![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.
Diesels emit dirty exhaust. That never has been a secret and you can’t talk that away, talk as you may.
“Tiny particles called PM2.5s probably killed 3,389 people in London in 2010, the government agency Public Health England said in April. Like nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, they come from diesel combustion. Because the pollutants are found together, it’s hard to identify deaths attributable only to NO2, said Jeremy Langrish, a clinical lecturer in cardiology at the University of Edinburgh. ”
And how many people have died from breathing CO2, well mixed in the atmosphere and now at 400 ppm, up from 280 ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution?
Going back to when man starting burning fossil fuels and adding up the fatalities for the entire planet during that time frame, we get…………………………………zero!
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/may/30/co2-overhyped-as-air-pollution-threat/
CO2 is innocent – François Gervais’book should be translated into english –
John Slayton says:
May 29, 2014 at 6:53 am
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.
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.
You must think miles per gallon. Diesel engines are more fuel efficient. So fewer gallons are burned. If a gas engine gets 30 mpg (2421/30) = 80.7 grams per miles. If the diesel engine gets just five miles per gallon better (2778/35) = 79.37 grams per mile.
Using the Volkswagon Passat sold in the US as an example.
1.8 T Gas – 24 city / 34 mpg highway
2.0 Diesel – 31 city / 43 mpg highway
Gas CO2 per mile = 71.2 (2421/34)
Diesel CO2 per mile= 64.6 (2778/43)
Diesel wins hands down.
I don’t like this new format with the stories on top. I liked the old format better.
S.
For Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, the solution is simple: Get people out of their cars.
“Fifty-six percent of journeys we make in Britain are less than 5 miles,” Bennett said in an interview. “If you turn a significant percentage of those into walking and cycling journeys, then you’ve made huge progress.”
The eco-greens are loons: simply look at the age group doing the driving about, consider the physical stamina of them, consider the weather considerations and you’ll see that walking and cycling are not alternatives in the modern northern hemisphere lands such as Britain.
The days of village life and staying home are over – except in the imaginations and fevered dreams of the Neo-Luddites. We could lower emissions by a serious amount if most people stopped taking trips by air. Which, I’m sure, is what the eco-green wants …. for other people.
We see the world locally as well as globally. Transpiration is a significant part of the modern life that expands the individual’s life. Self-actualization requires mobility. I’m 60, with less time than money, and less physical fitness than the 25-year-old. Public transport is good to go shopping during peak hours, but doing the things of a expanding experience require less structured mobility. Just as all the eco-green who want to experience Antarctic beauty need and access aircraft, ocean-going vessels, what I do requires fossil-fuel fueled transport.
The eco-green is delusional unless there is a(nother) hidden agenda that incorporates keeping humans within spitting distance of a Metro and walling off the wilds (except for those with Sensitivity Passes).
Green policies kill people.
But isn’t this the intention?
“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.”
Not since the 1970’s.
Ahhhh, those were the days. I vaguely remember TV ads back in the 1970s (London) when auto manufacturers boasted of their catalytic converters. I paraphrase: “release harmless co2 and water”. No auto manufacturer in UK would get away with such statements now. They will be hauled up to the advertising standards body in a snap.
Now we can breath in harmful soot and other sh!t while reducing the biggest toxin known to man: trace co2 gas.
PRD on May 29, 2014 at 6:02 am
It’s not the only time the “green” people [demonstrate] that they can’t do simple math and logic …
errrr…
I did convert to diesel coupla years ago – the most current turbos and appropriate catalyst in the exhaust stream, beats petrol (ito bad excressions (you have to drive far enough to get the catalyst at working temperature though)) by a wee bit…
kindly kill me for enjoying the driving experience of a 3l tdi…
Bob Greene says:
May 29, 2014 at 5:12 am
Sounds good but the reference is not convincing. 3389 “probable” deaths from PM2.5 in London (2010) is not from the 2010 study cited in the reference and must be some estimate of an estimate of deaths by modeling attributable to PM2.5. Any actual assigned causes of death to PM?
I’m willing to bet there is no death certificate in the UK which lists cause of death as ‘PM2.5’.
Attributing PM2.5 as a cause of death would be like attributing death to background radiation.
From Drew’s comment above
Well, this explains the “sudden” emphasis on PM 2.5 legislation and controls! Gotta have a reason to stop the diesel in downtown areas that is required to stop the gasoline “pollution” in those same downtown areas that is being exaggerated by the airplane pollution in those downtown areas …..
Hmmmn.
A standard healthy adult can walk 3 miles per hour, pretty much all day.
A “standard adult carrying something”? Less. Far less. Carrying two “somethings”? Three bags of groceries? An infant and two bags of groceries? A chair or lamp or pot or book or laptop computer and an infant? A child walking alongside AND “something”?
So, this Greenie has already condemned 50% of the trips that people make to an “hour and 45 minute walk” (ONE WAY!) …. Then an “Hour and 45 minutes walk back.” Now, for that 3-1/2 hours of labor for that one average 5 mile trip (in the winter snow or summer heat!) this Greenie has produced what? Nothing.
So, we should condemn HER to a 4 hour walk every day for food.
From the article: “However, diesel’s contaminants have swamped benefits from measures that include a toll drivers pay to enter central London”
Why is this a benefit? Because the government gets money?
====================================================================
How much of the cost is taxes?
Quite a bit of what we pay for fuel is taxes (or excises or whatever, still tax). Diesel fuel is actually slightly more expensive in Australia than 91 unleaded petrol, still a large percentage of cars are diesel, and growing, especially family sedans and the like, while SUVs have been predominately diesel for a couple of decades. This is especially so in the outback where distances are huge. I don’t know if the tax structure is different for petrol and dieseleum, but it’s plainly different to UK, Europe and US. Then again, what’s the big deal? Some countries like Norway tax alcohol highly, while others tax tobacco to ridiculous levels (eg Australia). Some countries have huge import duty on cars (eg Malaysia), it depends on a great many factors, and while US fuel is “low tax” they have state taxes countries like Oz shun.
Jimbo
“Ahhhh, those were the days. I vaguely remember TV ads back in the 1970s (London) when auto manufacturers boasted of their catalytic converters. I paraphrase: “release harmless co2 and water”
A three-way catalytic converter has three simultaneous tasks:
Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O.
Catalytic convertors by the old definition of what pollution was, “had” decreased pollution, so that it takes around 25 of totals cars to create the same amount of pollution that 1 car from the 1960’s created.
Since 2 out of the 3 conversions that take place with the catalytic convertor, involve creating CO2 by today’s new standard, catalytic convertors only transform one form of pollution into another form of pollution.
Which form of pollution is worse you might ask?
If it was based on the position of governments, climate scientist(97% according in one study), the IPCC, the media and the money/resources and regulations/policies being imposed, it is clearly CO2.
Yes, I know this is a trick question and answer but it shows that what was once understood to be a solution to pollution from the most powerful pollution fighting invention in history(catalytic convertors)…………..creating CO2, is now considered a source of another type of pollution that has resulted in the biggest world wide attack on it in history, despite the existence of all the other types of legit pollution in our air, soils and water today.
Diesel…blah,blah,blah.Gas..blah,blah,blah. Diesel is,has been,and always will be,a greater polluter than gas. When I can stand outside on the street at -20C,and literally smell and TASTE when a diesel piece of crap has just gone by,welllllll…it ain’t rocket science. Oppppssss. By bad. Common sense doesn’t enter into the green scheme.
Myron, absolutely right. That could negate my claim that diesel is better used outside of cities. But it’s likely a moot point, the amount of diesel and gasoline that comes out of a barrel of oil is essentially fixed.
Frank says:
May 29, 2014 at 10:00 am
When speeds drop below 45mph*, [efficiency] goes way down. Congestion pricing and tolls keep speeds from dropping too much.
* Assuming there is little stop and go, for a road with frequent [intersections] and turns the efficient speed may be lower.
Sorry I messed up the blockquote.
Well let me say I OWN one of these new vaunted ultra clean filtered diesels and can tell you that the soot free exhaust comes at a very high price. How is it achieved? 100 percent combustion of fuel? Magic? no. It has a portable, on board exhaust monitoring lab, a NOX reduction canister, a cat converter, and a diesel particulate filter none of which last the life of the vehicle.
What is a filter? It is a matrix of small restrictions designed to prevent passage of particulate…. which restrictions having done that are CLOGGED. DPF (diesel particulate filter) performance declines steadily as it clogs up until the filter no longer allows enough passage of exhaust gasses.
At this point the on board exhaust monitoring lab triggers a regime to UNCLOG the DPF..this consists in getting the DPF temperature UP (drive fast, more fuel ) then injecting something to BURN OFF the soot. Either a chemical (UREA) or extra diesel fuel is injected into the exhaust stream. When the on board lab determines that the trapped soot has been BURNED OFF then the regime is terminated. This regime is called a REGEN.
Now everyone knows that restricting your exhaust lowers your fuel efficiency and torque from your motor. To compensate for this loss, engine manufacturers increase the displacement of their engines by 13 percent, and the combination of that and in some systems the extra diesel used to just burn away the clogged filter soot, is reflected in a commensurate reduction in fuel economy, maybe 20 percent less mpg or worse. So you burn 20 percent more fuel per mile, making 20 percent (at least) more CO2 per mile and now we call that a ‘clean diesel’. THese systems, by the way all originally come from, you guessed it, Germany.
By the way, in Europe they know that these DPFs dont last under this treatment and have cartridge systems that make it easier to replace on a frequent basis. But these arent CHEAP cartridge sysems. In the case of my vehicle, which I bought brand new, it is now on its third filter in 50,000 miles. The filter runs about $3000 bucks installed . That isnt counting the exhaust sensors in the on board lab that were replaced both times as well. Thank god for a warranty.
Euro 5? no thanks.
//
RACookPE1978 says:
May 29, 2014 at 9:45 am
From Drew’s comment above
For Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, the solution is simple: Get people out of their cars.
So, we should condemn HER to a 4 hour walk every day for food.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For perspective, I worked on projects in southern Ethiopia many years ago to reduce the 8 hour walk that villagers took to get SAFE DRINKING WATER. They had been educated in the problems of drinking surface water, so one member of the family was assigned to walk as much as 4 hours each way to get safe drinking water. My company was involved in the original well drilling and the subsequent infilling to reduce the walks to 4 and then to 2 hours where possible. We worked on that program for something like 28 years.
We, who talk on WUWT are so lucky to live in a part of the world where we have the luxury of debating which type of fuel to use, or even which mode of transportation to use when so many have only their feet and their will to survive.
With apologies: my big bad diesel “Deere” awaits me as I must go rake some fields. 😞
Driving behind a diesel stinks, period. Having said that, to me it is only natural a city the size of London will have their own pollution and air problems, as do other cities of size around the world. The issue for me is city folks assuming their air and pollution issues are similar in a nation the size of Canada. In essence Toronto, Canada, (the largest city in Canada) is barely a wanna-be pimple on the size of a nation like Canada. Yet, it is the same city folks that scream the loudest about CO2, pollution, and other environmental issues while living inside their concrete jungles, breathing their own air pollution, their own garbage problems, and then use their political power to impose draconian laws they created themselves in their own cities. The same cities that require unfathomable resources just to sustain itself. However, out here in fly over country the air is sweet and clean. CO2 isn’t killing anything.
If – perish the thought – I lived in London, I would buy a Trabant.
Engine too small either to pay road fund license or congestion tax, and being a premix two stroke twin, more pollution than a whole fleet of 4x4s, clouds and clouds of partially combusted petrol and two stroke oil.
Magic!
For Mathman2:
“The problem with the diesel engine is the high compression ratio necessary for complete combustion.”
Got it wrong. The use of high compression ratios (for increased thermodynamic efficiency) is facilitated by the Diesel cycle’s autoignition of injected fuel (avoids knock, which limits the compression ratio of Otto cycle engines) and energy addition during the power stroke (the source of Diesel’s high torque). I can get “complete combustion” of Diesel fuel at lower compression ratios—but why would I want to? (Home heating oil is essentially Diesel fuel and we burn it efficiently with burner blowers in oil-fired heating systems. But we don’t normally propel anything with furnace burners!)
Maybe a late gharge to save diesel in London?
“The presence of particulate matter in the atmosphere is a major health concern and may ultimately have significant climate change implications. Reports suggest that around a third of directly emitted aerosols above central London come from cooking..”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/5/29/bacon-is-there-anything-it-cant-do.html