The Telegraph wrote:In 2001, Gordon Brown, the then chancellor, overhauled vehicle excise duty so that cars that emitted a higher level of carbon dioxide faced a higher level of vehicle excise duty.
Labour introduced the new regime despite official warnings that diesel vehicles emit "10 times the fine particles and up to twice the nitrogen dioxide".
The move prompted a "profound" shift towards diesel cars, which produce lower levels of carbon dioxide because they are about 20 per cent more efficient than petrol engines.
Over the past decade, the number of diesel cars on Britain’s roads has risen from 1.6 million to more than 11 million and accounts for a third of vehicles.
However, diesel vehicles produce high levels of nitrogen dioxide, which can lead to respiratory disease and has been linked to 7,000 deaths a year.
Frank Kelly, the chairman of the Department of Health’s committee on air pollution, said the public were still being misled about the benefits of diesel cars.
He said: "I have full sympathy with the public who have not been provided balanced information on this issue.
"Even today if you go to buy a new car you are provided with lots of information about its CO2 emissions and nothing in respect to the pollutants it emits.
"The whole scenario is a very good example of why government policy needs to founded on best science available – not just one aspect, as it was in this case."
I'm sorry, but the UK's subsidies for diesel engines are beyond comprehension.The Sunday Times wrote:Broughton Gifford resident Martin Freeman is outraged and concerned that the plan could set a precedent. He said, "This application is outrageous. Diesel farms are dirty, noisy and ugly. They have no place in the countryside.
"Storing 90,000 litres of diesel with no additional protection or drainage looks like a recipe for disaster, especially in an area which is prone to flooding. It’s bad enough covering green fields with solar panels, but putting polluting power-plants next to them just adds insult to injury.
"We know from experience that once you build something like this, it will expand and others will follow. We also know that Wiltshire Council doesn’t enforce breaches of planning conditions. So the only way to ensure that it is safe and not the first of many is not to build it.
"We are subsidising renewable energy because it is clean and reduces our reliance on oil. Then we pay even greater subsidies for diesel farms because the renewable energy is unreliable. You couldn’t make it up."
RegGuheert wrote:I'm sorry, but the UK's subsidies for diesel engines are beyond comprehension.
These are grid-connected generators. Does it *really* make sense to eliminate coal-fired power plants which have already been built and then manufacture NEW DIESEL generators to take their place? The answer is that it makes no sense from any angle. It ranks right up there with leveling forests in North Carolina, pelletizing the wood, and then shipping it to the UK to burn in the formerly-coal-powered Drax plant, all the while increasing emissions and other forms of environmental damage of all kinds.SageBrush wrote:RegGuheert wrote:I'm sorry, but the UK's subsidies for diesel engines are beyond comprehension.
Diesel is filthy, but it *is* a reliable back-up.
Can wind+battery be a sensible replacement ?.
Perhaps that's a better solution. While I'm not a fan of fracking, natural gas has allowed the US to reduce energy costs, emissions and improve security of supply. Perhaps it is the best interim technology to put into play while renewables mature.SageBrush wrote:Or something else ? Perhaps an NG plant.
RegGuheert wrote: Does it *really* make sense to eliminate coal-fired power plants which have already been built and then manufacture NEW DIESEL generators to take their place?
RegGuheert wrote:While I'm not a fan of fracking, natural gas has allowed the US to reduce energy costs, emissions and improve security of supply. Perhaps it is the best interim technology to put into play while renewables mature.