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 | 11 | 12 | 13

14219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1604578 4-Aug-2016 20:21

One person supports this post

Linuxluver:

MikeB4:
Linuxluver: Awesome looking electric bus that straddles traffic and takes up no road space.

http://electrek.co/2016/08/02/futuristic-electric-straddling-bus-full-scale-prototype/

How many cities could that work in NZ? Christchurch maybe.

Anywhere you build a flat-ish carriageway with a 'track' each two lanes. :-)

I wonder how you'd handle corners. Any curves would have to be gentle.

I've seen videos of the system operating. Platforms one level above the streets...and these things roll along and stop at the platforms as cars carry on below, passing through / beneath. Eliminates the need for both tunnels and a large amount of dedicated road space.....plus they are electric.

The Terrace and Featherston street would be interesting

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

There is no planet B

Linuxluver

5438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1604583 4-Aug-2016 20:29

MikeB4:

Linuxluver:

MikeB4:
Linuxluver: Awesome looking electric bus that straddles traffic and takes up no road space.

http://electrek.co/2016/08/02/futuristic-electric-straddling-bus-full-scale-prototype/

How many cities could that work in NZ? Christchurch maybe.

Anywhere you build a flat-ish carriageway with a 'track' each two lanes. :-)

I wonder how you'd handle corners. Any curves would have to be gentle.

I've seen videos of the system operating. Platforms one level above the streets...and these things roll along and stop at the platforms as cars carry on below, passing through / beneath. Eliminates the need for both tunnels and a large amount of dedicated road space.....plus they are electric.

The Terrace and Featherston street would be interesting

Or anywhere with a road partly composed of bridges.......like almost every motorway. Think of the Hutt 'railway' like this running over top of the motorway....and extending along Jervois Quay and up Taranaki St. With a bit of engineering you could go all the way to Island Bay.

____________________________________________________
If you order a Tesla, use my referral code to get free stuff.

My Tesla referral code: https://ts.la/steve52356

MikeAqua

5385 posts

Uber Geek

# 1604963 5-Aug-2016 12:17

Personally I really like the look of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. An HFC provides a reasonably compact energy source for electric motors. You can still use regenerative braking. You need a smaller battery than a pure EV and that battery won't be discharged as deeply as the batteries in a pure-EV, so it may last longer.

With a reasonable supply of de-ionised water and electricity hydrogen production via electrolysis could conceivably take place at service stations (partially using solar electricity) and industrial sites, removing the need for distribution structure.

Also theoretically possible would be production from landfill gas, effluent pond gas or gas produced by anaerobic digestion of organic material -(garden waste, sewage, offal, waste food). Capturing methane and converting it to C02 (while producing hydrogen) is less harmful (from a greenhouse perspective) than letting the methane escape to atmosphere.

But it's not without its potential downsides: -

1) H20 is the main greenhouse gas on earth. By using by hydrogen as a fuel, will we increase the proportion of water in the atmosphere to a climatically significant extent? Burning fossil fuels emits water, so maybe there is no difference?

2) What is the effect of increased amounts of water vapour being emitted in an urban area? Does the local humidity increase substantially and does this pose problems for people or equipment?

3) Presumably hydrogen will be subject to similar regulation as LPG. So service stations that currently can't have LPG pumps won't be able to have hydrogen pumps either?

4) If you are producing hydrogen by electrolysis you produce oxygen too, which introduces additional risks.

Mike

Batman

Mad Scientist
20897 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1604965 5-Aug-2016 12:21

One person supports this post

MikeAqua:

3) Presumably hydrogen will be subject to similar regulation as LPG. So service stations that currently can't have LPG pumps won't be able to have hydrogen pumps either?

I'd love to see service stations produce hydrogen pumps ... The regulation would be this: no lifeform within a 1 mile radius of service station thanks.

or if there are buildings nearby they each need their own 1m thick concrete bunker/shell, but certainly no jay walking in that area

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

MikeB4

14219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1605043 5-Aug-2016 14:26

One person supports this post

A couple of interesting pieces

http://www.carandsuv.co.nz/news/tipping-point-mass-ev-uptake-here

http://www.carandsuv.co.nz/news/electric-car-uptake-surges-31-8-uk

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

There is no planet B

MikeAqua

5385 posts

Uber Geek

# 1605551 6-Aug-2016 17:15

joker97:

MikeAqua:

3) Presumably hydrogen will be subject to similar regulation as LPG. So service stations that currently can't have LPG pumps won't be able to have hydrogen pumps either?

I'd love to see service stations produce hydrogen pumps ... The regulation would be this: no lifeform within a 1 mile radius of service station thanks.

or if there are buildings nearby they each need their own 1m thick concrete bunker/shell, but certainly no jay walking in that area

Hydrogen contain three time as much energy as CNG and four times as much as LPG. But, if it were being produced on site, less storage capacity would be required. So arguably, capacity could be reduced to make the total risk about the same.

Mike

Scott3

599 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 1605619 6-Aug-2016 19:21

MikeAqua:

Hydrogen contain three time as much energy as CNG and four times as much as LPG. But, if it were being produced on site, less storage capacity would be required. So arguably, capacity could be reduced to make the total risk about the same.

Hydrogen has crazy low energy density per volume at atmospheric pressure. You have to compress it to crazy high pressures (or cool to cryogenic temperatures) to store a reasonable amount in a tank of reasonable size.

As an example the Toyota hydrogen car has two really large 70MPa storage tanks (for comparison car tires hold around 0.28 MPa, LPG is stored at around 2Mpa (in a BBQ bottle or LPG car), and natural gas (commonly used as a bus fuel in places worried about air quality such as LA, California) is stored at around 25Mpa.

As pressure goes up, cylinders get more expensive. Even at the above pressures the volumetric energy density matrix goes like Diesel > Petrol > LPG > CNG > Hydrogen

For CNG and Hydrogen, you also need massive storage tanks. To get a reasonable working range CNG buses often have their many gas tanks stored on the roof (under an fairing on the image below).

For hydrogen, as an example the Toyota Hydrogen car has two very large carbon fiber high pressure tanks to store its Hydrogen. Even with its high efficency fuel cell (as opposed to inefficiently burning the gas in a piston engine), its range is only around the 500km mark.

See the link below for a table showing energy densities. Note that LNG and Cooled liquid hydrogen require cryogenic temperatures which are not really feasible to maintain in vehicles. (unless you allow the liquid to boil off to stay cold - not idea due to waste). LPG is a blend of Propane & butane. The compressed propane data-point is close enough for my needs.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9991

Sidestep

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

# 1605644 6-Aug-2016 20:21

One person supports this post

Some years ago the wife and I spent a weekend riding around in hydrogen powered buses. The city of Whistler, B.C. had a whole fleet of them.

Last year I heard they'd retired them all and replaced them with diesels.

We still own shares in Ballard Power (maker of PEM Fuel cells that powered the buses). They soared in the early 00's then tanked when reality set in.
They've remained in business, but zero-emission fuel stacks have become a niche product, mainly as safe back-up power for sensitive/enclosed areas.

As Yogi Berra said “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
But I don't see the hydrogen economy being a viable thing (although it was a beautiful dream) unless there's a production or storage breakthrough.

Sidestep

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

# 1605736 7-Aug-2016 09:07

And when I need to remind myself of the importance of economics and infrastructure on the success of alternative fuels..

I look out behind the shed.

At the far end is a rusting 70's Valiant.
On the front bumper is the remains of a black diamond sticker. Dad took advantage of a Govt subsidy to convert it to LPG from petrol many years ago. It all stacked up at the time.
A cheap, NZ produced fuel? What could go wrong? We actually ran it for years. To really take advantage of LPG (less energy dense than petrol) we mechanically modified the vehicle. Curved our own distributor for more advance, raised the compression, put hardened exhaust seats in.. Then one day they wouldn't fill it. The cert had expired. We took it in for a cert but.. new regs required all the hoses to have a 'green stripe' on them. Tank removed, retested. The cost? More than the car's value.

Next is a rusting 80's Dodge diesel pickup truck. Over a decade ago I converted it to run on biodiesel and waste oil. Added a 2nd heated fuel tank, filter & solenoid changeover systems.
At first it was good. I collected waste oil at virtually no cost, set up a drip filter system in the shed. But good waste vege oil became sought after. A local Taxi company converted to bio-diesel. A small integrated waste collection and bus company built their own biodiesel plant in Kaitaia. I had to drive miles with a 44 gal drum collecting contaminated waste engine oil (paying road miles). One WOF time they told me I'd need a compliance inspection 'for all that stuff' and it was all over.
And "busabout" - losing the support of the local council - reduced it's services, sold off its bio diesel plant in bits last year..

Next to that sit 2 small 90's 'electric utes' (more like big fancy golf carts). They're John Deere 'E-Gators' - ex Air NZ utility vehicles. They were road registered when we bought them, and seemed perfect for the couple Km drive between properties we do several times a day. But one day we got a letter from NZTA disputing their registration as 'goods vehicles' We ended up having to de-register them. Still used them for a couple years for small duties but the - 72v Lead acid - battery packs began to fail, then the charge controllers and electronics. We kept one going with bits from the other, but the mains charger started having issues and we parked it. (about a year later my wife would wake up thinking someone was crying off in the bush. One day in the barn I heard it. One of the Gators was making a warbling intermittent drawn out Beeee - eee - eep as it finally expired)

Heh - and a drawn out story! But for us it's a microcosm of the issues that might raise their heads if we spent real (business) money on emerging technology. For making a living I'll choose conservatively. And reminds me to give the scrap metal guy a call..

Fred99

8693 posts

Uber Geek

# 1605745 7-Aug-2016 09:53

http://transportoperator.co.uk/2015/11/10/truck-manufacturers-lobby-for-ban-on-scr-cheat-devices/

http://www.dieselperformancesolutions.co.nz/blog/post/4202/Nissan-Navara-D40-and-Isuzu-D-Max-Remaps_ECU-Chipping/

IMO there's probably no real issue with "chipping/remapping" diesel farm equipment, one of the main effects is increased NOX which won't be a problem in a rural area, increased particulates similar. Around town then it's a bit different.

On the other hand basically everybody I know who owns a new-ish diesel ute driven around town has already "chipped" it - or plans to do so. In some cases it's a simple "pedal box" which goes between the fly by wire accelerator and ECU, supposedly reduces turbo lag/hesitation, possibly has little effect on emissions and power output . OTOH one of my friends has a ute which has had the second cat removed, larger intercooler fitted, the EGR has been blanked off, the ECU has been flashed/remapped which has changed boost, injection mapping, the ECU was throwing fault codes (and activating check engine light) due to disabling the EGR and the second cat being removed - the ECU remapping shut down the fault code/check engine light diagnostics. It's much more powerful than standard - crazy amount of power. It also churns out much more visible smoke than standard - at full throttle it's smoking as much as an old mechanically injected diesel with dirty injectors. Fuel economy is unchanged. 99% of the time, it's driven around town.

Of course it's totally illegal for several reasons, it's illegal to tamper/defeat emissions systems. It's illegal to increase power by as much as this "chipping" has achieved without certification, it's illegal anyway to tamper with any forced induction engine to produce any increase in power without certification. It passes WOF checks at VTNZ without question. If a question did happen to be asked, then the EGR blanking plate would be removed, 2nd CAT re-fitted, original intercooler re-fitted. VTNZ has no way to see that it's been re-mapped. Even if they did, then it could be mapped back to original - that only takes a couple of minutes.

We have these laws, but nobody is checking - it's in the "too hard basket" apparently.

Scott3

599 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 1605795 7-Aug-2016 12:40

One person supports this post

Chipping / remapping, and emissions control equipment removal / tampering is the main reason I support vehicle emissions testing. I am aware the diehard's will return their vehicle to stock for the test, then re-modify after, such as happens with WOF's at the moment. Similar deal as the current: "can I borrow your wheels on Tuesday? I need a WOF, but my tires are too low"

I agree that we need to make the advertising and insulation of performance chips illegal (for road vehicles), along with providing services such as EGR disabling and DPF removal. (if emissions testing is introduced, you can be sure the chip vendors will start pushing models with hidden switches to return emissions profile to stock for the test).

I think people who do these mods fall into three camps.

The current situation is far from ideal.

We have people who remove (or tamper with) Catalytic converters in their vehicles simply for the $50 in scrap value for the metal contained within, or for a sub 1% power gain.
People remove DPF's that they have killed trough too much short distance/low speed driving (they need weekly 15min motorway / open road runs to run burn off cycle) rather than replacing them.
EGR port blanking off is common (to improve engine life / reliability)
Performance & economy gains from chipping turbo cars, or removing DPF are really significant Link Link, no mention of making the car illegal (without re-cert that would probably fail), or worsening emission's profile on vendors websites.

Many people arn't aware the above are illegal or (particularly chipping of performance audi's, or economy tunes on diesel's - fuel consumption is dropped by changing combustion conditions allowing more nasty NOx etc emissions) aren't aware that it worsens's emissions profile.

Of course there are those who understand the impact on emissions but don't care "my exhaust pipe is at the back.., so I don't care what the emissions are" this is the tragedy of the commons issue, and why we need the government to step in and regulate.

Newspaper article regarding emissions equipment tampering on heavy trucks.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/nz-trucking/82625673/truckies-tampering-with-emission-testing-to-save-dollars

Essentially operators (using trucks that require exhaust gas treatment to pass emissions regulations) plug in a device to spoof the engine control system into thinking the system is working correctly but without using any fluid. This saves the operator the cost of the Exhaust treatment fluid (Urea solution or ad-blue), while emissions spike massively.

xlinknz

851 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 1606040 7-Aug-2016 19:54

Diesel Carcinogens come from particulate matter which is all but stopped with a particulate filter

Is the op familiar with the NZ fuel emissions standards

http://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/entry-certification/i-and-c/exhaust/exhaust-emissions#nd

Its not like nothing is being done

All new vehicles after 1 Nov 2016 will require to meet Euro 5 and other standards, from memory Euro 5 requires the use of a DPF or equivalent to meet the particulate matter standards

Furthermore Biodiesel also has significantly less harmful emissions, Z are soon commissioning a biodiesel factory...their major customers will be Fonterr, Futon Hogan etc

I walk the talk my diesel has a DPF and I use biodiesel blends

Batman

Mad Scientist
20897 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1606042 7-Aug-2016 20:04

One person supports this post

I worry about pollution from people burning all sorts of stuff (wood - coal - rubbish/plastic!) in their wood burner. Seriously, the whole city stinks of crap in winter, and the smog is terrible. And that's in a city of 100,000.

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

Fred99

8693 posts

Uber Geek

# 1606124 7-Aug-2016 21:56

joker97:

I worry about pollution from people burning all sorts of stuff (wood - coal - rubbish/plastic!) in their wood burner. Seriously, the whole city stinks of crap in winter, and the smog is terrible. And that's in a city of 100,000.

Dunedin?

If people burned only dry firewood in approved burners, no open fires or coal, and no rubbish/plastic, then things may be very different.

Batman

Mad Scientist
20897 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1606141 7-Aug-2016 23:00

Fred99:

joker97:

I worry about pollution from people burning all sorts of stuff (wood - coal - rubbish/plastic!) in their wood burner. Seriously, the whole city stinks of crap in winter, and the smog is terrible. And that's in a city of 100,000.

Dunedin?

If people burned only dry firewood in approved burners, no open fires or coal, and no rubbish/plastic, then things may be very different.

Unfortunately people do burn their rubbish - the worst i've seen - coke plastic bottles - so I imagine if people burnt their coke bottles then there is no limit as to what Dunedinites put in their fires.

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13