On 11/05/2019 14:03, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:

JNugent wrote:

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

Exactly. Because government sponsored social engineering always works out so
well.

Does that mean that the government* is always right, even when it holds
serial contrary views?

Or does it mean that the victims were silly for believing Brown and co?

[* "Government" here meaning the regime under Blair and Brown who
rejigged the car taxation system so as to incentivise the purchase of
diesel cars and latterly, Khan in London, who effectively has swingeing
taxation powers over people who are not allowed to vote for or
(especially) against him.]

On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to
clean your
air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one
type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only
address part of the problem.Â* It was the same concentration on one
pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting a quick
political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that diesels are
responsible for much greater general pollution even if the
manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has befallen
anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now having to find
an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where they were before
Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 11 May 2019 11:43:06 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is by wanting a quick
political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that diesels are
responsible for much greater general pollution even if the manufacturers
hadn't been cheating on the tests.

At the time when the government were pushing for diesel cars, all the
green lobby were bemoaning how much more CO2 petrol cars emitted than
diesel, so all petrol cars must be replaced immediately by diesel ones.
When it was pointed out that petrol ones were cleaner in other ways than
diesel, they effectively just put their fingers in their ears "La, la,
la. I can't hear you. Got to reduce CO2 to save the planet"

CO2 is the important pollutant, all the others are irrelevent. If all traffic
stopped now the particulates and NOx would be gone in a day. The CO2 will still
be around for thousands of years to come.

Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using

Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a very
limited range. They're 1980s engineering.

the normal mix of generation in the UK, my CO2 emissions are equivalent
to a petrol car doing 40 MPG.

That seems a bit pessimistic to me, especialy given UK generation has run
without coal now for a week.

On 12/05/2019 10:36, wrote:

Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using

Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a very
limited range. They're 1980s engineering.

My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That quickly
wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle makes
sense. It gets charged twice a week. Also, the most important piece of
safety equipment on any car is the squishy bit between the seat and the
steering wheel. If I had spent double what it cost me to buy,I could
save about a third of the energy, if I had spent five times more, I
could have a safer vehicle. I drive 25 miles a week or less in my
private car, and 200 to 400 miles a day at work.

the normal mix of generation in the UK, my CO2 emissions are equivalent
to a petrol car doing 40 MPG.

That seems a bit pessimistic to me, especialy given UK generation has run
without coal now for a week.

At the time I checked it, it was accurate,using live figures. If I were
charging it today, it would be about 80 mpg.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 14:03, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:

JNugent wrote:

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

Exactly. Because government sponsored social engineering always works out so
well.

Does that mean that the government* is always right, even when it holds
serial contrary views?

Whoosh!



Or does it mean that the victims were silly for believing Brown and co?

[* "Government" here meaning the regime under Blair and Brown who
rejigged the car taxation system so as to incentivise the purchase of
diesel cars and latterly, Khan in London, who effectively has swingeing
taxation powers over people who are not allowed to vote for or
(especially) against him.]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 12/05/2019 10:36, wrote:

Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using

Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a
very
limited range. They're 1980s engineering.

My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That quickly
wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle makes sense.

walking or bicycle even more so

tim

On 12/05/2019 16:26, tim... wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That
quickly wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle
makes sense.

walking or bicycle even more so

It's nice that you know more about my personal circumstances than I do,
so you can make better decisions about my lifestyle than I can.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sun, 12 May 2019 11:51:05 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:36, wrote:

Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using

Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a
very
limited range. They're 1980s engineering.

My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That quickly
wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle makes
sense. It gets charged twice a week. Also, the most important piece of
safety equipment on any car is the squishy bit between the seat and the

That statement works if you're assuming crashes only happen when *you* make a
mistake and so try to avoid doing so. Often people are injured or killed
through no fault of their own when they're hit by another vehicle. In that
situation your chances in a G Wiz will be little better than being on a
motorbike.

On Sun, 12 May 2019 09:36:12 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

[snipped]

CO2 is the important pollutant, all the others are irrelevent. If all traffic
stopped now the particulates and NOx would be gone in a day. The CO2 will still
be around for thousands of years to come.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but far less potent in that respect than water vapour - but no-one suggests
trying to reduce emissions of water vapour! Neither gas is a pollutant, they are both essential for
photosynthesis without which all life would cease. Moreover, horticulturists deliberately increase
atmospheric CO2 concentrations in greenhouses and polytunnels to boost crop yields.

On Sun, 12 May 2019 21:26:55 +0100
Optimist wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2019 09:36:12 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

[snipped]

CO2 is the important pollutant, all the others are irrelevent. If all traffic
stopped now the particulates and NOx would be gone in a day. The CO2 will
still
be around for thousands of years to come.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but far less potent in that respect than water vapour
- but no-one suggests
trying to reduce emissions of water vapour! Neither gas is a pollutant, they

I can't believe people are still rehashing this tired old excuse for not
cutting CO2 emissions.

https://skepticalscience.com/water-v...nhouse-gas.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article...dioxide-isnt-t
he-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

are both essential for
photosynthesis without which all life would cease. Moreover, horticulturists
deliberately increase
atmospheric CO2 concentrations in greenhouses and polytunnels to boost crop
yields.

*sigh*. You might as well state that because all plants require water why not
plant them underwater. Also there are different type of photosynthesis and
when the temperature goes up the most important one stops working properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation

"The C3 plants, originating during Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras, predate the C4 p
lants and still represent approximately 95% of Earth's plant biomass, including
important food crops such as rice, wheat, soybeans and barley."

"C3 plants cannot grow in very hot areas "

And just for you:

http://www.passmyexams.co.uk/GCSE/bi...rate-of-photos
ynthesis.html