Is diesel in for a tax hike in the UK!

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Lancpudn

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
67
Location
Lancashire UK
London went over it's entire 2017 emissions limit in just the first 5 days of 2017 :eek: that's grotesquely bad. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39088631
 
Yikes! I knew the war on diesel cars was coming and it's just been announced it's going to cost you up to £20 a day (toxic tax) to drive diesel engined vehicles in towns & cities. :eek: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/if-you-drive-a-diesel-car-you-could-soon-have-to-pay-up-to-%C2%A320-a-day/ar-BBzbbDU?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp
 
It's official! The air pollution in Britain is higher than that in Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil, and double the rate in the United States, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). How ridiculously disappointing is that! :shock: https://www.rt.com/uk/388791-pollution-death-britain-emissions/

The new UK clean air draft plan is being drawn up at this very moment but I wouldn't expect anything this side of the General election that's in a few weeks time though, It will be a hot potato for ICE motorists.

They're planning a daily £24/$31 charge to drive in London and my local council is planning a £7.50/$9.71 daily charge to drive in my small town in northern England.
 
"Councils in each area would consult on the details, and newer diesel cars would reportedly be excluded."

One can only hope that the emission requirement will be a moving target.
 
What does the UK expect after subsidizing diesel engines over cleaner options starting in 2001?
The Telegraph said:
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."
And it's not just cars. The UK government has been subsidizing the installation of diesel electricity generation farms to go along with renewable generators:
The Sunday Times said:
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."
I'm sorry, but the UK's subsidies for diesel engines are beyond comprehension.
 
RegGuheert said:
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 ?
Or something else ? Perhaps an NG plant.
 
SageBrush said:
RegGuheert said:
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 ?.
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.

So, what's the answer? It's simple: roll out renewable resources over a time period which allows important co-requisite technologies such as storage to reach a meaningful level of maturity before being deployed. Photovoltaics with net-metering is an excellent solution at the current time to reduce emissions at lower penetration levels, but eliminating high-polluting resources and replacing them with NEW high-polluting resources does not solve any problems, but rather replaces them with new ones.

Subsidizing the manufacture and operation of diesel generators is NOT good for the environment or the taxpayers.
SageBrush said:
Or something else ? Perhaps an NG plant.
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.
 
You're absolutely right, the past governments persuaded people to buy diesel engined cars without a clue about their emissions, It was like the blind leading the blind.

The dealers are still trying to sell diesel engined cars to people who shouldn't be buying them, they're invariably used as a local shop/errand car & have huge trouble with the annual emission test because the DPF (diesel particulate filter) is clogged with soot because of their local driving habits. they need to be running at highway speeds to burn the particulates off, the annual MOT failure rate on their DPF's is huge & expensive to repair.

I think their time is up as diesel cars are seen as public enemy number 1 at present. There are a lot of worried diesel car owners who bought diesel cars in good faith & they're wondering if these cars are going to be worthless as trade in's if the government doesn't instigate a scrappage scheme.
 
RegGuheert said:
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?
I'm not sure, although a huge coal plant trying to serve as an infrequent, rapid ramp supplement or back-up to PV is never going to work.

In a sense they are pursuing on a big scale what plug-in hybrids offer: immediate back-up with a liquid fossil fuel. I'll be more inclined to have an opinion when I can state with confidence the fractional carbon reduction from the scheme and the cost/carbon_reduction.

This is a very YMMV, but I look outside at my Prius Prime with its yucky petrol ICE and think:
I wish I could use my LEAF for all my transport, but work is too far away
The Prime gets me to work at 105 mpg, and was inexpensive to purchase.
Overall, these two cars are run about 16,000 miles a year in my family and we consume about 100 gallons of petrol annually for out typical use.
I expect to swap the Prime for a Model 3 next year because I want to and I have the money, but LEAF+Prime is a damned good solution compared to my neighbors who currently consume ~ 1000 gallons a year for similar use profiles.
 
RegGuheert said:
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.
I'm not well read about UK fossil fuel supplies and suppliers, but I could certainly understand a country deciding to avoid a strategy that depended on supplies from Russia.

If the NG supply was North Sea it sounds a lot more attractive. I was actually under the impression that the UK was going to build a huge electric connection to Norway for regional clean energy power sharing, but I am not clear about details.
 
SageBrush said:
RegGuheert said:
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?
I'm not sure, although a huge coal plant trying to serve as an infrequent, rapid ramp supplement or back-up to PV is never going to work.
Of course it won't. Just like the huge coal power plants in my region do not function as a supplement to the PV generation on my house. Rather, the PV generation on my house reduces the amount of coal which needs to be burned.
SageBrush said:
In a sense they are pursuing on a big scale what plug-in hybrids offer: immediate back-up with a liquid fossil fuel. I'll be more inclined to have an opinion when I can state with confidence the fractional carbon reduction from the scheme and the cost/carbon_reduction.
What the UK has been "pursuing" is insanity. The sudden 180-degree about-face is a clear indication of such.
SageBrush said:
This is a very YMMV, but I look outside at my Prius Prime with its yucky petrol ICE and think:
I wish I could use my LEAF for all my transport, but work is too far away
The Prime gets me to work at 105 mpg, and was inexpensive to purchase.
Overall, these two cars are run about 16,000 miles a year in my family and we consume about 100 gallons of petrol annually for out typical use.
I expect to swap the Prime for a Model 3 next year because I want to and I have the money, but LEAF+Prime is a damned good solution compared to my neighbors who currently consume ~ 1000 gallons a year for similar use profiles.
We have a similar situation: We drive about 17,000 miles/year in our 2011 Nissan LEAF and 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid using about 170 miles of fuel. All of the electricity for the LEAF is produced by our PV arrays. But I cannot imagine any scenario in which I think purchasing a diesel car or a diesel generator to offset coal production would be a good idea for the environment. I doubt you are, either.
SageBrush said:
RegGuheert said:
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.
I'm not well read about UK fossil fuel supplies and suppliers, but I could certainly understand a country deciding to avoid a strategy that depended on supplies from Russia.
The UK already gets about 13% of their natural gas supply from Russia. The UK has fairly abundant shale gas resources, and has recently moved to start to develop them. The EU, OTOH, does not have such an option readily available to them
SageBrush said:
If the NG supply was North Sea it sounds a lot more attractive.
It seems the debate continues about whether or not the North Sea is in terminal decline, but it already is insufficient to meet the UK's natural gas needs.
SageBrush said:
I was actually under the impression that the UK was going to build a huge electric connection to Norway for regional clean energy power sharing, but I am not clear about details.
Perhaps, but that's not a panacea for UK's energy needs. There are no easy answers.
 
RegGuheert said:
SageBrush said:
RegGuheert said:
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?
I'm not sure, although a huge coal plant trying to serve as an infrequent, rapid ramp supplement or back-up to PV is never going to work.
Of course it won't. Just like the huge coal power plants in my region do not function as a supplement to the PV generation on my house. Rather, the PV generation on my house reduces the amount of coal which needs to be burned.
This works while the coal plant is supplying the majority of power. It sounds like UK is trying to set up PV/Wind as the majority power and they need another source to cover the times when the local clean energy is inadequate.
 
SageBrush said:
This works while the coal plant is supplying the majority of power. It sounds like UK is trying to set up PV/Wind as the majority power and they need another source to cover the times when the local clean energy is inadequate.
The amount of electricity produced via solar and wind DROPPED last year from 24.6% to 24.6% while the amount of electricity produced via natural gas increased from 29.5% to 42.4%. Many new natural gas plants are "peaker" plants which can address shortfalls. Again, there is NO PLACE in this situation for diesel, IMO.

More importantly for the UK as regards to this thread concerning diesel fuel: solar and wind currently provide less than 2% of the energy in the UK:

image_thumb73.png


The bottom line is that the UK will be using fossil fuels for the vast majority of their transportation needs for the foreseeable future. Transitioning vehicles from gasoline to diesel was a stupid move which has done significant damage to the environment there.
 
RegGuheert said:
Transitioning vehicles from gasoline to diesel was a stupid move which has done significant damage to the environment there.
No argument. It does seem fair to point out though that the decisions were based on manufacturer claims of emissions that we now know to be grossly under-estimated. I'm surprised that the UK has not sued VW et al for pollution in the same way that the EPA has in the US. They could have their EV infrastructure paid for ;)

It could be the silver lining of Brexit -- sticking a massive fine on VW (and by way of extension, the German govt.)
 
Back
Top