Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Drs against Diesel : A subsidy mafia Front

- "conflicts" 'none I just think of the children'
We here would have the perspective to know that is a weak unimaginative argument.
People in charge of institutions do have conflicts lile the feeling to keep the status quo
Keep the institution alive and research budgets the same even when analysis might show its best spent elsewhere.

And emotional appeal about children is not scientific. QALDs for both children and adults is a better measure.

Conflict of interest doesn't have to be direct corruption : it can be unknown to the person and subconscious like fitting in with relatives and friends.

Once a campaign gets rolling it can aquire conflicts of interests within it particularly about keeping funding.
Neverless funding does not mean a claim is wrong. Thats why you should look at the actual data , but always be skeptical whatever the source not just take things at face value

Jan 4, 2017 at 1:26 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@Pcar said Jan 6, 2017 at 1:39 AM
\\
It's back to pre-industrial revolution times. Next will be Horse/Ox powered power stations " 'cause they're renewable/green"
China, India etc are laughing at us destroying our economies.//

Jan 6, 2017 at 11:19 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@SandyS replied at 10:17 AM
\\Here in France there seems to be a daily campaign against the internal combustion engine. Either from Paris or the Alps. I reckon France is heading back to the horse quicker than the UK. Today, for the first time that I've heard, someone mentioned wood fires as a contributor. When out on the bike, even on the N147, at this time of year the smell of woodsmoke is everywhere and certainly much more prevalent than diesel fumes.
Now the copy and paste journalists of the snowflake generation has taken on board the internal combustion enginein general and diesel in particular are the work of the devil than there's no going back.//

Jan 6, 2017 at 11:21 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@Sandy I suspect such a PR campaign to build a narrative that EVs are a magic solution.
And it looks like someone just sent out more PR
Cos Today's Times frontpage headline is :
Diesel cars pumping out twice the toxins of lorries and buses 11 hours ago

Jan 6, 2017 at 11:47 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Sadiq Khan's July 2016 PR hypes but doesn't directly target diesel or suggest banning them

Wow see the huge list of scare stories on the KCL page

Jan 6, 2017 at 11:51 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

“Let us return to the more environmentally-sensitive horse for our transport!” The irony is that the infernal combustion engine was seen as a saviour for London, as the city was in danger of being totally engulfed in the more solid emissions from horses.

Jan 6, 2017 at 12:06 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I suspect such a PR campaign to build a narrative that diesel cars are evil and electric cars are a magic solution.
Here's the start of the Times Text

"(Image : Nitrogen oxides from diesel engines can inflame the lungs and cause respiratory diseases such as asthma)

Modern diesel cars produce more than twice as much toxic gas as a lorry or bus of the same age, analysis has found.

There is less risk of inhaling dangerous levels of nitrogen oxides from standing beside a new lorry or bus with its engine running than standing beside a car, according to the research. The results strengthen the case for tougher pollution tests for cars, which will be debated this month by EU states.

About 25,000 deaths a year in England can be linked to vehicle emissions, and nitrogen oxides from diesel engines are one of the main pollutants. They inflame the lungs, cause respiratory diseases such as asthma and have been linked to a raised risk of heart attacks, strokes and cancer. Pollution…"

Jan 6, 2017 at 12:09 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

"twice as much toxic gas" ??
One of those floppy journalism emotional phrases
.. I guess they using it for shorthand to mean particulates and NOx which in fact are a tiny proportion of what comes out the exhaust .

____________
Y&Y on Radio 4 coming up within the next 30 mins

"Do anti-pollution cycle masks work? We'll hear from a manufacturer and a government expert on air pollution."

Jan 6, 2017 at 12:19 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

OK that Y&Y didn't mention diesel at all even though the respiratory expert Harry Cole from KCL was on
He said
- Long term we need "cleaner public transport systems"
- Short term : surgical mask are too flimsy so better take a less trafficked route.
Mask corp guy said don't be put off by seeing some dust on your mask. Use one of my £25 masks I'm making good profits.

Surely main problem is traffic density. You could design urban zones to not have big busy junctions but spread traffic movements thru lots of little roads. The prog didn't mention anywhere of the London bubbleworld.

Jan 6, 2017 at 1:08 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@stewgreen

the present rash of stories appear to emanate from the usual mendacious suspects.... FoE, GP and GMG ably aided by lazy f-wit and eco-activist journalists across the MSM.

Sadiq's lurking and trying to exploit a likely earner opportunity with the ULEZ.

London bureaucrats and the stupid c**ts in the eco activist community torpedoed the adoption of gas powered vehicles several years back when they withdrew the Congestion Zone concession for clean running gas vehicles - because the revenue loss was deemed unacceptable.

The liars, the self promoting sticky fingered prod-noses deserve a whole tsunami of push-back.

*They won't go near the proven air pollution endured by tube travelers....*

Jan 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM | Registered Commentertomo

@Tomo ..an alternative to my conspiracy scenario that its driven by EV mafia : Is it all being driven by Client Earth or something ? Like did some Yank given them a massive donation and say spend this within 2 years ?
Cos there feels something fishy about it all. A fingerprint of "PR not Science"
There is real world with real risk that you cost and quantify with QALDs etc but with anti diesel narrative the arguments seem much more PR than science.
The news story carries over into the Times main editorial where the stress is :
- 'tens of thousands of people' dying
. ...em no they not .. The fig comes from a statistical attempt to represent total harm across the whole population.
- 'proven connection between traffic and dementia'
... No this a possible hypothesis raised by ONE brand new study ..it is certainly not proven science.

Jan 6, 2017 at 2:14 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Turns out the Times frontpage article is only about NOx.
So what about Ad Blue systems which is touted as a magic solution to NOx ?

Jan 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

The printed article goes on to say
"Pollution increases the risk of dementia for those living next to a busy road"
!!! That was the study reported yesterday. On R4Today the guy behind the research specifically said his research did NOT conclude that ! correlation is not proof of causation he said.

"Barry Gardiner former shadow environment minister.. has admitted it (lower diesel prices) was the wrong decision."
.... Why quote him ?... he was fired after about 2 weeks cos of his car crash interview with AF Neil where he claimed the UK is a massive gas exporter.

The stats is shows
ICCT analysis said the LATEST diesel produce lorries and buses produce 210 mg of Nitogen oxides/Km
- and NEW cars 500mg
* dingaling suspiciously round number.
Buried away on page 4 they say "the legal limit is 80mg/but this has only ever been achieved in laboratory conditions "
.... Doesn't that mean the law is BS ?

Jan 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Then the article moves to page 29 as the Times lead editorial
Choke Point
Britain needs a Clean Air Act to stop vehicle pollution that is killing tens of thousands of people a year.

Jan 6, 2017 at 3:17 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Here's the rest of what you can see outside the paywall.
Even though they put a caveat the rest of it continues to assume wrongly that yesterday's research proved.trafffic causes dementia.
"Air pollution kills. Even when it merely hastens the onset of heart and lung disease, it is the most serious and costly occupational hazard of city life. A large-scale Canadian study has now provided strong evidence that living near a busy road also heightens the risk of developing dementia.

The study was conducted in Ontario, which has a population density of 14 people per square kilometre. The figure for Britain is five times higher. As Rob Howard of University College London said yesterday, the Canadian study is “one more important reason why we must clean up the air in our cities”. Yet it is more than that. Even allowing for the caveat that the study establishes a correlation rather than a cause, it serves as ..."

Jan 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@stewgreen

I think you are correct to suspect a contrived panic. Overall - how orchestrated it is remains to be seen.

There is also definitely an EU angle in there and Brussels bureaucrats have a track record of sock puppeting to perform the HL Mencken "hobgoblin rescue maneuver"

As far as the diesel cars are concerned there have been suggestions in comments on assorted automotive blogs and web sites - that EU officialdom connived with manufacturers to bodge the testing to allow for smaller AdBlue tanks - not difficult to figure out how that likely works eh?

Let us not forget that US-EPA certainly knew about VW emmisions cheat for a minimum of 1.5 years before they used it... tactically to distract from their dumping several km^3 of toxic metal processing sludge into mountain rivers in Colorado....

Exaggeration, lies and deliberate omission run through public health and eco-campaigns to an alarming degree - it's like they have to make it out to be the absolute worst possible scenario and only they have "the solution" and it all sprouts adversarial positioning that leverages political tribalism.. "Researchers" queue up to anoint the preordained outcomes......

In short - it simply stinks.

Jan 6, 2017 at 5:14 PM | Registered Commentertomo

@stewgreen, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM

The stats is shows
ICCT analysis said the LATEST diesel produce lorries and buses produce 210 mg of Nitogen oxides/Km
- and NEW cars 500mg
* dingaling suspiciously round number.
Buried away on page 4 they say "the legal limit is 80mg/but this has only ever been achieved in laboratory conditions "
.... Doesn't that mean the law is BS ?

Those stats sound like BS to me

Lorry / Double decker bus engine: eg Cummins ISL9 14.9 L
Diesel Car avg engine size: guesstimate 1.4 L

Jan 6, 2017 at 7:07 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

@Pcar No, they wouldn't be that blatant. I think there could be some complex reason why an engine 10 times the sizes does not emit 10 times the size doesn't have 10 times the NOx.
Might be something like it achieves higher average running temp and therefore facilitates the filtering process etc.
The figs would probably be ball park, possibly cherry picked in some way.

They seem to be non lab real situation tests , so perhaps transport corps do more and better servicing than car owners.
And maybe car owners spend more time trundling in city traffic... whereas truck fleets pile on the long distance steady miles.
Also maybe cars doing 70mph have bad NOx performance.

Jan 6, 2017 at 9:44 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@stewgreen, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM

From TW blog

Actually, umm, no, that’s not quite true:

It found that heavy-duty vehicles tested in Germany and Finland emitted about 210mg NOx per kilometre driven, less than half the 500mg/km pumped out by modern diesel cars that meet the highest “Euro 6” standard. However, the buses and trucks have larger engines and burn more diesel per kilometre, meaning that cars produce 10 times more NOx per litre of fuel.

Fiddling with the numbers there then.

Jan 6, 2017 at 9:48 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

FWIW I have been told by a mechanic that prior to MOT'ing a diesel vehicle, it is common practice to pour some magic potion into the fuel tank. My experience of diesel engines is mainly yachts, which do not require an MOT, and I do not own a diesel car.

Motor factors all sell magic potions as fuel additives, for pre-MOT use to "help" with emissions tests, both petrol and diesel. I have never had reason to use one, or search for info on efficiency.

It would be interesting to know if they do work, and if so, how?

Jan 6, 2017 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Killing diesel is very lucrative big game hunting, yielding moolah and social capital galore to the early SJW crew that touts the hunt. Clearly this gang, with their sophisticated use of the BBC for their sock puppet and the clowns entertaining in front of Parliament makes these guys worth watching. Who knows what pranks and acts they will perform?

Jan 6, 2017 at 11:28 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Does anyone know what happens to NOx and "particulate" production if diesel engines are run on vegetable oils?

Jan 7, 2017 at 12:08 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@golf charlie, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:06 PM

FWIW I have been told by a mechanic that prior to MOT'ing a diesel vehicle, it is common practice to pour some magic potion into the fuel tank. My experience of diesel engines is mainly yachts, which do not require an MOT, and I do not own a diesel car.

Motor factors all sell magic potions as fuel additives, for pre-MOT use to "help" with emissions tests, both petrol and diesel. I have never had reason to use one, or search for info on efficiency.

It would be interesting to know if they do work, and if so, how?

They do work, but often not necessary.

A school friend owns a garage and is an MOT tester. All diesels are thrashed round block before test = >95% pass

If fails emission test, he eschews the pour into tank. Instead pours into fuel filter and another thrash around longer block. 99% pass rate.

The cleaners are (iirc) paraffin, detergents, solvents, de-emulsifiers plus Brand Name fairy dust. Forte is his preferred brand.

Info: I have run garage when he's sick/holiday and done the thrashing, I do not own/drive a diesel. A good thrashing aka Italian tune-up is good for petrol engines too.

Jan 7, 2017 at 12:50 AM | Registered CommenterPcar

@golf charlie, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:08 AM

Does anyone know what happens to NOx and "particulate" production if diesel engines are run on vegetable oils?

@stewgreen,

For GC, ask Charles on R800 IT: eg "OT - Charles diesel veg oil question".

Jan 7, 2017 at 1:27 AM | Registered CommenterPcar

Pcar, thank you. I am familiar withe Italian Tune Up! It has been my understanding that getting an engine upto, and a bit over, its "normal operating temperature" helped to burn off the accumulated coke/carbon etc, that had built up because the engine had not been running at a high enough temperature.

I have done it to yacht engines (generally diesels designed in the 1960s-70s) and a rather scary amount of black "sooty" exhaust smoke comes out. I do remember London Taxis 20+ years ago, coming out of London full blast, to Heathrow, belching black smoke. I also remember many diesel vehicles with aluminium foil on their radiator grilles, to reduce cooling.

Does an Italian Tune Up work with sophisticated electronic management chips? It seems Volkswagen got into legal difficulties because their chips were too clever!

Jan 7, 2017 at 1:30 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie