Just when it seemed that the situation for diesel car manufacturers couldn’t get any worse, a new study has revealed that even the newest diesels are more polluting than we thought. The study calls into question why European regulators continue to favour diesel over petrol, despite vast evidence that this isn’t the best option.
More polluting
The study was conducted by Transport & Environment (T&E), an organisation based in Brussels that lobbies for sustainable transport. Its findings said that the typical diesel car emits 42.65 tonnes of carbon dioxide across its lifecycle. That’s 3.65 tonnes more than a petrol car.
T&E says that the research “debunks carmakers’ claims” that diesel cars are the best way for countries to hit their climate targets, as they are not only more polluting than petrol, but the pollutants they emit are more harmful. These include nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, as well as more CO2 than petrol cars. They also cost €2,000-3,000 more to buy. The findings call into question the usefulness of the recently announced diesel scrappage schemes, where many car manufacturers are offering discounts off new diesels for customers who trade in older models.
Declining sales
The sale of diesel cars has been in steady decline since regulators in the US uncovered the Volkswagen emissions scandal two years ago. This discovery led to much closer scrutiny of the claims made about the environmental friendliness of the diesels. It has lead to many cities considering a ban on diesel vehicles.
According to JP Morgan, the result has been a dramatic reduction in the diesel share of the market. This is on track to go from half to one-third by 2020. Carmakers still fight for diesel’s clean credentials, however, with Daimler chief executive Dieter Zetsche saying that they emit 15-20% less CO2 than equivalent petrol cars.
Different story
The research conducted by T&E seems to paint a different picture. Its study found that diesels only emit less CO2 when regulators narrowly look at the emissions from tailpipes. The study looked at the lifecycle analysis, including the production of the car, sourcing of fuel and materials for manufacturing, car usage and recycling of components.
Based on this thorough analysis, it found three reasons why diesels were more polluting:
- Diesel fuel undergoes a more intensive refining process
- Diesel combusts at higher temperatures, so components are heavier and more robust to handle this
- Diesel fuel is cheaper, so drivers tend to use their vehicles more
This coincides with a report from the journal Nature, which looked at the number of deaths caused by diesel cars following the so-called Dieselgate scandal. The researchers calculated deaths in Norway, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands. They concluded that around 10,000 deaths every year could be attributed to small particle pollution that comes from light duty diesel vehicles.
The study also found that, if diesel cars emitted the same amount of NOx as petrol equivalents, some 4,000 out of 5,000 premature deaths would have been avoided. Countries such as Italy, Germany and France see the highest number of these deaths due to their higher populations and the high number of diesel vehicles in their national fleets.
Biased regulations
T&E blamed the biased regulations and taxes present in many countries for the problems with diesel vehicles, rather than the manufacturers. For example, tax on diesel is less than on petrol. This makes it 10-40% cheaper across many European countries. Only the UK doesn’t have this tax gap. T&E called for the EU to stop pouring money into a ‘niche 20th-century technology.’ it championed a technology neutral approach, with fair fuel and vehicle taxes across the board.
Will these new findings heap further misery on the diesel vehicle industry? Are they likely to put you off buying a new diesel? Leave a comment to share your view.
Well if you’re going to include the deseil fuel production process how about the production process for Lithium Ion Batteries for electric vehicles! As it takes 9 years for a Tesla S series vehicle to become carbon neutral I think that gives the flavour of how polluting electric vehicles are!
It may be true that Lithium ion batteries currently have these problems that Richard mentions, however battery techology is currently moving along at a fast pace indeed, lithium tech may well soon be quite obsolete, if I may quote:- “A team of engineers led by Goodenough, professor at the University of Texas, has developed the first ever all-solid-state battery cells.The battery cells have at least three times as much energy density as lithium-ion batteries, providing for added range, should electric vehicles use them. “The glass electrolytes allow for the substitution of low-cost sodium for lithium. Sodium is extracted from seawater that is widely available,” Braga said, noting the batteries are even environmentally friendly, in comparison to their 37-year-old predecessors. So watch this space, Lithium is not the “end all” of batteries!
That sounds tremendous but bad news for Tesla and the other manufacturers who have joined the rush into (scarce) lithium batteries.
I would have thought a battery car would run on any kind of battery producing sufficient power!
Suitable batteries require sufficient storage capacity aas well as sufficient power
It depends on the voltage of the battery as well as its amph rating.
careful you don’t apply the wrong voltage to any of your electrical items. Instant end of life for that device!
There is no way that the fuel companies will let this idea go forward. They will be bought out and buried by the multinational fuel companies……………
If the sodium is extracted from sea water what effect will this have on sea life?
not as much as the rising acidity via CO2.
Very true Richard. The same can be said of the so called green energy, Rare earth magnets used in Wind turbines, their manufacturing process results in large amounts of toxic and radioactive waste being produced, solar panels are not much better with toxic waste being the byproduct of their manufacture.
lpg vehicels is the answer,no co2 or black smoke like diesel turbo
Sorry, but LPG is a mix of hydrocarbon gases. Combustion produces CO2 as well as other pollutants. In fact, visiting Toronto in 1995 (when most of the taxis and many cars and commercial vehicles used LPG fuel) I hated the gassy smell in the streets.
As pointed out above, the study is flawed as it does not compare like with like. As stated, diesel vehicles do more miles in their lifetime on average than petrol ones.
Finally, has anyone considered the queues that will build up at service stations when electric cars take over an hour each to recharge compared with a few minutes to refuel a petrol or diesel one?
perhaps recharge stations will be the new “pub” !!
I like your thoughts, but you cannot run 2 / 3 hundred tonners or even normal 40 tonners on gas can you, even long distance delivery vans, how many garages do you see with gas tanks capable of fueling many hundreds of vans a day, these gas powered vehicles need to be serviced every six months, adding to the cost of running on gas as the service is not cheap, and if not serviced properly they have a good chance of exploding anytime, and as for these electric powered cars, like the new Teslar cars THEY have a chance of exploding into flames ( a bit like your phones that explode ), All these things with gas & electric vehicles catching fire are on YouTube, watch for yourself, you NEVER see a diesel powered vehicles do this even in an accident unless another fuel agent is added to the accident like a gas cylinder or another vehicle that runs on petrol/gas.
I see generator driven electric drivetrains as the future ie a new kind of hybrid. as you say other techs really are a non -starter except for local city use (which will suit a lot of people though).
Surely the burning of ANY hydrocarbon (be it petroleum, diesel, LPG (which stands for liquid petroleum gas), Coal, Wood etc. will produce CO , CO2, H2O (as water vapour) and the dreaded NOX’s .
The NOX’s arise from the fact that the air that all the above fuels use for combustion is approximately 78% Oxygen, 20% Nitrogen and a small amount of other gasseous elements.
I think you’ve got that the wrong way round – the atmosphere is around 78% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.AtmComposition
at least I hope it is, otherwise I’d better not go out into the garden today!!
Smiley. you had got your figures reversed, it is 78% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen
You do get CO2 (and H2O) when you burn LPG. But you are right on oxides of nitrogen and particulates.
Not necessarily. NOx in exhaust comes from two sources. There is Nitrogen in the fuel giving fuel NOx and the atmospheric Nitrogen is oxidised above a critical temperature giving Thermal NOx Propane etc have no nitrogen but are still susceptible to Thermal NOx forming
No boot space either.
One thing in this discussion I have not seen mentioned is the fact that it is reckoned that mobile phones do damage to the brain when held to the ear and the danger of WI-FI going through the body is not good, so when they bring out all these deaths through diesel (and it used to be petrol as well until they wanted to get their point across), so are we going to hear about the electricity going through your body killing you driving an electric car?.
keep taking the pills…..
Didn’t I see talk of a cleaner fuel for diesel engines with negligible harmful emissions or was that killed off by the petroleum industry ?
“…Diesel fuel is cheaper, so drivers tend to use their vehicles more…”? Diesel cars tend have better mpg, so a driver that knows they drive a lot will tend to favour a diesel car … surely?
Where do you live not in the UK are you. Diesel fuel cheaper where? every where I go its at least 3 pence a litre more.
Last week in Reading I filled up, diesel was 2p cheaper, in part due to issues in the USA, which has cause more demand for petrol. #GlobalMarket.
Quite obvious from the second hand market. Recently bought a pre-owned Renault Laguna, 22 of the 23 cars listed on the Autotrader website were diesel.
So if they ban diesels altogether how the hell are forty Tonners and above supposed to get around, in fact any heavy or light goods vehicles, things this size cannot run on batteries or they would need another trailer behind them to carry the batteries, so they better come up with a better exhaust filtration set up, as they cannot do without diesels.
I wonder how we’d have managed if diesel had never been invented? This situation reminds me of Charles DeGaull’s comment “The graveyards are full of people who thought they were indispensable”.
Interesting comment, Steve but it would it have left all post steam stationary engines, marine, rail and heavy vehicle transport up a bit of a gum tree since 1920. I do believe we were sold a pup when it comes to private motor cars. I’m looking forward to successful and safe Hydrogen fuel development. . (It was Giscard d’Estaing’s quote, who said it of De Gaull at his funeral.)
Interesting point regarding De Gaulle, however everything is indispensable until there is a viable alternative, the same can be said of diesel
once upon a time they had petrol engines in HGVs but they were MUCH slower and also MUCH smaller. buses were built on the same chassis and had the same engines (from the 50s/60s for example) and were doing half the MPG and physically COULDNT get over about 40mph. (unless going downhill, then you had to worry about the drum brakes fading)
Diesel came about after Rudolph DIESEL invented an engine that ran on peanut oil! The heavy oil left after processing petrol and other fuels was then used as a fuel for these compression ignition engines. If we had more vehicles running on waste cooking oils( suitably processed to make biodiesel)we could reduce an amount of pollution, though there wouldn’t be enough for the number of cars and heavy vehicles on the road. Having said that, modern diesels can’t use high levels of biodiesel’ as the manufacturers don’t make the seals and rubbers strong enough.Current diesel fuel at all pumps in the UK is 5% biodiesel (B5)
In addition the electronic fuel injection can’t cope with the high viscosity of cold veg oils, it needs preheating in cold Britain at the best of times!
Older cars with mechanical injection can use it without too much difficulty, but winter will require a greater percentage of conventional diesel to prevent clogging fuel lines and filters. More regular filter changes are required, but a responsible diesel driver does this anyway, as clean air and fuel filters allow for better combustion and therefore ‘cleaner’ exhaust.it also ensures more chance of passing emissions test if done just prior to MOT. My Citroen Berlingo circa 2003 can use bio diesel and has been run on up to 60% veg oil during the summer months, smells cleaner than conventional fuel but I have no idea what the emissions would be. It does cause more paperwork as you need to keep a record of all veg oil used as fue for HM Customs and Excisel, Once you go over a certain amount ( about 2500 litres I believe) it becomes taxable at the same rate as DERV
Diesel were originallydesigned to run on vegetable oil
Yes, that’s what I think. they must be able to achieve better exhaust filtration which can also be retro fitted.
current particulate filters – introduced around 2005, don’t go down to a small enough size and my guess is because it would affect the gas flow and therefore efficiency.
To improve I think they deal with the exhaust gases in a better way – perhaps hotter? I don’t think it’s filtration though going by the 24/48V system that’s mentioned.
It has been reported that the German company, Continental, has developed an diesel exhaust filtration system that can offer 40% less pollution than is currently required by EU rules. This is achieved by a 24volt heating system in the exhaust rather than the cars 12v system. I’ve not heard anything about this since it was first reported.
The funny thing with newer diesel vehicle is those that turn off at traffic lights produce more bad emissions than those that don’t. For once simple reason the emission control measures are more effective once optimal operating temperature is reached.
on paper, the stop start shouldn’t cut in until optimal temperature has been reached. the downside is that whilst its shut off, the engine is cooling down again
Stop start system not good for turbos engine stops turbo keeps spinning no lubricant.
This is why you should wait 30 secs before stopping the engine allowing the turbo to spin down.
the issue was getting a 12v vehicle to supply 24-40v (there are a few with the same basic idea) without taking up space they don’t have to spare to add the extra batteries to provide the extra voltage. then theres the issue of keeping them charged…..
Extra batteries wouldn’t be required. Inverters could be used.
i had read it was a 48V system but maybe that was Mazda or someone.
Currently the proposed ban only covers cars and light vans
so pretty pointless then, as most of the pollution comes from HGVs, buses, etc.
not where the pollution is a problem. It’s very concentrated in areas of high population density.
My feeling from reading a bit (not much) is that a new hybrid will take over with generators running an electric drivetrain. Note that the 2040 regulation doesn’t demand solely electric vehicles, they allow hybrid too. American hybrid vehicles today are basically huge gas guzzling units with a hair dryer attached to them. Good for the marketing boys though, and it passes muster.
Back to generators – they run at a constant speed and so can be much simpler [& smaller] units than our engines which are currently quite amazing considering the range of uses / vehicles we put them to use in – but very complex because of it. Cam shafts will disappear anyway replaced with sensors and hydraulic lifters so a big chunk of the engine disappears in theory.
Apparently electric drive trains are more efficient too. The whole thing may well be a little smaller but massively simpler. We shall see how much more efficient they end up being but buses are already moving away from diesel, not sure what to though.
Of course diesel drivers use their cars more – their economic justification nowadays is based mostly on that very point. Diesels are chosen by high mileage drivers (and keep going for far longer before having to be scrapped), not the other way around. Do they think that people really buy a diesel and then suddenly think: “Ooh, this is cheap to run, I think I’ll start cruising up and down the motorway for fun because I get more mpg than I did from my petrol.”?
Brian, I thought the same when I read that retarded statement
The study reminds me of a well known saying….’There are lies, damn lies and statistics. …Now I’m not suggesting the study is untrue, just manipulated using statistics to make diesels look worse than they really are.
Politicians (and T&E it seems) use statistics much as a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than illumination! There may be correlation between two sets of data, but that does not prove a causal link. Diesel car drivers don’t do more miles because diesel is more economical than petrol, they choose to buy a diesel car if they have to do a lot of miles, so of course they use more fuel overall. They would use even more fuel and emit more CO2 if they chose a petrol car that had a worse mpg. The key measure T&E should have focussed on is whole lifecycle CO2 emissions per mile. I bet petrol cars would not be better than diesel on that measure, and quite possibly worse because most petrol cars are scrapped at much lower mileages than diesel cars.
the harmful pollutants issue is a real one in areas of high population density, particularly by the busy roads.
Diesel cheaper than petrol?? I don’t think so. The unit cost is higher than petrol. The only economy is it usually goes further than petrol. Not much help to me now though since I have retired and don’t use the car very much but I can’t afford to replace it. I will have to keep my diesel till the day they ban it.
I thought diesel was less refined than petrol. Surprised to read in article that it’s not.
they won’t ban diesel but they will make it less attractive to buy a new one – as is already happening just with an announcement for 2040!
Most cars are scrapped within 15 years I’d say, and many within 10 so it’s down to the manufacturers to up their game. But hybrids won’t be banned so my guess is we’ll still be buying diesel & petrol for some decades yet, but hopefully a lot less, for vehicles using an on-board generator driving an electric drivetrain.
The study was conducted by Transport & Environment (T&E), an organisation based in Brussels that lobbies for sustainable transport…..
No surprise then that it is biased.
As pointed out by Van Diesel, people who drive longer distances buy diesel because of it, not the other way around.
As for it being more refined… I think it comes out further along the refining process, but it is one of the constituents of oil and the refining processes in a refinery are balanced to suit the oil. To rebalance the process to produce more petrol instead, would require additional refining to crack the longer chains (of diesel etc) into shorter, more volatile ones, so then petrol would be more intensive.
And I would scone the point about batteries, even more so when you look at their disposal…. heavy metals improperly recycled are not good news.
I have had diesel cars for over 30 years and would not want to go back to Petrol.
If you look in the log book of a diesel car under fuel it says Heavy Oil,
That means the fuel is not so refined and costs less to produce so when people says diesel costs more to refine it’s a lie
Not sure you can look at refinery costs that way but your point is a real one.
yes, batteries are a massive problem though there are some exciting developments on the horizon and no doubt more that will come along. Lithium Oxygen batteries are very exciting for sure, many times more powerful than today’s lithium batteries.
Not enough for the world’s vehicles of course.
The future it seems is generators powering electric drivetrains. Generators are much simpler than our vehicle engines, for example they run at constant speeds, camshafts will go the way of the dodo anyway to be replaced by sensors and hydraulic / compressed air lifters, so a far simpler [& smaller?] unit with a much more efficient electric drive train apparently.
Will be interesting to see the developments manufacturers come up with. But the rule changes are to deliberately allow hybrids because straight electric is just ridiculous.
Living in France we see the conclusions of this study brought to life every day. Diesel 10-15 cents a litre cheaper, clouds of black smoke belching from 2 out of every 3 cars which are diesel and zero appetite from the government to change anything positively… although the government have decided to place an emissions tax on diesels (and powerful petrol motors) in large towns and cities across the country from 2017.
If I were a Frenchman, having been told to buy diesels from French car makers who specialise in them in order to support the national economy (which is what happened for decades), I would be more than miffed at then being taxed specifically for having done what was asked of me!
Both myself and my brother in law drove hgv’s for over 40 years each and now we have severe breathing problems due to diesel fumes also one of my lungs hardly works at all..
Fair enough but tell me did you smoke? And be honest please
and can anyone say with 100% certainty it is diesel fumes that caused it, not some other source? I grew up in a farming area where EVERYTHING runs on diesel, yet almost NOBODY has breathing issues unless they smoked!
it’s the concentration that is the issue in busy areas like London. measurably critical levels of NOx and particulates. It’s those areas that show the medical problems associated – even if those people have a pre-disposition to problems.
Growing up on a farm isn’t the same thing. you don’t have the concentrations.
What a biased report.
From their own figure, diesels emit 9.35% over their lifetime but, diesels travel many more miles because they are extensively used for business. Certainly more than 10% more.
Diesel fuel comes lower down the fracking process and could be considered as a by-product of petrol.
Diesels achieve higher MPG, this equals less pollutants per mile.
Where do the figures for deaths come from? Looks like a fiddle.
That was exactly my thought on the subject, Jeff. Spot on. The reports from groups with vested interests are bound to lie through their back teeth. Don’t believe a word.
just to add, the article says that people use their cars more because diesels give better MPG. this is incorrect. people BUY diesels BECAUSE they do higher mileages than many so NEED the extra MPG.
I drive a diesel land rover because of the power to weight ratio over the equivalent petrol. Using a diesel uses less fuel than a petrol engine. You may argue over this simple remark but comes from my own usage of both fuels, and l know which works better for me. Fractal distillation, well we don’t throw out the waste any more we call it diesel. Any thing new on the bio fuel market. Very quiet!
I think the future is generator engines with an electric drive train ie a kind of hybrid. Generators are much simpler than our car engines, they run at a constant speed for one and should be more efficient, as should electric drivetrains.
It will be interesting to see how that landscape develops and also what happens with battery technology.
Thats what the Fisker was doing years ago. The current fuel efficient and low emission target is the diesel hybrid using a maritme diesel generator combo and electric drive train. With the diesel engine’s better durability and efficiency at continuous low speed, this wil push mpg squarely into the three figure range.
I may be a little biased, but my diesel hits 50mpg.
and if you add an lpg installation which injects small amount of lpg (oryginal fuel system is not modified) efficiency increases because lpg does ‘afterburn’ ignited by diesel fuel ignition and forces diesel to burn more compleely i.e. reduce soot produced and improve fuel economy and emissions!
if you go to the trouble of adding an lpg system, why bother with the diesel part at all?
Fracking? Or fractional distillation and or cracking?
cracking up I think
I think the health problems come from the particulate and NOx emissions – how sound they are is a good question but the suffering is real – including school children, though it tends to get reported as pre-existing conditions being exacerbated.
Diesel is bad for Nox and particulates but good for CO2, petrol is bad for CO2 but much better for the other stuff.
In the noughties CO2 action was the big thing demanded, and though the diesel emissions issues were known, it took a while for the vehicle numbers to ramp up and the financial crisis made the manufacturers put some of the changes on ice (eg the ad-blue addition that we see now).
The problem comes where traffic is dense / we have high populations and by the roads the concentration of pollutants is absolutely huge.
You say that “Diesel fuel undergoes a more intensive refining process” could you provide more details about this, or where you got this information please?
James, diesel gets to us by two routes. Firstly some of it comes as gas oil as they distill crude oil. This is simple but energy intensive. Most of what is sold as diesel (and in particular all the road diesel in Europe) is made by “reforming” heavy oils by an intense catalytic process which takes place at high pressures and temperatures and uses lots of energy. This process was brought in by the requirement in the 80s and 90s to produce Ulta Low Suphur diesel (ULS). The problem the whole oil industry now has is that it is heavily invested in this process to produce the huge quantities required by the market, a market that will now decline sharply
You can say anything with statistics – they admit diesel vechiles travel further than petrol so clearly they will pollute more during there life !!! That’s not science – if those people did the same driving in petrol cars petrol cars would pollute more !! people choose diesel because they are more economical for long journeys vis a vis you invest in diesel if you travel more you don’t travel more because you have diesel you don’t go hey let’s do a 100miles detour to work I’m in a diesel !!! Conversely you wouldn’t buy a petrol or electric car if you did 40,000 miles a year because the cost of fuel (and or time) would be prohibitive – so they are only “more economical” because they aren’t used as much not more economical period. So come on someone let’s have a figure per 150,000 miles travelled and put in it all costs for all options so we can see a like for like comparison otherwise your your just talking s*** and using bias statistics to prove a point that real data can’t prove !
pollution is a real problem in densely populated areas and the massive rise in the number of diesel vehicles is the issue.
Load of rubbish.. Too far-fetched. Lost the will to live before the end.
I’m not sure this matters too much. Market forces will ensure diesel car production is nearing its end. Consumers have been scared off diesels, rightly or wrongly, and consumers will ultimately decide what manufacturers make. I predict you won’t be able to buy a new diesel car in 5 years time.
hybrids may change the picture though. not current ones, but generator led electric drivetrains. those generators could be either petrol or diesel.
I don’t know where some people live who say diesel is cheaper, but in County Durham where I reside petrol has been cheaper for years compared to diesel. Once upon a time diesel was cheaper that was why I bought a diesel car.
As far as I understand on the continent diesel is cheaper but not in rip off England !!!
I have found Diesel cars more reliable.
diesels were more reliable but now with all the electronic engine management systems and emissions systems etc, theres not much in it now as far as reliability is concerned. my first diesels had NO electronic controls (clow plugs and alternator were as electronic as things got) so theoretically (assuming the air intake and exhaust were kept clear) would run completely under water. a petrol physically cant.
europe chooses to tax diesel less – they shouldn’t do so, we’ve just moved to have more equal taxation.
Zero VED so no money for exchequer more mpg than petrol equivilant so less tax and duty per fill up less money for exchequer
Its a war on pocket than fuel i think
You use less fuel because your car goes further on a litre – so we tilt results to say you will do more miles — Totally crazy , illogical , tosh
not really. If you are a higher mileage driver you are more likely to buy on mpg numbers. As it has been shown.
Electric cars cost about 20% less to run than a diesel, at present prices, but batteries cost £70/month to rent. Who pays £70/month for fuel? Not counting how much more electric cars cost in the first place and how many can manage on a range of 120 miles.
I was working at a Nissan dealership when they released the leaf. ignoring the difference in purchase price, and focussing on ONLY fuel costs, (or battery rental, not including charging costs) if you bought a leaf, and a near identical sized almera diesel (and only managed to get 40mpg from the diesel due to where you drove) over 10,000 miles per year, I calculated that the cost of driving either was of no real difference. however, most people were getting 50-60mpg from the Almera diesel, and often covering more mileage than the 10,000 per year so it was obvious diesel was more sensible financially and practically (the leaf wouldn’t cover the mileage needed daily for many diesel owners on its CLAIMED range which, in the real world could be as little as HALF what was claimed, yet still take hours to charge
As a driving instructor I use a diesel car. With this whilst teaching I get 52 mpg with my old petrol 35 mpg. If diesel is 13.5p per gallon more than petrol then with the tax and mpg benefits I would have to charge £1 an hour more just to use a petrol or make that figure as a loss. HGV costs would rocket and nobody could afford products. A typical Ill thought out answer to a problem. Batteries???? They are still charged from fossil fuels so how are they better
the pollution problem is a local one though, that’s the problem.
When diesel invented the diesel engine , diesel fuel did not really exist , it was designed to run on vegetable oil which is carbon neutral
The big energy companies will start to invest in producing hydrogen as this will cost less than finding and pulling out oil from the ground
Hydrogen also has a higher calorific value
Many of us simply can’t afford to buy a newer car. We bought Diesels when we were told it was the right thing to do. Now we’re stuck with them because we can’t afford to change. Agreed the pollution is a bad thing, but cars and vans aren’t the biggest problem. I’d use public transport more often if it worked. This week my classic Land Rover has been off the road and looked to public transport to do my weekly shop: you’ve got to be joking — I’d have to carry it over a mile!
I have a diesel car, new technology, but I don’t use it on short journeys, I walk, bike or use the bus. My diesel isn’t ‘cleaner ‘ than petrol until my journey is greater than 40 miles, that’s when the mpg figures on my cars computer start to achieve high mpg.
I wish a company would produce retro fit electric motors and batteries so I could use them on short journeys, without burning fossil fuels. I could charge the batteries from my solar panels.
Is scrapping a relatively new car environmentally friendly in view of the emissions to produce it?
if electric drivetrain vehicles come along driven by generators (ie a new type of hybrid) then hopefully you and many others will be helped out.
batteries are going to have limited use (but may suit those who can charge cars).
Because the 2040 regs talk about hybrids, cars may not change much at all from today’s hybrids!!
And, forgot to mention, apparently London’s buses and taxies are the biggest vehicular polluters in the city! But, bigger polluters still, are London’s office heating and air-conditioning systems. They’re the biggest health worry.
do offices emit Nox & particulates? It is a very particular and local health problem we have with the rise of diesel vehicles.
diesel fuel is cheaper? Not in the uk
Diesel is cheaper than petrol where I live in Cheshire. Myy
1.6 turbo diesel Focus shows 55mpg over the last 18000 miles since I bought it, my partners 1.0 turbo petrol gets no better than 43mpg. Is her’s less polluting than mine? It’s certainly not as cheap to run.
true, it’s a european thing where diesels are taxed much lower. silly but it’s tough to change those things politically.
So, the study focuses on adding the eco cost of making diesels but not electric or petrol. Plus, it conveniently forgets to take the fuel efficiency of diesel vehicles.
Here’s a direct comparison. I use hire vehicles for work. On two occasions, I did the same route with different vehicles covering 750 miles. Citroen C4 Grand Picasso (1.6 turbo diesel)) returned around 65 mpg on the journey. Whereas Vauxhall Zafira (1.4 turbo petrol) with slightly more bop than the Citroen struggled to pass 40mpg overall. Figures for diesel pollution don’t appear to show any comparison with petrol pollution and I’ll bet a quid that they’re not more than 50% more polluting
Diesel is lower in the fractional distillation process and needs less refining than petrol.
Diesel engines tend to be made of lower grade material than petrol engines.
The whole question of pollutants is a moving feast. What is really harmful and how should it be measured in realistic and a meaningful way?
Hybrid and electric cars have a low emission footprint but their carbon footprint on manufacturing might be high compared to combustion engines.
the pollution is a local problem not a “total emissions” problem.
Also in manufacturing you could control the carbon/emissions footprint even if we don’t do much of that now.
As most car journeys are less than 3 miles or so, petrol engines are often running cold with their choke on: does this make them more polluting than diesels, which presumably don’t have a choke?
actually this is incorrect. petrol engines warm up much faster than diesels and therefore reach peak efficiency faster than diesels as a petrol is less thermally efficient. as for the choke, cars haven’t had them for over 25 years (with possibly the odd exception) and NO fuel injected car has had a choke that ive ever worked on (from the first Ford Escort XR3i’s and Capri 2.8 Injections right up to date)as they work on a system of altering the fuelling supply only when needed (slightly rich as and when needed, for only milliseconds if necessary) so no, on short journeys, petrol is better than diesel. but then if you cover those sorts of trips, its unlikely you are covering 30,000 miles per year
A more relevant question may be what would be the total CO2 output if all vehicles were powered by petrol? I.e. if all the mileage covered by diesel vehicles were instead covered by petrol?
Also the premature deaths argument is to me confusing. Office for National Statistics say, ” Life expectancy at birth has increased by 13.1 weeks per year on average since 1980–1982 for males and 9.5 weeks per year on average for females in the UK.
In 2013–2015 a man in the UK aged 65 had an average further 18.5 years of life remaining and a woman 20.9 years.
The most common age at death in the UK for men was 85 and for women was 89.”
What other factors were involved in the premature deaths blamed on diesels? Are ‘they’ saying that diesel and NOx is exclusively responsible for these deaths? Or are other lifestyle factors involved, e.g. smoking, obesity, idleness?
Interesting that the article refers to “deaths caused by diesel cars”, and later, “light duty diesel vehicles”. How was this research done then.
local emissions are a problem in busy areas. it’s at critical levels in London.
The authorities wont be happy until we live in a “Utopia” they will still have their official vehicles at our expense and their lanes on the motorways just for them to use. The film “Demolition Man” comes to mind, not the violent bit but the “Utopian” bit. Mark my words its coming.
Hmmmm (strokes chin), of course I am going to believe the opinions of organisations with a vested interest in proving opposite sides of an argument (Daimler, Nature and T&E).
I am very sceptical of the figures for 10,000 premature deaths extrapolated by Nature, surely then the answer is not banning diesel as a fuel but simply making the particulate and NOx extraction better.
Bet they didn’t test any Euro 6 standard cars with AdBlue
it’s a shame that manufacturers delayed the introduction of ad-blue type technology [until 2015 / euro VI] – due to the financial crisis I believe.
Might have prevented a number of problems (but not the particulates problem). Now the health problems in high population density / busy areas is a real one.
“Diesel fuel is cheaper, so drivers tend to use their vehicles more” LMFAO, are they serious?
I don’t know anyone who would do this in reality
It’s just a poorly constructed sentence. higher mileage drivers tend to choose diesels for the better mpg.
I forgot that electric grows on trees and that we don’t do anything wrong in generating it. Give your heads a shake. Either nuclear or coal powered power stations give out more shit just to charge your electric cars. And it doesn’t stop there, wind turbines and solar panels have dangerous bi products from manufacturing processes. How is all this better than diesel just because electric vehicles give out zero emissions
power stations are not based in dense areas where the problems occur. It’s a locality thing.
Real problem …………….. to many homosapians!
Unless batteries are greatly improved to make vehicles travel further Electric cars are just NO-GO Are Hydrogen powered vehicles the answer ? Just forget Electric and develop Hydrogen power or something else The Government gets things wrong most of the time They will find out again by pushing Electric vehicles as the are doing now Didn’t the say another power source not long ago ? And got things wrong
they’re pushing hybrids though, which will be generator driven electric drivetrain vehicles. should be a lot more efficient. we’ll see.
There are proposals to produce road-going e bikes but they are only to have a life expectancy of 10 years. When the Lithium batteries fail the solution is to scrap the whole bike Very Green
yep, batteries are not the answer.
I would like to see the evidence that 4000 out of 5000 premature deaths would have been avoided if diesel cars emitted the same amount of NOx as petrol equivalents. It smells of the kind of misuse of statistics we see so much of nowadays. One for the Radio 4 programme “More or Less” to investigate, I think. It does a good job of demolishing false analysis and conclusions.
health problems are real in busy areas though, and it is due to emissions.
Cannot agree with all this rubbish – I have used diesel cars for years and and compared to petrol engines I still get an average of 55 to 60 miles per gallon as compared to about 30 to 40 on petrol. My car has just passed its MOT in its ninth year and is well within the limits. It’s an obvious money making ploy on the part of local authorities in their continuing vendetta against motorists. I followed a diesel bus today in the town of Paisly, pouring out black smoke on every start, but it’s always the motorist who is targeted as we’re easy souces of income.
I’ve read some bias reporting but this takes giant leap forward in the propaganda diatribe. If you removed all production cost and everything else, they swing would be the other way. Most new diesel cars not only are fitted with a dog but also have ad blue fed into the exhaust.
If you remove diesel lorries and trains we would have cleaner air than if you took all the diesel cars off the road. The only reason we have diesel is because it is far more fuel efficient, if lorries were petrol food we cost a great deal more. I’m not a diesel lover but l love the torque and efficiency
but the problem is created in busy high density population areas due to the massive rise of diesel vehicles. It’s not imaginary.
Driving up the M1 isn’t a problem for health. In the city it is.
Bullshit! this smells corruption. if diesels are so polluting WHY ALL RAIL IS NOT ELECTRIFIED AND USES DIESEL LOCOS WHICH ARE MORE POLLUTING THAN CARS????????????
because they are not in the areas of high population density where the levels are ctitical and health problems exist.
My diesel car is nearly four years old and I would aim to keep it until electric charging infrastructure/battery capacity enables longer journey range. From what I have read charging time for an electric vehicle is much greater than that for fuelling a petrol/diesel engine.This assumes that there is a charging point readily available when necessary.
Until that issue is resolved I will continue to use my current car but would consider a hybrid vehicle when I come to replace my current car.
I believe (but don’t know) that generator driven electric drive trains will be the future. ie a type of hybrid. Generators are much simpler than car engines and can be simpler still.
Batteries will only ever be good for short range city use and even then re-charging is a huge issue.
It’ll be interesting to see what the manufacturers come up with but they can’t continue down this road for too long because the battery issue will make it impossible.
Tesla 75kwh battery causes about 15 ton of co2 to make. It takes 400 grams co2 to generate 1kw of electricity, in UK other countries are worse. That gets you 3 miles, so it’s still about 100co2 per km. So would take about 25 years on one battery pack, Just to break even on a petrol car. Plus all the pollution from coal and nuclear power station’s.
I think the gov should be looking at LPG & CNG & converting users to petrol for now.
Reduce petrol duty, more will use it so they get back the same tax amount.
Technology’s not ready for electric or maybe hydrogen to be mass used and if forced will cause more environmental damage than current cars.
With all things said & done whatever brings in the most tax receipts will backed.
batteries are not the answer clearly. but generators driving an electric drive train will likely be ie a new type of hybrid.
I agree with the comments about Li Ion Batts and Rare Earth Magnets, as one who has worked closely with both.
Remember the article says “Over the lifetime”? Derv vehicles last about a 1/3 to 1/2 longer than petrol vehicles, and most petrol vehicles end up burning their engine oil towards the end of their lives, the smaller the engine the quicker this happens! So “Over the lifetime”, Dervs will put out more pollutants, because they last longer on a one to one basis.
The day of the diesel is over . The compression ignition petrol should be with us in the next 5 to 6 years runs cleaner and does similar fuel efficiency
Quick way to get the dirty diesels of the road NOx tax
generators driving electric drivetrains is the future I believe. but we’ll see.
There’s a strong smell of ‘decide first and look for evidence, however feeble, to support the decision later’ in this. Grasping at straws comes to mind. I’m not impressed.
Err hang on, doesn’t a diesel tend to have a life cycle about three times longer than a petrol engine?
so?
Here’s an idea. From Jan 1st lets take ALL diesel engines off the roads. Lets also tie up every diesel engined ship, bed down every diesel train too. House on fire? Sorry, no fire engines. Having a heart attack? Sorry no ambulances!
Want a pay rise? Sorry, the economy has collapsed as there’s been a huge drop in fuel duty, and 15 million people now on the dole!
Come up with a viable alternative, that performs like a diesel, that gives the longevity of a diesel, and the efficiency of a diesel, and we’ll hapily switch. Until then, hands off our oil-burners!
ha ha, nice one.
look forward to generator driven electric drive trains. should be more efficient but we will see.
Well if you’re going to include the deseil fuel production process how about the production process for Lithium Ion Batteries for electric vehicles! As it takes 9 years for a Tesla S series vehicle to become carbon neutral I think that gives the flavour of how polluting electric vehicles are!
It may be true that Lithium ion batteries currently have these problems that Richard mentions, however battery techology is currently moving along at a fast pace indeed, lithium tech may well soon be quite obsolete, if I may quote:- “A team of engineers led by Goodenough, professor at the University of Texas, has developed the first ever all-solid-state battery cells.The battery cells have at least three times as much energy density as lithium-ion batteries, providing for added range, should electric vehicles use them. “The glass electrolytes allow for the substitution of low-cost sodium for lithium. Sodium is extracted from seawater that is widely available,” Braga said, noting the batteries are even environmentally friendly, in comparison to their 37-year-old predecessors. So watch this space, Lithium is not the “end all” of batteries!
That sounds tremendous but bad news for Tesla and the other manufacturers who have joined the rush into (scarce) lithium batteries.
I would have thought a battery car would run on any kind of battery producing sufficient power!
Suitable batteries require sufficient storage capacity aas well as sufficient power
It depends on the voltage of the battery as well as its amph rating.
careful you don’t apply the wrong voltage to any of your electrical items. Instant end of life for that device!
There is no way that the fuel companies will let this idea go forward. They will be bought out and buried by the multinational fuel companies……………
If the sodium is extracted from sea water what effect will this have on sea life?
not as much as the rising acidity via CO2.
Very true Richard. The same can be said of the so called green energy, Rare earth magnets used in Wind turbines, their manufacturing process results in large amounts of toxic and radioactive waste being produced, solar panels are not much better with toxic waste being the byproduct of their manufacture.
lpg vehicels is the answer,no co2 or black smoke like diesel turbo
Sorry, but LPG is a mix of hydrocarbon gases. Combustion produces CO2 as well as other pollutants. In fact, visiting Toronto in 1995 (when most of the taxis and many cars and commercial vehicles used LPG fuel) I hated the gassy smell in the streets.
As pointed out above, the study is flawed as it does not compare like with like. As stated, diesel vehicles do more miles in their lifetime on average than petrol ones.
Finally, has anyone considered the queues that will build up at service stations when electric cars take over an hour each to recharge compared with a few minutes to refuel a petrol or diesel one?
perhaps recharge stations will be the new “pub” !!
I like your thoughts, but you cannot run 2 / 3 hundred tonners or even normal 40 tonners on gas can you, even long distance delivery vans, how many garages do you see with gas tanks capable of fueling many hundreds of vans a day, these gas powered vehicles need to be serviced every six months, adding to the cost of running on gas as the service is not cheap, and if not serviced properly they have a good chance of exploding anytime, and as for these electric powered cars, like the new Teslar cars THEY have a chance of exploding into flames ( a bit like your phones that explode ), All these things with gas & electric vehicles catching fire are on YouTube, watch for yourself, you NEVER see a diesel powered vehicles do this even in an accident unless another fuel agent is added to the accident like a gas cylinder or another vehicle that runs on petrol/gas.
I see generator driven electric drivetrains as the future ie a new kind of hybrid. as you say other techs really are a non -starter except for local city use (which will suit a lot of people though).
Surely the burning of ANY hydrocarbon (be it petroleum, diesel, LPG (which stands for liquid petroleum gas), Coal, Wood etc. will produce CO , CO2, H2O (as water vapour) and the dreaded NOX’s .
The NOX’s arise from the fact that the air that all the above fuels use for combustion is approximately 78% Oxygen, 20% Nitrogen and a small amount of other gasseous elements.
I think you’ve got that the wrong way round – the atmosphere is around 78% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.AtmComposition
at least I hope it is, otherwise I’d better not go out into the garden today!!
Smiley. you had got your figures reversed, it is 78% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen
You do get CO2 (and H2O) when you burn LPG. But you are right on oxides of nitrogen and particulates.
Not necessarily. NOx in exhaust comes from two sources. There is Nitrogen in the fuel giving fuel NOx and the atmospheric Nitrogen is oxidised above a critical temperature giving Thermal NOx Propane etc have no nitrogen but are still susceptible to Thermal NOx forming
No boot space either.
One thing in this discussion I have not seen mentioned is the fact that it is reckoned that mobile phones do damage to the brain when held to the ear and the danger of WI-FI going through the body is not good, so when they bring out all these deaths through diesel (and it used to be petrol as well until they wanted to get their point across), so are we going to hear about the electricity going through your body killing you driving an electric car?.
keep taking the pills…..