I have a diesel car. I bought it because it was more economical than a petrol car and was less polluting due to added filters in the exhaust system.
It now appears that there are fine particles in the exhaust which the filter manufacturers didn't know about or maybe actually ignored - perhaps on cost grounds.
It has also been found that the oxides of Nitrogen also emitted now play a significant part in overall air pollution.
it is claimed these two factors - particles and Nitrogen oxides - contribute to poor health, and, it is claimed early death of those with a respiratory condition.
In the UK a figure of "12,000 deaths per year" has been bandied about by politicians who think that financially penalising the diesel motorist is the answer. It seems to be beyond their wit to instigate a technical solution. (The basic reasoning behind this is that in one case they rake in the money and in the other case they may have to spend money - or at least force the car manufacturers to spend money (which may affect bribe, er, lobbying contributions). Taking money off the diesel user is the easiest 'solution').
Googling "12,000 deaths diesel" there seems to be any number of articles in the media claiming early deaths from air pollution across Europe and then conflating these figures with diesel cars being the sole perpetrator. For instance the recent London pollution was due (mainly) to weather conditions dumping pollution from Germany... But of course the media blamed diesel cars in London.

I cannot believe that there are no technical solutions or at least alleviations of the problem by some appropriate technology.

Diesel Fuel.
Can the fuel be modified - perhaps with additives - to emit less pollutants?

Filters.
Can filters be designed to trap the finest particles?

Oxides of Nitrogen.
Can they be split into Nitrogen and Oxygen and what process might be used? (My chemistry days are long gone... ).
Can they be combined to form an inert or inactive compound that could be filtered or have no effect as a pollutant if expelled from the exhaust?

Any comments or suggestions?

The Guardian
In Norway

Diesel cars emit up to four times more toxic pollution than a bus, data reveals

And yet...

A modern diesel car pumps out more toxic pollution than a bus or heavy truck, according to new data, a situation described as a “disgrace” by one MEP.

The revelation shows that effective technology to cut nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollution exists, but that car manufacturers are not implementing it in realistic driving conditions.

Diesel cars tested in Norway produced quadruple the NOx emissions of large buses and lorries in city driving conditions, according to a report from the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research. A separate study for Transport for London showed that a small car in the “supermini” class emitted several times more NOx than most HGVs and the same amount as a 40-tonne vehicle.

My bold

I've no idea what the answer to those questions might be but, assuming the answer is yes to even some of them, you've still got a lengthy time lag between those solutions becoming widespread and having a significant impact on reducing pollution.

Which means until then there is still a problem with diesel cars.

Now, taxing fuel at this point basically unfairly penalises diesel car owners for a problem they did not know about. The only justification for such a tax would be if it were going to be used to a) research possible solutions or b) do some form of environmental clean-up or c) extra funding to the health service for unspecified diesel related illness. As it stands, its just a penalty on diesel car owners.

The Government could put a hefty tax on the car manufacturers, which just passes the costs onto the users and again there is the question about what the money is for.

The sensible approach would be to identify pollution reducing technology that should be in diesel cars, then identify incentives to manufacturers to make those cars and for the public to buy them.

It isn't just increasing car tax or the price of fuel, some towns are trying to introduce higher parking fees for diesel owners. That is just a money grabbing exercise with the money serving no other purpose than filling the local coffers.

Alan B wrote:It isn't just increasing car tax or the price of fuel, some towns are trying to introduce higher parking fees for diesel owners. That is just a money grabbing exercise with the money serving no other purpose than filling the local coffers.

Pretty much.
Find an excuse to raise revenues, go ahead and do that thing.

It is long term but here by 2050 there will only be electric cars on the streets but that is long term.

In the meantime, Scot...

What I have gathered so far, is that there are fixes available, but it's cheaper for the car manufacturers to, er, 'lobby' the politicians or just lie and cheat the public.

Yep Alan. I cant see any great changes happening and more like making car owners more conscious of what they are buying.

More and more cars here are being leased and at present is about 45% which means many more newer cars on the road. A lease car is on average 3 years against that of one that is owned of 8 years. So changing cars happens more often and therefore less diesel will be leased.

It's OK for you, Scot, in the Netherlands. I mean, you don't have any hills to go up 'n down...

Over here we have to have real cars with a bit of grunt!

Your cars go up and DOWN. Ours just go.

So, BMW have a technological fix for nitrogen oxides reduction.
AdBlue
Could this be retro-fitted to other diesels? Or are the governments, er, preferring to financially penalise the diesel owner instead of forcing car manufacturers to find a solution?

2050? .....a lot sooner than that for EVs.

“Although it will have taken us maybe six or seven years to get from nought to maybe six or seven per cent adoption of electric cars in 2020, what we will then see is a really rapid adoption over the next ten years.

“I think that most of us will be buying purely electric vehicles by 2030. We are going to see a massive ramp-up from 2020 because electric vehicles will have the capability for the cost that they need and that’s very, very close by.”

It's good read and I suspect also underestimates the adoption % .....Norway sure did ....they expected a 6% adoption and got 20 and climbing....
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articl ... ive-years/

Over here we have to have real cars with a bit of grunt!

You do understand that EV's blow ICE vehicles away in torque and acceleration.? This is a jaw dropper.



VW is backing away from pursuing diesel tech long term and moving to substantial EV investment. ( see the article above )

My advice to OP ....run it into the ground as resale is getting more and more difficult.

The real issue with diesel pollution is ships and trucks. Govs are are - like Copenhagen does already - making owning/using an ICE vehicle cost prohibitive in cities. They will not target diesels tho I susppose that is possible to encourage a more rapid phase out.

Sadiq Khan has been asking for the government to pay £3500 for diesel owners to scrap their car and buy another one in the capital. Personally, I don't see why the rest of the country should be paying for someone to continue to drive into the centre of a city that already gets six times the money spent on public transport than other parts of the country. If you want to reduce pollution in the city, put the congestion charge up for diesel drivers.

Commercial diesels use the urea system, so why hasn't this been adapted for smaller vehicles?

EV may outperform ICE, er, so what? Where do you think the electricity comes from? It is still produced by (in many cases) pollution generating power stations.

I'm With Stupid wrote:Sadiq Khan has been asking for the government to pay £3500 for diesel owners to scrap their car and buy another one in the capital. Personally, I don't see why the rest of the country should be paying for someone to continue to drive into the centre of a city that already gets six times the money spent on public transport than other parts of the country. If you want to reduce pollution in the city, put the congestion charge up for diesel drivers.

Yeah. I would jump at the chance - my old banger is only worth £2000...

I would suspect that car manufacturers are, er, 'lobbying' governments left, right and centre so that they don't have to design their vehicles properly which would cost loadsa money... [/conspiracy]

EV may outperform ICE, er, so what? Where do you think the electricity comes from? It is still produced by (in many cases) pollution generating power stations.

A coal station is about 35% efficient

https://www.statista.com/statistics/548964/thermal-efficiency-coal-fired-stations-uk/

is often more efficient than an ICE engine in current tech ( 20% for gas) - especially when you consider real life driving in traffic where efficiency drops

Toyota Gasoline Engine Achieves Thermal Efficiency Of 38 Percent
http://www.greencarreports.com › News › Fuel Efficiency
Apr 14, 2014 - Toyota Gasoline Engine Achieves Thermal Efficiency Of 38 Percent. ... The efficiency by which they do so is measured in terms of "thermal efficiency", and most gasoline combustion engines average around 20 percent thermal efficiency. Diesels are typically higher--approaching 40 percent in some cases.

....and in many regions including mine and increasingly in the UK ....its not coal based

.

Coal electricity generation falls to record UK low this ... - The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › Environment › Coal
Sep 29, 2016 - Coal generated a record low 6% of the UK's electricity this spring, official ... The figure was up 30% on August 2015, but installation of new ...

We know that generating electricity from non-renewable resources produces pollution. What's that got to do with car manufacturers not designing or modifying cars that will emit less pollution using available technology or that an EV vehicle might out-perform an ICE vehicle?
Whatever fuel a car uses, the fuel is still produced via a pollution generating process (except the renewables, perhaps). The problem is not whether one process is more efficient than another process or one vehicle out-performs another, but what to do with the combustion by-products and how to control and limit them.
The fact that EVs themselves do not emit pollution is irrelevant - pollution is still produced by their fuel generating process.

The politicians answer to this is to take money from the driver while still accepting that this will not stop pollution.

My son has bought a BMW 5-series diesel recently (flash git!) and this moron Sadiq Khan wants to offer him £3500 for it? Fucking twat!

Edit.

The fact that EVs themselves do not emit pollution is irrelevant - pollution is still produced by their fuel generating process

Did you actually take in anything I wrote...?? like this??

Coal generated a record low 6% of the UK's electricity this spring,

If you have a renewable, hydro or nuclear source then an EV is just 100% carbon neutral end to end as is the case in Norway, France, Ontario, and other regions etc where there is no coal power.

The way to "control and limit" is to eliminate ICE vehicles and replace them first with hybrids and in best case EVs....the problem is the ICE cars not the electricity generating system.
Are you still under the mistaken impression the UK is mostly coal fired generation??

Efficiency is a huge factor as an inefficient ICE vehicle produces more pollutants than an efficient one...and the same applies to fossil fuel power stations.
Natural gas power turbines are favoured over coal as they are somewhat more efficient, produce less pollution and most important can come on line within a hour so they are being used as reserve/backup for renewables as opposed to baseload

Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant [1].

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal ... KMaSRhh3tY

So LNG powered generation plus EVs is still a big win even thos it's still a fossil fuel.
EVs tend to be charged overnight where electricity demand is low so nukes carry much of the base load tho wind is still a factor as well.

I agree.
But,

Are you still under the mistaken impression the UK is mostly coal fired generation??

is an unnecessary slur.

The '2020' figure you suggested is far too early - only 3 years away. Scot's figure of 2050 may be nearer the mark.

I suspect that we will have diesel and petrol engines (both commercial and private) for many years to come. To make available overnight charging points at all car owners houses (it must be secure to avoid theft and damage) - and in some cases multiple points - I think is something for the far future.
There are about 31.7 million cars on the road in the UK - Statista - increasing by about 600,000 per year.

Wind, wave and solar power would seem to be the stable option for the future generation of electricity. Nuclear power is OK for the short term - and by 'short term' I mean 1000 to 10,000 years) - since the radioactive by-products will have to be controlled and managed for that period of time, (or even longer). Fusion power would be the answer, but that is still a pipe dream away (but who knows?).

The problem is what do we do now at this point in time with regard to pollution from ICE vehicles. Which is the point of the OP. Taking money off the motorist as though they are solely to blame will NOT reduce pollution.

I am still of the opinion that car manufacturers can produce a system to alleviate the problem, but it will cost them.

See also this.

Alan B wrote:We know that generating electricity from non-renewable resources produces pollution. What's that got to do with car manufacturers not designing or modifying cars that will emit less pollution using available technology or that an EV vehicle might out-perform an ICE vehicle?
Whatever fuel a car uses, the fuel is still produced via a pollution generating process (except the renewables, perhaps). The problem is not whether one process is more efficient than another process or one vehicle out-performs another, but what to do with the combustion by-products and how to control and limit them.
The fact that EVs themselves do not emit pollution is irrelevant - pollution is still produced by their fuel generating process.

The politicians answer to this is to take money from the driver while still accepting that this will not stop pollution.

My son has bought a BMW 5-series diesel recently (flash git!) and this moron Sadiq Khan wants to offer him £3500 for it? Fucking twat!

Edit.

The issue you've got is that a large number of people who bought a diesel car after being told that they were greener. As for electric vehicles, yes they still produce pollution, but you can choose where that pollution is created, whereas with cars, that pollution will necessarily be concentrated in the city. From a CO2 perspective, that might not make much difference, but from the POV of people's health, it can have a big impact.

Obviously scrappage schemes are aimed at people who are ready to buy a new car, no-one's expecting you to scrap a brand new car. It may seem a bit unfair for everyone to subsidize the purchase of people lucky enough to be able to afford a new car, but let's face it, they are the people who determine what second hand cars will be available in 10 years time.

Actually, if you watch the final episode of The Grand Tour, they do a test between an electric and petrol car, which is quite good.