# Bristol clean air diesel ban plan approved



## harrow (Nov 8, 2019)

Bristol clean air diesel ban plan approved

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-e...vcXrmwYMJqVePO-tHB5Zqbcdgis-dvZr34Ulw4gMis1A0

Bristol is set to become the UK's first city to ban diesel cars from entering parts of the city centre in a bid to cut air pollution.
Bristol City Council has agreed to ban privately owned diesel cars from a central zone in the daytime. Commercial vehicles will pay to enter the area.
The city has long suffered from poor air quality, particularly from high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
The scheme, which needs government approval, is due to start in 2021.


----------



## antiquesam (Nov 8, 2019)

Good job I've booked my last visit to the C&MC site next week then.


----------



## st3v3 (Nov 8, 2019)

P1ssed about this as I have a private car I use to service several customers in the area. Hey ho!


----------



## Wully (Nov 8, 2019)

That’ll make Bristol the first ghost city in 5 years time should be enough to kill off the remaining shops and other trades in the town centre mamby pamby councils cutting there own throats for a blue peter badge.


----------



## Wully (Nov 8, 2019)

Chernobyl that’s Clydebank. Get the exhaust pollution bit but it won’t make that much difference banning a few cars then sticking on an extra 200 300 bus trips every day and think they were talking about Bristol airport becoming bigger and busier. Unemployment and degeneration will kill more slowly but it’ll still do the same job in the end.


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 8, 2019)

Our a big bag on roof piped to ex,save it all up and post it to London where it can be released in no 10.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 8, 2019)

Euro 4 260ppm, euro 5 200ppm, euro 5plus 150ppm, euro 6 80ppm and euro 6d 50ppm. so a euro 6d is five times cleaner in terms of particulate matter and N02 than a euro 4. Also diesel emits 30% less CO2 than petrol. Will buses that only do 3-4 mpg be allowed. What happened to Gordon Browns “dash for diesel”. So the politicians who told us to buy diesel are now stopping us from using them.
surely a ban on older diesels would have been better than this.


----------



## QFour (Nov 8, 2019)

Ahhh but you can of course get round the ban by paying £9 a day for private diesel cars and everyone else with a diesel pays £100 a day including buses. So all that will happen is everyone will shop elsewhere and the cost of getting items delivered will go up and Bristol Council will be rolling in money.


----------



## yorkslass (Nov 8, 2019)

Empty city centres because there won't be plans for public transport to be put in place or enough charging points for those who can't afford electric cars. They come up with "bright ideas" but never give a thought to planning for the future so long as they look and sound good at that moment.


----------



## linkshouse (Nov 9, 2019)

People used to blame big supermarkets and shopping centres for killing the high street. It seems now councils are trying to get in on the act and make a better job of it!


----------



## Dr Who (Nov 9, 2019)

Hence, anyone can pollute so long as they hand over some money to the mafioso. They'll then turn a blind eye to those belching black soot past the school/city gates.
Money=Nosmell+Nosee+Cango
QED.


----------



## Clunegapyears (Nov 9, 2019)

Busses are a bad polluter and didn’t the ‘poo’ bus in Bristol get cancelled?

edit the No. 2 poo bus went down the pan. ...https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-bristol-38000317


----------



## phillybarbour (Nov 9, 2019)

Dr Who said:


> Hence, anyone can pollute so long as they hand over some money to the mafioso. They'll then turn a blind eye to those belching black soot past the school/city gates.
> Money=Nosmell+Nosee+Cango
> QED.



i agree with this statement. How can it be about the environment when they say but if you pay it’s ok.


----------



## Okta (Nov 9, 2019)

Dr Who said:


> Hence, anyone can pollute so long as they hand over some money to the mafioso. They'll then turn a blind eye to those belching black soot past the school/city gates.
> Money=Nosmell+Nosee+Cango
> QED.


No the £9 charge is only for taxis and vans (business reasons) but private cars will be banned.


----------



## colinm (Nov 9, 2019)

An estimated 300 people a year die in Bristol due to air polution, to not do something about this would be criminal. Diesel cars are rapidly fading away as considerably more buyers of new cars opt for petrol.


----------



## alcam (Nov 9, 2019)

colinmd said:


> An estimated 300 people a year die in Bristol due to air polution, to not do something about this would be criminal. Diesel cars are rapidly fading away as considerably more buyers of new cars opt for petrol.


Indeed and petrol will go the same way .
All the (mostly) old gits on here can drone on about this forever but its happening .
Yes governments and councils won't necessarily get the mechanics right but that is , surely , besides the point ?
It will affect me (and most on here) but surely I (we) have to accept it is necessary ?
Or , quite possibly , we are selfish old baskets who don't actually care about future generations . Think there is a lot of recent evidence proving this to be the case


----------



## harrow (Nov 9, 2019)

alcam said:


> Indeed and petrol will go the same way .
> All the (mostly) old gits on here can drone on about this forever but its happening .
> Yes governments and councils won't necessarily get the mechanics right but that is , surely , besides the point ?
> It will affect me (and most on here) but surely I (we) have to accept it is necessary ?
> Or , quite possibly , we are selfish old baskets who don't actually care about future generations . Think there is a lot of recent evidence proving this to be the case


*I have always liked the idea of electric cars
BUT* *its the cost of a cheap chinese one is £25000* that's a lot of money to spend on a car.


----------



## GeoffL (Nov 9, 2019)

runnach said:


> Bristol, twinned with Chernobyl.
> 
> On a serious note, exhaust pollution is a serious problem.


Although that's the popular belief, it's way short of the whole truth. Although the latest fad seems to be to demonise diesels, electric cars are just as bad. Particle pollution from electric cars could be worse than that from modern diesels.


----------



## st3v3 (Nov 9, 2019)

GeoffL said:


> Although that's the popular belief, it's way short of the whole truth. Although the latest fad seems to be to demonise diesels, electric cars are just as bad. Particle pollution from electric cars could be worse than that from modern diesels.



That completely ignores the fact the electric cars use regenerative braking, until the bloke updated it further down the page where he backtracks somewhat....


----------



## peter palance (Nov 9, 2019)

harrow said:


> Bristol clean air diesel ban plan approved
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-e...vcXrmwYMJqVePO-tHB5Zqbcdgis-dvZr34Ulw4gMis1A0
> 
> ...


are they going to ban helecopter and jet plaines and fire brigaid and amberlances oh, and the fuzz, oh, oh no,oh and ask them how they get to ,not there work,as
they dont do any,or should i say turn up for, what trans-port, are they using,oh they are all in wheel-chains, not all ok,  ok.pj


----------



## GeoffL (Nov 9, 2019)

st3v3 said:


> That completely ignores the fact the electric cars use regenerative braking, until the bloke updated it further down the page where he backtracks somewhat....


Not really, here's the bit I suspect you refer to:





> Timmers and Achten acknowledge the benefits of regenerative brakes on electric vehicles and made a conservative estimate of zero brake-wear emissions for electric vehicles. Hence, their claim that electric vehicle particulate matter emissions are comparable to those of conventional vehicles was based upon the greater tyre and road surface wear, and resuspension associated with a greater vehicle weight.


 Far from backtracking, he stated that the estimate of pollution from EVs conservatively included zero emissions from brake-wear and that the additional particulate pollution arose as a consequence of the heavier mass of EVs -- although he did say that some EVs are lighter (think tiny, low range, city cars) than conventional vehicles and so the issue is somewhat complex. That said, no EV relies solely on regenerative braking, particularly in stop-start traffic, as the final deceleration to halt must come from friction braking.
FWIW, the whole point is that authorities at least imply that EVs are the panacea to all pollution ills, which the piece I cited shows just isn't true.


----------



## Nabsim (Nov 9, 2019)

It’s fine to ban vehicles from areas with high pollution but they should be made to install the infrastructure to compensate before any ban. Park and ride with enough shuttle busses to get workers and shoppers in and out efficiently would be a good start. Struggling high street will probably collapse and workers will struggle no doubt.


----------



## colinm (Nov 9, 2019)

GeoffL said:


> Although that's the popular belief, it's way short of the whole truth. Although the latest fad seems to be to demonise diesels, electric cars are just as bad. Particle pollution from electric cars could be worse than that from modern diesels.


The ban doesn't apply to (newer) petrol cars which are lighter than their equivalent diesel alternatives, so a double win.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 9, 2019)

alcam said:


> Indeed and petrol will go the same way .
> All the (mostly) old gits on here can drone on about this forever but its happening .
> Yes governments and councils won't necessarily get the mechanics right but that is , surely , besides the point ?
> It will affect me (and most on here) but surely I (we) have to accept it is necessary ?
> Or , quite possibly , we are selfish old baskets who don't actually care about future generations . Think there is a lot of recent evidence proving this to be the case



Not that long ago us old gits were being told by the same politicians to buy diesel because they are better for the environment. Dash  for diesel we were all told. Modern diesel cars are much cleaner than older models. Why not do what they do in Europe and allow newer vehicles and ban older vehicles and buses.


----------



## ricc (Nov 9, 2019)

has anybody any figures on how much pollution in cities is caused by the residents running their gas heating 24/7 whether theyre actually in the house or not.


----------



## yorkslass (Nov 9, 2019)

alcam said:


> Indeed and petrol will go the same way .
> All the (mostly) old gits on here can drone on about this forever but its happening .
> Yes governments and councils won't necessarily get the mechanics right but that is , surely , besides the point ?
> It will affect me (and most on here) but surely I (we) have to accept it is necessary ?
> Or , quite possibly , we are selfish old baskets who don't actually care about future generations . Think there is a lot of recent evidence proving this to be the case



I think getting the mechanics right is very much the point, and yes, I do care about the environment,  I have a vested interest in my grandchildren.

An example
The care budget has been greatly reduced so more elderly are ending up in hospital leaving less beds for those who are ill. Every action has a reaction so plans need putting in place for alternative transport before they start banning anything.


----------



## GeoffL (Nov 9, 2019)

ricc said:


> has anybody any figures on how much pollution in cities is caused by the residents running their gas heating 24/7 whether theyre actually in the house or not.


Well the WHO at least has published figures for Domestic, traffic, industry etc..





			
				World Health Organisation said:
			
		

> The recently published study shows, based on the available information, that traffic (25%), combustion and agriculture (22%), domestic fuel burning (20%), natural dust and salt (18%), and industrial activities (15%) are the main sources of particulate matter contributing to cities’ air pollution. However, there are significant differences between various regions of the world.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 9, 2019)

ricc said:


> has anybody any figures on how much pollution in cities is caused by the residents running their gas heating 24/7 whether theyre actually in the house or not.



Ricc it’s particulate matter that’s the problem not CO2.
Burning gas generates large quantities of CO2, it’s reckoned that our gas heating systems produce 14% of our CO2 footprint, the same as all our transport systems put together.


----------



## st3v3 (Nov 9, 2019)

GeoffL said:


> Far from backtracking,





			
				Your link said:
			
		

> Emissions from wear of brakes ............….likely to be higher in supposedly clean vehicles, experts warn






			
				Your link after the update said:
			
		

> acknowledge the benefits of regenerative brakes on electric vehicles and made a conservative estimate of zero brake-wear emissions for electric vehicles



But, whatever lol.


----------



## alcam (Nov 9, 2019)

yorkslass said:


> I think getting the mechanics right is very much the point, and yes, I do care about the environment,  I have a vested interest in my grandchildren.
> 
> An example
> The care budget has been greatly reduced so more elderly are ending up in hospital leaving less beds for those who are ill. Every action has a reaction so plans need putting in place for alternative transport before they start banning anything.


Don't totally disagree with any thing you say . Yes there is a fair bit of 'abandon ship , have we got any lifeboats?' going on 
I'm sure you'll agree  there is rather a lot of me me me on here , and other places


----------



## Martin P (Nov 9, 2019)

Pita


----------



## Okta (Nov 9, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> Ricc it’s particulate matter that’s the problem not CO2.
> Burning gas generates large quantities of CO2, it’s reckoned that our gas heating systems produce 14% of our CO2 footprint, the same as all our transport systems put together.


CO2 and particulates are issues of concern but in this case it is NO2 that has caused Bristol to miss the Government targets. NO2 is a produced by diesels and older petrol engines.


----------



## harrow (Nov 9, 2019)

How long before this happens in other cities ?


----------



## alcam (Nov 9, 2019)

The line would not have been up and running if it ,  initially , had to be electric . 
A few years ago you made some spurious complaint about the borders railway   When it was pointed out that the project was successful your answer was people were complaining about the fares (how unusual) .
No mention of electrification then ?


----------



## maingate (Nov 10, 2019)

A similar plan has been aired for Newcastle/Gateshead which has been blocked. It will probably go ahead soon with less stringent affects than originally proposed. It is not really necessary for Gateshead because 95% of the volume of traffic passes straight through to and from Newcastle over the Tyne and Redheugh Bridges. Anti pollution restrictions in Newcastle will encourage people to use the Metro rail system and reduce the choke point at the bridges with its high volume of cars. The biggest problem in Gateshead Town Centre is the atrocious system of traffic lights which reduce every vehicle to a crawl. All it needs is for the timing of the lighhts to be set up properly and the vehicle movement would be vastly improved. A lot of us think the present setup was done deliberately to annoy motorists and drive them on to the Buses instead.


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 10, 2019)

ricc said:


> has anybody any figures on how much pollution in cities is caused by the residents running their gas heating 24/7 whether theyre actually in the house or not.


It uses less gas or oil to keep it running 24/7 on a stat,i have done the tests so i can confirm this,think of it like a car doing 55mph on m/way and returnes 40mpg,same car in town stop start will return 25mpg,a home is the same because you heat the bricks and morter which throws heat back like a storage heater keeping it all going even speed.


----------



## alcam (Nov 10, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> Not that long ago us old gits were being told by the same politicians to buy diesel because they are better for the environment. Dash  for diesel we were all told. Modern diesel cars are much cleaner than older models. Why not do what they do in Europe and allow newer vehicles and ban older vehicles and buses.


Indeed we were , possibly by different politicians .
As I say the mechanics certainly have to be worked on but it is going to happen .
In general though serious changes like this basically , in my opinion , have to be forced upon people . You won't get many volunteers


----------



## ricc (Nov 10, 2019)

trevskoda said:


> It uses less gas or oil to keep it running 24/7 on a stat,i have done the tests so i can confirm this,think of it like a car doing 55mph on m/way and returnes 40mpg,same car in town stop start will return 25mpg,a home is the same because you heat the bricks and morter which throws heat back like a storage heater keeping it all going even speed.


not the case with every dwelling,a lot depends on the consruction and the occupants habits.  weve got a 5 bed bungalow, all the interior walls are studwork and plasterboard, exterior walls are plasterboard on the inside then 150mm fiberglass wool , theres very little heat gets to the exterior masonry.   weve oil fired central heating with thermostatic valves on most rads, a master stat on the living room wall set to 19 degrees and a timer set for heating between 7am and 8.30 am and 4pm to 10 pm with manual overide if were in during the day and want heat. normally a 1000 litre top up lasts a winter and a half.   heating 24/7 to a level that allows sitting round in the nude would use far more oil
our eldest put ground source heatpump and underfloor heating in their new build, that runs 24/7 and uses the thermal mass of the floor... to be honest i dont like the heat during the night, always sleep badly when we stay overnight.  to my mind the leccy bills are horrendous.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 10, 2019)

alcam said:


> Indeed we were , possibly by different politicians .
> As I say the mechanics certainly have to be worked on but it is going to happen .
> In general though serious changes like this basically , in my opinion , have to be forced upon people . You won't get many volunteers



well possibly those who were advised wrongly should be compensated instead of being punished.
also have we all forgot that petrol emits between 30-40% more CO2 than diesel.
We should be adopting a policy of getting rid of older diesels, that would be better.


----------



## GeoffL (Nov 10, 2019)

st3v3 said:


> Your link said:
> Emissions from wear of brakes ............….likely to be higher in supposedly clean vehicles, experts warn


Allow me to fill in the missing, "*and tyres*". Don't forget that even regenerative braking relies on friction -- the friction between the tyre and road surface -- and so even regen produces particulate emissions. Far from 'backtracking' the update clarified the piece in an attempt to prevent the misunderstanding you appear to have made IMO.


----------



## colinm (Nov 10, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> Not that long ago us old gits were being told by the same politicians to buy diesel because they are better for the environment. Dash  for diesel we were all told. Modern diesel cars are much cleaner than older models. Why not do what they do in Europe and allow newer vehicles and ban older vehicles and buses.



Here's why.


> However for diesel vehicles, even the best manufacturer group had Euro 6 NO2 emissions of more than twice the type-approval limit, and all other manufacturer groups were at least four times the type-approval limit. Four manufacturer groups had average emissions of more than 12 times the type-approval limit.


One thing the 'VW scandal' threw up was the that in real world tests VW weren't to bad, many others (i.e. those using Fiat engines) where apaling.


----------



## brakers (Nov 10, 2019)

Hi Everyone
I’ve read through this thread and most are sensible replies, and I do agree we have to tackle problems like this and yes some if not all will not be welcomed by the masses but we can’t keep on like this we have to take action just like we have to tackle the plastic pollution problem, but I’ve yet to see a reply of how these measures will impact on the poorest in our society.
 Most if not all these ideas which are implemented impact the poorest off in our country the most.
All these people deciding on these measures are probably fairly well off compared to the poorest in their area.
I’m OK compared to a lot of people round me,
I live in a one bedroom housing association flat, I’m not rich by any ones standards but thanks to my past work and pensions I’m comfortably off but still can’t afford to change my car to an electric one or even a newer one.
I do feel sorry for people in situations not of their making where measures like these impacts so much more on their lives than people like me and perhaps most people on this forum.
Best Wishes Tony


----------



## st3v3 (Nov 10, 2019)

GeoffL said:


> Allow me to fill in the missing, "*and tyres*". Don't forget that even regenerative braking relies on friction -- the friction between the tyre and road surface -- and so even regen produces particulate emissions. Far from 'backtracking' the update clarified the piece in an attempt to prevent the misunderstanding you appear to have made IMO.



Conventional vehicles have very similar tyre wear, the weight difference becomes negligible when you consider the spread in vehicle (both electric and conventional) sizes and weights. Couple that with differences in the effects of driving style, and there's going to be no difference. 

It's a poorly written, headline grabbing, article by someone who doesn't want to see EV's grow. IMO.


----------



## colinm (Nov 10, 2019)

brakers said:


> Most if not all these ideas which are implemented impact the poorest off in our country the most.
> All these people deciding on these measures are probably fairly well off compared to the poorest in their area.
> ...
> I’m comfortably off but still can’t afford to change my car to an electric one or even a newer one.
> ...



Does that mean nothing should be done? I think not. It should also be pointed out that nobody with a old petrol car will be affected, also those with diesel have a choice of not going into the inner zone between 7am and 3pm, using public transport if applicable, or buying a petrol car in the next 18months (doesn't need to be new, any old banger will do), this will leave very few if any that will suffer any hardship, and there are proposals for help (although we've all heard that one before).


----------



## brakers (Nov 10, 2019)

Does that mean nothing should be done? I think not. 
@colinmd  Did you actually read and understand my full post, I said *" I do agree we have to tackle problems like this and yes some if not all will not be welcomed by the masses but we can’t keep on like this we have to take action just like we have to tackle the plastic pollution problem,"* I never said I don't want anything to be done and yes we have to tackle the problems but be a bit more sympathetic to those people  who are in a situation where these controls will hurt the most.
Best Wishes Tony


----------



## caledonia (Nov 10, 2019)

As usual the man on the street gets told he has to change his ways. What about all the non essential air traffic? Diesel buses puffing along with two or three people on board? Boycot the places that force stupid unplanned limitations on vehicle movement and it will cause financial problems which is more important to them than the planet.


----------



## colinm (Nov 10, 2019)

brakers said:


> Does that mean nothing should be done? I think not.
> @colinmd  Did you actually read and understand my full post, I said *" I do agree we have to tackle problems like this and yes some if not all will not be welcomed by the masses but we can’t keep on like this we have to take action just like we have to tackle the plastic pollution problem,"* I never said I don't want anything to be done and yes we have to tackle the problems but be a bit more sympathetic to those people  who are in a situation where these controls will hurt the most.
> Best Wishes Tony



Yes I did read (and I think) understand your post, maybe my edited quote was misleading. My point is that few ,if any, 'poor' people will be affected, well that is apart from them (hopefully) being less likely to die due to poor air quality. We do not as yet have any details of the councils proposed help for those affected.


----------



## harrow (Nov 10, 2019)

brakers said:


> Hi Everyone
> I’ve read through this thread and most are sensible replies, and I do agree we have to tackle problems like this and yes some if not all will not be welcomed by the masses but we can’t keep on like this we have to take action just like we have to tackle the plastic pollution problem, but I’ve yet to see a reply of how these measures will impact on the poorest in our society.
> Most if not all these ideas which are implemented impact the poorest off in our country the most.
> All these people deciding on these measures are probably fairly well off compared to the poorest in their area.
> ...


Yes at London's new ULEZ that will cover a much bigger area, and that's not only diesel but older petrol cars as well, that will come up to the bottom end of the M1 motorway on the boarders of the north and south circular road, the will include plenty of poorer people


----------



## antiquesam (Nov 10, 2019)

colinmd said:


> Yes I did read (and I think) understand your post, maybe my edited quote was misleading. My point is that few ,if any, 'poor' people will be affected, well that is apart from them (hopefully) being less likely to die due to poor air quality. We do not as yet have any details of the councils proposed help for those affected.


Why do you think the poor won't suffer? Who is going to pay the tax on delivery lorries? If someone has an old diesel to get to work who is going to pay for another petrol car, because it will always be more expensive than the diesel which will have been rendered worthless.
I live in Portsmouth, who are looking closely at this idea. My old diesel motorhome is parked outside my house. How would I get to avoid paying, bearing in mind that I have to pay the Council £100 a year for the privilege of being allowed to park in the area.


----------



## Okta (Nov 10, 2019)

NO2 is particularly harmful to children and the frail elderly. The highest concentrations of NO2 are found in cities, particularly near busy roads. Emission zones cause inconvenience and expense to road users.

Sorry road users (which includes me) but children and the frail come first.


----------



## alcam (Nov 10, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> well possibly those who were advised wrongly should be compensated instead of being punished.
> also have we all forgot that petrol emits between 30-40% more CO2 than diesel.
> We should be adopting a policy of getting rid of older diesels, that would be better.


Not disagreeing . But not expecting any compo


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 10, 2019)

Okta said:


> NO2 is particularly harmful to children and the frail elderly. The highest concentrations of NO2 are found in cities, particularly near busy roads. Emission zones cause inconvenience and expense to road users.
> 
> Sorry road users (which includes me) but children and the frail come first.



Off course children and the frail come first, I would like to think that no one would argue that point.
and I agree that we have to reduce locally NO2 and particulate matter from diesels, and globally CO2 emissions.
But it’s the way it’s being done that some find unacceptable.
First this should not be a decision for a city authority, it should be done on a national basis, as it is in the continent.
I would rather have seen a system similar to what is done in France where older pre euro4 diesels are banned, in all of our city centres where this is necessary. Banning newer models seems drastic and does not take into account advances made in lower emissions of NO2 and particulate matter from diesels. Diesels produce on average 30% less CO2, hence why we were all told to buy them.


----------



## peter palance (Nov 10, 2019)

colinmd said:


> The ban doesn't apply to (newer) petrol cars which are lighter than their equivalent diesel alternatives, so a double win.


only tempory what will they blame next , rubber on your shoes, just another flat head, existant maybe well ,try spec/savers, oki pj


----------



## alcam (Nov 10, 2019)

runnach said:


> Mr Cameron, how do you know it would not be up and running prior to 2015 opening if electrification was to be in place?
> 
> Re, "spurious complaint". I have always advocated Sheriffhall roundabout should have been fixed prior to 300 mill + train set being built, as more of our population
> use bypass than use the borders rail line ( which I do welcome as an addition to an alternative use of transport) I can count on one hand how many times I have used rail line, which is expensive. My postie, who lives in Galashiels, pays just over £200 per month (I asked him) to work commute from Gala to his Mid depot.
> ...


First question there was not enough money 
Sherifhall roundabout has no relevance to anything I'm talking about 
I'm sure your postie prefers the train to the bus
When you previously moaned about the railway (can't remember what nitpicking complaint) you , when challenged , said the fares were too high . At that time you apparently didn't see a need for 
electrification .
What has caused the 'Mr Cameron' "Alan' references ?
If you are trying to be creepy (strange ambition) I can assure you are doing very well


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 10, 2019)

ricc said:


> not the case with every dwelling,a lot depends on the consruction and the occupants habits.  weve got a 5 bed bungalow, all the interior walls are studwork and plasterboard, exterior walls are plasterboard on the inside then 150mm fiberglass wool , theres very little heat gets to the exterior masonry.   weve oil fired central heating with thermostatic valves on most rads, a master stat on the living room wall set to 19 degrees and a timer set for heating between 7am and 8.30 am and 4pm to 10 pm with manual overide if were in during the day and want heat. normally a 1000 litre top up lasts a winter and a half.   heating 24/7 to a level that allows sitting round in the nude would use far more oil
> our eldest put ground source heatpump and underfloor heating in their new build, that runs 24/7 and uses the thermal mass of the floor... to be honest i dont like the heat during the night, always sleep badly when we stay overnight.  to my mind the leccy bills are horrendous.


First thing is ditch the tvr valves down stairs,the living room stat should be at 21c,water tank stat at 55c,if all walls insulated then keep it going,you can time it to knock of late ev to say 6 next day as it will only drop to 18c at most,i burn 2000ltr in 12 mth ,remember im in the second coldest place in ireland,even the ducks wear coats.


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 10, 2019)

Why dont they just say no more diesel engines to be sold from end of year,then just let them die as normal or buy back scrapage after 15 years when most uncared for cars die.


----------



## alcam (Nov 10, 2019)

Ignoring your usual lies , deflection actually downright dishonesty I'll get back to a very serious point . 
You have suddenly started referring to me as , already stated , Alan , Mr Cameron . You don't know me and I , please God , don't know you .
You can laugh your arse off all day but you are behaving like a creep . Whats next my address ?
Don't know where any information you may have has come from but hopefully not from anyone on this site .


----------



## colinm (Nov 10, 2019)

trevskoda said:


> Why dont they just say no more diesel engines to be sold from end of year,then just let them die as normal or buy back scrapage after 15 years when most uncared for cars die.



Some manufacturers have already done this, Suzuki where using Fiat diesel engines, when they saw the real world emissions they decided to drop all diesels.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 10, 2019)

Read through the posts on here, including the personal ones.
bottom line.

No one on here should or would put their hobby ahead of the safety of those who may suffer from diesel emissions.
I bought my second Motorhome in June this year.
In terms of engine type realistically I had one choice diesel, nothing else is available. I handed over thousands of pounds in vat to our government.
If I had waited to September and bought an even cleaner euro 6D engine for doing so I would have incurred a bill of £2135 for my first years road tax followed by 5 years at £460. My diesel dishes out 80ppm the new 6D engine just over half at 50ppm. I only pay £265 a year. None of this makes any sense.
Yes I had another choice don’t buy a Motorhome, possibly that’s what many may decide to do now.


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 10, 2019)

I wonder when electric gets going will the free tax end,you bet it will,the gov never mis a trick.
petrol engine cars will go the same way with high taxation come closer to cut of time.


----------



## colinm (Nov 10, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> Read through the posts on here, including the personal ones.
> bottom line.
> 
> No one on here should or would put their hobby ahead of the safety of those who may suffer from diesel emissions.
> ...



This test in Promobil is a real eye opener.








						Welche Basisfahrzeuge stoßen wie viel NOx aus?: Wohnmobil-Diesel im Real-Abgas-Test
					

Dieseln, und damit den meisten Wohnmobilen, drohen wegen hoher NOx-Emissionen Fahrverbote. promobil testet vier populäre Reisemobil-Basis-Fahrzeuge im Straßenbetrieb. Wie sauber sind VW Crafter, Mercedes Sprinter, Fiat Ducato und Citroën Jumper?




					www.promobil.de


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 10, 2019)

colinmd said:


> This test in Promobil is a real eye opener.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I anticipated such a reply hence my use of the word realistically.
I repeat what I said, REALISTICALLY there is only one type of engine available for a Motorhome. I did read of an electric model costing £150,000 for a basic Motorhome. But that is not a realistic option for myself, or the vast majority of us.


----------



## colinm (Nov 11, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> I anticipated such a reply hence my use of the word realistically.
> I repeat what I said, REALISTICALLY there is only one type of engine available for a Motorhome. I did read of an electric model costing £150,000 for a basic Motorhome. But that is not a realistic option for myself, or the vast majority of us.



I fully understand your position with buying a new van. We're in the same position and IMO there is no practical alternative to a diesel for MH use in 3.5t+ .
My post was to highlight that manufacturers such as Fiat have been building engines which are horrendously polluting that meet the emissions specs, this is why Bristol are banning all private diesels. They seem to also be taking the pragmatic approach re trucks, buses, and taxi's, as banning these could have been more probilmatic.


----------



## Nabsim (Nov 11, 2019)

It needs a proper infrastructure for every city. If that existed and people could get where they want to go in clean, cheap transport why would they need to let ANY personal vehicle in a city centre?

I know if we lived in a city I would not bother with a car, it’s different for people in smaller towns, villages and the sticks but in city’s you have such opportunity to make a difference. I don’t mean ‘you’ the individual but transport companies, councils, governments. It just needs a proper rethink


----------



## st3v3 (Nov 11, 2019)

Nabsim said:


> why would they need to let ANY personal vehicle in a city centre?



I often work in central Bristol, using my private car to transport tools. It's insured for business use, but what's the betting I'll still be banned....


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 11, 2019)

runnach said:


> Currently have a Hybrid diesel Volvo XC60 for a week, all clever stuff, starts and car moves off on electric, then engine kicks in when management system requires it. Then if crawling along in say city traffic, reverts back to electric.
> 
> I doubt we will ever see a MH hybrid, as batteries and electronics required would probably see MH falling into HGV class, due to weight.


No point in hybrid as still got ex pipes filters plugs etc to service,either one or the other.


----------



## colinm (Nov 11, 2019)

st3v3 said:


> I often work in central Bristol, using my private car to transport tools. It's insured for business use, but what's the betting I'll still be banned....



When a LEZ was first introduced I would happily drive through central London to the ScM in my old petrol engined T25.


----------



## st3v3 (Nov 11, 2019)

colinmd said:


> When a LEZ was first introduced I would happily drive through central London to the ScM in my old petrol engined T25.



Cool. SCM?


----------



## colinm (Nov 11, 2019)

st3v3 said:


> Cool. SCM?



Science Museum, used to do a lot of work on hanging aircraft at museums.


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 11, 2019)

Some of us should be in museums or so my kids keep telling me.


----------



## harrow (Nov 13, 2019)

runnach said:


> Interesting article of the domino effect, some interesting comments at end of article.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes airports as well London heathrow airport is going to have a total of 400 miles of roads that are going to be part of a ULEZ in 2022
https://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Corporate-operational-24/11116


----------



## Martin P (Nov 13, 2019)

I like diesel engines and would not be in the slightest bit surprised if the problems with them are being over exaggerated


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 13, 2019)

Martin P said:


> I like diesel engines and would not be in the slightest bit surprised if the problems with them are being over exaggerated


No worse than all the homes burning heating oil,and the jets leaving heathrow.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 13, 2019)

Martin P said:


> I like diesel engines and would not be in the slightest bit surprised if the problems with them are being over exaggerated



Martin what we all have to accept is levels of nitrogen oxide, and harmful particulate matter are far to high in some of our city centres. And these chemicals can only come from one source, our diesels.
Diesels produce  25-30% less CO2 than petrol, and for this reason we were encouraged to by them up until a few years ago.
But unfortunately the manufacturers deliberately kept the true figures from us regarding levels of pollution, and this is what started were we are today.

But what I don’t understand is why it took so long for these figures to come to the fore, possibly if they had years ago we would all be driving cleaner diesels today. Up until euro 4 spec the emphasis was on reducing CO2 and not NO2 and particulate matter. But none the less these figures did fall with each new engine design. Euro 5 was the first time that a reduction in NO2 and particulate matter became paramount rather than CO2 reduction. Euro 5 engines reduced NO2 and particulate from 300ppm to 150ppm. Euro 6 reduced this to 80ppm, and the latest 6d to 50ppm. Mercedes reckon that within 3 years they could get this down to just 10ppm, but with slight loss of power.

What annoys me about what Bristol are doing is they have applied a carte Blanche approach, which is damaging to their economy, and totally wrong. If you go back to the 1970s diesels were putting out as much as 650ppm, 13 times more than current 6d engines.


----------



## RV2MAX (Nov 13, 2019)

The annoying thing is that CO2 output  is an irrelevance , as will be shown in future !


----------



## colinm (Nov 13, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> What annoys me about what Bristol are doing is they have applied a carte Blanche approach, which is damaging to their economy, and totally wrong. If you go back to the 1970s diesels were putting out as much as 650ppm, 13 times more than current 6d engines.



What do a 2015 Fiat 500X 1.6 euro6 and a 2005 Ford Galaxy 1.9 euro3 have in common? I can tell you, in the real world they both put out over 1000g/km NOx, that's why Bristol are banning all private diesels, companies such as Fiat took the piss, interestingly VW cars (and vans) are much better.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 13, 2019)

colinmd said:


> What do a 2015 Fiat 500X 1.6 euro6 and a 2005 Ford Galaxy 1.9 euro3 have in common? I can tell you, in the real world they both put out over 1000g/km NOx, that's why Bristol are banning all private diesels, companies such as Fiat took the piss, interestingly VW cars (and vans) are much better.



So Fiat took the piss, but VW who are being penalised for billions are better.
Unlike you I don’t have precise figures to hand to make such a comment.
But it begs the question, if Fiat are the prime culprits here (as you state) why are BMW, Daimler, and WW being named by the EU as principle culprits.

I suspect that all manufacturers were at it in the past, but things have changed.
I see no point in comparing who was worse, I would be shocked if any manufacturer was blameless.

Testing since 2014 has been completely revamped and independently checked by the EU and other governments worldwide. The fact is diesels are much cleaner than they were in 2005, no one disputes that fact. I would support a ban of older diesels, as is done elsewhere, but not the carte Blanche approach taken by Bristol, which fails to take into account advances made in recent years.


----------



## Martin P (Nov 13, 2019)

Frankly I think that if you live in a city you have to accept a certain level of pollution. Its just life.  Probably far less hazardous than the dust in my workshop


----------



## colinm (Nov 13, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> So Fiat took the piss, but VW who are being penalised for billions are better.
> Unlike you I don’t have precise figures to hand to make such a comment.
> But it begs the question, if Fiat are the prime culprits here (as you state) why are BMW, Daimler, and WW being named by the EU as principle culprits.


VW broke the law, Fiat followed the letter of the law. It has been a 'eye opener' to most people, VW made good engines which needed a cheat to pass test, Fiat made engines which passed the test but where pumping out crap when on the road. Read that link from Promobil I posted on the differance between MB/VW and Fiat/Pug. Needing small 4x4's to get round the fields, my vehicle of choice for many years have been Suzuki, they where using Fiat diesels, since dieselgate they have told Fiat to stuff there diesels and are now only selling petrol cars.


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 13, 2019)

Martin P said:


> Frankly I think that if you live in a city you have to accept a certain level of pollution. Its just life.  Probably far less hazardous than the dust in my workshop


Well you wont get farmers lung in the city.


----------



## Martin P (Nov 14, 2019)

Hey. My workshop is on farm . I could get that as well .


----------



## mark61 (Nov 14, 2019)

RV2MAX said:


> The annoying thing is that CO2 output  is an irrelevance , as will be shown in future !



Probably best to leave facts out of the debate.


----------



## GeoffL (Nov 14, 2019)

mark61 said:


> RV2MAX said:
> 
> 
> > The annoying thing is that CO2 output  is an irrelevance , as will be shown in future !
> ...


It seems at best naive - at worst disingenuous - to conclude that a multi-faceted, complex system such as World climate is chiefly driven by the tiny fraction of anthropogenic contribution to a single factor. Humanity produces only about 3% of world-wide CO2 and only about 0.3% of total greenhouse gasses. The Milankovic cycles have a greater effect on global temperature. Although these cycles have a long period, there have been several pre-industrial rapid warmings (Dansgaard–Oeschger events) that at least one theory attributes to combination of the Milankovic cycles producing tipping points -- with the latest ocurring just before the industrial revolution. Notwithstanding that, there is some debate as to whether world CO2 concentration lags or leads global temperature change, with the balance seeming to suggest that CO2 concentration is the dependant variable. That is, it is highly likely that the current global warming produces the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 rather than the other way around. Whatever, coincidence doesn't establish causality. Global warming is happening, but it likely isn't due to human activity and alarmists would be better served trying to encourage steps to mitigate the effects of global warming rather than making Canute-like attempts to stop it! JMHO


----------



## colinm (Nov 14, 2019)

GeoffL said:


> It seems at best naive - at worst disingenuous - to conclude that a multi-faceted, complex system such as World climate is chiefly driven by the tiny fraction of anthropogenic contribution to a single factor. Humanity produces only about 3% of world-wide CO2 and only about 0.3% of total greenhouse gasses. The Milankovic cycles have a greater effect on global temperature. Although these cycles have a long period, there have been several pre-industrial rapid warmings (Dansgaard–Oeschger events) that at least one theory attributes to combination of the Milankovic cycles producing tipping points -- with the latest ocurring just before the industrial revolution. Notwithstanding that, there is some debate as to whether world CO2 concentration lags or leads global temperature change, with the balance seeming to suggest that CO2 concentration is the dependant variable. That is, it is highly likely that the current global warming produces the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 rather than the other way around. Whatever, coincidence doesn't establish causality. Global warming is happening, but it likely isn't due to human activity and alarmists would be better served trying to encourage steps to mitigate the effects of global warming rather than making Canute-like attempts to stop it! JMHO



I presume you mean Milankovitch Cycles, these are well know by all the climate change scientists and have been mapped out for decades, they don't account for the latest events.
The same with CO2 levels, these have been mapped out going back for millennia, since the industrial revolution they have sharply risen.


----------



## GeoffL (Nov 14, 2019)

colinmd said:


> I presume you mean Milankovitch Cycles, these are well know by all the climate change scientists and have been mapped out for decades, they don't account for the latest events.
> The same with CO2 levels, these have been mapped out going back for millennia, since the industrial revolution they have sharply risen.


In his native language, it's "Milanković" -- there are two ways of translating his name to English. The Milankovic cycles (MC), as mapped out by the IPCC et al. don't account for the 33 sharp changes in climate during the last ice age and the holocene (Dansgaard–Oeschger events and Bond events -- and all but one prior to industrialisation) either. They are all "MC plus other factors" and at least one theory has that MC combination takes the climate to a tipping point. Solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. So as sea water temperature increases, CO2 is released. i.e. changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration are driven by temperature fluctuations rather than temperature being driven by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Temperatures have risen sharply since the industrial revolution for the same reason they rose sharply in the other 32 events, which were all prior to industrialisation. Thus the current global warming event is unlikely to be due to anthropogenic factors.


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 14, 2019)

Martin P said:


> Hey. My workshop is on farm . I could get that as well .


Dust from crop cutting,hay chicken coups etc ,just dont breath in.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 14, 2019)

trevskoda said:


> Dust from crop cutting,hay chicken coups etc ,just dont breath in.



breathing in can prove fatal


----------



## trevskoda (Nov 14, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> breathing in can prove fatal


Fact is more people die in farming with related problems than in citys,seems to be of the radar for the save the planet folk,maybe they will stop us eating next.


----------



## colinm (Nov 14, 2019)

GeoffL said:


> In his native language, it's "Milanković" -- there are two ways of translating his name to English. The Milankovic cycles (MC), as mapped out by the IPCC et al. don't account for the 33 sharp changes in climate during the last ice age and the holocene (Dansgaard–Oeschger events and Bond events -- and all but one prior to industrialisation) either. They are all "MC plus other factors" and at least one theory has that MC combination takes the climate to a tipping point. Solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. So as sea water temperature increases, CO2 is released. i.e. changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration are driven by temperature fluctuations rather than temperature being driven by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Temperatures have risen sharply since the industrial revolution for the same reason they rose sharply in the other 32 events, which were all prior to industrialisation. Thus the current global warming event is unlikely to be due to anthropogenic factors.



First you wish to quote MC's, then when it's pointed out this is taken into calcs you dismiss MC's.


----------



## GeoffL (Nov 14, 2019)

colinmd said:


> First you wish to quote MC's, then when it's pointed out this is taken into calcs you dismiss MC's.


Try reading what I wrote again. I didn't dismiss MCs; I wrote, "_MCs plus other factors_". MCs are the primary driving factor. However, the periodicity of each of the MCs is way too long for MCs alone to be the *only* cause. MCs combine to take the climate to a tipping point, at which point other factors start to have more and more influence. For example, as the ice sheets recede, albedo becomes less effective and more solar radiation is absorbed. As the temperature increases, more CO2 is liberated from the oceans. This, and other feedback factors, lead to a Dansgaard–Oeschger / Bond event, which is characterised by rapid global warming. All but one of these events ocurred prior to industrialisation and so industrialisation could not have been the cause of those events.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 15, 2019)

__





						Global Monitoring Laboratory News Items
					

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.



					www.esrl.noaa.gov


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 16, 2019)

trevskoda said:


> Fact is more people die in farming with related problems than in citys,seems to be of the radar for the save the planet folk,maybe they will stop us eating next.



Trev it’s reckoned that 40,000 people die from air pollution every year in the U.K.
How they come to that figure, who knows. But even much less than that die it’s to high a figure.


----------



## antiquesam (Nov 16, 2019)

I never understand how the death rates due to a particular factor are calculated. Take smoking, how do you attribute the deaths solely to having a fag. What about air pollution, diet, pollution in the workplace. The old adage about statistics comes to mind.


----------



## Fisherman (Nov 16, 2019)

antiquesam said:


> I never understand how the death rates due to a particular factor are calculated. Take smoking, how do you attribute the deaths solely to having a fag. What about air pollution, diet, pollution in the workplace. The old adage about statistics comes to mind.



I agree Sam, just giving the official figure for the U.K.
Although it’s a fact that what comes out of a diesel can be lethal, how do they come up with this figure.


----------

