Diesel Crackdown

[Nigel R]

Yes. Less people, less resource use, less pollution, less problems.

How do we get to less people? Not a politically correct answer for that one, I suspect.

[Colin Leighfield]

SuoerNash, thanks for filling in the gaps for me, I didn't know about the different fuel grade used in the subs, but the investigation is certainly going on as I understand it.

Erfolg. Fancy you coming from Wuppertal! It used to be famous for its high level public electric railway system (Hohenbahn?) that I think was constructed late 19th century? It was amazing but plagued for years with very high maintenance costs caused by the failure to provide adequate corrosion protection for all the steelwork, which had been just simply painted. I remember that probably forty years ago there was a big investigation into this and the German Galvanizing Industry had produced a film called "Too Late for Wuppertal", describing the massive difference in costs and reliability that would have been achieved if all of the steelwork had been galvanized instead of painted, which even then it could have been. I think in the end it was scrapped, which was a great tragedy because it would have been a great asset today, providing a public transport link around the city without impingeing on road space. The costs in replacing that today would be huge, so I imagine that's the end of it.

[Cuban8]

Human population growth - the huge elephant in the room.

[Erfolg]

Colin the Schwebebahn is still going strong in Wuppertal. The hanging railway.

I did not know of the Corrosion problem, although as a child i was aware of the constant painting. Perhaps more memorable was that the stations are all elevated, many above the roads and the Wupper (Wuppertal being the Valley of the Wupper). These platforms were seperated by air and what we now call chicken wire. Due to WW2 this wire was pretty tatty, to the exent i even knew it was potentially a safety issue.

The other claim of the Schweberbahn, is that it was used to transport an elephant. The elephant became alarmed, I assume by the swaying of its carriage. It smashed its way out, falling into the river. Again as a child i thought nothing much of the story, not realising how big Elephants actually are. Later I came to realise it was a very young creature.

I understand that during WW2 some sections were destroyed by bombs, although as a child it was intact, although there was a lot of visual evedence of damage, from masses of destroyed buildings, bridges made of wood, bridges held up by wood, all pretty normal i thought at the time.

Perhaps Wuppertals most famous for the invention of Rayon and what we call Asprin, in what was then called Bayer, later AG Farben, I am not sure who it is now as AG Farben i believe was broken up into Bayer, BASF, and Hoesch.

The whole collection of towns was heavily bombed, to destroy the glue works, used in aircraft bits, and the railway, being a major junction and Marshalling yard.

As for the Schwaberbahn, a great way to travel. The last time I was there a long time back, I was in Elberfeld, on the platform with my mother, or maybe my wife. Anyway a large group of children and youths pushed past in a rowdy manner. I said, even the German youths are badly behaved now. Then a voice said, I apologise, unfortunatly they are all English. It did distress me, the very thought.

[Andy48]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 01/02/2017 21:15:31:

Tesla are also building home power storage units, and the Japanese are looking at using electric cars as part of an electricity storage system, so when there's spare power they charge up, when it's short they feed back in, sort of distributed transmission and storage.

An £18m power storage facility connected to the national grid is being built just down the road from us to cope with peak demands.

[Nigel R]

Colin, wikipedia has an extensive page on the new RN carriers, worth an hour of your time if you're interested in them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

[Simon Chaddock]

There is an issue which seems to be ignored. All combustion creates pollutants but the quantity of energy you can extract from a given amount of fuel depends entirely on the pressure at which the combustion takes place. In this respect the diesel combustion cycle is much better than petrol, hence its intrinsically lower fuel consumption. Only modern airliner jet engines can match the efficiency of the diesel cycle but then only in a very specific application - high speed subsonic flight.

Call me old fashioned but it is our desire for speed, in one form or another, that is causing energy consumption to release pollutants at an unacceptable rate.

.

[Colin Leighfield]

Erfolg, thank you, I am very pleased to hear that after all it is still there, it would have been a tragedy otherwise. I think that I had heard the story about the elephant.

I remembering visiting a very large Bayer plant, I think in Leverkusen in 1976. I've forgotten the precise nature of what they made there, although it was probably pharmaceutical. They used a lot of chlorine and I remember a very large chlorine generation building, filled with what looked like big lead-acid batteries, generating the gas electrically. Not a very pleasant place to work in! I also visited the Mannesman tube pilgering factory nearby and was horrified to see large red-hot steel billets being taken from the furnaces on one side of the building at speed on standard fork lift trucks over to the pilger rams on the other side, right across the area where people were working and moving around. I asked the betriebsleiter what their accident record was like and he said very good, only one person had been killed in the previous year. I imagine that it has improved since then.

SuperNash, I haven't had a detailed look at the carriers yet, but I will now. Although it is wonderful to see that they haven't been cancelled (a shock actually based on our previous record), I was aware that the decision to go for the STOVL F35 (which is 30% less capable than the conventional version in payload and range) was largely to reduce the cost by eliminating the need for arrester gear. They are talking about operating the second one in conjunction with the US, how ironic that the only US fixed wing planes that will be able to land on there will be the Marines' Harriers or of course by then their own STOVL F35s. It is going to cost us more in the long run in higher plane operating cost and reduced capability.

At least as they do include Diesel engines we still have some relationship with the thread!

[Colin Leighfield]

Simon, quite right but how fast do we want to go? I think it is true that everything else being equal, doubling speed increases energy consumption by eight times? It is has certainly been a reason in the relative abandonment of supersonic passenger flight, hasn't it? Clearly one of the reasons why the claims for environmental improvement from high speed rail don't stand up. Having said that, I have always liked travelling quickly!

It's also worth remembering that the very high combustion pressures in diesels is the cause of the generation of the minute soot particles that are the current cause of concern, as discussed earlier.

[ken anderson.]

here's a canny diesel engine....on display at East Fortune up in Scotland...photo's from my album.

ken Anderson...ne...1 ...diesel dept.

​ken

[Pete B]

Blimey, that's a lot of noseweight!....

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Tony Harrison 2]

Comments. 1. Oil is not a scarce commodity and it ain't running out anytime soon: if it were, it would be expensive. Oil is cheap, but what makes its price high, and erratic, are politics and horse-trading. This country has some of the cheapest wholesale oil in Europe - but some of Europe's dearest petrol/diesel. I first drove across France and Spain in the mid-'70s: fuel was far cheaper there. Currently I'm doing around 7000km annually in France - where diesel is around the same figure in Euros as I pay here in pounds...

2. Using up resources is what H.sapiens does. What else should we do: live in caves and use up just timber for our fires (and our clubs), and animals for their meat and fur? Leaving metal ores (for cars) in the ground, and crude oil ditto, would be perverse. If we did that, the lives of many eco-freaks would be far less comfortable - just like all those veggies & vegans, after a week of no supermarkets or central heating, wouldn't just be eating meat, they'd be eating each other...

Electric cars? Sure, I'm all for progress - just watched a fascinating YouTube film about Elon Musk's Hyperloop. They just haven't got there yet. Last year I was visiting someone in Cambs who showed me his new small Mercedes electric car: he could do a 100-mile round trip before recharging. He told me enthusiastically about government subsidies, and big discounts he negotiated, but it still cost around £26k I think. Nice short-range toy but my diesel Ford whisks me 900km right across France on one tankfull, with a bit left over.

Edited By Tony Harrison 2 on 03/02/2017 12:52:02

[Erfolg]

Simon is most probably referencing the V^2 term in the drag formula that is often used, when making a reference to energy usage, and possibly pollution.

Yet this relationship only tells part of the story, cross sectional area matters also, which works against buses and trucks, even though not a power relationship.

Perhaps what is most important and again ignored, as it cuts across current safety thinking by pressure groups and road planning engineering departments, is acceleration. A few calculations really starts to show that the current thoughts and practises run counter to energy reduction by all motorised road users. Suddenly so called high speed travel up to say 80, certainly 50 uses far less energy per mile travelled by a cruising car, when compared to a vehicle that is accelerating from 0-30 mph over 50 or so cycles. Although i tend to accelerate slowly, there has been papers which indicate that my slow acceleration does not use much less energy than a much higher rate. Further more it is apparently these accelerating vehicles that are generating the majority of the pollution. Yesterday I read in my newspaper that the majority of the particulate and noxious gasses are emitted from Buses and goods vehicles. Although apparently it was suggested that not a lot can be done about this aspect of the pollution issue for both political and practical stand point.

It was interesting that by far the most polluted street/road in London was Oxford street, where traffic is dominated by buses, followed by taxis, private vehicles a tiny minority. Also recently, it was argued that air samples taken in London during days of high pollution, indicated that it was Wood Burning Stoves that were the culprits, for both particulate and Co2. Personally cannot believe that there are that many wood burners in London. But then again that is politics.

As with much in life, the real life experience is often very different to that of both the zealot and those with a biased interest.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 03/02/2017 17:44:40:

Suddenly so called high speed travel up to say 80, certainly 50 uses far less energy per mile travelled by a cruising car, when compared to a vehicle that is accelerating from 0-30 mph over 50 or so cycles. Although i tend to accelerate slowly, there has been papers which indicate that my slow acceleration does not use much less energy than a much higher rate. Further more it is apparently these accelerating vehicles that are generating the majority of the pollution.

And still they insist on building sleeping policemen and other traffic calming measures, designed to impede the flow of traffic and cause stop start driving...

[OZ e flyer]

The sales pitch that annoys me is the claim of electric cars being eco-friendly and it's simply not the case. Batteries, plastic and rubber amount to a far bigger carbon footprint than any salesman will admit. It is however pleasing to see some models of car and electricity generation that are getting very innovative. Tesla have a very nice electric car out and here in Australia we are seeing some advertisements on the Tesla power wall (basically a solar collector that stores electricity in a large bank of Lipo batteries). The idea is you store power for when the sun doesn't shine and one of the best ideas coming out and smthat every house should have one and then the neighbourhood becom s a power generator on a pretty large scale. The up side is that as each household is a power generator they are able to sell any excess power to their neighbours. Pretty interesting concept but it will put the big generators out of business and that would take quite a lot of political will power.

[Colin Leighfield]

I have all kinds of reservations about wind and solar energy, but solar in particular will develop and there is significant government funded work being done in GB now on cladding materials for buildings that will convert solar energy into electricity. As Typsy Pilot describes, the building becomes a generator in its own right. This work has been going on at a leading university for a few years now and I understand that they are getting somewhere with it.

[OZ e flyer]

We already have a lot of houses with solar collectors on their roof that are used to offset their power bills. We also get a lot of sunlight so it's very feasible. The downside is that the more people that have solar power, the more expensive it is to buy electricity off the grid. Currently most solar power units just put the generated electricity straight on to the grid and you effectively get paid per kilowatt hour you inject on to the grid. Naturally you get paid less than it costs to buy a kilowatt hour but some people are able to almost negate their power bill. It of you you only generate power while the suns up so conventional generation is required at night. This why a storage system is good because you can feed in power as needed instead of only daylight hours. I could explain why electricity costs are forced up but typing it on my phone would take ages. Unless anyone is interested of course in which case I will happily provide the explanation as best as I can.

[Colin Leighfield]

As I understand the cost is always inflated by the need to keep conventional supplies on-line to cover the periods when the renewables aren't working. I have the figures somewhere from Spanish sources about the equivalent days of sunshine needed to make solar power economically viable and it's a lot more than we get here. It has to be subsidised. I visited two large solar power generation sites on a visit to Seville last year and one with a unique design of molten salt reactor on a high tower with a huge circular array of mirrors covering about half a kilometre focused on it (3,000C) was like something out of Buck Rogers. However, the developers were in financial difficulties because of reductions in government support. The other more conventional solar array could only operate because of government subsidy and was in the ludicrous position that if output went above a certain level, its losses increased.

Vestas in Denmark are leaders in wind power development. The huge commitment to this in Denmark has created a dilemma though. On the days that sufficient wind is blowing for the whole system to work, more power is generated than they can use or sell on, so wind turbines have to be parked and feathered. However, because of the many days that wind isn't sufficient, conventional power stations have to be kept on-line. The result is that they now have the most expensive electricity in Europe.

The move by governments to accelerate the pace of renewable development by huge subsidy to enable them to compete in the market and invest totally distorts reality, it might be the right thing to do but also there could be some very big mistakes being made. Time will tell. It always comes out in the wash eventually.

[Erfolg]

I perhaps a different take to many, in that i have reservations when subsidies or tax breaks are given to any activity. Some encouragements seem to be quite clear in their merit, such as tax concessions to encourage people to invest in a pension. Yet at present all recent governments have either raided pension pots, or discouraged pension investment. The other side of the coin, is that some so called renewable energies are given tax breaks, or other inducements. At the same time unfashionable power suppliers face extra taxes such as the Co2 tax on coal powered electricity generators. All these approaches distort not only the market, but mask the true cost of some suppliers.

Until the true environmental cost, of the so called renewable is accounted for, as Tipsy Pilot alludes to, I for one will remain sceptical as to what impact some renewables actually have. Not politically correct. Although i would argue far more honest as to the true benefit that they at present represent, not just financially, but environmentally.

As one who lived through the era, where many winters days comprised of a of yellow, green, swirling wall of a mist, which could be tasted, left your handkerchief used as a face mask covered in a black coating, I appreciate todays smog free environment. I also remember a sky line, which was dominated by finger like posts, spewing smoke into the dark sky. I know that everything is much better today. Can things be better, almost certainly. The real problem is those who believe we can have all that is good today, in a 16th century economic environment , are deluded. As some one approaching 70, I know that i would have been most probably dead, four years or more ago, in the idyl that so many seek, and yearn for. The problem is that many of these people totally disregard reality, disparage science for a pseudo, gobbledygook interpretation of what actually is good science and practically achievable.

We have all experience the energy efficient light bulbs. All the issues of poor light, pretty short lives, damaging light emissions as much more. All of these and many other concerns were at the time pooh hoed as not true. Nearly every single issue has been shown to be true in the recent past, and slowly improved or rectified. It all turned out to be about that non EU manufactures could turn out tungsten filament lighting much cheaper than from within the EU. It was both protectionism and increasing EU margins.

I fear that being anti Diesel and many aspects of environmental concern are either anti competitiveness, or the desire for a new Utopia of Public transport or a big state economy, where we all return to the hand loom etc.

[Maurice Harvey]

Here in Spain, as I understand it, you can only generate solar electric power for your own use if you cannot be connected to the main grid. If you do so, you will have to pay a solar panel tax that will cripple you cash wise or the alternative is a fine not exceeding 63 million euro's. Yes, you did read that right! So much for green energy in the E.U.

[Erfolg]

Maurice

I am not convinced that solar panels are green. Not in the past, at any rate. It took more fossil energy to make one cell than it ever generated in its life time. Also the chemicals treatment, if you were responsible in there disposal , was also a energy negative and a potential environmental pollutant. They certainly did make sense (economically) for all those applications where connecting to a grid type system was either not possible (practical), or far to expensive.

If these things can be solved great. Yet like nuclear power, until the waste management and the cost of production are solved, it is all an illusion.

Although would it not be great, if the problems can be eradicated, and the subsidies not being necessary.

[OZ e flyer]

We are pretty fortunate here in Australia because we have huge open spaces, lots of coast line, lots of wind, lots of waves and lots of sun. The Australian public know this and I guess it's the people that are pushing for changes to environmentally friendly alternatives. Our take up of solar panels has been so large that remote towns are now trying to impose bans on any more installations purely because it makes the supply of electricity on the local grid not viable. You have to remember that some of these towns are remote enough that the local grid pretty much only supplies power to that locale Thousands of kilometres of power transmission lines for a very small town is just logistically not feasible. (Look up Kunnanurra, Derby or Broome and you'll get my drift). They often just have a Deisel generator/s run by a private company via a government contract for sale of electricity.

As Colin said the power has to be available when the sun can't provide so that means the deisel has to run. But how do you recoup your costs if not enough power is bought? It's just wasted energy and that's exactly why the cost per unit goes up, otherwise, who would bother having a contract to supply a town if it's not profitable?

So we have become victims of our own push for change. Bittersweet.

I personally still have hope we will find a way to overcome these hurdles. There are some amazing ideas out there. A wave energy power supply (as opposed to tidal) is the latest we are trialling on a large scale and from all I hear it's doing really well. It's not as visually ugly as wind generators because it's under water and the waves roll in 24 by 7 no matter what.

Battery technology has got better (Hello Lipo 😁👍 electric motors more efficient (Powerful brushless motors), light bulbs better (yes! LED) and soon maybe we can move further away from fossil fuels (Gotta get past OPEC first😠👎. If California can reduce emissions in as radical a rate as they have, then there must be more lessons to learn.

Or am I being naive and too optimistic. I hope not.

[OZ e flyer]

Getting back to the original thread line tho, why are they going to impose a burden on Joe public for deisel usage when by far the biggest users are heavy and primary industries? I've not heard of an alternative to the heavy lifting that deisel motors perform. If there was a more economical or powerful alternative I guarantee the big users would be all over it.

Trust me, I know how hard those motors work. I drive one of the biggest dump trucks ever produced in the world every day and I definitely would not like to pay the fuel bill for the fleet of them we operate(24 trucks plus a bunch of other HUGE machines). I work at an Iron Ore mine in Western Australia and I drive a Terex MT6300 Dump truck, it has a V20 deisel motor (3,750hp or 2800kW) and carries a payload a bit over 350 tonnes and has about a 5,000litre fuel tank. That's about enough fuel for a 24hr period but only just.

Any one know of an alternative fuel/drive train that can work as hard and/or is cheaper to run? Let me know cos my bosses would reward me very handsomely I'm sure if I tell them. I'm willing to share the reward, I'm not greedy..... lol.

Let's also not forget the farmers, and the long haul drivers as well. I'm not saying we should keep going using what we do, I'm just saying what's the alternative?

[Simon Chaddock]

TP

You have to remember that California got into emission control first because they were about the most resource hungry population on earth, with pollution levels rising to match.

The bigger problem now is how to improve places like Beijing that do not have the same per capita wealth and technology.