Nicely balanced article

[Charon]

And another one popped up on my news feed. From its use of British currency, I'd say it came from the UK. Diesel car drivers could be hit with an £800 tax in the next Budget - Business Insider

[Draigflag]

Unfortunately the data they have compiled doesn't support thier theories, about 95% of N0X emissions ARE NOT from diesel cars. 95% is a pretty big amount, sure they might tax diesel cars anyway because the motorist is an easy target, but they certainly don't give out as much pollution as Politicians want you to think. Petrol cars in London actually create more particulate matter than diesels too, check out the charts below, the first one is levels of N0X by source in London, the second one is particulate matter by source in London.

I read a report of an average London commuter the other day, he wore a "pollution" detecting device on his way to work. He was subjected to less N0X and PM cycling amongst London traffic than he was travelling on a train in a sealed carriage.

Also, you may want to refer to the official report for vehicle emissions (which I posted, but you probably ignored) as there is a big section on diesels there. Here's an extract:

"Industry has spent billions transforming diesel engine emissions technology. New diesels are vastly improved and approaching parity to petrol on emissions that affect air quality under the latest Euro-6 standards. Diesel vehicles have played an important role in reducing average new car CO2 emissions, with emissions up to 20% lower than an equivalent power petrol car. Achieving the 95g/
km target will continue to rely on diesel technologies, given the majority of the market will still be traditional ICE engined cars
by 2021. Any measures therefore that penalise diesel cars could undermine achieving future emission targets. SMMT always looks for a technology neutral approach towards incentives and penalties to encourage the uptake of the latest technologies. SMMT also opposes local measures which could undermine diesel vehicles and send confusing and conflicting messages
to consumers. We would also note that the UK has a strong track record in producing diesel engines, and measures which undermine this important section of the market could have a
detrimental impact on the UK’s wider economic performance"

Anyway, enough about us, remind me what the US is doing in terms of C02 targets/restrictions again, I'm a little out of date? Last time I looked America was one of the biggest polluters on the planet.

[Draigflag]

I noticed you've been ignoring some of my posts Charon. You should know I'm posting them as response to better educate you and help you understand things more clearly. Of course you can base your opinions on whatever you want, but if you ask me, it's better to Base them on actual facts rather than biased media speculation and propaganda.

You should start responding anyway, I know you hate being labeled a troll, but referring to other members as "snakes" and quoting my name saying "Draigflag will love this" makes me wonder if you're directing everything at me just to evoke a reaction of some kind. If this is the case, then sadly, these debates between us will cease to exist. I don't mind discussion and debate, it's what forums are for, but if it's one sided, there's not much point.

[Charon]

I don't recall ever doing any namecalling on this forum. I also don't see much point in "discussions" with you, Draigflag, since you seem to think everything I post is anti-Diesel, hopelessly out of date, and old-fashioned American to boot. You overlook the posts I make pointing out that Diesel engines are admirably suited to some tasks, not so well suited to others. You are free to believe anything you want, but at least a little of my knowledge of Diesel engines is based on a university level course. Are you happy, now? I responded.

[Draigflag]

I respect you for responding, thank you. I also respect your opinions. I know you've learnt alot since "discussing" things with me, not so long ago you thought diesels wouldn't start in cold weather and needed emission controlling equipment fitted that had already been fitted 20 years ago. I'm just trying get a clearer picture across is all, there's so much B/S on the Internet, but look harder and you'll find the facts hiding away.

[Charon]

Don't panic at the headline - it is actually an informative article. Is Diesel Done?

[Draigflag]

Good article, there are some nice stats and percentages there for a stataholic like me to feed on. I'm pleased more diesels will be making it to the US in the future, they offer a more durable, cheaper, more efficient alternative to hybrids. Don't worry Charon, no body is going to make you buy one.

[Charon]

No, I don't think anyone can force me - or induce me - to buy a diesel. And believe me, I have learned very little about diesels from this forum.

[Draigflag]

Here's an interesting article about local air pollution from eco cars.

Electric, hybrid and other eco-friendly cars fill the air with as many toxins as diesels | Daily Mail Online

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

Here's an interesting article about local air pollution from eco cars.

Electric, hybrid and other eco-friendly cars fill the air with as many toxins as diesels | Daily Mail Online

The article is biased rubbish. I'll just dissect the first paragraph.

"Electric, hybrid and other eco-friendly cars fill the air with as many toxins as dirty diesel vehicles, scientists have found."
1) The study did not look at hybrid or other ec0-friendly cars. It just compared BEVs to gasoline and diesel cars.
2) It looked at only one toxin; particulate matter.
3) Using 'dirty' is manipulative propaganda to get the reader thinking that eco-friendly cars emit as much pollution as a diesel in total, while the study only looked at one category of pollutant. As if tire wear on a BEV equates to the NOx of a cheating VW.

I could go on, but I have better things to do.
Here is a neutral report on the study.
Green Car Congress: Study finds total PM10 emissions from EVs equal to those of modern ICEVs; role of weight and non-exhaust PM
It points out that while the PM10 was equal between the three, the BEV emitted 3% less PM2.5 than a gasoline ICE, and 1% less than the diesel.

This to the study itself, and the entirety of it might be behind a paywall.
Non-exhaust PM emissions from electric vehicles
The paper is a literature review, meaning the authors have pooled together multiple studies on a topic of their interest. They didn't do any new experiments. It is an analysis of reported experiments on non-exhaust emissions, and they applied those results to BEVs.

They ignored brake dust fro BEVs on the grounds that how much regenerative braking reduces it isn't known. On some BEVs, the friction brakes are only used for emergencies.

For the other sub categories of non-exhaust PM, it appears they only considered weight. Which is fine for tire and road wear, but is only part of the picture for resuspension of settled particles.

From the study.
"Resuspension is caused by the wake of a vehicle, which in turn is determined by the size, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle. Furthermore, heavier vehicles are able to grind down larger particles into smaller, more easily suspended PM. In addition, many heavier vehicles will also be larger, resulting in a larger wake. These factors together should cause increased resuspension."

They are aware there are other factors, but likely didn't have the means of separating them out. A BEV is heavier than an equivalent car, perhaps as heavy as a SUV. So the extra will cause some more PM, but the BEV isn't as large as the SUV. Its wake from size should be the same as the ICE car's. On top of that, the aero of many BEVs are improved compares to the ICE, so the wake should be smaller.

Hopefully, someone will run an experiment actually looking the PM emissions of a BEV because of this study.