Which will be punished more in the next 10 years, diesel or petrol cars?

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

Let's not forget in 2008 CO2 was the bogey man.

Per km diesels emit less CO2 than petrol, and a criminal conspiracy of manufacturers manipulated engine emissions to encourage the myth of clean diesels. They managed to hoodwink governments all around Europe.

Yet somehow we solely place the blame at the feet of the Green party who somehow should of known better than multiple other regulators and governments within Europe.

There's a fella here claiming he can't reduce his CO2 and NOx and SOx and PM because tax is forcing him to drive a 4.9l/100km diesel over a 5.6l/100km petrol hybrid.

That's green party policy in effect. Why if CO2 was the bogeyman, is petrol CO2 more expensive than diesel CO2 molecule for molecule? If anything, considering all the other nasties pumped out by "low emissions diesel" shouldn't diesel CO2 be more expensive?

HailSatan

HailSatan wrote: »

There's a fella here claiming he can't reduce his CO2 and NOx and SOx and PM because tax is forcing him to drive a 4.9l/100km diesel over a 5.6l/100km petrol hybrid.

That's green party policy in effect. Why if CO2 was the bogeyman, is petrol CO2 more expensive than diesel CO2 molecule for molecule? If anything, considering all the other nasties pumped out by "low emissions diesel" shouldn't diesel CO2 be more expensive?

Diesel emits less CO2 per km than petrol. So the molecoes are taxed equally, its just that a diesel emits less of them. There wasn't a policy to tax diesels less.

Of course an Aygo probably emits less CO2 per km than a BMW X5 diesel - but an X5 petrol will emit a lot more CO2 than its petrol equivalent.

HailSatan

Deleted User wrote: »

Diesel emits less CO2 per km than petrol. So the molecoes are taxed equally, its just that a diesel emits less of them. There wasn't a policy to tax diesels less.

Of course an Aygo probably emits less CO2 per km than a BMW X5 diesel - but an X5 petrol will emit a lot more CO2 than its petrol equivalent.

There's a fella here claiming he can't reduce his CO2 and NOx and SOx and PM because tax is forcing him to drive a 4.9l/100km diesel over a 5.6l/100km petrol hybrid.

That's green party policy in effect. Why if CO2 was the bogeyman, is petrol CO2 more expensive than diesel CO2 molecule for molecule? If anything, considering all the other nasties pumped out by "low emissions diesel" shouldn't diesel CO2 be more expensive?


Think about it this time.

4.9l of diesel produces more CO2 than 5.6l of petrol.

Think


About


It

liamog

HailSatan wrote: »

Think about it this time.
4.9l of diesel produces more CO2 than 5.6l of petrol.

Going back to 2008, diesel engines generally required less fuel per 100km than a petrol engine. The net effect was that even though per litre a diesel engine releases more CO2 than petrol, per 100km it produced less. At the time it made sense in a limit CO2 policy to incentivise diesel. Again this is based on the criminal conspiracy that pushed clean diesel.

Why do you believe the Irish Green Party of 2008 should have been better than all the other government regulators across Europe?
The only political failing here has been the government not changing the policy after the true emissions of diesel cars became apparent, and the efficiency of petrols increased.

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

Going back to 2008, diesel engines generally required less fuel per 100km than a petrol engine. The net effect was that even though per litre a diesel engine releases more CO2 than petrol, per 100km it produced less. At the time it made sense in a limit CO2 policy to incentivise diesel. Again this is based on the criminal conspiracy that pushed clean diesel.

Why do you believe the Irish Green Party of 2008 should have been better than all the other government regulators across Europe?
The only political failing here has been the government not changing the policy after the true emissions of diesel cars became apparent, and the efficiency of petrols increased.

Why if CO2 was the bogeyman, is petrol CO2 more expensive than diesel CO2 molecule for molecule? If anything, considering all the other nasties pumped out by "low emissions diesel" shouldn't diesel CO2 be more expensive?


Edit... Lol... Did you just thank a post full of completely unscientific horse****? Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Green Party?

liamog

Ok, let's simplify it for you.

Fuel A releases 20g of CO2 per litre.
Fuel B releases 25g of CO2 per litre.

To travel 100km with fuel A requires 10 litres.
To travel 100km with fuel B requires 7.5 litres.

CO2 per 100km with fuel A is 200g.
CO2 per 100km with fuel B is 187.5g.

If we want to reduce total CO2 emissions without changing the distance people drive, which fuel should we encourage the use of. Fuel A or Fuel B?

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

Ok, let's simplify it for you.

Fuel A releases 20g of CO2 per litre.
Fuel B releases 25g of CO2 per litre.

To travel 100km with fuel A requires 10 litres.
To travel 100km with fuel B requires 7.5 litres.

CO2 per 100km with fuel A is 200g.
CO2 per 100km with fuel B is 187.5g.

If we want to reduce total CO2 emissions without changing the distance people drive, which fuel should we encourage the use of. Fuel A or Fuel B?

So you don't believe in a fair pro rata Polluter pays system?

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Green Party?

liamog

HailSatan wrote: »

So you don't believe in a fair pro rata Polluter pays system?

CO2 is the pollutant in the Fuel A/Fuel B example.
Which fuel type creates more pollutant per 100km in the example?

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

CO2 is the pollutant in the Fuel A/Fuel B example.
Which fuel type creates more pollutant per 100km in the example?

Hello fuel attendant, perchance would you have the formula to calculate tax to fill my car A with tyres B and roof racks C and dicky injectors D for say... 370 km?


What do you mean fuel is sold per litre?

And the CO2 per litre is a fixed and known number?

liamog

The carbon tax component of petrol and diesel is different rates exactly because of the different usage components.
Would it surprise you to know that you pay more carbon tax on diesel than on petrol per litre in Ireland? (https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/excise-and-licences/excise-duty-rates/mineral-oil-tax.aspx)

sam ford

As time goes on the EV car and light commercial will become more affordable and will automatically become the norm,

ShiverinEskimo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I do find it strange that ireland seems to be perfect conditions for diesels....every diesel in the country seems to run at 4.xltr/100km.....

I drove diesel for years, I have a commute of 100km each way and had loads of diesel....none of them got near 4.X....I had BMW, Audi, Ford, Vw, Saab etc....

Even the manufacturer unrealistic figures in brochure just about hit 4.xltr/100km.....

I would never have expected wind and rain would be perfect for diesel

Just to answer this since you're clearly suggesting I'm making it up:

It's a VW Passat B8 1.6TDI. I set the cruise control between 105kmph and 110kmph to save on diesel depending on how early I can get out the door. I drive 3 minutes to the M1 and 3 mins off it the other end so the vast vast majority of my journey is motorway. It's an 82km journey in total and the 77.5km motorway marker is at my junction.

The manufacturer's stated fuel economy is 4.2 l/100 km. I get 4.9. Take it or leave it.

Maybe all your lovely big Beamers, Audis and (old) Saabs were 2.0L engines or larger and maybe you'd be in more of a rush than I and weren't as keen to achieve good fuel economy to keep the costs of commuting to a minimum as I am. Maybe you can enlighten us.

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

The carbon tax component of petrol and diesel is different rates exactly because of the different usage components.
Would it surprise you to know that you pay more carbon tax on diesel than on petrol per litre in Ireland? (https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/excise-and-licences/excise-duty-rates/mineral-oil-tax.aspx)

Does it offset John gormelys 10c gerrymandering?

Could you post a full link if you are going to post at all?

Was that an internal link?

HailSatan

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Just to answer this since you're clearly suggesting I'm making it up:

It's a VW Passat B8 1.6TDI. I set the cruise control between 105kmph and 110kmph to save on diesel depending on how early I can get out the door. I drive 3 minutes to the M1 and 3 mins off it the other end so the vast vast majority of my journey is motorway. It's an 82km journey in total and the 77.5km motorway marker is at my junction.

The manufacturer's stated fuel economy is 4.2 l/100 km. I get 4.9. Take it or leave it.

Maybe all your lovely big Beamers, Audis and (old) Saabs were 2.0L engines or larger and maybe you'd be in more of a rush than I and weren't as keen to achieve good fuel economy to keep the costs of commuting to a minimum as I am. Maybe you can enlighten us.

I know Green Party policy legacy rewards you for it, but morally... Do you feel bad for paying less to produce more of every pollutant?

pwurple

OP, before you get into a bit of a knot, have you looked at insurance costs recently on cars 10+ years old? Do a few online quotes and increase the age of the car each time. In some cases they won't even quote.

My neighbours sold their twelve year old car because the insurance was becoming punitive. .a 15 year old car is something you may struggle to insure.

pwurple

82km commute is nothing. I have a family of four plus dog, and my five year old EV (which today is worth maybe 12k) does that kind of mileage no probs. Just plug it in at destination.

There's always an excuse.

Shefwedfan

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Just to answer this since you're clearly suggesting I'm making it up:

It's a VW Passat B8 1.6TDI. I set the cruise control between 105kmph and 110kmph to save on diesel depending on how early I can get out the door. I drive 3 minutes to the M1 and 3 mins off it the other end so the vast vast majority of my journey is motorway. It's an 82km journey in total and the 77.5km motorway marker is at my junction.

The manufacturer's stated fuel economy is 4.2 l/100 km. I get 4.9. Take it or leave it.

Maybe all your lovely big Beamers, Audis and (old) Saabs were 2.0L engines or larger and maybe you'd be in more of a rush than I and weren't as keen to achieve good fuel economy to keep the costs of commuting to a minimum as I am. Maybe you can enlighten us.

Couple of points
The 1.6 is underpowered for that Passat so will use more fuel to a 2ltr
The consumption is based on NEDC which is not realistic....the 4.2 was and never will be an achievable consumption
You must travel with nothing in car, without air conditioning on etc....
Also you must have lovely clear days with no wind etc every time you drive...

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

The carbon tax component of petrol and diesel is different rates exactly because of the different usage components.
Would it surprise you to know that you pay more carbon tax on diesel than on petrol per litre in Ireland? (https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/excise-and-licences/excise-duty-rates/mineral-oil-tax.aspx)

53.30 - 45. 87 = 7.43 per 1000 litres.

So less than a cent per litre.


Would it surprise you to learn that John Gormleys gerrymandering of excise duties to suit the fuel with more emissions per litre completely swamps your 0.743cent?


I suspect its not a surprise at all. I suspect you are being somewhat disingenuous in presenting this as some proof that our fuel taxes and excise don't encourage diesel emissions ahead of lower emissions options.

HailSatan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Couple of points
The 1.6 is underpowered for that Passat so will use more fuel to a 2ltr
The consumption is based on NEDC which is not realistic....the 4.2 was and never will be an achievable consumption
You must travel with nothing in car, without air conditioning on etc....
Also you must have lovely clear days with no wind etc every time you drive...

Sounds like misery. Bad case of Stockholm syndrome. This guy should be shouting for the emissions playing field to be levelled so he can reduce his emissions and his costs AND bring some enjoyment back into his life, not banging the green party's "diesel is the way and the light" drum.

Isambard

11k a year? go for petrol.

ShiverinEskimo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Couple of points
The 1.6 is underpowered for that Passat so will use more fuel to a 2ltr
The consumption is based on NEDC which is not realistic....the 4.2 was and never will be an achievable consumption
You must travel with nothing in car, without air conditioning on etc....
Also you must have lovely clear days with no wind etc every time you drive...

I know manufacturers' figures are not realistic - you mentioned the manufacturer's figures and I went to the trouble of finding them for you. I'm not getting near them. You claimed they 'just about' hit 4.x when in fact they are stated as low 4.x.

I do travel with an empty car to work, yes. Me and an empty baby seat. What do you cart around with you? I rarely use the A/C except on hot days.

I have the same weather as everyone else. Hence the general lack of A/C required.

Any other questions or would you like to compare your circumstances?

Stop accusing me of lying in a snide sarcastic way please. I've given you the circumstances above that work for me to keep fuel consumption to a minimum. I'm sorry your diesel BMW's consumption can't compete. Maybe lift the boot a bit or stop carrying half your belongings with you everywhere you go.

nf2k

Diesel has a lower excise duty for strange historical reasons, no economic reason behind it. That's a big factor in why it is so attractive (among many others including fuel efficiency). There will be a lot of calls to balance that with petrol, so that is one reason why diesel costs may rise. There are also issues with emissions of particulate matter which would drive further regulations/taxes on diesels.

Regardless of this, if you do short hops in the car, which you seem to do, then petrol is generally the better call (although particular circumstances may differ).

Idbatterim

yeah the above post it true! you know what though, I dont care less that some people can save a E1 or 2 a week and massively compromise air quality as such. Shows you how idiotic and small minded people are!

i would not drive a diesel unless doing huge mileage and am happy to pay marginally more , at the pump, to be using petrol!

liamog

HailSatan wrote: »

I suspect its not a surprise at all. I suspect you are being somewhat disingenuous in presenting this as some proof that our fuel taxes and excise don't encourage diesel emissions ahead of lower emissions options.

I've provided examples that show how emissions per litre is not a great system for reducing overall CO2 emissions.

If you want to reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions, it makes sense to encourage use of the fuel that emits less CO2 per 100km.

It's time for you to provide an example that would reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions.

Orderofchaos

My 11 year old 2l diesel just pass the NCT yesterday with 247k miles on the clock. Emissions were less than 10% of the allowable max. I still get close to 50 mpg, gonna drive it until it's not economically viable, hopefully another few years. The process of manufacturing a new car has a HUGE carbon footprint, surely it makes sense (even from an environmental perspective) for me to keep the car on the road for as long as possible???

HailSatan

Orderofchaos wrote: »

. Emissions were less than 10% of the allowable max. I still get close to 50 mpg

This is great stuff. It's up there with "you'll never catch me in anything but diesel, you can't beat diesel on cost" line of thinking.

Do you think the emissions test for diesel at NCT is a good test?

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

I've provided examples that show how emissions per litre is not a great system for reducing overall CO2 emissions.

If you want to reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions, it makes sense to encourage use of the fuel that emits less CO2 per 100km.

It's time for you to provide an example that would reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions.

That's fine Eamon, you're firmly in the "any amount of toxic cancerous pollution justifies an insignificant decrease in a non toxic non cancer causing gas" camp.

We get that.

Some of us car about air quality and just want the playing levelled. Polluter pays and all that.

bazz26

Christ, this place is starting to turn into the motors equivalent of the vegan forum.

liamog

HailSatan wrote: »

That's fine Eamon, you're firmly in the "any amount of toxic cancerous pollution justifies an insignificant decrease in a non toxic non cancer causing gas" camp.

We get that.

Some of us car about air quality and just want the playing levelled. Polluter pays and all that.

It's 2008, a criminal conspiracy of auto manufacturers have convinced everyone that particulate emissions from diesel engines are not an issue due to use of DPFs and AdBlue.

Design a system that reduces CO2 emissions.

Stoner

ShiverinEskimo wrote:

Maybe all your lovely big Beamers, Audis and (old) Saabs were 2.0L engines or larger and maybe you'd be in more of a rush than I and weren't as keen to achieve good fuel economy to keep the costs of commuting to a minimum as I am. Maybe you can enlighten us.

I'd a lexus 220 D (2010 to 2014)
I got 6.1L/100KM

My wife had a 2014 Honda Tourer (Estate) she got 4.7L/100 KM (I think,give or take)

That's was a 2.2 L D vs a 1.5L newer engine. Huge difference

I've a IS300H now since 2014, more or less locked in at 7.2L/100KM

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

It's 2008, a criminal conspiracy of auto manufacturers have convinced everyone that particulate emissions from diesel engines are not an issue due to use of DPFs and AdBlue.

Design a system that reduces CO2 emissions.

That's not how the start of the A-Team goes?


To me it always sounded more like "its 2008, EU emissions regs allow barn door limits for diesel on NOx and PM when compared to petrol. Naive or complicit idiots change everything to suit diesel by pretending it's about CO2 even when it's glaringly obvious some of their actions favour diesel CO2 molecules over any other CO2 molecules so really at the end of the day was it about reducing CO2 in a responsible manner or increasing diesel at any cost?"

HailSatan

Stoner wrote: »

I'd a lexus 220 D (2010 to 2014)
I got 6.1L/100KM

My wife had a 2014 Honda Tourer (Estate) she got 4.7L/100 KM (I think,give or take)

That's was a 2.2 L D vs a 1.5L newer engine. Huge difference

I've a IS300H now since 2014, more or less locked in at 7.2L/100KM

Less CO2 now than the 220D.

Less NOx.

Less Sox.

Less pm.

More cost.

Nice one Green Party!

liamog

HailSatan wrote: »

That's not how the start of the A-Team goes?


To me it always sounded more like "its 2008, EU emissions regs allow barn door limits for diesel on NOx and PM when compared to petrol. Naive or complicit idiots change everything to suit diesel by pretending it's about CO2 even when it's glaringly obvious some of their actions favour diesel CO2 molecules over any other CO2 molecules so really at the end of the day was it about reducing CO2 in a responsible manner or increasing diesel at any cost?"

See that's the bit you keep missing, it was not glaringly obvious until way later than 2008.

Based on your continuing inability to come up with a system to reduce CO2 emissions based on 2008 information, can I assume you just can't figure one out?

Fast forward to 2015, Dieselgate breaks and it's clear that manufacturers have been colluding to lie about particulate emissions. It's September, so it's too late for any changes to make it into the 2016 budget.
Any governments since then could have changed the taxation to discourage the use of diesel fuel. The government has had four years to adjust excise duty on fuel to account for what we now know is a huge particulate matter problem. I reckon if we didn't have a minority government that would have probably happened already.

The development of petrol hybrids, and plug in hybrids, have got us to a point where CO2 emissions from petrol is now lower per 100km than diesel. It's only political inaction that is preventing us from updating the system to account for it.

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

See that's the bit you keep missing, it was not glaringly obvious until way later than 2008.

Pure lies.

Tell me what new science has come to light?

Tell me what previous science it proves wrong?

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

The government has had four years to adjust excise duty on fuel to account for what we now know is a huge particulate matter problem.

Would you not be more worried about the NOx? Strange that you defend the green party's failure to understand a key part of their raison d'etre by demonstrating a similar ineptness.

Orderofchaos

HailSatan wrote: »

This is great stuff. It's up there with "you'll never catch me in anything but diesel, you can't beat diesel on cost" line of thinking.

Do you think the emissions test for diesel at NCT is a good test?

That's for others to decide.

Orderofchaos

HailSatan wrote: »

This is great stuff. It's up there with "you'll never catch me in anything but diesel, you can't beat diesel on cost" line of thinking.

Do you think the emissions test for diesel at NCT is a good test?

Do you think changing cars every few years is good for the environment?

HailSatan

Orderofchaos wrote: »

That's for others to decide.

It's a token effort. Is that news to you? Did you think your car wasn't scuttering out toxins for years now because the greens said it was clean and the NCT never contradicted them? :eek:


Somebody has to buy new cars. The cars with the least negative impact on our environment should be prioritised.

liamog

It's not new science, remember that bit where the auto manufacturers criminally conspired to hide emissions and cheat tests. A proper functioning AdBlue system reduces NOx by up to 98%.

The bottom line is manufacturers cheated every government and regulator in Europe, and yet somehow you blame a junior coalition member of the Irish government, who was in power for 3 out of the last 11 years.

I'm surprised people aren't sueing the 6 TDs from Ireland who apparently enabled Dieselgate to have such an impact on EU and USA Air quality.

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

It's not new science, remember that bit where the auto manufacturers criminally conspired to hide emissions and cheat tests. A proper functioning AdBlue system reduces NOx by up to 98%.

The bottom line is manufacturers cheated every government and regulator in Europe, and yet somehow you blame a junior coalition member of the Irish government, who was in power for 3 out of the last 11 years.

I'm surprised people aren't sueing the 6 TDs from Ireland who apparently enabled Dieselgate to have such an impact on EU and USA Air quality.

Tell me what new science has come to light?

Tell me what previous science it proves wrong?

liamog

Find me a paper from 2008 indicating the problem and then we can explore that line of inquiry.

Orderofchaos

HailSatan wrote: »

It's a token effort. Is that news to you? Did you think your car wasn't scuttering out toxins for years now because the greens said it was clean and the NCT never contradicted them? :eek:


Somebody has to buy new cars. The cars with the least negative impact on our environment should be prioritised.

Me driving that car for the next 10 years would have a fraction of the Carbon footprint of manufacturing a new car, any new car.

Orderofchaos

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=460133&d=1535878395

Outkast_IRE

They should push Haulage / Large Commercial and buses to natural gas. This is so achievable and Gas Networks Ireland are trying to get about 150 filling stations in place by 2030 - The government should accelerate this timeline.

For most light commerical and individuals , i think pure diesel only should be off the table. Hybrids or pure electric only for the next 6-7 years and then pure electric only.

HailSatan

liamog wrote: »

Find me a paper from 2008 indicating the problem and then we can explore that line of inquiry.

You're the one saying

liamog wrote: »

See that's the bit you keep missing, it was not glaringly obvious until way later than 2008

So tell me...

Tell me what new science has come to light?

Tell me what previous science it proves wrong?

HailSatan

Orderofchaos wrote: »

Me driving that car for the next 10 years would have a fraction of the Carbon footprint of manufacturing a new car, any new car.

Orderofchaos wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=460133&d=1535878395

That's great and all but the non toxic CO2 is only one part of the puzzle.

It's not even the part that you were trying to imply was a good test of whether a diesel was fit to be on the road.


Are you that clueless about diesel emissions? Still swear by the Green Party's version of science?

Orderofchaos

HailSatan wrote: »

That's great and all but the non toxic CO2 is only one part of the puzzle.

It's not even the part that you were trying to imply was a good test of whether a diesel was fit to be on the road.


Are you that clueless about diesel emissions? Still swear by the Green Party's version of science?

That's what the dpf is for. Green party????

cnocbui

Diesel car operating costs are more likely to increase.

Exhibit 1:

A new report from the Economic and Social Research Institute has concluded that an increase in the excise duty rate on diesel motor fuel can be justified on both fiscal and environmental grounds.

It says the Government would raise more than half a billion euro per year, while significantly reducing carbon emissions and air pollution from the transport sector, if it raised the excise duty on diesel to the level currently charged on petrol.

The reason diesel is significantly cheaper than petrol in Ireland is because the Government deliberately makes it so.

Exhibit 2:

It has been proposed that the Government should bring the retail price of motor diesel to at least the same level as that of petrol by increasing the excise rates on diesel on a phased-in basis.

In its pre-budget submission to Minister Paschal Donohoe, the Environmental Pillar said apart from the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels, particulates from diesel engines are causes of a range of human health problems.

HailSatan

Orderofchaos wrote: »

That's what the dpf is for. Green party????

Orderofchaos wrote: »

Me driving that car for the next 10 years would have a fraction of the Carbon footprint of manufacturing a new car, any new car. Carbon footprint of manufacturing a new car, any new car.

That's what the dpf is for? Negating the carbon footprint of manufacturing?

Orderofchaos

HailSatan wrote: »

That's what the dpf is for? Negating the carbon footprint of manufacturing?

Lol.