Diesel car owners may feel a little under siege of late, given the sudden emphasis on diesel cars being the cause of much of the pollution in our towns and cities, along with plans to impose toxicity charge zones across the country.
However, are diesel cars really the main culprits, or are other sources of pollution with far greater impact being ignored? We may be about to witness a fightback against politicians and experts about diesel and the extent of the pollution it generates.
Under siege
According to the Managing Director of Jaguar Land Rover, Jeremy Hicks, motorists are being ‘frightened off diesel cars’ by a combination of the threat of council bans, extra charges and the ‘false impressions’ that are demonising diesel cars. He points out that other causes, ranging from buses and trucks to log-burning stoves, are largely being ignored.
Hicks’ comments follow statistics from the London Assembly Environment Committee that seem to agree with him. Figures show that diesel cars emit less nitrogen oxide (NOx) than gas central heating systems and buses in the areas suffering the worst congestion around the capital.
Costing drivers money
FairFuelUK, a motorist campaign group, said that a combination of opportunistic politicians and environmentalists have used factually incorrect information about diesel cars to create a panic. The result of this looks set to be a surcharge on people who own diesels.
This is costing drivers money, with some estimates putting the figure at £35 billion in lost vehicle value. This is all due to figures that some consider to be questionable. The FairFuelUK report added that basing legislative decisions on this misinformation risks a ‘negligible improvement on urban air quality.’
London Mayor Sadiq Khan received personal criticism in the report. He looks set to announce tougher proposals for diesel cars around the capital this week. However, the report points out that the committee that provides the mayor with his information has not considered other sources of emissions in its decisions. Or is it simply that the mayor is unwilling to tackle gas central heating or buses as greater sources of NOx emissions because he can’t tax them?
NOx output
FairFuelUK’s analysis shows that diesel cars are responsible for 11% of the NOx pollution in London, while gas central heating contributes 16% and the capital’s buses a similar amount. Diesel plants and machinery are responsible for around 14% of the emissions, while other sources include HGVs (12%), rail (8%), petrol cars (7%) and diesel vans (5%).
Jaguar Land Rover’s Jeremy Hicks, attending an industry summit in London, said that critics were identifying the ‘wrong villains’ by criticising modern, clean diesel cars and completely ignoring pollution from buses, trucks and taxis. Jaguar Land Rover’s diesel vehicles are comparable with petrol ones in terms of the nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide and particles that they emit. Hicks added that there is an impression that city air quality will be improved simply by banning diesel cars.
The NOx problem
Since the Volkswagen debacle highlighted possible emissions problems with diesel cars, there has been a great deal of focus on the NOx problem and on air quality in general. The NHS says that urban air quality is responsible for 40,000 early deaths each year, with NOx emissions being one of the main causes of the problem.
Nick Molden, CEO and founder of Emissions Analytics, which tests car emissions in real-world situations, has said that in their research, several diesel cars meet and even exceed the Euro 6 emissions regulations. However, there are some vehicles that exceed NOx emissions levels by as much as twenty times.
Latest additions to the EQUA Air Quality (Aq) Index
| Make | Model | Engine size (Litres) | EQUA Aq Index |
| BMW | 5 Series | 2.0 | A |
| Mercedes-Benz | E-Class | 2.0 | A |
| Mercedes-Benz | V-Class | 2.1 | A |
| Mercedes-Benz | C-Class | 2.1 | A |
| BMW | 7 Series | 3.0 | A |
| BMW | 3 Series | 2.0 | B |
| Skoda | Kodiaq | 2.0 | B |
| Mini | Countryman | 2.0 | C |
| Audi | A4 | 2.0 | C |
| Mercedes-Benz | GLC-Class | 2.1 | D |
| BMW | X1 | 2.0 | D |
| Suzuki | Vitara | 1.6 | E |
| Alfa Romeo | Giulia | 2.1 | E |
| Peugeot | 308 | 2.0 | E |
| Ford | Focus | 2.0 | E |
| Maserati | Quattroporte | 3.0 | E |
| Mazda | 6 | 2.2 | E |
| Renault | Kadjar | 1.6 | E |
| Land Rover | Discovery | 2.0 | E |
| Kia | Rio | 1.1 | G |
| BMW | 2 Series Active Tourer | 1.5 | G |
It’s not only older diesel vehicles that fall into this “very high polluting” bracket and that could be covered by a diesel scrappage scheme. There are also diesel vehicles under nine years old where drivers have removed the diesel particle filters – these can emit 20-40 times more NOx that the Euro 6 standards.
Changing diesel’s perception
Car manufacturers and campaigners are working hard to repair the damage caused to diesel’s reputation by the Volkswagen scandal. However, with politicians and others focusing their efforts on diesel cars as the cause for poor air quality problems, this may be a difficult fight.
The government could go a long way to addressing the problems with a moratorium on the sources of NOx emissions (rather than just cars), a scrappage scheme to remove diesel cars 15 years or older, and legislation making it illegal to remove diesel particle filters from cars less than nine years old. It seems, however, that the only way it can think to tackle the issue is by taxing diesel drivers for driving.
Do you think motorists are being frightened off diesel cars? Why do you think diesel cars are being demonised when the evidence proves that 89% of NOx is created by other sources? Let us know in the comments below.
Photo credit: “A Petrol Station” by Frank is licensed under CC BY 2.0
With more people moving to Petrol vehicles, the supply and demand for Petrol production will enable OPEC to force up the Petrol prices with stock depletion. Natural reserves will also reduce more rapidly to keep up with demand.
Cars get the blame for all pollution but other vehicles cause pollution and are not targeted How many buses and lorries on the road today do not reach Euro 6 or Euro 5 standard The majority of them ?
It’s the usual balderdash about older diesel vehicles.
This is a Global problem. In order to correctly ascertain the pollution level from a vehicle, it is necessary to look at production costs in terms of pollution created by extraction and refining of raw materials – which includes pollution created by the workforce in their daily lives as well as manufacturing of equipment to do the extraction and refinement – and to follow a whole chain of pollution. Then, you must divide the initial manufacturing high pollution cost by the longevity of the vehicle.
If the calculations are done correctly (taking into account a whole chain of pollution) it is seen that a new, so-called low emissions, has a huge debt to repay before it’s low emissions have any benefit. And that’s a big problem when we consider that modern cars tend to have a shorter useful life than older designs. A good example is the iconic classic Land Rover.
Most of the classic Land Rovers ever built are still on the road. Their older engines may not be as efficient as today’s low emissions vehicles, but they’ve long repaid their manufacturing pollution debt. Indeed, the experts have shown that a classic Land Rover should have a zero road tax rating for these reasons.
So, before we’re told to throw away perfectly good older vehicles, we should be asking whether the whole philosophy of our “throw away” society is wrong. A classic Land Rover can easily be fitted with a new low emissions engine. Re use, rather than constant disposal of items that create more pollution in their manufacturing; especially as most manufacturing is done in countries where factory emissions control is almost non-existent.
Just another way to rake in more revenue from the motorist AGAIN !
What about oil central heating boilers and the oil tanks the oil is stored in gardens give off lots of fumes
why do I pay full road tax on a new euro6 mercedes vito…. but the more polluting euro5 model only pays half the tax????
Had I known before purchase I might have bought an older second hand vehicle instead of least emissions, particulate filter, 2 cats, and bluetec…. all of which put the price of a new one up
ALSO…..
emissions are based on litres used not miles driven… why do I need to drive in 2nd gear in a 20zone producing masses of emissions? wheras I emit an eighth of the emissions per mile in 5th gear at 30 (and even less in 6th gear at 40+)
cut emissions??? do away with 20zones except at schools
Hopefully Government and others will wake up to the truths here long before damaging legislation could be enacted – hence my new car (next couple of weeks) is still diesel. As someone else said, look at the figures, go back 15 years for cars, include buses, lorries and taxis (especially London) and ban filter removal and then take off the roads except for ‘historics’.
The article covers some valid points, but is misleading with the NOx problem section…
How come a new model, BMW 2-Series Active Tourer achieves a G rating? That’s achieved as standard manufacturer spec, with its DPF in place. That’s one of the newest models and is a long way off EU6 standard.
Again, Land Rover’s 2.0 engine is way off the mark, in standard manufacturer trim.
For buses and HGVs, they have to meet EU6 in real-world conditions, not just laboratories. EU IV and earlier are heavily charged – £100-200, into almost every London Borough not just the central part. Once cars, buses and HGVs have the same level playing field for test criteria, then it’s fair to compare them.
Vehicles are a problem with pollution – try walking around a larger city near to shops on busier roads, both in rush hour and after 7pm. It’s a problem with peak traffic, bad congestion and polluted air resting low at vehicle and pedestrian height, trapped between the buildings.
For heating NOx, is that just regular servicing or swapping out very old boilers for condensing ones?
Surely this pollution issue should be fixed by everybody, INCLUDING diesels (cars, lorries, taxis, generators) that fail with real-world emissions.
As usual the motorists get hit higher pump prices, higher tax and now we need to scrap my eight year old vehicle for a brand new one, so yet again I end up paying out for something I don’t realt need or want, if these cities charge entry then I won’t go there simple I am fed up with paying out all the time to support someone else, gas central heating was the government’s idea to cut pollution but its more wasteful on water and gas but who pays the bills not them, were told to save water save gas save electric save the planet but who is going to save me
Hi,
As far as I am aware it takes half the energy to refine diesel fuel than petrol. In most European countries diesel is cheaper than petrol. Do they know a secret? Add to the initial refining energy savings the lifespan of a diesel engine and filters and you have a pretty convincing case for saying that the Government is clawing in money from any and every source and is NOT worried about the planet despite it’s protestations.
Yours in reality,
Tomás Lynch.
Headlines about huge numbers of deaths resulting from Diesel emissions seem to have been taken for granted. How where these stats arrived at? Are these deaths in addition to the previous mortality figures from all causes? If not, what did people die from then that they do not die from now?
Perhaps this comment is not too relevant but for years now we have all received various levels of ‘scare mongering’ regarding different fuels but especially petrol and diesel, when it comes to vehicles.
I wonder how many of us when we are filling our tanks on the petrol station forecourt have ever looked at where the fuel goes into our cars instead of at the price on the pump. I have been doing this for the last 6 months or so and am astounded at how much ‘spray’ is being emitted as the fuel goes into the fuel tank. Not only does some of this land on the paintwork of the car but a huge amount is dispersed into the air. I usually wear the plastic gloves provided in order to keep this off my hands but the smell gets onto the sleeve of my tops.
I have tried several garages and the same is true for all. I was chatting to a gentleman who was filling his car at the same time and he had not noticed how much of this near vapour is actually put out into the air.
What a pilock, The nozzle of the delivery gun is designed to go into the filler pipe and sufficiently so that the delivered fuel goes down this filler pipe, if done so correctly then no splash back should or will occur. Obviously a badly designed filler pipe or a badly inserted nozzle will fail the requirements, but there are 2 ways to avoid this and one is to get a decent car and the other is tuition in how to put petrol into your car.
Your second point seemed to be endorsed by the gentleman you chatted to in that all modern filling nozzles have a vapour return pipe that collects as much of this vapour as is possible in a correctly inserted fuel filler gun, so he would not notice whereas you with your incorrect filling method do notice. Kind of shot yourself in the foot there pal.
My suspicion is that the demonising of diesel is being covertly driven by car manufacturers, mainly in the US, where petrol traditionally dominated the domestic market until recent times.
This article is a refreshingly honest and well timed contribution to the debate.
It remains essential, however, that we
a. urgently reduce air pollution, particularly in cities
b. regulate on the basis of true data on emissions only, NOT what type of engine is causing them
c. recognise the importance in investing in fully electric cars and the recharging infrastructure to support them. These cars have virtually zero emissions if the electricity they use is generated by wind, solar, tidal or hydroelectric systems
As a Isuzu bighorn import built 1995, every MOT shows my cars omissions is always under 97 lower than some new makes of vehicles. So will I be charged extra for having this car. It seems totally unfair in my eyes.
Politicians on the bandwagon looking for ‘populist’ targets, Also many of the ‘experts’ who produce this ‘noise’ for pressure groups are, I suspect, not unbiased.
Government (politicians again) looking to extend periods between MOT’s where Emissions can be checked and (one would like to think) have those cars where DPF’s have been removed (as an example) banned from the road. though I suspect (as with ‘chipped’ cars going in for OEM warranty work) such modifications can be removed for the occasion of the check then reinstated afterwards.
The information has been out there for a long time concerning the effects of Gas boilers, wood burners and other contributors to NOX etc.
Interesting re Discovery 2.0 – I guess this has the JLR I4 unit fitted. How would a 2wd Jaguar XE fitted with the same engine and of the same rating (164 or 180 ps) compare?
Note DI petrol engines also have high particulate emissions versus the earlier Indirect Injection ones. When will GPF ‘s be mandated?
However it is clear that VW have put the whole Motor Industry in the dock by their overt dishonesty, but with the rapidly increasing human global population growth (a pollution and sustainabiity issue in itself) this may have served the useful purpose of raising these issues at an earlier stage than would have happened otherwise.
Surely it’s more complicated than NOx emissions. I was under the impression that the real issue with diesels is the emitted particulates – particularly when under heavy load. Now if there was an effective way of trapping those, that along with lower NOx possibly would make diesel less polluting but short of fitting a removable filter bag on the end of the tailpipe I don’t know if there’s a cheap way of doing this.
Really!!!! I own 2 diesel vehicles both of which I service myself I can have them running whilst in my Garage when servicing them and suffer no problems at all. I start up my new petrol car in the garage and I find I am coughing and spluttering as the fumes are awful and acrid. Both my diesel cars are large engined oneis a 4×4 the other is a premium saloon, when they have their gas test at the mot station both emmisions are 0.001 ppm. I think you are just another person jumping on the hate diesel bandwagon. Get a Grip and get a life with your own mind don’t be a sheep and be lead into yet another government moneymaking scheme to try and make more money out of hard working folk. Back in the 80s maybe even late 70s the government said buy diesel vehicles they are efficient and fuel saving and cleaner to use, now they are the devil spawn BullCrap they are not making as much from the sale of fuel in tax so lets get rid of them… Jump on the bandwagon and follow that one as well. I bet you use public transport buses, train, taxis, and you use the shops where diesel fuel is used to move freight around. Your central heating boiler emits more damaging gas which is why you don’t have it on or anywhere near you otherwise you wouldn’t be able breath at all, or do you walk about with an oxygen mask on.
Have a great life and try to be original and not follow the rest of the flock.
I drive a 2014 peugot partner teepee and have had it checked and it is well below the required limits. Today I had to take my wife to Port Talbot and as you drive down the M$ you see the Steel works there belching massive dark brown clouds of smoke into the atmisphere. Every time we vist Port Talbot this is a regular thing. My wife has c hronic COPD and ends up on oxygen foer several days, This all because she has to visit hospital near the tow.
On the way to the motorway there is a insulation company just out side of Llanharren, which is always belching smoke as well.
Since the government cutbacks there is noone to chech these polluters and also it will be easier to blame and tax diesal cars.
Diesel is a polluter. I am asthmatic and only have to walk past a belching diesel vehicle to have to reach for the inhaler. How is it that modern diesel vehicles can emit black smoke from their exhausts when accelerating? Surely, it is not fairy dust!
A correctly tuned diesel engine should not give off any black smoke, black smoke is in fact unburnt fuel, this is given off when the engine is put under load and extra fuel is injected into the engine but is not burnt but is mixed with burnt fuel hence black smoke, the fault for this lies with the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, this can be seen when heavy machinery is working under load, I have driven diesel vehicles a great deal of years and found this to be true, also with these euro 6 diesel engines it has been shown to be less polluting than the average petrol engine.
P.S. Euro 6 is the standard that new diesel engines have to meet to become road worthy, but not everyone can afford a new car.
The demonising of diesel cars has been caused by a deliberately dishonest, and misleading campaign by Environmental Activists and base opportunism by both local and national politicians who identified a new income source as a result of the VW/Audi Scandal. This is about politics of the lowest sort and nothing whatsoever about pollution.
Mr Seddon hits the nail on the head. The proper way to measure the TRUE environmental cost of a vehicle is to take into account the environmental costs of manufacture as well as those of running the vehicle, and amortize the manufacture costs over the life of the vehicle. If Government taxation regimes encourage me to prematurely scrap my 8 year old, low mileage diesel vehicle (which should be perfectly serviceable for another 8-10 years of low mileage use) the true environmental costs are not reduced, but instead greatly increased. The loser is the planet as well as me.
What the article, and all the diesel manufacturers conveniently ignore is that the “modern clean diesel” emissions, whilst almost invisible, are far more more deadly than the stinking, choking black fumes of the past. Diesel engine manufacture should be banned forthwith and every so equipped vehicle scrapped.
Nobody genuinely bought diesel for environmental reasons; they did so selfishly to save a couple of pounds on road tax and fuel bills, in the full knowledge that everyone around them was being poisoned.
I don’t see any mention of Honda in the list. Is there a list of all vehicles including buses and tractors of all ages?. I live in a small village in Gloucestershire and have noted the number of buses both double and single decker traveling their route with no passengers or very few passengers, Not only do they produce the disgusting fumes they are too big for the road. I have witnessed buses traveling in opposite directions having to mount the pavement to pass. Should measures be taken to provide public transport vehicles based on the number of passengers and the width of the road. As far as I am aware there are no combine harvesters using an alternative to diesel.
I agree that really old diesel cars should be taken off the road, I also believe that Khans solutions are fraudulent and should be challenged in the high court. The person who says they are asthmatic and says they only have to walk beside a diesel car to make them breathless is a typical person to jump on the anti diesel bandwagon. Most newer diesel cars put out very little toxins compared to older petrol engine cars. Diesel cars do more miles to the gallon so therefore are greener than petrol. Speed bumps and twenty mile per hour zones increase the amount of pollution greatly. I am afraid this is just another scam by the politicians to make a fast buck and I am glad that a fight back has begun. I am fed up of being held to ransom by our corrupt politicians.
Find a target. Tax a target. This is politicians using the age old method of increasing revenue by stealth. That’s all it is.
Big increases in bus and lorry traffic are ignored. The VW scandal is a farce. Brought on by themselves but driven by government and EU targets. Carefully driving an older diesel car saves the environment in so many ways, manufacturing, scrapping and recycling to name a few. It is a sad fact that we live in a consumer society where old things are ridiculed and new things are seen as things to aspire to. Cities will never be super clean or they won’t run too well. Escape the cities for clean air and don’t live on a busy road. We make our choices and live our own lives. Governments can’t sort it out for everyone.
In Manchester the aim is to slow all traffic into using public transport creating endless traffic jams thus endless polution of the air, every junction they erect traffic lights where again standing traffic created where mini roundabouts would be more fuel efficient let alone the the waste of money of electricity to operate them and maintain them, we even have non request green man traffic stopped at all hours of the night with not a pedestian insight all being in bed, councils should look at themselves for the pollution they create
I have a Honda CR-V 1.6 iDTEC 9 Speed AUTO which is EURO 6 compliant. After 6000 miles from new I’m now seeing almost 40 mpg on urban trips and close to 50 on long runs. The City where I live (Norwich) has progressively expanded a mandatory 20 mph limit across many roads in the City with only 30 mph allowed on main routes into the City and an expansion. At 20 mph the car is running at just over 1000 revs. At 30 mph the engine does exactly the same revs. If I travel a route at 20 mph the trips take longer compared to travelling at 30 mph. Which trip creates more pollutants? Madness.
We’ve bought a 2001 Audi A2 1.4TDI..and Aluminium thus No Rust to worry about..Efficiency so good the Tax was reduced to £30 per year from £35..Economy 55mpg plus all day long…Secondhand value still high after many years and 98000 MLS…So how can you say take All older diesels off the road…Just another Government Scam! ..Wake up all you do gooders out there the UK’s size compared to the rest of the World is a postage stamp but the amount of Eco friendly Tariffs we have to pay are huge…Give us a break please..We don’t lead the world anymore so let’s take care of our own economy and look after ourselves..Get that right then we can be more helpful to others.
I’m also asthmatic. If I stick my head up the exhaust pipe of any vehicle, it’s going to give me problems – but assuming I act normally and sensibly, a modern, well-maintained diesel engine is no more likely to affect me than any other source of air pollution. If it’s OK by everyone, I reserve the right not to claim special snowflake status.
After all we were told and sold about diesel cars by the so called informed experts. company vehicle drivers were pushed towards only using diesel vehicles and had petrol cars removed from their company car polices for high mileage drivers above 8k per annum and or had to pay surcharges in their vehicles charges for selection higher imission engines. (Automatics or 4WD).
Having then literally been forced down this road by the industry and purchased diesel vehicles in the recent years be are now being told we are the villains.
The data being given talks a bit about the %age volumes of emissions for diesel V petrol but doesn’t give quantity of vehicles or mileages driven by these vehicle groups to create these volumes.
Can the diesel fuel be improved further to provide a cleaner fuel / improve efficiency and or only sell the higher grade fuel already available and bring down its price by increased volume sales.?
Most polluted street in Glasgow – bus taxi & cycle lane
Suggest you send this article to the consumers association Which? at which.co.uk/campaigns.
They have a large number of subscribers and are always looking for new campaigns that will make people’s lives fairer.
One source that doesn’t seem to get mentioned is the amount of NOX and soot particles in jet fuel which is refined in the same way as diesel fuel, jet fuel is a purified form of kerosene(paraffin), but when burnt it gives off the same residue as diesel fuel when it is burnt, and as a jet engine does not have any way of filtering out NOX particles (due to its design) it behoves me to wonder why not one of these so-called experts have looked at this when they were compiling their figures, an easy place to do this would be under the flight path of heathrow in London, and it is an omission that makes me seriously doubt the authenticity of these figures, maybe it’s because the motorist is the easier target to screw money out of, which is the normal way government/councils have of doing things.
I think the mayor of London, if he is that worried about pollution needs to ascertain the amount of NOx from aeroplanes, and all these eco mp’s. who travel by plane to these worldwide conferences need to really think about having a webinar.
The main pollution problem with diesel engined vehicles in not NOx, it is the black particulates which get into people’s lungs. We live 100 yards from a Trunk A road, and inside a week the white paint around our front door has a visible layer of black gunge on each horizontal surface. It did not happen when we moved here in 1980, but has got worse as the percentage of diesels has risen…
Just to add to the whole pollution debacle, I see the powers that be want to put electric charging points at all ‘services’ up and down our motorways. Now as I understand it an electric car takes around 8 to 12 hours to charge.. You can see where I am going with this. Should owners of electric cars pack a tent so that they can have a kip next to a motorway for 8 hours to charge their car and then head to the next ‘services’ ? Well electric charging points everywhere would take care of all the insomniacs out there. Usual knee jerk reaction to try to keep ecomentalists happy and maybe score a few votes.
The article mentions all the obvious things that are wrong with the constant attack on motorists, never mind diesels.
I have a VW Passat estate diesel which I can honestly say is probably the best a to b and workhorse car I have ever owned and great mileage too. My problem with my car is the state of the roads especially locally. My local garage says that 40% of his business is suspension related. Slowing and avoiding and moving back up to speed is a great way to increase pollution. Or am I missing something. We will get stung.. As a motorist we always do.
I have a diesel car and I have no need to fight back against anything other than the complete nonsense of campaigners.
The advisory comment on my MOT report is “emissions too low to be recorded” and my car is category A on the EQUA Air Quality (Aq) Index.
As a boy I remember “Trolley Buses” in London. Basically an electric bus that ran off overhead cables but did not require rails like a tram.
Why has this solution been discounted? – buses and taxis in central London are by far and away the biggest culprits of NOx, and let us not forget cars are banned from some of the highest polluted areas in London already.
We have had the Boris Bus, why not get the mayor to sponsor an Amir Alternative and tackle the real problem rather than jump on a fatuous bandwagon
Has anyone come up with figures relating to aircraft polution? Any one can see them belching out tones of filth and soot on take off every 30 seconds at heathrow.
Hi , Do the manufacturers of diesel engines think there is a problem with the engines that they still produce as a lot of new cars are still diesel. Is there more they can do to make them cleaner .I have not seen any interviews on TV or Social Media asking manufacturers if there is a problem . They don’t seem to be defending the production of these cars why not ?
Bronco.
All this hot air from politicians and so called experts with the war on diesel CARS is about the same vale as one of the real culprits of emissions cow pats . OK I know they are not in urban areas in the same way but in the countryside they are a huge source of methane. Likewise as has been pointed out by several people modern cars emit far less than other sources. Older buses, HGV’s on the roads. Construction vehicles e.g. dumper trucks bulldozers etc emit masses of fumes, NOX etc. Trains are a big culprit. Older diesel trains pump out masses of NOX each time they start up. You only have to look at the roofs of DMU or freight locos and see the thick black patches to know there is a problem.
the list goes on – as mentioned central heating, wood stoves.
Instead of extra taxes on diesel cars why not a tax on hot air emissions from mis-guided politicians
HI ALL.DIESELS VEHICLE’S ARE NOT MEANT TO STAND ABOUT. IF THE TRAFFIC WAS KEPT MOVING YOU WOULD NOT HAVE SO MUCH OF A PROBLEM. THEY HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT REBUILDING LONDON.PLANES OVERHEAD TRAIN’S AT STATION’S.
TAKE THE EMISSION’S AT THE MOT. I HAVE A VOLVO XC70 D5 DIESEL53 reg. 186000 MILES . MY LAST MOT EMISSIONS AT THE EXHAUST WAS 0.18. I THINK THE MAX IS 3.5. FOR MYSELF AND MY PARTENER TO COME TO LONDON FOR A HOLIDAY WILL COST A FORTUNE JUST FOR MY VEHICLE. THE TRAIN IS OUT OF THE QUESTION FROM HERE IN WALES.
IF WE GO TO PETROL MPG WILL DOUBLE. MY FUEL CONSUMPTION ON THE MOTORWAY IS 54 mpg AT 65 mph. my vehicle is serviced regular before time I USE GOOD FUEL SHELL BP.
A GOOD CON TO GET MONEY. THE MOTOR’ST IS THE EASIEST CATCH.
regards
TONY BEVAN
As an engineer who worked in fuel formulation and its testing for over 30 years, I can say that there’s a lot more to this than meets the eye. Firstly, the level of sulphur in fuel (which is a controlling factor in particulate pollution) has been dropping consistently for over 20 years. It’s dropped from 350 ppm to 10 ppm in that period . So, as older cars are scrapped, not only will older more polluting engine technology be eliminated, but so will engines unable to take full advantage of lower fuel sulphur. Secondly, there’s a direct connection in engine design and control algorithms between particulate pollutants and oxides of nitrogen pollutants. As the designer adjusts the engine to reduce particulates the oxides of nitrogen increase. The usual design method of balancing these two conflicting problems is to reduce the oxides of nitrogen to a point where the particulates can be removed by a particulate trap. However, traps are expensive to produce and so it becomes difficult for car manufacturers to produce economical engine technology. Even more of a problem is a failure of the trap within the guarantee period and the knock on cost. (Is this the reason for the diesel testing scandal???) In short, there’s no reason why engine technology cannot meet legislated emission levels and there’s every reason to expect that more recent technology in engines and fuels will not meet the required urban pollution levels as older vehicles are scrapped.
I am pleased to find my mercedes c-class a an A in the report but as has been commented previously diesel car’s have been over sold.Making school run journeys and inner town journeys before the engine warms up and going mile after mile returns you an expensive bill in clogged particle filter and higher mpg.Diesel cars Need a run like a whippet likes a run to get the best out of them my wife does 55 miles a day in our estate and we get through £65-£70 worth of fuel every 2 wks compared to the honda jazz of £90-£100 and paying £120 road tax and only being a 1.4 petrol i love the mercedes for power and space and fuel return plus the othet journeys we do too.Short journeys petrol…..long journeys diesel but the MOT needs tightening up to i see cars belching out smoke and wonder how they passed.
Having been a young policeman directing traffic in Piccadilly Circus in the early 1960s it was obvious the pollution from diesel taxis and buses were not great for anyone’s health
As others have mentioned they are still the same but we car drivers are being held responsible as we are the easy target. Anyone knows that speed bumps are more polluting by slowing traffic to such a slow pace.
Why have the Government not gone after Volkswagen and other manufacturers who started this issue by blatantly falsifying emissions than we drivers who accepted their sales pitch.
As usual the car drivers are just an easy b target
So, Jeremy Hicks of Jaguar Land Rover are selling fewer cars(tanks) because of concerns about diesel pollution. No mention at all about PM10’s and smaller lodging in the brain causing dementia and lung problems by soot. My next car will be 100% electric ! – changed from renewable energy
I agree with you. It’s not just the NOx that’s the problem, all IC engines emit those to a greater or lesser extent. The particulates are a particular problem with diesels and it’s not just cars that emit them. But using fossil fuels to propel vehicles is now obsolescent technology, we’ve probably gone nearly as far as we can to compromise the efficiency, emissions and usability of IC engines.
Like it or not, electric is the next step. A pure electric car is non-polluting (provided the electricity comes from renewable sources) and is mechanically far simpler with only a few rotating parts compared to the IC engine’s multiple reciprocating components. Now that battery technology has just about caught up with the requirements for automotive use and the costs are dropping rapidly, it;s got to be the way to go.
Forget batteries, fuel cells are the future.Same range as i/c powered vehicles at full voltage, so no running out of charge, as long as you fill up your required electrolyte.
While you’re welcome to use an electric car if it is appropriate for you, they are not appropriate for all people or all uses. Not only is there the inadequate torque, especially with load, with electric, but even with petrol in many circumstances. The technology just isn’t there to replace diesels. But the fact is that, as many people have already said in this thread, modern EURO VI diesels are not like the smelly diesels of the past.
You (and others earlier in this thread, so don’t feel singled out) are falling for the mistaken rhetoric put about by the ill-informed but noisy, which is the whole point of this article really. Modern diesel cars must have particulate filters, and must have low NOx emissions, for which the usual system is Selective Catalytic Reduction using a urea additive like AdBlue. Modern DPFs reduce particulates by over 90% compared to what you’re probably thinking of (and potentially lower than petrol engines which of course have no filter). SCR can reduce NOx emissions by 95%.
If you are thinking of smelly diesels belching fumes, you are thinking of older diesels. If diesels should be banned in cities, then it should be ones older than EURO VI.
It looks to me like the most obvious diesel polluters are not recent-model cars that comply with the latest Euro regulations, but the diesel buses, HGV’s & diesel taxis, where just using your eyes & nose confirms the smog being emitted is foul and should be banned, with regulation causing them to be taken off the road, perhaps allowing a 3-year period for the changes to be effected.
I have just bought a new diesel SUV because I cannot believe that cars are the only cause of polluted air. Also the fact that so many diesel cars have been and still are being produced means that this will all die down as the likes of Jaguar/LandRover would go bust if total banning came into force! Where would all the cars be ‘dumped’ ? – where would all the already produced diesel end up? This has obviously not been properly thought out – just another way to bash the motorist.
As mentioned previously, there are many more ways to sort the problem and many more offensive polluters out there.
I think that traffic speed control humps etc cause a lot of the problem because cars are constantly slowing and revving causing more emissions but we are still experiencing more and more of these things being put on our roads. I have to go several miles out of my area before I find a road without these things!!
The recent BBC documentary about transport showed that 94% of all transport movement is by a diesel powered vehicle. Supertankers at 35 knots, how much is that churning out?
As others have said, bashing the private motorist is an easy target (including me and the wife who both have a diesel).
Until all the buses, taxis and HMG vehicles are hybrid or electric, it’s a bit rich to be having a pop at us. Get your own glass house in order before throwing stones at the rest of us.
I don’t know what can be done about the central heating though, that’s a real puzzle.
The answer to why Diesel cars are being targeted is simple, Motorist are soft target and have real ‘clout to fight back.
The owners of HGV would say it would be too expensive to change their fleet and if they did, the consumers would have to bear the cost. A similiar argument woul be put forward by Bus Companies and Train Operators.
Is it not about time that the petrol companies invested some of their vast profits to produce a cleaner quality diesel to save all the blame being put on the car owners and manufacturers I feel that perhaps the government should enforce this.
My two year old Skoda Yeti meets the Euro 6 standard : the exhaust system has the AD Blue system installed so the emissions are virtually pollutant free. Thus my tax is reduced to £30 per annum.
Some local private bus owners have had this system fitted for years which is another maintenance burden to them.
In all the articles about diesel cars pollution and the propaganda issued by so many politicians and their threats of financial penalties I have never heard mention of the ADBlue system. It is obviously accepted by DVLA but nobody else seems to be aware of this. Perhaps the anti-diesel brigade are simply ignoring it as it does not fit their political agenda.
Is the ADBlue system only available in new vehicles or can it be fitted later as an extra, I wonder?