Used diesel car values down 6%

ESBlonde

ICBM said:

ThorpyFX said:

This is just sloppy science, there is more to the environmental impact of fuel than just carbon content.

TL/DR there is a lot more to fuels than carbon content!

Yes, there is. But to cut a long story short, basing the tax on the carbon and/or energy content - which is what you're really buying - is a good place to start in levelling the playing field.

In fact, since diesel is still 20% more efficient, that *still* means that diesel should be cheaper to run. So you would still not be being penalised.

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but diesel has never been equivalently more expensive than petrol by energy content, and it certainly isn't now - typically petrol and diesel prices are almost equal now. That's definitely unfair - to petrol drivers.

Diesel is a crude less refined product than petrol, it is much cheaper to produce and sell, yet it is the same or more expensive than petrol. That seems unfair to Diesel drivers and the former cheaper price reflected this cost difference. Heating oil and agricultural diesel are identical except for the stain/colour tracer added (and sometimes 'cleaning' chemicals on the branded road fuels).They are a fraction of the cost of the Road fuels because of the excessive duty and tax applied.

It is argued that the UK fuel industry allowed the processing industry to run down and close it's facilities for diesel so current UK use is typically imported from Europe whereas we produce a lot of our own petrolium.

Bucket

guitarfishbay said:
Right now, the range on the affordable cars just isn't good enough for a lot of people, and the infrastructure isn't there either.  Not to mention you need a driveway to get maximum practicality out of the setup...  If you do under the max range each day and can charge at night then great.  If you can't then they're not a good choice.

This applies exactly to me - I would love an electric car for city driving, but I need to be able to do longer journeys and I also live in a flat, with on-street parking, so I can't charge overnight.

This got me thinking just now - probably totally pie-in-the-sky, but on-street parking isn't going anywhere and there needs to be a solution to charging if electric cars are going to catch on, so you know what we need? Some kind of charging module that is mounted somewhere in the car and can be switched on overnight. When the car is in use, the kinetic energy from the wheels or whatever else would be used to charge the module, similar to how I gather a KERS system in a racing car works. When the car is parked, the driver would select "charge" and the module, which would by now be full of juice, would charge the car up again. So the car is charged the next time it is needed, at which point the module gets charged up again while driving. So effectively, energy is exchanged between the car's motors and the charging module.

I don't know if that will ever happen, or if it's possible at all, but it seems to me to be a perfect way of making the electric car a practical solution for a massive number of people who would otherwise not have been able to make it work for them.

crunchman

Bucket said:

This applies exactly to me - I would love an electric car for city driving, but I need to be able to do longer journeys and I also live in a flat, with on-street parking, so I can't charge overnight.

This got me thinking just now - probably totally pie-in-the-sky, but on-street parking isn't going anywhere and there needs to be a solution to charging if electric cars are going to catch on, so you know what we need? Some kind of charging module that is mounted somewhere in the car and can be switched on overnight. When the car is in use, the kinetic energy from the wheels or whatever else would be used to charge the module, similar to how I gather a KERS system in a racing car works. When the car is parked, the driver would select "charge" and the module, which would by now be full of juice, would charge the car up again. So the car is charged the next time it is needed, at which point the module gets charged up again while driving. So effectively, energy is exchanged between the car's motors and the charging module.

I don't know if that will ever happen, or if it's possible at all, but it seems to me to be a perfect way of making the electric car a practical solution for a massive number of people who would otherwise not have been able to make it work for them.

Electric cars already have regenerative braking.  If they didn't the range would be even shorter.  Anything beyond that and you are running up against the laws of physics.

They have put charging points in some of the lamp posts in my street.  I think there is one guy who actually uses them.  The problem is that there are only 3 of them.  If they wanted more, I'm not sure the wiring would be beefy enough to charge 20 cars at the same time.

crunchman

Just seen this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/14/tesla-sets-launch-date-electric-truck-aimed-revolutionising/

Axe_meister

The problem is people won't want long charging times.
A Nissan Leaf has a 24kwh battery. So would take about 24hours to charge at 1KW (about the same pier requirement as a kettle).
if you want to charge is 6 hours  you are going to be drawing about 4KW, Make that one hour you'll need 24KW.
That will require on hell of a cable/power supply. Are we going to dig up every road and lay massive heavy cables to every household.
All that metal (copper/aluminium) will need to be mined/recycled which will require a massive amount of smelting (energy intensive) and massive distruption 

crunchman

Axe_meister said:

The problem is people won't want long charging times.
A Nissan Leaf has a 24kwh battery. So would take about 24hours to charge at 1KW (about the same pier requirement as a kettle).
if you want to charge is 6 hours  you are going to be drawing about 4KW, Make that one hour you'll need 24KW.
That will require on hell of a cable/power supply. Are we going to dig up every road and lay massive heavy cables to every household.
All that metal (copper/aluminium) will need to be mined/recycled which will require a massive amount of smelting (energy intensive) and massive distruption 

You are not wrong.  I still think that hydrogen fuel cell would be a better option.

ThorpyFX

Axe_meister said:

The problem is people won't want long charging times.
A Nissan Leaf has a 24kwh battery. So would take about 24hours to charge at 1KW (about the same pier requirement as a kettle).
if you want to charge is 6 hours  you are going to be drawing about 4KW, Make that one hour you'll need 24KW.
That will require on hell of a cable/power supply. Are we going to dig up every road and lay massive heavy cables to every household.
All that metal (copper/aluminium) will need to be mined/recycled which will require a massive amount of smelting (energy intensive) and massive distruption 

the answer then is to have a smarter system in place. Have a Super Capacitor bank installed into your house, able to be constantly trickle fed from the mains but with the ability to dump all of that stored charge over a short period of time into the car.

Put super capacitors in the car too and you could have an instantaneous transfer of charge that could then be trickle fed into the batteries slower as needed. smaller battery packs in the cars, less weight and only the risk of a supercapacitor blowing up. 

Evilmags

The stuff causing the problem is Nitrogen (78%) of the atmosphere reacting to diesel due to the higher compression needed to get equivalent horsepower from a diesel engine. Non turbocharged petrol engines can produce around 100 bhp per litre. That sort of power from diesel requires a big turbo which increases compression and increases nitrogen reactivity. Chemicals that have oxigen and nitrogen or nitrogen and carbon in combination tend to be toxic. CO2 is an irrelevance in terms of pollution. It is not toxic in low concentrations. 

Looked at in those terms petrol is intrinsically superior as a fuel to diesel. It is less dirty. It's that simple. 

neilg

Axe_meister said:

The problem is people won't want long charging times.
A Nissan Leaf has a 24kwh battery. So would take about 24hours to charge at 1KW (about the same pier requirement as a kettle).
if you want to charge is 6 hours  you are going to be drawing about 4KW, Make that one hour you'll need 24KW.
That will require on hell of a cable/power supply. Are we going to dig up every road and lay massive heavy cables to every household.
All that metal (copper/aluminium) will need to be mined/recycled which will require a massive amount of smelting (energy intensive) and massive distruption 

The current Leaf comes with a 3.3kw charger as standard and 6.6kw as an option, the next Leaf that comes out next year  will be 6.6kw as standard.

I've had a 24kwh Leaf with 3.3kw charger for exactly two years and while I got a 6.6kw charging point fitted to my house (it cost barely any more than a 3.3kw) I can only think of one occasion where the full 6.6kw would have been useful.

The Leaf has been such a good car that I didn't want anything other than electric and as my two year pcp has finished I'm picking up my new 30kwh Leaf on Monday.

ThePrettyDamned

I know there are plenty of people who do long journeys quite frequently, but honestly, I do more than 100 miles per day perhaps four or five times per year, and I'm sure there are loads of people like me.

We should be targeted for electric cars.

I spoke to a community nurse who drives a leaf - he said it has enough range for him to do his rounds every day and it's the easiest car to drive he's ever had, plus the cheapest to run. I must admit, I was quite impressed by his claims.

The other solution is mass investment in public transport and aiming to cut car ownership full stop. 

crunchman

ThePrettyDamned said:

The other solution is mass investment in public transport and aiming to cut car ownership full stop. 

In cities, the better approach would be to get people on their bikes.

I found a Sustrans link that says 66% of journeys are less than 5 miles.  Of those, 56% were by car, with 33% walking, and only 2% by bike.  That's the problem.  Getting people on their bikes would get the NHS bill down as well.

m_c

Evilmags said:

The stuff causing the problem is Nitrogen (78%) of the atmosphere reacting to diesel due to the higher compression needed to get equivalent horsepower from a diesel engine. Non turbocharged petrol engines can produce around 100 bhp per litre. That sort of power from diesel requires a big turbo which increases compression and increases nitrogen reactivity. Chemicals that have oxigen and nitrogen or nitrogen and carbon in combination tend to be toxic. CO2 is an irrelevance in terms of pollution. It is not toxic in low concentrations. 

Looked at in those terms petrol is intrinsically superior as a fuel to diesel. It is less dirty. It's that simple. 

That's not really accurate. The real problem is heat.
NOx is only produced at high temperatures, keep the burn temperature below ~650degC (IIRC - it's been a while since I've looked at the figures), and NOx doesn't get produced. The problem with a diesel, is if you do keep the burn temperature below that, is soot aka particulate matter increases due to poor combustion.

Up until Euro 6 for cars, NOx was mostly handled by EGR. Contaminate the burn enough to remove enough oxygen to reduce combustion temperatures, and NOx doesn't get produced. The trade off was increased particulate matter, which is where the DPF came in. Catch the soot, then burn it off periodically.

With the tightening PM/NOx limits with Euro 6, the emphasis moves to getting as clean a burn as possible, and the only way to achieve that is using higher combustion temperatures, which means more NOx gets produced. This is where Selective Catalyst Reduction comes in (SCR is what needs AdBlu to work). You produce NOx, then let the SCR system handle it.

It's worth mentioning that petrols are also capable of producing NOx, it's just on a petrol it's easier to control the combustion, and you already have a catalyst process that can handle NOx without any additional compounds.

EricTheWeary

crunchman said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

The other solution is mass investment in public transport and aiming to cut car ownership full stop. 

In cities, the better approach would be to get people on their bikes.

I found a Sustrans link that says 66% of journeys are less than 5 miles.  Of those, 56% were by car, with 33% walking, and only 2% by bike.  That's the problem.  Getting people on their bikes would get the NHS bill down as well.

So interesting going to Holland this year. Lots of traffic calming schemes in urban areas, cycle paths, subsidised public transport. Out of town shopping area developments are very rare ( which in the U.K. are very car centric) so town centres have small supermarkets and small shops living side by side ( unlike my local town centre where the council opened it up to a huge Asda which then killed off all the small traders). That does mean cars going into town centres but limited time free parking, clear routes to car parks, park and ride schemes and that good/ cheap public transport again. It's not perfect and much of it isn't easy to replicate ( it's a small, flat country with quite a few new(ish) towns). In the U.K. Oxford, for example, has a very good park and ride system ( the plethora of bicycles might be coincidental) whereas say Birmingham doesn't beside some train stations ( if you are a visitor to Birmingham try working out how you could use the park and ride - good luck). 
I'm sure there are lots of people who would never use public transport but a lot of it is shit and there poor planning ( or at least appears to be) in many cases. 
I've no idea what the Dutch equivalent is of those figures but it certainly looks and feels different. 

ThorpyFX

Evilmags said:

Looked at in those terms petrol is intrinsically superior as a fuel to diesel. It is less dirty. It's that simple. 

its not, there are other issues to add into the mix.... such as heavy metal particulates, benzene, volatility (ability to evaporate) etc 

Axe_meister

The only real solution is get rid of personal transport all to get her and replace with driverless pods that take you to either your local destination or to a hub for long distance travel (hyperloop/airport)

Wolfetone

What ever happened to Cella Energy fuel beads?

Cella developed a hydrogen bead technology that can be used in a petrol engine with very minor modifications.

Wolfetone

CELLA Energy

ThorpyFX

Wolfetone said:

What ever happened to Cella Energy fuel beads?

...the technology was bought by Shell and you can probably guess the rest.

Cella developed a hydrogen bead technology that can be used in a petrol engine with very minor modifications.

this sort of delaying tactic shouldn't be allowed. It smacks of a monopoly whereby you buy up all of the competitors to further your goals.. it sucks.

ESBlonde

EricTheWeary said:

crunchman said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

The other solution is mass investment in public transport and aiming to cut car ownership full stop. 

In cities, the better approach would be to get people on their bikes.

I found a Sustrans link that says 66% of journeys are less than 5 miles.  Of those, 56% were by car, with 33% walking, and only 2% by bike.  That's the problem.  Getting people on their bikes would get the NHS bill down as well.

So interesting going to Holland this year. Lots of traffic calming schemes in urban areas, cycle paths, subsidised public transport. Out of town shopping area developments are very rare ( which in the U.K. are very car centric) so town centres have small supermarkets and small shops living side by side ( unlike my local town centre where the council opened it up to a huge Asda which then killed off all the small traders). That does mean cars going into town centres but limited time free parking, clear routes to car parks, park and ride schemes and that good/ cheap public transport again. It's not perfect and much of it isn't easy to replicate ( it's a small, flat country with quite a few new(ish) towns). In the U.K. Oxford, for example, has a very good park and ride system ( the plethora of bicycles might be coincidental) whereas say Birmingham doesn't beside some train stations ( if you are a visitor to Birmingham try working out how you could use the park and ride - good luck). 
I'm sure there are lots of people who would never use public transport but a lot of it is shit and there poor planning ( or at least appears to be) in many cases. 
I've no idea what the Dutch equivalent is of those figures but it certainly looks and feels different. 

I admire the dutch approach, they favour the bicycle for all possible journeys. It began in the 70s when the world experienced it's first 'oil crisis' the Dutch decided to be less dependent on oil and encourage bicycles. All planning and travel infastructure is done to make use of the car for local travel a hassel and use of a bike very easy. So a housing estate on the edge of a town will have direct line cycle routes to the town centre and motorised traffic has to go out of town, round the edge, through the maze and back near the centre where you park and walk. Why would you use a car?
OK they have a long head start, thier towns were/are typically smaller than some of out sprawling historical messes and it's flat almost everywhere.
Everyone thinks Bike, the traffic flows very easily, the commute is peaceful, most people don't wear cycle helmets and the environmental impact must be a fraction of that in the UK.
You could argue there is no room for a cycle lane on many british roads in towns. The Dutch approach is to make it a single carriageway for any cars that have to get down in a one way route and then make cycle lanes for the masses with the spare carriageway left over. All major road routes bypass everything and are dual carriageway, getting about is very easy.
We are a very long way behind and also have our own unique issues to be addressed, but we could make a huge difference if we choose to, the proof that it can and does work is there.

Wolfetone

MORE ABOUT CELLA

Why isn't this powering our cars?