Diesel vs petrol question

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Anti-diesel ”reasearch” is pretty well bunk. Politically skewed. Like the faked dangers of second-hand cigarette smoke. False, in that someone’s profit (or power) is what’s really at stake.

The energetic content of diesel makes it indisposable. Non-replaceable. Emissions controls have changed the rest.

The number of vehicles to service urban sprawl is the problem.

Why cities have sprawled is what you aren’t allowed to ask. “Why do we have commuters?” Power and profit are at stake.

Other choices would have precluded what you think of as a dilemma.

.

I don't think Europe has adopted the war on NOx style emissions like the US has.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

But then the petrol engine has ignition advance, which the diseasel lacks.

Modern Diesel engines at least in the US can advance the ignition.
But if you have decent fuel there isn't any need to.
Over here advancing diesel injection timing is done for emissions control.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Oh yeah, it is pretty well bunk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust

But hey, wikipedia is bunk. Let's roll some more coal.

What’s in your water is far worse. Even the best municipal supply. Where’s the outcry.

It’s context. Not content.

Pay attention to a larger picture.

[RedDevil]

If you believe diesel exhaust gases are safer than even the best tap water you'll have a hard time finding others who share your views.
I think we won't convince each other anytime soon, so its better to stop trying.

[slowmover]

Shows you don’t understand even that problem. More serious. Bet you think secondhand cigarette smoke a problem, too.

Few studies can stand up to replication tests. Best you examine your thesis A LOT more carefully.

[redpoint5]

The problem with the studies is they haven't sufficiently controlled the variables.

Studying miners in a confined space, breathing diesel fumes 10hrs a day isn't a good predictor of the amount of exposure regular folks inhale in day to day living, and what the consequences are.

There's no possible way to put a number of deaths that diesel particulates are responsible for, not to say it isn't happening.

A heart attack triggered by diesel particulate inhalation which results in death doesn't mean the diesel particulates have killed the person; it's entirely likely it's the straw that broke the camel's back, and the person would have succumbed to poor health in the near future.

Again, not saying we should not concern ourselves with the quest for cleaner air, only saying that the issue is too complex to simply say millions of people are dying as a direct result of pollution. How much longer would these people have lived if they had been exposed to 1/4 as much pollution? We'll probably never know.

[oil pan 4]

Remember Europe doesn't have all the emissions stuff we have in the US.

[iikhod]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Remember Europe doesn't have all the emissions stuff we have in the US.

Like what for example?

[oil pan 4]

The sulfur content in the European fuel is a lot higher than than the US.
We use 7ppm sulfur because of the emissions, this started back around 2007.
When did Europe start using their sorry excuse for low sulfur diesel?
We had to start using passive PM soot traps in the mid 90s, most diesels sold in the US had to have very high pressure common rail full electric injector control by 2000 to control NOx and PM, early 2000s egr coolers were needed to reduce NOx, 2007 was the ultra low 7ppm sulfur fuel roll out, then in 2010 active soot trapping using exhaust filters that regen and strict NOx emissions, 2013 or 2014 very strict NOx regulations force use of urea augmented converters on most diesels.

[iikhod]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The sulfur content in the European fuel is a lot higher than than the US.
We use 7ppm sulfur because of the emissions, this started back around 2007.
When did Europe start using their sorry excuse for low sulfur diesel?
We had to start using passive PM soot traps in the mid 90s, most diesels sold in the US had to have very high pressure common rail full electric injector control by 2000 to control NOx and PM, early 2000s egr coolers were needed to reduce NOx, 2007 was the ultra low 7ppm sulfur fuel roll out, then in 2010 active soot trapping using exhaust filters that regen and strict NOx emissions, 2013 or 2014 very strict NOx regulations force use of urea augmented converters on most diesels.

Here it is 10ppm and it is legally called non-sulfur diesel

Well this is all new information for me about the american emission equipment, thank you for that.

I don't know when they started reducing sulfur in european diesel, one finnish refinery did it in 1991.
Someone with better knowledge can correct me.