Diesel Scrappage Scheme

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Talking of cycling, it amazes me the extent of cycling now in central London.. really is noticeable compared to most U.K. cities apart from Cambridge in my experience.. I suspect Londoners might take it for granted?. Yes not to the level of Amsterdam, but probably on a par with central Berlin for example.. but my feeling is that it is way higher than it was say ten  years ago..

 

You are right to notice. Cycling in London is way up. There is a lot of work going into improving the safety. Just the sheer number of bikes helps. Motorists expect bikes to everywhere in London now. The emergence of e-bikes is potentially a further catalyst for cycling. The electric assistance makes hills a non-issue and extends the practical range for any rider (or speeds up the trip for a fixed distance).

Pcd posted:

Northpole posted

I've noticed recently that Autocar are running two hydrogen powered vehicles on their fleet.  

Interesting Aberdeen Council have just installed two Hydrogen refilling stations and have Hydrogen fuelled vehicles on order, Cologne have just committed around 140 million to install Hydrogen refuelling stations and a fleet of  Hydrogen powered buses.

 

I don't think hydrogen is the way forward, at least not for passenger cars. Battery electric for me. But for buses and trucks, it might make more sense to go hydrogen.

£20 a day 'toxin tax' being considered by Andrea Leadsome, to be levied on diesel drivers in 35 UK towns and cities, according to today's i. (p8, 3/4/17).

As a cyclist and petrol car driver, yes please.

C.

Christopher_M posted:

£20 a day 'toxin tax' being considered by Andrea Leadsome, to be levied on diesel drivers in 35 UK towns and cities, according to today's i. (p8, 3/4/17).

As a cyclist and petrol car driver, yes please.

C.

As a person who was misled into believing they had reduced diesel pollution to similar to petrol, but more mpg., and so have a diesel car, I feel that is entirely inappropriate and, to use a phrase I usually avoid, unfair. tax should be applied on fuel only (being proportional to usage and thus pollution) only at least 10 years after notice is given. (And 10'years is a shot like for a decent diesel car)

I must say, I agree with you IB, I don't think it's fair either.

Sometimes things are done which are unfair because they are for the greater good. I think the 'toxin tax' might be one of them. Academics and Whitehall will have done the research, and predicted the number of lives that will be saved and and what cost. Leadsome will decide after she's sat on it for a while. If she likes it, and May likes it, they will push it through. Middle England will hate it though and not forgive them.

C.

Have to agree, as, like so many folks, I was encouraged by the government of the day to buy a diesel car, as they were considered to be kinder to the environment.

However, I believe there's two separate punitive measures being proposed, insofar as Increased road tax will be levied on new registrations from April, whilst existing cars will remain taxed at current levels, depending on their "clean" rating, as at present.

This "toxin tax" doesn't follow the above principle of not doing things retrospectively, and, as far as I'm concerned, is simply local authorities taking the opportunity of squeezing more from our pockets, and jumping on the (non diesel) bandwagon.

The local authority where I live have had an unsatisfactory dabble with electric buses, which still leaves all the buses under the control of private operators, not to mention all the "white van man" and council vehicles, the vast majority of which, diesel powered, will continue to run.

So, it's really any sort of attempt to clean things up, it's simply a way of increasing revenue.

Tax is sometimes used to drive responsible behaviour e.g. Land fill Tax.  Road Fund Licence has for some years been differentiated to encourage us to drive lower CO2 emission cars. Benefit-in-kind tax charges on company cars have done the same.  This seems to have worked and drivers in the UK have 'behaved' in the way that HMG wanted.  However with the new road fund licence changes wef 1st April it's hard not the avoid the feeling that someone has decided 'we've got want we wanted with most people now driving relatively low CO2 emission cars, so now we're going to tax every car the same [after year one], because we just want the money and no longer care as much about the environment'. But maybe that's just me.

I imagine some civil servants in Leadsom's dept have asked, 'PM10s emissions from diesel cars are disproportionately killing people. How do we reduce PM10 emissions from diesel cars?' And a toxin tax is what they've come up with.

C.

I don't know why they don't just increase the duty on diesel and reduce it on petrol, say up and down by 5p, then 10p. That would have a neutral impact on inflation. Better, of course, to invest in a decent rail service, trams, buses that don't stop when it gets dark, and cycle lanes. Look at Amsterdam and see how it can be done. 

Christopher_M posted:

£20 a day 'toxin tax' being considered by Andrea Leadsome, to be levied on diesel drivers in 35 UK towns and cities, according to today's i. (p8, 3/4/17).

As a cyclist and petrol car driver, yes please.

C.

Well I have one petrol car and one diesel car (in the UK) and a petrol one in Canada. The aeroplane burns Avgas which is effectively petrol. Bikes don't feature as IMHO they are personal coffins on wheels.

There is an increasing number of "diesel" engined aeroplanes these days. They burn Jet A1 fuel. Why ? it's cheaper. The same as what a 737 burns and costs c. 65p per litre as opposed to £1.65. Why the difference in price ?........no fuel tax on the Jet A1. Why public transport doesn't pay fuel duty beat me !

So, we have a government intent on fleecing (and viciously fleecing) millions of motorists who innocently bought into diesel when it suited the government, whilst at the same time, quite happy for another industry to start investing in diesel to avoid tax.

At the end of the day, we will all pay tax for motoring fuel. The government needs the money. It's easy to collect. and is reasonably fair, based on use. But these manipulative swings between petrol, Diesel, electric, aren't based on the overall effect they have on our lives, they are based on how the government can currently squeeze the last drop of "blood" from our veins without actually killing us. next year, the rules will change in order to get yet more "blood" !!

dave marshall posted:

Have to agree, as, like so many folks, I was encouraged by the government of the day to buy a diesel car, as they were considered to be kinder to the environment.

However, I believe there's two separate punitive measures being proposed, insofar as Increased road tax will be levied on new registrations from April, whilst existing cars will remain taxed at current levels, depending on their "clean" rating, as at present.

This "toxin tax" doesn't follow the above principle of not doing things retrospectively, and, as far as I'm concerned, is simply local authorities taking the opportunity of squeezing more from our pockets, and jumping on the (non diesel) bandwagon.

The local authority where I live have had an unsatisfactory dabble with electric buses, which still leaves all the buses under the control of private operators, not to mention all the "white van man" and council vehicles, the vast majority of which, diesel powered, will continue to run.

So, it's not really any sort of attempt to clean things up, it's simply a way of increasing revenue.

Edit : "not"

This tailpipe emissions debate has rolled on for at least 40 years and no doubt has plenty longer to go.

The choice of powertrain technologies and fuels for modern vehicles is really not determined by us as consumers.  This is no "perfect market" in action.  Rather, it is a market in which the regulators of the day apply incentives & penalties which influence what the vehicle makers develop & offer.  By & large, the consumers then choose from a carefully crafted menu of what the vehicle makers then want us to select.  This may be uncomfortable for some and unacceptable to others amongst us but it is what it is.

Regulators have shown over the years that they have a poor track record of picking technologies to promote or punish.  They do best when they focus on the outcomes that they want in a technology agnostic way.  For example, if regulators want tailpipe CO2 reductions, then apply taxes and incentives on the basis of measured CO2 performance or better still on carbon use in the fuel - so lots of tax on carbon based fuels (i.e. petrol/gasoline & Diesel).  The combination of high fuel taxes in Europe plus car benefit in kind tax based on CO2 performance is being noticeably effective across Europe in a good way.

The NOx issue may not be best tackled by penalising Diesel as a fuel.  Instead, if regulators focus on real world driving emissions (not the unrepresentative NEDC drive cycle) and tax on the basis of these NOx limits regardless of the fuel used, then vehicle makers will tend to promote the powertrains that deliver low NOx emissions and good drivability at the lowest cost.  If Diesel struggles on this basis, as it will in small cars, then Darwinian evolution will kill it off in favour of better alternatives such as 42Volt petrol hybrids and EVs.  

However, if someone comes up with a novel Diesel engine that offers both very low NOx emissions and much better fuel economy/CO2 emissions than gasoline, we might feel a little foolish if we regulate it out of existence, letting another country commercialise it ahead of us.  So, don't promote or penalise a technology.  Focus on the desired outcomes and the winning technologies will emerge.

Hydrogen is a special case, in the same way that liquid air or electricity is a special case.  It is not a true fuel like petrol, Diesel, coal, wood or natural gas.  You cannot go to a hydrogen mine and dig it up or pump it out of the ground or harvest it from a field.  Hydrogen, liquid air and electricity are all energy vectors.  They provide a means of transporting fuel energy from one location and state to another, before being used where and how we want to use it.  

For example, most hydrogen used today starts as methane (natural gas).  It is steam reformed by an industrial gases company to produce hydrogen, which is then cooled, compressed and transported to where it is used, e.g. in a fuel cell car or bus.  As an alternative, one could simply take that original methane/natural gas and run the vehicle (with a gas engine) on the methane instead.  A number of studies showed that the well-to-wheels energy cycle is significantly more efficient if the vehicles run on the native methane than if that methane is put through the whole conversion process to hydrogen, then to run the vehicle on the hydrogen.  More CO2 is generated in the industrial gas plant and by the power plant that makes the electricity for the steam reforming process than is saved at the tailpipe.  However, the story changes if the hydrogen is "renewable".  But then why use all that renewable energy to make hydrogen, when you could store or use the energy in a more efficient way?

Liquid air, on the other hand, may well prove to be a useful energy vector.  Take a look at what the Dearman Engine company is doing to power refrigerated trucks & containers.  It's a great application.  (I have no commercial or business interest in that company).  Electricity too is proving to be a much more useful energy vector than hydrogen.

Hope this helps a bit.  Apologies for the length of the post.

FT

Jet fuel is not the same as road fuel diesel, a lighter boiling fraction from petroleum, closer to kerosene, (from memory it may be that jet fuel A1 can be regarded as a kerosene variant with a tight specification). It can be used in diesel engines, though believe that jet fuel is more expensive to produce.  Howwever, how polluting one will be compared to the other with regard to particulates, NOx etc will depend on the engine design: it is possible that combustion in a gas turbine (jet engine) Will be different from a diesel internal combustion engine, though I have no comparative data.

As an aside, AVgas 100LL, which I believe may be one of the most commone formulations used in piston engined planes, is a  leaded fuel, although unleaded Avgas is now available.

Fuel specifications aside, I am unclear as to where biodiesel fits in this debate - it can be as polluting as petroleum diesel, but it has been regarded as desirable because in terms of CO2 production it is a 'renewable' energy source, and production and improvement iin this area has generally been encouraged.

As for bikes being coffins on wheels - they're definitely not, as coffins would provide some measure of protection! But yes, their use on roads is inherently more risky to personal safety than being enclosed in a metal box with impact protection - but risk would lessen if more car drivers were to travel by bike.

For clarity, I am a commuting cyclist and a mainly leaisure car driver (currently diesel) and also do a fair number of gas-turbine-powered miles a year. Where I live I would happily choose electric (Tesla), if they were sufficiently affordable.

Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, on this topic now, on Today.

C.

You didn't miss much.

C.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Look at Amsterdam and see how it can be done. 

Yep - just back from a long weekend in Amsterdam. So nice to be in a big city without the usual smell of traffic. Interesting to see a lot of Tesla Model S cars on the road along with plenty of Hybrids too. Very pleasant. 

james n posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Look at Amsterdam and see how it can be done. 

Yep - just back from a long weekend in Amsterdam. So nice to be in a big city without the usual smell of traffic. Interesting to see a lot of Tesla Model S cars on the road along with plenty of Hybrids too. Very pleasant. 

Tesla's market cap exceeded both Ford and GM this week.

Yes i saw that. Interesting times. Roll on the Model 3 !

Christopher_M posted:

Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, on this topic now, on Today.

C.

I listened to the Radio 4 interview with the Mayor of London this morning.  

When asked the question, " what proportion of London's NOx is due to privately owned Diesel cars?", he replied 50% of London NO2 is due to transport.  The rest is due to construction and other sources (e.g. restaurants etc.)

Tellingly, he could not split public transport & taxis from privately owned Diesel cars.  It is, however, easy to do for Oxford Street in London - the major shopping street in the middle of London.  Ground level NO2 measurements on Oxford Street have been recorded over an extended period as on average 3 times higher than EU recommended safe limits.  And the only vehicles to use that road are buses plus the occasional Diesel taxi.  No private cars are allowed on Oxford Street.  So Oxford Street's NO2 levels are directly attributable to London's Diesel Buses, plus a smaller number of London black cabs.

Ironically, Transport for London was concerned a few years ago about particulate emissions from buses.  So they undertook a large programme to retrofit particulate filters to London's bus fleet.  This has been tremendously effective in reducing particulate (i.e. soot) levels.  But there is a price to be paid.  Every now and then, it is necessary to regenerate these Diesel particulate filters, which is done by burning off the soot that has accumulated in the filter.  The regeneration of the bus Diesel particulate filters gets rid of the soot but produces more...NO2.  So TfL has inadvertently worsened the NO2 problem by improving the particulate situation.

By all means ban Diesel as a fuel in cities, encouraging us to use affordable petrol cars instead.  However, petrol cars generate more CO2 than Diesel cars, if that matters to you.  More importantly though, modern, "clean" petrol cars emit a far higher number of very fine exhaust particles than modern Diesel cars do.  And the particles are much smaller too, so the exhaust filters are far less effective at trapping the particles... In a few years' time, petrol, not Diesel, will be deemed to be the fuel of the Devil.  In the meantime, electric cars are still too expensive for the mass market.

So be careful about joining the current stampede to ban Diesel just yet.

p.s. I now drive a petrol engined car, most of the time

Best regards, FT

News item on Today programme just now: 'PM Theresa May says that the fact that people were encouraged to buy diesel cars must be taken into account'.

C.

Foot tapper posted:

Christopher_M posted:

Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, on this topic now, on Today.

C.

I listened to the Radio 4 interview with the Mayor of London this morning.  

When asked the question, " what proportion of London's NOx is due to privately owned Diesel cars?", he replied 50% of London NO2 is due to transport.  The rest is due to construction and other sources (e.g. restaurants etc.)

Tellingly, he could not split public transport & taxis from privately owned Diesel cars.  It is, however, easy to do for Oxford Street in London - the major shopping street in the middle of London.  Ground level NO2 measurements on Oxford Street have been recorded over an extended period as on average 3 times higher than EU recommended safe limits.  And the only vehicles to use that road are buses plus the occasional Diesel taxi.  No private cars are allowed on Oxford Street.  So Oxford Street's NO2 levels are directly attributable to London's Diesel Buses, plus a smaller number of London black cabs.

Ironically, Transport for London was concerned a few years ago about particulate emissions from buses.  So they undertook a large programme to retrofit particulate filters to London's bus fleet.  This has been tremendously effective in reducing particulate (i.e. soot) levels.  But there is a price to be paid.  Every now and then, it is necessary to regenerate these Diesel particulate filters, which is done by burning off the soot that has accumulated in the filter.  The regeneration of the bus Diesel particulate filters gets rid of the soot but produces more...NO2.  So TfL has inadvertently worsened the NO2 problem by improving the particulate situation.

By all means ban Diesel as a fuel in cities, encouraging us to use affordable petrol cars instead.  However, petrol cars generate more CO2 than Diesel cars, if that matters to you.  More importantly though, modern, "clean" petrol cars emit a far higher number of very fine exhaust particles than modern Diesel cars do.  And the particles are much smaller too, so the exhaust filters are far less effective at trapping the particles... In a few years' time, petrol, not Diesel, will be deemed to be the fuel of the Devil.  In the meantime, electric cars are still too expensive for the mass market.

So be careful about joining the current stampede to ban Diesel just yet.

p.s. I now drive a petrol engined car, most of the time

Best regards, FT

Exactly, a report I heard was that private cars were responsible for approx 10% of NOx in London ... heating, lorrys, non electric trains, non transport engines, and significantly  aeroplanes, commercial vehicles all add NOx to the air pollution.

Interextingly modern Diesel engines have similar NOx levels of petrol engines of a few years ago... CO2 emissions from petrol has improved but is still well above diesel per km, and disproportionate. I think the incentive should be to remove diesel and petrol engines that are 10 years or older .. these are the real polluting engines... whether it be CO2 or NOx. 

I use a petrol 1000cc car for short journeys of less than 10 miles now.

Just looked at the new toxin tax details for London - and it appears it applies to private diesel cars that don't meet Euro 6 regulations and petrol cars that don't meet Euro 4 regulations - at least that is encouraging. Most diesel cars from the last couple of years and petrol cars from the last six or so years surely meet this level? Mine certainly does... even so I don't tend to use the diesel BMW for short journeys

This is great. Another reason for me to not go to London. I detest the place, hate the crowds, hate the constant pressure to buy buy buy. The tube is miserable, buses are only for bus wankers (joke!) and I'm not into feeling like a foreigner in my own country. 

So the upshot is, I won't be directly contributing to London's choking stench:'

Hopefully my diseasel Merc will do me for a few years yet, and then it'll be replaced by either an EV or a motobilty scooter. Same thing really.  

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Just looked at the new toxin tax details for London - and it appears it applies to private diesel cars that don't meet Euro 6 regulations and petrol cars that don't meet Euro 4 regulations - at least that is encouraging. Most diesel cars from the last couple of years and petrol cars from the last six or so years surely meet this level? Mine certainly does... even so I don't tend to use the diesel BMW for short journeys

Well, my diesel Volvo from summer 2015 is a Euro 5 engine and I don't think that the manufacturers were obliged to move to Euro 6 until September 2015, so there will be a large number of quite recent vehicles that don't meet those requirements.

Anyhow this is an interesting thread and shows that we are in a complete mess, which is a real indictment of politicians and manufacturers across Europe. There's an interesting article on the Guardian website today. Various parties are arguing that the manufacturers should bear the cost by retrofitting improved emission control technology to cars. How far this is practicable, I have no idea. However, the arguments against scrappage schemes seem quite strong. We certainly seem a long way from solving the problem in a coherent and fair way.

Clive

...and mass takeup of EVs isn't the solution either.  The power generating "grid" couldn't cope*...

Note *: obviously generating capacity could be increased, but that would require the kind of joined up thinking this country / country's governments sorely lacks!