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.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#198922 28-Jul-2016 10:10

Executive Summary:

1. Promote emission-free vehicles
2. Ban diesel

Here's why:

As people may be aware the first Unitary Plan of the amalgamated Auckland was released this week.

One of the overlays for planning restrictions is "Built Environment: Air Quality - Transport Corridor Separation".

This restriction places a buffer zone of 150m around motorways and 70m around main arterial roads.

Why? Emissions. It's all about emissions.

The original draft from 2013 included a lengthy examination of fossil fuel emission hazards and health consequences for all, but particularly relevant to the health of children. Heart problems. Respiratory problems and cancers. They forecast diesel fuel traffic to increase along the corridor by 65% between 2016 and 2035.

To me, it's an excellent case for banning diesel fuel altogether.

The link to the 2013 draft is here:

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/…/2.43%20Air%20quality-m…

(Pages 2 and 3 detail the health problems around emissions, particularly diesel.)

The final version of the Unitary Plan includes the restriction and gives a very high level description of why it exists, but leaves out all of the substantiating detail included in the earlier, 2013, draft version.

http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/…/Plan/Book.aspx…

I note note that it appears residential development can occur in the emissions buffer areas. Apartments up to 7 stories in the area I looked at. But you can't locate a childcare centre in such a building because of the relatively poor air quality and risk to the health of the children.

On this basis, it looks like a no-brainer to promote a future - a very soon future - with emissions-free vehicles playing a larger and larger part in transportation. This issue is - to me - likely to be more immediately relevant and compelling to many people than something as abstract (to most people) as climate change.

Their (and their neighbour's and THEIR neighbour's) diesel SUV / car is producing emissions that can make them and everyone else sick.....or - ultimately - dead. The carcinogens in diesel aren't slackers. They are highly active.

The health case against internal combustion engine vehicles - and diesel, in particular - is compelling.

One wonders why we allow it to persist.....as though these engines are a force of nature we can't do anything about. Yet in Europe, diesel is rapidly falling out of favour........

None of this is new......but this official, policy document acknowledges emissions harm and this harm is used to place restrictions on property use. It can't be dismissed as rumour, hype or propaganda.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 13

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1600047 28-Jul-2016 10:19

If our fleet was to move to non fossil fuel, assuming plug and recovered electricity we will need to build many power stations and develop clean ways to deal with the mess production and disposal of batteries is done.

So, what type of power station given all have environment impacts? and how do we deal with batteries?

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

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 194

#1600052 28-Jul-2016 10:25

Is diesel more unhealthy? You don't appear to have included any data on that.

My diesel does about 7-800 km on 42l. My old subaru did about 350-400km on about 48l. I would have thought since I'm burning way less fuel, I have way less emissions. Are those fewer diesel emissions really that much worse?

My preference would be to see large electric car tax subsidies.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1600108 28-Jul-2016 11:21

MikeB4:

If our fleet was to move to non fossil fuel, assuming plug and recovered electricity we will need to build many power stations and develop clean ways to deal with the mess production and disposal of batteries is done.

So, what type of power station given all have environment impacts? and how do we deal with batteries?

We've been dealing with lead-acid batteries for a century.....so that doesn't change. Li-Ion batteries appear to have some chemical and electrical hazards for the people actually handling them in the re-cycling process, but wider environmental considerations don't appear to be a major issue. It's better to re-cycle them than not.

As for power, solar and wind could address a lot of it. Germany is now over 50% solar powered on any given day and their sunlight is typically weaker than ours unless you live south of Invercargill. I'm having solar installed on my next house and that will be relatively soon (next 1-3 years).

A quick read on re-cycling batteries says they contain many valuable metals and it's worth doing. Old batteries can be made into new batteries, apparently. The level of efficiency isn't clear from my quick read.

This seems a more manageable problem than busy roads in every town being polluted most of the day by vehicles emitting particulates in large quantities - many of which are actively carcinogenic.

I'll look into it more. It's pretty interesting.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1600109 28-Jul-2016 11:22

sxz:

Is diesel more unhealthy? You don't appear to have included any data on that.

My diesel does about 7-800 km on 42l. My old subaru did about 350-400km on about 48l. I would have thought since I'm burning way less fuel, I have way less emissions. Are those fewer diesel emissions really that much worse?

My preference would be to see large electric car tax subsidies.

The first link (pages 2 and 3 ) summarises the unhealthy aspects of diesel. I wasn't able to copy / paste the content as the PDF from Auckland Council is protected.

The people most at risk are the people inside the diesel vehicle.

Generally, (nrdc.org) Diesel is much worse than petrol.

"The science is simple. A gallon of crude oil can be split into several products, including gasoline and diesel. Gasoline is light and volatile and contains fewer carbon atoms in its molecular chain. Diesel, by contrast, is visibly thicker and heavier than gasoline. Its long carbon chains require less refining, which is why diesel is typically cheaper than gasoline at wholesale. Less refining also means that diesel contains higher levels of the chemicals that cause air pollution—nitrogen oxides, sulfates, arsenic, zinc, and nitrates.

Nitrogen dioxide combines with ammonia and other airborne chemicals to form compounds that enter the lungs and inflame airways. It can cause breathing problems and increase sensitivity to allergens. Medical review studies—research that combines and analyzes the data collected in several existing studies—show that long-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide significantly shortens life span.

Diesel's motley stew of exhaust particles also contributes to the formation of particulate matter, tiny bits of stuff suspended in the air. Particulate matter is as damaging as nitrogen dioxide to human health. Laboratory studies endorsed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency show that diesel particulate matter causes changes in the lungs, depresses immune function, and likely causes several forms of cancer.

The concentration of these pollutants is highest inside the car itself, where occupants inhale two to three times more nitrogen dioxide than passersby. However, even if you don't drive a diesel car and refuse to ever get into one, the driving choices of others still affect you. The air within 50 yards of a major road is 30 percent to 100 percent thicker with nitrogen dioxide than nonadjacent areas. There's simply no escaping diesel exhaust. Some groups are harmed more than others. People of color and lower-income communities are far more likely to live near major roadways. Children are at special risk because their developing lungs are more vulnerable to the changes wrought by diesel exhaust.

The health impacts are indisputable, which raises the question: Why have so many drivers in Europe, and a growing number in the United States, opted for diesel vehicles? It comes down to politics, economics, technology, and a little bit of happenstance."

_____________________________________________________________________

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1600160 28-Jul-2016 13:26

A Tesla has 7,000 batteries how many would be required to power a rig the size of a Freightliner or Kenworth? Our fleet of cars is around 800,000 now in any ones thinking that is a lot of batteries. Then there is things like tractors, military vehicles, construction vehicles, Aircraft and so on.

the figures required just for our little piece of paradise is staggering. I do not think the current thinking on electric vehicles is the answer.

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

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#1600163 28-Jul-2016 13:29

Could have pasted this link in any of the last 3 topics related to EVs that you started, but here will do.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1600168 28-Jul-2016 13:48

Dingbatt: Could have pasted this link in any of the last 3 topics related to EVs that you started, but here will do.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/

And the first comment after that article correctly states:

"But this article says nothing we didn't know before. 1. An EV is less polluting than a gas car EVEN if the EV is fueled by a coal-powered power plant."

The topic of this thread, it's about local pollution, not global climate change.

As for that local pollution, then it's complex and a lot more research is needed to quantify the presently unknown long term harm from exposure to nano-particulates which are being churned out by modern high-efficiency petrol engines - not just from diesels. (The invisible particulates are small enough to enter the bloodstream, so as well as affect on the lungs, it's suggested they're implicated in CVD, stroke etc, probably due to systemic inflammatory effect, which in turn are probably implicated in some common cancers etc.).

The stuff we can't see coming out the exhaust might be worse than the stuff we can see. I think the next euro emission standards (2018) are going to require particulate filters on petrol car exhaust systems.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3818

#1600177 28-Jul-2016 14:00

For light passenger vehicles I think you are right. For anything that does moderate to heavy work. I think you are dreaming.

A diesel engine is more efficient, especially under high load. It produces a lot more torque than petrol engine. Its rate of fuel use does not increase with load as fast as a petrol engine does. We need diesel for moderate to heavy work applications.

Without diesel internal combustion engines, there wouldn't be many materials to make an electric car from.

Emission free vehicles are only a logistic reality for small short range (<300km) trips in light passenger vehicles . You can run a taxi service with a hybrid but not with an emission free car.

Mike

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1600183 28-Jul-2016 14:14

I suggest OP should get a figure for the amount of automotive diesel consumed within the greater Auckland area and then do the sums on how this quantity of energy could be distributed, stored and consumed by alternative vehicles.

I think with current and foreseeable technology, this is a pipe dream without sinking the GDP of NZ into it

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1600224 28-Jul-2016 15:36

Linuxluver:

2. Ban diesel

Exactly where are we going to ban diesel?

All of New Zealand's Primary Industry (farming, fishing, forestry..) runs on diesel.
Every piece of equipment I can see out the window is diesel powered. Our tractors, trucks, utes, generators.. the commercial fishing boats I can see out on the horizon, the grader that keeps our access road usable, the skidder & excavator that are hauling logs down the back to be loaded out onto the diesel logging truck..

There's a simple supply infrastructure. We have a bunded diesel storage tank we refuel from, and a diesel tanker trailer to haul new supplies out from town.
And the diesel we use in our farm equipment costs less than if we use it for transport because the government has split it's tax component onto road user charges.

There's no way that alternative fuels will be doing these jobs anytime soon.
As mentioned earlier the design of commercial compression ignition engines (high torque at low Rpm, efficiency, reduced reliance on ignition systems) means they're suited to commercial applications, the fuel itself stores well, is less flammable than gasoline, and the engines are designed to be generally more tolerant of lower grade fuel that often results.

Don't see it happening. Do maybe see a move to bio diesels.

WyleECoyoteNZ

1055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 372

#1600226 28-Jul-2016 15:40

I'd like to see some proof of diesel falling out of favour in Europe...

Emission free vehicles would be great, but as others have said, I don't think solely relying on batteries is the answer.

I've always liked the idea of Hydrogen power.

I don't have any numbers on the R&D spend being invested by Auto manufacturers on EV's, Hybrids, but surely if they spent a fraction of the current spend on Hydrogen, then this might become a future alternative.

Sure, it's difficult at the moment to get the Hydrogen to a useable, saleable form, but competition and advancement of the technology over time will improve.

It can't be more difficult or dangerous than the current practice of floating an oil rig out, drilling a hole, shipping it to a refinery, refining it, then shipping it again half way around the world to then truck it to my local petrol station!

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

WyleECoyoteNZ

1055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 372

#1600228 28-Jul-2016 15:44

Or the other option is to make the combustion engine more efficient.

One way of doing that is to remove the gearbox\transmission.

Google Koenigsegg Regera Gearbox, and the videos talking to Christian Von Koenigsegg about the technology.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 194

#1600278 28-Jul-2016 16:12

Linuxluver:

sxz:

Is diesel more unhealthy? You don't appear to have included any data on that.

My diesel does about 7-800 km on 42l. My old subaru did about 350-400km on about 48l. I would have thought since I'm burning way less fuel, I have way less emissions. Are those fewer diesel emissions really that much worse?

My preference would be to see large electric car tax subsidies.

The first link (pages 2 and 3 ) summarises the unhealthy aspects of diesel. I wasn't able to copy / paste the content as the PDF from Auckland Council is protected.

The people most at risk are the people inside the diesel vehicle.

Generally, (nrdc.org) Diesel is much worse than petrol.

"The science is simple. A gallon of crude oil can be split into several products, including gasoline and diesel. Gasoline is light and volatile and contains fewer carbon atoms in its molecular chain. Diesel, by contrast, is visibly thicker and heavier than gasoline. Its long carbon chains require less refining, which is why diesel is typically cheaper than gasoline at wholesale. Less refining also means that diesel contains higher levels of the chemicals that cause air pollution—nitrogen oxides, sulfates, arsenic, zinc, and nitrates.

Nitrogen dioxide combines with ammonia and other airborne chemicals to form compounds that enter the lungs and inflame airways. It can cause breathing problems and increase sensitivity to allergens. Medical review studies—research that combines and analyzes the data collected in several existing studies—show that long-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide significantly shortens life span.

Diesel's motley stew of exhaust particles also contributes to the formation of particulate matter, tiny bits of stuff suspended in the air. Particulate matter is as damaging as nitrogen dioxide to human health. Laboratory studies endorsed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency show that diesel particulate matter causes changes in the lungs, depresses immune function, and likely causes several forms of cancer.

The concentration of these pollutants is highest inside the car itself, where occupants inhale two to three times more nitrogen dioxide than passersby. However, even if you don't drive a diesel car and refuse to ever get into one, the driving choices of others still affect you. The air within 50 yards of a major road is 30 percent to 100 percent thicker with nitrogen dioxide than nonadjacent areas. There's simply no escaping diesel exhaust. Some groups are harmed more than others. People of color and lower-income communities are far more likely to live near major roadways. Children are at special risk because their developing lungs are more vulnerable to the changes wrought by diesel exhaust.

The health impacts are indisputable, which raises the question: Why have so many drivers in Europe, and a growing number in the United States, opted for diesel vehicles? It comes down to politics, economics, technology, and a little bit of happenstance."

I'm still not sure you've demonstrated Diesel is worse than Petrol. AA don't seem sure either: http://www.aa.co.nz/cars/maintenance/fuel-prices-and-types/petrol-or-diesel-which-one-should-you-buy/ (Extracts below - my emphasis added)

CO2 (Carbon dioxide) Generally, diesel engines emit a lower level of CO2 per kilometre travelled.
CO (Carbon monoxide) CO is still a by-product of petrol engines during the warm-up phase.
NOx (Nitrous Oxide) While NOx can be higher in a new diesel than a new petrol engine, petrol engines produce more NOx over time.
HC (Hydrocarbon) HC emissions are much higher in petrol engines than diesel.
SPM (Suspended Particulate Matter) refers to particles suspended in the air, such as soot, emitted from the exhaust of a diesel engine. While modern diesels are fitted with particulate filters, SPM emissions are still high in older diesel engines.

Edit - unless you are referring to Heavy Diesel vehicles being banned, and not cars?

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1600284 28-Jul-2016 16:25

Ok - if Diesel is banned, I will riot.

On a serious note, I stop coughing since driving my diesel truck. I literally sniff that every morning straight from the exhaust pipe. It is like coffee - but better.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1600301 28-Jul-2016 18:01

There are heavy truck EV options emerging that could displace diesel.

Mercedes-Benz has announced one.

http://evtalk.co.nz/mercedes-benz-gazumps-competition-with-full-electric-heavy-truck/

_____________________________________________________________________

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 13