New emission zone

[280gee]

There are air quality monitoring stations scattered about in London and the levying of the congestion tax has not as far as I can tell shown any worthwhile improvement in the levels of the pollutants measured.

 

[MBManInKen]

Why are you so surprised that some people genuinely want the older more polluting vehicles either off the road, or cleaned up by conversions, or at least penalised for the pollution they cause?

As diesel engines emit substantially more PM10 particulate matter than petrols, are you going to get rid of your diesels, Hawk?

 

[jeremytaylor]

What about the PM5s given off in petrol emissions (smaller and more dangerous to lungs?), let alone the proven carcinogen - benzene - that you inhale when you fill up with petrol?

 

[*chris*]

Won't fairly recent models meet the standards? And cannot older models be modified to meet them?

Some can, some can't.

Expect the price of moving house within the M25 to rocket.

Ken also has forgotten that many of the lorries doing the muckshifting for the olympics will be non LEZ complient, expect the cost of the olyimpics to treble, expect the poor people of greater london to sponsor this flawed policy...

 

[hawk20]

As diesel engines emit substantially more PM10 particulate matter than petrols, are you going to get rid of your diesels, Hawk?

No. But I don't happen to be part of the Green lobby if you read my postings. I am merely suggesting that trying to understand the motivation of the powers that be would be far more beneficial than always just bleating that it is all an excuse to raise revenue. I happen to think most of 'them' really do think they are trying to improve the quality of life. They may be misguided, of course. Then we should try to persuade 'them' with good rational argument.

Why don't the car industry put forward sensible measures of their own? For example (we may all choose different things to begin with until a concensus emerges) I would accept a limiter on all cars to limit topspeed to 100 mph. Or even lower -given the speed limit is 70 mph. And why not stop making stupid and unnecessary 6.2 or 6.3 litre cars? OR maybe volunteer to limit the cars produced to 3 litres or less at least on cars to be sold in Europe? Or if you prefer why didn't the car industry put forward its own CO2 average figure for cars they produce? Why wait for legislation which will be worse? The cigarette industry and the drinks industry have been very successful for many years in delaying legal restrictions by bringing in voluntary codes. The car industry has frankly done almost nothing to help our cause.

 

[Sp!ke]

Sorry, but the idea of restricting cars to 100 or even 70 is abhorrent. Man should continue to push the limits of technology and not stifle it because of an ill conceived and ill though out knee jerk response to what may or may not even be a real issue.

Cars in reality have a negligible effect on global warming - you're being hoodwinked into believing this spin and taxed on the back of this misinformation.

If we really want to reduce this problem and effect real change? Then first we should prevent more rain forest being chopped down. vehicles, power stations, mining, factories, burning fossil fuels are all chump change compared to the damage done by destroying rain forests.

Taxing the motorist does nothing to stop or reduce the problem.

 

[hawk20]

Sorry, but the idea of restricting cars to 100 or even 70 is abhorrent. Man should continue to push the limits of technology and not stifle it because of an ill conceived and ill though out knee jerk response to what may or may not even be a real issue.
.

In case you hadn't noticed we are already restricted in almost all of Europe to around 70mph by national speed limits.

Of course we can look at the rain forest problem but not instead of reducing emissions from cars, buses, lorries and planes, but as well as. That is what those convinced by the green arguments would say. (Not me by the way).

 

[MBManInKen]

What about the PM5s given off in petrol emissions (smaller and more dangerous to lungs?)

It's all particulate matter, the number indicating the size. Diesels produce finer PMs (smaller than PM10), but it's standard practice to measure PM10s.

Modern petrol engines do not produce anywhere near the quantities of PMs that diesels do and in fact on modern petrol engines, the PMs are under a measurable level.

Nice table can be found here.

Diesels produce significantly higher emissions (including NOx and particulate matter) than petrol cars with catalysts (and even without a catalyst the petrol cars produce significantly less PMs).

But then again, why let facts spoil a good story .

 

[280gee]

The article ends with.

Conclusion
To produce a cleaner environment for all to live and work in, the development of alternative, cleaner fuels is essential. To encourage the use of the fuels, competitive prices combined with good marketing techniques are required.

Just part of what will be required for an emission zone to produce any tangible benefit.

Meanwhile the new tax (emission) zone policy implements what and produces what? Other than revenue for King Ken and his confused court?

Seems like trying to drive somewhere whilst the passenger is pulling hard on the handbrake (remember them?)

Spike's got it, progress, invent, innovate, implement. Otherwise pleasure motoring is a dead duck.

 

[MBManInKen]

Just part of what will be required for an emission zone to produce any tangible benefit.

I didn't say I agreed with the zone .

Spike's got it, progress, invent, innovate, implement. Otherwise pleasure motoring is a dead duck.

Agreed - and that is something I have been saying for a while here now: the challenges in terms of CO2 and air pollutants must be approached as technology/science challenges and scientific knowledge must be used to address them (and can be used, the theoretical understanding is already there).

However, green dogma is diverting attention to absolutely useless policies such as carbon trading, emission taxing or the plainly ridiculous idea that we can reduce the overall hunger for energy to pre-industrial society levels. Mass hysteria if you ask me.

 

[280gee]

Absolutely spot on!! Tabloid environmentalism IMO.

 

[jeremytaylor]

Nice table can be found here.

Interesting link on exhaust emissions that, thanks.

Still doesn't mention benzene when you fill up with petrol! Many countries have traps to contain this - why don't we?

 

[280gee]

I've noticed for a while that the aromatics that you often get a sniff of when refuelling seem lower, that would include benzine, I hope. The levels of these do change for Summer and Winter fuel blends I know so it's not just that effect at work.

 

[Satch]

It's all particulate matter, the number indicating the size. Diesels produce finer PMs (smaller than PM10), but it's standard practice to measure PM10s.

Modern petrol engines do not produce anywhere near the quantities of PMs that diesels do and in fact on modern petrol engines, the PMs are under a measurable level.

Nice table can be found here.

Diesels produce significantly higher emissions (including NOx and particulate matter) than petrol cars with catalysts (and even without a catalyst the petrol cars produce significantly less PMs).

But then again, why let facts spoil a good story .

Why indeed.

The reason you do not hear much about PM's for Petrol cars is that up to and including Euro 4 there is no PM standard for them. But they do emit PM.

Come the intoduction of EU5 in September 2009 the standard for PM's will be the same for both Petrol and Diesel: 0.005g/km.

The Euro 3 standard is 0.05g/km and Euro 4 0.025g/km so that represents very significant reductions but there are practical limits to what can be done.

Euro 6 is on the cards for 2014 but the incremental improvements per current draft over Euro 5 are pretty marginal (PM limit is still the same) unless very complex and still unproven technology is deployed to burn existing fossil fuels.

So the future does lie with "alternative fuels", whatever that actually turns out to mean.

 

[Sp!ke]

In case you hadn't noticed we are already restricted in almost all of Europe to around 70mph by national speed limits.

You're right, I hadn't noticed and it seems neither has most of the people traveling on the motorway with me this morning. Motorway speed limits should go up, not down.

The current strategies in london have done nothing to ease congestion nor will they have any effect on reducing global warming. Public transport is still not an option for millions of commuters as despite huge revenue creation from all manner of motoring stealth taxes and charges very little is being invested in any kind of alternative.

Running a motor vehicle is getting more and more expensive, but its still significantly cheaper than public transport and it is more practical, even with the overcrowded road systems, personal transport is a far more pleasent environment to be stuck in and will always be the future.

The UK's strategy is ill conceived and all stick and no carrot.

 

[MBManInKen]

Still doesn't mention benzene when you fill up with petrol! Many countries have traps to contain this - why don't we?

Good point!

 

[MBManInKen]

The reason you do not hear much about PM's for Petrol cars is that up to and including Euro 4 there is no PM standard for them. But they do emit PM.

Please read a bit more carefully. I did not say they do not emit PMs. I said that they emit significantly less PMs than diesels. And that is a major reason why you don't hear much about PMs on petrol cars and why Euro 4 didn't include it. Diesels are a bigger culprit with regard to PMs, and significantly so, and that is why they tend to be the focus of it. There are other emissions for which petrol is a bigger culprit.

 

[MBManInKen]

The current strategies in london have done nothing to ease congestion

Correct - I live and work inside the CC zone and my personal experience is that it has done very little to ease the flow of traffic.

nor will they have any effect on reducing global warming.

Also correct. Which is why I get fed up with the green stalinists who think that you'll resolve global warming by any of these silly policies - yet instead of focusing on technology/science related answers (for example carbon capturing), they waste the resource on useless schemes. Talk about incompetent.

 

[280gee]

At least a couple of people here have practical experience of the congestion (tax) zone not seeming to achieve noticeable effects. I've had a look around but not seen any effective group opposition to it so far?

If the 'stalinist' approach from Brussels is being forced upon us why is no one resisting and asking for proven results from policies?

I could start with some action myself I suppose....

 

[MBManInKen]

If the 'stalinist' approach from Brussels is being forced upon us

What has Brussels to do with the CC?