Study: older diesels safer than new

[JCarp16]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...diesel-tests-monkeys-showed-new-cars-harmful/

Data from this bizarre study showed an older diesel (Ford) appeared to be less toxic than the newer diesel (VW). Not sure what chemicals are involved - NOX?

 

[g8rpi]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...diesel-tests-monkeys-showed-new-cars-harmful/

Data from this bizarre study showed an older diesel (Ford) appeared to be less toxic than the newer diesel (VW). Not sure what chemicals are involved - NOX?

They don't say in that article but I've seen some studies that say it's because of the much smaller particulates in modern diesel exhaust fumes. These can penetrate membranes and cell walls. The old thick black smoke just clogged your lungs and you coughed it up. It's also an issue with direct injection petrol cars.


Robert G8RPI.

 

[JCarp16]

They don't say in that article but I've seen some studies that say it's because of the much smaller particulates in modern diesel exhaust fumes. These can penetrate membranes and cell walls. The old thick black smoke just clogged your lungs and you coughed it up. It's also an issue with direct injection petrol cars.


Robert G8RPI.

Bit of a worry that the particulate trap isn't doing its job. Unless they were comparing cars with traps removed?

 

[g8rpi]

Bit of a worry that the particulate trap isn't doing its job. Unless they were comparing cars with traps removed?

I don't know if that was with DPF or not or how small a DPF traps down to.


Robert G8RPI.

 

[DidierAubin87]

I don't think this information is reliable. I even did not see it in your article.

 

[StevenRB45]

I was under the impression this was the case due to the function of the DPF. It takes big particles and makes them into smaller ones that can cross cell membranes more easily, so increasing their health risks.

 

[AndyRKett]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...diesel-tests-monkeys-showed-new-cars-harmful/

Data from this bizarre study showed an older diesel (Ford) appeared to be less toxic than the newer diesel (VW). Not sure what chemicals are involved - NOX?

I’d take the whole thing with a pinch of salt, the car companies involve refused to pay the outstanding balance for he tests, the company claim it’s because it didn’t show what they wanted But it could just as easily be the company conducting the test didn’t do the test correctly, or more to the point they experimented on animals against the companies wishes. The whole thing sounds a bit dodgy and it could just as easily be a scorned company looking to get pay back for an unsettled bill.

 

[StevenRB45]

It made a Netflix series.

The company doing the tests claims the original idea from VW USA was to gas actual people with the exhaust fumes of VW beetle diesel on a rolling road (while running in emmisions test defeat mode to give it the best possible chance) to see what the effects were against an old Ford truck. Given the roots of VW in a certain rather unpopular right wing movement it was thought using one to gas people might be a PR problem..so they did it on monkeys instead but then found even running in emissions defeat mode the vw was more harmful than the truck they wanted to best so the plug was pulled.

Whether any of this is actually true who knows..but it does point to some interesting corporate ethics..

 

[AndyRKett]

It made a Netflix series.

Whether any of this is actually true who knows..but it does point to some interesting corporate ethics..

I had a quick look, I think it’s the ‘Dirty Money’ series as that references the test although give no indication if the outcome and also lists some differences in the test to the article posted above...

That said a few minutes into the program the presenter says “f¥[k you, Volkswagen” directly to the camera as well as crying about how his dream car has been ruined by the scandal (a Jetta estate) and then shows him taking the car back to the dealership because his dream car is made of lies....
They also make numerous references to hitler and nazi Germany as well as using the term Gas, a lot when talking about the experiemts on the monkeys, they “gassed the monkeys” that company that was started by hitler you know.....

Anyway looking at the program objectively, I can’t help but think a little bias may have crept in on the journalists part ?

 

[StevenRB45]

Watching it I wasn't sure whether it was the ethics of Netflix or VW that were open to question.

Having said that if even half of the stalling for time they say happened in the investigation happened then neither side looks particularly good.

 

[DaveMcT]

Regulations forced engine manufacturers to reduce the weight of particulate matter emitted. Unsurprisingly, they quickly cut the large particles (biggest mass) with ultra high pressure and pulsed injection systems. The downside is that more fine particulates are released and these carry the biggest health risks.

Cleaner burning fuels would be a better solution, but we cant have that can we?


Google pm2.5 finds -
https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.htm

Diesel are in the frame but what about tyre rubber, brake dust and asphalt dust?

 

[chris3234]

Regulations forced engine manufacturers to reduce the weight of particulate matter emitted. Unsurprisingly, they quickly cut the large particles (biggest mass) with ultra high pressure and pulsed injection systems. The downside is that more fine particulates are released and these carry the biggest health risks.

Cleaner burning fuels would be a better solution, but we cant have that can we?


Google pm2.5 finds -
https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.htm

Diesel are in the frame but what about tyre rubber, brake dust and asphalt dust?

Or modern direct injection petrols that emmit just as much particular matter as diesels do

 

[StevenRB45]

Or modern direct injection petrols that emmit just as much particular matter as diesels do

There's two things with this, first GPFs exist and are fitted to the majority of new petrols (we'll see if they affect reliability like diesel ones do but due to both there being fewer particulates to deal with and higher exhaust temps it's less likely).

Second PM matter is one thing, oxides of nitrogen is another, most euro 6 diesels don't confirm to NOX emissions targets in use. But the vast majority of petrols for a decade do and even those that don't conform to current standard e.g. Fords ecoboost still would pass euro 4. A good proportion of euro 6 diesels don't conform to any emissions standard when it comes to NOX emissions at all that are literally off the scale.

90% of Nox in town centres is associated with road transport.. and the majority of that is associated with diesel engines. Nox is associated with lots of lung diseases and formation of ground level ozone so you don't want it where there are lots of people..for example town centres.

So yes, PM is bad but not the only reason they are going after diesel.

 

[DaveMcT]

NOx is a huge problem and exactly why some diesels use AdBlue. It's a solution of urea in water which removes nitrogen oxides (NOx). The problem is that high temperatures and pressures are needed to get the best efficiency and that's where the NOx are made. I suspect that at high powers they can't treat the gas fast enough so crud escapes the tail pipe.

Power plants have the same problem. They use huge gas scrubbers to remove Sulphur dioxides (which leads to H2SO4 acid rain). They will eventually have to install urea systems to deal with NOx that leads to nitric acid in rain or in our lungs.

 

[StevenRB45]

NOx is a huge problem and exactly why some diesels use AdBlue. It's a solution of urea in water which removes nitrogen oxides (NOx). The problem is that high temperatures and pressures are needed to get the best efficiency and that's where the NOx are made. I suspect that at high powers they can't treat the gas fast enough so crud escapes the tail pipe.
.

It's a bit simpler than that, before 6.2 came in there was absolutely no requirement for a car to come close to the claimed figure in use. There still isn't actually but the test is meant to be more representative.

So as long as your clean diesel hit the numbers on a leisurely combined cycle designed for buses and commercial vehicles it was legal for sale.

VW got done for taking cheating to the next level but pick most of the current diesels on the road point them at a hill and measure the exhaust and you'll probably get somewhere between 200% and 600% of the allowable level.

Not because treatment didn't exist...it just wasn't legally required to work to the given standard outside of the laboratory and unlike petrols diesels do not get gas analyser stuck up the exhaust annually to check the emissions gear is present and working.

A proper working adblue system is more expensive than one that only works in test conditions...so guess which one most cars got?

 

[DaveMcT]

This is why I have become an electric car convert (no tail pipe issues) and would like our power systems to use molten salt nuclear reactors. Intrinsic safety means low costs to build and operate.

They have zero emissions during use. The used fuel has a radioactive life 1/1000th of a current PWR nuke like Hinkley Point or Sizewell. There's none of the the inherent hazards that caused the high profile accidents we know about, so build and running costs are low. Low enough to put filthy coal out of business.
They run at 650C so can provide process heat for ammonia production (fertilser), cement plants (huge CO2 emitters) and sea water desalination. London could use a few and we would get those Downlands chalk streams running again. The ones that have been dry for 50 years. PWRs can only give 250C enough to drive electricity generators but not much else.
Molten salts can also retrofit coal boilers so old power plants don't need to be totally scrapped. Just junk the boilers and fit small nukes in their place.

Ammonia is used to make fertilser but can also be an engine fuel. It's regarded as a hydrogen carrier. Made using nuclear energy the fuel would be zero CO2 over the life cycle. It's not perfect at low loads and high speeds, but hey that's what hybrids are for.

 

[AndyRKett]

This is why I have become an electric car convert (no tail pipe issues) and would like our power systems to use molten salt nuclear reactors. Intrinsic safety means low costs to build and operate.

Two points, 1 do you not have to buy and run an electric car to be able to call yourself an electric car convert, otherwise you might as well be a vegetarian who sees the benefits of not eating meat but hasn’t yet stopped eating meat. Vis-a-vis you are not a vegetarian

Secondly no matter how many times I point out the problems with molten salt reactors you ignore these problems and still bang on about the benefits. The reason they are not in use is that they are essentially at the experimental stage and not currently viable as an power source, they have a huge amount of drawbacks and technical problems which stifles their development.
The people championing them are the scientists who want to work on the. And therefore have a large vested interest in someone paying them a huge amount of money for years to research it. By the time they are viable there will almost certainly be a huge amount of far cheaper alternative technologies to use.

If you want an electric car buy one and then fit your house with solar panels and a power storing battery, then you have a very safe cheap alternative power source that has zero risk of any radiation contamination.

 

[DaveMcT]

The Moltex SSR molten salt solves the issues with the original Weinburg design.

The fuel is not pumped (massive compliance issue).

The freeze plug has no regulatory approval, therefore not an option in the next 20 years. Plus, its an engineered solution better avoided entirely.

The reactor has a highly negative temperature coefficient. It can lose all coolant at full load but will never reach hazardous temperatures. Excess heat is removed by convection as would shut down decay heat.

There is no lithium or water in the fuel salt or the coolant salt so no tritium issues.

There is no plating issue on heat exchangers because the fuel salt is held in fuel pins as in any "normal" reactor.

There is no "corrosion" (actually erosion) of metal parts because the salt chemistry is kept highly reducing.

It runs in the fast spectrum so no carbon moderator problems and it will burn the actinides from used PWR fuel.

The Moltex plant being built in Canada is expected to be online by 2028. Extremely rapid by nuclear standards.

 

[AndyRKett]

The Moltex SSR molten salt solves the issues with the original Weinburg design.

The fuel is not pumped (massive compliance issue).

The freeze plug has no regulatory approval, therefore not an option in the next 20 years. Plus, its an engineered solution better avoided entirely.

The reactor has a highly negative temperature coefficient. It can lose all coolant at full load but will never reach hazardous temperatures. Excess heat is removed by convection as would shut down decay heat.

There is no lithium or water in the fuel salt or the coolant salt so no tritium issues.

There is no plating issue on heat exchangers because the fuel salt is held in fuel pins as in any "normal" reactor.

There is no "corrosion" (actually erosion) of metal parts because the salt chemistry is kept highly reducing.

It runs in the fast spectrum so no carbon moderator problems and it will burn the actinides from used PWR fuel.

The Moltex plant being built in Canada is expected to be online by 2028. Extremely rapid by nuclear standards.

Everything you’ve said only confirms my comments that you ignore the problems.

Also to have one reactor running by 2028 (not accounting for any overruns or problems) and this is not a full commercial scale plant again confirms my point about there being many other much more safe and abundant technologies by then.

 

[DaveMcT]

Moltex (conservatively) expect to be online by 2028 with a 1000MW load following peaking plant. It is not a baby demo plant. The only difference from production plants is this is being built on site rather than using lower cost factory built modules.

It is the only molten salt technology that has a chance. All others have problems with pumping the fuel, tritium, carbon, etc.


If I am talking crap then please tell Ian Scott of Moltex to take down his information. As clearly you know more about his business than he does.