Diesel vs petrol question

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Anti-diesel ”reasearch” is pretty well bunk. Politically skewed. Like the faked dangers of second-hand cigarette smoke.

I believe second-hand cigarette smoke is dangerous, plus it's worse than Diesel fumes. But anyway, nobody would be able to convince me that all this anti-Diesel bias is not politically-inclined. Well, many countries could enhance their energy independence retaining old-school Diesels on the road and putting them to run either on pure vegetable oils or biodiesel which could be even made out of residual fats from animal carcasses. I got to learn about Diesel engines due to the influence of Argentinians, Uruguayans and Paraguayans in the '90s, but nowadays it's not so easy to spot so many Diesel cars with Argentinian or Uruguayan plates in the coastal city where I usually go on the summer due to politics on those countries that rendered the Diesel engine too expensive due to left-leaning politicians who embraced the anti-Diesel bandwagon in order to send more money to Venezuela...

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

Emissions controls and the fuel standards might shift, but I'm also sure the Diesel engine will stay for longer than the sell-outs from the European Parliament are trying to take them out of the road.

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

I'd also consider the size of certain vehicles as a part of the problem. Sometimes I think Japan was right on classifying vehicles for their size in order to charge lower taxes to smaller ones.

[RedDevil]

I don't think the research was anti-diesel. Its results were anti-diesel though.
Does that make the research bad?

If research needs to give the results you want to not be bunk, it isn't research anymore.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I don't think the research was anti-diesel. Its results were anti-diesel though.
Does that make the research bad?

If research needs to give the results you want to not be bunk, it isn't research anymore.

That's a different matter. Some researches might have their validity even though I'm not satisfied with their results. My objection is toward the left-leaning politicians who pretend to care about the environment and people's health just as an excuse to push their lame agenda. For example, many corrupts who use public funds that should've been destined to the public healthcare system in Brazil pretend to care about people dying supposedly for the effects of Diesel fumes, but their criminal behavior is in fact what denies those people a proper medical care. See?

[RedDevil]

I value the results of scientific research, where researchers tie their names and reputations to, more than the words of politicians. Even though the latter generally have a more pleasant message (depending on their orientation).

I have nothing with left wing politicians, but 'left wing' research is not a real thing. Nor is 'right wing' research.

I was disappointed because the particulate research I brought up was immediately declared bunk, "research" even. As if I would post it if I thought is wasn't real.
So it is in effect an attack on me too. Guess what, I can do without that.

[oil pan 4]

I'm sure the research is as fair as you can get with funding bias.

Yes left leaning politicians pretend to care about the environment. But their version of caring turns into something that resembles neglect, mismanagement.
It's even hard to tell if their will towards the environment is just ignorance or intentional malevolence.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I was disappointed because the particulate research I brought up was immediately declared bunk, "research" even. As if I would post it if I thought is wasn't real.
So it is in effect an attack on me too.

There is no need to take it personally. In the end, nearly everybody on this board shares a similar goal to reach a good balance of fuel-efficiency (or simply energy-efficiency if we consider the ones who resort to EVs ) and an eventual decrease on overall emissions.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

There is no need to take it personally. In the end, nearly everybody on this board shares a similar goal to reach a good balance of fuel-efficiency (or simply energy-efficiency if we consider the ones who resort to EVs ) and an eventual decrease on overall emissions.

You know, it is all one big misconception. Emissions research tests all vehicles, not just diesel.
Emissions regulations have let off some aspects of diesel in the past. As diesel engines run lean on light loads by concept, they produce less CO and more NOx than gasoline engines.
Yet emission standards are pushing the levels down:
Fact Check: are diesel cars really more polluting than petrol cars?

The problem here is that many diesel cars cannot actually meet the standards, that's why dieselgate is so widespread. Gasoline cars generally do meet the emissions standards (but not the economics...).
Also the standards do not yet distinguish between micro particulates and larger particulates. Direct injection cars (diesel AND gasoline) produce more micro particulates than carbureted or indirect injection cars; in that aspect the old diesels were less dangerous than the modern 'clean' ones.

But it does contain less benzene: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-benzene...-not-in-diesel

This is a nice neutral description of diesel and its use: https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...iesel-fuel.htm

and what it does to us:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4894930/

Diesel engine emissions are among the most prevalent anthropogenic pollutants worldwide, and with the growing popularity of diesel-fueled engines in the private transportation sector, they are becoming increasingly widespread in densely populated urban regions. However, a large number of toxicological studies clearly show that diesel engine emissions profoundly affect human health. ... The key aspects of adverse effects induced by diesel exhaust exposure described herein will be important for regulators to support or ban certain technologies or to legitimate incentives for the development of promising new technologies such as catalytic diesel particle filters.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

If diesel powered cars were confined to the same emissions regulations as other cars there would not be any diesel cars in Europe.

I wouldn't be so sure about it. BTW nowadays that direct injection became more widespread on spark-ignition engines, NOx and even particulate matter turned into a matter of concern on those too. Just to remind, nowadays Volkswagen is resorting to particulate filters even in some vehicles fitted with the 2.0 TSI/TFSI engine.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I wouldn't be so sure about it. BTW nowadays that direct injection became more widespread on spark-ignition engines, NOx and even particulate matter turned into a matter of concern on those too. Just to remind, nowadays Volkswagen is resorting to particulate filters even in some vehicles fitted with the 2.0 TSI/TFSI engine.

I wasn't sure, looked it up and altered my post.

[matt36415]

My van does highway km so is ok but many cars here - Australia- have problems with the diesel particulate filters that they have to have.

Can anyone explain why diesel has particulates when burnt but petrol does not?