Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
320 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 56
Inactive user


  Reply # 1601502 31-Jul-2016 07:31
Send private message

Scott3:

 

It does raise the question of how good, is good enough? Nobody likes undue regulations imposing costs on them or getting in the way of their affairs. While the impact of air quality in Auckland pales in comparison to say Beijing, or Manila, it is still quite high.

 

Auckland council commissioned research found the following:

 

  •  

    The social cost from air pollution in Auckland is estimated to be $1.07 billion per year

     

  •  

     Around 300 premature deaths in Auckland occur each year due to air pollution

     

(Link

 

 

And to link it back to the topic, that study shows home heating, rather than transport and diesel is the biggest factor in air pollution.  To be specific, home heating triples the problem in Winter.

 

So perhaps, rather than a topic that is titled in a way comparable to "won't someone think of the children, let's get rid of the evil diesel" (which may or may not be worse than petrol, if it matters) if the children were the really focus rather than diesel as the alleged worst fossil fuel, it should rather be "won't someone think of the children, let's ban home heating that pollutes".

 

Or perhaps it's never a case of either or, and we should be identifying the causes and dealing with them in practical manners rather than looking to remove some favoured target?  Does diesel now still deserve to be the focus of an at-all-costs removal from society, as some previous discussion headed towards?

 

There is already a crack down on home heating and pollution and clean air targets.  If your chimney is smoking too much, we have a system where it is encouraged to report your neighbour, which may be both a good and a bad thing.  Towns get ratings on clean air.  Presumably Auckland has already improved because of this.  Personally, if I don't earn a lot and I found out that my cold house had a chimney that had high emissions, and I'd have to get building work done with perhaps scaffolding to put in a proper flue, this clean air targets system would seem like a rich person's lark.


gzt

10311 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584


  Reply # 1601652 31-Jul-2016 13:41
Send private message

Wood fires are bad. In large part they are a symptom of low house quality.

The distribution of that problem will be different to the diesel issue.

Diesel engines operated in urban areas should meet a high standard of particulate emission for cof. I'd suggest raising that slowly over time to allow import of higher standard vehicles and technical knowledge of retrofit technology to permeate through the industries.

The problem with banning is everything to replace diesel heavy transport has yet to rise above the horizon.

 
 
 
 


1274 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 137


  Reply # 1601729 31-Jul-2016 15:23
Send private message

MikeAqua:

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.



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).




Software Engineer

 


4163 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 760

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1601761 31-Jul-2016 16:17
Send private message

The problem with discussions like this with respect to private motor cars is that they tend to take an Auckland-centric view that cars are used primarily for daily commuting in urban areas.

 

It's quite a different scenario for someone like me who walks or uses public transport daily, and brings out the diesel car for the occasional trip out of town. Wellington's public transport system looks set to become entirely electrified in the next few years, and to me this seems like a far more cost effective solution than having an electric car. 




5268 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1143

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1602006 1-Aug-2016 07:40
Send private message

alasta:

 

The problem with discussions like this with respect to private motor cars is that they tend to take an Auckland-centric view that cars are used primarily for daily commuting in urban areas.

 

It's quite a different scenario for someone like me who walks or uses public transport daily, and brings out the diesel car for the occasional trip out of town. Wellington's public transport system looks set to become entirely electrified in the next few years, and to me this seems like a far more cost effective solution than having an electric car. 

 

 

Almost everyone responding instantly loses sight of the health consequences of using dirty fuels that prompted the original post. 

 

Fascinating. 

 

 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


13587 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6366

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1602010 1-Aug-2016 07:54
Send private message

Linuxluver:

alasta:


The problem with discussions like this with respect to private motor cars is that they tend to take an Auckland-centric view that cars are used primarily for daily commuting in urban areas.


It's quite a different scenario for someone like me who walks or uses public transport daily, and brings out the diesel car for the occasional trip out of town. Wellington's public transport system looks set to become entirely electrified in the next few years, and to me this seems like a far more cost effective solution than having an electric car. 



Almost everyone responding instantly loses sight of the health consequences of using dirty fuels that prompted the original post. 


Fascinating. 


 



I live in Wellington any exhaust is in the mid Tasman Sea or Pacific Ocean before I take a breath.

Yes there are health issues but I think you are exaggerating them.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


5294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2147


  Reply # 1602056 1-Aug-2016 09:46
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





Mike

5294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2147


  Reply # 1602060 1-Aug-2016 09:57
Send private message

Linuxluver:

 

Almost everyone responding instantly loses sight of the health consequences of using dirty fuels that prompted the original post. 

 

Fascinating. 

 

 

I accept the problem (health impacts of vehicle pollutions) you have presented.

 

However your solution (ban diesel) is not feasible.

 

The distribution of physical goods and primary production for almost the entire population depends on diesel and there isn't (yet) a realistic alternative.

 

 





Mike



5268 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1143

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1602062 1-Aug-2016 09:58
Send private message

MikeB4:

I live in Wellington any exhaust is in the mid Tasman Sea or Pacific Ocean before I take a breath.

Yes there are health issues but I think you are exaggerating them.


It's not me. It's the Auckland City Council who won't allow childcare facilities or schools within 150m of a motorway or 70m of an arterial road.....in New Zealand...with ocean on either side just kms away.

 

The health problems are now well know. Cancer is a big one. The carcinogens are well known and high risk, too....especially in diesel.

 

As a general observation, your response is more typical how people deny or minimise things if they find them inconvenient or contrary their preconceptions. Like climate change. I don't mean that in sh*tty way....It is what it is. I do it myself sometimes. But I try not to. 

 

Continuation bias kills.  






____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet




5268 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1143

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1602063 1-Aug-2016 10:00
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

Linuxluver:

 

Almost everyone responding instantly loses sight of the health consequences of using dirty fuels that prompted the original post. 

 

Fascinating. 

 

 

I accept the problem (health impacts of vehicle pollutions) you have presented.

 

However your solution (ban diesel) is not feasible.

 

The distribution of physical goods and primary production for almost the entire population depends on diesel and there isn't (yet) a realistic alternative.

 

 

Several of my posts are the realistic alternatives you claim don't exist. Some of them are simply returning to methods already used for decades and others are new technology that we can buy today. 

 

But i understand some people don't WANT to know...and that's a different problem 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


13587 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6366

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1602080 1-Aug-2016 10:44
Send private message

Linuxluver:

 

MikeB4:

I live in Wellington any exhaust is in the mid Tasman Sea or Pacific Ocean before I take a breath.

Yes there are health issues but I think you are exaggerating them.


It's not me. It's the Auckland City Council who won't allow childcare facilities or schools within 150m of a motorway or 70m of an arterial road.....in New Zealand...with ocean on either side just kms away.

 

The health problems are now well know. Cancer is a big one. The carcinogens are well known and high risk, too....especially in diesel.

 

As a general observation, your response is more typical how people deny or minimise things if they find them inconvenient or contrary their preconceptions. Like climate change. I don't mean that in sh*tty way....It is what it is. I do it myself sometimes. But I try not to. 

 

Continuation bias kills.  


 

 

 

 

Do you have links to the Council regs re childcare facilities. I think they would be for more than for exhaust emission reasons





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


797 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 77

Trusted

  Reply # 1602090 1-Aug-2016 10:55
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I wish rail was a viable option for more things, and I do hope someone with money invests in to it. Even then, this line will probably still stand, as the schedules and time frames of a train may not prove optimal. Add in to this, the Cook Strait where there's still plenty of pollution from the ferries, wonder if they'll be next to electrify? But then, who would've thought that they'd take couriers out of vans and into electric golf quad bikes! Hybrid trucks are around, not sure on their viability for long haul transport, but no doubt people will look into this. Electric trucks may be a few more years ahead. Maybe you could say that society is already moving away from fossil fuels, perhaps too slowly, but look at the number of Hybrids, PHEV's and now Electric cars you see on the road, and you can't argue the move is happening. Even the existing fossil only vehicles are significantly more efficient(/cleaner?) than they used to be.


797 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 77

Trusted

  Reply # 1602101 1-Aug-2016 11:17
Send private message

Linuxluver:

 

MikeAqua:

 

Linuxluver:

 

Almost everyone responding instantly loses sight of the health consequences of using dirty fuels that prompted the original post. 

 

Fascinating. 

 

 

I accept the problem (health impacts of vehicle pollutions) you have presented.

 

However your solution (ban diesel) is not feasible.

 

The distribution of physical goods and primary production for almost the entire population depends on diesel and there isn't (yet) a realistic alternative.

 

 

Several of my posts are the realistic alternatives you claim don't exist. Some of them are simply returning to methods already used for decades and others are new technology that we can buy today. 

 

But i understand some people don't WANT to know...and that's a different problem 

 

 

Define realistic, turning off diesel today (this/next year?), and making everything move via electrified rail? A solution that might prove successful, and could remove a significant number of diesel vehicles off the road today, but not all. It seems backward, or perhaps an easier way out (albeit short sighted), that they invest more and more in roads, making them bigger, safer, and allowing bigger trucks on them, when a step in the right direction for rail could see a reduced reliance, and demand for road options? As I said, I think there is a move, perhaps far too slowly.


18749 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5377

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1602107 1-Aug-2016 11:25
3 people support this post
Send private message

I am not sure how the OP imagines what happens to all the diesel passenger cars? I have a significant sum invested in mine, certainly not handing it over out of the generosity of my heart. 

 

Or is it that the OP suggests no more are sold as of tomorrow? I believe my car is good for 25 years at least. 


5294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2147


  Reply # 1602128 1-Aug-2016 11:48
3 people support this post
Send private message

Linuxluver:

 

Several of my posts are the realistic alternatives you claim don't exist. Some of them are simply returning to methods already used for decades and others are new technology that we can buy today. 

 

But i understand some people don't WANT to know...and that's a different problem 

 

 

There are realistic alternatives in some cases.  NZ post's buggies are one such example I noted.  In others there is no realistic alternative. This particularly the case for heavy mobile machinery.

 

A simple example: Recently I bought a kitchen cleaver in Nelson (where I live).  The meat cleaver comprises three different parts: A metal blade, wooden grips and bronze rivets.

 

The ingredients list for my knife includes iron, coke, chrome, timber, varnish copper and tin.

 

The feed stocks for all of the materials needs to be extracted, transported and processed.

 

None of them can be without diesel. 

 

Mining without diesel?  No.

 

Oil extraction without diesel? Nope.

 

Forestry machinery without diesel? LOL

 

EV logging truck?  ROFLMAO.

 

 

 

 

 

 





Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.