Paris, Madrid, Athens, Mexico City Will Ban Diesel Vehicles By 2025 (bbc.com) 243
The mayors of four major global cities -- Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens -- announced plans to stop the use of all diesel-powered cars and trucks by 2025. The leaders made their commitments in Mexico at a biennial meeting of city leaders. BBC reports: At the C40 meeting of urban leaders in Mexico, the four mayors declared that they would ban all diesel vehicles by 2025 and "commit to doing everything in their power to incentivize the use of electric, hydrogen and hybrid vehicles." "It is no secret that in Mexico City, we grapple with the twin problems of air pollution and traffic," said the city's mayor, Miguel Angel Mancera. "By expanding alternative transportation options like our Bus Rapid Transport and subway systems, while also investing in cycling infrastructure, we are working to ease congestion in our roadways and our lungs." Paris has already taken a series of steps to cut the impact of diesel cars and trucks. Vehicles registered before 1997 have already been banned from entering the city, with restrictions increasing each year until 2020. The use of diesel in transport has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, as concerns about its impact on air quality have grown. The World Health Organization (WHO) says that around three million deaths every year are linked to exposure to outdoor air pollution. Diesel engines contribute to the problem in two key ways -- through the production of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Very fine soot PM can penetrate the lungs and can contribute to cardiovascular illness and death. Nitrogen oxides can help form ground level ozone and this can exacerbate breathing difficulties, even for people without a history of respiratory problems. The diesel ban is hugely significant. Carmakers will look at this decision and know it's just a matter of time before other city mayors follow suit.
circling the city (Score:2)
Not mine, you won't... (Score:3)
You'll get my 2008 Mercedes ML320 CDI diesel when you pry the key from my cold, dead fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll get my 2008 Mercedes ML320 CDI diesel when you pry the key from my cold, dead fingers.
The only people who expect to outlive their car are those with terminal illnesses.
Re: (Score:2)
You can keep it, you just won't be allowed to drive it into the city.
Look, I know you like it, but you have to consider the harm it does to other people too... And there are some awesome EVs you could replace it with.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some awesome EVs you might replace it with. I live in rural Minnesota. EVs won't cut it for me, especially since I take long trips away from Interstates.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some awesome EVs you might replace it with. I live in rural Minnesota. EVs won't cut it for me, especially since I take long trips away from Interstates.
And do you drive quite often from rural Minnesota to Paris, Madrid, Athens or Mexico City?
Or to LA, SF Bay area, NYC, DC etc for that matter, if large US cities decided to introduce similar restrictions?
Or are you just posting to declare how the article has absolutely no relevance to you? Because if everyone posts to every article just to point out that it has nothing to do with them and they have no opinion that's relevant to the topic then the SNR around here would be even lower than it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I drive quite often to the Twin Cities. Next?
Re: (Score:2)
probably not applicable to many USA cities...
You are exactly correct here. Once you get outside the rabbit warrens of the upper Atlantic coast, the cities are large enough physically that conventional mass transit as Europeans think of it does not work as well. Sure, lots of folks depend on it, but they accept mobility restrictions that only a car can alleviate.
And then there's the USA outside the cities...
So much for biodiesel use... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They pollute more, even as they consume less.
Re:So much for biodiesel use... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not really true. The type of polution from engines is heavily influenced by politics. And politics determined that minimising CO2 was more important than the consequences for NOx. Diesel engines used to run without making ANY NOx. However, because of the political need to reduce CO2, they were modified to minimise CO2 regardless of the consequences for NOx.
Totally separately, if you don't have a particulate filter, the particulates are pretty bad. The type of filter that has been widely used depends on burning off the particulates. It is quite easy to design other kinds, but, AFAIK, this type is mandated by law. And it has major problems.
Petrol (Gasoline) engines are significantly worse with regard to all types of emissions but the clean-up solutions in use work a bit better.
Banning diesels will not turn out well. Banning older diesels instead of fitting them with an effective particulate filter is what has caused the current problems. But there is no way the world's politicians will admit they caused the disaster when they can blame the auto industry. And no way America will admit gasoline is worse than diesel.
Re: (Score:3)
Diesel engines used to run without making ANY NOx. However, because of the political need to reduce CO2, they were modified to minimise CO2 regardless of the consequences for NOx.
Totally separately, if you don't have a particulate filter, the particulates are pretty bad.
Well, congratulations, you got that completely and totally wrong. You could not be more wrong if you were trying to be wrong.
First, NOx is produced any time you have combustion in the presence of nitrogen. Diesels produce more NOx than gassers because they have higher combustion temperatures. It's not unusual for someone to turn the fuel up on their diesel just a bit without understanding the consequences and melt a hole right in one of their fancy forged Aluminum pistons. This is why an exhaust gas pyromet
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they should add DPFs like the US and Europe have.
Re: (Score:2)
And still has a hell of a lot of particulate emissions, negatively impacting air quality in major cities, which you might note are the entities banning the diesels here.
Gasoline has just as much particulate emissions as diesel. [slashdot.org] It's just a smaller soot particle which we couldn't accurately measure until recently. Of course, DPFs on diesels reburn the soot until it's a small, invisible particle just like gasoline, making it just as dangerous as gasoline.
Banning diesel is not the remedy. Banning combustion is the remedy. Banning diesel is just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're opposed to hydrogen fuel.
I'm against wasting it with combustion, unless you're welding.
Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Logic and reality means nothing to these officious, ignorant twits. They just pass laws requiring vehicles to get a billion mpg and one part per trillion trillion trillion of "pollution". We'll see what happens when everybody in these hovels starts to die because their food can't even begin to be delivered.
Those who built the industrial revolution would toss their cookies to see their offspring committing mass suicide by throttling themselves to death a
Re: (Score:2)
This, a thousand times, this.
but you forgot to add self-important politicians - times 10,000.
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot haul loads of people or freight on batteries
Logic and reality means nothing to these officious, ignorant twits.
Yes, because ad hominem attacks are the solution to our problems. If only there was a solution for moving people without desiel, but such a thing is obviously not possible right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Min
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no current replacement for a diesel.
Natural Gas for trucks.
Electric, Natrual Gas, or Petrol for cars.
You see I don't need to think. I can just look. Many countries have gas infrastructure in place (including much of western europe with every other service station already offering a fillup point), and some countries are well on the way to this already. e.g. Australia has replaced busses and large government vehicles in all major cities with nat gas for a good 10 years already because it was cheaper and far far cleaner than diesel, despite what
Re: (Score:2)
You keep pushing for electric and natural gas on this thread, do you own an electric car? Do you know how much it costs just to rent the battery?
Most people don't care about the emissions, if they cared most people would ride bicycles, what most people do is look at how much the car costs, how much it costs to run and how much it costs to keep it running properly. If people want drivers to look at electric cars seriously make them cheaper to buy and to run than their internal combustion variants.
I drive
Re: (Score:2)
You keep pushing for electric and natural gas on this thread, do you own an electric car? Do you know how much it costs just to rent the battery?
Nope, but my neighbour does, and so do 4 other people in the street. The cost to rent the battery is zero. The battery is purchased and depreciated just like the rest of the vehicle. This works out much cheaper than equivalent cars over the life of the car due to the high cost of diesel combined with the extremely low cost of maintenance for an electric vehicle. Add to that the lack of emission taxes and you can see why the number of electric cars in the world is currently undergoing exponential growth.
Most people don't care about the emissions
*cou
Re: (Score:2)
The cost to rent the battery is zero. The battery is purchased and depreciated just like the rest of the vehicle. This works out much cheaper than equivalent cars over the life of the car due to the high cost of diesel combined with the extremely low cost of maintenance for an electric vehicle.
Not where I live, as I told you, using the manufacturer's simulators the electric was simply not an option for me.
*cough* Yeah look most people *cough cough* don't give a shit about the *cough* environment. Sorry it's all the emissions in the air.
Yeah, tell that to the Asians, we mess the environment up while boosting our economies with low cost, highly polluting fuels, but no, you can't do that, have fun buying a new clean car with your monthly 100 dollars.
Stretching much? No demand for second hand new technology that is currently undergoing exponential growth in a world where more and more diesel and petrol engines are being banned? I'll bet you a Marsbar that the resale value of a diesel is far lower than the resale value of an electric car in 10 years time.
Not stretching at all, if we make the lifetime ownership cost a car the resale value is relevant. If I were a betting man I would take that bet, 10 years go by very fast. A 2012 Nissa
Re: (Score:2)
I keep saying this:
I'll drive an EV when it can carry the load my ML320 does (or, if you like, an Explorer or Trailblazer or Grand Cherokee) for at least 300 miles on and off Interstate highways at freeway speed (70+ MPH) with adequate power reserves for passing, then be ready to do it again in 15 minutes, repeated indefinitely. Oh, and I have to be able to buy it used for $15K or so.
The technology is nowhere close to that yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, government-funded climatista cults do.
Re: (Score:2)
Not heavy, bulky. It's not 300, but 750 or 1000. And I do it enough that buying an environmentally-correct car would severely cramp my activities. Oh, and rent? The closest car rental place is 50 miles away. Gas-guzzling? I get 30 MPG highway, and 600 miles between fuel stops. (I don't push the low-fuel light. It'll actually break 700.) The ML320 is *not* supersized unless you think a proper size is a European econobox.
Re: (Score:2)
The maximum price is reflection of my reality, post-Obama recovery. I can't afford a new Lexus RX any more. I have to settle for used.
I bought the ML320 a couple of years ago, with 133K miles on it. It looked like it just rolled off the line, and I paid about that amount of money for it. You can get that kind of deal if you look around. I doubt the Tesla Model X will ever fit that price point, even if it did meet my other parameters. (No folding back seat in an SUV? Dumb, dumb, dumb.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
actually, a diesel engine can be cleaner than gasoline engine with the correct tech. Definitely to be preferred in that case though there are cleaner hydrocarbon alternatives. Of course, electric vehicles powered by properly designed coal plant is even better
Re: (Score:2)
Think outside the container... (Score:2)
I can't help but be a little amused at all the people saying cities could never ban Diesel because there's no acceptable alternative.
There is, of course, just not for long-haul trucking.
There's two ways goods get delivered by truck in a city. One is the big semi comes right into town with its container. The other is that the semi goes to a transit hub somewhere around the periphery of the city and offloads its cargo into smaller trucks.
In either case, the answer is simple: detach the container at a hub a
France's tax incensive for diesel (Score:2)
Politically correct madness (Score:2)
I am a supporter of alternative fuels but currently there is no choice. It will take time to introduce choice. Electric sounds great but it is totally impractical for many people who need their car for work. Who wants to stop for 2 hours to recharge every 2 hours while on a 6 hour drive? Not everybody has a garage where they can charge their car, most people just park in the street. Petrol does have some advantages over diesel but diesel also has many advantages over petrol. Hydrogen etc. are far too
Re: (Score:2)
You must live in a urban rabbit warren. Try saying that when you live in the largest town for 50 miles in any direction and it's 11,000 people.
Re: (Score:2)
Which precisely describes the opposite of Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens.
Nobody is saying you ought to be forced to take the streetcar from Mayberry to Petticoat Junction. From Monmarte to the Bastile -- transit makes more sense than driving, especially if you factor in time for parking.
Re: (Score:2)
..Mayberry to Petticoat Junction..
hey! you're showing your age there.
There's uncle Joe, he's movin' kinda slow at the junction.
I assume that there is a stop at Green Acres.
Re:Stop using cars at all. (Score:4, Informative)
Funnily enough the article is talking about cities with millions of people. I haven't visited the other 3 but it certainly is possible to live without a car in Madrid.
Re: (Score:2)
"I haven't visited the other 3 but it certainly is possible to live without a car in Madrid."
Maybe that's your point of view. On the other hand, I never had a car -not even a driver's license, and I lived in a 650.000 people town, till I came to Madrid and I understood I couldn't live without one.
But this forgets the most important point: policy-makers are chosen every four years, so there's no way you can seriously say anything about what will or will not be allowed in Madrid (I bet it's the same for the
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, these are cities which are political subdivisions of larger governmental entities who hold power and control over them. It may be impossible for them to actually ban anything of the sort if the higher political entity doesn't agree or allow it. For instance, the population of other cities in the same political entity would be bared from entering in a vehicle that is otherwise perfectly legal and registered under their laws.
Imagine France saying this vehicle is legal to purchase and drive and
Re: (Score:3)
Alright, so you live in a rural area. Even if you have to drive, you can drive a hybrid that gets >50 mpg. And that's actually better for you too, since it means you buy a lot less gas for your long commute. So you do that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, so you live in a rural area. Even if you have to drive, you can drive a hybrid that gets >50 mpg. And that's actually better for you too, since it means you buy a lot less gas for your long commute. So you do that, right?
Hell, I live ~1.5hrs of the US border, and roughly the same from Toronto. Here's the funny thing, we had gasoline engine cars in the 90's that would easily get 50mpg, those mpg ratings dropped through the floor when they started adding ethanol to the fuel. The reality is, even where I live. Which is within range of cities with 300k, 600k, and 4m within a reasonable distance, you're still likely going driving long distances if you need medical care especially specialist care. That's not even touching on
Re: (Score:3)
If I were you, I'd be careful about throwing those numbers around. Someone surely will say that the problem is that gas is too cheap.
After all, fuck the people contributing their time on this planet to the betterment of the economy, right? Let them donate half again of that time to getting there and home again.
Re: (Score:2)
> Here's the funny thing, we had gasoline engine cars in the 90's that would easily get 50mpg,
One change is that they tests became much more stringent, and more accurate. This lowered many reported fuel efficiencies considerably. have become more true as the fraud became more noticed. Another change is emissions standards, which can play havoc with fuel economy. Some older, lighter cars with no catalytic converters had notably better fuel economy than more recent cars of similar size and model. Another c
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a midsize SUV because I carry enough stuff on enough occasions that a Prius won't hold it. An RX400h would, if I could afford one. I'm not sure it'd beat the 30 MPG not he highway I get out of the ML320.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no (to my knowledge) gas hybrids that can net 50 mpg on the highway. Unlike a gas car they get far better town mpg.
A hybrid car also has all the things that can go wrong with a gas powered car combined with all the things that can go wrong with an electric powered car. On the plus side, there are not that many things to go wrong w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got an average of 61 mpg when I drove from Denver to California in my Prius. And that includes through the mountainous sections of I-70 where you're doing heavy hills and constantly having to brake and accelerate again, and with the cruise set at 80 on the flat sections with a 75 mph limit.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, paying 25K+ for a new hybrid or dropping like 10-15K on a used one with questionable batteries and no warranty to save what, maybe $5-10 / week on gas, makes sooooo much sense.
Lets not forget that it would take ~30+ years of mining lithium / cobalt / other REEs to replace the fleet of existing vehicles on the road, much less the ones that would be produced in the next thirty years...
Don't buy cheap shit cars. A Toyota Corolla gets real world ~36-38MPG with shit ethanol filled gasoline, and 42-44MPG w
Re: (Score:3)
You must live in a urban rabbit warren. Try saying that when you live in the largest town for 50 miles in any direction and it's 11,000 people.
Do you not care about the planet? Do you wish for everything to die?
Seriously, this is what bothers me about all those eco-fanatics: they are delighted for _others_ to make sacrifices on behalf of the planet, but even a minor change in their own lifestyle? Noooo...
As it happens you do have a choice. That choice is moving closer to work, closer to shops, and closer to other people. It might inconvenience you slightly to live like the rest of humanity, but unless you have a pressing need to be way out there,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My work is way out here.
And that city 50 miles away is 60,000 people. The closest major city is 125 miles away.
This is why lots of folks are rising up against the urban elites: you don't understand and can't conceive of any other lifestyle but your own.
Re:Stop using cars at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Living in the middle of nowhere was your choice. Other people don't have to subsidize it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That sword cuts both ways. Living in the middle of an urban rabbit warren is your choice, but we don't have to subsidize that either...and yet we're on the hook for billion-dollar mass transit boondoggles in places where they don't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As it happens you do have a choice. That choice is moving closer to work, closer to shops, and closer to other people. It might inconvenience you slightly to live like the rest of humanity, but unless you have a pressing need to be way out there, you really shouldn't be.
Yeah, and costs 10x more to do so. The long commute is what we trade to be able to afford to live comfortably, save for college etc..
Re: (Score:3)
Virtue signalling at its finest. Lemme guess, *you* get to decide what a "pressing need" is?
Re:Stop using cars at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
You must live in a urban rabbit warren.
And he has no idea how his food gets to the corner grocery store. Local freight is a very low margin business. It's easy to say 'just use electric or natural gas trucks'. But these represent a huge investment for the businesses involved. And the bicycle/public transportation crowd are going to scream the loudest when their food costs go up 10, 20 or 30%.
Personally, I don't care. I live out in suburbia. And I don't have to shop at the corner bodega. My grocery store is a warehouse, stocked by larger (and more efficient) trucks. And if some local ordinance increases their price, I just drive a few more miles to the next one outside city limits. In the final analysis, this will be the solution. Cities will place increasing restrictions on the activities of those employed or residing there and people and businesses just move out. Seattle is turning into a bunch of $15/hour hipsters trying to make a living selling each other overpriced coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
I commuted 50 miles one way. No public transportation make that route.
After tolls and gas, it was almost 8000 a year before you tossed in oil changes and tires and stuff.
Riding a train would of been nice - but in America - the train system is stupidly funded (retirement is more important than repairing the system) , it's not expanding, and people who aren't riding trains are taxed to fund retirement.
Meanwhile, riding the train is costing more to the poor who can't afford increases and maintenance of existin
Re: (Score:2)
You have an odd definition of "suburb". My town isn't even an exurb. It's just plain rural.=, well out in to the middle of farm country.
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the obligatory: move out of the sticks.
Or go electric - you'll
Re: (Score:2)
Electric vehicles won't handle my mission requirements. I lay them out elsewhere in the comments here.
Re: Stop using cars at all. (Score:3, Informative)
We on the Left don't care. We're way too smart and sophisticated to need to do this "listen" or "paying attention" thing. There is only one proper way to live and that is ours. If you're not one of us you're subhuman and do not deserve to live. End of debate. Anyone who disagrees is a fascist.
Re: (Score:2)
This one needs upvoting. You've summed it up very nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Please get off your high horse. Or whatever you yokels drive these days.
Re: Stop using cars at all. (Score:4, Insightful)
That is actually the key to getting cars out of the city. When public transport is more convenient then a car, then people would stop driving into the city with a car. Problem solved.
Re: Stop using cars at all. (Score:4)
Re: in all honesty (Score:2, Informative)
Except that they're destroying the planet. But aside from that, yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that they're destroying the planet. But aside from that, yeah.
Diesel engines are in no way destroying the planet. Actually, there is little man can do to this planet that will destroy it. Now what we do could make it very difficult for us to as a species to continue on but not destroy the planet.
Re:How the fuck.... (Score:4, Informative)
There is not replacement for diesel for any truck
Sure there is: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130318-natural-gas-truck-stops/
Europe is already moving to natural gas for ships while in port to clean up emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
More green pinko policies that don't survive contact with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Safety analysis of natural gas vehicles transiting highway tunnel [researchgate.net] - June 1989
A safety analysis was performed to assess the relative hazard of compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled vehicles traveling on various tunnels and bridges in New York City. The study considered those hazards arising from the release of fuel from CNG vehicles ranging in size from a passenger sedan to a full size 53 passenger bus. The approach used was to compare the fuel hazard of CNG vehicles to the fuel hazard of gasoline vehicles. The risk was assessed by estimating the frequency of occurrence and the severity of the hazard. The methodology was a combination of analyzing accident data, performing a diffusion analysis of the gas released in the tunnel and determining the consequences of ignition. Diffusion analysis was performed using the TEMPEST code for various accident scenarios resulting in CNG release inside the Holland Tunnel. The study concluded that the overall hazard of CNG vehicles transiting a ventilated tunnel is less than the hazard from a comparable gasoline fueled vehicle. 134 refs., 23 figs., 24 tabs.
The thing with natural gas is it's *very* picky about stoichiometric ratio. Too much or too little air and nothing happens.
The danger with LNG is the cryotemps before the 'natural gas' and the danger with CNG is the compressed cylinder more than the natural gas. Both can easily be mitigated.
Re: (Score:3)
Have a look at this map:
http://www.altfuelprices.com/station_map.php
That is a very interesting map. Can you tell me where in Europe Los Angeles is? I thought it may be close to Disney Land but that's just Paris.
Now, tell me again how popular this fuel is?
I'll tell you, very. all over the world.
Every second highway petrol station in western Europe has a gas (as in not gasoline) connection. This should be of zero consequence to a vehicle with a range of 1500km
Natural gas simply costs more over the lifespan of the truck. And that's despite diesel costing more than it should due to high taxes on it.
Yeah maybe in America. But that is a fantasy land in terms of fuel. This article however is talking about other places in the world.
In Australia for example most
Re: (Score:3)
It's stupid enough to ban existing diesel passenger cars, giving the sheer numbers of them in Europe
How is this stupid? Look around you in Europe and judge how many cars are older than 10-15 years? In central and western Europe the answer is very few. The Netherlands already introduced rules that said diesels older than 15 years aren't allowed into certain cities and the rules were found to effect only a handful of residents as it was primarily to keep city visitors from bringing non-compliant cars in.
Cars get replaced very damn quickly through natural attrition and a 10 year time scale is easily achievab
Re:I thought diesel ran cleaner (Score:5, Interesting)
e.g. My 3.0L V6 diesel truck cruises at 65 MPHat 1550 RPM. My 3.2L V6 gas car cruises at 65 MPH at 1800 RPM. 7% higher engine displacement, 16% higher RPM, so 23.9% more airflow volume at the same speed. So even if the diesel put out 23% more PPM than the gas engine, it would actually be emitting less pollutants per mile traveled. The difference is even more pronounced at higher speeds or loads. The diesel can hit 80 MPH at 1900 RPM, while the gas engine will be up around 2400 RPM. 35% higher airflow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not when cruising at 65 mph. Not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when cruising at 65 mph. Not even close.
Well, tell us what it is. Neither of my turbos boost that high, but they're both old. (My F250 peaks out at 11 psi and my Mercedes at 12.) The F250 cruises at only around 2 psi unless you have a trailer, then it's more like 6 or 7. The Mercedes cruises at around 7 or 8 psi. But they have much lower boost pressure than modern diesels.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical compression ratio in a Diesel engine is somewhere around 20:1, vs a gasoline engine that's running 10:1 or there about. That means that your 3.2L V6 is pushing 46500L per minute of air through it (3.6/6*20*1550*3 = 49600. Your gasoline engine is 3.2/6*10*1800*3 = 28800L/minute.
Basically this is displacement/cylinder * compression ratio * RPM * number of intake strokes per revolution. As such, your Diesel is pushing just under double the amount of air compared to the gasoline engine.
Ever wondered wh
Re: (Score:3)
Typical compression ratio in a Diesel engine is somewhere around 20:1, vs a gasoline engine that's running 10:1 or there about.
So what?
Basically this is displacement/cylinder * compression ratio * RPM * number of intake strokes per revolution.
The compression ratio is a function of the head volume and the cylinder volume. It has nothing to do whatsoever with determining how much air is drawn into the engine, which is defined by speed, bore, stroke, and intake efficiency. It is rather determined by how much air is drawn into the engine, and how much space you have left for air at the end of a compression stroke.
Ever wondered why diesel tail pipes are a lot larger than gasoline ones? This is why, diesels move a lot more air.
Diesel tail pipes are a lot larger than gasoline ones because diesels shit the bed when you have backpressure. It ruins their effi
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline engines, yes, Diesel, no. As I posted elsewhere, Diesel engines have something closer to a fixed air intake on each revolution, irrespective of load.
Remember that Diesel engines use compression ignition and, without sufficient air, there is insufficient compression to ignite the fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
because it's important: exhaust gas volume is proportional to load.
Gasoline engines, yes, Diesel, no. As I posted elsewhere, Diesel engines have something closer to a fixed air intake on each revolution, irrespective of load.
Please read before replying.
Remember that Diesel engines use compression ignition and, without sufficient air, there is insufficient compression to ignite the fuel.
Would you like me to tell you about my AT185. or my OM617.951A?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that air is mostly Nitrogen, which should pass through unchanged, in addition to the unreacted oxygen.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that air is mostly Nitrogen, which should pass through unchanged, in addition to the unreacted oxygen.
Nitrogen doesn't react to heat? Amazing!
Re: (Score:2)
Facepalm!
Any time you spent in physics and chemistry classes was wasted on you, wasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Any time you spent in physics and chemistry classes was wasted on you, wasn't it?
Explain why you think the nitrogen isn't going to expand when heated, and also where NOx comes from, and then tell me again how the nitrogen passes through the engine without being affected.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, you are going to go there?
What do you think happens to the nitrogen intake to the engine?
What do you think happens to the oxygen intake that is not used in combustion?
OMG, you know the part number for your engines. That must make you an expert on diesel engines. Wow, I bow to your knowledge. </sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, i can't believe I brain farted like that... I facepalmed about 10 minutes after I posted. Sorry for the stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
GP is right, though, that diesel engines move a lot more air. Gasoline engines run roughly at a stoichiometric air to fuel ratio, diesel engines run way leaner, they start at ratios that are almost too high for a gasoline engine to work properly (running diesel engines at lower lambda would produce a shitload of soot) and go up to 6:1.
Re: (Score:2)
Your understanding of how diesel engines work is rather poor. Diesel engines don't have throttles, there is no variable control on air intake; power output is controlled by controlling input fuel (not input fuel/air mixture like a gas engine). So, generally more air will flow through a diesel engine than a simil
Re: (Score:2)
Around cities distance traveled us less important than the overall emissions of all vehicles. From a practical standpoint it's difficult to evaluate individual models, let alone account for degradation over time.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing two different things. Pollutants are measured in PPM. This makes sense - it doesn't matter how they got there, they are still pollutants. Emission standards, however, do not measure PPM. For light duty vehicles standards are specified by amount of pollutant (mass) per vehicle mile. For heavy duty vehicles they are specified by amount of pollutant per hp hour or something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, you could rig up a bypass to feed intake air straight into the exhaust stream (probably illegal)
Probably not. My car has one of these. It's called an air injection pump.
I'm not convinced that the EPA engineers could tell the difference between legit emissions control technology and tricks (look at VW). Or perhaps they are responding to the 'trendy' or politically incorrect pollutants of the day. It used to be unburned HCs and CO. Regulating NOx was 'trendy' back in the 1970s and 1980s as a means of killing off muscle cars (high compression). It turned out to be meaningless in light of the fact that m
Re:I thought diesel ran cleaner (Score:5, Informative)
That recent builds were more efficient than gasoline, and with less processing in the raw material overall it should be better?
Define cleaner. Diesel did run cleaner for certain definitions. It always was dirtier in terms of particulate count. It was always cleaner in terms of CO why it was lauded as better than petrol. Unfortunately it has far higher NOx emissions which more recently (recent in terms of a time scale of 50 years) has been linked to various ill health.
As for processing, that depends and the answer is no. In theory you could cut diesel out of crude and be done with it. In practice you won't meet any of the fuel standards in doing so, especially sulphur content so at the very least diesel needs to be hydofined. But in terms of where diesel comes from in the process, you can get it through distillation, vacuum distillation, visbraking, fluidised catalytic cracking, coking, hydrocracking, and those are just the simple processes. And most refineries have them interconnected to get more and more out of crude oil. Even the simplest refineries will have distillation + vacuum distillation + hydrofining with the bottom of the distillation process taken to a visbreaker and then to a cat cracker and then back through a hydrofiner.
But in practice no one makes just diesel so saying there's less processing is nonsense as any refinery will have units that produce both diesel and petrol components, and then specific units to polish up just the diesel, and just the petrol among other things. So there really isn't any efficiency gains to get by talking about processing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like you can have electric delivery vehicles.