Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

Post by kgwgk » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 1:58 PM UTC

lb1lf wrote: post #18

sllabres wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't negate that this is the case but bunker and "gas turbines" seems a bit on the opposite for fossile energy regarding the environment. And this fuel does not seem to loose attraction due to its price. "Worldwide bunker use in 2001 was estimated at 278 million tons, of which around 212 million tons were residual fuels. ƒ Between 2001 and 2020, total consumption grows at an average annual rate of 3.1% [...]" [1]…

I (partially) agree; however, we have a saying in Norway that "The best is the worst enemy of the good." In a perfect world, shipping would be emissions-free; however, it is not; the vast majority of the world's commercial shipping runs off heavy fuel oil. Getting it to pollute less in the short term is IMHO better than holding out, waiting for zero emissions somewhere down the line.

Post by lb1lf » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 2:09 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #19

lb1lf wrote: post #3

Part of the problem is that basically the closer you run the diesel engine to its optimum mpg-wise, the more NOx it emits. So, when you are trying very hard to make engines more efficient to get impressive mpg numbers, you also end up generating more NOx (Which you can then get rid of using urea, which I think is the preferred option in trucks and buses - think AdBlue or whatever it is called when used for cars.

One problem with AdBlue is that the car makers decided that the car owners were not supposed to refill it, it was considered more like an oil change than a fill-up. So the tank needs to be large enough to cover a full maintenance interval - which either requires quite a large tank or creative solution to limit consumption. And - meh - the decision was made to limit consumption.

Post by adrianN » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 2:19 PM UTC

sllabres wrote: post #7

Have a look at cargo ship emissions and then think.

Post by hydrogen18 » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

lb1lf wrote: post #23

Xylakant wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with AdBlue is that the car makers decided that the car owners were not supposed to refill it, it was considered more like an oil change than a fill-up. So the tank needs to be large enough to cover a full maintenance interval - which either requires quite a large tank or creative solution to limit consumption. And - meh - the decision was made to limit consumption.

I think - mind, think - that car makers may be innocent in this particular instance; I am pretty sure I read some time ago (Just as Dieselgate blew up) that regulations required AdBlue to be refilled primarily by workshops - this as it directly affected the emissions of the vehicle, and as such shouldn't (couldn't?) be entrusted to Joe Q. Public to do. However, at least around here they sell it at (some) gas stations…

Post by gsnedders » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 2:32 PM UTC

milansuk wrote: post #14

Article doesn't mention DPF(Diesel Particulate Filter) removal. Many owners don't wanna pay for new one, so they pay for removal. There are so many cars without it and emissions are completely sick.