The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Air pollution: a silent killer we must urgently act on > Comments

Air pollution: a silent killer we must urgently act on : Comments

By George Crisp and Graeme McLeay, published 19/7/2017

It has become increasingly clear that diesel engines are more harmful as they produce far more fine particulate matter than their petrol counterparts.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Diesel exhaust particulate can be reduced with filters and NOx reduced by urea sprays such as the Mercedes BlueTec system. I guess spot checks would be required to see if the equipment is installed and working. Dimethyl ether DME can be used in LPG cylinders and bowsers and largely solves these problems when used in modified engines. Biodiesel is in limited supply but still has particulates but not SOx. Battery trucks and buses have short range. Then there is Audi synthetic 'blue diesel' which apparently ticks most boxes except availability.

Therefore diesel problems can be largely solved it comes down to cost and convenience. I guess the trick is to gradually tighten the noose until we can accept that cost.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 19 July 2017 10:48:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diesel and petrol engines can and do run on CNG, and as such produce less pollution than exhaust filtered, diesel or petrol engines!

Moreover, we have many, many year's worth of supply, or we did before the mad hater's tea party, sold most of what comes from our ground, all while we import sulfur laden foreign fuel, some of it ultra costly diesel, even though our own traditional sweet light sulfur free crude will run diesel engines as is and unrefined.

And recoverable at under $10.00 a barrel!

However, some simple chill filtering removes a soluble wax content that if left, can foul the injectors on cold frosty mornings. Moreover, 4.7% methanol improves the energy coefficient markedly, while further reducing the black smoke produced under load!

As Sam (kick the ball) lamb chop chewing kickovitch, would say, you know it makes perfect sense!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 19 July 2017 11:20:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before the advent of fossil fuels most of us had a life expectancy of not much over 30 years. We died worn out & broken by the strenuous labour involved in producing or catching our food, of health complaints now made trivial by modern fossil fuel based medicines, or of lung disease induced by living in smoky houses where cooking was on fires of wood or dung, & lighting was by burning animal fat.

If I am now to die at 80 years, of lung problems induced by diesel smoke from the machinery that produces or delivers my food, or even that drives my neighbours work ute or car, I'll accept that as a fair trade off.

I don't like the stuff much, smelly stuff raw or burnt, but I use it because it is the most suitable fuel for my generator, tractor & pumps.

So fellers, when our life expectancy starts reducing from some real problem or other, let me know. Meanwhile as doctors please concentrate on the new health problems caused by our increased life span, not some contrived greenie problem, that wouldn't exist if we weren't living so long today.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 19 July 2017 1:59:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In reply to Hasbeen - It is true that our health and longevity have improved dramatically over the last 150 years. This is due in large part to public health measures, regulations and infrastructure. It would be a mistake to think that oil and large scale electricity access (which only became widely available during the 20th century) were the reason for these improvements as most of the health gains preceded this.

Around 3.4 million deaths each year are attributable to ambient (outdoor) air pollution globally. That's as big a problem for world health as smoking. Whilst much is in the developing world, around 100,000 deaths occur in UA and 170,000 in EU.

And it is not just old people that suffer asa you have suggested, children are disproportionately vulnerable and affected by air pollution, especially in our larger cities.

That is why is it taken seriously by doctors and governments. Aside from deaths, the lost productivity and illness cost are a major economic drag as explained in our article and as we point out they can be quite easily remedied with simple legislation and policy changes.
Posted by Dr George, Thursday, 20 July 2017 4:50:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is the particulate level for coal fired steam locomotives, both road and rail?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 20 July 2017 6:24:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Presumably, the good doctors are aware that, thanks to the stupidity of the SA government forcing the closedown of coal-fired power stations, many SA electricity consumers have in desperation installed diesel generators for power restoration during SA blackouts.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 20 July 2017 10:22:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen.

Why do you let comparisons with the past blind you to the potential improvements of the future? The pollution from fossil fuel technology was undoubtedly a fair trade off when it was introduced, but we have better alternatives available now.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Is Mise,

AIUI they're very high for total particulates, but quite low for PM2.5. Exact figures are difficult to calculate because it usually depends on a human shovelling coal.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Raycom,

Weren't most of SA's diesel generators installed in response to the 2001 blackouts?
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 21 July 2017 12:17:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am heartened by the idea that there is progress in the field of 'non-fossil fuel' energy. However coming from an engineering background I am concerned that there appear to be 'cracks' in the renewables development. Referring to the automotive and transport industry, I have always maintained, and still do, that if can't re-charge my cars batteries in approx the same time as I do now with fossil fuel, I'm not interested. Also if I have to replace my 'engine' (battery pack) every ten years, again, not interested. I have already experienced first hand where a Toyota Prius was being 'shopped' for sale. It needed a new battery pack. No one wanted it. It went to scrap. Which brings me to another flow on. If the cost of a new EV will be between ten and fifteen thousand dollars then I would start thinking about it. But I'm not paying these stratospheric prices for one. I will not fund the development of anything. If you want it you borrow or do whatever to make it happen. If an EV maker is so confident their product will sell then he has no need to justify his sale price as 'the high initial purchase price is for development costs. The price will come down with the more cars we sell'. Well guess what I ain't becoming some kind of investor in a car company. No I think there are too many people with personal agenda. Whist I recognise there is 'pollution' out there, I reject the level of threat it poses both today and in the future. I can see the bad side of 'localised' pollution, but not the over-all and wide spread implications.
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 21 July 2017 8:00:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Currently Aidan there is no future, or even potential future alternate energy.

Kid yourself if you like, but other than hydro, there is no existing alternate energy that is even vaguely viable.

Guess what, I can't tow a damn behind my car or even my tractor.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 21 July 2017 11:41:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, Now, Hasbeen....you shouldn't discourage the little chillun from dreaming their dreams of a Eutopia where everyone can lead the good life by simply being wired to their phone and discussing all the wonderful things that are going to be developed by others.
We live in a win/ win society nowadays....no struggle is necessary...just put on a mask to protect yourself from the nasty air borne particles and prance off to the Clipsal 500 and breathe in that rarefied air you've been saving yourself for.
Everyone has ideas and plans to extend their non productive lives and save the earth except that mother nature usually has plans of her own.
Posted by ilmessaggio, Friday, 21 July 2017 4:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan, current consumers, e.g. supermarkets, are installing diesel generators. If you were a supermarket owner in SA, you would be foolish not to.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 21 July 2017 11:40:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Authors should be aware of the illegal teats conducted by the US EPA on humans to try to prove P2.5 mortality - without success.
Posted by Gerard, Monday, 24 July 2017 9:11:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can you provide a reference to that false assertion Gerard?

There have been hundreds of papers and studies confirming the link between PM2.5 and illness - including heart disease, respiratory disease and lung cancer - there is really no doubt that PM 2.5 exposure is related to mortality in a dose dependent way.

Here's a reference to the American Heart Association on the matter http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2331
Posted by Dr George, Thursday, 27 July 2017 7:05:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy