![PM25-LONDON[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/pm25-london1.jpg?quality=83)
London’s Dirty Secret: Pollution Worse Than Beijing’s
Reader Drew H. submits this story.
It’s the law of unintended consequences at work. European Union efforts to fight climate change favored diesel fuel over gasoline because it emits less carbon dioxide, or CO2. However, diesel’s contaminants have swamped benefits from measures that include a toll drivers pay to enter central London, a thriving bike-hire program and growing public-transport network.
Successive governments knew more than 10 years ago that diesel was producing all these harmful pollutants, but they myopically plowed on with their CO2 agenda,” said Simon Birkett, founder of Clean Air in London, a nonprofit group. “It’s been a catastrophe for air pollution, and that’s not too strong a word. It’s a public-health catastrophe.
Europe-wide policy triggered the problem. The “dieselisation” of London’s cars began with an agreement between car manufacturers and the EU in 1998 that aimed to lower the average CO2 emissions of new vehicles. Because of diesel’s greater fuel economy, it increased in favor.
Emissions of soot and NOx shouldn’t be mixed here. Soot filtering is highly advanced for diesel cars and new trucks, most particulate matter in cities is from (usually municipality owned) public transportation, house heating, industrial sources and dirt that is getting ground up (including brake dust, tires). NOx is a byproduct of diesel engines but should no longer be a major concern with Euro-6 standard engines (required in new cars from 2015) that pretty much eliminate it.
Hmmmm. If all road-traffic, in any town, slows down then all motorists will spend more time idling their engines at “traffic lights” and also at various other controlled areas (pedestrian crossings etc.) and they will have to use the ‘lower gear ranges’ more often
Therefore if the optimum speed/fuel consumption is say; 45 miles per gallon, then well; what happens to the optimum speed?
It is also an advanced consequence of the ‘ripple effect.’ When you disturb a system at equilibrium, the shortest lived effects are the ones at the focus of whatever action you have taken. The further a point is from the initial disturbance, the longer the perturbation lasts.
The slow speeds were tried in Houston, Tx some years ago. The main arteries such as 288, 59, 45 were speed limited to 55 mph in the air monitoring zone of counties. It was a disaster! The 5 million vehicles with one passenger each (inside joke there) simply spent more time on the highway. The traffic jams were made worse and air pollution spiked. So Texas has gone the other way, increasing the speed limit of all but the worst and curviest pig trails to 75 mph.
It gets the vehicles where they are going faster, limiting the time in operation, keeps the engines running at design rpm and load, and helps the Darwinian removal of those that lack the skill and attention that should be paid whilst operating a 2 ton missile.
The long term trend as regards all air pollution in London is down, I believe. Let us not get too excited.
Progressive policies are great. Kill people now to save them in the future. Except that their 2nd goal is to “humanely” reduce the human population to a sustainable level. Not all progressives, of course, just the greenies. One of my FB “friends” actually posts CAGW nonsense all the time and posted the “humanely” statement a few weeks ago. He is a biology professor at a larger university while I am a chemistry professor at a smaller one nearby.
Timely and pertinent. I was just arguing with someone about the differences between CO2 and pollution. A lot of people have a very hard time grasping the difference, in my experience.
Kaboom says:
May 29, 2014 at 5:48 am
NOx is a byproduct of diesel engines but should no longer be a major concern with Euro-6 standard engines (required in new cars from 2015) that pretty much eliminate it.”
From 2015 you say? Cars! Yes, cars! But not light to heavy vehicles. Very few people, unless they are high milers, will choose diesel over petrol in the UK all the while diesel is more expensive at the pump.
The carcinogens contained in diesel exhaust are ignored by most all the liberal “do-gooders” and the politicians because they desperately need the health problems and cancer deaths caused by said exhaust pollutants …… to blame on cigarette smoke.
Diesel & Health Research
Ref: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm
Petrol powered vehicles are not permitted in underground mines due to the volatile fumes, CO, NOx, the danger of sparks, explosions etc. The diesel vehicles have water filters and have been proven safe and clean even in gassy (methane rich) coal mines. There are electric power vehicles in some mines but the motors must be sealed. Coal mine explosion however have been associated with electric drive and control equipment. Diesel is safer.
Greens who have no technical qualifications spread lies to suit their political agenda.
The EU limits NO2 to a maximum of 40 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The concentration on Marylebone Road, a stone’s throw from Regent’s Park, was almost 94 micrograms in 2012, according to the most recent data from the EEA.
The level for the site last year was 81 micrograms, and it’s averaging 83 micrograms this year, according to King’s College London. In 1998, when the King’s College data begins, it was 92. That’s about the time the switch to diesel started.
If NO2 was 92 µg in 1998, 81 µg in 2013, and averaging 83 µg in 2014, doesn’t that mean the trend is downward?
“cementafriend says:
May 29, 2014 at 6:10 am
Petrol powered vehicles are not permitted in underground mines due to the volatile fumes, CO, NOx, the danger of sparks, explosions etc. The diesel vehicles have water filters and have been proven safe and clean even in gassy (methane rich) coal mines. There are electric power vehicles in some mines but the motors must be sealed.”
Petrol and diesel engines emit roughly the same amounts of CO and NOx. If you talk of “water filters” for diesel engines, these are massive instalation and are there for the a specific purpose, ie, for use in mines. I think you will find all motors in that environment would be field-effect motors rather than brush type, hense, no sparks (usually).
This reminds me of another map, a map about “property”. It dates back some years now, but basically it was a map to “discourage” (Hummm…not sure that is the right trem at this time) urban development in “identified” areas. Ultimately, local “authorities”, wanted to bulldoze certain areas of what is now Greater London, in favour of 1950’s/1960’s hi-rise nightmares. And the actions of locals won! There is a great documentary about this, but I do not recall the title at this time.
The problem with the diesel engine is the high compression ratio necessary for complete combustion. Strict mechanical tolerances must be achieved to get 16:1 compression, at which pressure the combustion is total. But this costs money and requires skilled mechanics. All of the bearings, rings, and valves have to fit with very close tolerance. The fuel injectors must be carefully maintained, using very high pressure pumps.
Rudolf Diesel demonstrated his system in a closed room! It is my understanding that a thousand hours of operation will reduce the compression ratio to 13:1, and a lot of unburned material will be found in the exhaust.
Don’t blame the pollution on the fuel. Establish a system of mandatory engine overhaul, based (perhaps) on an optical scan of the exhaust.
Yeah, well Americans prefer to drive huge V8 petrol luxobarges, the fuel use of which would run half a dozen small European or Japanese cars. The reality is that European diesels have strict pollution standards, with particulate filters on the exhaust. The road tax on cars in London lead to a preference for hybrid petrol engines or plug-in electric cars. Many of the diesel cars on the road are taxis. Imagine how much fuel petrol powered taxis would use.
“New cotton-derived battery developed in Japan over a multi-year period now about to go into prototype production later this year.”
I also heard that genetic engineers have a bred a brand new type of unicorn that will fart rainbows and crap skittles.
One is about as likely as the other.
European Union efforts to fight climate change favored diesel fuel over gasoline because it emits less carbon dioxide, or CO2.
Sorry, I think I got lost right there. EPA lists carbon content per gallon as 2421 grams for gasoline, 2778 grams for diesel. See:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpbadupws.nrc.gov%2Fdocs%2FML1204%2FML120440122.pdf&ei=ijiHU7-LEpH_oQSSyIGgAw&usg=AFQjCNEaIUd5fTpt1ZMO-XShVLHIsCWJ-g&bvm=bv.67720277,d.cGU
They also report emissions of CO2 from a gallon of diesel as 22.2 pounds per gallon as opposed to 19.4 pounds per gallon for gas.
A WIKI entry reports diesel as 86% carbon. Another source reports gasoline as 85% carbon by weight. I’d be interested to know how the figures show that diesel emits less CO2.
“mathman2 says:
May 29, 2014 at 6:41 am
Strict mechanical tolerances must be achieved to get 16:1 compression, at which pressure the combustion is total.”
If I recall, you will find normally aspirated diesel engines run a compression ratio (CR) of ~20:1 but usually between 20 to 22:1. Ignoring turbo charged induction. Mazda “Sky Active” petrol and deisel engines run with a CR of 16:1 and with a gas flowed exhaust system. Higher fuel ratings help with higher CR.
The Bloomberg piece really sets me off. Trash environmentalism, typical from that outfit.
They take a perfectly good story and make a hash of it with statistical slight of hand and misdirection.
London’s Dirty Secret: Pollution Worse Than Beijing’s
“London’s Pollution Secret: NO2 levels worse than Beijing’s” That is closer to the truth, but it doesn’t sell papers.
Bloomberg’s dirty secret: London might be cleaner than Beijing’s in 9 out of 10 pollution levels, London wouldn’t trade its air for Beijing’s, but that won’t stop Bloomberg from hyperbole.
It’s especially ironic since the mix of diesel and gasoline can only be changed by 1 or 2%, so their diesel use just means someone else uses gasoline. It makes more sense to use diesel for long haul and in less population dense regions.
John Slayton says: (May 29, 2014 at 6:53 am) “A WIKI entry reports diesel as 86% carbon. Another source reports gasoline as 85% carbon by weight. I’d be interested to know how the figures show that diesel emits less CO2.”
PER MILE. If diesel operation gives higher miles-per-gallon, then your commute uses less diesel hence less CO2, per mile or per commute.
It’s like carbon dioxide sequestration as well. A 15% reduction in effiency means 15% more real pollution and an effective 15% reduction in coal reserves.
John Slayton says:
May 29, 2014 at 6:53 am
A WIKI entry reports diesel as 86% carbon. Another source reports gasoline as 85% carbon by weight. I’d be interested to know how the figures show that diesel emits less CO2.
Because Diesels operate overall fuel lean and at a higher thermodynamic efficiency due to the higher compression ratio compared with gasoline engines which operate at stoichiometric. As a result a Diesel car consumes less fuel per mile than a comparable gasoline car. Because it burns lean Diesel also produces no CO.
If this battery can do everything they claim, goodbye gas powered cars.
And the electrical grid can support how many of these cars?
The roads in central London are sufficiently polluted to trigger the co2 alarm in my car as if its emmissions were faulty. I atribut this to the high use of highly polluting buses for public transport.