Have a long, hard think before you buy a diesel

unkel

Chris Grayling, the UK Secretary of State for Transport (conservative party)

NOx is responsible for the death of 23,500 people per year in the UK alone. And that's in the UK, where unlike Ireland, petrols are more popular than diesels

BBC Linky

Another £10 per day toxicity charge is planned for London (on top of the £11.50 congestion charge)

Special Circumstances

Diesel switch cheers Greens
THE Green Party has said the swing towards buying energy efficient diesel cars confirms that “green policies do work”.

Taking credit for the success of the VRT regime introduced last year which awards drivers for buying low-emission cars, the party’s transport spokesman said drivers have changed their behaviour because of Environment Minister John Gormley’s policy changes.


War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength,
Diesel is low emissions...

Cee-Jay-Cee

The irish people rewarded the Green Party and John Gormley for their 'green' policies which crippled the car industry overnight by not electing any of them again yet the same people continue to buy diesel cars because of the cheap tax...what a stupid little country we live in.

Triangle

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

The irish people rewarded the Green Party and John Gormley for their 'green' policies which crippled the car industry overnight by not electing any of them again yet the same people continue to buy diesel cars because of the cheap tax...what a stupid little country we live in.

Only a small number voted them in...... you make it seem like the majority of the country voted in the greens.

"Have a long, hard think before you buy a diesel".............. indeed, especially a new one, 3 years is a long time. Couple the potential move away from diesel and all the stuff out there driven by folk on PCP hoping for equity come trade in time and there's a few less meals out potentially in 2019 for folk.

SBPhoto

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

The irish people rewarded the Green Party and John Gormley for their 'green' policies which crippled the car industry overnight by not electing any of them again yet the same people continue to buy diesel cars because of the cheap tax...what a stupid little country we live in.

I don't think the Cheap Tax is an issue anymore on newer cars as the difference in tax on petrol v diesel now is very little, its more the price of diesel v petrol, the VAT claim back for business users and better MPG. When i changed this year i went with diesel again but with Add-Blue giving very low emissions.

SBPhoto

SBPhoto wrote: »

............. Add-Blue giving very low emissions.

allegedly :pac:

porsche boy

Regarding this, Mercedes have confirmed their 'blue-tec' system gives out 40 times higher NOx then stated if the outside temperature is below 10 degrees Celsius. Woops.

Dravokivich

porsche boy wrote: »

Regarding this, Mercedes have confirmed their 'blue-tec' system gives out 40 times higher NOx then stated if the outside temperature is below 10 degrees Celsius. Woops.

Only drive it indoors so.

Special Circumstances

porsche boy wrote: »

Regarding this, Mercedes have confirmed their 'blue-tec' system gives out 40 times higher NOx then stated if the outside temperature is below 10 degrees Celsius. Woops.

Or at any altitude other than the altitude of the test lab,
Or at engine load higher than lab test conditions,
Or at engine revs higher than lab test conditions,
etc
etc

jimgoose

porsche boy wrote: »

Regarding this, Mercedes have confirmed their 'blue-tec' system gives out 40 times higher NOx then stated if the outside temperature is below 10 degrees Celsius. Woops.

They were sued over this in The Americkey back in February 2016.

SBPhoto

Augeo wrote: »

allegedly :pac:

Proven data
Diesel engines can be run with a lean burn air-to-fuel ratio (overstoichiometric ratio), to ensure the full combustion of soot and to prevent the exhaust of unburnt fuel. The excess of air necessarily leads to generation of mono-nitrogen oxides (NO
x), which are harmful pollutants, from the nitrogen in the air. Selective catalytic reduction is used to reduce the amount of NO
x released into the atmosphere. Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) from a separate tank is injected into the exhaust pipeline, where the aqueous urea vaporizes and decomposes to form ammonia and carbon dioxide. Within the SCR catalyst, the NO
x are catalytically reduced by the ammonia (NH
3) into water ( H2O) and nitrogen (N
2), which are both harmless; and these are then released through the exhaust.[5]

Special Circumstances

SBPhoto wrote: »

Proven data
Diesel engines can be run with a lean burn air-to-fuel ratio (overstoichiometric ratio), to ensure the full combustion of soot and to prevent the exhaust of unburnt fuel. The excess of air necessarily leads to generation of mono-nitrogen oxides (NO
x), which are harmful pollutants, from the nitrogen in the air. Selective catalytic reduction is used to reduce the amount of NO
x released into the atmosphere. Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) from a separate tank is injected into the exhaust pipeline, where the aqueous urea vaporizes and decomposes to form ammonia and carbon dioxide. Within the SCR catalyst, the NO
x are catalytically reduced by the ammonia (NH
3) into water ( H2O) and nitrogen (N
2), which are both harmless; and these are then released through the exhaust.[5]

"can be" run cleanly doesn't mean that they do outside of lab test conditions though... does it?

jimgoose

Special Circumstances wrote: »

"can be" run cleanly doesn't mean that they do outside of lab test conditions though... does it?

Apparently Mercedes computers have been turning off the SCR when the outside temperature is below 10C.

coylemj

Special Circumstances wrote: »

"can be" run cleanly doesn't mean that they do outside of lab test conditions though... does it?

+1 your mileage may vary.

Contents may settle during transit.

Models were used in the advertisement, actual Ukrainian single women looking for western husbands may not be as pretty.

Sam Kade

Augeo wrote: »

allegedly :pac:

Amazing what a fancy eco badge on a car does.

_Brian

What are the options.
I do about 35k miles a year, I pull a trailer weekly, petrol would see me robbed.

Miike

Diesel bad petrol good. Me wrong you right. No good for pocket!

kunst nugget

I drive about 500 miles a week with my commute to work meeting only one traffic light in that whole journey, no speed bumps and probably 200 miles of it done on a motorway. Is Diesel not going to more beneficial to me than a Petrol in that instance without creating too many problems for others?

Miike

kunst nugget wrote: »

I drive about 500 miles a week with my commute to work meeting only one traffic light in that whole journey, no speed bumps and probably 200 miles of it done on a motorway. Is Diesel not going to more beneficial to me than a Petrol in that instance without creating too many problems for others?

Undoubtedly it is. Diesel has a place in the market as it stands, the market speaks for its self.

A lot of these anti-diesel speeches are made by politicians who are ferried around the streets of London or whatever in huge cars with 4.7 Liter petrol engines. However, the important thing to keep in sight is we are devil spawn for driving diesel. Despite the fact I do around 1,200KM/Wk minimum on Motorways and driving petrol would see me needing a mortgage at the end of the month to pay my fuel bill.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

What are the options.
I do about 35k miles a year, I pull a trailer weekly, petrol would see me robbed.

kunst nugget wrote: »

I drive about 500 miles a week with my commute to work meeting only one traffic light in that whole journey, no speed bumps and probably 200 miles of it done on a motorway. Is Diesel not going to more beneficial to me than a Petrol in that instance without creating too many problems for others?

Diesel is still the way to go for many people, especially business users.

Special Circumstances

_Brian wrote: »

What are the options.
I do about 35k miles a year, I pull a trailer weekly, petrol would see me robbed.

Really, for heavy work outside of urban areas there isn't an alternative.

I don't see why hybrid drivers should be subsidising your diesel price though.
Or why VAT can only be reclaimed on diesel.

You'd swear petrol produced more CO2 per litre than diesel or something!

Miike

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Really, for heavy work outside of urban areas there isn't an alternative.

I don't see why hybrid drivers should be subsidising your diesel price though.
Or why VAT can only be reclaimed on diesel.

You'd swear petrol produced more CO2 per litre than diesel or something!

I don't see why hybrid drivers should get the cost of their cars subsidised by the tax payer either. For the good of the environment? Nickle mined in Canada, shipped to south of Norway to be refined, shipped to the north of Norway to be made into cells, cells shipped to parts of Asia to be put into cars for the cars to be shipped around the globe. Lest we forget the impact on the environment that graphite production has on the environment either, but wait, the Chinese produce that so who cares... we'll look after out portion of the world and **** the rest of them,

15 of the worlds largest ships produce more pollution than all of the cars combined on the planet every single year.

Also; http://www.air-quality.org.uk/26.php

If the concern was equal for the emissions of diesel and petrol then why don't they do something about it to entice people to change instead of RESENTING change? Like lowering the duty on petrol to make it less costly than diesel so people would be more inclined to buy a petrol car from the planning stage of purchasing a new car.

zilog_jones

_Brian wrote: »

What are the options.
I do about 35k miles a year, I pull a trailer weekly, petrol would see me robbed.

The new Prius (2016 onwards) is doing over 60 MPG in the real world, and is approved for towing up to 725 kg (unlike previous generations). Don't know if it would suit you at all as a car though. And it looks weird

Miike

zilog_jones wrote: »

The new Prius (2016 onwards) is doing over 60 MPG in the real world, and is approved for towing up to 725 kg (unlike previous generations). Don't know if it would suit you at all as a car though. And it looks weird

BUT... when you hit the dual carriage way / motor way you have a 1.8 liter petrol engine screaming to drag the weight of the car plus electronic motor and batteries. Thats before you get into the foot print those batteries left :pac:

Special Circumstances

Miike wrote: »

I don't see why hybrid drivers should get the cost of their cars subsidised by the tax payer either. .

So, let me get this straight - you want the derv to be be chape VRT, chape tax, chape fuel - why? Because CO2?

But you want hybrids to be not chape, because they produce less CO2?


Is it their "screaming" 1.8 petrol engine that is more thermally efficient than many diesels that makes you feel so insecure?

Miike

Special Circumstances wrote: »

So, let me get this straight - you want the derv to be be chape VRT, chape tax, chape fuel - why? Because CO2?

But you want hybrids to be not chape, because they produce less CO2?


Is it their "screaming" 1.8 petrol engine that is more thermally efficient than many diesels that makes you feel so insecure?

Baffled as to how you extracted this from the data. They produce less CO2 in the process of BEING USED but for them to be manufactured they produce a massive amount more than a standard car. EG: (A) Nickle mining, refining, shipping and production. (B) Graphite production.

https://www.bv.com/Home/news/solutions/environmental/the-environmental-impacts-of-battery-production

As for your ad hominem of claiming my argument is based on insecurity I won't even dignify that with a answer.

Special Circumstances

Miike wrote: »

Baffled as to how you extracted this from the data. They produce less CO2 in the process of BEING USED but for them to be manufactured they produce a massive amount more than a standard car. EG: (A) Nickle mining, refining, shipping and production. (B) Graphite production.

https://www.bv.com/Home/news/solutions/environmental/the-environmental-impacts-of-battery-production

As for your ad hominem of claiming my argument is based on insecurity I won't even dignify that with a answer.

Do you want Irish people to pay for CO2 already produced elsewhere?

Has that carbon already been paid for? So.. you want Irish people to pay on the double for carbon tax paid elsewhere already?

Or you want us to make diesel chape (but hybrids not chape) even if the whole carbon tax thing is a load of rubbish because the big producers don't pay it?


How long do you think before the CO2 is offset?


For somebody soooooo big into the CO2 you don't seem to want petrol and diesel to levied proportionally to CO2 "content" at all. :pac:

Special Circumstances

Miike wrote: »

BUT... when you hit the dual carriage way / motor way you have a 1.8 liter petrol engine screaming to drag the weight of the car plus electronic motor and batteries.

Miike wrote: »

As for your ad hominem of claiming my argument is based on insecurity I won't even dignify that with a answer.

There was a thread on here recently "oh all diesels are always inherently more thermally efficient than petrols, ipso facto chape vrt, tax, fuel"

Suddenly, when a petrol engine that matches or beats many diesels for thermal efficieny (power output is poor though, lets face it) - it's "screaming" and "dragging"... so derv SUVs should have their fuel subsidised by priusessss.

Gold. Keep em coming!

Miike

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do you want Irish people to pay for CO2 already produced elsewhere?

Has that carbon already been paid for? So.. you want Irish people to pay on the double for carbon tax paid elsewhere already?

Or you want us to make diesel chape (but hybrids not chape) even if the whole carbon tax thing is a load of rubbish because the big producers don't pay it?


How long do you think before the CO2 is offset?


For somebody soooooo big into the CO2 you don't seem to want petrol and diesel to levied proportionally to CO2 "content" at all. :pac:

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do you want Irish people to pay for CO2 already produced elsewhere?

Where did I mention anything about anyone the Irish PAYING for the Co2 production in other countries? The basis of this whole thread is on environmental impact. You're going off on a tangent.

For somebody soooooo big into the CO2 you don't seem to want petrol and diesel to levied proportionally to CO2 "content" at all. :pac:

No. I'm all for changing to petrol over diesel if it was financially viable for road users that do big mileage. The way I suggested the government entice this to happen is by offsetting the cost of petrol vs diesel so that there is a huge incentive to pick one over the other.

You brought up hybrid users subsidising diesel costs.

I don't see why hybrid drivers should be subsidising your diesel price though.
Or why VAT can only be reclaimed on diesel.

When the fact is everyone is paying out of pocket for a hybrid user? Do you not see the holes in that argument or are you blissfully ignorant to it?

Toyotafanboi

SBPhoto wrote: »

diesel again but with Add-Blue giving very low emissions.

Private consumers aren't taking well at all to adblu. I can't see it being a sustainable solution, excuse the pun.

Special Circumstances

Miike wrote: »

Where did I mention anything about anyone the Irish PAYING for the Co2 production in other countries? The basis of this whole thread is on environmental impact. You're going off on a tangent.

......
When the fact is everyone is paying out of pocket for a hybrid user? Do you not see the holes in that argument or are you blissfully ignorant to it?

Ah here, try and hold it together for one post.

So you object to people NOT paying extra for a hybrid because of the CO2 cost of their production.... and say that you never mentioned people paying for the CO2 cost of their production.

Holes? There's only one here - in the middle of your bizarrely round and round we go "people shouldn't get this cheap because X, I didn't say anything about people PAYING for X" argument.

Special Circumstances

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

Private consumers aren't taking well at all to adblu. I can't see it being a sustainable solution, excuse the pun.

Is it a wee bit expensive? Or a wee bit inconvenient?
Or a wee bit concentrated wee?

Miike

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Ah here, try and hold it together for one post.

So you object to people NOT paying extra for a hybrid because of the CO2 cost of their production.... and say that you never mentioned people paying for the CO2 cost of their production.

Holes? There's only one here - in the middle of your bizarrely round and round we go "people shouldn't get this cheap because X, I didn't say anything about people PAYING for X" argument.

I object to your claim that hybrid users are subsiding the cost of diesel.

I have no objections to the grant scheme at all. I do have objections to your claims however.

Trying to defeat a proposition using a straw man argument, shows you've the data to back up your claims.

Quackster

For many, diesel is the logical way to go. The issue is with the inappropriate use of diesel, in particular folk who do most of their driving in urban areas where diesel fumes have the most devastating impact.

Equalising the per-litre price of petrol and diesel would go a long way towards discouraging urban drivers from buying diesel.

And it's time to put a halt on Dublin Bus buying any more diesels.

SBPhoto

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Is it a wee bit expensive? Or a wee bit inconvenient?
Or a wee bit concentrated wee?

Its not expensive and inconvenient, its actually easy to put in, i have done it only last week. I still think its the way to go if diesel is your only option. i do 30k a year so big saving on diesel over petrol. If i got the same cost on a petrol then i would consider it. But till that happens in will be diesel. Hybrid doesn't interest me at all. but you will have some on here that are very much petrol only and are very anti diesel no matter what the circumstances.

galwaytt

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

Private consumers aren't taking well at all to adblu. I can't see it being a sustainable solution, excuse the pun.

of course they're not: they won't even keep their tyres pumped ffs.

the whole premise for AdBlue is BS anyway: adding a chemical, to cure a 'chemical' ?
And what happens when people forget to add it, or you can't get it when you want it ?

Well in trucks, the ECU goes into a non AdBlue mode which means............you're not driving 'clean' (sic) anyway...........

In trucks the tank involves siting it, plumbing it and.....reducing payload of the vehicle.

Special Circumstances

SBPhoto wrote: »

Its not expensive and inconvenient, its actually easy to put in, i have done it only last week. I still think its the way to go if diesel is your only option. i do 30k a year so big saving on diesel over petrol. If i got the same cost on a petrol then i would consider it. But till that happens in will be diesel. Hybrid doesn't interest me at all. but you will have some on here that are very much petrol only and are very anti diesel no matter what the circumstances.

I was only taking the pi55 out of adblue and it's chemical make-up, if you get me.


Absolutely - diesel is a no brainer the way the greens added more incentives for it and never thought to make VAT claimable for hybrids petrol etc.

I have no problem with people saying "oh I couldn't even dream of driving a petrol under the current taxation schemes", it's the people who roll around laughing at the idea of diesel being not being cheaper, as if it was some natural law of the universe and not just some pseudo science agenda as part of a larger scheme to pretend diesels are low emissions. Wishy washy regulations on diesel emissions, zero attempt to work actual diesel emissions testing into national car testing in any meaningful way... etc etc.

zilog_jones

Miike wrote: »

BUT... when you hit the dual carriage way / motor way you have a 1.8 liter petrol engine screaming to drag the weight of the car plus electronic motor and batteries. Thats before you get into the foot print those batteries left :pac:

Not true at all.

The car weighs under 1400 kg - that's about 200 kg less than the equivalent diesel Avensis. The transmission is actually very simple compared to a normal gearbox - the electric motors are integrated into a planetary gear system (nothing like a traditional CVT box) so there aren't that many moving parts and it doesn't weigh much. The battery weighs less than 40 kg. Weight has also been saved elsewhere, e.g. using aluminium body panels in some places, etc.

The engine does not "scream" at motorway speeds at all, it's quite civilised (probably quieter than a diesel at that speed with a 5-speed manual). The battery/motors will assist at these speeds when required, e.g. when overtaking.

My 3rd generation Prius (2009-2015) will do 51-53 MPG on a motorway with the cruise control set to 130 km/h indicated (120 km/h real speed) - no bullshít driving techniques (which don't work at that speed anyway). The new Prius is more efficient, and the US EPA claim 60 MPG (imperial) for highway driving (which has some bearing on reality compared to useless NEDC tests).

The hybrid batteries have proven to have a long service life, generally over 10 years, and after the vehicle's end of life they can be re-purposed or recycled (don't know the yield for recycling Ni-MH but it's mature technology). I saw a '03 Prius (first generation) on the road a few days ago - can't say what state the battery was in or how original it was, but it must have been economically viable to maintain either way.

cnocbui

I have a weird idea, How about the government stop pretending it knows what's good for the environment or people and all such nonsense, and just pull it's collective stupid head in and tax all fuels and vehicles at the same rate?

If they wan't to tax vehicles appropriately, then tax them by weight. Wear and tear to roads is almost exclusively dependent on vehicle weight. Same with emissions.

Special Circumstances

cnocbui wrote: »

I have a weird idea, How about the government stop pretending it knows what's good for the environment or people and all such nonsense, and just pull it's collective stupid head in and tax all fuels and vehicles at the same rate?

If they wan't to tax vehicles appropriately, then tax them by weight. Wear and tear to roads is almost exclusively dependent on vehicle weight. Same with emissions.

Diesel and petrol have different CO2 "content" per litre.

The greens put 10c on the fuel that contains less CO2. Apparently they think petrol CO2 is "worse" CO2 than diesel CO2 and that diesel cars should make up the majority of the cars sold but without any real test of their emissions at NCT.

Tis a strange one!

Riesen_Meal

Shoot, I only got my first diesel car last week before this thread was posted....

I would have thought of getting a bicycle had this post of been up... ;(

Special Circumstances

Miike wrote: »

I don't see why hybrid drivers should get the cost of their cars subsidised by the tax payer either. For the good of the environment? Nickle mined in Canada, shipped to south of Norway to be refined, shipped to the north of Norway to be made into cells, cells shipped to parts of Asia to be put into cars for the cars to be shipped around the globe. Lest we forget the impact on the environment that graphite production has on the environment either, but wait, the Chinese produce that so who cares... we'll look after out portion of the world and **** the rest of them,

Miike wrote: »

I object to your claim that hybrid users are subsiding the cost of diesel.

I have no objections to the grant scheme at all. I do have objections to your claims however.

Trying to defeat a proposition using a straw man argument, shows you've the data to back up your claims.

Round and round we go!

Do you or do you not want hybrids subsidised?

Do you or do you not want "1kg of petrol CO2" to be more expensive than "1kg of diesel CO2"?

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I have no problem with people saying "oh I couldn't even dream of driving a petrol under the current taxation schemes", it's the people who roll around laughing at the idea of diesel being not being cheaper, as if it was some natural law of the universe and not just some pseudo science agenda as part of a larger scheme to pretend diesels are low emissions...

Fieldog wrote: »

Shoot, I only got my first diesel car last week before this thread was posted....

I would have thought of getting a bicycle had this post of been up... ;(

They're never far away!

cnocbui

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Diesel and petrol have different CO2 "content" per litre.

The greens put 10c on the fuel that contains less CO2. Apparently they think petrol CO2 is "worse" CO2 than diesel CO2 and that diesel cars should make up the majority of the cars sold but without any real test of their emissions at NCT.

Tis a strange one!

I know about the different emissions, I just don't care and think the government should stop with their social engineering.

Diesels spew NOX and the most potent carcinogen ever discovered. CO2 is quite benign in comparison.

The tide of thinking has turned hard against diesels, and rightly so - fit only for ships, stationary engines, electricity generation in remote areas and trucks. How many aircraft are diesel powered? \j

antodeco

Ive moved to my first diesel as of 2 weeks ago.

Cheaper tax, better mpg, and more suited to my longer miles.

If they increase the tax, it wont make much difference, because Im saving about 40% on fuel costs already!

Miike

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Round and round we go!

Do you or do you not want hybrids subsidised?

Do you or do you not want "1kg of petrol CO2" to be more expensive than "1kg of diesel CO2"?

You missed where I quoted you in that first part, responding sarcastically using your logic.

Diesel produces less CO2 per liter of fuel used. The problem with diesel is in that fact that it produces more NO2, substantially more. The EU (UK and Ireland have stuck with hit) adopted the Kyoto protocol in 1998 put simply meaning that over the next 15 years they wanted to reduce CO2 production from vehicles by ~20% (exact figure escapes me). Now there has been a huge shift in that thinking because of NO2 and particulate matter. This is why diesel is cheaper than petrol at the moment. As we are going "round and round" lets swing back to where I said the way to combat this problem is by changing the duty on PETROL to make it CHEAPER than diesel to give incentive for people to change to the "better fuel" (i use that term very loosely). Instead whats happening is they're introducing levies that are causing resentment to current changes. I appreciate your efforts on disqualifying my argument but we operate inside the realms of reality and the reality is diesel is the better fuel on the pocket for a lot of drivers. Every week theres a new thread about how diesel is the devil in the hopes that if people keep saying it, that it will HAVE TO come true.

TL;DR: Make petrol the smart choice on the pocket, the market will adapt.

Special Circumstances

Miike wrote: »

You missed where I quoted you in that first part, responding sarcastically using your logic.

Diesel produces less CO2 per liter of fuel used. The problem with diesel is in that fact that it produces more NO2, substantially more. The EU (UK and Ireland have stuck with hit) adopted the Kyoto protocol in 1998 put simply meaning that over the next 15 years they wanted to reduce CO2 production from vehicles by ~20% (exact figure escapes me). Now there has been a huge shift in that thinking because of NO2 and particulate matter. This is why diesel is cheaper than petrol at the moment. As we are going "round and round" lets swing back to where I said the way to combat this problem is by changing the duty on PETROL to make it CHEAPER than diesel to give incentive for people to change to the "better fuel" (i use that term very loosely). Instead whats happening is they're introducing levies that are causing resentment to current changes. I appreciate your efforts on disqualifying my argument but we operate inside the realms of reality and the reality is diesel is the better fuel on the pocket for a lot of drivers. Every week theres a new thread about how diesel is the devil in the hopes that if people keep saying it, that it will HAVE TO come true.

TL;DR: Make petrol the smart choice on the pocket, the market will adapt.

Do you or do you not want hybrids subsidised?

Do you or do you not want "1kg of petrol CO2" to be more expensive than "1kg of diesel CO2"?

Special Circumstances

cnocbui wrote: »

I know about the different emissions, I just don't care and think the government should stop with their social engineering.

Diesels spew NOX and the most potent carcinogen ever discovered. CO2 is quite benign in comparison.

I agree - I just can't see why they couldn't be consistent in their pseudo science. If CO2 is the issue punish people per litre of CO2 produced, but do it fairly!

BTW, I'm pretty sure jet fuel is kero which is closer to diesel than any kinda clean fuel.

Special Circumstances

If the "hybrids are subsidising 535d" thing is blowing some peoples minds, lets leave the hybrids out of it.

Why should a petrol Skoda Citygo (60mpg plus) owner be paying 10c a litre more than a Skoda VRSTD, but the petrol car produces less CO2?

In my mind the efficient petrol owner is subsidising the lower fuel costs of a derv driver under a system where the cost of fuel is inversely proportional to the CO2 content.

And that's just taking the whole "CO2 is just the worst, it's number one priority to tackle this" BS at face value and asking them to be consistent and apply a common sense polluter pays regime.

It's not even considering why petrol drivers pay more tax to lower the cost of a fuel that puts more people in hospital with respiratory problems etc and costs the taxpayer more.

Toyotafanboi

galwaytt wrote: »

And what happens when people forget to add it, or you can't get it when you want it ?

The car won't restart if the adblue is ran to empty and will have to be recovered in many cases.