Diesel scrappage

[Psamathe]

I have always had reservations about a Diesel scrappage scheme paid for with taxpayers money. 8 years ago when I purchased my current car I considered diesel (cheap to run) vs petrol (causes fewer local air pollution issues). Back then I was very aware of the air pollution issues relating to diesel cars (though not the true scale of the early deaths).

I decided I would thus go for petrol. So I chose to avoid such contributions to the air quality issues even though it would cost me more. Others chose the cheaper running costs of the more problematic diesels. The information was available many years ago.

So for the last 8 years I've been spending more on petrol and now I'm expected to contribute to those who have been saving on running costs for years so they can get a replacement/new car. Those diesel owners have been benefiting from lower running costs and now expect further subside.

Not something I think fair. we make choice. The information was available if people wanted to find it (I found it).

Ian

Even that is not so clear cut. Diesels were promoted by the government and others as a way of reducing climate change emissions. Lots of us prioritised that over local pollution. Even now I am not 100% sure that petrol is more acceptable than diesel. You kill fewer people here but more people there. By choosing petrol you put urban UK people ahead of the rest of humanity. I can see why you thought it a good choice and I'm not sure you were wrong, but nor am I sure you were right.

Older petrol cars can produce more NOX than diesels, so if you want to clean up the vehicles on the road you have to look at them too.

(As a car diver as well as a cyclist) I'd also suggest increasing the tax on petrol. Though disproportionately faster on diesel. Discourage both but put greater emphasis on that causing the most immediate problems. i.e. as you say, don't only focus on one source of pollution.

Ian

[old_windbag]

...but as you suggest, it needs the consumer to pick it up and the manufacturer to deliver the need.

I think engineers definitely think differently to joe public. But this will be very good in japan fitting with their constraints, hence the yamaha involvement I'd imagine. We've a long way to go in the UK. Also car share schemes could be beneficial in many areas of the UK, well if people were civilised enough to use them respectfully.

Nice idea for the 1 or 2 person car. Are you retired or have grown up kids or are young with no kids by any chance?

Here we go. None of the above. In the 40's families may well have still had trips out and camped, played football.... without cars. But in the 70's when cars were popular my friend would go camping or caravaning with his family using a mk3 cortina. This in modern car sizing being the same as a ford focus. So the family were fulfilled for all their needs by a car technologically less advanced( but modern for the day ) but the size of a ford focus. No large wheels, no excess bulk, no raised suspension etc.

I think lifestyle and excessive consumption tend to go hand in hand quite often. We certainly can't shift all troubles to electrifying lorries and having extra freight trains without reviewing why they are required and where in our lives we can make changes. Even a modern 4-door supermini can accomodate a family or two adults with rear baby seats comfortably. Going "green" doesn't mean we should consume excess resources on the thinking that the energy is free and unlimited. If food was infinitely unlimited it doesn't mean you should behave like a fat man at an all you can eat buffet.

[pwa]

Speaking as a diesel car owner I think diesels are on the way out anyway. Like many owners of a modern diesel I have found mine to be far less economical to run than its predecessors. Every three or four years the device than recycles exhaust gases to boost the engine clogs and needs replacing, at £400 a go. The engine torque that I loved in diesels of the past is now a distant memory. I have an underpowered engine that requires a lot of gear changing and (in spite of what VW claim) gives far poorer mpg than its predecessor. I have heard similar stories from other diesel car owners.

[Bonefishblues]

Speaking as a diesel car owner I think diesels are on the way out anyway. Like many owners of a modern diesel I have found mine to be far less economical to run than its predecessors. Every three or four years the device than recycles exhaust gases to boost the engine clogs and needs replacing, at £400 a go. The engine torque that I loved in diesels of the past is now a distant memory. I have an underpowered engine that requires a lot of gear changing and (in spite of what VW claim) gives far poorer mpg than its predecessor. I have heard similar stories from other diesel car owners.

There was a massive dip from Euro 3 to E4 generation diesels as they got loaded with emissions control paraphernalia. The mpg penalty in the Volvo D5 engine was/is about 15%.

[Mick F]

Older petrol cars can produce more NOX than diesels, so if you want to clean up the vehicles on the road you have to look at them too.

Spot on.

[Tangled Metal]

Nice idea for the 1 or 2 person car. Are you retired or have grown up kids or are young with no kids by any chance?

Here we go. None of the above. In the 40's families may well have still had trips out and camped, played football.... without cars. But in the 70's when cars were popular my friend would go camping or caravaning with his family using a mk3 cortina. This in modern car sizing being the same as a ford focus. So the family were fulfilled for all their needs by a car technologically less advanced( but modern for the day ) but the size of a ford focus. No large wheels, no excess bulk, no raised suspension etc.

I think lifestyle and excessive consumption tend to go hand in hand quite often. We certainly can't shift all troubles to electrifying lorries and having extra freight trains without reviewing why they are required and where in our lives we can make changes. Even a modern 4-door supermini can accomodate a family or two adults with rear baby seats comfortably. Going "green" doesn't mean we should consume excess resources on the thinking that the energy is free and unlimited. If food was infinitely unlimited it doesn't mean you should behave like a fat man at an all you can eat buffet.

Wow! Quite a sermon. Back in the real world...

There's a lot of things changed from those days but least the number of ppl doing this sort of holiday increasing. As a kid in the 70s we started off camping with a Renault 4TL. It was overloaded to the point of being unsafe. But canvas frame tent, two small kids jammed between bags tent and cases. Very unsafe load and likely to get you in trouble if the police every decided to start enforcement of regulations / laws on the highways. The load on the roof rack alone is against the weight limit of probably 3 modern cars and certainly too much for that car if they bothered with giving that info out.

Later on at got Vauxhall cars because they had a bigger boot than other equivalent cars. Still my point is we managed camping trips back then by unsafe means by modern standards.

Now we camp with a higher degree of comfort in a bigger car with bigger tent and all the kit inside the car (more fuel efficient than roof boxes or racks with numerous suitcases, bags, etc covered in a loose plastic sheet like the old days). The tent is less bulky packed up, weighs less and is all round better just like every other bit of kit.

Back to the cars, I would wager that our bigger car is less polluting than the old cars we used in the 70s and 80s. Things move on and usually for the better of you give it enough time. We get a safer, less polluting and overall better holiday camping as a family now than in the 70s. The only negative is that now I only get 2 weeks but growing up it was always 3 weeks holiday.

Overall there is more consumption but in our case the camping trips are better for the planet now than in the past. As far as doing it in a small 2 person car or even a small 4 person car or just wouldn't happen. We'd probably fly out to somewhere warm like the masses and hire bikes out there. Certainly more polluting. It's real world not fantasy.

However there is excessive size. IMHO a SEAT Alta XL is the right size. It's a golf plus rebadged a seat. Or a seat Leon stretched 29cm and with a different body. It an Astra estate size in length. The Volvo xc90, BMW x5 upwards are simply too big. So in part of agree with you but not completely.

PS there could feasibly be a reason to own an x5 but I can't think of one right now.

[Ruadh495]

Isn't that the problem (or part of it)? When diesels were being encouraged because of their lower overall fuel consumption, petrols had similar NOx outputs. Now petrol engines have been cleaned up more or less effectively, diesels look comparatively dirty. Emissions mitigation measures for diesel engines appear to be less effective than those for petrols. Part of the background is a steady fall in NOx levels since the 1980's (which isn't to say they are not still too high), despite the increase in small diesel vehicles. This being due to mitigation of all the other NOx sources.

Scrappage, IMO, is the wrong approach. We should be encouraging people to use cars less, not buy new ones.

[old_windbag]

Back to the cars, I would wager that our bigger car is less polluting than the old cars we used in the 70s and 80s.

I haven't indicated any different, I wager double your wager that the 70's car is more polluting. But we also know that using cars less is beneficial and our aim should be to encourage more walking, cycling and use of public transport. Personally I'd rather have an integrated, publicly run, efficient( the two can go together if competent people are employed ) transport system. I think lower fares and ease of putting bikes etc on buses and trains could help especially in rural areas.

For most people, to walk 2 miles isn't a great problem, even less so for children going to school. But car keys are easier to pick up. Many journeys we do don't require to involve a car..... but they do. Perhaps today more so than in the 70's where mutiple vehicle families were few and far between and most children walked to school. So in terms of car miles, I think our efficient modern cars clock up more than 70's vehicles in everyday use.

We'd probably fly out to somewhere warm like the masses and hire bikes out there.

But why is there a "need" to be going on holidays every year? Because it is easy than ever to do so, yet we are a country in austerity and everyone struggles to make ends meet. Struggle being if you can only afford a holiday every other year.

[pete75]

I don't like the scrappage idea. The reason is it puts money in the pockets of people who don't need it. People who are in the market for a new car.

Know all their individual circumstances do you?

I know if I go looking for a replacement car I'll be looking at second hand, and I don't want the taxes I pay helping people who are better off than me get a shiny new one.

So you happen to know everyone who buys a new car is better off than you? Amazing!!

[Ruadh495]

Well, if pwa is anything like me; I know I don't have enough money for a new car, with or without a scrappage discount. So anyone who does buy a new car has to be better off than I am, or prepared to carry more debt. Anyone think the later is good thing?

Debt for a new car might be a good investment if the new car were enough more economical than the old one to pay for it. Moving from a thirsty petrol to an electric perhaps? I can't see it with most cars though, generally the loan seems to outlast the car.

[Bonefishblues]

Well, if pwa is anything like me; I know I don't have enough money for a new car, with or without a scrappage discount. So anyone who does buy a new car has to be better off than I am, or prepared to carry more debt. Anyone think the later is good thing?

Millions of people in the UK currently do. I suspect they may not have overthought it, though.

[Ruadh495]

Something else that occurs to me: If I had an attached garage (which I don't and if I did I'd fill it with bikes, not cars) the only current motor vehicle I'd keep in it would be a diesel. Both petrol and electric appear too much of a fire hazard. Petrol gives off toxic volatiles even when not running. Hybrids, of course, have both a tank of toxic flammable liquid and a lithium battery to light it up.

Does anyone know how significant evaporation of the fuel is as a source of pollutants?

[old_windbag]

So you happen to know everyone who buys a new car is better off than you? Amazing!!

I don't think pwa is saying everyone, he says "helping people who are better off than me get a shiny new one." So among all who access the scrappage scheme there will be a percentage who are perhaps taking advantage of that handout to acquire a new vehicle. Thats no different to my resentment of paying tax and getting zero help when others on higher income get tax credits, child allowance etc etc. Looking around and hearing first hand stories of what people are getting from the state for no increase in social/economic benefit makes me want to retreat more and more from our system.

[old_windbag]

Something else that occurs to me: If I had an attached garage (which I don't and if I did I'd fill it with bikes, not cars) the only current motor vehicle I'd keep in it would be a diesel. Both petrol and electric appear too much of a fire hazard. Petrol gives off toxic volatiles even when not running. Hybrids, of course, have both a tank of toxic flammable liquid and a lithium battery to light it up.

Does anyone know how significant evaporation of the fuel is as a source of pollutants?

Must say I agree to some extent. I experienced a leaking fuel tank when car was in the garage. House stunk of at first kerosene, boiler?...... but it was diesel fumes coming into house from garage. I could happily turn on light go under car to check, stick some cement powder underneath and a container, then get fixed during the week. Petrol would have been a bit more hazardous. Diesel is nice for its fairly inert qualitys as a liquid.

[Ruadh495]

I wonder what proportion of those who own scrappage eligible vehicles are anywhere near being able to buy a shiny new one? Not many, I'd guess. Maybe a few who have kept the same car from new. For the rest scrappage is pretty irrelevant, they can't afford a new car, so might as well keep the old one.

The problem, IMO, with scrappage is not the offer of money to scrap and old polluting car, it's the condition of buying a new car with that money. If the money could be used for anything it would be a lot better. Most likely it would go on a newer used car, not so good for air quality as a new one, but better than the old one and should get better uptake. Some might even spend it on a bike, if they've really looked at their car use and commuting options. Scrap your old diesel and get a free e-bike perhaps?