500 How long until your 500 fell apart, mine is not yet 6 !!

[Mick F]

If you took away every Diesel engine tomorrow, then infrastructure would collapse, power generation transport of goods on trucks and trains, not to mention public transport which is largely reliant on diesel. Oh and then central heating in a huge number of houses.

I'm not suggesting that we should do away with diesel engines. They are necessary for all the things you list.

I'm saying that if it were up to me, the cost of diesel fuel would TRIPLE as from (say) January 1st next year. The commercial users - companies registered for VAT - could claim back the excess just like they claim back the VAT so there'd be no extra costs for them.

The private users of diesel cars would benefit from a scrappage scheme and the money raised could buy them a petrol vehicle.

When I was a kid we used to walk a mile to school crossing busy roads filled with trucks (with nothing to reduce emissions) all cars ran on leaded petrol and smog and acid rain were things you could witness on a daily basis. Nothing changes dramatically overnight, the air we breath now is dramatically, vastly improved since then and is still getting better today. I don't suspect a lung full of exaust from my own car is going to be any worse than walking down a street of moving traffic or past a bus at a bus stop. Most new cars have stop start technology so stationary isn't so much of an issue. Overall nothing I breath in to day is going to be anywhere near as bad as when I was a kid walking to school.

I agree entirely!
I too walked to school in the smog every winter - maybe late Oct to early March we had smogs. I was brought up in Wigan, Lancashire in the 1950s.

Ultimately you can't argue diesels are the devil while ignoring the damage petrol engines do.

Utterly agree too, but I do say that diesels - even with the new fangled filters - are still smelly, dirty, noisy, and downright unsociable. I say this as life-long cyclist and sitting behind even the cleanest diesel vehicle is awful. The worst thing in my experience as a cyclist, is when they floor their throttles and overtake. Often there is a black stripe left on the road and they disappear in a cloud of black soot.

I'll get off my hobby-horse now!
Mick.

 

[MN500]

4. Aside from the fact your maths on how many litres can or can't be carried doesn't really add up, your argument about tanker use is pointless. tankers are made up of compartments a 44 ton tanker lorry will carry both diesel and petrol at the same time in separate compartments and delivering both fuels to petrol stations.
For safety reasons you cannot drive a tanker about with half full pots as the fuel will slosh about and constantly change the centre of gravity of the truck and make it liable to tipping over, as a result when a station orders fuel they are only allowed to order by the quantity of a full compartment. So say a tanker has 6 compartments, because of the rate of demand for petrol versus diesel the truck may be carrying 4 chambers of petrol and 2 of diesel, all chambers will have to be full and will be emptied at the point of delivery.

It's worth noting that 42,000 litres of diesel fuel will weigh about 35 tons allowing 9 tons for tractor and trailer unit assuming it's a UK 44 ton lorry.

I don't usually be as bold as to disagree with somebody by saying they are wrong, preferring to respect their opinions or even to agree to disagree. A lot of what you say is correct and I am NOT saying otherwise. But please trust me when I say some of your above points are just wrong:

You say that compartments (or pots as they are referred to) cannot be half full. Incorrect. What you hopefully mean is that you cannot have ALL pots half full and a vehicle with fewest slack pots is most stable, but there are vehicles right now with half pots on the road and there is no stability issues. Fuel stations don't usually order their own fuel anyway (it is done by systems that monitor tank levels that are linked to the fuel planner), but I have never known a site not being allowed to order anything but full compartments, they order what they need and the planner then plans the vehicle to be stable even if that means adding other fuel for another site(s).

You're perfectly correct that 42000 litres of diesel weighs around 35 tonnes, diesel's SG being around 0.84 (diesel coming from a sample from a refinery in the north of England was 0.8406 on Thursday) and unleaded being around 0.73 (sample at the same time and place being 0.7264). But 9 tonnes for a fuel tanker? No way. The truck that delivered this fuel on Thursday weighed 12.980 tonnes, it was a MAN TGS unit and a GRW trailer if you are interested. I repeat my approximate maximums of 37000 diesel and 41000 unleaded.

 

[AndyRKett]

You say that compartments (or pots as they are referred to) cannot be half full.

You'll note in my post I referred to them as "pots" my next door neighbour is the director of an oil company and I have a close friend who used to be an NVQ assessor for petrol retailers, so I do know a bit about theses things however your argument that you require more lorries to deliver diesel is simply untrue because they never just carry diesel fuel.

If more cars were diesel they would use less litres of fuel overall and it's likely an equal or less number of lorries would be needed to deliver that fuel. It would also reduce the burden on the refineries to produce more petrol through cracking processes.

It's all academic and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[MN500]

they never just carry diesel fuel.

It's all academic and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Yes they do. Many large sites, truck stops and motorway sites particularly choose a full load of diesel to be delivered. I speak from just short of 15 years' experience delivering fuels so whatever you think your next door neighbour thinks is WRONG.

Yes. It is totally irrelevant really so let's move on.

 

[306maxi]

So, who has the bigger cyberpeenie?

 

[ahmett]

Just to address your points.

1. Diesel fuel in the UK and across Europe contains between 5-10% biofuel as well it's a European directive so their is some of setting of CO2 emissions with either fuel, petrols still produce an average 20% more CO2 than diesels. CO2 causes global warming, makes the oceans more acidic and is responsible for climate change.

2. Unleaded petrol shouldn't contain small amounts of lead as lead had to be added to petrol, the refining process should completely remove any heavy lead particles that are naturally present in the crude oil and in 2013 leaded fuel was banned world wide, lead replacement liquids have to now be added after sale of fuels. Granted that the world is a big place and their may still be some corners of the world that sell a bit of leaded fuel but this is a tiny minuscule fraction of petrol fuel used in the world.

3. Extra demand for petrol over diesel means in order to produce more petrol than diesel refineries take diesel fuel and refine it down further to make petrol through a process called cracking. Basically producing diesel from crude oil is easy but to get the yield of petrol demanded by society diesel has to be refined further to make up the shortfall. So no it doesn't take more crude oil to make a litre of diesel but it takes much more complex and expensive processed to supply the demand for petrol.

4. Aside from the fact your maths on how many litres can or can't be carried doesn't really add up, your argument about tanker use is pointless. tankers are made up of compartments a 44 ton tanker lorry will carry both diesel and petrol at the same time in separate compartments and delivering both fuels to petrol stations.
For safety reasons you cannot drive a tanker about with half full pots as the fuel will slosh about and constantly change the centre of gravity of the truck and make it liable to tipping over, as a result when a station orders fuel they are only allowed to order by the quantity of a full compartment. So say a tanker has 6 compartments, because of the rate of demand for petrol versus diesel the truck may be carrying 4 chambers of petrol and 2 of diesel, all chambers will have to be full and will be emptied at the point of delivery.

It's worth noting that 42,000 litres of diesel fuel will weigh about 35 tons allowing 9 tons for tractor and trailer unit assuming it's a UK 44 ton lorry.

And still non of this is relevant because you still agreed that neither diesel or petrol are any better than the other when it comes to pollution/emissions.

Yes maxi I know heating oil is kerosene however kerosene chemically very close to diesel. Kerosene is comprised of hydrocarbon chains of between 12 and 15 carbon atoms in length and diesel consist is chains of 16 carbon atoms. Emissions wise they're not dissimilar.

Yes exactly in Greece many taxi drivers would put heating oil in their cars as it's cheaper than diesel as the tax was 30% lower. Now, to stop smuggling and abuse, heating oil is almost the same as diesel oil price wise so there is no more incentive to drive with heating oil as your fuel

And yes Greek taxis are experts at removing those dpfs my god they have a lot of smoke coming out of some of them ! Maybe they don't even run on heating oil !

 

[ahmett]

I work on the assumption that the more efficient a car is, the less fuel you need. And diesel are more efficient than Petrols!

 

[UFI]

I work on the assumption that the more efficient a car is, the less fuel you need. And diesel are more efficient than Petrols!

Maybe, but not always. On the NEDC, diesels use about 30% less fuel, but there's more Co2 produced per litre burned (diesel contains more energy per litre), so the Co2 difference is more like 10% in favour of diesel.

I have two vans, one petrol and one diesel. Both are coincidentally rated 9.7 NEDC city.

With the diesel, my best tank was 7.5l/100km with 8.0 as my lifetime average.
With the petrol my best tank to date (still running in) is 6.0l/100km, with 6.6 as my lifetime average (my best trip coming home from the shops just yesterday is a Prius like 4.4 (65MPG ).

So for two identically rated vehicles, the petrol puts out something like 30% less CO2 than the diesel. When you consider the lower fuel cost, lower purchase and servicing cost, and just the plain muckiness of diesel fuel pumps, if you want real economy a NA petrol is the way to, I have three turbo cars and none of them offer real world economy that I'd get from NA. I still have fantasies of getting an old NA diesel (Mercedes w123 wagon) running it on VWO/BioD and getting 100mpg+ out of it with next to zero Co2 or other pollutants.

 

[UFI]

Data comes largely from organisations like green peace who constantly protest over the way companies like Toyota extract rare earth metals to make batteries which are then shipped between mines and factories all over the world before a final product is made and put into a car. Along with the waste products from mining elements like lithium, poisoning the land around the mines killing foliage and wildlife.

If you took away every Diesel engine tomorrow,

Greenpeace would have us all on horseback

A battery is mined once, and goes on to power a car for a decade or longer (in the case of hybrid - probably a bit less than ten years in a full EV) - you have to offset that against the constant drilling (using ever more risky methods like hydraulic fracking or deep water drilling) and movement of oil to power all ICEs. Finally, Toyota goes to great lengths to recycle it's batteries, and while recycling is not perfect, it's a lot better than just drilling for more oil. I know of no way to recycle burned oil. Theoretically, the batteries in my Prius will still make up 60% of some future Prius battery in 50 years time.

I don't think any of the diesel haters are suggesting we get rid of all HGVs etc. We'd rather not see small diesel vehicles when there are cleaner (nobody's claiming perfectly clean) alternatives. My personal peeve is when somebody spends $100,000+ on a Range Rover, Jaguar or 5 series etc and then goes for the diesel option because it will be 'cheap to run' It completely negates the idea that diesels put out less Co2, as people tend to just buy a bigger car, if there weren't diesel cars people would simply make more sensible choices.

 

[Mick F]

.............. if there weren't diesel cars people would simply make more sensible choices.

Spot on!

 

[AndyRKett]

Maybe, but not always. On the NEDC, diesels use about 30% less fuel, but there's more Co2 produced per litre burned (diesel contains more energy per litre)

Your argument is becoming very much tit-for-tat, twisting figures to meet your argument needs, so what if, per litre burned diesel produces slightly more CO2 than petrol. The reason we have such a low tax rate in the UK for diesel vehicles is because per Km covered they emit much less CO2. You also picked specifically on city driving, what are the figures for combined, urban extra urban? I'm guessing the reason you specifically chose those figures is they met your needs. (You don't actually have to list the figures because I really don't care)

If you need less of something which doesn't require so much refinement then it's going to cost the environment less. Let's face it petrol diesel or electric, all have a pretty substantial impact on the environment. Diesels emit soot (even though it's now well managed with DPFs) Petrols emit high levels of CO2 and carcinogenic hydrocarbons, currently governments aren't worried about hydrocarbons so these emissions are ignored. And electric vehicles use vast quantities of rare earth metals and toxic chemicals which although you say can be recycled the recycling process is expensive and again very polluting, emissions from fossil fuels are a one hit deal but recycling a battery consuming huge quantities of chemicals and using resources over and over is the gift that keeps on giving.

If you go and read the documents that state diesels are bad you'll see that what they actually say is over the last few decades emissions have dropped steadily except for NOx and NO2 emissions which have had a much slower rate of decrease. These emissions were monitored across thousands of sites and the overall picture is skewed because these emissions are much higher near motorways and city centres where there's a high proportion of trucks and buses. But as usual much like yourself above fiddle the figures a bit and you can suddenly create a case that diesel cars are killing us all.

The real truth is they are all just as bad as one another and an argument of "my car is better for the environment" compared to any other type is a pointless argument as what you're saying is "my car is better because it sh*ts on the lawn slightly less than other cars.

 

[ahmett]

Maybe, but not always. On the NEDC, diesels use about 30% less fuel, but there's more Co2 produced per litre burned (diesel contains more energy per litre), so the Co2 difference is more like 10% in favour of diesel.

I have two vans, one petrol and one diesel. Both are coincidentally rated 9.7 NEDC city.

With the diesel, my best tank was 7.5l/100km with 8.0 as my lifetime average.
With the petrol my best tank to date (still running in) is 6.0l/100km, with 6.6 as my lifetime average (my best trip coming home from the shops just yesterday is a Prius like 4.4 (65MPG ).

So for two identically rated vehicles, the petrol puts out something like 30% less CO2 than the diesel. When you consider the lower fuel cost, lower purchase and servicing cost, and just the plain muckiness of diesel fuel pumps, if you want real economy a NA petrol is the way to, I have three turbo cars and none of them offer real world economy that I'd get from NA. I still have fantasies of getting an old NA diesel (Mercedes w123 wagon) running it on VWO/BioD and getting 100mpg+ out of it with next to zero Co2 or other pollutants.

not for me. when I drive a diesel I get about 5.5 l/100km vs 7.5l/100 km on the petrol so a good 20%+ worse.

In continental Europe, diesel is sold cheaper than petrol due to different taxation. In Greece today, Petrol is Euros 1.35 a liter. Diesel is 0.999. So a huge difference in efficiency and fuel cost. The maintenance isn't much worse than a petrol, provided you drive it properly.

Mind you, there are very few NA cars left on the market, even the petrols mostly have turbos now! So instead of getting a turbo petrol, might as well get a turbo diesel!

 

[RussH]

Greenpeace would have us all on horseback

A battery is mined once, and goes on to power a car for a decade or longer (in the case of hybrid - probably a bit less than ten years in a full EV) - you have to offset that against the constant drilling (using ever more risky methods like hydraulic fracking or deep water drilling) and movement of oil to power all ICEs. Finally, Toyota goes to great lengths to recycle it's batteries, and while recycling is not perfect, it's a lot better than just drilling for more oil. I know of no way to recycle burned oil. Theoretically, the batteries in my Prius will still make up 60% of some future Prius battery in 50 years time.

I don't think any of the diesel haters are suggesting we get rid of all HGVs etc. We'd rather not see small diesel vehicles when there are cleaner (nobody's claiming perfectly clean) alternatives. My personal peeve is when somebody spends $100,000+ on a Range Rover, Jaguar or 5 series etc and then goes for the diesel option because it will be 'cheap to run' It completely negates the idea that diesels put out less Co2, as people tend to just buy a bigger car, if there weren't diesel cars people would simply make more sensible choices.

Slight flaw in your argument here. Where does electricity come from? Pretty sure Australia is one of the most highly dependent on coal of the developed countries. I appreciate that you may well use PV cells but my point is aimed at the entire picture.

China (figuratively speaking right next door) commissions a new coal fired power station every week.

In the mean time our cretins of a Government have entered into the biggest financial con of the century by handing our money over to predominantly Chinese and German companies to develop renewable energy. We'll all be paying for this folly for the next 50 years long after the wind turbines have all fallen over.

So I think I'll happily keep using my low tech, no catalyst or dpf super diesel Mercedes diesel. I'm aiming for 300Bhp and my conscience will be clear.

 

[UFI]

Your argument is becoming very much tit-for-tat, twisting figures to meet your argument needs, so what if, per litre burned diesel produces slightly more CO2 than petrol. The reason we have such a low tax rate in the UK for diesel vehicles is because per Km covered they emit much less CO2. You also picked specifically on city driving, what are the figures for combined, urban extra urban? I'm guessing the reason you specifically chose those figures is they met your needs. (You don't actually have to list the figures because I really don't care) .

No different to your posting that your Mini's never done an active regen. Personal experience. I average 20mph (lifetime) so the hwy and combined numbers may as well be measured on Mars, I have little data as to how they correspond to real world - in any case there's little difference (slightly in favor of petrol).

My point on CO2 is simply that diesel improvement in MPG doesn't correlate 1:1 to CO2. In my usage the petrol wins on mpg and even greater on CO2. My diesel does relatively poorly real world, while the petrol can do double it's rated (city) MPG on a good day (in the city).

I frankly think Hybrids are dumb too, my Prius would be more economical if the lightweight aerodynamic body was powered by a 1.6 petrol manual. I bought it for a very specific purpose of short trips where ICEs only manage half their rated MPG. With no cold start penalty the CO2 NOx etc equation changes completely.

 

[UFI]

Slight flaw in your argument here. Where does electricity come from? Pretty sure Australia is one of the most highly dependent on coal of the developed countries. I appreciate that you may well use PV cells but my point is aimed at the entire picture.

One in eight houses here have PV arrays, and in my experience, EV buyers would be highly likely to have a decent PV array.

 

[AndyRKett]

No different to your posting that your Mini's never done an active regen. Personal experience. I average 20mph (lifetime) so the hwy and combined numbers may as well be measured on Mars, I have little data as to how they correspond to real world - in any case there's little difference (slightly in favor of petrol).

My point on CO2 is simply that diesel improvement in MPG doesn't correlate 1:1 to CO2. In my usage the petrol wins on mpg and even greater on CO2. My diesel does relatively poorly real world, while the petrol can do double it's rated (city) MPG on a good day (in the city).

When I stated my mini hadn't undergone active regen I was making a statement about how diesels should work and not manipulating figures on fuel economy to make a case for an argument.

I'm not going to argue about your experience with your van as your views on this are very biased and subjective.

What I will point out is current Euro6 regulations which set standards of emissions for cars currently allow diesel cars to emit no more particulates than petrol
Cars so on particulates alone petrols and diesels are equal. Then on NOx which diesels are most condemned for, Euro 6 rules now only allow a diesel to emit 80mg/Km in comparison to a petrol car which is allowed 60mg/km so diesels allowed slightly more.
Finally carbon monoxide in diesels is only allowed at 0.5mg/km while petrol cars are allowed twice as much (1mg per km)

So when you look at two equivalent cars they are both allowed the same level of particulates. The diesel is only permitted 20mg/km more NOx emmisions than a petrol. While a petrol is allowed twice the amount of carbon monoxide. On top of this petrols produce more CO2 per KM and more Hydrocarbons.

This means that aside from NOx the petrol car pollutes in more areas significantly more than a diesel which dashes the concept that new diesels are "dirty diesels" on the rocks.

 

[UFI]

Fair points Andy, but I don't think I'm cooking the books by posting my own carefully collected MPG data.

As I understand it, EU6 can only be achieved on diesels via Urea post treatment. This seems to be another band aid causing owners big headaches at low mileages. Unlike a DPF, which can at least work for some people, urea is going to be equally problematic for both city dwellers and highway commuters. If governments are serious about cleaner air, they need to go the Californian route and mandate 8 year warranties on all emissions control devices.

The argument about particulates isn't valid because the test are only done according to the NEDC drive cycle. They don't take into account the fact that the average diesel driver boots it at every opportunity, and at least EU5 diesels still leave big black clouds at high throttle openings, Range Rovers in particular, I don't think they can all have been 'chipped', particularly as a lot of them have brand new number plates. As long as people can see black smoke and smell the stink, diesels won't be socially acceptable. You can't smell a petrol idling in closed loop but you can always smell a diesel.

I do resent that the EU government has killed off petrol engines and forced me here in Australia to buy a EU6 diesel that simply doesn't suit my needs.

 

[AndyRKett]

Fair points Andy, but I don't think I'm cooking the books by posting my own carefully collected MPG data.

you are if you're specifically picking out bits of data to make your point.

As I understand it, EU6 can only be achieved on diesels via Urea post treatment. This seems to be another band aid causing owners big headaches at low mileages. Unlike a DPF, which can at least work for some people, urea is going to be equally problematic for both city dwellers and highway commuters. If governments are serious about cleaner air, they need to go the Californian route and mandate 8 year warranties on all emissions control devices.

My 2litre tdi euro 6 golf diesel had no such system, you just get in and drive it, nor to I believe that any new fiat diesels have these systems and they are simply not necessary on the majority of diesels which are smaller.

The argument about particulates isn't valid because the test are only done according to the NEDC drive cycle. They don't take into account the fact that the average diesel driver boots it at every opportunity, and at least EU5 diesels still leave big black clouds at high throttle openings, Range Rovers in particular, I don't think they can all have been 'chipped', particularly as a lot of them have brand new number plates. As long as people can see black smoke and smell the stink, diesels won't be socially acceptable. You can't smell a petrol idling in closed loop but you can always smell a diesel.

Why are diesel drivers any more likely to 'boot it' than petrol cars? my Punto multijet (euro 4) the mini (euro 5) and now my euro 6 golf don't get 'booted' and neither do any of them leave clouds of black smoke. Again this is all your opinion of people and behaviours of people and nothing to do with the cars them self.

 

[UFI]

you are if you're specifically picking out bits of data to make your point.

I can understand that view point if I took one tank or trip in isolation, but lifetime averages from the same driver on the same routes are harder to argue (my normal tank to tank variance is only 3mpg).

My 2litre tdi euro 6 golf diesel had no such system, you just get in and drive it, nor to I believe that any new fiat diesels have these systems and they are simply not necessary on the majority of diesels which are smaller.

My 1.6 Renault has adblue....

Why are diesel drivers any more likely to 'boot it' than petrol cars? my Punto multijet (euro 4) the mini (euro 5) and now my euro 6 golf don't get 'booted' and neither do any of them leave clouds of black smoke. Again this is all your opinion of people and behaviours of people and nothing to do with the cars them self.

But the cars themselves are leaving the black smoke - almost daily I see brand new luxury cars leaving tractor trails. I test drove a new EU5 Transit and that thing left a massive cloud when started, your cars do leave black smoke, whether you can see it from the driver's seat or not. Not a single diesel out there that doesn't. My VW didn't leave any smoke visible from the driver's seat but if I followed it in another car it was still there.

 

[Mick F]

..........But the cars themselves are leaving the black smoke - almost daily I see brand new luxury cars leaving tractor trails. I test drove a new EU5 Transit and that thing left a massive cloud when started, your cars do leave black smoke, whether you can see it from the driver's seat or not. Not a single diesel out there that doesn't. My VW didn't leave any smoke visible from the driver's seat but if I followed it in another car it was still there.

I'm a cyclist ......... as most of you know .......... and each and every diesel vehicle on the road chucks out black smoke when they overtake me.

Each and every one.

Brand new or old.
They ALL do it.

Regards,
Mick.