In Response to Pollution Spike, Paris Temporarily Halves Traffic By Decree 198
As reported by News.com.au, the city of Paris has implemented a harsh (but temporary) measure for drivers, in response to a surge in pollution: banning cars with even-numbered registration plates from the streets. According to the article,
City mayor Anne Hidalgo had asked authorities to prevent one in every two cars from taking to the capital’s streets and make all public transport temporarily free in a bid to drive down pollution. Only vehicles with numberplates ending in an odd number will be allowed to drive, though exceptions exist for vehicles like taxis, electric cars and ambulances. ... Public transportation is to be free until at least Monday in Paris and its surrounding towns in an effort to force pollution down by coaxing drivers to give up their cars for a few days. Similar emergency measures were last implemented almost exactly a year ago — on March 17 — during a particularly bad spike in the pollution levels.
Evens are evil (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that French politicians have odd numbered plates . . .
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing that French politicians have odd numbered plates . . .
They have odd or even numbered plates. That only depends on their current needs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that French politicians have odd numbered plates . . .
These measures do not affect the wealthy, who can afford multiple vehicles and custom plates. They only affect the poor. I believe a politician, upon hearing this news, said what, they cannot afford to get to work? let them drive their second cars, but that cannot be confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it will alternate even and odd, the article is incomplete...
I don't think it will, at least not daily.
What you think does not matter, the reality is that they will alternate if the measure lasts more than one day. The measure is even called "circulation alternée", let me not translate that for you.
Temporary (Score:2)
Band-aid on a gushing wound here. We're just pushing issues around and avoiding the real one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Temporary (Score:5, Interesting)
We've been doing this for years, both with cap&trade and with better emissions standards. Countries need to start doing a lot more and not just passing the buck so politicians can get reelected again. At some point we as a whole need to make some changes that are going to make people comfortable with the norm pretty unhappy. They can deal with it and adjust, but the norm isn't going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't edit, but when I say doing this for years I mean putting band-aids on. We need real, legitimate change.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't want change if it causes short term discomfort.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, I agree, and it's also the reason that no real change will ever happen until we are literally on the brink of extinction and we're forced to choose between killing off the entire race or reverting to an age without fossil fuels (or moving on to an age where we no longer need fossil fuels by using alternate fuels). Politicians in the US shoot for being career politicians, so they won't ever rock the boat. We'll never get the change that's needed until the last possible second.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I want your post to be true so much. In reality, they'll just apply for the exception in the law and if they are denied, they will throw money to a politician until they get added to the exception list.
Good. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. This is an example of an issue on which the Libertarians and believers in the Adam Smith's "invisible hand" are being very quiet. Because they have no answer. Regulation and government nudging are the only things that can deal with a pollution problem.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
They'll likely convince some people to continue with public transportation, which would be a victory, even if small.
Probably not. We are voting this Sunday. My guess is that people will be so upset not to be allowed to take their car tomorrow, that they will vote for the very first idiot that will promise to ban the measure. Usually, these idiots are right wing extremists.
I'm not very optimistic. Mankind is greedy by nature and probably can't understand the logic of environment preservation as long as it generates a net individual loss.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, that's why the pollution is being controlled. Your freedom to pollute stops at the other guy's lungs.
Continued high pollution is a net loss in terms of healthcare, illness, and early deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'Greens' were pushing people to drive diesels years ago. Now they're pushing people to stop driving diesels, because, as we pointed out at the time, diesel is a crappy, stinky, carcinogenic monstrosity.
Maybe it would be easier to just stop listening to the 'Greens' in the first place.
On the plus side, that's likely to happen after the next election, as this kind of nonsense just pushes people to vote for parties that haven't been taken over by Watermelons.
Not alternating numbers on alternating days? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad there's so much car ownership there... (Score:2)
Too bad there's so much car ownership there...
If only fewer people owned cars there, and instead car-pooled using Uber...
Re: (Score:2)
There already is a shared car scheme in Paris, which followed on from the shared bicycles scheme Velib.
https://www.autolib.eu/en/vent... [autolib.eu]
And the issue here is pollution, not traffic. These shared cars are electric, so not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
And the issue here is pollution, not traffic. These shared cars are electric, so not a problem.
In the spring lots of particles are released from the road, those particles have slowly accumulated during a long period of wet weather. Decreasing traffic reduces the amount of those particles that are launched up into the air, not by much, but hopefully enough to not be fined for it. I guess electric cars help a bit but not enough by a long shot.
There are three ways to solve mobility in cities
1. walk
2. public transport
3. bikes
Trying to use cars for personal transport has failed for all cities that has tri
Too broad (Score:2)
They have a specific problem (NOx and PM), but they address it with broad measures. It may work to some degree, but the costs are significant. (And I still remember car being completely banned on a Sunday... that was even broader, but it also carried a sense of purpose and community.)
But my main issue is that these measures are very late. Surely they should be taken before pollution reaches unacceptable level, to prevent that from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
It's temporary. The pollution is being concentrated by weather right now - once the weather changes, the temporary measure can be rescinded.
Re: (Score:2)
And I still remember car being completely banned on a Sunday
That sounds backwards. Where I live, public transportation is "completely banned on a Sunday". (Source: fwcitilink.com)
Re: (Score:2)
CITILINK BUSES DO NOT OPERATE on Sundays, New
Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
I guess now we know why traffic is such a big problem for LA.
Why isn't public transport 'free'? (Score:5, Interesting)
Public transport uptake would likely increase dramatically, at least here in Australia, if it were free. It probably wouldn't change train usage, but for buses and trams there would likely be a marked uptake. I suppose it might be a hard sell due to the cost, though the benefits of fewer cars on the road might sell that pretty well.
At a guess, I'd say there are two main reasons people don't use public transport: it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path, and it's inconvenient to have to carry the correct quantity of cash / make sure a bus card has enough money on it; for the poorer demographic the cost part is probably a greater component. Having more people using public transport would probably result in increased availability / paths for public transport, mitigating the first problem a bit.
Just seems a bit weird; if you want cars off the road, reduce the benefits of using one (using a bus would eliminate wear & tear, fuel, and parking costs). As a bonus your population's health might improve very slightly as people are walking to and from the bus stops.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live, public transport is running at peak capacity during rush hour. Reducing the price isn't going to have a significant effect on the road traffic. Making it free will likely attract some people that aren't currently on the road at all, such as junkies looking for a comfortable place to sit.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live, public transport is running at peak capacity during rush hour.
A lot of places effectively have free off-peak travel for commuters. Anyone who regularly uses buses or trains to commute has a weekly or monthly travel card.
I don't know why they can't extend it to give everyone free off-peak travel. The cost is highly subsidised already, so it makes sense to get more people using it for a small drop in revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
At a guess, I'd say there are two main reasons people don't use public transport: it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path, and it's inconvenient to have to carry the correct quantity of cash / make sure a bus card has enough money on it; for the poorer demographic the cost part is probably a greater component.
You're only looking at the demand side of things. You also need to look at the supply side. If you are going to greatly increase demand, you're going to have to increase supply. Public transportation systems don't always scale linearly in terms of cost per supply. In other words, you can't just throw more buses and trains at the problem to increase capacity. You need to hire more people, build more stations, which increases fixed costs in relation to maintenance and HR costs. Seemingly paradoxically, buses
Re: (Score:2)
Anyways, what you need to do is look at all these costs and decide if it makes sense. It might be cheaper and have more impact to simply subsidize the heck out of plug-in hybrids, or develop a Zipcar style system.
Cars costs a lot, especially in space, that is the biggest subsidize you get. Sure it's a sunk cost for all apartments and houses, but it's still something that we pay a lot of money to maintain and extend. Individual cars will never ever be cheap, it might seem like it's cheap if you think that everyone should have one.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why zipcars make sense. Some people only need to drive once and a while. Some people can use public transportation some of the time but not all of the time. Some people can't use public transportation at all and have to drive everywhere.
Unless you know what mix you're going to end up with, throwing gobs of money at public transportation might be a waste. A mixed system is probably better.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that the average car gets 25 mpg, and the average bus gets even 5 mpg, and that idling emissions are proportional to the gas mileage, wouldn't it take just five passengers on the bus to equal one automobile with a single driver?
I'm not sure where you are
Re: (Score:2)
Paris has reasonable public transport I think, and France isn't bad for EV charging points either. Of course, EVs are exempt from this ban since they don't emit anything.
Emissions displacement (Score:2)
EVs are exempt from this ban since they don't emit anything.
Electric vehicles themselves do not emit, but they cause power plants to emit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear waste isn't really that big a problem if it's contained properly, which it almost always is. We'd be much better off as a planet if we use nuclear as our main power source, and used hydro, geothermal, solar, and wind to help where it's possible.
Coal needs to go. Period.
Nonproliferation; Fukushima (Score:2)
About 80% of France's electrical energy comes from nuclear power plants
But how many countries other than France could come to claim the same? I thought arms nonproliferation treaties limited which countries could operate nuclear power. And even if not, how can public sentiment get over a little problem called Fukushima?
Re: (Score:3)
Except in France, where only about 8% of their electricity comes from fossil fuels [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd gladly cut the Defense budget in 1/2. But I'm also the type that would spend that on NASA, NOAA, DOT and fixing the embarrassment that is the United states infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you paid $1000 in taxes...
$600 went to buy bullet to kill people. ......
$200 went to pay for operation costs for government
$100 went to pay for infrastructure
$50 went to pay for social programs (Education is a social program, damn poor wanting to learn)
$0.05 of your taxes went to NASA and science.
As a country we value killing people way way above science.
Re: (Score:2)
it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path
Bingo. There are a lot of cities where the number of lines operating on Sundays or major holidays is a big fat goose egg (zero). So riders have to schedule their lives around 36 to 60 hour scheduled downtimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because in most places, public transport is ran by the government and governments/politicians have a tendency to make businesses and contributors happy, not their constituents. Most public transport thus does not run where YOU want to go but rather where people go to spend money, where contributors have lobbied the thing to be built and whatever other decisions make the now privatized bus companies the most money (cutting lines, frequency and convenience while increasing costs and filling vehicles well beyo
Its not mostly diesel (Score:2)
There is a lot of political pressure in Paris to push out diesel motors, which are often the main source of summer pollution peaks. This .
one actually has another origin: (French source) http://www.airparif.asso.fr/ac... [airparif.asso.fr]
There is actually a cloud over much of north Europe, not just Paris. The origin is firstly agricultural.
Its mostly ammonium nitrate from spring fertilizer spreading. The second source is wood burning out in the country. Diesel
is the third source in this outbreak.
The real political problem is
Re: (Score:3)
Fundamental attribution error [wikipedia.org], much?
Banning cars? (Score:2)
How about banning all those barely running properly mopeds and scooters? Last time I was there the smell of two cycle engine exhaust was prevalent about every 5th scooter that went by.
Every single scooter I have ever seen yes even the top of the line vespas have horrible engines that blast out a lot of unburned fuel as they are never maintained right. and so far I have yet to see a moped sold that has a Catalytic converter and fuel injection, so even new ones are spewing more smog than 2 cars.
This doesn't work (Score:3)
This was tried in Athens. What actually happens is that 2 car families who have the option no longer take the smaller, less polluting car half the time, and lots of 1 car families buy a really cheap clapped out, much more polluting car to use on alternate days.
Reduces trafic by alienating the poor. (Score:3)
Bogota, Colombia has legislated no drive days all year round. Pico placa publishes the last digits in the paper.
Anyone of wealth just has multiple vehicles.
How much do you want to bet... (Score:2)
....Anne's license plate is even?
If this were me, I'd just go get my license plate re-issued.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not? You allow only half the vehicles on the street today and the other half tomorrow. You have halfed your traffic and brought your pollution levels down. It is quite simple to enforce by number plates. Petrol today and diesel tomorrow on the other hand is difficult to enforce, makes no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not? You allow only half the vehicles on the street today and the other half tomorrow. You have halfed your traffic and brought your pollution levels down. It is quite simple to enforce by number plates. Petrol today and diesel tomorrow on the other hand is difficult to enforce, makes no sense.
I agree, but there's nothing in the article to suggest that it'll be half the vehicles today and the other half tomorrow. Instead it says "Only vehicles with numberplates ending in an odd number will be allowed to drive... for a few days" You'd think it'd be odd numbered plates on odd numbered days and even plates on even days, but that's not what it says.
But come to think of it, that'd be a little weird: you'd be able to drive your car into the city on one day, but wouldn't be able to drive it out the next
Re: (Score:2)
They did this in San Jose, Costa Rica (and maybe they still do, I don't know). Cars were each restricted one weekday. Plates ending in 1 or 2 on Monday, 3 or 4 on Tuesday, etc. It wasn't 24 hours, it was from ~6am to 8pm.
It was somewhat successful, though not surprisingly considerably less than a 20% reduction. Taxis were not restricted, and of course
Re:They should go (Score:5, Informative)
I agree, but there's nothing in the article to suggest that it'll be half the vehicles today and the other half tomorrow. Instead it says "Only vehicles with numberplates ending in an odd number will be allowed to drive... for a few days" You'd think it'd be odd numbered plates on odd numbered days and even plates on even days, but that's not what it says.
"It" being an Australian news source that is being a bit vague. What actually happens in Paris is that it goes by whether the day of the month is odd or even. Monday is 23rd, so only odd digit cars are allowed on the road. If it extends to the 24th, then only even numbered cars will be allowed.
And the ban certainly does apply within the city. Pleading ignorance will still get you a fine.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually odd plates on odd days, even plates on even days.
Over the long run, that's statistically unfair to the even-plated people since the odd-plated folks can drive consecutive days on ;-) Mar 31/Apr1 May 31/Jun1 July 31/Aug 1 Aug 31/Sep 1 Oct 31/Nov 1
Jan 31/Feb 1 (Feb 29/Mar 1 looooong run
Re: (Score:2)
That will just cause people to buy/rent a second car for use on the days their existing car isn't permitted...
The registration database includes information as to wether the vehicle uses petrol, diesel or electric etc so it's no harder to enforce.
Re: (Score:2)
That will just cause people to buy/rent a second car for use on the days their existing car isn't permitted...
If this were to happen all year round, sure people would buy a second car. But not for the very rare day that this happens.
And there are only a limited number of rental cars available. Of which only half would be useful.
The registration database includes information as to wether the vehicle uses petrol, diesel or electric etc so it's no harder to enforce.
There's no ring of barriers round Paris with computer controlled opening, such as you are imagining. This is enforced by police using eyesight. Even/odd is far easier than petrol/diesel, even if there were agreement that it would be reasonable to ban one or the other based on fuel. The Frenc
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? You allow only half the vehicles on the street today and the other half tomorrow. You have halfed your traffic and brought your pollution levels down. It is quite simple to enforce by number plates. Petrol today and diesel tomorrow on the other hand is difficult to enforce, makes no sense.
What's strange though is that the article makes no mention of an alternating schedule. If it was alternating between odd and even
then this seems like a weird but reasonable solution. Just banning even number plates without alternating is very bizarre. Why not
just ban all the cars?
Re:They should go (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but you're missing the crucial point that "No Diesel" is very hard to enforce -- typically diesel commuter cars have only a small badge (if that) to distinguish them from the petrol versions, and the badge is different in appearance and placement between manufacturers and models. By contrast, banning cars based on license plate is very easy to enforce, as they are standard across vehicles and police are already accustomed to inspecting them by habit.
In short, a non-optimal rule that can be enforced is much better than an optimal rule that can't.
Re: (Score:2)
The license database already includes information about what type of fuel a car uses, the same system that recognises license plates can also be configured to flag cars using the wrong fuel, or with an engine over a certain size etc.
Re: (Score:3)
The 'system' is almost certainly the Mark I eyeball. I think you underestimate the configuration difficulties.
Re: (Score:2)
It's in Paris, so I believe it would be the Jacques eyeball.
Re: (Score:2)
diesel isn't so bad now on passenger cars.
very hard to enforce such a ban anyways, though it would be fairly simple to allow for full electrics. of course, this being about france, they'll probably just buy two shitty cars to drive every day anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
they'll probably just buy two shitty cars to drive every day anyways.
Which is EXACTLY what happened in Mexico City when they tried this sort of thing. It wound up making the problem worse.
Bureaucrats need to learn that you cannot force people to change their habits. They will work around any restrictions and then resent you for it. You have to change the environment that makes gas-burning cars attractive--improve public transit, subsidize electric (or raise petrol taxes, either way), mixed-zoning so people don't have to go as far for daily needs, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really fair to diesel owners, which include most of the business vehicles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The diesel problem isn't a combustion one: diesel is more efficient than petrrol. In case you wonder what "more efficient", that is that the combustion rate is higher than that of petrol.
The problem lies with particle emissions / N compounds emissions. That's where diesel pollutes much more than petrol.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem lies with particle emissions / N compounds emissions. That's where diesel pollutes much more than petrol.
false [slashdot.org]
You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Right back at you, kid.
It's not surprising that you don't know what you're talking about, because TPTB don't want you to know that gasoline is just as polluting as diesel. But it's sad that you're repeating this uninformed canard.
Nitric oxides are important, they are what causes acid rain, but they are nothing compared to particulates and CO2 — especially since we've reduced them so very much. And gasoline is actually worse than diesel in this regard because all of the soot is PM2.5. Modern die
Re: (Score:3)
Diesel engines are much more polluting than petrol since the combustion is incomplete.
I already know about the difference between the official trope about diesel pollution and the improvement reached nowadays, but that wasn't the point.
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting the lead compounds that petrol contains to reduce knocking.
We are playing at "pretend it's the 1980s", right?
Re: (Score:3)
>> Diesel engines are much more polluting than petrol
Not in France. Most diesel engines here have FAP filters.
Re:They should go (Score:5, Funny)
What?
You cannot masturbate while driving a diesel car in France?
I'm shocked.
Re: (Score:2)
This is France! It's mandatory to have a mademoiselle with you.
"Oh yes, the French are still MEN! They signal with their right and with the left they wave at the mademoiselles."
"And what do they hold the steering wheel with?"
"I said, the French are still MEN!"
Re: (Score:3)
While it's true that a diesel without emissions control emits more highly dangerous particulates, this is not 1970. In an advanced economy any properly maintained, recent model diesel vehicle is going to be as clean as its gasoline counterpart.
It's worth considering banning the most polluting vehicles rather than arbitrarily banning half of all vehicles, but you can't do it this way. One way to do it would be to ban older vehicles, or vehicles of a certain weight carrying fewer than two or three passenger
Re: (Score:3)
They say diesel gives almost 1.5 times the fuel efficiency of petrol. So even if it is more polluting by the gallon, if you need less of it you have less pollution, no?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Utter nonsense. I drive a French car which is a 2Litre diesel and it's cleaner than either its 1.6 or 2Litre petrol engined models.
http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/49545/citroen-c4-grand-picasso-2.0-bluehdi-exclusive+-150-eat6-auto-diesel-automatic-6-speed
http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/53981/citroen-c4-grand-picasso-1.6i-thp-exclusive-165hp-s&s-eat6-auto-petrol-automatic-6-speed
Re:They should go (Score:4, Informative)
Except it's not a question of green. CO2 emissions here aren't what's causing the problem, it's particulate matter and Nitrous Oxides.
From your own link your diesel produces double the NOx emissions.
Not wanting cancer trumps the minor differences in CO2 emissions between the models, and diesel is definitely no longer considered greener or healthier the way it used to be.
Re:They should go (Score:5, Funny)
For god sake, did you even looked at the pictures in the links?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Only petrol no diesel instead of only odd no even ,, which does not make sense.
Bullshit. Modern diesels are at least as clean as gassers. Gasoline engines produce much more soot than originally thought, just as much as diesels, and the soot is all fine particulates — the most hazardous kind.
France is trying to ban diesels because it's easier than increasing the tax on diesel fuel. Gasoline is taxed higher than diesel fuel. They get more tax revenue when you burn gasoline, especially since you burn more of it. Meanwhile, it takes 60% as much energy to make diesel as gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the PM2.5 issue, I'm starting to wonder if "modern" diesels might actually be worse than older ones. At least older diesels produce big particulates that are more easily filtered or washed out by rain. Plus, they get better fuel economy, can run on biodiesel without clogging the common-rail injectors, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the PM2.5 issue, I'm starting to wonder if "modern" diesels might actually be worse than older ones.
The new ones have less of everything but PM2.5, so it's kind of a difficult argument. Best-case, IMO, is a modern (common-rail) diesel but without the emissions trap crap... run on biodiesel.
I'm thinking hard again about a propane conversion, but only if I can run it on methane as well. Then the hard part will be getting enough biomass, and getting it into one of those big bags people are using for water tanks now.
They are aware... (Score:3)
There was recently a good talk about smog in China. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and that reason is that during the cleanup after WWII, the French didn't bath much due to a soap shortage. Having occupying Nazis goose stepping everywhere will do that and it takes a while to recover.
I don't imagine you'd smell all that pleasant if the last time you were able to find a bar of soap was 6 months ago.
Re:That's NOT the cause (Score:4, Interesting)
You'd be wrong then. Soap is not needed to avoid smelling like a French man. Just regular bathing.
Other than getting oil and other sticky substances off my hands I can't recall the last time I used soap. My work colleagues might hesitate to tell me if I did smell but my dance partners wouldn't - they'd not only tell me, they'd refuse to dance with me.
Luckily I shower daily (or more) and stay clean and avoid smelling of dirt, stale sweat and garlic.
Soap? Totally fucking irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Or your partner just got used to it and you have been walking blissfully unaware past wilting flowers and bloodshot eyes.
Or perhaps you aren't also short on antiperspirant and fresh water to shower in.
Re: That's NOT the cause (Score:2)
Wash your hands, please.
Re: (Score:2)
There is that too. People think that if they don't smell like the latest perfume added to their soap that they need more.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One word: Cologne, French for "Bathes? Bathes? We don't need no stinkin' bathes".
Yeah, everyone I know who has actually been to France says that the French still don't bathe, and still wear too much perfume. The combination is especially revolting. It's how patchouli got the full force of its bad name. Yeah, it smells like BO already. Then hippies started using it to "cover" BO, which is to say, amplify. It has a superadditive affect with hippie stink.
Most cologne and perfume is toxic, yes most. The stuff ought to be banned, or at least strictly regulated which would amount to basically
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:But are cars the source (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, talking about Paris, the pollution will be dominated by cars. There aren't many industrial sources in the city.
typical ignorant American (Score:3, Informative)
The diesel sold in Europe is much better fuel than the one we dump into trucks and trains. Lower sulfur, for one thing, although we are catching up. Most environmentally friendly motor fuel is diesel (no, it is not the remote-polluting electrics; look at the output of, for example, the Four Corners power complex). Modern biodiesel burns clean and has a very low carbon footprint. Soot traps take care of the particulates.
Additionally, diesel fuel has much more energy available by volume or mass, is less f
Re:typical ignorant American (Score:4, Interesting)
The diesel sold in Europe is much better fuel than the one we dump into trucks and trains. Lower sulfur, for one thing, although we are catching up.
Our trucks are already running on ULSD, but not our trains, or our ships.
hygrophobic (doesn't pull water from the air into the fuel tank) than the lighter hydrocarbons
But diesels have more openly vented tanks, letting air move in and out of the tank freely while the vehicle isn't even being used. I don't think this is a benefit worth mentioning.
Anyway, modern gasoline engines (small, direct-injected, with a turbo) are even more efficient than diesels, because you don't have to carry around a heavy block. And modern diesels re-burn their exhaust until they make fine smog just like a gasser. So the advantages are vanishing. We even know how to make a 1:1 biofuel replacement for gasoline out of any organic material. Unfortunately, BP and DuPont sued Gevo to prevent them from selling it to us. We'd be able to buy it in the USA right now if not for BP and DuPont, the evil fucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was going to say, we've been on ultra low sulfur diesel for a few years now. Another point worth mentioning is that all trucks in the US have to meet stringent exhaust regulations, so most have some form of exhaust cleaning system. I've seen, in my lifetime, trucks go from belching out big clouds of black smoke, to creating near invisible exhaust.
That said, I don't know where the OP got the idea diesel was cleaner than gasoline.
Re: (Score:3)
Most environmentally friendly motor fuel is diesel
no it isn't, not even by a long shot.. Natural Gas and Propane vehicles trounce them in terms of environmental impact. In most places, considering the power grid is rapidly cleaning itself up, electrics would as well.
Do you think that diesel fuel magically jumped from miles down in the earth, refined itself, and showed up in your gas station all by itself? It's a very energy intensive process, using a lot of electricity usually derived from coal or natural gas, and/or coal/natural gas burnt right in
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a much better solution than arbitrarily imposing a ban on only half the population. Making it apply to everyone in some way is a much saner approach.