Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by pwa »

Mark R wrote:Yeah I saw it.

I doesn't really have any wider implications other than one knackered old VW golf (which did not have a working catalyst and would have failed the UK MOT) happened to have higher level of specific pollutants than the diesel.

I don't know what else can be read into it??

Does the article excuse diesels somehow?

Stinky old gross polluting petrols cars are out there, just in much smaller numbers than the now ubiqutous TDI.


But the people doing the testing went on to say that in their experience, as testers, some more modern diesels in the showrooms now are much worse, in real life, than the aged Octavia. I'm saying that you are wrong to single out the old VAG engine when there are worse engines being sold in new cars today. Just in relation to NOX.

Any engine that has reached a point where it is regularly chucking out black smoke is past its use by date. VAG, Ford or whatever.
Mark R
Posts: 643
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 7:41pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by Mark R »

Can we please get away from this idea that a vehicle's pollution needs be actually be visible before it can be considered a gross polluter!!

In the case of the malodorous VAG group taxis; it is the hydrocarbon stink which causes me to recoil in disgust - there is no smoke to be seen.

If that vehicle's NOx levels happen to low by compared to the latest 'clean' (cough) diesels, it is no consolation - it is still impacting public health in an egregious manor which should not be accepted in the 21st century
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by pwa »

Mark R wrote:Can we please get away from this idea that a vehicle's pollution needs be actually be visible before it can be considered a gross polluter!!

In the case of the malodorous VAG group taxis; it is the hydrocarbon stink which causes me to recoil in disgust - there is no smoke to be seen.

If that vehicle's NOx levels happen to low by compared to the latest 'clean' (cough) diesels, it is no consolation - it is still impacting public health in an egregious manor which should not be accepted in the 21st century


The only part of what you say that I dispute is the implication that VAG engines are worse than most. The opposite is true. With regard to NOX, which has been tested in more real life tests by Which, VAG fell short of official standards but by a smaller margin than other mass manufacturers. My own observation is that if you want a really dirty diesel that blows out soot from new, buy a Ford. A ten year old Ford used as a taxi would not be any cleaner than a ten year old VAG.
Mark R
Posts: 643
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 7:41pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by Mark R »

Ok, so the only reason I specified VAG group cars is because that is what the minicab drivers round here seem to prefer. They pollute horribly - therefore I dislike them intensely! I don't really believe they are worse than any of the other brands.

There is no extra profit in moving to a cleaner model of taxi (or bus), quite the opposite, therefore the only way to deal with these gross polluters is through legislation - but our government doesn't want to act - why not???

The discrepancies in NOx emissions between the latest diesel models are interesting but I don't think this is the main issue. I certainly don't buy into the industry propaganda that NOx is the only issue with the diesel engine left to be solved

What history tells us is that diesel engines age horribly when it comes to emissions. With a few years wear and tear the oxidation catalyst will no longer be effective (that acrid diesel stink). Many vehicles will have had particulate filters removed due to persistent malfunctions, many EGR valves will simply get disabled and blanked off....

No one knows how many modern diesels have had their particulate filter removed; going by the number of companies offering a DPF delete 'service' the problem is likely to be massive. I'm just glad people finally seem to be turning away from this flawed technology.
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by pwa »

The only thing I would point out, Mark, is that (around here at least) minicab drivers are working long and unsociable hours and not making a lot of money out of it, so if we want them to adopt a more expensive technology we need more carrot and less stick.
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by squeaker »

Mark R wrote:No one knows how many modern diesels have had their particulate filter removed; going by the number of companies offering a DPF delete 'service' the problem is likely to be massive. I'm just glad people finally seem to be turning away from this flawed technology.
Bit ironic then that petrol engines are adopting direct injection (a la 'diesel') and will need particulate filters to meet future legislation :roll:
"42"
Mark R
Posts: 643
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 7:41pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by Mark R »

You keep making this point like it is some kind of gottcha!

The question is, why are they (DI petrols) even allowed to be sold without a particulate filter fitted when PM emissions are known to be an issue? Pretty outrageous wouldn't you say?.....Of course it comes down to the lobbying efforts of the motor industry.

The rationale apparently is that emission controls should be 'technology neutral'. In other words, in the industry's view, it is fundamentally wrong to require a particular fuel to have a particular type of emission control


Do you think a particulate filter fitted to a DI petrol would be likely to exhibit the same problems which affect diesel DPFs?
old_windbag
Posts: 1869
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 3:55pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by old_windbag »

Putting hindsight to one side regards to how bad diesel engines are in emission terms. We didn't perhaps realise that 100yrs ago going forward, what we did know was just how efficient they were relative to petrol and the better torque characteristic for heavier vehicles. They are to this day the most efficient ICE available to us.

Imagine how much extra delivered goods or bus/train travel would have cost to all if those transports had utilised petrol. Diesel worked and it worked more efficiently for the purpose. Had our population not gone stratospheric and we maintained a population at a low level then perhaps the effect of those emissions would not be as noticeable in inner cities. Added to that the adoption of the car by the masses as the "only" way to go from a to b and their quest to get low cost motoring..... modern diesels really offered that plus low CO2 emissions.

Anyway I posted this before but mazda are looking into more efficient petrol engines, remember we still have a gap to fill before the perfect electric vehicle arrives and at a cost that isn't eye watering to normal people.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/mazda-compression-ignition-technology/

Edit: On the if you can't see it it doesn't mean it isn't there aspect. We hardly ever mention the jet engine which uses kerosene, a fuel not much lighter than diesel. I wonder what the pollutants from those are like around say heathrow and what contribution they make to air quality over an area. There is a hell of a lot of plane travel nowadays and nearly every engine used, turboprop or gas turbine, uses aviation kerosene. I wonder what the output of such is relative to "x" diesel cars?
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by Psamathe »

Is the Govrnment spending our money wisely in addressing the air pollution scandal?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/23/revealed-government-spent-370000-losing-air-pollution-legal-battles-clientearth wrote:The government spent £370,000 of taxpayers’ money unsuccessfully fighting court claims that its plans to tackle air pollution were illegally poor, a freedom of information request has revealed.


Ian
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by pwa »

Sometimes it is good to restore a bit of perspective. Concern over poor air quality is rightly an issue that raises debate, and it is good that we are looking for improvements. But air quality in towns and cities is much better than it was when I was a child and coal was burned by practically all houses, factories, schools and other buildings. Even in the busiest city centres the air quality is better now than then. So let's not imagine things are now at an all time low. Far from it.

Another thing to consider is that as a society we do trade offs. We have needs and wants that conflict, so we trade one thing against another. We want clean air and the health benefits that come with it. But we also want to pay the bills, help our kids pay for Uni, pay off the mortgage and attend to all those day to day financial worries that keep us awake at night. The net result is that we want cleaner air if it is not too expensive, and we want a transition that does not cause too much pain elsewhere in our lives. Because we do have lives beyond the issue of air pollution.

Any realistic approach to the problem will take these two things into consideration, especially the second. The only real solutions are those that improve air quality without badly impacting on other aspects of our lives.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by meic »

The only real solutions are those that improve air quality without badly impacting on other aspects of our lives.


Unfortunately what is considered a bad impact is determined by economists not by environmentalists.

So we must not let air quality interfere with forcing people to drive 30 miles a day across a city to work for minimum wage in a soul destroying job which profits by causing misery to its potential customers and /or further wrecking the environment for other totally worthless (marketing/profit led) causes.
Yma o Hyd
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by reohn2 »

meic wrote:
The only real solutions are those that improve air quality without badly impacting on other aspects of our lives.


Unfortunately what is considered a bad impact is determined by economists not by environmentalists.

So we must not let air quality interfere with forcing people to drive 30 miles a day across a city to work for minimum wage in a soul destroying job which profits by causing misery to its potential customers and /or further wrecking the environment for other totally worthless (marketing/profit led) causes.

And unfortunattely within the neo-liberal capitalist system we find ourselves being ruled by,this is so often the case for large sections of society to a greater or lesser extent.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by pwa »

meic wrote:
The only real solutions are those that improve air quality without badly impacting on other aspects of our lives.


Unfortunately what is considered a bad impact is determined by economists not by environmentalists.

So we must not let air quality interfere with forcing people to drive 30 miles a day across a city to work for minimum wage in a soul destroying job which profits by causing misery to its potential customers and /or further wrecking the environment for other totally worthless (marketing/profit led) causes.


I deliberately left that bit open to interpretation because what one person considers "badly impacting" another may not. People will decide and vote according to their own priorities, and we all do our own cost-benefit analysis. If you go and ask 100 people if they want cleaner air in areas affected by air pollution, almost all will say yes. But when you ask them which aspects of their lives they are willing to change to help bring that about they will become defensive. Positive change can happen where people are convinced that the changes can be made without losing all the other good things they value.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by meic »

But when you ask them which aspects of their lives they are willing to change to help bring that about they will become defensive.

But what they want to change is beyond what is within their ability to change.
They cant consider something enormous which would really solve the problem, so they just opt for some petty tinkering like banning one form of ICE which is nominally slightly worse than another type in some ways.

A parallel would be the Brexit vote. Here the people have voted for something that could make a noticeable change and there is so much talk that it should not have been allowed, it can not happen, they didnt know what they were doing etc etc because it could actually make things change*.

*Though my money is on a fudge being arranged to prevent much change really happening.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 577
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

Post by Wanlock Dod »

Psamathe wrote:Is the Govrnment spending our money wisely in addressing the air pollution scandal?

I'm quite sure that there are various parties that feel spending public money in maintaining the status quo at least until we get the chance to repeal all of those inconvenient and environmentally damaging EU directives about pollution and the environment is good value indeed.
Can you really imagine the UK doing something for the benefits to society rather than corporate profits? Improved air quality means better public health, which means less chance to sell health care products and services.
Post Reply