tried to refute this and failed. Added to that, it is far easier to scrub smoke stack emissions that tail pipe emission, and the fact that the power station emissions can be/are usually located where they don't have to be breathed by the general population and the petrochemical vs coal argument starts to look pretty shaky.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2044863 27-Jun-2018 16:26

Coil:

Can we all bathe in the glory of diesel for one moment. Seems pretty heated in here.

EV's are a pain in the rear at the moment. Diesel's are not great, nor are Coal Fired plants. Heck, have you seen the numbers behind the emissions coming from a single cruise ship or cargo ship? Maybe we should start putting our fingers in that pie?

I think this planet is too far gone, humanity is accustomed to our way of living and society & economy depends on too many fossil fuels to cut them out.
Queue the Fallout game theories.

Holy crap on a cracker, that red Merc looks like Satans school run car

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2044864 27-Jun-2018 16:31

tripper1000:

kryptonjohn:

....CO2 emissions worldwide from solid fuel are significantly higher than those from liquid fuels. The worldwide energy sector is by far the largest emitter - about 4 times that of transport. Cars are only a fraction of transport. Mom and pop driving their car is a small part of the overall CO2 profile...

Your statistics are like a bikini - what they reveal is interesting, but what they hide is critical. Stat's like this are simply a deflection technique away from the elephant in the room.

Yes, solid fuel emissions are higher, but that is simply because more of it is burnt. Liquid fuels burnt in vehicles is burnt very inefficiently (less than 25% efficiency), where as your typically power station burning coal, burns it far more efficiently, harvesting more energy on a kg to kg comparison of emissions. Just because vehicles burning liquid fuels emit less TOTAL CO2 does not mean they are pulling their weight and should escape scrutiny.

An EV charged entirely from a reasonable coal power station still emits less total CO2 per KM than a petrol or diesel. Numerous studies have tried to refute this and failed. Added to that, it is far easier to scrub smoke stack emissions that tail pipe emission, and the fact that the power station emissions can be/are usually located where they don't have to be breathed by the general population and the petrochemical vs coal argument starts to look pretty shaky.

I think you are missing my point; if you reduce vehicle emissions by 25% and it will have a relatively small effect on overall emissions. If you reduce solid fuel emissions by 25% it would have a large effect on total emissions.

Nothing to do with replacing liquid fuel with coal generator charged PEVs.

Loved the bikini analogy though.

Not sure you are correct about scrubbing emissions. This only would apply to particulates - you can't scrub CO2. Diesel DPF filters are somewhere between 80 and 100% effective at removing particulates.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2044866 27-Jun-2018 16:33

MikeB4:

Coil:

Can we all bathe in the glory of diesel for one moment. Seems pretty heated in here.

EV's are a pain in the rear at the moment. Diesel's are not great, nor are Coal Fired plants. Heck, have you seen the numbers behind the emissions coming from a single cruise ship or cargo ship? Maybe we should start putting our fingers in that pie?

I think this planet is too far gone, humanity is accustomed to our way of living and society & economy depends on too many fossil fuels to cut them out.
Queue the Fallout game theories.

Holy crap on a cracker, that red Merc looks like Satans school run car

I don't think his DPF is working too well!

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).