navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How toxic is your car exhaust?  (Read 7855 times)
TheFairway
Guest
« on: October 17, 2017, 09:57:58 AM »

Excellent article

Old banger vs diesel? Which is the most toxic?

Should really have been named, "New diesel vs old diesel. Which is the most toxic?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust

And for those that missed the link to EQUA Index

« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 11:20:32 AM by TheFairway » Logged
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4586

SW London


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2017, 10:54:12 AM »

Ok so it's a silly test to compare apples with oranges, but the interesting thing was the range of emissions from Euro6 cars - and how appalling the Qashqai is in real world driving - 15x over the NOx limit? Seems it's not just VW who've been gaming the system...
Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery

Tesla Model 3 Long Range
marktime
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 278


« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2017, 12:16:53 PM »

It may be a silly test but it uncovers the truth (that many suspected) that the modern testing systems are poor at best and that complying with the letter and the spirit of the rules are very different.
If the best selling car in the UK complies with the regs on paper but in reality is many times over the specified value for NOx how can we ever hope control this form of pollution?
How can car buyers who want to have some consideration to the environment make informed decisions?


MarkTime
Logged
Tigger
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596


« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2017, 01:14:18 PM »

He's decided he's going to scrap the car just because it's emissions are higher than a new one  facepalm

That was probably the most annoying part of the whole article for me......
Logged

SN15 (Wiltshire) 30 tubes, south facing gable wall (Navitron Fornax Trial System).  Hunter Herald 8, integrated boiler hooked up with Oil Boiler via H2 control panel.  Scrounging fire wood wherever possible Smiley
Countrypaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632


« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2017, 01:19:21 PM »

Excellent article

Old banger vs diesel? Which is the most toxic?

Should really have been named, "New diesel vs old diesel. Which is the most toxic?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust


I agree good article, but it is an "Old Petrol vs. an averagely old Diesel", not really New vs Old diesel.

The main thing I can see missing from the article is how much energy and pollution is caused by the production, distribution and ultimately disposal of a new replacement? Again I suspect very difficult/almost impossible to find out accurately.
Logged
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4586

SW London


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2017, 01:39:52 PM »

Aah well, there was that "Dust to Dust" report which claimed to look into the whole lifecycle energy cost/pollution potential of cars to work out what's the least polluting over its actual life, and that report came out saying the gigantic military-derived SUV HumVee was the least polluting car available.   A claim which was somewhat controversial .

Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery

Tesla Model 3 Long Range
spaces
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1179



« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2017, 11:11:01 PM »

Interesting but a little irrelevant, maybe good journalism and a talking point in the pub. Briefly mentioning non-exhaust emissions left a big hole in the article, as far back as 2013 these emissions were reported at around half or more of the total on our roads.

A mid-90s petrol car is hardly representative, it's arguably more approaching 'classic' than 'banger' at more than 20 years old, in emission eras it's ancient history. A petrol from Euro 3 or 4 vintage would have made a far more realistic comparison, there are many more in circulation.

The  elephant in the room is particulate size. Euro 4 diesels onwards emit significantly higher PM10s which are regarded as particularly hazardous to health, small enough to pass into and beyond lung tissue. It's now irrelevant, but it's possible that from the perspective of health, early 2000s diesels with mechanical injection are less harmful than what has followed.
Logged

Simplicity, the ultimate refinement
eabadger
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 896


« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2017, 08:15:40 AM »

early 2000s diesels with mechanical injection are less harmful than what has followed.

also in many case Small older diesels were far more economical, i have real world examples from 87 and 2001.

the emission scandal as it is known, the majority of manufactures use bought in fuel system, so i assume vw and the rest use bosch, hitachi etc? who make the software? for the pumps? so they must have known what was going on and if one company did it they must all have done.

i am a skeptic and think sometimes it is the kings new clothes.
lots of people go for the hype and think we have to do our bit, la prius like.
the yanks called for all sorts of emission control in the 80's good on them, but it was all nonsense that ruined cars and did little or no good.
whole life cost on the earth of building a new car versus someone doing a couple of 1000's miles a year, the car in that case should last 100 years.
yes high milers exist we know that, but for motorway munchers are electric viable?
in theory diesel will do double the mileage of petrol and last twice maybe three times as long, is the cure not bio diesel? we grow we use the grow cycle evens out?

steve
Logged

1600w PV main array at 24v, excide 2v 1000a forklift cells now x 2, 320w PV secondary array at 12v. Enfield 1944 ex RAF 5.6kw diesel genset (now in pieces, big ends gone), Petter AC1 28v diesel charging set at 2.8kw.
1kw wind turbine.
26kw wood stove back boiler to underfloor heating and dhw
spaces
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1179



« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2017, 02:46:08 PM »

But it's a matter of soot and NOx as well as efficiency and broadly speaking the more massive the vehicle, the more the inherent efficiencies of CI engines.

It's clear electric propulsion is set to replace the CI and SI ICE piston engine, but there are going to be many more million ICE made yet and close attention should be given to the toxicity of fine and ultra-fine exhaust particulates. I suggest the potential for reducing emissions with hybrid design is huge, if emissions are given as great as or greater priority than performance. Surely seven seconds to sixty is as fast as anyone need accelerate, excess power comes as standard today, so why does even more excess rate so highly?

Why hasn't 'performance' begun to revert to suspension, comfort and road-holding rather than pandering to the mentalities of the teenage mind? Perhaps we need to begin studying tyre emissions much more closely for that revolution to begin, car suspension has changed relatively little since the days of horse-drawn vehicles.
Logged

Simplicity, the ultimate refinement
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4586

SW London


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2017, 06:35:42 PM »

Because you can put numbers on stuff like 0-60, power, torque etc, whereas everything else is subjective.  And people love numbers.  Even when they're misleading.
Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery

Tesla Model 3 Long Range
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5224



« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2017, 07:10:32 PM »

Because you can put numbers on stuff like 0-60, power, torque etc, whereas everything else is subjective.  And people love numbers.  Even when they're misleading.

I think only about 80% of people like numbers, whilst 3/4 don't, but I'm not sure about the rest.  Wink
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2128


« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2017, 09:54:46 PM »

Why hasn't 'performance' begun to revert to suspension, comfort and road-holding rather than pandering to the mentalities of the teenage mind? Perhaps we need to begin studying tyre emissions much more closely for that revolution to begin, car suspension has changed relatively little since the days of horse-drawn vehicles.

Because of advertising. It's exactly like tobacco, or alcohol. The marketing men have an established plan and the big chiefs like the numbers it produces, so the wheel rolls on.

We already know enough about tyre emissions, I think, although it wouldn't hurt to know more. We need to reduce the millions of dollars spent persuading us that acceleration and top speed matter and spend it instead on persuading us that comfort etc matter.

Suspension hasn't changed since horse drawn carriages? Pull the other one! There have been HUGE changes in suspension design - basically the whole subject has been reinvented. Horses used leaf springs or maybe elliptical or nothing. Now what have we: Struts - MacPherson & Chapman; Citroen's hydropneumatic suspension; wishbones, trailing arm, active suspensions etc etc.
Logged

Cheers, Dave
spaces
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1179



« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2017, 01:05:00 PM »

Why hasn't 'performance' begun to revert to suspension, comfort and road-holding rather than pandering to the mentalities of the teenage mind? Perhaps we need to begin studying tyre emissions much more closely for that revolution to begin, car suspension has changed relatively little since the days of horse-drawn vehicles.

We already know enough about tyre emissions, I think, although it wouldn't hurt to know more. We need to reduce the millions of dollars spent persuading us that acceleration and top speed matter and spend it instead on persuading us that comfort etc matter.

Suspension hasn't changed since horse drawn carriages? Pull the other one! There have been HUGE changes in suspension design - basically the whole subject has been reinvented. Horses used leaf springs or maybe elliptical or nothing. Now what have we: Struts - MacPherson & Chapman; Citroen's hydropneumatic suspension; wishbones, trailing arm, active suspensions etc etc.

We might understand the effects on living tissue of tyre particulates and their chemical composition, but is there much study of how to reduce them? For example, the cruder forms of self-steering rear axles create a shuffle motion of the (rear) tyres as the suspension articulates, wearing tyres faster. A simple change of design could reduce this wear, which amplified over millions of vehicles would be highly effective.

Citroen's hydropneumatic suspension is no more (unless you consider a few tractors) and genuinely active suspension is the preserve of the very few, most expensive cars. BOSE's linear electromagnetic motor system is bulky and as yet largely unproven, Tenneco's development of Chris Heyring's Kinetic Suspension - http://www.nauti-craft.com/chris_heyring.html - is well-proven, compact and inspired by Citroen's own system.

Almost all cars made use passive steel suspension wedged between the wheelarms and body. It's crude, heavy, relies on distorting metal and attempts to serve more than one purpose in one massive compromise. Just as on horse-drawn coaches, there are tweaks and enhancements which have developed (Brougham coaches used multiple springs back in the 1800s, with different spring and damping rates for the ultimate body control, today VW group use polyurethane bushing for bump stops and magnetically-controlled reactive damping) but it's the same fundamental idea of relying on distorting metal and damping the motion to suit the road speed range.

Springing supports a car's/horse-drawn coach's mass while maintaining travel in the springs and attempts to isolate the sprung mass from the unsprung as the wheels follow road bumps and undulations. There's a huge compromise in spring strength as payload is typically up to 40% of a modern vehicle's mass which creates all sorts of ride and handling problems, the lighter/more flexibly sprung the vehicle, the greater the problem. It therefore suits suspension engineers for a vehicle to be heavier and more stiffly sprung. The third function of springing on a motor car is to provide roll resistance, creating yet more compromise along with the corrupting influence of anti-sway/roll bars.

Leaf springs, torsion bars and coil springs all utilise the resistance to distortion and the elasticity of the material used, whether under a Tesla or a C17th coach. The compromises are more of a problem for motor cars since the speed are higher and cornering ability is dependent on springing, I imagine one of those Broughams could have been extremely comfortable given the large wheels, decent wheel base, padded seats and combination of multiple springs. Particulates would have been horse dander and resuspension of road dust by galloping hooves, away from concentrations of wood and coal smoke.

If electric cars are to grow lighter and less powerful in order to improve air quality (as exhaust pollution drops lower and lower it's likely tyre particulates become a big issue) then suspension is one aspect of the which should be brought into the modern age, reducing tyre wear without losing grip or speed. With a simple EM rather than complex, expensive ICEs it's possible truly good suspension could become the focus for customers - it's perfectly easy to quantify passenger comfort and tyre loadings.



Logged

Simplicity, the ultimate refinement
TheFairway
Guest
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2017, 02:42:03 PM »

Maybe there is a reason why it has not been significantly changed  bike
Logged
spaces
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1179



« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2017, 03:10:38 PM »

Maybe the same reason sunroofs, sporty looks (but awful road manners) and rev counters outsold safety, for years?

It's difficult to sell what the buyer can't see, but it didn't take long after crash test figures were allotted to every car for the average Joe to lose his ambivalence. It's fascinating how public perceptions can be reversed so rapidly in the new car market.
Logged

Simplicity, the ultimate refinement
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!