StuH
Members
Petrol emission are free of all toxins, smell lovely and help butterflies thrive. Diesel emissions were invented by scientist in the Third Reich in order to achieve global domination.Jon_G said:
Horses for courses?
- Thread starter apintofmild
- Start date
Goodluckmonkey
TA Friends
Thankfully I store the carcinogens in the glove box, and dumo them in the dog bin when I walk her every night.freddofrog said:
StuH
Members
At least you don't leave the bags hanging on tree branches.Goodluckmonkey said:
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
so DPF = Dog Poop Filter
Channel Hopper
Members
Apologies, my earlier post was from the phone and it left out the important 'SVO'. Somewhere I have an unbiased report that confirms many of the harmful substances thrown out of the back of a diesel engine are non-existent when the fuel from certain plant material is used.freddofrog said:I'm out of "likes" btw, I have been all day
Anyway, historically, it's definitely not the diesel buyer's responsibility in the first place, but the VW diesel scandal raised the issue of diesel car emissions right up into mainstream media. Now that everyone knows about the issue, owners of diesel cars that do not meet Euro 6 standards should feel quite guilty when they say that they've saved money. They may claim that they did not know, so their "social cost" (aka "externality" in economics) can be set to one side historically, but now that they know they ought to be more circumspect in saying "I saved money".
Furthermore, by continuing to use the car and still saying that they're saving money, is like a phone cold-call company that continues to cold-call, saying that if they cease they will put their employees out of work.
The main issue is that European governments saw the diesel car as a way to meet CO2 reduction targets, and as the NOX issue started to be raised, they were slow in introducing standards that the manufacturers had to comply with. Euro 6 should have been implemented 10 years ago.
So if a car buyer wants to have an IC engine with low CO2 emissions, they should buy a diesel car that meets Euro 6 and be prepared to meet the extra costs of AdBlue and DPF renewal.
Many of the official documentation either glosses over the alternatives, or portrays it in similar light to the stuff out of the ground.
I'll try to find it.
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
sounds like magic mushrooms
While both pollute in my opinion diesel is dirty and more toxic pollution and has been known to cause dangerous toxins, the global warming theory is unconfirmed and has been debated by some. Although I believe petrol should be less existent as electrics and hybrid technology is there however the manufacturers and government have too much money too loose by implementing this. Now let's not start the government topic as I believe the only thing they govern is money. So I feel I am doing the best by driving a petrol and also love the acceleration of a petrol engine along with no clunking sound when parked up.
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk
Channel Hopper
Members
Daimler covering their tracks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/18/daimler-recalls-millions-diesel-cars-harmful-emissions/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/18/daimler-recalls-millions-diesel-cars-harmful-emissions/
Channel Hopper
Members
When you finally have some (mid October in the UK), let us all know what you heard.freddofrog said:
Government report - http://www.dft.gov.uk/rmd/project.asp?intProjectID=11610
Summary
The project delivered exactly what was requested in the work spec and results are very credible. The 5% biodiesel showed no significant effect on local pollutant emissions but the 100% straight vegetable oil showed major increases in hydrocarbon and CO emissions and in PM emissions on one, but not the other, vehicle.
Independent report - http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/diesel-vs-biodiesel-vs-vegetable-oil/index.htm
Summary
Testing showed that emissions from the biofuels were the same or better than from regular diesel by most measures. None of the four fuels generated significant amounts of carbon monoxide. Cooking oil produced less smog-causing NOx than regular diesel, while our B100 produced a little more.
Hydrocarbons are related to smog formation. Cooking oil and B100 turned out to produce slightly more hydrocarbons than either regular diesel or B5. HC emissions reflecting unburned fuel and cooking oil racked up 14 parts per million and B100 put out nine ppm. B5 and regular diesel produced only 3 ppm each. Since the Connecticut limit on HC is 150 ppm, all far exceeded the requirements.
Particulates. Particulates are a concern with diesel engines. B100 and cooking oil produced less than the B5 and standard diesel.
NOx. Cooking oil had the lowest oxides of nitrogen emissions, while B100 had the highest.
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
how does any of this support the statement you made belowChannel Hopper said:
Channel Hopper said:
Channel Hopper
Members
I can't recall if it was mentioned elsewhere on this forum, but the nemesis of the London Mayor, Nitrous Oxides, are produced in greater form by the application of turbochargers in engines, rather than the fuel running them.honda_saj said:
What the great unwashed see, rather than understand by reading is the sooty deposits from the exhaust, the odour and the dirt on their clothing after a hard days graft/commute to the 'smoke'. As somebody posted earlier, in jest, diesel technology is viewed as a continuation of the Worker's Party solution for Europe and beyond, mud sticks.
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
was that from this issue of the magazine ?Channel Hopper said:
Channel Hopper
Members
It's unbiased (second report) as far as I can see, with straight vegetable oil clearly identified as a waste product from the restaurant business, which has an environmental impact no matter how it is 'recycled', so it may as well end its life in an engine.freddofrog said:
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
and how does that support this statementChannel Hopper said:
Channel Hopper said:
Channel Hopper
Members
You are aware of what is present in mineral diesel, and not apparent in biomass I hope.freddofrog said:
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
You are aware thatChannel Hopper said:
1. NOx comes from the combining of Nitrogen and Oxygen in the air when anything burns at high temperatures, which is what happens when anything is burned lean
2. Soot particles are due to the fact that, in a diesel engine, the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder at peak pressure and hence it does not totally atomise
...I hope
Channel Hopper
Members
Yes, and no.
Stuff out of the ground contains a multitude of nitrogen compounds, that are either not present, or significantly lower in plant derived diesel. I would also include chemically synthesised fuels at this point, since I can bring methanol back into the conversation
. The crude oil processing itself also plays a part in what comes out of the forecourt pump, particulates of metal and aromatics.
The second report does away with evaluating other pollutants such as sulphur, because only the mineral diesel contains them.
The government report ignores the other pollutants completely within the opening remarks and by doing so draws a flawed conclusion that the fuels tested are more or less equal in their damage.
Stuff out of the ground contains a multitude of nitrogen compounds, that are either not present, or significantly lower in plant derived diesel. I would also include chemically synthesised fuels at this point, since I can bring methanol back into the conversation
. The crude oil processing itself also plays a part in what comes out of the forecourt pump, particulates of metal and aromatics.The second report does away with evaluating other pollutants such as sulphur, because only the mineral diesel contains them.
The government report ignores the other pollutants completely within the opening remarks and by doing so draws a flawed conclusion that the fuels tested are more or less equal in their damage.
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
there is no fuel that you can put into a diesel that will reduce NOx, because the NOx comes from the combination O2 and N2 (in the air) during lean-burn, and a diesel is a lean-burn engine because of the way it operatesChannel Hopper said:Yes, and no.
Stuff out of the ground contains a multitude of nitrogen compounds, that are either not present, or significantly lower in plant derived diesel. I would also include chemically synthesised fuels at this point, since I can bring methanol back into the conversation
The second report does away with evaluating other pollutants such as sulphur, because only the mineral diesel contains them.
The government report ignores the other pollutants completely within the opening remarks and by doing so draws a flawed conclusion that the fuels tested are more or less equal in their damage.
the same applies to soot particles, there is no fuel that is heavy (necessary so as to burn in a diesel without exploding) yet will also completely atomise when injected into the cylinder when the cylinder pressure is at or close to max.
Sulphur content of fuel is a different matter, reduced Sulphur reduces SOx
Channel Hopper
Members
There has been fuel atomising research on biomass that confims small changes in the compound ratios , leading to measurable soot / particulate reduction. Often this favours one type of crop over another, the main option open to mineral diesel is either prohibitively expensive overhaul of the fractional distillation employed (leading to fractions that require disposal) or a move away from the base minerals mined/extracted.freddofrog said:
Channel Hopper
Members
Now you are brushing over facts.freddofrog said:
The nitrogen contained in diesel is also converted to NOx, but what goes in via the air filter is not all that ends up at the exhaust.
Soot - already explained, though there is also research that has reduced both soot and NOx (possibly others) by the adoption of a two stage turbocharger, and a variation of the diesel cycle itself, though from memory there are some things that require ironing out as this itself adds unwanted compounds and is cost prohibitive to engines already in use..
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
sounds pretty implausible as a solution , so as usual it's yet another irrelevant side-trackChannel Hopper said:
there is no Nitrogen in Petroleum --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel#Chemical_analysisChannel Hopper said:
show me the references you're getting this nonsense from
Channel Hopper
Members
Wiki ??????freddofrog said:
Up to to 1% of diesel at the first fraction is composed of nitro-compounds, refineries utilise HDN with - usually - a cobalt/nickel catalyst to reduce these to manageable levels but this introduces metals mentioned earlier.
https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/operations/documents/diesel-fuel-tech-review.pdf
Page 6
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
They use references StephenChannel Hopper said:
This is from one
Diesel is composed of about 75% saturated hydrocarbons (primarily paraffins including n, iso, and cycloparaffins), and 25% aromatic hydrocarbons (including naphthalenes and alkylbenzenes). The average chemical formula for common diesel fuel is C12H23, ranging from approx. C10H20 to C15H28. Petrol consists of hydrocarbons with between 5 and 12 carbon atoms per molecule but then it is blended for various uses. Overall a typical petrol sample is predominantly a mixture of paraffins (alkanes), naphthenes (cycloalkanes), aromatics and olefins (alkenes). The ratios vary based on a variety of factors.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Diesel_vs_Petrol
I don't know what you read Stephen , but in my experience there are many thousands of people in the automotive industry and in R&D who know far more than you or I, and IMO it's best to let them get on with it all. If you think you can help them with some fantastic solution, send your CV off.
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
The paragraph below is taken from here --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#Biodiesel_and_NOx
(and it does cite references Stephen)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biodiesel and its blends in general are known to reduce harmful tailpipe emissions such as: carbon monoxide; particulate matter (PM), otherwise known as soot; and unburned hydrocarbon emissions.[22] While earlier studies suggested biodiesel could sometimes decrease NOx and sometimes increase NOx emissions, subsequent investigation has shown that blends of up to 20% biodiesel in USEPA-approved diesel fuel have no significant impact on NOx emissions compared with regular diesel.[23] The state of California uses a special formulation of diesel fuel to produce less NOx relative to diesel fuel used in the other 49 states. This has been deemed necessary by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to offset the combination of vehicle congestion, warm temperatures, extensive sunlight, PM, and topography that all contribute to the formation of ozone and smog. CARB has established a special regulation for Alternative Diesel Fuels to ensure that any new fuels, including biodiesel, coming into the market do not substantially increase NOx emissions. The reduction of NOx emissions is one of the most important challenges for advances in vehicle technology. While diesel vehicles sold in the US since 2010 are dramatically cleaner than previous diesel vehicles, urban areas continue to seek more ways to reduce the formation of smog and ozone. NOx formation during combustion is ***ociated with a number of factors such as combustion temperature. As such, it can be observed that the vehicle drive cycle, or the load on the engine have more significant impact on NOx emissions than the type of fuel used. This may be especially true for modern, clean diesel vehicles that continuously monitor engine operation electronically and actively control engine parameters and exhaust system operations to limit NOx emission to less than 0.2 g/km. Low-temperature combustion or LTC technology.[2] may help reduce thermal formation of NOx during combustion, however a tradeoff exists as high temperature combustion produces less PM or soot and results in greater power and fuel efficiency.
(and it does cite references Stephen)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biodiesel and its blends in general are known to reduce harmful tailpipe emissions such as: carbon monoxide; particulate matter (PM), otherwise known as soot; and unburned hydrocarbon emissions.[22] While earlier studies suggested biodiesel could sometimes decrease NOx and sometimes increase NOx emissions, subsequent investigation has shown that blends of up to 20% biodiesel in USEPA-approved diesel fuel have no significant impact on NOx emissions compared with regular diesel.[23] The state of California uses a special formulation of diesel fuel to produce less NOx relative to diesel fuel used in the other 49 states. This has been deemed necessary by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to offset the combination of vehicle congestion, warm temperatures, extensive sunlight, PM, and topography that all contribute to the formation of ozone and smog. CARB has established a special regulation for Alternative Diesel Fuels to ensure that any new fuels, including biodiesel, coming into the market do not substantially increase NOx emissions. The reduction of NOx emissions is one of the most important challenges for advances in vehicle technology. While diesel vehicles sold in the US since 2010 are dramatically cleaner than previous diesel vehicles, urban areas continue to seek more ways to reduce the formation of smog and ozone. NOx formation during combustion is ***ociated with a number of factors such as combustion temperature. As such, it can be observed that the vehicle drive cycle, or the load on the engine have more significant impact on NOx emissions than the type of fuel used. This may be especially true for modern, clean diesel vehicles that continuously monitor engine operation electronically and actively control engine parameters and exhaust system operations to limit NOx emission to less than 0.2 g/km. Low-temperature combustion or LTC technology.[2] may help reduce thermal formation of NOx during combustion, however a tradeoff exists as high temperature combustion produces less PM or soot and results in greater power and fuel efficiency.
Goodluckmonkey
TA Friends
Fortunately my diesel runs on the tears of environmentalists.
Fuel's never been so abundant.
Fuel's never been so abundant.
Channel Hopper
Members
The link provided came from Chevron, though there is a small chance it is the non petrochemical giant from a parallel universe. There is also a not inconsiderable mention of various fuel additives included in Chapter 4 , of which four at a glance are nitrogen, plus the compounds that leech into the fuel after a short period of storage.freddofrog said:
Channel Hopper
Members
I like the smell of naphtha in the morning.Goodluckmonkey said:
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
I'm not sure what you're "thread" in this thread is Stephen.Channel Hopper said:
I give up, you just keep on moving the goal posts and/or going off into tangential areas, just as you do in other threads
Channel Hopper said:
freddofrog
won 16.4k on Euro lottery :)
that will be when you're out gathering magic mushroomsChannel Hopper said: