Which hugely popular small car is more polluting than a fully laden lorry?

WillRod wrote:

I'm still not sold on the theory that charging lithium batteries with gas-fuelled electric is more eco than diesel.

While the impact of creating and disposal of the energy cells is significant, have you factored in the environmental impact of extracting, transporting and refining crude oil?

If the stats mentioned in a video by The Fully Charged Show, UK oil refineries used 5,600 gWh electricity in 2005. That would be enough to charge 20 million electric cars to drive 20 trillion miles (the explanation begins at 5:00).

I've also seen it stated that: "2 kWh of electricity is required to make 1 litre of petrol. This will run an electric car for about 10 km". A Nissan Leaf can get 160km from its  24 kWh battery while a petrol car using 16 litres of fuel to cover the same distance uses an additional 112 kWh of electricity to refine the oil (plus the costs of extraction and distribution... and that's without massive incidents like Deepwater Horizon or the 167 who died in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988. Or the two Gulf wars, which were ostensibly about control of Middle Eastern oil.

I feel that electric scooters and e-bikes should have a bigger role to play for shorter journeys but they won't get a look-in until the obsession with cars wanes and roads feel safer for 2-wheeled vehicles, whether electrically powered or human-propelled.

Mungecrundle wrote:

There is basically no disincentive to be lazy.

There is...getting fat.

Mungecrundle wrote:

If only there was some way to make short journeys financially painful.

There is. By making short journeys by bike into long journeys by car.

https://vimeo.com/76207227

I read in a recent dept of transport survey that the average journey by car in this country is just 6 miles.

Apart from the damage to health by stopping exercise and through polution there is the amount of space in the town/city and peoples homes given up to parking, and how much better use that could be put to.

cyclesteffer wrote:

And yet even though the car manufacturers have cheated their way through emissions tests, and lied to the government about  how polluting their diesels car were, we STILL talk about giving them a scrappage subsidy so they can now encourage people to buy electric cars, but we won't consider giving a subsidy to bikes or ebikes? 

Essentially rewarding an industry for doing bad things? How does that work then?  

We should be forcing them to buy back all the cars they sold under false pretences.  If that causes them to go out of business then so be it.

DaveE128 wrote:

I've just done the sums. Every diesel car (if it lasts 10 years) directly causes approximately 1/45th of an early death. It's shocking that these vehicles have been incentivised by the government for so long.

This is based on:

10.7 million diesel cars in Q4 2014:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

23,500 early deaths per year directly attributable to diesel cars:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11883416/vw-scandal-emission...

 

How do you know it's not part of a plan to reduce the population?

earth wrote:

DaveE128 wrote:

I've just done the sums. Every diesel car (if it lasts 10 years) directly causes approximately 1/45th of an early death. It's shocking that these vehicles have been incentivised by the government for so long.

This is based on:

10.7 million diesel cars in Q4 2014:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

23,500 early deaths per year directly attributable to diesel cars:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11883416/vw-scandal-emission...

 

 

How do you know it's not part of a plan to reduce the population?

because 1/45th is about the level of efficacy we've come to know and love

andyeb wrote:

And how many times less pollution does a cyclists cause than a Polo? Why are we still pussy footing around with congestion charges and tax breaks for "clean" vehicles, instead of making cycling the normal mode of transport for able bodied people making short journeys?

BBC R4 had a series of articles about air pollution over the past couple of weeks.  Guess how many times the biggest, most efficient solution, Active Travel (cycling and walking) was mentioned?  I'll give you a clue: it's a round figure, a very round figure.

Today, the R4 news programme on between 0700-0900 is doing a series on air pollution this week, but the chances of them actually even mentioning Active Travel even once don't look good.

burtthebike wrote:

andyeb wrote:

And how many times less pollution does a cyclists cause than a Polo? Why are we still pussy footing around with congestion charges and tax breaks for "clean" vehicles, instead of making cycling the normal mode of transport for able bodied people making short journeys?

BBC R4 had a series of articles about air pollution over the past couple of weeks.  Guess how many times the biggest, most efficient solution, Active Travel (cycling and walking) was mentioned?  I'll give you a clue: it's a round figure, a very round figure.

Today, the R4 news programme on between 0700-0900 is doing a series on air pollution this week, but the chances of them actually even mentioning Active Travel even once don't look good.

Be fair. Active travel does get mentioned in the context of air pollution. When the pollution is particularly bad they specifically tell us not to engage in it.

andyeb wrote:

And how many times less pollution does a cyclists cause than a Polo? Why are we still pussy footing around with congestion charges and tax breaks for "clean" vehicles, instead of making cycling the normal mode of transport for able bodied people making short journeys?

Because, unfortunately, most able-bodied people making short journeys are parents taking kids somewhere.

And I currently include myself in that. I have a bike with a bike seat that I use with my eldest daughter to do some local trips. But rule out any negative factors (rain, temperature, other luggage, shopping, distance, turning up sweaty, other traffic, etc) and that pretty rapidly cuts down potential.

My youngest daughter is now old enough to go on a bike seat, but my wife is not the most confidant cyclist and is a bit anxious about putting a bike seat on her bike. We'll have a go at it, but I'm currently eyeing up a trailer.

Factor in that we have a fully expensed company car and it's a little too easy to just grab the keys.

LastBoyScout wrote:

andyeb wrote:

And how many times less pollution does a cyclists cause than a Polo? Why are we still pussy footing around with congestion charges and tax breaks for "clean" vehicles, instead of making cycling the normal mode of transport for able bodied people making short journeys?

Because, unfortunately, most able-bodied people making short journeys are parents taking kids somewhere.

And I currently include myself in that. I have a bike with a bike seat that I use with my eldest daughter to do some local trips. But rule out any negative factors (rain, temperature, other luggage, shopping, distance, turning up sweaty, other traffic, etc) and that pretty rapidly cuts down potential.

My youngest daughter is now old enough to go on a bike seat, but my wife is not the most confidant cyclist and is a bit anxious about putting a bike seat on her bike. We'll have a go at it, but I'm currently eyeing up a trailer.

Factor in that we have a fully expensed company car and it's a little too easy to just grab the keys.

Can't help but but notice that 'other traffic' and 'lack of confidence' crops up in that list. Which emphasises the exasperatingly circular nature of the problem. Everyone drives because everyone drives.

Human beings in large numbers just can't get their act together. Individually we might be smart but as a collective we are a moron.

Edit - 'distance' isn't an independent variable either. Expected travel distances are themselves partly a function of presumed car-ownership.

LastBoyScout wrote:

andyeb wrote:

And how many times less pollution does a cyclists cause than a Polo? Why are we still pussy footing around with congestion charges and tax breaks for "clean" vehicles, instead of making cycling the normal mode of transport for able bodied people making short journeys?

Because, unfortunately, most able-bodied people making short journeys are parents taking kids somewhere.

And I currently include myself in that. I have a bike with a bike seat that I use with my eldest daughter to do some local trips. But rule out any negative factors (rain, temperature, other luggage, shopping, distance, turning up sweaty, other traffic, etc) and that pretty rapidly cuts down potential.

My youngest daughter is now old enough to go on a bike seat, but my wife is not the most confidant cyclist and is a bit anxious about putting a bike seat on her bike. We'll have a go at it, but I'm currently eyeing up a trailer.

Factor in that we have a fully expensed company car and it's a little too easy to just grab the keys.

I've seen parents taking their kids less than 1/2 mile to school or pre-school when they could easily walk (which would be better for them for several reasons). There are many kids in secondary school who could cycle or walk. Lots live nearer than my kids, who cycle 3 miles each way, but the parents still take them in the car. Too many try to drive as close to the school gate as possible, sometimes blocking driveways, stopping on double yellow lines etc etc.

The use of company cars for private travel is something that ought to be taxed far harder IMHO. I'd happily seem such company vehicles banned and people would have to use their own cars for work (and be paid a fair amount based on how much they are actually used for business). I bet the majority of those cars would be driven more gently, more considerately and treated better too.

Yes lots of people have circumstances that make it more effort to cycle instead of using a car but in the end, like all issues, it boils down to this:

If you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

earth wrote:

VW did not use urea injection.  Apparently this reduces the performance of the engine.

Because to top speed and 0-60 mph times are the only important numbers despite their total irrelevance to everyday motoring.

LastBoyScout wrote:

Because, unfortunately, most able-bodied people making short journeys are parents taking kids somewhere.

And I currently include myself in that. I have a bike with a bike seat that I use with my eldest daughter to do some local trips. But rule out any negative factors (rain, temperature, other luggage, shopping, distance, turning up sweaty, other traffic, etc) and that pretty rapidly cuts down potential.

My youngest daughter is now old enough to go on a bike seat, but my wife is not the most confidant cyclist and is a bit anxious about putting a bike seat on her bike. We'll have a go at it, but I'm currently eyeing up a trailer.

Factor in that we have a fully expensed company car and it's a little too easy to just grab the keys.

Get the trailer! I've just got one a few months ago as my daughter's a bit heavy to go on the child seat now. I take her to nursery and back in it 3 days a week and various trips at the weekend. When her sister's old enough they'll both be able to go in it.

With a trailer rain doesn't matter so much (it's enclosed), temperature isn't much of a problem (no wind and you can throw a blanket in there as well), luggage/shopping goes in the luggage compartment and other traffic seems to give me more leeway than if I'm on my own with just the bike. I deal with turning up sweaty by going a bit slower (or just not caring, if I'm honest). I wouldn't do more than about 10km with it but for anything up to that, it's great.

andyeb wrote:

And how many times less pollution does a cyclists cause than a Polo? Why are we still pussy footing around with congestion charges and tax breaks for "clean" vehicles, instead of making cycling the normal mode of transport for able bodied people making short journeys?

It is ridiculous that the tax system is fragmented the way it is. Annual VED is a total anomaly - dump it all on fuel duty. Have fuel duty subsidise greener alternatives/active travel.

At the moment, no party is ballsy enough to piss off drivers en masse, because everybody drives (there's Fluffy's point again).

Cantab wrote:

As someone who bought a diesel shortly before all of this became public knowledge, I do feel a bit ashamed. My mitigation is that I use the car almost exclusively for long journeys on A roads and motorways where the particulate filters have long enough to kick in (takes 15 minutes apparently).

Nonetheless there is evidently some variability between different engines if a 1.4l turbo diesel polo can put out as many particulates as a 13l lorry engine. Surely it is possible to design small diesel engines which are less polluting?

This is the thing - almost no-one gets told that particulate filters (DPFs) take a long time to warm up, nor that they, like the rest of a diesel engine, only run efficiently for long periods at a sustained engine speed. Regardless of whether a diesel car has a large or small engine, the amount of people who buy them to use on short journeys of 15 miles or less are the problem because the emission control system basically doesn't work until the engine is fully warmed through, (this is true no matter how big or small the engine is, hence the creation of excess pollution) by which point all these cars have reached their destination and are being turned off.

This is why people fine themselves having to replace DPFs when a car is still quite young as it's clogged up and useless.

STiG911 wrote:

Cantab wrote:

As someone who bought a diesel shortly before all of this became public knowledge, I do feel a bit ashamed. My mitigation is that I use the car almost exclusively for long journeys on A roads and motorways where the particulate filters have long enough to kick in (takes 15 minutes apparently).

Nonetheless there is evidently some variability between different engines if a 1.4l turbo diesel polo can put out as many particulates as a 13l lorry engine. Surely it is possible to design small diesel engines which are less polluting?

This is the thing - almost no-one gets told that particulate filters (DPFs) take a long time to warm up, nor that they, like the rest of a diesel engine, only run efficiently for long periods at a sustained engine speed. Regardless of whether a diesel car has a large or small engine, the amount of people who buy them to use on short journeys of 15 miles or less are the problem because the emission control system basically doesn't work until the engine is fully warmed through, (this is true no matter how big or small the engine is, hence the creation of excess pollution) by which point all these cars have reached their destination and are being turned off.

This is why people fine themselves having to replace DPFs when a car is still quite young as it's clogged up and useless.

And the NOx issue is completely seperate from the particulates issue - both are serious threats to life.

STiG911 wrote:

Cantab wrote:

As someone who bought a diesel shortly before all of this became public knowledge, I do feel a bit ashamed. My mitigation is that I use the car almost exclusively for long journeys on A roads and motorways where the particulate filters have long enough to kick in (takes 15 minutes apparently).

Nonetheless there is evidently some variability between different engines if a 1.4l turbo diesel polo can put out as many particulates as a 13l lorry engine. Surely it is possible to design small diesel engines which are less polluting?

This is the thing - almost no-one gets told that particulate filters (DPFs) take a long time to warm up, nor that they, like the rest of a diesel engine, only run efficiently for long periods at a sustained engine speed. Regardless of whether a diesel car has a large or small engine, the amount of people who buy them to use on short journeys of 15 miles or less are the problem because the emission control system basically doesn't work until the engine is fully warmed through, (this is true no matter how big or small the engine is, hence the creation of excess pollution) by which point all these cars have reached their destination and are being turned off.

This is why people fine themselves having to replace DPFs when a car is still quite young as it's clogged up and useless.

I bought my diesel at a time when I was doing mainly motorway mileage for commuting. Literally a month after taking ownership, my company announced it was moving to 10 miles from my house, opening up the possibility of cycle commuting. A move had been on the cards for a while, but the general feeling was that at best it would stay in a similar location or, at worst, move further away. On a typical week, it now does about 45 miles total, although I do give it a good run when possible. I'm seriously thinking about changing it for a petrol equivalent.

Cantab wrote:

As someone who bought a diesel shortly before all of this became public knowledge, I do feel a bit ashamed. My mitigation is that I use the car almost exclusively for long journeys on A roads and motorways where the particulate filters have long enough to kick in (takes 15 minutes apparently).

Nonetheless there is evidently some variability between different engines if a 1.4l turbo diesel polo can put out as many particulates as a 13l lorry engine. Surely it is possible to design small diesel engines which are less polluting?

There are two pollutants produced by the diesel engine.  Particulates from unburnt fuel and nitrogen oxides.  To reduce the particulates the fuel has to be burnt completely.  In a diesel engine the temparture and pressure is then high enough to oxidise the nitrogen in the air and NOx are produced.  It is not possible to avoid this.  But NOx can be removed almost entirely in the exhaust by using urea injection, where nitrogen in the urea reacts with the NOx to produce water, nitrogen and a small amount of CO2.  VW did not use urea injection.  Apparently this reduces the performance of the engine.

earth wrote:

Cantab wrote:

As someone who bought a diesel shortly before all of this became public knowledge, I do feel a bit ashamed. My mitigation is that I use the car almost exclusively for long journeys on A roads and motorways where the particulate filters have long enough to kick in (takes 15 minutes apparently).

Nonetheless there is evidently some variability between different engines if a 1.4l turbo diesel polo can put out as many particulates as a 13l lorry engine. Surely it is possible to design small diesel engines which are less polluting?

 

There are two pollutants produced by the diesel engine.  Particulates from unburnt fuel and nitrogen oxides.  To reduce the particulates the fuel has to be burnt completely.  In a diesel engine the temparture and pressure is then high enough to oxidise the nitrogen in the air and NOx are produced.  It is not possible to avoid this.  But NOx can be removed almost entirely in the exhaust by using urea injection, where nitrogen in the urea reacts with the NOx to produce water, nitrogen and a small amount of CO2.  VW did not use urea injection.  Apparently this reduces the performance of the engine.

 

As in Adblue? VW did use that, just not on everything. I had it on my 2.0 Sharan Bluemotion Tdi but, oddly, not on my T5 Caravelle.

DrG82 wrote:

...The government told everyone to buy diesel cars and to minimise the CO2 output, so, as any other business would do, they designed products that meet these criteria...

Or maybe the opposite...