1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Dismiss Notice

Ultra low emission zone

StateOfPlay Apr 5, 2017

  1. StateOfPlay

    StateOfPlay Registered User

    2,257
    197
    63
    Is this the beginning of the end of diesel cars?

    From what I understand, diesel cars registered before 1 September 2015 are producing dangerous levels of pollution and it is claimed up to 40,000 deaths a year are attributed to diesel cars. Mr Khan, London mayor, has said he is introducing an ultra low emission zone in 2019 that will put a charge of £12.50 a day on top of the congestion charge for any pre 2015 diesel car.

    Now, although I do drive in London I do avoid the congestion charge zone, so it will not directly affect me. However, what may effect me is that the zone may be expanded to the North Circ, which I use regularly. Also, any diesel pre 2015 is bound to be affected in terms of residual value, as I am sure other cities in the UK will follow the London example.

    So if I buy a new car now it will be unaffected, but will still give excellent mpg. However, will the whole "diesel is a killer" scenario taint all future diesel models regardless?
     
  2. Avatar

    snack-media
    Advertisement


  3. joinerman

    joinerman Registered User

    14,705
    639
    113
    Think it's all ******, just another money making scheme
     
    DieselJake likes this.
  4. DieselJake

    DieselJake Well-Known Member VCDS Map User

    3,796
    1,124
    113
    From what I understand mr Kahn should be decapitated.

    Wasn't so long ago the government was promoting diesel cars saying they were better for the environment, they promote is whatever lines their pockets.
     
  5. DJ_26

    DJ_26 Registered User

    513
    194
    43
    To be fair, I don't think it's his fault. Like @StateOfPlay has said, I also use the North circular often and even just travelling along it, you literally cannot open the windows because the air is that bad. I drive a diesel car and I know that diesels have made the air worse, so I sound like a right hypocrite!

    I agree with you that the government made a flop with promoting diesel cars all those years ago, but the mayor, regardless of when they took office or who they are, will be getting pressure from all sorts of people now and the mayor will ultimately have to deal with it. The only straightforward and easy way (for the Government) to cut the amount of diesel fumes in London (one which car drivers won't be happy about) is to raise the charge and give drivers a reason not to use their diesel cars in London. I do think the Government will benefit from it as they are just getting even more money from the congestion charge and people will still need to get around town and do their business. But hopefully the air will get better around town. But it does leave a lot of other problems. What's going to happen with all the existing diesel cars on the road?
     
  6. AndyT306

    AndyT306 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    1,009
    489
    83
    another reason to avoid london
     
  7. DieselJake

    DieselJake Well-Known Member VCDS Map User

    3,796
    1,124
    113
    Amongst other city's I've lived in London and no part of it was so bad I couldn't roll down my window's.

    Just another policy of robbing from the poor and giving to the rich.

    Soon enough they'll tell us the way batteries are made in electric cars is really pollutant (which is true) so we all need to buy hydrogen cars or something.
     
    DJ_26 likes this.
  8. DJ_26

    DJ_26 Registered User

    513
    194
    43
    I suppose I mean during rush hour, standstill traffic, which is a common occurrence on the North Circular! Yeah I wouldn't be suprised if that is the next move with regards to the batteries lol Let's just go straight to hydrogen cars.
     
  9. DrEskimo

    DrEskimo Registered User

    2,487
    2,381
    113
    But diesels are better for the environment...if you're talking about CO2. There are different emissions that have different effects.

    The biggest problem with government decisions like this one is the same with every part society. It tends to be reactionary and short term. It's very easy to think it's all extremely cynical and about greed (which I don't doubt...) but in this case I think this is just a reactionary policy based on growing evidence and sparked by the recent VAG scandal.

    I personally think it's very unfair given the incentives that were pushed by the previous government, but, I can understand the logic behind it. As usual, it's Joe Shmoe that has to pay for the short comings of central government not being able to govern and look at the whole picture when deciding on policies.

    I really can't be bothered to go into the misconceptions behind EVs and why hydrogen cars are not the better alternative, all I will say is please do some wider reading...yes there are major short comings, but I dont see why everyone needs to drive the same cars..city driving for EVs and petrols where it's suitable, diesels for long distant motorway journeys.
     
  10. DJ_26

    DJ_26 Registered User

    513
    194
    43
    Agreed, the unearthing of the VAG cheat devices definitely had an impact. Regarding the EVs and petrols in city driving, that appears to be the way it is going now, especially with this ULEZ.
     
  11. DrEskimo

    DrEskimo Registered User

    2,487
    2,381
    113
    The thing is, diesels when driven at 50-70MPH on motorways are not only better for CO2 emissions, but also have very little impact with regards to NOx and particulate emissions for two reasons; 1) they are on long motorways, miles away from anyone walking about in the immediate vicinity, and 2) they actually don't produce large amounts of these emissions at these high constant speeds, hence why the testing values of these emissions is so much lower than real world values (where I believe the car is made to drive at a fairly constant 50MPH speed).

    They are currently the best option for long distance motorway journeys! However, they are completely ill suited for city driving, where much of their benefits of high MPG are lost anyway. In all, I don't really see why banning them from cities is such a bad idea...? Poorly implemented and badly communicated, yes, but logically pretty sound I think...?
     
  12. Avatar

    snack-media
    Advertisement


  13. A19quattro

    A19quattro Registered User

    805
    133
    43
    And speed bumps, traffic calming an all that stuff they got us to pay for makes matters worse as well for Diesels. Luckily mine is quite old so can't lose that much more money and I don't need to go near any city centres but none the less it all does sound pretty daming for Diesels.
    Another thought is I don't actually believe the cars are entirely at fault, there are diesel emmisions form industry, commercial vehicles including trains, I may be wrong but I haven't heard about any of them having much restrivtions put on them or been burdened with DPFs and so on.
    I live in Scotland and they use a lot of old busses to transport kids to school. Stick a private plate on them and they look half respectible but the smoke out of the back is sometimes ridiculous. I tried to take a picture of one one day, the idea being the Reg No. would be in it, got home and couldn't read it, there was so much smoke, in fact it was hard to make out the shape of the back of bus. I don't have kids either otherwise I might be more upset about this.
     
  14. Retroman

    Retroman Audi A3 2010 Sportback 2.0 TDI 170 (CBBB engine)

    1,261
    411
    83
    I'm reliably informed that less than 7% are private cars in Central London are diesel, so very little will change. Are diesels to blame or are they the scapegoat for the fact the sheer volume of cars in London has increased and traffic has slowed, on average, to less than 10mph?
     
    DJ_26 and DrEskimo like this.
  15. A4A4

    A4A4 Owner of a Shiny Daytona

    1,051
    2,154
    113
    What about all the emergency services, public transport and delivery vans, lorries, logistics etc.. these all run on Diesel in cities!

    Are we going to charge them?

    Yet another bright idea from a dim government.
     
    DieselJake likes this.
  16. DrEskimo

    DrEskimo Registered User

    2,487
    2,381
    113
    Obviously you don't charge emergency services, public transport has been transitioning into hybrid and EV technologies for a while now and lorries can't drive in congestion zones....

    Vans are in the same boat as private cars and is a valid point, since many small businesses rely on them.

    Taxis are an interesting one. I saw that they were exempt from the additional charge, yet arguably the biggest contributor. I work just outside Euston St and often see rows and rows of old black cabs sat idle outside my window....

    But then I read from a cab driver that they actually had no choice but to buy diesels thanks to TFL legislation. I suspect the opening of the new factory to build EV based taxis is part of their plans...?

    http://www.wired.co.uk/article/london-taxi-company-electric-vehicles-uk
     
  17. rum4mo

    rum4mo Registered User

    2,221
    578
    113
    Patience there, you are jumping the gun, we have still to get the GPF or is that PPF - then we can settle down to the truth that batteries are made from rare earth nasties - and the extraction of that stuff causes serious health issues, but not for us - yet! Bother Bother Bother!
     
  18. DrEskimo

    DrEskimo Registered User

    2,487
    2,381
    113
    What do you mean 'yet'...its well known that the mining of lithium and the other rare earth metals like nickel and cobalt are damaging....not least because they are currently used primarily in all mobile phones, laptops and anything else you care to mention that contains a battery....

    It's why many scientists are seeking alternatives, such as sodium ion batteries:

    http://www.faradion.co.uk/technology/sodium-ion-technology/

    Doesn't stop it from being a far better alternative to petrol and diesel with regards to the environment and public health.
     
  19. rum4mo

    rum4mo Registered User

    2,221
    578
    113
    I was just meaning that it does not affect us personally yet directly, it does affect others already obviously. Electrical power storage, yes, it would have been quite smart to have thought out a sustainable way to store large amounts of electrical power before flooding/swamping the countryside with large egg beaters that need to be taken off line when the grid demand does not need their output! Another good idea that has taken off (big money generators) without being fully integrated into the supply grid.

    Edit:- I can't answer the question if it is safer for our health when compared with petrol/DERV when you add in the entire process from extraction to use to disposal. Oil industries have some spin offs, or maybe burning the fuel as petrol/DERV is a spin off from something else. More to using something than the local pollution, that is just being a NIMBY?
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  20. DrEskimo

    DrEskimo Registered User

    2,487
    2,381
    113
    Why would a battery directly affect us? We've been using li-ion batteries for years. Unless of course you happened to own a Samsung Note 7...!

    Not sure why you have raised the point about wind turbines and their interaction to the grid, but I believe they feed any surplus energy into the national grid to reduce demand of other electricity sources. Same with solar. It is why on the 25th March the national grid saw lower energy demand during the day, than it did for the previous night. Output of solar is not directly measured, but their impact on reducing the demand on the national grid can be.

    Yes the focus here has been quite nimby by focusing on local pollution, since this is the main focus of the ban on diesel and older petrol cars, but I have read a few reports which show that overall EVs are far less 'damaging'. The extent of this does depend on the source of the energy used to charge the things though. If charged using personal solar panels, which charge a home battery storage solution, then the impact is many orders of magnitude less impactful. However if its using power generated from coal say, the difference is not as stark, but still better overall.

    Of course the current trend indicates we are moving away from 'dirtier' forms of power generation, in lieu of nuclear and renewables. I've always been of the opinion that its better to have an infrastructure of cars that can instantly use a 100% renewable energy source, than suggesting there is no point in EVs, because currently they charge off some 'dirty' sources of energy. Might as well start making the transition now for when/if we move to more renewable energy solutions (I'm still holding my breath for nuclear fusion, if they would just fund more R&D on it...!).

    Finally there is the energy needed to refine oil to make fuel. Much like hydrogen, its really an energy storage solution. Never quite got the logic of using loads of energy to create a fuel that gives the car energy, when you could use all that energy to charge the car directly. EVs also have the benefit of being energy agnostic and can accept electricity generated using any source, not just tied to hydrogen, petrol or diesel.

    My 2ps worth. Happy to accept I have misunderstood or not factored in other issues, but overall the logic of EVs and the move away from petrol/diesel for a large proportion of drivers (where it's suitable/practical) seems a logically sound and coherent step forward.
     
  21. rum4mo

    rum4mo Registered User

    2,221
    578
    113
    I was only pointing out that as far as I know, any issues raised by mining materials that are used in these batteries, have not reached our shores yet, that was all. My introducing wind turbines to this discussion was only to show that we really have missed a trick in general over electrical energy storage and using renewables in as much as we have the potential to generate a reasonable percentage of our electricity from wind/waves/solar, but most of the present infrastructure is into wind generation and that potential is limited presently by the lack of storage. We have not really moved on from the crude but effective pump storage systems of the 50's and 60's - and that is not very good.
     
    DrEskimo likes this.
  22. DrEskimo

    DrEskimo Registered User

    2,487
    2,381
    113
    Yup have to agree with you there. Again why I think nuclear fusion is the way forward, but it's obviously pretty complicated...!



    One of Brian Cox's documentaries discussing it suggested that the US spends more on dog grooming than it does on nuclear fusion R&D...
     
  23. Retroman

    Retroman Audi A3 2010 Sportback 2.0 TDI 170 (CBBB engine)

    1,261
    411
    83
    40,000 death per year in London caused directly by diesel cars - I'd like to see some of the death certificates signed by either doctors or coroners actually confirming that! Only 2-years ago Khan and co. were whinging in the Guardian that London deaths from COPD and other lung related ailments were the result of "poverty". Perhaps the diesel cars drive around to the "poorer areas" and stand around with their engines idling.
     
  24. DrEskimo

    DrEskimo Registered User

    2,487
    2,381
    113
    Not quite right...

    They don't imply deaths are directly caused by diesel cars, as such you never see 'Death by diesel' as a cause of death....

    Put simply, studies follow a cohort of people over time and monitor exposure to particulate matter. They then record those that die from different causes and model how exposure to particulates are associated with the risk of death from cardiovascular/COPD/etc., whatever the study is specifically interested in. These studies have shown an association between increased particulate matter and increased risk of mortality. You can then model how this risk is linked to premature deaths, extrapolate to the populations, and viola...you have those headline figures. Of course there are many caveats the headlines don't discuss, but then it wouldn't sell many papers if it did....

    As always, association doesn't imply causation, but then randomised controlled trials pumping a group of people with noxious gases over many years is unlikely to get past many ethic committees....
     

Share This Page

Do Not Sell My Personal Information