Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Towtug

Are we being conned .........again?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I've been at the Commercial Vehicle show this week and have had a number of discussions with various representatives of the major Motor manufacturers about a variety of topics on behalf of my clients. Ill probably raise separate topics for them if I get time.

One of the main ones that I didn't get a satisfactory answer to considers emissions.

During the show, there were a number of speakers punting messages purveyed by the government and from environmentalists, if you just walked into these "seminars" with a totally clear mind and no preconceptions, you would leave with the clear message that Diesel has to go, Diesel is Dirty, Diesel is killing our children etc etc.  

Whilst I am fully in concert with the need to reduce emissions , I wondered why Diesel is the concentration. Although the government has said it wants to ban new IC engines by 2030, almost always they refer to Diesels.  During the show I challenged a number of people to tell me why the SMMT had published a document showing that current Euro 6 diesel vehicles had between 25 and 34% cleaner emissions than the comparable diesel.   The answers usually centered around a comment such as "you are making an incorrect comparison between the old NEDC measurement and the new WLTP" , so I decided to check for myself  (I've done a bout 2 dozen different vehicles this morning)

I've attached a file which represents a current 2019 model Sportage (only because Ive actually tested this myself), but all that I checked gave the same sort of result.

 

Considering most people only Talk about CO2 and particulates ill just mention those, but as you will see from the file,

Particulates for the Petrol 1.48 mg/km for the Diesel 0.31 mg/km , IE petrol is considerably higher.

CO2 (using NEDC figures) Petrol 162 g/km Diesel 129 g/km   and for the WLTP  figure  Petrol 183 g/km , Diesel 158 g/km , so again Petrol is considerably higher.

 

Diesels do appear to produce more NoX ,  and the figures for Petrol and Diesel are still close. What about Hydrocarbons , Im not a chemist , so anyone who can enlighten me Id like to hear from.

So what do you think are we being conned.......again.

Book1.pdf

Edited by Towtug
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along similar lines to TT, I read an article this week that was pushing for courier companies to adopt more electric vans. Several of the big names suggested they already used some and were planning on more. Maybe I've missed something but I only know of one pure electric van that's commonly available - the Nissan NV200 and I believe that has to come in from Japan as a special order.

 

What I can never seem to get a straight answer too is how long before the manufacture and installation carbon usage that emanates from all these so called 'green' installations, system and vehicles becomes carbon neutral. For instance all the embedded carbon in manufacturing, transporting, installing and maintaining, say a wind turbine, counting the building and equipping the factory that makes it, the commuting of the builders and workers involved etc, etc. In other words the whole end to end carbon footprint through to when it's demolished/scrapped and melted down for re-use etc. Are all these things actually 'green' or are they just another con to allow grey suits to make more money? 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Towtug said:

 

So what do you think are we being conned.......again.


 

We are only being "conned" if we actually believe what we are told!

The real problem is that we simply do not know (and the so called experts do not seem to know either) what the real facts are.

It seems that is possible to buy whatever expert opinion you want!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is we are lied to and miss lead so much nowadays that nobody believes what they are told anyway, even if it’s the truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have always been treated like mushrooms and feed lots of bull, you just to look the pharmaceutical companies and all thief research and drugs, to latter find out it is all toxic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Steamdrivenandy said:

Along similar lines to TT, I read an article this week that was pushing for courier companies to adopt more electric vans. Several of the big names suggested they already used some and were planning on more. Maybe I've missed something but I only know of one pure electric van that's commonly available - the Nissan NV200 and I believe that has to come in from Japan as a special order.

 

What I can never seem to get a straight answer too is how long before the manufacture and installation carbon usage that emanates from all these so called 'green' installations, system and vehicles becomes carbon neutral. For instance all the embedded carbon in manufacturing, transporting, installing and maintaining, say a wind turbine, counting the building and equipping the factory that makes it, the commuting of the builders and workers involved etc, etc. In other words the whole end to end carbon footprint through to when it's demolished/scrapped and melted down for re-use etc. Are all these things actually 'green' or are they just another con to allow grey suits to make more money? 

In answer to your electric vehicle query, I read this.

https://motortransport.co.uk/blog/2018/10/17/dpd-opens-its-first-all-electric-last-mile-delivery-site/

 

In relation to pollutants, going electric is replacing one type with another.

Batterys dont last for ever and will require disposal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wellys and Mac said:

In answer to your electric vehicle query, I read this.

https://motortransport.co.uk/blog/2018/10/17/dpd-opens-its-first-all-electric-last-mile-delivery-site/

 

In relation to pollutants, going electric is replacing one type with another.

Batterys dont last for ever and will require disposal.

Electrics/ Hybrids was another issue but I'll start a seperate thread for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like to know is that these environmentalists are stating that pollution, ie, car emissions, etc, is killing our children.  Then why is that people are living so long (from the Government and others)?  My mum is 92 and my aunt is 91.  They lived through the blitz, smog (before smokeless fuel), and leaded petrol:blink:.  In a word, yes, we are being conned.  This country (or at least Europe) seems so fixated on cleaner air, so much so, that we now have to pay more to drive into majority of cities, change cars over to hybrid or electric.  How are these vehicles produced and what output of emission is being sent out into our atmosphere polluting the air.  The only way to get pollution free, is to do away with man made everything, and you may then get the clean air you require, and oh, don't forget, get rid of plastic as well.  The ones getting rich are the manufacturers and Governments

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few weeks ago, Ryanair came up as being in the top 10 of European polluters... The other 9 are German Coal fired power stations...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Guzzilazz said:

A few weeks ago, Ryanair came up as being in the top 10 of European polluters... The other 9 are German Coal fired power stations...

Im always suspicious of surveys like that when they compare different industries, Germany will have a problem with the old Lignite industry they inherited, but I know overall the power industry over the years have consistent lowered their emissions.

As for Ryanair I flew with them yesterday and read something that said they were the most rapidly expanding airline in Europe, but their Co2 emissions was the lowest in terms of passenger kilometers. This may be true, but I also read that the Boeing 737 (Ryanairs ride) was less environmentally friendly than the Airbus 3XX (Easyjet) so how do you square the Two. Ill let someone else research that.

 

Ive just arrived in Albania for a weeks off road testing, Im just going to check which of the Taxis outside has new shoes and a full bag of hay.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the U.K. is responsible for just 1% of polluting emissions yet “our” Government is, it appears, going to go down the basically mental route, of making a LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE commitment to being a carbon neutral country in the none too distant future. 

I bet the Chinese are laughing themselves stupid over that!  China produces the vast majority of the worlds pollutants and, if we go carbon neutral then they will doubtless up the cost to us of anything (most things?) we will no longer be able to produce ourselves. 

 

I have been to China and witnessed what comes out of a Chinese coal fired power station that’s right on the banks of the Yangtze River (My “minders” tried VERY hard to keep me distracted as we went passed, and when I tried to photograph it well they went totally Banzai!) 

 

It’s a filthy thick VERY yellow smoke because Chinese coal has a very high sulphur content. China opens three or four new coal fired power stations A WEEK

 

Are THEY committing to even keeping the SAME level of CO2 or other pollutants, let alone reducing them? Don’t be so stupid, of course not, it’s only the posturing politicians in the U.K. who are trying to legislate us back into the dark ages.  Electric vehicles have their uses, but has anyone produced an electric lorry that can do the same work as a diesel artic! I don’t think so.  I have just, today, driven up from Paris to Lille on the motorway. The inside lane was almost totally filled, for the entire distance, by artic’s, there were hundreds and hundreds of them (in both directions) 

 

Also just how are we going to produce all the electricity that will be needed to recharge all these battery powered vehicles in the middle of winter on a windless cloudy day? No output at that time from wind turbines and no solar arrays. Oh I know, let’s use back up batteries shall we??

 

Grrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrrr and Grrrrrrrr again. 

 

Andy

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Towtug said:

Im always suspicious of surveys like that when they compare different industries, Germany will have a problem with the old Lignite industry they inherited, but I know overall the power industry over the years have consistent lowered their emissions.

As for Ryanair I flew with them yesterday and read something that said they were the most rapidly expanding airline in Europe, but their Co2 emissions was the lowest in terms of passenger kilometers. This may be true, but I also read that the Boeing 737 (Ryanairs ride) was less environmentally friendly than the Airbus 3XX (Easyjet) so how do you square the Two. Ill let someone else research that.

 

Ive just arrived in Albania for a weeks off road testing, Im just going to check which of the Taxis outside has new shoes and a full bag of hay.

Ryanair's load factor [percentage of plane seats filled per flight] will probably explain the 'pollution per passenger kilometer' efficiency. More bums on more seats compared to the more traditional models of higher fares/lower occupancy operations.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Plodd said:

So the U.K. is responsible for just 1% of polluting emissions yet “our” Government is, it appears, going to go down the basically mental route, of making a LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE commitment to being a carbon neutral country in the none too distant future. 

I bet the Chinese are laughing themselves stupid over that!  China produces the vast majority of the worlds pollutants and, if we go carbon neutral then they will doubtless up the cost to us of anything (most things?) we will no longer be able to produce ourselves. 

 

I have been to China and witnessed what comes out of a Chinese coal fired power station that’s right on the banks of the Yangtze River (My “minders” tried VERY hard to keep me distracted as we went passed, and when I tried to photograph it well they went totally Banzai!) 

 

It’s a filthy thick VERY yellow smoke because Chinese coal has a very high sulphur content. China opens three or four new coal fired power stations A WEEK

 

Are THEY committing to even keeping the SAME level of CO2 or other pollutants, let alone reducing them? Don’t be so stupid, of course not, it’s only the posturing politicians in the U.K. who are trying to legislate us back into the dark ages.  Electric vehicles have their uses, but has anyone produced an electric lorry that can do the same work as a diesel artic! I don’t think so.  I have just, today, driven up from Paris to Lille on the motorway. The inside lane was almost totally filled, for the entire distance, by artic’s, there were hundreds and hundreds of them (in both directions) 

 

Also just how are we going to produce all the electricity that will be needed to recharge all these battery powered vehicles in the middle of winter on a windless cloudy day? No output at that time from wind turbines and no solar arrays. Oh I know, let’s use back up batteries shall we??

 

Grrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrrr and Grrrrrrrr again. 

 

Andy

 

Excellent, common sense post.

(Unusual for an ex-copper) 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Towtug said:

I've been at the Commercial Vehicle show this week and have had a number of discussions with various representatives of the major Motor manufacturers about a variety of topics on behalf of my clients. Ill probably raise separate topics for them if I get time.

One of the main ones that I didn't get a satisfactory answer to considers emissions.

During the show, there were a number of speakers punting messages purveyed by the government and from environmentalists, if you just walked into these "seminars" with a totally clear mind and no preconceptions, you would leave with the clear message that Diesel has to go, Diesel is Dirty, Diesel is killing our children etc etc.  

Whilst I am fully in concert with the need to reduce emissions , I wondered why Diesel is the concentration. Although the government has said it wants to ban new IC engines by 2030, almost always they refer to Diesels.  During the show I challenged a number of people to tell me why the SMMT had published a document showing that current Euro 6 diesel vehicles had between 25 and 34% cleaner emissions than the comparable diesel.   The answers usually centered around a comment such as "you are making an incorrect comparison between the old NEDC measurement and the new WLTP" , so I decided to check for myself  (I've done a bout 2 dozen different vehicles this morning)

I've attached a file which represents a current 2019 model Sportage (only because Ive actually tested this myself), but all that I checked gave the same sort of result.

 

Considering most people only Talk about CO2 and particulates ill just mention those, but as you will see from the file,

Particulates for the Petrol 1.48 mg/km for the Diesel 0.31 mg/km , IE petrol is considerably higher.

CO2 (using NEDC figures) Petrol 162 g/km Diesel 129 g/km   and for the WLTP  figure  Petrol 183 g/km , Diesel 158 g/km , so again Petrol is considerably higher.

 

Diesels do appear to produce more NoX ,  and the figures for Petrol and Diesel are still close. What about Hydrocarbons , Im not a chemist , so anyone who can enlighten me Id like to hear from.

So what do you think are we being conned.......again.

Book1.pdf 407.31 kB · 6 downloads

Whenever I hear of a new problem in the world we now live in, some sort of expert come's up with an answer that will solve the issue. When I listen to this so called expert I always ask myself who paid for that expert's research and what is his/her backer's real reason.

so are we being conned 

I don't know but I think we are not being told the complete picture and someone WILL make a pile of money.

kot

pigs

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Babstreefern said:

 Europe seems so fixated on cleaner air, so much so, that we now have to pay more to drive into majority of cities,

1

 

And meanwhile, this week in Asda I bought white grapes flown in from India; red grapes flown in from Chile and sweet potatoes flown in from USA.   Maybe those planes don't produce pollution. :o

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jaydug said:

 

And meanwhile, this week in Asda I bought white grapes flown in from India; red grapes flown in from Chile and sweet potatoes flown in from USA.   Maybe those planes don't produce pollution. :o

Probably why stobarts wanted to get in to Southend airport for the import of fresh food from abroad. Another link in the food chain to Tesco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Centre for  Alternative Technology  in North Wales says we should be concerned by the environmental danger of solar panels  (a number of pollutants involved in the production procees) and batteries (The main problem is the battery. A report by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute found that battery production produces 150-200kg of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt hour (kWh) of produced battery.) and that the only real clean energy is offshore wind power with H.E.P. schemes where excess daytime electricity production is used to pump water to reservoirs higher in mountain areas which can then be brought online to meet demand not being met when the clean energy sources are unable to supply demand. There was a scheme where Nuclear Power was used overnight when demand was low and the nuclear power was still generating to pump water to a reservoir above it. Demand by the National Grid could be met in seconds by H.E.P. See "Llyn Trawsfynydd, and power stations" on Google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mr Plodd said:

So the U.K. is responsible for just 1% of polluting emissions yet “our” Government is, it appears, going to go down the basically mental route, of making a LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE commitment to being a carbon neutral country in the none too distant future. 

I bet the Chinese are laughing themselves stupid over that!  China produces the vast majority of the worlds pollutants and, if we go carbon neutral then they will doubtless up the cost to us of anything (most things?) we will no longer be able to produce ourselves. 

 

I have been to China and witnessed what comes out of a Chinese coal fired power station that’s right on the banks of the Yangtze River (My “minders” tried VERY hard to keep me distracted as we went passed, and when I tried to photograph it well they went totally Banzai!) 

 

It’s a filthy thick VERY yellow smoke because Chinese coal has a very high sulphur content. China opens three or four new coal fired power stations A WEEK

 

Are THEY committing to even keeping the SAME level of CO2 or other pollutants, let alone reducing them? Don’t be so stupid, of course not, it’s only the posturing politicians in the U.K. who are trying to legislate us back into the dark ages.  Electric vehicles have their uses, but has anyone produced an electric lorry that can do the same work as a diesel artic! I don’t think so.  I have just, today, driven up from Paris to Lille on the motorway. The inside lane was almost totally filled, for the entire distance, by artic’s, there were hundreds and hundreds of them (in both directions) 

 

Also just how are we going to produce all the electricity that will be needed to recharge all these battery powered vehicles in the middle of winter on a windless cloudy day? No output at that time from wind turbines and no solar arrays. Oh I know, let’s use back up batteries shall we??

 

Grrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrrr and Grrrrrrrr again. 

 

Andy

From experience, another downside with electric vehicles for the distribution operators is the recharge time - with profit margins being very tight, they want to utilise their very expensive assets (i.e. vehicles) to the max, and the vehicles being idle, not earning, while recharging is a major loss of money for them - until a much faster way to recharge batteries is found (if ever), this is a major block to their use

Thats why there is government support for trials with LPG & CNG as they obviously have a similar refuel time to diesel, allowing maximum utilisation

Big drawback there though is the lack of infrastructure (i.e. refuelling points) and thats a bit of a chicken and egg - not enough demand, not enough LPG/CNG vehicles on the road - partly because there's not enough refuelling points!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think  it's fairly obvious that everything we do in modern life produces toxic side effects that will eventually destroy the planet. The only sensible solution is for everyone to pay more tax. That ought to sort it all  out.

 

Cheers,

Tanker.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎03‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 14:55, Odd days said:

Trouble is we are lied to and miss lead so much nowadays that nobody believes what they are told anyway, even if it’s the truth.

 

Perhaps we need another peoples vote, or the best of three.  :rolleyes:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now there are 65m of us milling around on this island we won't  be able or willing to go back to the 1950s. As a child then I ate only seasonal food produced and distributed locally, my dad walked to work as he usually did not have a car and the only thing in our house permanently  switched on was a small refrigerator. 

"Them days is gone Butch"

So what we await now is the first government measures that actually impinge on personal freedom.

Eg:

Only X kWh of electricity per household per week

One car per household and it must be electric.

One flight per person per year

 

Wait for the fur to fly then. It'll  make extinction rebellion look like the a WI outing.😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎03‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 16:45, Mr Plodd said:

So the U.K. is responsible for just 1% of polluting emissions yet “our” Government is, it appears, going to go down the basically mental route, of making a LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE commitment to being a carbon neutral country in the none too distant future. 

I bet the Chinese are laughing themselves stupid over that!  China produces the vast majority of the worlds pollutants and, if we go carbon neutral then they will doubtless up the cost to us of anything (most things?) we will no longer be able to produce ourselves. 

 

I have been to China and witnessed what comes out of a Chinese coal fired power station that’s right on the banks of the Yangtze River (My “minders” tried VERY hard to keep me distracted as we went passed, and when I tried to photograph it well they went totally Banzai!) 

 

It’s a filthy thick VERY yellow smoke because Chinese coal has a very high sulphur content. China opens three or four new coal fired power stations A WEEK

 

Are THEY committing to even keeping the SAME level of CO2 or other pollutants, let alone reducing them? Don’t be so stupid, of course not, it’s only the posturing politicians in the U.K. who are trying to legislate us back into the dark ages.  Electric vehicles have their uses, but has anyone produced an electric lorry that can do the same work as a diesel artic! I don’t think so.  I have just, today, driven up from Paris to Lille on the motorway. The inside lane was almost totally filled, for the entire distance, by artic’s, there were hundreds and hundreds of them (in both directions) 

 

Also just how are we going to produce all the electricity that will be needed to recharge all these battery powered vehicles in the middle of winter on a windless cloudy day? No output at that time from wind turbines and no solar arrays. Oh I know, let’s use back up batteries shall we??

 

Grrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrrr and Grrrrrrrr again. 

 

Andy

 

Around 50 years ago when I was contracting at the templeborough works  the three working arc furnaces were pumping out red dust that literally turned the streets red , it was common to be walking in around 6 to 10" of dust in the areas we worked, Sheffield canal was polluted with very few fish .

 

This country is now so clean it can't be compared to how it was.

 

Having said that I do think traffic pollution is a problem, especially from classic cars which should be banned off the roads, and only travel on transporters for shows etc.

 

I would favour a tax on more than one car per household, having only ever had one car for the family....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got another idea.

I remember a programme a few years ago about CO2. It said that the earth is able to support about 160Btonnes (or was it Mtonnes?) per year. The sea produces about half of that - so lets get rid of the sea? Man, IN TOTAL produces about 6.5Btonnes of which China and India each produces about 25% and the USA produces about 20%. We, little old UK, as already said produces around 1%. It think the environmentalists should be shouting at those three countries rather than their home market, and as for the future WHY OH WHY should the UK be a world leader? Whilst we have The Donald in power and two countries that have so much population they could probably do nothing about it even if they wanted to, why should we, the Brits, have to suffer?

Per the comment about Germany, they didn't inherit many coal fired power stations - they had to bring them (mainly near the Polish border) back to life because to stay in power with her coalition including the Greens, Mutti had to switch off all nuclear power.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tanker said:

I think  it's fairly obvious that everything we do in modern life produces toxic side effects that will eventually destroy the planet. The only sensible solution is for everyone to pay more tax. That ought to sort it all  out.

 

Cheers,

Tanker.

 

Agree with your first statement, not so sure about your second, I’m guessing made tongue in cheek. It’s pretty well impossible to name a single aspect of modern living that doesn’t have a negative impact on our planet.  It seems to me we need some sort of mass extinction event...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There doesn't seem much logic in much of the debate around vehicle pollution. I've seen some test reports based on real world driving i.e measuring emissions from the tail pipe of vehicles being driven on the road where some EURO 4 diesels emit less pollution than some EURO 6 vehicles, admitted these are not common. The root of the problem is the EURO tests were bad language  removed but they were/are the tests the state mandated. Then Daily Mail reader got annoyed because vehicles didn't meet the test criteria in the real world... Error NO they never will, change the test parameters/ conditions and the results will change. It's like saying you expect s big of elastic to be the same length however much you stretch it....

 

Electric vehicles aren't pollution free, it just happens in a different places at the factory that makes the battery, in producing the raw material for battery production, in recycling the battery and of course the power station that generates the electricity that recharged the battery.

 

Spotted recent article looking at research about how many miles an EV needs to cover to be less pollution over its lifetime (including manufacture & scrapping) to be less pollution than ICE car. Results range from 450,000 miles to as few as 85,000- all depends on assumptions as to how manufacturing plants are powered, how power stations are fueled and such. Suffice to say I think nobody knows for sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...