Slashdot Mirror
Paris, Madrid, Athens, Mexico City Will Ban Diesel Vehicles By 2025 (bbc.com)
The mayors of four major global cities -- Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens -- announced plans to stop the use of all diesel-powered cars and trucks by 2025. The leaders made their commitments in Mexico at a biennial meeting of city leaders. BBC reports: At the C40 meeting of urban leaders in Mexico, the four mayors declared that they would ban all diesel vehicles by 2025 and "commit to doing everything in their power to incentivize the use of electric, hydrogen and hybrid vehicles." "It is no secret that in Mexico City, we grapple with the twin problems of air pollution and traffic," said the city's mayor, Miguel Angel Mancera. "By expanding alternative transportation options like our Bus Rapid Transport and subway systems, while also investing in cycling infrastructure, we are working to ease congestion in our roadways and our lungs." Paris has already taken a series of steps to cut the impact of diesel cars and trucks. Vehicles registered before 1997 have already been banned from entering the city, with restrictions increasing each year until 2020. The use of diesel in transport has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, as concerns about its impact on air quality have grown. The World Health Organization (WHO) says that around three million deaths every year are linked to exposure to outdoor air pollution. Diesel engines contribute to the problem in two key ways -- through the production of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Very fine soot PM can penetrate the lungs and can contribute to cardiovascular illness and death. Nitrogen oxides can help form ground level ozone and this can exacerbate breathing difficulties, even for people without a history of respiratory problems. The diesel ban is hugely significant. Carmakers will look at this decision and know it's just a matter of time before other city mayors follow suit.
waiting for the kill
You'll get my 2008 Mercedes ML320 CDI diesel when you pry the key from my cold, dead fingers.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
You must live in a urban rabbit warren. Try saying that when you live in the largest town for 50 miles in any direction and it's 11,000 people.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
California and Mexico city suffer from a huge problem when it comes to air flow.
Mexico City is basically in a bowl, and the prevailing winds for California slap up against the rocky mountains and dump it all back on California.
So Yeah, they really do need to go all electric. But that's not a reason to ban non electrics from the rest of the world that doesn't put huge cities in the dumbest places where emissions are magnified.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
...which is used as a diesel substitute in diesel powered cars
Which precisely describes the opposite of Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens.
Nobody is saying you ought to be forced to take the streetcar from Mayberry to Petticoat Junction. From Monmarte to the Bastile -- transit makes more sense than driving, especially if you factor in time for parking.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Is that going to possibly work with trucks????? There is not replacement for diesel for any truck so how the hell is this ban possibly going to work?
It's stupid enough to ban existing diesel passenger cars, giving the sheer numbers of them in Europe. But trucks????? And yeah okay I'm a cyclist and my lungs would appreciate a car ban but I just cant see this working.
I've wondered about this too. I've noticed pollutants in emissions are measured in PPM - parts per million air molecules in the exhaust. Not in parts per distance traveled. So transportation efficiency (emissions per distance traveled) gets you nothing (volume of air ingested decreases with higher efficiency), and combustion efficiency (more energy produced per cylinder detonation) actually increases PPM even though in practical terms it would be offset by needing to fire the cylinder fewer times to get the same amount of work done. Meanwhile being able to run a lean mixture makes passing these emissions tests a breeze. Heck, you could rig up a bypass to feed intake air straight into the exhaust stream (probably illegal) and drop your PPM to near-zero.
e.g. My 3.0L V6 diesel truck cruises at 65 MPHat 1550 RPM. My 3.2L V6 gas car cruises at 65 MPH at 1800 RPM. 7% higher engine displacement, 16% higher RPM, so 23.9% more airflow volume at the same speed. So even if the diesel put out 23% more PPM than the gas engine, it would actually be emitting less pollutants per mile traveled. The difference is even more pronounced at higher speeds or loads. The diesel can hit 80 MPH at 1900 RPM, while the gas engine will be up around 2400 RPM. 35% higher airflow.
I commuted 50 miles one way. No public transportation make that route.
After tolls and gas, it was almost 8000 a year before you tossed in oil changes and tires and stuff.
Riding a train would of been nice - but in America - the train system is stupidly funded (retirement is more important than repairing the system) , it's not expanding, and people who aren't riding trains are taxed to fund retirement.
Meanwhile, riding the train is costing more to the poor who can't afford increases and maintenance of existing railways is for shit. So congrats on the foreign train, and I hope that in the next four years some local imperatives shift a bit.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Though aren't most diesels these days turbocharged? Is the boost enough to greatly increase the actual air displaced?
After reading a little, looks like the boost can be from 15 to 40 PSI over ambient pressure.
Funnily enough the article is talking about cities with millions of people. I haven't visited the other 3 but it certainly is possible to live without a car in Madrid.
There is no current replacement for a diesel. It is more efficient than gasoline. If you think that 400HP diesel engine in a bus pollutes a lot, just wait until you replace it with the equivalent powered gasoline engine. There is no alternative. You cannot haul loads of people or freight on batteries... This decision to ban is probably completely lobbied for.
Typical compression ratio in a Diesel engine is somewhere around 20:1, vs a gasoline engine that's running 10:1 or there about. That means that your 3.2L V6 is pushing 46500L per minute of air through it (3.6/6*20*1550*3 = 49600. Your gasoline engine is 3.2/6*10*1800*3 = 28800L/minute.
Basically this is displacement/cylinder * compression ratio * RPM * number of intake strokes per revolution. As such, your Diesel is pushing just under double the amount of air compared to the gasoline engine.
Ever wondered why diesel tail pipes are a lot larger than gasoline ones? This is why, diesels move a lot more air.
For the record, I drove an '06 TDI, and won't trade it for a gasser until it falls apart.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Not when cruising at 65 mph. Not even close.
Your understanding of how diesel engines work is rather poor. Diesel engines don't have throttles, there is no variable control on air intake; power output is controlled by controlling input fuel (not input fuel/air mixture like a gas engine). So, generally more air will flow through a diesel engine than a similar sized gas engine (unless the gas engine is operating at WOT condition).
Turbocharging the diesel engine will result in even more airflow through the engine.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Not when cruising at 65 mph. Not even close.
Well, tell us what it is. Neither of my turbos boost that high, but they're both old. (My F250 peaks out at 11 psi and my Mercedes at 12.) The F250 cruises at only around 2 psi unless you have a trailer, then it's more like 6 or 7. The Mercedes cruises at around 7 or 8 psi. But they have much lower boost pressure than modern diesels.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The fundamental point stands; regulations specifying emissions in ppm are flawed, because they ignore the work done. The new bans are worse yet, because they are not setting emissions standards, but eliminating by mandate an entire technology class with fundamentally superior thermodynamic efficiency. Fuel consumption and CO2 output for a given amount of work will increase substantially. Intelligent regulations would allow continued use of diesel engines which met standards. They would also encourage clean burning synthetic fuels like DME, which may be used in those engines.
Only moderate modifications are needed to convert a diesel engine to burn dimethyl ether. The simplicity of this short carbon chain compound leads during combustion to very low emissions of particulate matter, NOx, and CO. For these reasons as well as being sulfur-free, dimethyl ether meets even the most stringent emission regulations in ...
Typical compression ratio in a Diesel engine is somewhere around 20:1, vs a gasoline engine that's running 10:1 or there about.
So what?
Basically this is displacement/cylinder * compression ratio * RPM * number of intake strokes per revolution.
The compression ratio is a function of the head volume and the cylinder volume. It has nothing to do whatsoever with determining how much air is drawn into the engine, which is defined by speed, bore, stroke, and intake efficiency. It is rather determined by how much air is drawn into the engine, and how much space you have left for air at the end of a compression stroke.
Ever wondered why diesel tail pipes are a lot larger than gasoline ones? This is why, diesels move a lot more air.
Diesel tail pipes are a lot larger than gasoline ones because diesels shit the bed when you have backpressure. It ruins their efficiency and you have to play tricks to get it back. Turbocharging is worth it anyway because it's turbocharging. Now, pay attention to this part, because it's important: exhaust gas volume is proportional to load. Diesels have bigger exhausts because they have more torque. This is also why turbochargers and diesels go together so well. Turbochargers are driven by exhaust gas expansion, which as mentioned, is proportional to load.
If you carve the piston out, you lower the compression ratio, and you increase the amount of air the engine consumes. You in fact have this exactly backwards.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Alright, so you live in a rural area. Even if you have to drive, you can drive a hybrid that gets >50 mpg. And that's actually better for you too, since it means you buy a lot less gas for your long commute. So you do that, right?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Gasoline engines, yes, Diesel, no. As I posted elsewhere, Diesel engines have something closer to a fixed air intake on each revolution, irrespective of load.
Remember that Diesel engines use compression ignition and, without sufficient air, there is insufficient compression to ignite the fuel.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You're absolutely right, i can't believe I brain farted like that... I facepalmed about 10 minutes after I posted. Sorry for the stupidity.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Please get off your high horse. Or whatever you yokels drive these days.
That recent builds were more efficient than gasoline, and with less processing in the raw material overall it should be better?
Define cleaner. Diesel did run cleaner for certain definitions. It always was dirtier in terms of particulate count. It was always cleaner in terms of CO why it was lauded as better than petrol. Unfortunately it has far higher NOx emissions which more recently (recent in terms of a time scale of 50 years) has been linked to various ill health.
As for processing, that depends and the answer is no. In theory you could cut diesel out of crude and be done with it. In practice you won't meet any of the fuel standards in doing so, especially sulphur content so at the very least diesel needs to be hydofined. But in terms of where diesel comes from in the process, you can get it through distillation, vacuum distillation, visbraking, fluidised catalytic cracking, coking, hydrocracking, and those are just the simple processes. And most refineries have them interconnected to get more and more out of crude oil. Even the simplest refineries will have distillation + vacuum distillation + hydrofining with the bottom of the distillation process taken to a visbreaker and then to a cat cracker and then back through a hydrofiner.
But in practice no one makes just diesel so saying there's less processing is nonsense as any refinery will have units that produce both diesel and petrol components, and then specific units to polish up just the diesel, and just the petrol among other things. So there really isn't any efficiency gains to get by talking about processing.
Yeah, it's not like you can have electric delivery vehicles.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"I haven't visited the other 3 but it certainly is possible to live without a car in Madrid."
Maybe that's your point of view. On the other hand, I never had a car -not even a driver's license, and I lived in a 650.000 people town, till I came to Madrid and I understood I couldn't live without one.
But this forgets the most important point: policy-makers are chosen every four years, so there's no way you can seriously say anything about what will or will not be allowed in Madrid (I bet it's the same for the other cities) by 2025.
Alright, so you live in a rural area. Even if you have to drive, you can drive a hybrid that gets >50 mpg. And that's actually better for you too, since it means you buy a lot less gas for your long commute. So you do that, right?
Hell, I live ~1.5hrs of the US border, and roughly the same from Toronto. Here's the funny thing, we had gasoline engine cars in the 90's that would easily get 50mpg, those mpg ratings dropped through the floor when they started adding ethanol to the fuel. The reality is, even where I live. Which is within range of cities with 300k, 600k, and 4m within a reasonable distance, you're still likely going driving long distances if you need medical care especially specialist care. That's not even touching on the job situations, and how messed up everything is because of high housing prices. There's half a dozen new people in my neighborhood who drive every day to Toronto because they couldn't afford it with all the taxes/fees/etc. But even spending $150/week in gas it's cheaper to drive.
Om, nomnomnom...
GP is right, though, that diesel engines move a lot more air. Gasoline engines run roughly at a stoichiometric air to fuel ratio, diesel engines run way leaner, they start at ratios that are almost too high for a gasoline engine to work properly (running diesel engines at lower lambda would produce a shitload of soot) and go up to 6:1.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
That is actually the key to getting cars out of the city. When public transport is more convenient then a car, then people would stop driving into the city with a car. Problem solved.
You must live in a urban rabbit warren. Try saying that when you live in the largest town for 50 miles in any direction and it's 11,000 people.
Do you not care about the planet? Do you wish for everything to die?
Seriously, this is what bothers me about all those eco-fanatics: they are delighted for _others_ to make sacrifices on behalf of the planet, but even a minor change in their own lifestyle? Noooo...
As it happens you do have a choice. That choice is moving closer to work, closer to shops, and closer to other people. It might inconvenience you slightly to live like the rest of humanity, but unless you have a pressing need to be way out there, you really shouldn't be.
Around cities distance traveled us less important than the overall emissions of all vehicles. From a practical standpoint it's difficult to evaluate individual models, let alone account for degradation over time.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
My work is way out here.
And that city 50 miles away is 60,000 people. The closest major city is 125 miles away.
This is why lots of folks are rising up against the urban elites: you don't understand and can't conceive of any other lifestyle but your own.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
You have an odd definition of "suburb". My town isn't even an exurb. It's just plain rural.=, well out in to the middle of farm country.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I drive a midsize SUV because I carry enough stuff on enough occasions that a Prius won't hold it. An RX400h would, if I could afford one. I'm not sure it'd beat the 30 MPG not he highway I get out of the ML320.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I spent about 2 minutes searching, found some people in the delivery industry that said a typical route is anywhere from 5 miles a day (dense urban) to 200 miles (rural), avr seems to be about 60-80 miles. Friend of mine that works on this stuff said a lot of construction/service vehicles drive around 10-15 miles a day. They drive from the shop to a job site and then return. Would appear that an electric delivery truck with 100 miles range would work fine in a place like Mexico City. Service vehicles would work with even less range.
because it's important: exhaust gas volume is proportional to load.
Gasoline engines, yes, Diesel, no. As I posted elsewhere, Diesel engines have something closer to a fixed air intake on each revolution, irrespective of load.
Please read before replying.
Remember that Diesel engines use compression ignition and, without sufficient air, there is insufficient compression to ignite the fuel.
Would you like me to tell you about my AT185. or my OM617.951A?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If I were you, I'd be careful about throwing those numbers around. Someone surely will say that the problem is that gas is too cheap.
After all, fuck the people contributing their time on this planet to the betterment of the economy, right? Let them donate half again of that time to getting there and home again.
Good luck getting goods to your city.
Only around 15% of the US population live in fully rural counties, which seem like the sort of place you describe. Perhaps you could make up for the damage you do with a car or truck by collecting your own electricity with all that land, or something. Luckily, there is hardly anyone else around you to enjoy the pollution your gas and/or diesel vehicles create. (I live in a remote and semi-rural area, too, and I bicycle everywhere.)
That, and the obligatory: move out of the sticks.
Or go electric - you'll have to stop using mostly coal for your electricity for it to make any sense (which is the dominant source, particularly in midwestern and western rural areas - where a lot of that low population density land is). 50 miles to a city isn't that big a deal for an electric car.
semantics are everything!
There are no (to my knowledge) gas hybrids that can net 50 mpg on the highway. Unlike a gas car they get far better town mpg.
A hybrid car also has all the things that can go wrong with a gas powered car combined with all the things that can go wrong with an electric powered car. On the plus side, there are not that many things to go wrong with an electric car, but it's still a tradeoff. There is more that can go wrong, and you the consumer will be paying for that.
Yes, paying 25K+ for a new hybrid or dropping like 10-15K on a used one with questionable batteries and no warranty to save what, maybe $5-10 / week on gas, makes sooooo much sense.
Lets not forget that it would take ~30+ years of mining lithium / cobalt / other REEs to replace the fleet of existing vehicles on the road, much less the ones that would be produced in the next thirty years...
Don't buy cheap shit cars. A Toyota Corolla gets real world ~36-38MPG with shit ethanol filled gasoline, and 42-44MPG with non ethanol-poisoned gasoline, with a pure ICE engine. But OMFG the 0-60 times suck... wah, wah ,wah.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
Electric vehicles won't handle my mission requirements. I lay them out elsewhere in the comments here.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
The people in that mode now are Islamic murderers and women mutilators. I'm sure you'll fit in well with that crowd.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
A Prius can do 50 mpg highway. This is 65 mph with a roof rack, in New Hampshire.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You'll make a fine despot. You've already got ordering people around to fulfill your fantasies down pat, all you need is political power.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Living in the middle of nowhere was your choice. Other people don't have to subsidize it.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
As it happens you do have a choice. That choice is moving closer to work, closer to shops, and closer to other people. It might inconvenience you slightly to live like the rest of humanity, but unless you have a pressing need to be way out there, you really shouldn't be.
Yeah, and costs 10x more to do so. The long commute is what we trade to be able to afford to live comfortably, save for college etc..
Under low loads, Diesels don't use all the air they take in. Some of the exhaust is unreacted input oxygen. The relation between exhaust volume and load is different in Diesels and gasoline engines.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Like religions and cultures, some lifestyles are just better than others.
You are confusing two different things. Pollutants are measured in PPM. This makes sense - it doesn't matter how they got there, they are still pollutants. Emission standards, however, do not measure PPM. For light duty vehicles standards are specified by amount of pollutant (mass) per vehicle mile. For heavy duty vehicles they are specified by amount of pollutant per hp hour or something similar.
I can't help but be a little amused at all the people saying cities could never ban Diesel because there's no acceptable alternative.
There is, of course, just not for long-haul trucking.
There's two ways goods get delivered by truck in a city. One is the big semi comes right into town with its container. The other is that the semi goes to a transit hub somewhere around the periphery of the city and offloads its cargo into smaller trucks.
In either case, the answer is simple: detach the container at a hub and have it taken into the city by an electric or hydrogen truck. Or just off-load the cargo onto a fleet of smaller trucks that meet the city's emission standards.
This is not rocket science.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I got an average of 61 mpg when I drove from Denver to California in my Prius. And that includes through the mountainous sections of I-70 where you're doing heavy hills and constantly having to brake and accelerate again, and with the cruise set at 80 on the flat sections with a 75 mph limit.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
We on the Left don't care. We're way too smart and sophisticated to need to do this "listen" or "paying attention" thing. There is only one proper way to live and that is ours. If you're not one of us you're subhuman and do not deserve to live. End of debate. Anyone who disagrees is a fascist.
Heck, you could rig up a bypass to feed intake air straight into the exhaust stream (probably illegal)
Probably not. My car has one of these. It's called an air injection pump.
I'm not convinced that the EPA engineers could tell the difference between legit emissions control technology and tricks (look at VW). Or perhaps they are responding to the 'trendy' or politically incorrect pollutants of the day. It used to be unburned HCs and CO. Regulating NOx was 'trendy' back in the 1970s and 1980s as a means of killing off muscle cars (high compression). It turned out to be meaningless in light of the fact that man made NOx falls in the noise level of naturally produced NOx. But now its trendy again, because it allows the EPA to put the squeeze on the easy solution to particulates: higher temperature combustion. And make diesels less desirable.
Have gnu, will travel.
That sword cuts both ways. Living in the middle of an urban rabbit warren is your choice, but we don't have to subsidize that either...and yet we're on the hook for billion-dollar mass transit boondoggles in places where they don't make sense.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
This one needs upvoting. You've summed it up very nicely.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
You must live in a urban rabbit warren.
And he has no idea how his food gets to the corner grocery store. Local freight is a very low margin business. It's easy to say 'just use electric or natural gas trucks'. But these represent a huge investment for the businesses involved. And the bicycle/public transportation crowd are going to scream the loudest when their food costs go up 10, 20 or 30%.
Personally, I don't care. I live out in suburbia. And I don't have to shop at the corner bodega. My grocery store is a warehouse, stocked by larger (and more efficient) trucks. And if some local ordinance increases their price, I just drive a few more miles to the next one outside city limits. In the final analysis, this will be the solution. Cities will place increasing restrictions on the activities of those employed or residing there and people and businesses just move out. Seattle is turning into a bunch of $15/hour hipsters trying to make a living selling each other overpriced coffee.
Have gnu, will travel.
Really, you are going to go there?
What do you think happens to the nitrogen intake to the engine?
What do you think happens to the oxygen intake that is not used in combustion?
OMG, you know the part number for your engines. That must make you an expert on diesel engines. Wow, I bow to your knowledge. </sarcasm>
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
> Here's the funny thing, we had gasoline engine cars in the 90's that would easily get 50mpg,
One change is that they tests became much more stringent, and more accurate. This lowered many reported fuel efficiencies considerably. have become more true as the fraud became more noticed. Another change is emissions standards, which can play havoc with fuel economy. Some older, lighter cars with no catalytic converters had notably better fuel economy than more recent cars of similar size and model. Another change is increased safety requirements: Crumple zones and air bags add mass, cost, drag and in some cases all three to vehicles.
Per the EPA, the new one does get 50 mpg highway so please color me both surprised and corrected. Older ones were rated for a bit less, but YMMV
Don't forget that air is mostly Nitrogen, which should pass through unchanged, in addition to the unreacted oxygen.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Virtue signalling at its finest. Lemme guess, *you* get to decide what a "pressing need" is?
..Mayberry to Petticoat Junction..
hey! you're showing your age there.
There's uncle Joe, he's movin' kinda slow at the junction.
I assume that there is a stop at Green Acres.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Don't forget that air is mostly Nitrogen, which should pass through unchanged, in addition to the unreacted oxygen.
Nitrogen doesn't react to heat? Amazing!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Facepalm!
Any time you spent in physics and chemistry classes was wasted on you, wasn't it?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The case of Paris is interesting since France has oddly favored diesel for years, using tax incensives.
I am a supporter of alternative fuels but currently there is no choice. It will take time to introduce choice. Electric sounds great but it is totally impractical for many people who need their car for work. Who wants to stop for 2 hours to recharge every 2 hours while on a 6 hour drive? Not everybody has a garage where they can charge their car, most people just park in the street. Petrol does have some advantages over diesel but diesel also has many advantages over petrol. Hydrogen etc. are far too new to talk about. I hope that we will continue to advance but often these moves are counter productive. Currently the best option for most people that actually do have a garage is a hybrid which still uses fuel. Diesel prolongs the life of the vehicle and is not a fire hazard which makes it a better option in a hybrid. The electric BMW i3 has a petrol generator to double the range, would that be banned? I think that these ideas are jumping the gun and we should all calm down and start taking baby steps toward a better future in order to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Not only that, these are cities which are political subdivisions of larger governmental entities who hold power and control over them. It may be impossible for them to actually ban anything of the sort if the higher political entity doesn't agree or allow it. For instance, the population of other cities in the same political entity would be bared from entering in a vehicle that is otherwise perfectly legal and registered under their laws.
Imagine France saying this vehicle is legal to purchase and drive and your vehicle registration is good everywhere except Paris who decided to make up their own rules. Not sure how that will play out but I don't think France's federal government will like being overridden that easily by a subordinate jurisdiction.
Any time you spent in physics and chemistry classes was wasted on you, wasn't it?
Explain why you think the nitrogen isn't going to expand when heated, and also where NOx comes from, and then tell me again how the nitrogen passes through the engine without being affected.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Expanding isn't "reacting to heat".
The amount of NOx produced should be very small and, obviously, it takes other things than heat to produce NOx: like oxygen.
But, back to the original point: Diesel engines take in much more atmospheric air than gasoline engines when running at normal loads (highway cruising). Hence, since the majority of the nitrogen (and some of the oxygen) passes through almost unchanged, the amount of exhaust gas that a diesel engine produces is much greater at normal load than the exhaust gasses of a gasoline engine at similar load.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Expanding isn't "reacting to heat".
What? What do you call it, then? I didn't say it was reacting with heat. Although it does react with oxygen in the presence of heat, to form NOx, that's explicitly not what I was talking about.
But, back to the original point: Diesel engines take in much more atmospheric air than gasoline engines when running at normal loads (highway cruising).
Yes. But they consume no more when wide open. The size of the exhaust is defined primarily by the maximum flow, not the cruising flow. (That defines other design characteristics more.) Diesels tend to have higher peak boost in spite of their typically higher static compression ratios, but they also tend to have significantly lower RPM limits and tend to run less RPMs while cruising.
Of course, all of this has been muddied by the introduction of the direct-injected gasoline engine, and by developments in diesel engine technology. Not only do GDI motors have higher cylinder pressures and thus higher temperatures, but there are also now diesels with [automated] throttles. As well, the recent crop of automatic transmissions with many gear ratios (8 now being common, 9 not being uncommon, and 10 beginning to roll out) and multiple overdrive ratios has led to gasoline engines being used at much lower RPMs...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Which is an insignificant proportion of the time the engine is running.
You are trying to divert from my central point which is that diesel engines produce more exhaust gasses at normal cruising speeds.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
As of a few years ago, French government was beginning to increase taxes on diesel fuel (which for decades has been deliberately cheaper). I could read in the press this is due to modern refining capacities : more gasoline (or stuff usable as gasoline) comes out of the processes than used to. No word on this on TV or in the political realm.
Perhaps more energy and material are used on processing, I have no idea about that. But that's a good, and "environmental" enough reason to use more and small, efficient gasoline engine and less diesel.
What apprehension I have against diesel is mostly that recent modern ones are so complicated, high pressure and whatever, that they're rather unreliable and repairs cost a ton. That may be a huge waste. Similarly, hybrid cars are so costly to build they may be a waste overall. Lastly, I believe that ideally a car ought to not be used for daily commute. What about keeping one for two decades, not put many miles on it, have low and cheap maintenance. Also gasoline engine have interesting recent developments, more powerful but still small 3 cylinder and even 3 cylinder turbocharged.
"Not only that, these are cities which are political subdivisions of larger governmental entities who hold power and control over them."
I don't know other cities, but Madrid's council certainly holds enough authority to introduce such a ban. In fact, both Rome and Madrid already have similar bans in place (albeit not as tough, yet): Madrid has some streets on its downtown you can't enter your car into unless you hold a special permit, and Rome a policy for odd/even license plates to control air pollution.
What still they don't have, is power to introduce legislation to come into effect in eigth/nine years in the future, since current council has no guarantees to hold power then. And, in any case, Madrid's major already said she has no such plans.
"Typical compression ratio in a Diesel engine is somewhere around 20:1, vs a gasoline engine that's running 10:1 or there about."
And then, typical engine regime from a diesel is about half that of its gasoline counterpart (i.e. 1500 vs 3000 RPM) which exactly compensates for the higher compression ratio.
I could read in the press this is due to modern refining capacities : more gasoline (or stuff usable as gasoline) comes out of the processes than used to.
Chicken and egg problem.
Refiners don't determine the market they just follow it and maximise profit along the way. When there's higher margin on petrol then there's more effort into running crudes and units in a way that favour petrol production. If there's a really long term market trend then refineries are likely to invest capital in improving the cut of the greatest margin products. I once worked at a refinery which got this spectacularly wrong. A many hundreds of millions of dollars investment in clean diesel production ultimately caused it to shutdown 10 years later when the market fundamentally shifted from diesel to petrol due to external issues.
What the hell does you living in a tiny town have to do with whether cities are sensible in banning diesel engines from their centres? They're not saying "ban diesels the world over", just "we don't want them in our specific cities".
Camel's nose effect. The kinds of enviro-wackos who get off on banning things won't stop at just those four cities.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
This is why lots of folks are rising up against the urban elites: you don't understand and can't conceive of any other lifestyle but your own.
Sure we do. You have to remember that many of those "urban elites" are from places like Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, etc.. We grew up out there, saw that it was a cultural and economic dead end, and fled as soon as we could. We understand the rural lifestyle quite well as we were raised in it. Of course, while we may be understanding in some aspects, we are certainly the harshest critics on others.
We grew up out there, saw that it was a cultural and economic dead end, and fled as soon as we could. We understand the rural lifestyle quite well as we were raised in it.
But do you understand why others find it attractive? Somehow, I seriously doubt it. And if you do not, you do not truly understand it.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
So, when everyone moves to the city to make you happy, what will we all eat?
Not everyone lives the same life as you, when you try to tell others how to live theirs, maybe you should understand the first thing about it.
I live in Glen Burnie, MD, and work in Columbia, MD, please show me how I am to use mass transit to possibly be able to get to work and back every day.
If I drive, it takes me 30 minutes to get to work. If I try to take transit, it is 2 hours (each way). So, I should give up half the time of my actual work day to appease you and your shitty attitude? I don't even live in rural America, I live in the megalopolis between DC and Baltimore and a Demoratic stronghold state as well, and the transit system is aweful.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So, are they banning the diesel busses and all the diesel commercial trucks that keep the city supplied and functioning?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?