Slashdot Mirror
France Wants To Get Rid of Diesel Fuel
mrspoonsi sends this Reuters report:
France wants to gradually phase out the use of diesel fuel for private passenger transport and will put in place a system to identify the most polluting vehicles, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said on Friday. Next year, the government will launch a car identification system that will rank vehicles by the amount of pollution they emit, Valls said in a speech. This will make it possible for local authorities to limit city access for the dirtiest cars. "In France, we have long favoured the diesel engine. This was a mistake, and we will progressively undo that, intelligently and pragmatically," Valls said. About 80 percent of French motorists drive diesel-powered cars. Valls said taxation would have to orient citizens towards more ecological choices, notably the 2015 state budget measures to reduce the tax advantage of diesel fuel versus gas.
Well, french fries aren't... ok never mind. (This could turn into a Hercule Poirot routine.)
I mean, isn't this the same France that decided that since the eye is most sensitive to the middle part of the visible spectrum, that all cars should have lenses over them only allowing that part of the spectrum, requiring French drivers to make their way by dim, mucus-colored light? [1] Point being, they already have a history of making sweeping, ill-advised decisions involving automobiles. I wonder if this one will be rescinded when all the ramifications come to light.
[1] I just looked it up, and it's called "Selective yellow" and was mandatory for all illumination in French vehicles until the 1990's.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Also, every diesel vehicle I've ever had the displeasure of being near stinks terribly, and emits loud, annoying noise from the engine compartment.
Diesel is more fuel efficient than gasoline. Hence, banning diesel will force people to buy more electric and hybrid cars.
Hm? I would have thought, Hence, banning diesel will force people to buy gasoline cars. Why would banning diesel force people to buy electric (very limited range) and hybrid (additional cost) when gasoline cars are more plentiful, have a significantly greater range, and are cheaper?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Half the vehicles in my jurisdiction, even brand new, have that bypasses by the owner.
Since you are an anonymous coward, your anecdote is worth even less than the usual nothing. Even if your veracity were assured, we have no idea where you are. We know only that you are cowardly, and make both typos and unsubstantiated statements.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There is nothing in the article about France trying to kill diesel. The purpose of those measures are to get rid of OLD DIESEL CARS that are well known source of pollution (for the particules).
Nonsense. Why are you lying?
Modern diesels cannot be told apart from gasoline. They do not stink and belch smoke. I should know, I have two.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
but that's why diesels now have catalysts.
This reminds me of what I think is the most important bit - identifying the most polluting cars and getting them off the road(or at least out of the cities).
We're to the point that a California emissions car in the USA on average actually CLEANS the air. It's exhaust has fewer pollutants than what's going in. The problem is now things like older cars, lawn mowers, weed eaters and other small engines. A lawnmower running for an hour can emit more pollution in an hour than a modern car will all month.
Get rid of various exceptions if you have to, but go after the actual sources of pollution. If that's older diesels, so be it.
I don't read AC A human right
"Diesel is more fuel efficient than gasoline."
The Diesel cycle is more efficient than the Otto cycle. However the main reason diesel engines are more efficient in practice is:
1. Diesel starts off with ~30% more energy (BTUs) per volume
2. Higher compression ratio.
The later is rapidly shrinking, newer technologies (eg: direct injection) mean modern petrol engines have higher compression ratios than they used to. (9:1 -> 12:1, better than older diesel engines)
Once laser ignition (allows better combustion chamber geometry and strength) and lean burn technologies (mixed spark and compression ignition) make it to production. Petrol engines will swing back to being the cleaner engines, mainly because the fuel starts off cleaner (more refined).
There's also been little investigation into the long term problems caused by adblue and other urea additives used in Euro 6 diesel engines with a selective cat. I imagine this will be causing higher uric acid production, and may be subject to further environmental concerns as the number of such systems increase.
From Euro 4, these have been met by running the engine very hot, which creates masses of oxides of Nitrogen, and then neutralising the NOx by squirting ammonia into the exhaust pipe. his works fine in a laboratory environment. Unfortunately, a truck can go from buring 20 ccs of fuel per hour to burning 2 litres a second* in two turns of the crank shaft, and there's not a bat's chance in hell of getting the ammonia to match the NOx during the transition. These engines produce very fine particulates that can go strait through the skin - and enter the blood through the lungs very easily. Real life pollution is very bad. Unfortunately, the option of running the engines cooler and filtering out the lumps of carbon mechanically, was ruled out, because the people selling the Ammonia (pig's piss, sold as "Ad-Blue") paid vast bribes to the European comissioners. MAN Diesel demonstrated an engine that could do this but did not put it into production "for commercial reasons".
Manging the supply of, and carrying expensive 5% Ammonia solution around with them is something truck owners and drivers would go a long way to avoid - though whether that goes as far as buying auto-transmission trucks (which is MAN's product) is another question. They are really difficult to reverse into a loading bay with potholes near where the rear axles come to rest (ie most loading bays). We are talking up to FIVE rear axles here.
* Think: reaches bottom of hill in fully loaded 44 ton truck at just over 56MPH (truck speed limit for Europe) and stamps on the throttle pedal of a 16 litre turbo-charged engine as he hits the incline of the upward hill.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII