Not good news for Diesel Drivers

Didn't read it all but who originally was stupid enough to label diesels as an environmental saviour in the first place? I bet the fuel companies wouldn't have been against the push. And yes I have 2 friends who were gullible enough to believe they were doing the right thing by buying their first diesel small car but all said petrol ,diesel or electric they're all big polluters in their own way what can you do not much when we are so hungry for power. So who's going to be the first to go back to a horse and cart ?

Robin - The biggest issue is how the oil companies have us by the gonads and regularly give us a good squeeze and twist that takes our breath away.
When I first started as an earthmoving contractor in 1964, petrol was 3 shillings and 4 pence (33c) a gallon (3.546L) and diesel was exactly half that.

That price relationship (between diesel and petrol) continued until the late 1960's/early 1970's, when diesel demand started to increase dramatically as the majority of trucks became diesel-powered, rail converted from steam to wholly diesel power, and many power stations went from coal-fired to oil-fired.

The 1974 and 1979 oil shocks contributed to the increasing cost of diesel in comparison to petrol. Diesel that cost me 10c a litre in 1979, cost me 40c a litre by 1983.
Back then, it was all about, "we're running out of oil". Oil production has never lowered since that time, and new oil field discoveries have kept pace with demand.

Since the mid-1980's, China has entered its "Asian Industrial Revolution" - and China decided about a decade ago, that its primary road fuel was to be diesel.
Since that time, diesel has become a "premium fuel".
There's no need for this to be the case, we have just allowed it to happen by being complacent as a nation.

The articles that try to make us think diesel fumes and particulates are going to be a massive health threat, are just carefully-manipulated articles, released at appropriate times, and designed to reduce diesel demand - in vehicle purchases and in useage.

Think about this. 25% of the worlds population still smoke. That's 1.75B people. They smoke a couple of packets a day on average. That's 70B cigarettes a day being smoked worldwide. Ever watched the massive, total amount of carcinogenic smoke produced by just ONE cigarette?
I reckon the amount of PROVEN carcinogenic smoke and particles from just ONE smoker in one day is more than the average diesel engine would produce in one day.
The world population of diesel engines is probably about 1/5 of the worlds smoking population. Therefore, we're at greater risk from secondhand cigarette smoke than we are from diesel smoke/fumes.

It's proven that full-time mechanics have about a 5 yr shorter lifespan. This is related more to constant exposure to carcinogens in used oil (nasty stuff), as well as asbestos exposure (clutches and brakes) from earlier decades. There's no difference in lifespan between diesel and petrol mechanics.

The simple fact is that we, as a nation, should be doing more to introduce increased competition into fuel supplies. We should be encouraging bio-diesel production, producing diesel from our huge NG supplies (fairly easily done), and getting the stranglehold of grocery retailers out of fuel retailing - which is producing much pricing distortion, and excessive control, over fuel pricing.
Just in the last month, Woolies has given me two "25c off fuel" offers - that I took advantage of. My last fuel-up of 137L cost me just $1.10 a litre (29c off because I also bought $5 worth of chockies that were on special as well, in the servo).

IMO, the "health scare" over diesel emissions is just oil-company-driven propaganda, designed to curtail diesel demand. The problem for the oil companies is that crude oil produces a fairly consistent % of each product.
If the demand for one oil product increases (such as diesel), then the oil companies have to refine more crude, and they end up with bigger stocks of less-saleable fuels, that then depress the market price of those fuels.

Therefore, the fuel product market is a carefully manipulated market, designed to benefit only those global conglomerates who control the transportation in our daily lives.

Gday Robin
You rumour monger you, are you trying to upset people and spoil your image? People know you as a nice knowledgeable person , and now you have spoilt that. Its so sad . .
When do you want me to buy coffee?

Robin,I have this vision of, If you read all that whilst putting $200 worth of petrol in the car,I bet the poor old Service Station Manager would have been tearing his hair out. Not to mention the line up behind you. Didn't you hear the horn blasts? lol. Bob

Geez Robin, next you'll be knocking on people's doors preaching people to get Petrol 4.8 GU's and putting down the Diesel who wears Prado err ah I mean Devil who wears Prada.

If you have a long term campaign to drive up the resale price of your 4800 GU, you still have a looooong way to go.

LOL

Interesting topic, and one that I was discussing with a colleague earlier via email. He was espousing the views that the price differential for Diesel vs Unleaded was too great, and my response is below:

"1. You paid 139.9 for your fuel - and if it's going into the Jeep - your fantastic fuel economy is getting you about 20l/100k around town (downhill with a tailwind, with the car in neutral). So if you filled your car with 55 litres - it would have cost you $76.95. You will travel 275k with your tank....or further if you put it on the back of the tilt tray recovery truck that it normally sits on.

2. The "poor" old guy in the VW Golf who is getting 5l/100k and filled up with 55l of Diesel has paid $88.50 @ 160.9 and will get around 1375km from his fill. So you will visit the servo about 5 times in the time this "poor" old guy has visited once. Oh and you've paid $384.75, and he's paid $88.50.

I reckon that's a "differential" worth paying...and not only that, he didn't wait for 1/2 an hour for the shopper docket crowd to fill up, cause he can pick up his Diesel when the ULP price are high, and you can fire a cannon down the forecourt!"

So, if you excuse the pun about his Jeep - the equation for Diesel's is still valid, although you do need to factor in the heftier up front cost...which you do get back at resale time. Diesel engines emit more noxious gases and CO2 per litre of fuel used than petrol-powered cars. However, because diesels use less fuel, they can also emit less CO2 over time - a diesel is 20 to 30 per cent more efficient than an equivalent petrol engine. It's also important to note that the Greenhouse Guide noted above is based on the rate of CO2 emissions from the vehicle - it doesn't take into account the amount of fuel used.

Diesels are also getting cleaner every year and the new Euro 6 standards that come in (next year I think) should help further, and if you tow - it's a no brainer. I'd be very careful about the "carcinogenic" versus "possibly carcinogenic" - nothing that comes out of a tailpipe is likely to be good for the lungs!

It should also be noted that no vehicle is good for the environment, not even the Holden Volt (100% electric - with a small "generator" attached), as we get most of our power in Oz from coal fired power stations...and the Prius, wait for the disposal cost and replacement cost when the battery dies.

Chris

Robin,
well I have probably inhaled more diesel fumes than 99.99% of people on this site and guess what I still live, much to the annoyance of many. This inhaling has been from confined spaces, where your eyes were burning and you have trouble breathing at times. I had to have medicals all the time, including tests for lead. All good. Guess I will just keep driving my diesel and wait for death to come.

I guess the diesel never worried me as I am from the neanderthal era.

This week, last week and next week.
Bananas are bad for you.
Vegemite causes allergies.
Meat will kill you.
Butter kills or is that margarine.
Simone is having Shane's baby or was that Brad and Jen are getting back together.

Have a look at unleaded fuel poisons and you may discover they are not very pretty. Yes everything kills if you have to much of it, even MacDonalds.

G/Day Robin, .....UMM is thought of that New Nissan V8 getting stronger?..lol.



Cheers Axle.

I've just had a look at the Safety Data Sheets for Unleaded and Diesel, I know which one I'd prefer to fill up with at the bowser.

ULP

Diesel

The bottom line, without considering the health/pollutant issues, is that diesels are far better for long-distance, highway speed touring, and for towing.
The superior torque characteristics of diesels come into their own for towing, and diesels produce their finest performance when run at consistent, moderate RPM's for extended periods.
My old HDJ80 auto sat on 2200RPM at 110kmh in converter lockup. That's brilliant for maximising diesel consumption.
Around town, with stop-go driving, hard acceleration and constant idling, it was a different story.
A diesel gains absolutely nothing over a petrol engine in the city. The additional purchase cost of a diesel and the additional cost of diesel fuel make a petrol vehicle a no-brainer if you do 90% city driving - as 80% of the population do.

As far as the health angle of exhaust pollutants goes - well, the jury is still out on that one, for the long term. I know studies show that the fumes and pollutants are killers - but no-one can agree on what exactly constitutes a killer level of diesel fumes. There are "recommended safe levels".
Ciggies, on the other hand, are definitely proven to be deadly - and secondhand ciggy smoke, just as much.

I've breathed in almost as much by way of diesel fumes as Rockape - and I've been doing it since the early 1960's. I'm still in reasonably good shape, health-wise. I've also breathed in vast amounts of choking silicaceous dust in agricultural work.
I've probably done more damage to myself with welding burns, oxy-acetylene burns, cuts, gashes, and bruises from tools, equipment and machinery, and secondhand cigarette smoke, than anything else.

I'm mildly concerned about the eventual effects of all the brake and clutch dust I've ingested, and the amount of used oil I've paddled in - but then again, I have mates who have picked up mesothelioma, and they've never indulged in half the dangerous work that I've done, in nearly 50 working years.

An interesting post, on a number of levels and it got me thinking about the “real” health hazard of refined fuels.

Not to discount their value, but (some) reports from academia are subjective at best...

But here is the thing, when we talk about “dangerous” for our health why single out diesel as being worse than petrol?

Both are derivatives of oil.

The West, and more recently China and India’s seemingly insatiable appetite for oil has seen wars fought, to protect it, and wars fought to procure it, death is never too far from a barrel of oil.

Oppression in the middle-east has been funded by petro-dollars, so when we talk about diesel being more dangerous to your life, there may be a number of differing perspectives, and the resultant outcome might be rather academic depending on whether you live a comfortable existence in Australia, or spend your life dodging bullets in downtown Damascus, Syria, or lived under the Gaddafi regime in Libya.

Of course, middle-east tensions have long existed, and will continue long past our life time; but over the past 50 years oil has been the fuel, and currency, that has taken these tensions to a new level.

I do get it that one might be worse than the other, if looked at microscopically and in isolation.

Perhaps on the one-hand, diesel will take a few years off the tea-totaller’s life, but on the other, make no difference to the boozing alcoholic, who lives well beyond a reasonable expectancy – such is the nuance of the life and death cycle.

But young men and woman of all creeds have died, and continue to die, to ensure, in part, that we can pull up at a bowser and put $200 of fuel in our car – that’s a “real” health hazard, nothing subjective about it, thats for sure!

Strewth, I’d better put on the joggers and go for a run, 10:00pm at night is far too late to be thinking this deep!

Cheers, Baz – The Landy!

Robin, without being too serious about the whole thing, that second article you refer to looked like one of those nonsense, poorly researched newspaper articles that appear too frequently, and on closer inspection it just doesn't stack up.

For example it talks about diesel savings not being what people expect, especially in town. Now this forum for starters goes around in circles about diesel vs petrol economy and the economy can be counted 1000 different ways, all with different results.

But that article specifically refers to the VW Golf's manufacturer figures. If you check them out of the VW web site for that model ( I can't post the link because VW make you fill in an enquiry form), you find that the figures used for the diesel are for an old generation Golf that's is so old it's no longer sold. It's not a relevant comparison. The petrol only has 80kw and 200nm of torque, and the current diesel, which should be used not only has better fuel economy but has 25% more power at 110kw and 60% more torque at 320NM.

Why on earth use the old diesel model other than to make the story look good?

Newspaper articles like that explain why people don't buy newspapers any more.

Could be Robin, either way 4 - 5 l/100km ain't too shabby. Petrol, Diesel or anything. I used to think 28 mpg was real good in my old 1974 ish 1.6 Ford Capri. That's about 8.5l/100k. Doh. Shows how much things have come along. Mind you I did treat the accelerator as an on off switch back then, and from memory petrol was about 15 c a litre in the late 70's.