As an Emission Engineer for a US Heavy Vehicle OEM - you mentioned DPF's required since 2007 in North America but you neglect mentioning SCR's required since 2010 in North America. Also, if you really want to see very high emissions, look at ships; cruise and freight and locomotives. Ships burn the heavy bunker oil that is very high in sulfur, and trains to my knowledge have no emissions reduction systems installed yet here in the US. DPF = Diesel Particulate Filter Also, you are correct that a regeneration occurs in the DPF to change the collect soot to ash, but at some point they need to be cleaned of the accumulated ash. FSX out of Washington State makes some very good equipment to clean the ash from the DPF's. This can be sold to cement companies! SCR = Selective catalytic reduction These are after the DPF and use DEF (Diesel Emissions Fluid: Urea) to react in the SCR to change the Urea to Ammonia which then changes the NOx's to harmless Water and N2. To keep the negative sulfur reactions, low sulfur fuel has been required since 2007 in North America. However, the emission regulations from CARB are getting more and more onerous, CARB is openly admitting they are now using these regulations to remove ICE vehicles from the roads. At this point it has little to do with reducing emissions. My German relatives were always bewildered that we in the US were ahead of them in emissions reductions. I still have my 2004 Jetta TDI that on one trip cross county got 56 mpg with two people and 3 dogs.
You need to come up with something more cost-efficient than an SCR or make them more dependable. They also reduce fuel efficiency which drives costs up. Also DEF doesn't make sense in high cold latitudes. All kinds of problems the manufacturer passes onto the unsuspecting consumer. A $1000 for a DEF header I recently changed, is highway robbery.
Isn’t a dpf a stop gap to get it past emissions testing? I mean yes it catches the nasties but then it does a burn cycle blowing all that crap out the exhaust anyway… I used to drive a bus on a mine site and when we did the burn cycle it belched out that much black smoke it got reported as a fire… lol
There’s a solution space, depending on your actual requirements - average distance travelled per day, average travel speed, maximum range and load. If you want to optimise for minimum GHG emissions and an EV is too costly, select the lightest vehicle that fits your daily load requirements. Then select an engine size that suits you average travel speed (air drag increases as a function of velocity squared). Generally, a smaller engine capacity can operate more frequently in its maximum efficiency region. Large capacity is needed only to haul high loads or travel at high speed. Some engines can turn off fuel flow to individual cylinders to optimise fuel efficiency based on load. Turbocharging increases effective engine capacity and efficiency. Last year I purchased a small passenger hatchback vehicle with a turbocharged petrol engine - this suited my urban use with an average speed of 33km/h (mostly 60km/h with traffic stops), and about 5k km per annum. I wouldn’t sweat about finessing the solution too much, you can achieve major GHG reduction cheaply by changing your usage, i.e. work from home more, plan travel to reduce redundant trips, accelerate smoothly to keep the engine operating efficiently, use detachable roof racks to reduce drags when not in use, regular maintenance to ensure the engine is operating correctly, etc… Good luck finding a vehicle - global supply is lower than demand, so prices are high and choice is limited. BTW, in Australia only 25% of new sales are passenger vehicles - like the US, we seem obsessed with SUV, 4x4WD and light trucks. Go figure…
Just getting a newer car will significantly reduce your emissions since the regulated levels continue to decrease. As Mike Gofton points out, get the smallest vehicle that you can to suit you needs (no SUV!). You will appreciate that F = ma which is very significant for most drivers most of the time since you burn most fuel accelerating and not in a high speed cruise. Hybrids can make sense if you live in a dense city as you can operate on the battery for short urban trips where the potential reduction in local emissions is most significant. Understanding, of course, that since electrons are fungible, the electrical power generated somewhere on the grid comes from burning coal or at least hydrocarbons (but the centralization of the generation makes reducing emissions an easier technical challenge). Pure electrics have this generation emissions issue to a greater extent plus the need to dig up and refine some environmentally unfriendly metals to make the bigger on-board batteries. Great video, Sabine.
Excellent input. I would add that the regulatory bodies could help this a lot by adopting harmonized standards based on registration fees using ton×miles driven. It would encourage wise choices. Lighter is less polluting and so is driving less.
Based on accepted theory...... Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2. The fact that it is non -persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
Selective verifiable studies. Diesel stinks and pollutes however you cut it, specially from HVMs. And forget adblue - that's just foul stuff that does nothing. Kids get killed every year in parts of London from lung diseases directly caused by diesel particulate inhalation. Sabine loves to come across as demystifying and challenging the green agenda. The only problem is she clearly has her own.
There is a feedback relationship between CO2 and water vapour. Increased CO2 will cause some heating resulting in more water vapour and more heating.@@msimon6808
@@msimon6808 Methane is about 10 times as potent as CO2 and persists a lot longer. Which is why its better to burn natural gas than rerelease it. My attention is on Siberia for this one.
1:39 I have a similar story. During the mid 70's my family had a Ford Pinto. When the emissions were suddenly tightened, the only way the car could pass (it was a 1974 model that used leaded gas) was for my father to tweak the carburetor to such a lean mixture the engine barely ran. Once the car passed inspection, he'd restore it back to a mixture the car could run on.
When I had my first car, I ran the fuel mix as lean as possible to reduce consumption. Eventually this proved to be a disaster, because fuel at intake helps keep valves and their seats cooler. Consequently a crack developed in the head that leaked coolant, so the head had to be replace... $$$!
I've been a mechanically inclined person my whole life, and have provided for myself budget vehicles continually! I have also had to "tweak" the tune to pass emissions, almost on a continual basis!! I have found that maintaining the vehicle at these acceptable states of tune decreases their life span considerably! I believe the problem arises when we have non-experts in positions of authority! Stupidity seems to be rampant in our Government today!!!😵💫
Which proves again that government regulation leads to completely different results. They should have the power to demand tighter emissions from car manufacturers but doing so for cars already on the road (made before new regulations) is idiotic
I agree, however, where's the fight over the particulates from a similar fuel source dumped out of the exhaust from turbines that use similar fuel oils to diesel... jet propellants are number one fuel oils like diesel.
Yeah. It's really frustrating because diesel engines are so great on fuel, durable, and less CO2. But it's still hard to justify compared to the impact on humans of the particulates. Hoping something can be done about that cuz I like my diesel.
What you did not mention is the effect of range you drive typically, and the outside pressure/altitude. It takes a decent diesel engine approximately half an hour (30-60km) to reach its best performance temperature. Most drives are much shorter. Than a decent gasoline engine wins. On the long run (>500 km) the diesel wins, given a scr technology using a small amount of urea (DEF) and a good particulate filter and filter recycling cycle. Already at 1000m altitude normal diesel performance goes down considerably and no (thermodynamica) advantage remains. I use a gasoline engine for short distances (~50km) and an diesel for the long ones (1000 km/dag) . Gasoline engines are earlier at best operating temperature but emit gasoline by incomplete burning in the first 0-10 minutes, particularly on “stationary “ conditions (traffic jam in /around cities.. So, walk and bike in the cities, use a gasoline engine for short trips (50 km), and a decent diesel for the long drives (>100 km). My own “experimental data” on 40 years of driving on request..
For very short trips a used electric vehicle would work. A degraded 24kWh battery (160km of range) may easily still have 16kWh in it (100km range, maybe 50km in the winter).
@@jamesphillips2285 yep, that is pretty much spot on for an old first gen 24kWh LEAF. For us 50-60km winter range was just a bit too short though, so after nine years we sold ours (was still in great condition in all other respects).
Several years ago, it was finally recognized that the actual largest source of air pollution in southern California was no longer cars, but actually the Port of Los Angeles. As a result, they have been trying to ban the burning of "bunker oil" within so many miles of the coast, and requiring ships to hook up to grid power instead of running their APUs.
Finally. Is it really so hard to come to this conclusion? No. It's just easier to bully average automobile owner, then a ship company that brings immense profit.
Regardless, the approach of favouring petrol hybrid passenger cars taken by Californian regulators still seemed to work out better than the approach of favouring diesel passenger cars taken by European Union regulators. Especially for urban air quality.
I resisted diesel cars until I bought a Ford Ranger with a 4 cylinder 2.2L Duratorq-TDCi Euro-6 diesel engine. This is by far one of the most reliable vehicles I have ever owned. It has more than enough power for anything I do, is extremely fuel efficient and produces only 170g/km of CO2. At the same weight it gets better fuel economy on the highway than my friend's Prius. And at only 80mg NOx, it is almost at the bottom of your graph. I live in a warm climate though, so I have no idea how this might perform in a colder area. I can't tell you what to do, but for me, the choice between diesel and gasoline/petrol is now a non issue. I have had to replace only 1 glow plug in nearly 200,000 km. I wouldn't trade my reliable, low emission diesel for anything. And best of all, having been on the market for over 6 years, there are many of these available on the second hand market.
I remember reading a study 2 years ago during covid lockdowns, which analyzed the relationship of traffic in cities with air pollution. They showed that even during lockdown with vastly reduced traffic, the values of air pollution (NOx and fine particles) did not correlate at all with the amount of cars and trucks driving in the cities. The study suggested that other meteorological phenomena play a much stronger role than was previously thought.
it makes you wonder how much of the studies is driven by political points of view and how much is based on actual scientific fact. You mention the covid lockdowns, it was known that lockdowns do not help people as a whole in nearly all situations, it was known that 99.9% of people would survive when exposed to the virus and lockdowns caused way more damage than the virus, yet propagandists who knew better AND had said so in earlier interviews contradicted themselves for what seemed like political reasons over and over again. Saying that kids should have the vaccine when the vax did more bad for children than it did good. The USA's cdc showed their corruption of data, after being forced too by the courts, but not before trying to delay releasing the data for 17 years then 50 years and then 100years... It is sad to say, especially for me because I live in the USA, that much of our government has been corrupted by politically driven individuals from the top down, and those who do not fall in step are removed, fired or worse. Our FDA, CDC, CIA, FBI, and IRS have been corrupted on a national level, along with our media, hollywood and educational system. When you look closer you see their are puppets involved, lying because they are either getting paid too, or because they too have been deceived themselves. It makes you wonder how long this has been going on, I know Al Gore has been saying the earth would die by the year 2000 since the 80s and that much of our coastal properties would be swallowed up by water from the melting glaciers at the north and south pole (which melt and refreeze every year, and don't swallow us up ever summer..) I am not saying that some of the underlying science isn't based on some truths, but I am saying the most effective liars use some truth and twist it to make their lies more believable. Our climate disaster isn't so much the use of petroleum in our vehicles, as it is in our plastics, and we are even coming up with solutions for that with discovery of enzymes that can eat some plastics.... though I, personally, would like to see more plant based plastics used that will degrade over time faster than petroleum based plastics. It is sad to say that we live in a political world, and disappointing that Sabine didn't even mention that in her video while using studies from sources known to be biased, I mention that in an earlier comment to her personally. Believe everything God tells you, half of what man tells you, 1/3rd of what you read and be very skeptical of what you see on video. Living in the age of information has become living in the age of information manipulation.
I suspect that most of it was from large diesels that were still running despite lockdown. Rubbish collection, busses, delivery vans etc. Emissions from cars were probably way down due to less commutes, time shifting on commute times and general less idling in traffic jams. The pollution must come from somewhere and as it does not appear in the countryside it is city related. Maybe it is not even from transport, cities have high population densities so more gas/oil/coal heated houses.
@@mtpaley1 well in the whole city of Munich Germany there is one street that occasionally crosses fine particulate threshold. As far as I can tell all the heating in that area is actually electric (climate is mild enough, it only snows once every few years) and the thresholds are crossed on hottest weeks of the year. I think a crucial factor is just asphalt and tyres, something about that, and heavy vehicles being main contributors. Rain contribution to washing particulate out of the air should be vital but I haven't evaluated it; however anecdotally a hot day is generally followed by a massive rain shower in the evening.
@@mtpaley1 The point is your suspicions do not matter, THAT is NOT how science works!!! that is theory and conjecture work.. you would make a great politician spouting off at the mouth whatever pops in your head... but you would suk as a scientist, UNLESS you are willing to sell your soul to a politician and write whatever pops in your head and call it a study.
...And all the mining for their components. eg EV, as mining industries require more and more electricity (mostly coal in China, Chile or Australia, now maybe gas in USA?). Like those mines in Chile which desalinate some of the massive volume of water they need.
Conclusion: I'm glad I got an electric car - a used 2015 Leaf at the end of 2017. And I put a few solar panels on my house roof and some cheap Chinese plug-in grid tie inverters, which on an annual basis produce considerably more electricity than the car uses. How can you make your own power to power any type of fuel burning vehicle? And there's less abrasion particulate because of regenerative braking. (Also have solar charge controller and 36V Li-Ion battery for freezer and lights in case the grid goes down for an extended period.)
You can in multiple ways make your own fuel. But sure in case of EV, it is far more efficient relative to area required, as long as you have the sun. Big problem in many places, especially northern Europe, is there is many months in a year without almost any sun.
You could also consider buying a bicycle. It costs less than Leaf, uses human power ( makes your legs beautiful and you do not need to buy gym. membership every year ). After whole winter of commuting to and from work you’ll be as tough as a nail and as healthy as a horse!
A couple of years ago I was in the same position of having to buy a new (used) car. With electrical ones being still too expensive, I've decided for a small gasoline driven one (Aygo). I find it quite economical. We even used it to go to holiday in Italy and Austria twice. But it's also ideal if you live in a big city like Frankfurt, where parking space is potentially hard to come by.
@@annah.72 are you me? i too, am an aygo owner, and i also praise the aygo's ability to park into tiny spaces and transport ikea furniture. i don't know why everyone insists they need a massive car- i've managed to squeeze massive ikea packages into the aygo. what on earth are people trying to transport that they insist an aygo is too small?
Some people have larger families, with children and pets. In addition, bigger cars are often more comfortable. Finally, and most importantly, bigger car is often a better status signal. You can laugh about it, but it does not make it go away.
@@ash8128 "Status symbol" needs to go away. The people I respect the most are the ones who walk and do not want a car. I once knew a multi-millionaire, founder of a successful chain of businesses -- who did not own a car and took only public transportation anywhere in his country. Total respect for him. He was not a youngster at the time I knew him, either.
Problem with the particulate filters is that they get clogged unless the car is regularly drives fast for a longer distance. Which will not happen in city driving. Hence some owners remove the filter :( which then had the result that authorities are blocking all diesel cars in some areas.
We had an Audi A3 diesel that would frequently go into 'limp' mode and eventually splashed out on a new Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF), which is very expensive. We talked to a lot of diesel car drivers and were somewhat alarmed by the fact that most of the taxi drivers had taken their cars to a dodgy back-street garage that had bypassed the filter. Although this modification is supposed to be spotted during the vehicle's annual check, judging by the black smoke emitted from many diesels I have reason to doubt this is successful.
That's why you can get some vehicles with what is called regeneration at idle, although it is clunky, doubles idle speed and increases fuel consumption, and takes about 45 minutes, according to estimates by Ford Motor Company, which does sell vehicles equipped with such a feature if you want one, at least for commercial applications (vans, trucks, that sort of thing).
Looks like solid and simple chemistry... DEF is urea and water....converts to ammonia which then reduces NOx over a catalyst to nitrogen and water in the exhaust. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid?wprov=sfla1
That is why the AdBlue thing is so genious. It binds almost all NOx so you can run your diesel with minimal PM and just pick up the NOx even on a cold engine. In the garage my 2019 Euro 6 Škoda Octavia in it's 3 years did not stain the wall behind it one bit. Just a generation older Passat next to mine did. You can really see the difference that blue piss does in your car. EDIT: the walls were painted right after we got the car, so I can be certain that all cars had the same ammount of time to stain it.
@Tom R my 2011 passat has 283'100km on it and it's the diesel gate engine. On the other hand my dad's 2016 evoque td4 has 207'000km on it, even though work is 5km away
@@HibikiKano nobody talks about ad blue while ebery diesel sold has it these days, and it makes diesel maybe with exeption from gasoline the cleanest car around.
@@panoramix2656 Nah it can be cleaner than gasoline. You can run the NOx to the maxx and reduce particles to zero and scoop up all of them in the blue piss. Certainly less CO2. Am ready to be surprised how synthetic fuels will mix up things. Making synthetic diesel is far simpler than gasoline. With how messed up fuel is now maybe they will start making economic sense. Personally I'd quite like the new diesel + synthetic fuel from a sun powerd Fischer-Tropsch combo. If it becomes available. I'd prefer it to having a 1T batery under my feet.
Nice video. Realize that the emission standards (Euro 6d) at this moment are so strict that it hardly makes any sense to make them any lower ( PM 0.005 and NOx 0.08 g/km) however politicians think that they contribute something to the air quality when they make it almost impossible for the car manufacturers to fulfill these requirements
European emission standards have long been behind America and filled with loopholes for German automakers. You might want to research the issue and see how German automakers make the emission rules just like how the German government retroactively legalized defeat devices.
Poor car manufacturers, overengineering cars for decades (top speed is stil 70mph in the uk, no matter the car), now are suffering with implementing actually sensible restrictions. What's a little cancer, amirite?
I guess that the only way politicians are able to improve the environment is to ban everything that pollutes it. Have you got a solution that involves massive V8 engines without catconverters pushing black smoke just idling by your baby's cradle. No.. Neither have the evil politicians.
My sympathies for that whole highly profitable industry, which is directly and indirectly subsidized with taxpayer money by the billions and always, always, always tries to hide, obfuscate or simply lie about health risks is....not that great. The first 3-Liter car? Was built by greenpeace in 1996, with a budged of then 3 million D-marks within 2 years (ca. two million euros in our time). The tech is not a problem, the producers just dont want to change their product ideology. As long as faster, bigger, thirstier brought in the doe, nobody even tried to build low-emission, low-fuel consumption, practical cars.
Just when you think you are beginning to understand a problem, you discover another variable that affects the response properties you are studying. Asbestos particle size is important since it interacts with the lungs much more detrimentally at a certain size, but like Sabine mentioned the surface area and/or aspect ratio can be a contributing factor. Then add in synergistic correlation coefficients with other contaminants and you need a computer to understand what tail is wagging the dog.
I was a mechanic in Germany, so I learned a lot about cars and how they work, especially since I went to a Berufsschule for 3.5 years to do it. With that being said, while diesel might seem tempting at first, I can, in good conscience, only recommend it if you make long trips regularly, or have a relatively long daily commute (say 200 km one way). For everything else, petrol is the way. Why? Because of carbon build-up inside of the engine. This actually correlates to the emission of soot particulates out the exhaust. Engines using Direct Injection (virtually all diesel engines, and some petrol engines) produce particulates of different sizes, depending on the compression ratio. Ergo, diesel -> bigger particulates, gasoline DI (or GDI) -> smaller particulates. Engines using single point or multipoint (port) injection emit no particulates, because the fuel has more time to mix with the air within the intake manifold. DI engines also have more carbon build-up on the intake valves, that is accelerated when driving for short distances frequently, and not allowing the engine to reach its operating temperature. Non-DI engines do not suffer at all from this, since fuel droplets that land on the hot intake valves evaporate quickly and act as a kind of steam cleaning, preventing build-up altogether. As a technician, electric vehicles are my absolute favourite. Over 98% efficiency, regenerative braking, instant torque, no more oil changes, the brakes last much longer... Really, apart from the battery technology, there are no downsides. Barring cost, mild hybrids are a good compromise between the efficiency of an electric motor and the energy density of fossil fuels, and you don't even have to plug it in. Gasoline would be the most sensible choice if you make short to medium trips, and even the occasional road trip. As previously stated, I would only ever consider buying a diesel if I know I'm going to travel long distances frequently.
@@Mordalo oh, I'm sorry. I guess if we're talking round trip efficiency, it's closer to 95, maybe 90%, since the on-board converter and inverter for the motor(s) also have some loss. With that being said, the least efficient EV is still roughly 2.25x more efficient than the most efficient diesel in a car. My training is fine, but thanks for your concern nonetheless. Oh, and by the way, in this rationale, we haven't even given any thought to the energy spent to refine crude oil into pump fuel, so really all I've done was to give combustion the advantage and it still lost. Any news article or "scientific paper" saying otherwise has the equivalent scientific value of a "trust me bro".
@@longbow192 Your ego is way ahead of your comprehension skills. There is no point to discussing things with someone that doesn't realize they are in a forest because of the trees around them.
I think your choice of diesel vs gasoline should mostly depend on how you intend to use your car, if you drive only short distances diesel will be less efficient as it takes more time to warm up and if you drive in cities you have to take into account the fact that regulations might get thightened in the future making it impossible for you to use your car at all.
Diesel is not less efficient with short distances, it's always more efficent. However if you use a modern diesel for short trips daily it won't be long until a check engine light is on because the particle filter will eventually clog up and doesn't have time to make a full regen cycle.
@@TheFPSPower Diesel takes longer to warm up and diesel equipped cars are usualy a bit more expensive so if driven only in cities it will take a very long time to provide a return on investment :)
You did well explaining the different pollutants (retired air quality monitoring guy here) as well as the health risks for the pollutants. Probably could've added a little about ozone being a by product pollutants of several different pollutants and uv light but that really wasn't what you were stressing with the video and you crammed a lot of info into a little time. Well done.
Aww that's nice. She'll enjoy a little pat on the head. _Good girl, good girl_ you are aware that Sabine is a theoretical physicist, who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Superfluid Dark Matter group. That might go somewhat towards accounting for how she understands the basic functioning of car engines and the pollutants they produce
Thank you for this objective presentation! Add blue (I.e. urea) injection on exhaust catalyst on modern Diesels can reduce 90% NOx. This makes gasoline and Diesel engines comparable, at least from NOx emission perspective. I was in the same situation as you, just bought a new Diesel car with Addblue, as I use it only for long distance journeys.
@@RamsesTheFourth um.. typing things doesnt make them true man. And diesels without it should be banned and are. Theyre an environmental nightmare. Im a trucker btw
@@charlesreid9337 Talking from experience of people that got them. All of them get rid of Add Blue as soon as it breaks down. But I agree otherwise. Diesel is for trucks and tractors not cars.
Sabine - Diesel is used in most cases, especially in industry due to its lower flash point which means it is safer to use than gasoline! I worked in heavy industry for over 40 years and everybody always seems to prefer diesel over electric or propane for their mobile equipment due to diesel's better reliability, and rock steady performance and no failures at the most inconvenient times. And all newer diesel mobile equipment have the latest eco-friendly non polluting exhaust systems for better care of mother Earth.
DPF/SCR issues are costly and make modern diesels much less reliable. A coworkers truck at work collected snow and ice on the def line which broke and puked all the def onto the road today, causing the truck to derate. If I was going to buy a light commercial vehicle I would go with gasoline for now. More fuel burn, but more reliability. For heavier trucks and equipment diesel is a no brainer and gas is not available anyway.
FROM A TAILPIPE STANDPOINT.....that is one thing. From a Manufacturing standpoint...That is another. Ad it all up and nothing is clean.....Just get rid of people then we will be just fine. ha ha.
@@Mikefngarage we could start with getting rid of media opinion formed idiots, and unintelligent, under educated, sanctimonious toss pots first. Then re-evaluate what's remaining. Most politician psychopaths would probably be on the first heap.
Best explanation I've seen so far about diesel emissions. I often wondered how all the new emissions that require regeneration cycles that burn a lot more fuel could reduce pollution.
Every video this woman makes is "the best explanation I've seen so far" on every topic. She is very thorough(considering the complexity of the subjects), and always unbiased. A true treasure of the scientific community.
Accept it doesn't burn that much extra fuel at all. And I was studying agriculture in the late 1980s, I learned that a full size Chevy van needed 35 horsepower to go 55 mph down the highway on level ground. if you've got a 200 horsepower engine, and you knock 30 horsepower off of it, you haven't done much unless you are really pushing the engine.
@@MaryAnnNytowl Talk to Google voice about that. As far as your second part, reread the OP, and then reread my comment. And pay attention this time. Actually you probably won't get it, so I'll explain. I mentioned the HP reduction because you're really not burning more fuel. At least not in the sense that they program it to pump more fuel into the engine, they don't. The engine has more than enough power, as I explained with a VERY simple example....... Of you need 50hp, and your engine makes 100, they're not going to have it pump extra fuel....... So you get a slight, and basically irrelevant HP reduction. Not extra fuel pumped through the system for no reason.
@@lordgarion514 you’ve obviously never had to sit with a piece of equipment running on a regen cycle for 20-30 minutes after you are finished with it. You’re a *insert favorite derogatory term* who likes to argue.
I am a retired diesel mechanic and while the older engines were dirtier than the modern variety they were also less expensive to repair and run. They were also far more reliable and lasted much longer than modern diesel engines as they were less complex and did not have to ingest exhaust gasses to run at a less efficient combustion temperature. No one has done a study on how much pollution is created by having to make more vehicles because they don't last as long or because they have to be retired because they won't pass emission testing anymore. Pollution in cities is a problem and diesel pollution tends to make smog much worse that is why the American authorities did not want diesel passenger cars to catch on there and legislated to make sure it happened. If you are concerned about all you have talked about the best type of vehicle to buy is a small engine capacity direct-injected turbo gasoline vehicle with a CVT transmission other than that you go plug-in hybrid or straight EV. With regard to what else can be done to lower emissions in ICE vehicles, you need to note that the low-hanging fruit has already been picked, and getting better results will be very expensive and result in only small gains while making engine control systems even more complex and costly to maintain. Why do you think Volkswagen did what it did? To my mechanical mind, the most efficient and lowest polluting power source for the city and urban transport area is the electric motor and we should get there the quickest way we can but using reason and not hysteria as the motivation. .
Don't forget drilling for oil, transporting the stuff, refining it and carting it all over the world. If that was taken into account, electric vehicles are on top even before driving a single yard.
Remember when our grand parents used lead in their gasoline? I think that the worst thing that people did in the 20th century was converting cities in roads for combustion vehicles. In a few decades people will see what we did with the cars something as awful as what happened during the industrial revolution with the smog.
General aviation piston engine flights still use lead in their petrol (avgas). So if you're living downwind of a small airport with lots of small engined aircraft taxiing and taking off, check the lead levels in the air and water.
I would like to include a point about combustion engines, it is the noise. Everybody that lives in a apartment in front of a street with regular traffic will wake up in early morning, lest say 5:00 am with the noise of increasing number of cars and busses passing by. One can notice how better and longer one can sleep at holidays and weekends. This is the daily life in any medium to big size city in south America.
@@SabineHossenfelder Not buying a car is an option. A big city doesn't have to be like this, but politics of the past forced it to be. We merely accept the environment we live in as something unchangeable and given, but it's not.
@@JonFrumTheFirst and then you take your car to your job, passing loads of other peoples houses, filling their ears with birdsong generated by your car's tyres and engine?
modern car engines are dead silent. You can barely hear anything. Most of the noise in cities now comes from the tires of passenger cars and big truck, bus engines.
Dear Sabine, That is a cracking good video. I happen to have a masters in internal combustion engineering and have worked in the engine research world. It is fantastic that you you put so much accurate good sense information, well explained, all in one video. Congratulations John Hancock
I’m an Aussie and I drive a V8 turbo diesel… it has a 170L long range fuel tank. Driving economically I can stretch a full tank to almost 1000km. When a common highway sign for us is no fuel for the next 2, 3, 4, 5 hundred km. This isn’t because the service stations are out it’s because they don’t exist. A common sight here is petrol cars with several fuel cans strapped to the roof not because the fuel was cheap it’s because they don’t have the range they need to get to the next fill point. Obviously I live in a very remote area and the cities are much better suited to cleaner or “greener” options.
Sounds like a bit of a beast - muscle car?. Doesn't sound terribly efficient by eu standards. I got a 1.4L diesel, can get 800km from a 45l tank with economic driving. thats uk tho, might be different stressors in australia e.g mega air con usage.
@@danyeomans6045 Your rather infantile justification is very typical of people who believe they know than the manufacturer and experts. Having worked and lived in places like Moomba SA known one use a V8 ute. The only people who own V8 live and work in the suburbs and only play at being adventurous types.
Had a v6 petrol prado that reliably covered 1500km on 150L and was 20 years old with dual tanks so running to empty was never a fear. You have the wrong car if range is your need.
@@stephenconnolly3018just FYI, you’re a lot more persuasive when you’re not belittling the people you’re communicating with. But that obviously assumes you’re trying to be persuasive, which is my bad, I apologise
This is excellent. Thanks.One afternoon in 1982, I took a car through a government test facility numerous times, adjusting the carburetor between tests. On the next to last one, the test-tech said, "You're almost there! Just lean it a little more."
Just found your channel, great video. I was in the process of selling my 2017 Euro6 diesel for an EV. After some careful research I found that driving 6,000 miles per annum (10kkm's) it would take between 7 &29 years just to offset the manufacture of just the battery pack depending where the battery pack was made (China 29 years). This calculation included including the extraction, refining and distribution to the diesel, along with an energy mix of an average of 280grams of CO2 in the UK where I live. I then investigated end of life battery disposal for an EV and it's clear there currently is not one. So in answer to your question go and by a Euro6 diesel, I suggest you do your own research but willing to share my research.
A buddy of mine is an Auto industry engineer who consults for ALL auto manufacturers doing business in the US. He does planing and studies on manufacturing process in the automotive industry. He tells me that for the environmental impact of 1 small EV car, 5 Hummer H1s can be built . The diesel engine of today is actually a very clean burning engine and gets better mpg. Real world milage, compare same size vehicle, same size engine displacement moving identical loads and the diesel powered vehicle will get 2 to 3 times better milage. Burning less fuel also means less pollution per distance driven. Another consideration is how long a diesel engine last. On average a diesel engine will last 3 to 4 times Longer than gas/ petrol engines. Here in America our class 8 trucks, big rigs pulling 60,000 to over 100,000 pounds , engines last 700,000 to 1 million miles before needing to be rebuilt. Light Duty pick up trucks, class 2 - 3 towing up to 30,000+ pounds average 400,000 to 500,000 miles. Gasoline engines doing the same work last about 200,000 miles while burning 2 to 3 times as much fuel. Been a mechanic for 40 years Mostly for fleet operations including heavy equipment and truck. I have 2 service trucks, mobile repair, same size trucks, Class 6 1 truck is gas powered and gets 5 mph, the other one is diesel and gets 14 mpg. My personal vehicle is gas and gets half the milage of my wife's which is the same size vehicle but has a diesel engine.
@@Deinorius in the US. That's where my buddy consults. He does travel to Europe to work with manufacturers doing business in the US as well. Batteries don't last 7 years, here in the desert maybe 5 years, maybe. Cold climate also kills batteries. And there is no real way of handling them once dead, currently most go to landfills.
Battery recycling is currently coming online and ramping significantly. See Redwood Materials. Battery packs will likely last 15-20 years at 6000 miles per year. There are many Tesla Model 3s with over 100k miles now and one with over 300k with the original battery. You can also change where your energy comes from with an EV (solar) which is impossible with an ICE.
2:15 The first and probably only time I will ever correct Sabine: no detonations (explosions) by design, just carefully crafted deflagration (slow burning). Detonations ("knock") are abnormal in internal combustion engines (excluding actual detonation engines) and result damage.
I think a lot of people (especially non native speakers) might not be familiar with the term deflagration. Sometimes simplicity over accuracy can be a valid choice in science communication, when the inaccuracy isn't important for the topic you're explaining. The differences in the way diesel and gasoline engines produce power is already a bit of a tangent to the health effects of their emissions, so explaining the differences between deflagration and detonation might just not be something that needed to be in a video about the effects of different kinds of polution.
There are no deflagrations in diesel engines. Its a mixing limited diffusion dominated flame. Deflagrations happen in premixed mixtures. Also, knock is not detonation, knock is end gas auto ignition, there is no requirement for supersonic propagation (detonation)
Only roughly true; it is an explosion or detonation when the spark is applied. Yes, explosion or detonation causes irreversibility and must be reduced for better performance. So we add anti-knock compounds. It is still an explosion but on a slower scale. And that is the only reason that IC engines can operate efficiently only on a narrow RPM range.
I am currently a small diesel. Much depends on the fuel consumption and how your drive. Not driving at maximum allowable speed can save a lot of money.
The European fascination with one litre turbo charged engines is exactly the same trick as "diesel gate". The "low emissions and low fuel consumption " that these small engines "achieve " are at low RPM when the turbo is not spooled up and functioning fully. Under normal driving and normal RPM the turbo will ram twice as much air into the engine and the ECU will inject twice as much fuel. You can see where this is going. The one litre turbo engines "look" efficient, but in real world driving they are less efficient than larger capacity engines. Edit to add, my opinion would be, a second hand Nissan leaf can be found for not too much money and will return around 80 miles reliably per charge, or for a car that will only do local short distances and occasional long journeys, a naturally aspirated (no turbo) 1.4 litre petrol engine would be the most fuel efficient and least polluting, or for a car required to do long journeys, a 2.0 litre turbo diesel engined car would have the performance required for motorway driving and will still return reasonable miles per gallon. So in other words, buy a Golf.
@@Angl0sax0nknight Yes, surely they don't just test a vehicle for its emissions when it is only idling. To get a more accurate reading the engine would need to be revved right up and examined over a wide range of RPM's.
@@kiwitrainguy obd2 gas engines aren’t done in that way. The smog techs only check the diagnostics to see if it’s passed all its monitors. Newer diesels have just as much emission controls as gas engines. At least on bmw and land rovers, the computer will not let you start the engine if the catalyst fluid system isn’t working.
I'm a retired secondary school science master. One of my ex students lives next door. He's a very enthusiastic and competent car mechanic. His problem with diesel powered cars is that modern ones are prone to sooting up and needing expensive maintenance. In part this is due to the filter cleaning mechanism you mentioned. The cleaning cycle needs to operate while the engine is running and for short trips there isn't enough time for the cycle to complete. Result can be a clogged exhaust followed by a sooted up engine. His advice would be that a diesel car would be more suitable if you mostly drive for extended distances. This gives the engine enough time to keep itself (relatively) clean. Thanks for the videos. I enjoy listening for the Deütsch embedded in your beautifully narrated English.
The issue is with users and awareness. If the trips are really that short, just make a longer one once in a while. Then, if the cycle starts, keep the engine running till it ends. People simply don't know or ignore this and then go with "why my car is so faulty?!". Just read the manual. Or, if you really know the main usage will be a 2 km trip to the supermarket, just buy gasoline one. So coming back to the "awareness", but at the buying point.
@@rebornkingofthule7067 You're presenting conjecture as fact. Planned obsolescence does exist but I see no evidence that this small diesel engine problem is an example. I've owned three diesel powered vehicles but only the most recent one was fitted with the kind of exhaust system Sabine discusses. That's not to say there's no room for scepticism here but where I'm sceptical is in relation to her statement that she can't afford an electric vehicle.
As with many commenters, I love diesel too. A virtuous aspect of buying a second hand car is you're keeping it in good running condition for it's lifetime, rather than wastefully buying new every few years. If you're based in Germany, I recommend buying something durable / reliable, German and Euro 5 diesel or above. You need to be doing some highway driving for the DPF to get cleaned.
diesel will be replaced with french fry oil soon and then the time of renewable fuels will take over for internal combustion vehicles over oil and gasoline
So if the smaller particulates are inflicting more damage, wouldn't it make more sense to drop all filters, and let engines create as big/heavy particles as possible, which just fall to the ground? 🤔
I like your presentation. If all people were more open to listening to the advances of modern science and engineering they would be less into grabbing a single idea and never considering anything else regardless of study, examples and results. Thank you for your clear explanations.
Problem is, what now,... some suggestions for Euro 7 are completly crazy, EV cars my end up as failture. There is also one more bad thing about pushing automotive industry too hard,... smal cars - completly vanished from market, and SUV become thing. Why? Extra 3-10k€ expanses are easier hiden in car which cost 25k than the ones which cost 8-10k and whit cars became bigger, they need more energy, ergo more fuel,...
@@marianmarkovic5881 As opposed to pushing people to buy new or electric cars, the focus should be on improving urban planning so that people don't need a car or don't need to use their car as often. Far too many things are set up to be car-friendly, with the US being one of the worst offenders Another example is the amount of people commuting long distances for work. I'm an example: my job may only be 26 km away, but by train it takes a whooping 40-50 min for the journey, depending on the time of day. Add the fact that it's with the Deutsche Bahn (the worst rail company in Europe), and you can see how much time is wasted simply on commuting. I can do the same trip by car in 30 min (traffic-dependent), or 55 min by bicycle. I try to cycle to work as often as I can, but I'm only human... Better urban planning would make the most sense, but no one would make money from such a sensible policy.
@@rallymaniac92 there is another prolem,.. prices of Flats(in many cities) skyrocketed so hard, that for many is only option buying(or renting) house in rural region, which also mean need of car(more likely 2-3 cars) .
Hi Sabine, Thanks for the excellent talk. As a former owner of a VW GOLF diesel I can highly recommend it s a car for you. While I was still driving I found driving a diesel had another subtle, but very definite advantage. If there was a run on gasoline at the Dallas gas stations, with lines around the block because of a severe storm in Galvaston, I could wait until the gas station gasoline tanks were dry; the lines of cars were gone, and then I could drive up to a diesel pump and always find diesel fuel for my car. I also like the performance of the GOLF diesel, I called it a reincarnation of my 356B PORSCHE. Ciao
In Europe thats inverted, most cars are diesel. Although small petrol engines have become more popular over the last few years after some significant engineering upgrades
Yeah you can’t argue with the anti Internal combustion engine crowd. As soon as the tax breaks, and the new in thing wears off. When the science actually shows the truth that ev cars are horrible for the environment and the planet, I’m gonna be standing there going “told ya so”!!! 😂😂🤣🤣
One thing she did not mention that Gas gets wasted twice as quicker than diesel therefore you make more pollution with gas Diesel's more efficient has lower RP m's of the gasoline engine . My vw golf tdi is 1.9 And going down a highway a 120 km I'm sitting at 200 rpm The same vehicle that would be gasoline would be a 2 l And going down a highway SIM speed it's going on 2000 RPM, Gasoline vehicle has 60 l to a tank And you only get 6 to 700 km on a highway My TDI has the same 60 l tank and I get 1200 km to a tank so now how is it more pollution
VW was just caught doing this, all the manufacturers actually did do this, just that they were not found out doing this, and VW was the only one who admitted publically to doing this. You make a very specific test to determine emissions, of course the car manufacturers will make a setting that will satisfy this, exact totally unlikely to achieve, setting.
Seriously, that Diesel gate was blown out of proportion like few else. First, the software interfered only at about and over 130 Km/h. Means, not noteworthy in any country but Germany, because of speed limits. The US used it as pay back against the EU, because they penalized US companies before. Only 3 % of any VW car that was sold in the US was a Diesel. And they had to pay what in fines 16 billion? Toyota was charged 3 bill. for proven and self-induced deaths of more than 100 people, because of faulty car mats. The US did that to VW, because they know, VW is 25 % in government hands. They would never have done it with say BMW, because they are in family hands and can practically do whatever they want and also produce where they want it. Everyone acts like VW filled their cars with heavy oil and every green and other earth savers jumped on that bandwagon to use it for their own agendas.
@@rocketsmall4547 it makes total sense. It's called recycling. Recycling things in a vehicle into new vehicles is much easier on our limited resources than letting them sit and rust away. Dunno what your issue is with it.
@@0Turbox so... multinational corporations that deliberately break regulations by finding ways to hide their actual output of what's being regulated... shouldn't get punished. Riiiiiight. It's clear your stance on things is colored by far-right media sources, rather than things like reality and facts, simply by what you call people that have a teensy bit of respect for the planet and what's living on it with us. Such a sad, pathetic thing to see, a real wanker acting like corporations really are people, too, and those "people" should be able to break the law and get away with it.
@@MaryAnnNytowl energy time money to build car. cant pass emissions or something. crush it to do it again. how is that environmentaly friendly. do u know big trucks are exampt from emissions? the bigger they are the less emissions stander. actually is none. but small car. oh no cant no sell
No-one can tell you what car you 'should' buy; but I can say that I bought a used Gen-2 Toyota Prius - best car I've ever owned; and that hybrid system really does work..
Good review. One thing in that matters a lot in cities is air flows. Where the air flow rotates particulates separate out and concentrate. Also buildings create "canyons" that have the effect of concentrating pollution. Averages may suggest the air quality is OK but many locations will have poor air quality.
I remember when I worked in central London around 1988, walking at ground level below Euston Tower (by Warren St tube station) when it was windy practically blew you off your feet! On one occasion the Prudential building opposite actually had some windows blown out by the wind causing a vacuum as it blowed down the Euston Road (leading to St Pancras and Kings Cross stations.) Now that's what I call air flow!
@@edward_grabczewski I remember in early 90-s in central London air was deadly to breathe. 1/2 in an open cafe near busy troughfare was given headache even to young me. It is amazing how cleaner the air is now in the most western cities.
Thank you for this great video! A point I was missing is the contribution of small two-stroke engines, like in motorized rollers. While their emissions are terribly high, cities have a hard time banning them because they are mainly used by people with low-income and alternatives are significantly more expensive.
@@m1225753 I have a battery-electric maxi-size scooter (100+ kph speed) that was made primarily with Chinese components (including the lithium batteries) by a now long out of business startup company in the USA. Why such forms of transportation never caught on is inexplicable.
@@m1225753 don't feel too bad. The NOx levels are really low (low combustion temperatures). The particulates that you can see are mostly large oil droplets that fall out in minutes.
@@gasdive No, It was called the "Current Motor Company" - they started up about the same time as the Vectrix. Besides the problems with selling the idea of 2 wheel transportation for day to day use in the USA, they, like Vectrix, rolled out a premature product full of design defects - and no access to service. This is very similar to Mercedes Benz and their 2013-2016 Smart ED. If the owner allowed the 12volt battery to go flat during storage or by leaving a light on, the $20,000 traction battery would self-destruct, rendering the car a total loss. Most Smart ED's ended up in the junkyard over a period of just 4 years that way. Mercedes-Benz never acknowledged this problem. Sabine is right. German businesses can be as unscrupulous as Chinese ones.
I'm driving Citroen C3 with a BlueHDI diesel engine from 2019. Fantastic engine and most likely the cleanest diesel engine you can get your hands on right now. Teknologisk Institute in Denmark made a test over under real driving conditions showing that it(BlueHDI) was much cleaner than the petrol version in terms of particles. 30% less particles compared to the air in Aarhus and 47 times less than an equivalent petrol(PureTech) engine. PDF and Adblue really work wonders.
Sabine I would love for you to do an in depth analysis for forest fire, greenhouse gases and pollutants. This is especially a problem in the western US. It is a much much bigger problem and one that can easily be eliminated. There are a few (very few) rapid response aircraft that have shown to be extremely effective, yet they are often not allowed to put out fires early, or at all in National forests, due to bureaucracy and turf power struggles.
Amen. This smoke lingers and makes life miserable over huge areas. It's not mismanaging forests though. It's global warming. Lol. Our climate goes in cycles. No fear involved in the truth of that though.
Controlling fires by putting out early doesn't work in the long term, because a by-product of doing that is to increase the amount of fuel that will be available the next time there's a fire. So the more often you're successful, the more difficult it is to keep that up, and when it becomes too difficult the fire ends up much worse than frequent smaller fires. You rapidly reach the point where the thermal power output per unit area of forest fire exceeds any feasible payload of airlifted water.
Also relevant is a study done into the effects of Chemtrails dropping flamable stuff over forrests. Funny thatthis issue seems to have disapeared from the media since Covid.
@@jhhggygghchdlfyggxzgdltfugc correct. The current policy here in Oz is to generally let fires burn whee ever possible, and at the same time protect assets. Many species of fauna here require fire to germinate.
Sabine, in your video you asked for advice about what to do about your car conundrum. Our solution was a Chevy Volt, which can still be had in a low mileage used version. My better half uses it as her daily commuter, 16 miles round trip. we fuel the car once or twice a year for a road trip of 60 miles or more, otherwise we use Zero gas. So as my license plate frame says " Gas? What GAS? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING GAS!"
I work on commercial trucks in southern california, and the diesel aftertreatment systems on these vehicles are problematic to say the least. Getting the catalyst, the filter and the def injection working properly is not always reliable. Very complex sensors and computer programming has to work correct or the engine goes into "derate" where the truck can only be limped along on idle. You can imagine what it's like to have a loaded truck hundreds of miles from home and all it will do is idle. I would be very suspicious of buying a diesel car. Has anyone done the math on how much pollution building a new car creates, versus just buying a 15 year old car and driving it 100k miles?
I don't remember where I read it. But I did read that new cars are surprisingly good at combating pollutants, even after factoring the manufacturing cost of creating the new car itself, to the point that if environmental reasons were taken into account, there's no reason to drive an old car.
@@tiga2001 You've already fooled yourself with "there's no reason to drive an old car" the fact it undermines the ecological argument in the first place by suggesting manufacturing an entire new vehicle can somehow be reasonably offset by lower emissions, newer cars have costlier components for the user in several areas. And it is harder and harder to actually come by new cars, well any cars, in our dying economy.
@@voidofspaceandtime4684 instead of relying on intuition (driving an old car is better for environment), we should be look at data (lifecycle analysis of a car over 10 years) to determine if either direction is better for the environment. From an economic perspective, if environmentally-friendly cars are too expensive, that's the government and the people who vote them into power's responsibility to make sure that they're affordable.
My previous car was diesel, but I used Biodiesel which was (at the time) understood to generate less NOx and particulates. I'd love to hear your take on the effect of Biodiesel. I've since moved to a used plug-in hybrid, which allows me to commute on the battery most of the time, but also have the range of the gasoline engine when I need it.
is the extra cost weight and maintenance over "just" a petrol engine worth it in your opinion? To me hybrids seem decent enough but still kind of a worst of both worlds.
@@Goriaas actually, well-engineered hybrids (ie: most hybrids on the market) offer the best of both worlds, not the worst. The electric drivetrain requires virtually no maintenance, and the combustion engine requires less maintenance than normal because it is usually off. Plug-in hybrids have engines tuned to stay off for long periods of time without damage. As for the transmission, a lot of hybrids use e-cvts which have only a handful of parts and will last forever. Of course, occasional repairs are needed on hybrids, and the number of mechanics who are qualified to work on hybrids & EVs is low. But this number is rising with the rise of popularity of EVs.
TBH, NOx is not a product of the fuel, just the air being heated in the engine which is 70% Nitrogen. Diesel uses more air than gasoline so the NOx emissions are higher.
@@frequentlycynical642 And it has the higher compression ratios because it has more air in relation to combustion volume. What did you think it was compressing?
Really helpful information on particulates and changes to Diesel technology. One thing you didn't cover, how does the use of biodiesel change the emissions? The original diesel engine design could run on peanut oil, so we shouldn't limit our thinking to the hydrocarbon option
You did not mention "AdBlue" in diesel engines, I was looking forward to find out how this works. My limited knowledge is that Urea is injected in the exhaust to reduce nitrogen. It costs about £12 for 10 liters which lasts for 10,000 to 15,000 miles. When the tank is empty the engine management system will shut the engine down.
@@lavrentievv that will absolutely destroy most if not all SCR systems very quickly. SCR systems are designed to work within a fairly tight range of urea and deionised water. Urine does contain urea, but the concentration of which can vary wildly depending on the person and their hydration level. Furthermore urine contains a lot more than just urea and water, it contains a host of minerals and other contaminants that will destroy the sensors, injectors or even the catalyst itself. Pissing in your adblu tank is a very expensive and stupid mistake.
I'd stretch the budget for a used EV. At less than half the cost to run, and very cheap servicing, the return on investment for the extra cost is only a few years. They are also great fun to drive. Still love driving our 2012 Leaf, even thought it only has a 100km range.
EV technology is changing very fast. Acquisition is prohibitive and time or place to recharge can be a nightmare. It is a good choice for specific uses (and proper pockets).
About the NOx topic - the main reason for this is lean mixtures and hot combustion. The capability came with the direct injection technology. Combined with downsized supercharged engines, the NOx is increasing with this design. This is not just true for Diesels, but also for gas engines with direct injection, lean combustion and supercharged downsized engines. Mazda for example went also for lean combustion engines, however, they were able to do so maintaining a relative cold combustion. So the NOx emission in those Mazda engines is much less, compared to most German counterparts. On the 43. motor symposium in Vienna, earlier this year, there were shown new ways of combustion, also increasing the efficiency of the thermodynamic processes way above 40%. The innovations with IC engines are far from over, so the industry will stay technology neutral. However, depending on the regulations in Europe, the development for the rest of the world might move from European Union to China. So - buy a car that suits your needs and use cases, maybe something you have fun with. Moral / vitue signalling is the halo for the hypocrites.
@@rogerphelps9939 But high temperature = a lot of NOx. The only real solution is to make your engines turn very slow so low temperatures can still burn all the fuel. But then your engine either has to be so large it won't fit in the car or you need something to fill in the performance gap, like an electric motor. Thankfully, Toyota invented the Prius 20 years ago.
Dear Sabine. I have both diesel 2013 and petrol 2001 cars. None of them emits pollution because I have installed a very small fuel cell which only uses 0.5A 12v. When tested at an approved workshop, no contamination whatsoever was found. The fuel cell is produced in Portugal. And I paid for them myself. Claus from Denmark
As an electric car owner- I drive a 2013 Nissan Leaf which I bought used! I might suggest that you research used electric vehicles before you purchase your next car! Good luck Sabine! I greatly appreciate your TH-cam videos which I find to be very informative! Oh yes my mom's dad was born in Germany! Keep up the good work Sabine! Guten Tag!
@@AndrewBlucher In my research (considered buying one), they start with a 24kWh battery (160km range), and it degrades from there. Range depends heavily on speed (highway speeds can halve the range, as can extreme cold). Leafs are not suitable for road trips due to a lack of active cooling for the battery. If it is equipped with fast charging, you apparently get 1 fast charge before overheating the battery. Early leafs may have only a 3kW L2 charger (6kW charging was part of the SV or SL model upgrade in 2013 -- 2011/2012 were all 3kW).
I have exactly the same decision to make this year, with similar financial constraints, so it feels like you’ve made this excellent presentation just for me☝️😊
I would suggest that the emissions on vehicles from the last 10 years or so are all quite good. (Especially the demonized VW diesels...they are actually the best diesels for emissions...ironically!) Consider that diesel emissions are lowest when the vehicle is warmed up, and it takes time to warm up. So if you only drive short distances, the diesel engine never gets warm enough to run properly. And when the diesel engine is cold, the emissions are much worse than when the engine is warm. So diesel is great for traveling long distance, but gas is much better for short distances.
@@fredygump5578 : so, a different “hybrid”. . . A multi-cylinder internal combustion engine. . . Start-up as a gasoline (petrol) engine, the diesel kicks in after warm up. Yeah, I’m kidding, sort of. . . Pure BEV is the future.
@@dewiz9596 If EVs are the future, then there wont be any cars in the future. They have way to many problems and considerably less efficient than ICEVs in most aspects. Only reason they are being pushed on so heavily is hype and absolutely insane governmental subsidies(same with all of this "renewable" nonsense).
The factors I would think about for choosing diesel or gasoline engines would be the price and availability of the fuels. Where I live, there are more fuel stations that sell gasoline and a few that sell both. The price of fuel is harder to gauge due to external events that make one or the other type of fuel more expensive. Another factor to consider is the fuel efficiency, diesel engines are more efficient and get better performance although with problems as described in the video. There are other alternatives like propane gas, liquified natural gas and even hydrogen gas.; these alternatives are more scarce and the engine problems are more difficult to repair by most service stations. Electric is another alternative but the electricity may be generated by fossil fuels.
Sabine, I bought a lightly used 2014 VW Jetta Sportwagen about 3 years ago, after US courts approved a fix for the emissions system and allowed dealers to start selling used ones again. It has been an excellent car for me so far - great mileage and very smooth performance. I’m also impressed w/ the emissions system as well - there seems to be no discernible smoke, soot, odors, or etc. You can even run a finger in the tailpipe, and it comes out completely clean - !?! Almost hard to believe it’s actually diesel engine sometimes. So anyway that’s a model you might want to consider, if you’re still shopping for a new(er) car... :-)
VW never did anything that was actually bad, it was a framing issue. Sabine compares it to a tweak the dodgy mechanic did "just for the test" but in reality if VW hadn't complied with the conditions of the test they wouldn't have passed, not because their engine is any worse than any others, but because the parameters of the test were so specific. Specific RPM ramps had to be performed - electronically controlled - by the testing centre. It wasn't so much a "secret testing mode" as "the mandatory legally enforced testing mode". The entire thing was the realisation by German university students that passing the legally enforced test and driving on the road weren't the same thing (shocker) and because the American government can't be wrong it must be VW's fault! Many more American car manufacturers were doing this, many with far worse performance on the motorway. It was all driven by the media, not by real outrage at real/noticeable pollution increases. After all, all newer generations performed better than older models.
It's not the diesel engine that runs clean, the the myriad of filters AFTER the engine that clean up the particulates. Keep those clean and maintained andbthe car should run well
@@joebloggs9941 yes, kind of - but dont make the mistake many people are making, confusing compression ignition engine with diesel. Diesel engines (compression ignition engines) dont have to run on diesel. Diesel is just the only fuel you can buy at the pump. They also can run on vegetable and waste oil, where they burn much cleaner, and propane can be added through a seperate fueling system with diesel (or bio diesel) and the burning of the long chains with the short chain gases reduces pollution to zero. 99.9% of a pure diesel engine's pollution (not co2, cancer particles) is generated while the engine is warming up. So these dual-fuel engines mitigate basically all the problems.
Modern diesels have come a long way but all of them suffer from egr blockage unless cleaned regularly. I used to be a long-time diesel engine user preferring either mold Mercedes or Toyota engines for my vehicles, but I now use Toyota gasoline vehicles. Good presentation as usual Sabine.
Not true, but if they do, it is detected by the engine management system, which gives a warning. I have driven diesels (always VW Audi group) and never had this happen in over 400,000 miles.
@@nedkogenov5530 Italian tune ups worked well on older IDIs but not on modern diesels and they need physical clean ups. I have lived with that so thats been my experience, thats why I now drive the 1GRFE gas V6
If you don't drive properly then the egr will be sooted up. If you have a hill nearby then you can get the revs up to 4thousand and hold it all the way up to the top. This will burn off the soot. I am talking about a manual gearbox
Sabine, if you can't afford a new electric car I would suggest a small second hand hybrid. These cars use less fuel so all engine pollutants are reduced. When you take your foot off the accelerator to slow down and when you drive down a hill the electric motor switches to generator mode converting the car's kinetic energy into electricity to recharge the battery. This has two benefits: (1) reducing fuel use by using the added battery power and (2) reducing the wear on the brakes so fewer particles are emitted into the air by the brakes and they also last longer. Good luck with your new/not new car! Best wishes from Australia.
I generally agree on a hybrid. And if it is a plug-in hybrid and you have a place to plug it in when at home, you may find you use little or no gas. I have a friend who has this and uses so little fuel that they are concerned that the gasoline in the tank may go stale.
Hybrids are OK new second hand has to much parts that will go bad and brake your wallet. After all its electric + combucion car + things that glue electric and combucion. Great when new not so much when falling apart.
If you can find one, I would recommend getting a hybrid. This would give you the fuel economy of a diesel without the worry about emissions. (Gas engine passive catalytic converters are a much more mature, simple, and reliable technology than the newer and more complicated diesel particulate removal filters and Diesel Exhaust Fluid required for diesel vehicles)
We have a 16yo Prius hybrid. Reliable, and comfortable and cheap. If we could afford an ev then I'd have one, but running an older car also reduces average embodied co2, so I'll stick with what we have.
@@AkamiChannel hybrids are slightly more to not at all more expensive than ICE versions of the same thing. If you're already sinking $30k into a new car, spending another $2k for a hybrid is just smart. And the used prices are pretty much the same for hybrid vs non-hybrid
Yeah, about that. Take your typical hybrid - Hertz offers "Suzuki S-Ace" for example. Compare that to a smaller non-hybrid - say a Toyota Yaris or a Ford Fiesta Eco. For the average trip, the hybrid burns ~ 50% more than the small "eco" car. More severe if you make long trips on the autobahn. There is no simple answer, especially without knowing Sabine's driving habits and family requirements.
this is what you should do: if it's giong to be a second hand car -> petrol/gasoline is the way to go (maybe install LPG to drive cheaper if you do lots of KM). If you are going to buy a brand new car, then it could be an option to get a diesel, it depends a bit on how many Kilometers you drive per year. If it's like 20K or less, go for gas/petrol if it's more than 20K KM/year, then you could consider a diesel, OR you could still go for gasoline/petrol and install that LPG tank, giving you a cleaner exhaust and very low particulates and is so far still a cheap solution to drive. Though I have to add the remark that LPG also has a few downsides; it's potency is not as high as gasoline/petrol, so you lose a few HP while using it (but can always switch to the other fuel if you need those HP's), and second downside is that you'll be banned from a lot of underground parking garages because they fear your tank might leak LPG which will turn that underground parking in a open-air-bomb which can ignite the moment somebody walks in with a cigarette, turns the lights on or create any little spark from static electricity or car-ignition... (it's sad that bad-maintained cars caused this and the people that do maintain their cars properly are also the victim of this)
Diesel is much more efficient and gives a very good range. With particulate filter and DEF the exhaust gasses should be much cleaner than older engines. This is a big subject and your video covers much in great detail.
Modern diesel filters are so good they "scrub the air" i.e. the air comes back cleaner at all particle sizes than what came in through the engine's intake. This technology is also possible in gasoline cars they aren't politically pressured to do so just yet, beyond being "EURO 6". Subaru stopped selling diesels AFTER making a EURO 6 because they could see what was going on - the EU wants to stop selling diesels, even if they can be made clean. Why? Because hybrids are actually the best cars. Engines only operate at max efficiency at near-max rpm and load. Electric wheels are the best wheels, even if your engine is a diesel-electric. But batteries that need constant external servicing/recharging are better than diesels that can burn biofuel, i.e. olive oil, which many VWs can. We were about to head into a "grow your own fuel and travel for thousands of km" utopia but instead we're going into managed electric "fuel points" and "software upgrades" the absolute state
@@John-rw9bv Petrol engines have moved ahead though. I have a automatic 3 cylinder 1 litre turbo Skoda Kamiq and I am getting 50 mpg on any 15 mile or more journey which matches some hybrids. I have plenty of power also which surprised me. The problem with these diesel particulate filters is they need a good fast run to clean out and many urban drivers just cannot do this. If you look up information on these particulate filters they can be a bit of a handful to maintain. Petrol cars still give good value in cost price and seem the least bothersome to fuel and maintain. My car just has an oil change every year and a 5 minute stop to completely refuel for the next 500+ miles so it is little bother to run. Eco technology is not really here yet and is clumsy and expensive. I am not against electric cars and would sort of like one really but charging points are not exactly numerous and a big switch to electric would overwhelm the infrastructure and the cars at a premium.
@@michaeld5888 The Kamiq is a nice SUV, i've often though about getting one since it's big and fuel efficient for it's size. But we can't act like a 1.3Mg (Megagram) car with a 100-140hp 1L-1.5L engine and a 6 speed manual is the future (BTW the automatic DSG does much worse than the manual Kamiq, real-world suggests 38mpg opposed to 50mpg), that's a big car with a small engine driven by conservative adults rowing through possibly 6 gears, there's a lot of trade offs. But alternative fuels have no tradeoffs. If you LPG converted your car, you'd probably get 60mpg, you'd pay less for fuel, get a small HP increase, and your car would last longer as the fuel is cleaner. Conversion would cost 3000-5000€. Propane (LPG) puts out barely any particulate matter whatsoever. LPG can even be added to diesels, as a modification or as part of the initial engine operating design. It's been here for ever, it's cheap and reliable, but the only reason yourself and many others think it's expensive and unreliable is manufacturers don't want you running on alternative fuels, period. But particularly not fuels you produced yourself over the weekend.
@@John-rw9bv It has 7 gears. Actually I pull away at traffic lights from most cars without even trying as there is no gear change time. The gear is ready on the other shaft in an instant. I suspect they slam the manuals through the gears in the road tests and they are not the real world. I wonder how long a manual gear box in the hands of your average driver would last if driven in a test drivers 0-60 racing changes drag. A freebie car handed back after a week of possible abuse is not a real world scenario. The DSG is clutch driven and not an old oil driven box which did sap power and performance. I suspect the profiling of gear change optimisation in standard drive mode is a lot more efficient than the average driver can manage. Where do you think the inefficiency is in a DSG box which is just an automated manual clutch system with no change lag as you have 2 friction clutched boxes which can be manually shifted? LPG is being phased out anyhow in the UK and that is the problem as technology gets obsoleted so rapidly and todays total solution to all our problems is tomorrows damp squib. Of course in 5 years time LPG may be all the rage again. The eco advocates do tend to talk about these large capital outlays with long often indeterminate return periods with transient technology as something trivial and often ignored.
@@michaeld5888 Every time i post my comment gets garbled up :/ I'll keep it short this time - manuals can shift into neutral and can stay in gears optimised for Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) not torque, which is what the driver usually fees as power. In other words the automatic has to make a compromise between performance or efficiency, but the kind of person who cares about fuel consumption can easily beat it by driving differently/efficiently. They can also beat it in performance by shifting earlier. I recommend googling "hypermiling" and "pulse and glide", which can even be combined with "Engine Off Coasting" EOC, two techniques manuals can safely do to get better mpg under certain conditions. Automatics can have lots of computer wizardy to help, but a driver knows if they are about to speed up or slow down, at least with reasonable probabilities, and so if they drive in accordance with this, they can do better than the computer. The actual mechanical losses between the two are pretty negligible. Dual-clutches are amazing and I think if you have a way to manually shift in your car, even into neutral, you could do some amount of hypermiling to get the car back up to 50mpg. You should get into logging it because your car is new, less than 100,000 sold world wide, and if it's the kind that can shut down cylinders that could be really good/interesting. But even looking through the stats that people have put up, it's
Personally I would start at looking for second hand Evs (Not that it expect to find one within budget, but we can always hope), and then second hand hybrid engines. In terms of petrol vs diesel, I think it matters more how well they run than what fuel they use at this point. But then, my plan for buying my next car is winning the lottery, without buying a ticket, so I haven't given it much thought.
Me too, or, at least the "win the lottery without buying a ticket" part. It's a lot cheaper and the odds aren't that much worse. Or maybe I can calculate how much money I've saved by not buying lottery tickets and use that to buy a car.
Second hand EVs are often pretty cheap. If live somewhere where you can charge it and you can deal with the limited miles from an older battery this can be a good solution.
Second hand EVs are cheap due to limited range batteries that may already be highly degraded. My used Nissan LEAF was only a quarter of its price when new due to having lost a quarter of its original battery capacity. Knowing you can live with the reduced range and the expected future degradation is key to the decision to purchase.
Hi I am now on my second electric car and this has 400k range (it’s a Renault Megane e tech) Range is not an issue for us any more. We live outside Brighton so a big mix of open road and city driving
I've been driving diesels for many years now. When I got my current one, I chose to lease it for three years with a plan to get an electric car at the end of my lease. I have since retired, but at the time my daily commute was 120km. You lived in Canada, so you know what Canadian winters are like and what impact they can have on an EVs range, nonetheless at end of my lease there were several cars that would have met my requirements, but here's the thing: my diesel SUV did not use enough fuel or require enough maintenance for an EV to make sense. Both my province (Québec) and federal governments offer generous subsidies on EVs, a combined total over $13k. Additionally, electricity in Québec is both cheap and clean. Nonetheless, when I calculated the total cost of ownership (ie. vehicle cost, fuel, maintenance, insurance) it was no contest: it was just a lot cheaper to buy off my lease. Bonus, though my car (Mercedes GLK250) is now 8 years old, Mercedes has just replaced the entirety of the emissions control components free of charge.
Not to be "that guy" but the emissions control component was probably a tweak to the EGR and you probably now want to go ahead and delete that to save your engine from eventually filling up with soot.
@@John-rw9bv If you were "that guy" you'd be wrong. They literally changed every last component of the emissions control. Several thousands dollars worth of parts. They had to; it's part of a class action lawsuit settlement here in Canada.
@@rogerphelps9939 Being retired I no longer drive much. How long would I have to keep a putative EV before the environmental impact of its manufacturing would be offset by its cleanliness of use and would continuing to drive my ICE ever produce as much impact as manufacturing a new car, EV or ICE, for me ? Edit: CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned. In that department my GLK is exemplary. It is one of the very few vehicles that actually gets better mileage than either Transport Canada and the EPA claim. It's a mid-size AWD SUV that sips fuel, and therefore generates CO2 emissions, at the same rate as a good economy car.
Weirdly enough, I was building some PM2.5/PM10 sensor units today! Data goes to 2 open source projects - OpenSenseMap & Luftdaten (both started in Germany, but are global projects). Given I was soldering things, the irony of generating PM to create things to detect/log PM wasn’t lost on me, particularly when I logged the baselines with/without proper ventilation of the solder fumes (use proper ventilation/filtration kids!)
Yep, I understand the problem. Have done a fair bit of soldering in my life (though not as much as my dad, whose career was based around it, and hobby was, too, LOL!), as well as welding of many kinds (even plastic welding, too), so I can understand needing ventilation. I also spent multiple decades painting (automotive paint with air paint cups/pots), so I can understand filtering out particulates, too!
Great work, thank you for your effort. There is one piece of critical information about motors I want to add. As far as I know these fine particulate emissions are for the most part a problem with direct injection systems. The joke here is, that my 1992 car with a naturally aspirated motor and catalytic converter only produces 5ppm of particulates (tested) while a modern direct injection model (diesel or gasoline) will easily produce 10000ppm of particulates or more (unfiltered). Automobile companies traded better fuel efficiency for the higher particle emissions to comply with stricter emission standards put into place over the years (these standards did not include particle emissions until recently). As there are other ways of making a car more fuel efficient (direct injection lowers fuel consumption only around 5%), we should probably step away from direct injection yet again. Fun fact is, that historically this has been one of the reasons why direct injection never made it into production vehicles for such a long time as it was not only unreliable and put a lot of strain on the motor, but has always been horribly dirty, due to the imcomplete burning of the fuel.
Wow, I've heard none of that! You sound like you know what you are talking about. Direct injection has a hell of a lot of problems for sure. I wonder why particulates increased so much with DI? Poorer mixture mixing compared to inlet port injection? Dunno.
@@frequentlycynical642 I´m no expert either, maybee there is someone out there who can say more about the topic? From what i understand, with port injection the fuel has time to fully vaporize before it is sucked into the cylinder. With DI you´ll have a little portion of the fuel that does not vaporize before burning what results in the higher particle emissions?
So about getting a new car… You kind of danced around the real problem: when is it more environmentally friendly to get a new car (whether fuel, electric or hybrid) vs. getting a used car with worse emissions. Producing new cars is expensive and has a lot of impact, but older cars pollute more. Where’s the tipping point?
It just takes time, older cars break down more and will then be replaced with newer cars. There is always someone buying a new car and passing it on to the next.
The answer depends on you location and main use cases of the car. In the Netherlands, you could get by renting a car for some occasional trips for which you really need a car.
Unless you're like me, and live in a rural area, and have to drive both short-ish but still long distances (7 - 25 miles, 11¼ - 40¼ km) and actual long distances (80 - 175 miles, 129 - 281½ km) during a month. So... yeah. Rental would be prohibitively expensive for me.
Things to take in consideration: 1. Do you really need a car? 2. How much and where do you commute? Long drive/short drive? City or rural? 3. What is your budget. Electric if you can, then hybrid, small petrol engine car (cf 2 for the appropriate choice.and consider secondhand.
One thing with the diesel particulate filters is that you need to regularly do some uninterupted high speed drivrng in order for them to enter the reburn cycle. If you don't the filter will clog. So if you live in the city and rarely drive on the freeway diesel is not a good idea.
They are not, as Sabine claims, by any means ' cheap'. Even when driven for big distances they cause a lot of problems.Rural people in Australia absolutely hate them with good reason. Just checked, my AQI is 2.
@@xponen Active afterburning of the particulate filter does not require the car to be moving, but of course an engine running under load while afterburn is the best option.
I am amazed at how easily people with little knowledge like to spread false rumors. Why can't you be just a bit more humble...like "I think that....". FYI, each of your three sentences is wrong, at least with modern engines.
What type of car to get will depend on several factors. Diesel engines can have problems with their fuel waxing if left out in cold temperatures for a long period of time. The solutions to that problem would be either getting an engine block heater with a suitably long extension cord so you could leave it plugged into an outlet when the vehicle was not being used. Keeping the vehicle in a heated garage where the temperature was maintained above 0C would be another solution. Gas engines do not have that problem. The bigger factors may be the price and availability of the various fuels where you live as well as how many miles per gallon (kilometers per liter?) the vehicle gets. If the diesel in question is efficient enough the higher cost of that fuel may not be that much of an issue. Another consideration is that diesel engines have a reputation for lasting longer in use than gasoline engines. Because diesel engines operate using higher compression pressures than gasoline engines the diesel engines are built more robustly and thus tend to have a longer service life. However, diesel engines also require that you strictly adhere to the guidelines regarding getting their oil changed at the proper intervals. Hope that helped.
In that case, you also have to add in the cost and source of that electricity in the total particulates the vehicle creates. Not everyone has access to clean energy; many of us are still stuck using nasty coal. 😒
There are additives for diesel to keep it from gelling. I've had a diesel truck (Ford F-250 Superduty) for many years and only once did that happen. I forgot to add the additive. I waited a couple of days for warmer weather, changed the fuel filters and it was back to normal.
We bought a diesel powered tractor last year. It does not have any particulate filtering. I’m happy about this as it’s something less that can go wrong.
@@madeinengland1212 with the tractor. Over two years it has been in operation for 50 hours. So both its effect on the environment and my own health is minimal. Its a fairly clean running modern machine that doesn't put out clouds of diesel smoke. In regards to farmers being less healthy than average is it due to them driving dirty diesel tractors? I think one of the main reasons farmers are an unhealthy group is farmers are generally fairly old. In the country I live the average age of farmers is around 56 and it is going up. The average age of a worker is 39. So that in itself will account for poorer health outcomes for farmers.
Just a correction - in the Lancet Oncology paper (quoting the 18% increase in lung ca with PM2.5) the 95% confidence interval does NOT support this conclusion. As it crosses 1, there is no association between PM2.5 exposure and odds of developing lung ca (unlike PM10). Otherwise, great video as usual!
In my opinion , if you have a garage or a easy access to a plug in and do not drive more that the range and can afford it an ev around town and short drives could work . If you drive long distances with heavy loads Diesel , just remember almost every Diesel built after 2010? has a lot of VERY EXPENSIVE exhaust equipment that costs in some cases $10,000 per YEAR or less to maintain , if you are stuck with deft and it freezes there goes many $ if you can find and pay for the parts . So for most people I think Gas or Hybred . Thank You . As we all know Everybody must make there OWN choices and MAINTAIN them
You can mount Diesel-LPG system (I have one in my car), this will make it cleaner than any gasoline car. This is perfect match:) Exhaust gases are much cleaner, driving is cheaper (car is using 50:50 mixture of diesel and LPG), and engine is about 30% stronger.
@@decibel333 In Europe on regular gas stations. LPG - Liquefied Petroleum Gas (basically propane-butane mixture with additional taxes). This system need to be mounted in the car by certified workshop and officially registered.
How does the propane not boil right out of the tank? liquid can only hold so much gas in solution and the pressure as the volatiles come off would get rediculous and filling up a bit like opening a pressure cooker.
@@mykeprior3436 You are not putting LPG to regular tank, there is special second pressurized tank (usually mounted in the spear tire place). In the system you have also e.g. special heater to safely heat up LPG to normal temperature (expanding gas is cooling down), pressure regulator, gas injectors, and computer which is measuring state of the engine and regulating proper amount of LPG. That's why you are not mounting it yourself.
The UK government once said "Buy a diesel,save the planet"! I did,still driving it until they refund the full price I paid,until then couldn't give a ...........!!!
I heard that half of a car's life time emissions come from its production, so to my layman ears it sounds like buying a used car is more environmentally friendly than buying a new one almost regardless of the car.
also, maintaining a car to stay in optimum condition (eg regular oil/consummable changes, tyre pressure) means it runs better for a longer time. efficient driving also reduces wear and tear as well as fuel consumption (and hence pollution).
And there fore electric cars are NOT 0 emission....... And they are running on 85% fossil fuels and nuclear still. The electric car is a complete fraud, because mining and manufacturing the batteries produce even more emissions then burning patrol or diesel in a regular car or truck. However there is a niche market for them in cities in short range driving.
I lived in a major city from age 6 to age 38 and suffered badly with asthma from age 15 years, at age 38 I moved to the countryside and my asthma went away for good, I have driven diesels ever since I passed my driving test in my 20s and my asthma has not returned.
Here in Canada, we recently did away with the emission tests for vehicles. At least in Ontario. There was a well known trick that the mechanics would tell you about (because if they failed your vehicle it is they who got your ire, not the provincial government) In essence, when you arrived for your test they told you to drive on the highway for 20 minutes first, (or they did it for you) and then immediately tested the vehicle while it was warmed up. Because it was an older model, they also did some cardboard trick where they shoved cardboard in front of your radiator to let the heat build up. it worked, and my old SUV always passed. overall, it wasnt great and i always felt at least a little guilty with every pass.
@@twinwankel your absolutely right, spot on 👍. I'll feel MORE than just a little guilty when trillion dollar industries such as the shipping industry, airlines, car manufacturers and petrochemical plants and industrial agriculture companies stop making up 99.9% of the global emissions that are killing the planet. (Or in other words when a single SUV contributing .0000000001% to the problem becomes a notable contributor.) Heck, I'll settle for feeling more than just a little guilty once companies stop being environmentally negligent by shipping customers 5 shirts to try on at home and then they ship the other 4 back for free (aka stitch fix's model). Until then 🤷♂️
Nothing to feel guilty about. ICE engines need to reach their optimal operating temperatures to run properly and running your engine at high revs for 10-20 minutes once a month is recommended anyway, in order to burn the buildup of soot in the engine. That's just how diesels work.
I have worked repairing petrol and diesel pumps for thirty four years on forecourts I am 70 .I have friends who have done the same ,one lived to 90 years of age one is 88 years and still going strong none of us have had any breathing problems. Years ago there were people saying you would get cancer if you breathed in a lot of fumes well up till now I'm ok
Thanks Sabine for such a comprehensive deep dive into the science behind the diesel debate. As for which car, I would also consider driveability and long-term reliability. On these two criteria, diesel is the answer. Assuming you are not into long road trips or hauling tons of stuff around, I'd recommend a small (1.5L -2.0L) turbo-diesel linked to a manual transmission. Seems like a VW Golf would fit the bill but then again, perhaps that would not be politically-correct. Not sure if they are available in Germany, but Hyundai produce some nice diesels.
I’m no expert in Diesel combustion but I’d be skeptical of one off comparisons of emissions between spark and compression ignition engines. My question as a combustion engineer would be at what conditions those measurements were taken? One thing I know for sure is that every Diesel car I’ve ever followed even the most modern pumps out a lot of smoke (ie particulate) when they accelerate. A lot more than any spark ignition car. It is one thing to consider steady constant load operation but rarely do cars sit at a constant load unless they are driving down a straight road with no hills and cruise control maintaining constant speed.
As far as I know, this is definitely true, and the particulate filters are supposed to catch those. A brand new diesel-powered car (or truck) will not emit any visible smoke even outside of "ideal" conditions. However, a five year old vehicle is a very different story, especially when people don't take care of those filters - and why would they, really? :) There was a study that compared air quality in large European cities before and after diesel cars became common on the streets. For the most part, after decades of steady improvements in air quality (especially in the post-com countries), there was a marked drop - exactly because of particulates and nitrogen oxides. Non-hybrid diesels are quite a pain when they are concentrated in large cities and bad traffic.
I got a Honda Insight in 2009 when I was commuting 94 miles per day. It's a "mild hybrid," i.e. it uses "Integrated Motor Assist" to use the electric motor to add power when accelerating or going up hills, and regenerative braking. In warm months I got about 47mpg and in the winter around 42mpg. It still runs great, but the valve stems for a couple of my tires have slow leaks (they are the original units) and my tires are perpetually a bit low, so I'm only getting about 43mpg recently. When gas goes up to $4/gal it's about $40 to fill up the tank - a big jump from the $25 to $30 it normally takes. But then I see the folks with SUVs and pickup trucks easily blowing past $80 to fill up and I try not to laugh so I don't hurt their feelings.
@@quicknumbercrunch8691 Indeed. The only bad part about them is that it is really hard to find a good price on a used one. The first time I went looking for a used Civic or Tercel, it quickly became apparent that you might as well fork over the extra 10% for a brand new one. Fortunately they'll last a long time if you keep up on maintenance.
@@MaryAnnNytowl That doesn't matter if you need your car to get to work every day, you keep it well maintained, and drive it until "the wheels fall off." There is a reason the small Japanese cars are called "econo-boxes." Keep them oiled up, and you will have a reliable car to drive for many, many miles at a very reasonable price.
Being a 73 year old pensionist I've purchased what presumably will be my last car and I've chosen a diesel. I live in a rural agricultural area and most of my driving is and will probably be on country roads. Particles and NOx is, according to science, negligible there and my strongest argument is that diesel engines are much more efficient and releases a lot less CO2. I can also choose synthetic diesel made from waste from food industries and the likes and this way the net CO2 footprint will be very small. Some say even smaller than EV's taking into account the pollution related to production of the cars and the electricity. Thank you for a very informative video!
@Larry Butler ..I should add that the car I now have takes around 0.5 liter per 10 km and I will probably drive about 10,000 km a year from now on. That equals approx 500 ltrs (415 kg) a year. A 737 will take about the same taxing and lining up for take off, once - roughly... maybe with a couple of meters on the runway.
I've been following you for little time. I particularly like and enjoy your way of putting all in perspective and using verifiable data. Thank you very much for your effort, and long live your chan ! More on the topic of which to chose, gasoline or diesel, the average (i.e., not rich) people have to take into account i) the fuel price, say, for 100 km and ii) the number of km one will be able to operate the car before it dies. It seems to me that on this ground only, diesel cars fare much better than gasoline ones. If I may elaborate: i) diesel engines generally need less liters per 100 km than gasoline engines (I'd say about 30% less) and diesel costs about the same as gasoline. It is true that the difference in fuel cost decreases, with gasoline engines that are more and more frugal BUT this comes at the cost of the newest gasoline engines being less and less reliable (to put it bluntly, they either have to undergo very expensive repairs quite early during their "life" or are deemed dead) ii) there is less wear in a diesel engine by construction, because it operates at lower RPMs, so by definition a diesel engine will last longer. This is less true as the euronorm class increases (i.e., with newer engines) but it has nothing to do with the engine being a diesel engine and everything to do with all the nonsense devices imposed by the euronorm, because as the number of parts increases so does too the probability that something will fail. I'd be exasperated if I had to pick a newish car today, all are pretty unreliable, be they gasoline- or diesel-based. I'm happy my 2006 diesel car has an engine that is still going strong after more than 374000 km. Oh, and I also have another engine in storage, just in case. Only question is: is the car body withstand 1 million km? ;)
Engine out NOx on a petrol engine is actually usually quite a lot higher than on a diesel. But petrol engines are equipped with a three way catalyst and an engine management system that can keep the air fuel ratio ‘perfect’ for the catalyst to both oxidize hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and also reduce nitrogen oxides. I often see 1500-2500 ppm engine out NOx and 10ppm NOx post-catalyst, this is on a spark ignition engine. Diesels these days need to use urea which is then converted to ammonia and then used to reduce the NOx. Petrol engines have their own reducing agent built-in (carbon monoxide).
I was under the impression that diesels were pretty good for long journeys but useless for short, round town journeys. Their performance tapers off with stopping and starting in slow traffic flow.
Exactly backwards. Low end torque is optimal for stop and go traffic and diesels produce peak torque in the 2000rpm range. Gas engines produce peak hP and torque above 4000rpm. When’s the last time you revved your engine past 4000rpm? Means that most of the energy being used is just to spin up the engine so it can then spin the torque converter. Electric engines would be the best for stop and go high torque applications, but until then diesel is good for stop and go and freeway driving. Where a slight incline can make a gas engine have to downshift to maintain speed burning more gas and putting west and tear on components, the diesel torque just powers through at the same power input. Most important advantage to diesels, because they have to be overbuilt for high pressure, they last 350k to 400k miles before catastrophic failure. Most gas engines require major overhaul at the 200,000 mile mark.
There is a big problem with the filtering technique in diesel engines. They only operate properly when the engine is running at nominal temperature. If it gets too hot or cold, the filters get deactivated or are inefficient. So while they look much cleaner on paper, they are anything but clean in most real world applications.
As an Emission Engineer for a US Heavy Vehicle OEM - you mentioned DPF's required since 2007 in North America but you neglect mentioning SCR's required since 2010 in North America. Also, if you really want to see very high emissions, look at ships; cruise and freight and locomotives. Ships burn the heavy bunker oil that is very high in sulfur, and trains to my knowledge have no emissions reduction systems installed yet here in the US.
DPF = Diesel Particulate Filter
Also, you are correct that a regeneration occurs in the DPF to change the collect soot to ash, but at some point they need to be cleaned of the accumulated ash. FSX out of Washington State makes some very good equipment to clean the ash from the DPF's. This can be sold to cement companies!
SCR = Selective catalytic reduction
These are after the DPF and use DEF (Diesel Emissions Fluid: Urea) to react in the SCR to change the Urea to Ammonia which then changes the NOx's to harmless Water and N2. To keep the negative sulfur reactions, low sulfur fuel has been required since 2007 in North America.
However, the emission regulations from CARB are getting more and more onerous, CARB is openly admitting they are now using these regulations to remove ICE vehicles from the roads. At this point it has little to do with reducing emissions.
My German relatives were always bewildered that we in the US were ahead of them in emissions reductions.
I still have my 2004 Jetta TDI that on one trip cross county got 56 mpg with two people and 3 dogs.
That’s because TRAINS are basically run by the GOVERNMENT!! Which is EXEMPT from environmental restrictions the REST OF US ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW
You need to come up with something more cost-efficient than an SCR or make them more dependable. They also reduce fuel efficiency which drives costs up. Also DEF doesn't make sense in high cold latitudes. All kinds of problems the manufacturer passes onto the unsuspecting consumer. A $1000 for a DEF header I recently changed, is highway robbery.
Isn’t a dpf a stop gap to get it past emissions testing? I mean yes it catches the nasties but then it does a burn cycle blowing all that crap out the exhaust anyway… I used to drive a bus on a mine site and when we did the burn cycle it belched out that much black smoke it got reported as a fire… lol
There’s a solution space, depending on your actual requirements - average distance travelled per day, average travel speed, maximum range and load.
If you want to optimise for minimum GHG emissions and an EV is too costly, select the lightest vehicle that fits your daily load requirements.
Then select an engine size that suits you average travel speed (air drag increases as a function of velocity squared). Generally, a smaller engine capacity can operate more frequently in its maximum efficiency region. Large capacity is needed only to haul high loads or travel at high speed.
Some engines can turn off fuel flow to individual cylinders to optimise fuel efficiency based on load. Turbocharging increases effective engine capacity and efficiency.
Last year I purchased a small passenger hatchback vehicle with a turbocharged petrol engine - this suited my urban use with an average speed of 33km/h (mostly 60km/h with traffic stops), and about 5k km per annum.
I wouldn’t sweat about finessing the solution too much, you can achieve major GHG reduction cheaply by changing your usage, i.e. work from home more, plan travel to reduce redundant trips, accelerate smoothly to keep the engine operating efficiently, use detachable roof racks to reduce drags when not in use, regular maintenance to ensure the engine is operating correctly, etc…
Good luck finding a vehicle - global supply is lower than demand, so prices are high and choice is limited.
BTW, in Australia only 25% of new sales are passenger vehicles - like the US, we seem obsessed with SUV, 4x4WD and light trucks. Go figure…
Sounds like its converging down to a bicycle.
The guys from.Mighty Car Mods said the used cars market price just skyrocketed due to higher demand for new cars and insufficient production.
Just getting a newer car will significantly reduce your emissions since the regulated levels continue to decrease. As Mike Gofton points out, get the smallest vehicle that you can to suit you needs (no SUV!). You will appreciate that F = ma which is very significant for most drivers most of the time since you burn most fuel accelerating and not in a high speed cruise. Hybrids can make sense if you live in a dense city as you can operate on the battery for short urban trips where the potential reduction in local emissions is most significant. Understanding, of course, that since electrons are fungible, the electrical power generated somewhere on the grid comes from burning coal or at least hydrocarbons (but the centralization of the generation makes reducing emissions an easier technical challenge). Pure electrics have this generation emissions issue to a greater extent plus the need to dig up and refine some environmentally unfriendly metals to make the bigger on-board batteries. Great video, Sabine.
Excellent input. I would add that the regulatory bodies could help this a lot by adopting harmonized standards based on registration fees using ton×miles driven. It would encourage wise choices. Lighter is less polluting and so is driving less.
Pretty sure covid did this already.
I like this type of reporting; it's based on verifiable studies, not on gut feel. Thank you.
Based on accepted theory...... Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2.
The fact that it is non -persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
Selective verifiable studies. Diesel stinks and pollutes however you cut it, specially from HVMs. And forget adblue - that's just foul stuff that does nothing. Kids get killed every year in parts of London from lung diseases directly caused by diesel particulate inhalation. Sabine loves to come across as demystifying and challenging the green agenda. The only problem is she clearly has her own.
There is a feedback relationship between CO2 and water vapour. Increased CO2 will cause some heating resulting in more water vapour and more heating.@@msimon6808
CO2 increases the potency of WV as a greenhouse gas as well.@@msimon6808
@@msimon6808 Methane is about 10 times as potent as CO2 and persists a lot longer. Which is why its better to burn natural gas than rerelease it. My attention is on Siberia for this one.
1:39 I have a similar story. During the mid 70's my family had a Ford Pinto. When the emissions were suddenly tightened, the only way the car could pass (it was a 1974 model that used leaded gas) was for my father to tweak the carburetor to such a lean mixture the engine barely ran. Once the car passed inspection, he'd restore it back to a mixture the car could run on.
When I had my first car, I ran the fuel mix as lean as possible to reduce consumption. Eventually this proved to be a disaster, because fuel at intake helps keep valves and their seats cooler. Consequently a crack developed in the head that leaked coolant, so the head had to be replace... $$$!
I've been a mechanically inclined person my whole life, and have provided for myself budget vehicles continually! I have also had to "tweak" the tune to pass emissions, almost on a continual basis!! I have found that maintaining the vehicle at these acceptable states of tune decreases their life span considerably! I believe the problem arises when we have non-experts in positions of authority! Stupidity seems to be rampant in our Government today!!!😵💫
These days you would just buy a cheap retrofit CAT and they work fine for ~5 years ive heard.
Which proves again that government regulation leads to completely different results. They should have the power to demand tighter emissions from car manufacturers but doing so for cars already on the road (made before new regulations) is idiotic
I never knew about the mix of particulates, very interesting. The whole video is a brilliant breakdown.
I agree, however, where's the fight over the particulates from a similar fuel source dumped out of the exhaust from turbines that use similar fuel oils to diesel... jet propellants are number one fuel oils like diesel.
wussup medlife!! ❤️
Yeah. It's really frustrating because diesel engines are so great on fuel, durable, and less CO2. But it's still hard to justify compared to the impact on humans of the particulates. Hoping something can be done about that cuz I like my diesel.
@@michaelpeacock351 Jet fuel is basically kerosene, not diesel.
I See From My ASS HOLE It's A Nuclear END One Way Or The Other Any Time Now Math Shows The Way Of Greed Lies Come DUE In The Cancer lotto
What you did not mention is the effect of range you drive typically, and the outside pressure/altitude. It takes a decent diesel engine approximately half an hour (30-60km) to reach its best performance temperature. Most drives are much shorter. Than a decent gasoline engine wins. On the long run (>500 km) the diesel wins, given a scr technology using a small amount of urea (DEF) and a good particulate filter and filter recycling cycle. Already at 1000m altitude normal diesel performance goes down considerably and no (thermodynamica) advantage remains. I use a gasoline engine for short distances (~50km) and an diesel for the long ones (1000 km/dag) . Gasoline engines are earlier at best operating temperature but emit gasoline by incomplete burning in the first 0-10 minutes, particularly on “stationary “ conditions (traffic jam in /around cities.. So, walk and bike in the cities, use a gasoline engine for short trips (50 km), and a decent diesel for the long drives (>100 km). My own “experimental data” on 40 years of driving on request..
For very short trips a used electric vehicle would work. A degraded 24kWh battery (160km of range) may easily still have 16kWh in it (100km range, maybe 50km in the winter).
She just needs a motorcycle.
@@jamesphillips2285 yep, that is pretty much spot on for an old first gen 24kWh LEAF. For us 50-60km winter range was just a bit too short though, so after nine years we sold ours (was still in great condition in all other respects).
I live at 7,800ft. Diesel sucks up here.
Thank you for sharing your research.
Several years ago, it was finally recognized that the actual largest source of air pollution in southern California was no longer cars, but actually the Port of Los Angeles. As a result, they have been trying to ban the burning of "bunker oil" within so many miles of the coast, and requiring ships to hook up to grid power instead of running their APUs.
Indeed its the same in Liverpool UK cruise ships
Finally. Is it really so hard to come to this conclusion? No. It's just easier to bully average automobile owner, then a ship company that brings immense profit.
Not trying , did outlaw HFO Bunker Fuel within 24 miles of Coast.
@@josephpadula2283 but does the state of California have jurisdiction that far out?
Regardless, the approach of favouring petrol hybrid passenger cars taken by Californian regulators still seemed to work out better than the approach of favouring diesel passenger cars taken by European Union regulators. Especially for urban air quality.
What a superb explanation. Sabine should should be applauded as an excellent science communicator.
She is applauded - often!
She's also biased.@@gijbuis
as are you
@@timothyrussell4445
@@timothyrussell4445 absolutely correct…
I resisted diesel cars until I bought a Ford Ranger with a 4 cylinder 2.2L Duratorq-TDCi Euro-6 diesel engine. This is by far one of the most reliable vehicles I have ever owned. It has more than enough power for anything I do, is extremely fuel efficient and produces only 170g/km of CO2. At the same weight it gets better fuel economy on the highway than my friend's Prius. And at only 80mg NOx, it is almost at the bottom of your graph. I live in a warm climate though, so I have no idea how this might perform in a colder area. I can't tell you what to do, but for me, the choice between diesel and gasoline/petrol is now a non issue. I have had to replace only 1 glow plug in nearly 200,000 km. I wouldn't trade my reliable, low emission diesel for anything. And best of all, having been on the market for over 6 years, there are many of these available on the second hand market.
My Dacia Sandero produces 115g/km of CO2.
How did you measure these "170g/km of CO2"?
@@SladkaPritomnost not measured, read from the specs.
170 gm/km of CO2 is pretty abysmal.
Thank you for an objective, scientific video on this topic instead of an emotionally charged rage not based in facts.
I remember reading a study 2 years ago during covid lockdowns, which analyzed the relationship of traffic in cities with air pollution. They showed that even during lockdown with vastly reduced traffic, the values of air pollution (NOx and fine particles) did not correlate at all with the amount of cars and trucks driving in the cities. The study suggested that other meteorological phenomena play a much stronger role than was previously thought.
it makes you wonder how much of the studies is driven by political points of view and how much is based on actual scientific fact. You mention the covid lockdowns, it was known that lockdowns do not help people as a whole in nearly all situations, it was known that 99.9% of people would survive when exposed to the virus and lockdowns caused way more damage than the virus, yet propagandists who knew better AND had said so in earlier interviews contradicted themselves for what seemed like political reasons over and over again. Saying that kids should have the vaccine when the vax did more bad for children than it did good. The USA's cdc showed their corruption of data, after being forced too by the courts, but not before trying to delay releasing the data for 17 years then 50 years and then 100years... It is sad to say, especially for me because I live in the USA, that much of our government has been corrupted by politically driven individuals from the top down, and those who do not fall in step are removed, fired or worse. Our FDA, CDC, CIA, FBI, and IRS have been corrupted on a national level, along with our media, hollywood and educational system. When you look closer you see their are puppets involved, lying because they are either getting paid too, or because they too have been deceived themselves. It makes you wonder how long this has been going on, I know Al Gore has been saying the earth would die by the year 2000 since the 80s and that much of our coastal properties would be swallowed up by water from the melting glaciers at the north and south pole (which melt and refreeze every year, and don't swallow us up ever summer..) I am not saying that some of the underlying science isn't based on some truths, but I am saying the most effective liars use some truth and twist it to make their lies more believable. Our climate disaster isn't so much the use of petroleum in our vehicles, as it is in our plastics, and we are even coming up with solutions for that with discovery of enzymes that can eat some plastics.... though I, personally, would like to see more plant based plastics used that will degrade over time faster than petroleum based plastics. It is sad to say that we live in a political world, and disappointing that Sabine didn't even mention that in her video while using studies from sources known to be biased, I mention that in an earlier comment to her personally. Believe everything God tells you, half of what man tells you, 1/3rd of what you read and be very skeptical of what you see on video. Living in the age of information has become living in the age of information manipulation.
I suspect that most of it was from large diesels that were still running despite lockdown. Rubbish collection, busses, delivery vans etc. Emissions from cars were probably way down due to less commutes, time shifting on commute times and general less idling in traffic jams. The pollution must come from somewhere and as it does not appear in the countryside it is city related. Maybe it is not even from transport, cities have high population densities so more gas/oil/coal heated houses.
@@mtpaley1 well in the whole city of Munich Germany there is one street that occasionally crosses fine particulate threshold. As far as I can tell all the heating in that area is actually electric (climate is mild enough, it only snows once every few years) and the thresholds are crossed on hottest weeks of the year. I think a crucial factor is just asphalt and tyres, something about that, and heavy vehicles being main contributors.
Rain contribution to washing particulate out of the air should be vital but I haven't evaluated it; however anecdotally a hot day is generally followed by a massive rain shower in the evening.
@@mtpaley1 The point is your suspicions do not matter, THAT is NOT how science works!!! that is theory and conjecture work.. you would make a great politician spouting off at the mouth whatever pops in your head... but you would suk as a scientist, UNLESS you are willing to sell your soul to a politician and write whatever pops in your head and call it a study.
Just agriculture stands for 46% of NOx emission in NL, 6% is for road traffic.
Would be interesting to see the comparison of the amount of particulates produced by engine, tires and brakes.
...And all the mining for their components. eg EV, as mining industries require more and more electricity (mostly coal in China, Chile or Australia, now maybe gas in USA?). Like those mines in Chile which desalinate some of the massive volume of water they need.
EV's rarely use brakes - regen is used to slow down most of the time.
@@sybaseguru Maybe you can tell me how the battery is made, and how they will be recycled?
@@alpinlt769 You can Google it ev battery recycling to get an answer.
I would say that "brake dust" is far worse than the particulates coming out of the exhaust.
Conclusion: I'm glad I got an electric car - a used 2015 Leaf at the end of 2017. And I put a few solar panels on my house roof and some cheap Chinese plug-in grid tie inverters, which on an annual basis produce considerably more electricity than the car uses. How can you make your own power to power any type of fuel burning vehicle? And there's less abrasion particulate because of regenerative braking. (Also have solar charge controller and 36V Li-Ion battery for freezer and lights in case the grid goes down for an extended period.)
You can in multiple ways make your own fuel. But sure in case of EV, it is far more efficient relative to area required, as long as you have the sun. Big problem in many places, especially northern Europe, is there is many months in a year without almost any sun.
What climate do you live in?
How well do they handle in colder Temps?
You could also consider buying a bicycle. It costs less than Leaf, uses human power ( makes your legs beautiful and you do not need to buy gym. membership every year ). After whole winter of commuting to and from work you’ll be as tough as a nail and as healthy as a horse!
A couple of years ago I was in the same position of having to buy a new (used) car. With electrical ones being still too expensive, I've decided for a small gasoline driven one (Aygo). I find it quite economical. We even used it to go to holiday in Italy and Austria twice. But it's also ideal if you live in a big city like Frankfurt, where parking space is potentially hard to come by.
Good thinking.
Pussy cares about economical cars 😂😂😂😂
@@annah.72 are you me? i too, am an aygo owner, and i also praise the aygo's ability to park into tiny spaces and transport ikea furniture. i don't know why everyone insists they need a massive car- i've managed to squeeze massive ikea packages into the aygo. what on earth are people trying to transport that they insist an aygo is too small?
Some people have larger families, with children and pets. In addition, bigger cars are often more comfortable. Finally, and most importantly, bigger car is often a better status signal. You can laugh about it, but it does not make it go away.
@@ash8128 "Status symbol" needs to go away. The people I respect the most are the ones who walk and do not want a car. I once knew a multi-millionaire, founder of a successful chain of businesses -- who did not own a car and took only public transportation anywhere in his country. Total respect for him. He was not a youngster at the time I knew him, either.
Often overlooked, the lost MPG in attempts to make emissions/time lower actually increase emissions/travel
How true. They foun that out when they lowered speed limits for cars and aircraft.
Problem with the particulate filters is that they get clogged unless the car is regularly drives fast for a longer distance. Which will not happen in city driving.
Hence some owners remove the filter :( which then had the result that authorities are blocking all diesel cars in some areas.
We had an Audi A3 diesel that would frequently go into 'limp' mode and eventually splashed out on a new Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF), which is very expensive. We talked to a lot of diesel car drivers and were somewhat alarmed by the fact that most of the taxi drivers had taken their cars to a dodgy back-street garage that had bypassed the filter. Although this modification is supposed to be spotted during the vehicle's annual check, judging by the black smoke emitted from many diesels I have reason to doubt this is successful.
@@jcevans6934 One could say that these cars are unsuitable for many users.
That's why you can get some vehicles with what is called regeneration at idle, although it is clunky, doubles idle speed and increases fuel consumption, and takes about 45 minutes, according to estimates by Ford Motor Company, which does sell vehicles equipped with such a feature if you want one, at least for commercial applications (vans, trucks, that sort of thing).
Diesels also use DEF (diesel exhaust fluid) to treat their emissions. I’ve always wondered about the science behind it.
Looks like solid and simple chemistry... DEF is urea and water....converts to ammonia which then reduces NOx over a catalyst to nitrogen and water in the exhaust.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid?wprov=sfla1
Not if you get an older one
Thanks I was wondering this since the beginning of the video
Add blue is how they sell piss and make you believe its good for you.
Why do planes and big ships don't have catalytic converter, particulate filters and add blue?
The EGR does reduce NOX; however the lower combustion temps increase soot / particulates, and carbon . It's almost diabolical .
That is why the AdBlue thing is so genious. It binds almost all NOx so you can run your diesel with minimal PM and just pick up the NOx even on a cold engine.
In the garage my 2019 Euro 6 Škoda Octavia in it's 3 years did not stain the wall behind it one bit. Just a generation older Passat next to mine did. You can really see the difference that blue piss does in your car.
EDIT: the walls were painted right after we got the car, so I can be certain that all cars had the same ammount of time to stain it.
@Tom R my 2011 passat has 283'100km on it and it's the diesel gate engine. On the other hand my dad's 2016 evoque td4 has 207'000km on it, even though work is 5km away
@@HibikiKano nobody talks about ad blue while ebery diesel sold has it these days, and it makes diesel maybe with exeption from gasoline the cleanest car around.
@@panoramix2656 Nah it can be cleaner than gasoline. You can run the NOx to the maxx and reduce particles to zero and scoop up all of them in the blue piss. Certainly less CO2.
Am ready to be surprised how synthetic fuels will mix up things. Making synthetic diesel is far simpler than gasoline. With how messed up fuel is now maybe they will start making economic sense.
Personally I'd quite like the new diesel + synthetic fuel from a sun powerd Fischer-Tropsch combo. If it becomes available. I'd prefer it to having a 1T batery under my feet.
Nice video. Realize that the emission standards (Euro 6d) at this moment are so strict that it hardly makes any sense to make them any lower ( PM 0.005 and NOx 0.08 g/km) however politicians think that they contribute something to the air quality when they make it almost impossible for the car manufacturers to fulfill these requirements
Those numbers are all nice and dandy but they degrade very dramatically with wear.
European emission standards have long been behind America and filled with loopholes for German automakers. You might want to research the issue and see how German automakers make the emission rules just like how the German government retroactively legalized defeat devices.
Poor car manufacturers, overengineering cars for decades (top speed is stil 70mph in the uk, no matter the car), now are suffering with implementing actually sensible restrictions. What's a little cancer, amirite?
I guess that the only way politicians are able to improve the environment is to ban everything that pollutes it. Have you got a solution that involves massive V8 engines without catconverters pushing black smoke just idling by your baby's cradle. No.. Neither have the evil politicians.
My sympathies for that whole highly profitable industry, which is directly and indirectly subsidized with taxpayer money by the billions and always, always, always tries to hide, obfuscate or simply lie about health risks is....not that great.
The first 3-Liter car? Was built by greenpeace in 1996, with a budged of then 3 million D-marks within 2 years (ca. two million euros in our time).
The tech is not a problem, the producers just dont want to change their product ideology. As long as faster, bigger, thirstier brought in the doe, nobody even tried to build low-emission, low-fuel consumption, practical cars.
Just when you think you are beginning to understand a problem, you discover another variable that affects the response properties you are studying.
Asbestos particle size is important since it interacts with the lungs much more detrimentally at a certain size, but like Sabine mentioned the surface area and/or aspect ratio can be a contributing factor. Then add in synergistic correlation coefficients with other contaminants and you need a computer to understand what tail is wagging the dog.
Just cut asbestos
I was a mechanic in Germany, so I learned a lot about cars and how they work, especially since I went to a Berufsschule for 3.5 years to do it. With that being said, while diesel might seem tempting at first, I can, in good conscience, only recommend it if you make long trips regularly, or have a relatively long daily commute (say 200 km one way). For everything else, petrol is the way.
Why? Because of carbon build-up inside of the engine.
This actually correlates to the emission of soot particulates out the exhaust. Engines using Direct Injection (virtually all diesel engines, and some petrol engines) produce particulates of different sizes, depending on the compression ratio. Ergo, diesel -> bigger particulates, gasoline DI (or GDI) -> smaller particulates. Engines using single point or multipoint (port) injection emit no particulates, because the fuel has more time to mix with the air within the intake manifold. DI engines also have more carbon build-up on the intake valves, that is accelerated when driving for short distances frequently, and not allowing the engine to reach its operating temperature. Non-DI engines do not suffer at all from this, since fuel droplets that land on the hot intake valves evaporate quickly and act as a kind of steam cleaning, preventing build-up altogether.
As a technician, electric vehicles are my absolute favourite. Over 98% efficiency, regenerative braking, instant torque, no more oil changes, the brakes last much longer... Really, apart from the battery technology, there are no downsides.
Barring cost, mild hybrids are a good compromise between the efficiency of an electric motor and the energy density of fossil fuels, and you don't even have to plug it in.
Gasoline would be the most sensible choice if you make short to medium trips, and even the occasional road trip.
As previously stated, I would only ever consider buying a diesel if I know I'm going to travel long distances frequently.
Can't imagine many people would commute 400km per day...
@@alanjm1234 yeah lmao
Time to update your training. EVs are actually worse than petrol cars and they are nowhere near 98% efficient.
@@Mordalo oh, I'm sorry. I guess if we're talking round trip efficiency, it's closer to 95, maybe 90%, since the on-board converter and inverter for the motor(s) also have some loss. With that being said, the least efficient EV is still roughly 2.25x more efficient than the most efficient diesel in a car. My training is fine, but thanks for your concern nonetheless.
Oh, and by the way, in this rationale, we haven't even given any thought to the energy spent to refine crude oil into pump fuel, so really all I've done was to give combustion the advantage and it still lost. Any news article or "scientific paper" saying otherwise has the equivalent scientific value of a "trust me bro".
@@longbow192 Your ego is way ahead of your comprehension skills. There is no point to discussing things with someone that doesn't realize they are in a forest because of the trees around them.
I think your choice of diesel vs gasoline should mostly depend on how you intend to use your car, if you drive only short distances diesel will be less efficient as it takes more time to warm up and if you drive in cities you have to take into account the fact that regulations might get thightened in the future making it impossible for you to use your car at all.
Diesel is not less efficient with short distances, it's always more efficent. However if you use a modern diesel for short trips daily it won't be long until a check engine light is on because the particle filter will eventually clog up and doesn't have time to make a full regen cycle.
Should base your choice on cancer statistics and vw's compensation scheme/depopulation agenda
not to mention that she's german and in some german cities there are (or will be) diesel bans
Also, with gas prices so high now, diesel is brutally expensive!
@@TheFPSPower Diesel takes longer to warm up and diesel equipped cars are usualy a bit more expensive so if driven only in cities it will take a very long time to provide a return on investment :)
You did well explaining the different pollutants (retired air quality monitoring guy here) as well as the health risks for the pollutants. Probably could've added a little about ozone being a by product pollutants of several different pollutants and uv light but that really wasn't what you were stressing with the video and you crammed a lot of info into a little time. Well done.
Let's see how much integrity you actually have.
Are all quantitative measures b*******
Aww that's nice. She'll enjoy a little pat on the head. _Good girl, good girl_ you are aware that Sabine is a theoretical physicist, who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Superfluid Dark Matter group. That might go somewhat towards accounting for how she understands the basic functioning of car engines and the pollutants they produce
"THEORETICAL" physicist
@@johnperalta9415 oh dear is the word "theoretical" confusing you
@@Ana_crusis Oh, sorry. You can't compliment anyone without demeaning them? Get a grip, stop being so hyper-sensitive and easily triggered.
Thank you for this objective presentation! Add blue (I.e. urea) injection on exhaust catalyst on modern Diesels can reduce 90% NOx. This makes gasoline and Diesel engines comparable, at least from NOx emission perspective. I was in the same situation as you, just bought a new Diesel car with Addblue, as I use it only for long distance journeys.
modern 18wheelers are designed to use DEF and wont run eithout it. Cars should be designed that way. And you should ALWAYS use it
You're the first I've read confessing you use it. Well done.
Add blue can make car break down much often though.
@@RamsesTheFourth um.. typing things doesnt make them true man. And diesels without it should be banned and are. Theyre an environmental nightmare. Im a trucker btw
@@charlesreid9337 Talking from experience of people that got them. All of them get rid of Add Blue as soon as it breaks down. But I agree otherwise. Diesel is for trucks and tractors not cars.
Sabine - Diesel is used in most cases, especially in industry due to its lower flash point which means it is safer to use than gasoline! I worked in heavy industry for over 40 years and everybody always seems to prefer diesel over electric or propane for their mobile equipment due to diesel's better reliability, and rock steady performance and no failures at the most inconvenient times. And all newer diesel mobile equipment have the latest eco-friendly non polluting exhaust systems for better care of mother Earth.
DPF/SCR issues are costly and make modern diesels much less reliable. A coworkers truck at work collected snow and ice on the def line which broke and puked all the def onto the road today, causing the truck to derate. If I was going to buy a light commercial vehicle I would go with gasoline for now. More fuel burn, but more reliability. For heavier trucks and equipment diesel is a no brainer and gas is not available anyway.
Greenwashing for guilt profit is not green
Diesel has a higher flashpoint
FROM A TAILPIPE STANDPOINT.....that is one thing. From a Manufacturing standpoint...That is another. Ad it all up and nothing is clean.....Just get rid of people then we will be just fine. ha ha.
@@Mikefngarage we could start with getting rid of media opinion formed idiots, and unintelligent, under educated, sanctimonious toss pots first. Then re-evaluate what's remaining. Most politician psychopaths would probably be on the first heap.
Best explanation I've seen so far about diesel emissions. I often wondered how all the new emissions that require regeneration cycles that burn a lot more fuel could reduce pollution.
Every video this woman makes is "the best explanation I've seen so far" on every topic. She is very thorough(considering the complexity of the subjects), and always unbiased. A true treasure of the scientific community.
Accept it doesn't burn that much extra fuel at all.
And I was studying agriculture in the late 1980s, I learned that a full size Chevy van needed 35 horsepower to go 55 mph down the highway on level ground.
if you've got a 200 horsepower engine, and you knock 30 horsepower off of it, you haven't done much unless you are really pushing the engine.
@@lordgarion514 *except
And that's not the point. It's about keeping that unburnt fuel OUT of the air, not increasing hp or anything else.
@@MaryAnnNytowl
Talk to Google voice about that.
As far as your second part, reread the OP, and then reread my comment. And pay attention this time.
Actually you probably won't get it, so I'll explain.
I mentioned the HP reduction because you're really not burning more fuel. At least not in the sense that they program it to pump more fuel into the engine, they don't.
The engine has more than enough power, as I explained with a VERY simple example.......
Of you need 50hp, and your engine makes 100, they're not going to have it pump extra fuel.......
So you get a slight, and basically irrelevant HP reduction. Not extra fuel pumped through the system for no reason.
@@lordgarion514 you’ve obviously never had to sit with a piece of equipment running on a regen cycle for 20-30 minutes after you are finished with it. You’re a *insert favorite derogatory term* who likes to argue.
I am a retired diesel mechanic and while the older engines were dirtier than the modern variety they were also less expensive to repair and run. They were also far more reliable and lasted much longer than modern diesel engines as they were less complex and did not have to ingest exhaust gasses to run at a less efficient combustion temperature. No one has done a study on how much pollution is created by having to make more vehicles because they don't last as long or because they have to be retired because they won't pass emission testing anymore. Pollution in cities is a problem and diesel pollution tends to make smog much worse that is why the American authorities did not want diesel passenger cars to catch on there and legislated to make sure it happened. If you are concerned about all you have talked about the best type of vehicle to buy is a small engine capacity direct-injected turbo gasoline vehicle with a CVT transmission other than that you go plug-in hybrid or straight EV. With regard to what else can be done to lower emissions in ICE vehicles, you need to note that the low-hanging fruit has already been picked, and getting better results will be very expensive and result in only small gains while making engine control systems even more complex and costly to maintain. Why do you think Volkswagen did what it did? To my mechanical mind, the most efficient and lowest polluting power source for the city and urban transport area is the electric motor and we should get there the quickest way we can but using reason and not hysteria as the motivation.
.
Diesel is horrible.
Working around semi truck exhaust caused me horrible sinus issues.
I think it takes 600kg of coal to make a new small/medium car.
No you are completely wrong check the data and service schedules.
I have a 2014 VW Golf TDI hatchback. Love it. 50MPG and no soot or smoke at tail pipe. I periodically run my finger around inside tail pipe to check!
My worry is less about what is created by the exhaust and more about the environmental cost around the entire process to make a vehicle.
Don't forget drilling for oil, transporting the stuff, refining it and carting it all over the world. If that was taken into account, electric vehicles are on top even before driving a single yard.
@@jochenstacker7448no oil no country
Remember when our grand parents used lead in their gasoline? I think that the worst thing that people did in the 20th century was converting cities in roads for combustion vehicles. In a few decades people will see what we did with the cars something as awful as what happened during the industrial revolution with the smog.
combustion cars compared to EVs also create a lot of noise pollution, people will be amazed over time how things have changed.
General aviation piston engine flights still use lead in their petrol (avgas). So if you're living downwind of a small airport with lots of small engined aircraft taxiing and taking off, check the lead levels in the air and water.
I would like to include a point about combustion engines, it is the noise. Everybody that lives in a apartment in front of a street with regular traffic will wake up in early morning, lest say 5:00 am with the noise of increasing number of cars and busses passing by. One can notice how better and longer one can sleep at holidays and weekends. This is the daily life in any medium to big size city in south America.
I know exactly what you mean. Main reason I don't want to live in a big city!
@@SabineHossenfelder Not buying a car is an option. A big city doesn't have to be like this, but politics of the past forced it to be.
We merely accept the environment we live in as something unchangeable and given, but it's not.
I live in an American suburb, and at about 4:00AM this morning the first chirping birds woke me up.
@@JonFrumTheFirst and then you take your car to your job, passing loads of other peoples houses, filling their ears with birdsong generated by your car's tyres and engine?
modern car engines are dead silent. You can barely hear anything. Most of the noise in cities now comes from the tires of passenger cars and big truck, bus engines.
Dear Sabine, That is a cracking good video. I happen to have a masters in internal combustion engineering and have worked in the engine research world. It is fantastic that you you put so much accurate good sense information, well explained, all in one video. Congratulations John Hancock
It's meaningful when someone like you with a degree in the field applauds her work. (MSEE here but clueless on this stuff).
as a lapsed chemical engineer, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly
this was a fantastic episode
So....which car should she buy?
Hyundai hybrid.
So what is best a modern diesel or petrol?
I’m an Aussie and I drive a V8 turbo diesel… it has a 170L long range fuel tank. Driving economically I can stretch a full tank to almost 1000km. When a common highway sign for us is no fuel for the next 2, 3, 4, 5 hundred km. This isn’t because the service stations are out it’s because they don’t exist. A common sight here is petrol cars with several fuel cans strapped to the roof not because the fuel was cheap it’s because they don’t have the range they need to get to the next fill point. Obviously I live in a very remote area and the cities are much better suited to cleaner or “greener” options.
Sounds like a bit of a beast - muscle car?. Doesn't sound terribly efficient by eu standards. I got a 1.4L diesel, can get 800km from a 45l tank with economic driving. thats uk tho, might be different stressors in australia e.g mega air con usage.
@@danyeomans6045 Your rather infantile justification is very typical of people who believe they know than the manufacturer and experts. Having worked and lived in places like Moomba SA known one use a V8 ute. The only people who own V8 live and work in the suburbs and only play at being adventurous types.
Had a v6 petrol prado that reliably covered 1500km on 150L and was 20 years old with dual tanks so running to empty was never a fear. You have the wrong car if range is your need.
Is no on going to mention the obvious Madmax stereotype?
@@stephenconnolly3018just FYI, you’re a lot more persuasive when you’re not belittling the people you’re communicating with. But that obviously assumes you’re trying to be persuasive, which is my bad, I apologise
This is excellent. Thanks.One afternoon in 1982, I took a car through a government test facility numerous times, adjusting the carburetor between tests. On the next to last one, the test-tech said, "You're almost there! Just lean it a little more."
Just found your channel, great video. I was in the process of selling my 2017 Euro6 diesel for an EV. After some careful research I found that driving 6,000 miles per annum (10kkm's) it would take between 7 &29 years just to offset the manufacture of just the battery pack depending where the battery pack was made (China 29 years). This calculation included including the extraction, refining and distribution to the diesel, along with an energy mix of an average of 280grams of CO2 in the UK where I live. I then investigated end of life battery disposal for an EV and it's clear there currently is not one. So in answer to your question go and by a Euro6 diesel, I suggest you do your own research but willing to share my research.
Cary- Shhhhh... Lies don't thrive with Truth!!
A buddy of mine is an Auto industry engineer who consults for ALL auto manufacturers doing business in the US.
He does planing and studies on manufacturing process in the automotive industry.
He tells me that for the environmental impact of 1 small EV car, 5 Hummer H1s can be built .
The diesel engine of today is actually a very clean burning engine and gets better mpg.
Real world milage, compare same size vehicle, same size engine displacement moving identical loads and the diesel powered vehicle will get 2 to 3 times better milage.
Burning less fuel also means less pollution per distance driven.
Another consideration is how long a diesel engine last. On average a diesel engine will last 3 to 4 times
Longer than gas/ petrol engines.
Here in America our class 8 trucks, big rigs pulling 60,000 to over 100,000 pounds , engines last 700,000 to 1 million miles before needing to be rebuilt.
Light Duty pick up trucks, class 2 - 3 towing up to 30,000+ pounds average 400,000 to 500,000 miles.
Gasoline engines doing the same work last about 200,000 miles while burning 2 to 3 times as much fuel.
Been a mechanic for 40 years
Mostly for fleet operations including heavy equipment and truck.
I have 2 service trucks, mobile repair, same size trucks, Class 6
1 truck is gas powered and gets 5 mph, the other one is diesel and gets 14 mpg.
My personal vehicle is gas and gets half the milage of my wife's which is the same size vehicle but has a diesel engine.
@@richardc7721 5 Hummer? Compared how and in which location of production?
@@Deinorius in the US.
That's where my buddy consults.
He does travel to Europe to work with manufacturers doing business in the US as well.
Batteries don't last 7 years, here in the desert maybe 5 years, maybe.
Cold climate also kills batteries.
And there is no real way of handling them once dead, currently most go to landfills.
Battery recycling is currently coming online and ramping significantly. See Redwood Materials. Battery packs will likely last 15-20 years at 6000 miles per year. There are many Tesla Model 3s with over 100k miles now and one with over 300k with the original battery. You can also change where your energy comes from with an EV (solar) which is impossible with an ICE.
2:15 The first and probably only time I will ever correct Sabine: no detonations (explosions) by design, just carefully crafted deflagration (slow burning). Detonations ("knock") are abnormal in internal combustion engines (excluding actual detonation engines) and result damage.
I think a lot of people (especially non native speakers) might not be familiar with the term deflagration.
Sometimes simplicity over accuracy can be a valid choice in science communication, when the inaccuracy isn't important for the topic you're explaining.
The differences in the way diesel and gasoline engines produce power is already a bit of a tangent to the health effects of their emissions, so explaining the differences between deflagration and detonation might just not be something that needed to be in a video about the effects of different kinds of polution.
Noticed that too. Made me smile. Nobody is perfect.
There are no deflagrations in diesel engines. Its a mixing limited diffusion dominated flame. Deflagrations happen in premixed mixtures. Also, knock is not detonation, knock is end gas auto ignition, there is no requirement for supersonic propagation (detonation)
Only roughly true; it is an explosion or detonation when the spark is applied. Yes, explosion or detonation causes irreversibility and must be reduced for better performance. So we add anti-knock compounds. It is still an explosion but on a slower scale. And that is the only reason that IC engines can operate efficiently only on a narrow RPM range.
@@plainText384 - ? Wtf everyone here has the Internet and can look up deflagration, and LEARN something.
I am currently a small diesel. Much depends on the fuel consumption and how your drive. Not driving at maximum allowable speed can save a lot of money.
The European fascination with one litre turbo charged engines is exactly the same trick as "diesel gate".
The "low emissions and low fuel consumption " that these small engines "achieve " are at low RPM when the turbo is not spooled up and functioning fully. Under normal driving and normal RPM the turbo will ram twice as much air into the engine and the ECU will inject twice as much fuel.
You can see where this is going.
The one litre turbo engines "look" efficient, but in real world driving they are less efficient than larger capacity engines.
Edit to add, my opinion would be,
a second hand Nissan leaf can be found for not too much money and will return around 80 miles reliably per charge, or for a car that will only do local short distances and occasional long journeys, a naturally aspirated (no turbo) 1.4 litre petrol engine would be the most fuel efficient and least polluting, or for a car required to do long journeys, a 2.0 litre turbo diesel engined car would have the performance required for motorway driving and will still return reasonable miles per gallon.
So in other words, buy a Golf.
I’m not a smog tech but I did notice at least in my city that diesel trucks are smog tested on a dyno. To get real world results on spool and load.
@@Angl0sax0nknight Yes, surely they don't just test a vehicle for its emissions when it is only idling. To get a more accurate reading the engine would need to be revved right up and examined over a wide range of RPM's.
@@kiwitrainguy obd2 gas engines aren’t done in that way. The smog techs only check the diagnostics to see if it’s passed all its monitors. Newer diesels have just as much emission controls as gas engines. At least on bmw and land rovers, the computer will not let you start the engine if the catalyst fluid system isn’t working.
I'm a retired secondary school science master. One of my ex students lives next door. He's a very enthusiastic and competent car mechanic. His problem with diesel powered cars is that modern ones are prone to sooting up and needing expensive maintenance. In part this is due to the filter cleaning mechanism you mentioned. The cleaning cycle needs to operate while the engine is running and for short trips there isn't enough time for the cycle to complete. Result can be a clogged exhaust followed by a sooted up engine. His advice would be that a diesel car would be more suitable if you mostly drive for extended distances. This gives the engine enough time to keep itself (relatively) clean.
Thanks for the videos. I enjoy listening for the Deütsch embedded in your beautifully narrated English.
Designed to fail from the get-go your friend is far too generous
The issue is with users and awareness. If the trips are really that short, just make a longer one once in a while. Then, if the cycle starts, keep the engine running till it ends. People simply don't know or ignore this and then go with "why my car is so faulty?!". Just read the manual. Or, if you really know the main usage will be a 2 km trip to the supermarket, just buy gasoline one. So coming back to the "awareness", but at the buying point.
@@rebornkingofthule7067 You're presenting conjecture as fact. Planned obsolescence does exist but I see no evidence that this small diesel engine problem is an example.
I've owned three diesel powered vehicles but only the most recent one was fitted with the kind of exhaust system Sabine discusses.
That's not to say there's no room for scepticism here but where I'm sceptical is in relation to her statement that she can't afford an electric vehicle.
As with many commenters, I love diesel too. A virtuous aspect of buying a second hand car is you're keeping it in good running condition for it's lifetime, rather than wastefully buying new every few years. If you're based in Germany, I recommend buying something durable / reliable, German and Euro 5 diesel or above. You need to be doing some highway driving for the DPF to get cleaned.
diesel will be replaced with french fry oil soon and then the time of renewable fuels will take over for internal combustion vehicles over oil and gasoline
So if the smaller particulates are inflicting more damage, wouldn't it make more sense to drop all filters, and let engines create as big/heavy particles as possible, which just fall to the ground? 🤔
no.
I like your presentation. If all people were more open to listening to the advances of modern science and engineering they would be less into grabbing a single idea and never considering anything else regardless of study, examples and results. Thank you for your clear explanations.
It’s too much work going from uninformed to informed, so most people detour through being misinformed
Problem is, what now,... some suggestions for Euro 7 are completly crazy, EV cars my end up as failture.
There is also one more bad thing about pushing automotive industry too hard,... smal cars - completly vanished from market, and SUV become thing. Why? Extra 3-10k€ expanses are easier hiden in car which cost 25k than the ones which cost 8-10k and whit cars became bigger, they need more energy, ergo more fuel,...
@@marianmarkovic5881 As opposed to pushing people to buy new or electric cars, the focus should be on improving urban planning so that people don't need a car or don't need to use their car as often. Far too many things are set up to be car-friendly, with the US being one of the worst offenders Another example is the amount of people commuting long distances for work. I'm an example: my job may only be 26 km away, but by train it takes a whooping 40-50 min for the journey, depending on the time of day. Add the fact that it's with the Deutsche Bahn (the worst rail company in Europe), and you can see how much time is wasted simply on commuting. I can do the same trip by car in 30 min (traffic-dependent), or 55 min by bicycle. I try to cycle to work as often as I can, but I'm only human...
Better urban planning would make the most sense, but no one would make money from such a sensible policy.
@@rallymaniac92 there is another prolem,.. prices of Flats(in many cities) skyrocketed so hard, that for many is only option buying(or renting) house in rural region, which also mean need of car(more likely 2-3 cars) .
@@marianmarkovic5881 You're right, and a big problem is the lack of social or affordable housing. The prices are obscene for any new development...
Hi Sabine, Thanks for the excellent talk. As a former owner of a VW GOLF diesel I can highly recommend it s a car for you. While I was still driving I found driving a diesel had another subtle, but very definite advantage. If there was a run on gasoline at the Dallas gas stations, with lines around the block because of a severe storm in Galvaston, I could wait until the gas station gasoline tanks were dry; the lines of cars were gone, and then I could drive up to a diesel pump and always find diesel fuel for my car. I also like the performance of the GOLF diesel, I called it a reincarnation of my 356B PORSCHE. Ciao
What a very sensible, intelligent and informed lady. So diesels aren't bogey men after all! Who would have thought?
In Europe thats inverted, most cars are diesel. Although small petrol engines have become more popular over the last few years after some significant engineering upgrades
Yeah you can’t argue with the anti
Internal combustion engine crowd. As soon as the tax breaks, and the new in thing wears off. When the science actually shows the truth that ev cars are horrible for the environment and the planet, I’m gonna be standing there going “told ya so”!!! 😂😂🤣🤣
@@davidlawrenson2103 old diesel engines pre 2010 are still very bad.
Just look at the data
One thing she did not mention that Gas gets wasted twice as quicker than diesel therefore you make more pollution with gas Diesel's more efficient has lower RP m's of the gasoline engine . My vw golf tdi is 1.9 And going down a highway a 120 km I'm sitting at 200 rpm
The same vehicle that would be gasoline would be a 2 l And going down a highway SIM speed it's going on 2000 RPM, Gasoline vehicle has 60 l to a tank And you only get 6 to 700 km on a highway My TDI has the same 60 l tank and I get 1200 km to a tank so now how is it more pollution
VW was just caught doing this, all the manufacturers actually did do this, just that they were not found out doing this, and VW was the only one who admitted publically to doing this. You make a very specific test to determine emissions, of course the car manufacturers will make a setting that will satisfy this, exact totally unlikely to achieve, setting.
those diesel vw were unsold and stashed somewhere. it most likely is going to be crushed. which makes no sense
Seriously, that Diesel gate was blown out of proportion like few else. First, the software interfered only at about and over 130 Km/h. Means, not noteworthy in any country but Germany, because of speed limits. The US used it as pay back against the EU, because they penalized US companies before. Only 3 % of any VW car that was sold in the US was a Diesel. And they had to pay what in fines 16 billion? Toyota was charged 3 bill. for proven and self-induced deaths of more than 100 people, because of faulty car mats. The US did that to VW, because they know, VW is 25 % in government hands. They would never have done it with say BMW, because they are in family hands and can practically do whatever they want and also produce where they want it. Everyone acts like VW filled their cars with heavy oil and every green and other earth savers jumped on that bandwagon to use it for their own agendas.
@@rocketsmall4547 it makes total sense. It's called recycling. Recycling things in a vehicle into new vehicles is much easier on our limited resources than letting them sit and rust away. Dunno what your issue is with it.
@@0Turbox so... multinational corporations that deliberately break regulations by finding ways to hide their actual output of what's being regulated... shouldn't get punished. Riiiiiight.
It's clear your stance on things is colored by far-right media sources, rather than things like reality and facts, simply by what you call people that have a teensy bit of respect for the planet and what's living on it with us. Such a sad, pathetic thing to see, a real wanker acting like corporations really are people, too, and those "people" should be able to break the law and get away with it.
@@MaryAnnNytowl energy time money to build car. cant pass emissions or something. crush it to do it again. how is that environmentaly friendly. do u know big trucks are exampt from emissions? the bigger they are the less emissions stander. actually is none. but small car. oh no cant no sell
No-one can tell you what car you 'should' buy; but I can say that I bought a used Gen-2 Toyota Prius - best car I've ever owned; and that hybrid system really does work..
Good review. One thing in that matters a lot in cities is air flows. Where the air flow rotates particulates separate out and concentrate. Also buildings create "canyons" that have the effect of concentrating pollution. Averages may suggest the air quality is OK but many locations will have poor air quality.
I remember when I worked in central London around 1988, walking at ground level below Euston Tower (by Warren St tube station) when it was windy practically blew you off your feet! On one occasion the Prudential building opposite actually had some windows blown out by the wind causing a vacuum as it blowed down the Euston Road (leading to St Pancras and Kings Cross stations.) Now that's what I call air flow!
@@edward_grabczewski I remember in early 90-s in central London air was deadly to breathe. 1/2 in an open cafe near busy troughfare was given headache even to young me. It is amazing how cleaner the air is now in the most western cities.
Thank you for this great video! A point I was missing is the contribution of small two-stroke engines, like in motorized rollers. While their emissions are terribly high, cities have a hard time banning them because they are mainly used by people with low-income and alternatives are significantly more expensive.
Damn man, I've a 2 stroke engine Vespa and it makes me feel bad that it makes a lot of pollution.
@@m1225753 I have a battery-electric maxi-size scooter (100+ kph speed) that was made primarily with Chinese components (including the lithium batteries) by a now long out of business startup company in the USA. Why such forms of transportation never caught on is inexplicable.
@@m1225753 don't feel too bad. The NOx levels are really low (low combustion temperatures). The particulates that you can see are mostly large oil droplets that fall out in minutes.
@@franklittle8124 Vectrix?
BMW has just released their own electric maxiscooter.
@@gasdive No, It was called the "Current Motor Company" - they started up about the same time as the Vectrix. Besides the problems with selling the idea of 2 wheel transportation for day to day use in the USA, they, like Vectrix, rolled out a premature product full of design defects - and no access to service.
This is very similar to Mercedes Benz and their 2013-2016 Smart ED. If the owner allowed the 12volt battery to go flat during storage or by leaving a light on, the $20,000 traction battery would self-destruct, rendering the car a total loss. Most Smart ED's ended up in the junkyard over a period of just 4 years that way. Mercedes-Benz never acknowledged this problem. Sabine is right. German businesses can be as unscrupulous as Chinese ones.
I'm driving Citroen C3 with a BlueHDI diesel engine from 2019. Fantastic engine and most likely the cleanest diesel engine you can get your hands on right now. Teknologisk Institute in Denmark made a test over under real driving conditions showing that it(BlueHDI) was much cleaner than the petrol version in terms of particles. 30% less particles compared to the air in Aarhus and 47 times less than an equivalent petrol(PureTech) engine. PDF and Adblue really work wonders.
Sabine I would love for you to do an in depth analysis for forest fire, greenhouse gases and pollutants. This is especially a problem in the western US. It is a much much bigger problem and one that can easily be eliminated. There are a few (very few) rapid response aircraft that have shown to be extremely effective, yet they are often not allowed to put out fires early, or at all in National forests, due to bureaucracy and turf power struggles.
Amen. This smoke lingers and makes life miserable over huge areas. It's not mismanaging forests though. It's global warming. Lol. Our climate goes in cycles. No fear involved in the truth of that though.
Controlling fires by putting out early doesn't work in the long term, because a by-product of doing that is to increase the amount of fuel that will be available the next time there's a fire.
So the more often you're successful, the more difficult it is to keep that up, and when it becomes too difficult the fire ends up much worse than frequent smaller fires.
You rapidly reach the point where the thermal power output per unit area of forest fire exceeds any feasible payload of airlifted water.
Also relevant is a study done into the effects of Chemtrails dropping flamable stuff over forrests. Funny thatthis issue seems to have disapeared from the media since Covid.
@@itchyvet What is the evidence for that happening?
@@jhhggygghchdlfyggxzgdltfugc correct. The current policy here in Oz is to generally let fires burn whee ever possible, and at the same time protect assets. Many species of fauna here require fire to germinate.
Sabine,
in your video you asked for advice about what to do about your car conundrum. Our solution was a Chevy Volt, which can still be had in a low mileage used version. My better half uses it as her daily commuter, 16 miles round trip. we fuel the car once or twice a year for a road trip of 60 miles or more, otherwise we use Zero gas.
So as my license plate frame says " Gas? What GAS? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING GAS!"
R U that ignorant. Chevy is not sold in Europe.
@@brianjonker510 I have bought and sold many items across the pond including cars.
I work on commercial trucks in southern california, and the diesel aftertreatment systems on these vehicles are problematic to say the least. Getting the catalyst, the filter and the def injection working properly is not always reliable. Very complex sensors and computer programming has to work correct or the engine goes into "derate" where the truck can only be limped along on idle. You can imagine what it's like to have a loaded truck hundreds of miles from home and all it will do is idle. I would be very suspicious of buying a diesel car. Has anyone done the math on how much pollution building a new car creates, versus just buying a 15 year old car and driving it 100k miles?
I don't remember where I read it. But I did read that new cars are surprisingly good at combating pollutants, even after factoring the manufacturing cost of creating the new car itself, to the point that if environmental reasons were taken into account, there's no reason to drive an old car.
@@tiga2001 of course that is what Manufacturers want you to believe ...
@@Keineahnung4015 do your own research from independent sources.
@@tiga2001 You've already fooled yourself with "there's no reason to drive an old car" the fact it undermines the ecological argument in the first place by suggesting manufacturing an entire new vehicle can somehow be reasonably offset by lower emissions, newer cars have costlier components for the user in several areas. And it is harder and harder to actually come by new cars, well any cars, in our dying economy.
@@voidofspaceandtime4684 instead of relying on intuition (driving an old car is better for environment), we should be look at data (lifecycle analysis of a car over 10 years) to determine if either direction is better for the environment. From an economic perspective, if environmentally-friendly cars are too expensive, that's the government and the people who vote them into power's responsibility to make sure that they're affordable.
My previous car was diesel, but I used Biodiesel which was (at the time) understood to generate less NOx and particulates. I'd love to hear your take on the effect of Biodiesel. I've since moved to a used plug-in hybrid, which allows me to commute on the battery most of the time, but also have the range of the gasoline engine when I need it.
is the extra cost weight and maintenance over "just" a petrol engine worth it in your opinion? To me hybrids seem decent enough but still kind of a worst of both worlds.
@@Goriaas actually, well-engineered hybrids (ie: most hybrids on the market) offer the best of both worlds, not the worst. The electric drivetrain requires virtually no maintenance, and the combustion engine requires less maintenance than normal because it is usually off. Plug-in hybrids have engines tuned to stay off for long periods of time without damage.
As for the transmission, a lot of hybrids use e-cvts which have only a handful of parts and will last forever.
Of course, occasional repairs are needed on hybrids, and the number of mechanics who are qualified to work on hybrids & EVs is low. But this number is rising with the rise of popularity of EVs.
TBH, NOx is not a product of the fuel, just the air being heated in the engine which is 70% Nitrogen. Diesel uses more air than gasoline so the NOx emissions are higher.
@@TheGalifrey That's incorrect. Diesel produces more NOx due to the higher compression ratios.
@@frequentlycynical642 And it has the higher compression ratios because it has more air in relation to combustion volume. What did you think it was compressing?
Really helpful information on particulates and changes to Diesel technology. One thing you didn't cover, how does the use of biodiesel change the emissions? The original diesel engine design could run on peanut oil, so we shouldn't limit our thinking to the hydrocarbon option
Nor did she mention when discussing gasoline vehicle emissions if burning 10% ethanol burns cooler) could have an impact on the comparisons made.
In germany the discussion goes about NOx.
You did not mention "AdBlue" in diesel engines, I was looking forward to find out how this works. My limited knowledge is that Urea is injected in the exhaust to reduce nitrogen. It costs about £12 for 10 liters which lasts for 10,000 to 15,000 miles. When the tank is empty the engine management system will shut the engine down.
Life hack: Urine works as well as Ad-Blue without creating carbon emissions.
Not joking.
Urea is consumed in a secondary catalyst and is combined with NOX to form molecular nitrogen and oxygen.
@@lavrentievv that will absolutely destroy most if not all SCR systems very quickly. SCR systems are designed to work within a fairly tight range of urea and deionised water. Urine does contain urea, but the concentration of which can vary wildly depending on the person and their hydration level. Furthermore urine contains a lot more than just urea and water, it contains a host of minerals and other contaminants that will destroy the sensors, injectors or even the catalyst itself. Pissing in your adblu tank is a very expensive and stupid mistake.
@@SpencerHHO Doesn't ruin anything. Can chip-tune out the sensors if something happens, but it won't
It’s £1.5/ litre at its cheapest. And 20 litres lasts about 4k miles I know because I drive 1k miles a week in a diesel.
I'd stretch the budget for a used EV. At less than half the cost to run, and very cheap servicing, the return on investment for the extra cost is only a few years. They are also great fun to drive. Still love driving our 2012 Leaf, even thought it only has a 100km range.
The problem is that electricity is so expensive.
...as long as the batteries don't die. in which case repair costs as much as the car itself.
battery degradation is the biggest cost
EV technology is changing very fast. Acquisition is prohibitive and time or place to recharge can be a nightmare. It is a good choice for specific uses (and proper pockets).
And when the vehicle gets to a few years old it will become an insurance write off as a new battery will cost mor than the car is worth
About the NOx topic - the main reason for this is lean mixtures and hot combustion. The capability came with the direct injection technology. Combined with downsized supercharged engines, the NOx is increasing with this design. This is not just true for Diesels, but also for gas engines with direct injection, lean combustion and supercharged downsized engines. Mazda for example went also for lean combustion engines, however, they were able to do so maintaining a relative cold combustion. So the NOx emission in those Mazda engines is much less, compared to most German counterparts. On the 43. motor symposium in Vienna, earlier this year, there were shown new ways of combustion, also increasing the efficiency of the thermodynamic processes way above 40%. The innovations with IC engines are far from over, so the industry will stay technology neutral. However, depending on the regulations in Europe, the development for the rest of the world might move from European Union to China.
So - buy a car that suits your needs and use cases, maybe something you have fun with. Moral / vitue signalling is the halo for the hypocrites.
Low combustion temperature = poor fuel consumption.
@@rogerphelps9939 But high temperature = a lot of NOx.
The only real solution is to make your engines turn very slow so low temperatures can still burn all the fuel. But then your engine either has to be so large it won't fit in the car or you need something to fill in the performance gap, like an electric motor. Thankfully, Toyota invented the Prius 20 years ago.
Dear Sabine. I have both diesel 2013 and petrol 2001 cars. None of them emits pollution because I have installed a very small fuel cell which only uses 0.5A 12v. When tested at an approved workshop, no contamination whatsoever was found. The fuel cell is produced in Portugal. And I paid for them myself. Claus from Denmark
What is the name of producer ? What fuel does the Cell need please ? Methanol or Buthan gas ?
As an electric car owner- I drive a 2013 Nissan Leaf which I bought used! I might suggest that you research used electric vehicles before you purchase your next car! Good luck Sabine! I greatly appreciate your TH-cam videos which I find to be very informative! Oh yes my mom's dad was born in Germany! Keep up the good work Sabine! Guten Tag!
And remember that EV have a lot less maintenance so while you might pay more on the car, you save on maintenance hopefully lower TCO.
Hi Lynda, please tell us more about your Leaf! What it cost, how the battery is going, what range you get.
Regards, Andy
@@AndrewBlucher In my research (considered buying one), they start with a 24kWh battery (160km range), and it degrades from there. Range depends heavily on speed (highway speeds can halve the range, as can extreme cold).
Leafs are not suitable for road trips due to a lack of active cooling for the battery. If it is equipped with fast charging, you apparently get 1 fast charge before overheating the battery. Early leafs may have only a 3kW L2 charger (6kW charging was part of the SV or SL model upgrade in 2013 -- 2011/2012 were all 3kW).
Even with its limited range, my used 2015 LEAF has been a great commuter car despite the loss of range due to battery degradation.
I have exactly the same decision to make this year, with similar financial constraints, so it feels like you’ve made this excellent presentation just for me☝️😊
I would suggest that the emissions on vehicles from the last 10 years or so are all quite good. (Especially the demonized VW diesels...they are actually the best diesels for emissions...ironically!) Consider that diesel emissions are lowest when the vehicle is warmed up, and it takes time to warm up. So if you only drive short distances, the diesel engine never gets warm enough to run properly. And when the diesel engine is cold, the emissions are much worse than when the engine is warm. So diesel is great for traveling long distance, but gas is much better for short distances.
@@fredygump5578 : so, a different “hybrid”. . . A multi-cylinder internal combustion engine. . . Start-up as a gasoline (petrol) engine, the diesel kicks in after warm up. Yeah, I’m kidding, sort of. . . Pure BEV is the future.
@@dewiz9596 If EVs are the future, then there wont be any cars in the future. They have way to many problems and considerably less efficient than ICEVs in most aspects. Only reason they are being pushed on so heavily is hype and absolutely insane governmental subsidies(same with all of this "renewable" nonsense).
Citroën Ami? Seems like a cheap solution for a European city dweller.
The factors I would think about for choosing diesel or gasoline engines would be the price and availability of the fuels. Where I live, there are more fuel stations that sell gasoline and a few that sell both. The price of fuel is harder to gauge due to external events that make one or the other type of fuel more expensive. Another factor to consider is the fuel efficiency, diesel engines are more efficient and get better performance although with problems as described in the video. There are other alternatives like propane gas, liquified natural gas and even hydrogen gas.; these alternatives are more scarce and the engine problems are more difficult to repair by most service stations. Electric is another alternative but the electricity may be generated by fossil fuels.
Sabine, I bought a lightly used 2014 VW Jetta Sportwagen about 3 years ago, after US courts approved a fix for the emissions system and allowed dealers to start selling used ones again. It has been an excellent car for me so far - great mileage and very smooth performance. I’m also impressed w/ the emissions system as well - there seems to be no discernible smoke, soot, odors, or etc. You can even run a finger in the tailpipe, and it comes out completely clean - !?! Almost hard to believe it’s actually diesel engine sometimes. So anyway that’s a model you might want to consider, if you’re still shopping for a new(er) car... :-)
VW never did anything that was actually bad, it was a framing issue. Sabine compares it to a tweak the dodgy mechanic did "just for the test" but in reality if VW hadn't complied with the conditions of the test they wouldn't have passed, not because their engine is any worse than any others, but because the parameters of the test were so specific. Specific RPM ramps had to be performed - electronically controlled - by the testing centre. It wasn't so much a "secret testing mode" as "the mandatory legally enforced testing mode". The entire thing was the realisation by German university students that passing the legally enforced test and driving on the road weren't the same thing (shocker) and because the American government can't be wrong it must be VW's fault! Many more American car manufacturers were doing this, many with far worse performance on the motorway. It was all driven by the media, not by real outrage at real/noticeable pollution increases. After all, all newer generations performed better than older models.
It's not the diesel engine that runs clean, the the myriad of filters AFTER the engine that clean up the particulates. Keep those clean and maintained andbthe car should run well
@@joebloggs9941 yes, kind of - but dont make the mistake many people are making, confusing compression ignition engine with diesel. Diesel engines (compression ignition engines) dont have to run on diesel. Diesel is just the only fuel you can buy at the pump. They also can run on vegetable and waste oil, where they burn much cleaner, and propane can be added through a seperate fueling system with diesel (or bio diesel) and the burning of the long chains with the short chain gases reduces pollution to zero. 99.9% of a pure diesel engine's pollution (not co2, cancer particles) is generated while the engine is warming up. So these dual-fuel engines mitigate basically all the problems.
Pretty much all military aircraft, equipment and vehicles run on JP5, which is essentially diesel with no emission controls.
Figures.. military is disgustingly wasteful
Modern diesels have come a long way but all of them suffer from egr blockage unless cleaned regularly. I used to be a long-time diesel engine user preferring either mold Mercedes or Toyota engines for my vehicles, but I now use Toyota gasoline vehicles. Good presentation as usual Sabine.
Not true, but if they do, it is detected by the engine management system, which gives a warning. I have driven diesels (always VW Audi group) and never had this happen in over 400,000 miles.
th-cam.com/video/ehpEIj8yBPY/w-d-xo.html
You can avoid egr blockage by driving the car on high RPMs from time to time
@@nedkogenov5530 Italian tune ups worked well on older IDIs but not on modern diesels and they need physical clean ups. I have lived with that so thats been my experience, thats why I now drive the 1GRFE gas V6
If you don't drive properly then the egr will be sooted up.
If you have a hill nearby then you can get the revs up to 4thousand and hold it all the way up to the top. This will burn off the soot.
I am talking about a manual gearbox
Sabine, if you can't afford a new electric car I would suggest a small second hand hybrid. These cars use less fuel so all engine pollutants are reduced. When you take your foot off the accelerator to slow down and when you drive down a hill the electric motor switches to generator mode converting the car's kinetic energy into electricity to recharge the battery. This has two benefits: (1) reducing fuel use by using the added battery power and (2) reducing the wear on the brakes so fewer particles are emitted into the air by the brakes and they also last longer. Good luck with your new/not new car! Best wishes from Australia.
I generally agree on a hybrid. And if it is a plug-in hybrid and you have a place to plug it in when at home, you may find you use little or no gas. I have a friend who has this and uses so little fuel that they are concerned that the gasoline in the tank may go stale.
Hybrids are OK new second hand has to much parts that will go bad and brake your wallet. After all its electric + combucion car + things that glue electric and combucion. Great when new not so much when falling apart.
Second hand hybrid might have a dud battery and that could cost as much as one extra second hand car.
@@zlac Good point. It would be wise to get the battery tested before purchasing.
If you can find one, I would recommend getting a hybrid. This would give you the fuel economy of a diesel without the worry about emissions. (Gas engine passive catalytic converters are a much more mature, simple, and reliable technology than the newer and more complicated diesel particulate removal filters and Diesel Exhaust Fluid required for diesel vehicles)
It's typically more expensive, no?
We have a 16yo Prius hybrid. Reliable, and comfortable and cheap. If we could afford an ev then I'd have one, but running an older car also reduces average embodied co2, so I'll stick with what we have.
@@AkamiChannel hybrids are slightly more to not at all more expensive than ICE versions of the same thing.
If you're already sinking $30k into a new car, spending another $2k for a hybrid is just smart.
And the used prices are pretty much the same for hybrid vs non-hybrid
Yeah, about that. Take your typical hybrid - Hertz offers "Suzuki S-Ace" for example. Compare that to a smaller non-hybrid - say a Toyota Yaris or a Ford Fiesta Eco. For the average trip, the hybrid burns ~ 50% more than the small "eco" car. More severe if you make long trips on the autobahn. There is no simple answer, especially without knowing Sabine's driving habits and family requirements.
The added complexity makes them far more expensive to repair.
this is what you should do: if it's giong to be a second hand car -> petrol/gasoline is the way to go (maybe install LPG to drive cheaper if you do lots of KM). If you are going to buy a brand new car, then it could be an option to get a diesel, it depends a bit on how many Kilometers you drive per year. If it's like 20K or less, go for gas/petrol if it's more than 20K KM/year, then you could consider a diesel, OR you could still go for gasoline/petrol and install that LPG tank, giving you a cleaner exhaust and very low particulates and is so far still a cheap solution to drive. Though I have to add the remark that LPG also has a few downsides; it's potency is not as high as gasoline/petrol, so you lose a few HP while using it (but can always switch to the other fuel if you need those HP's), and second downside is that you'll be banned from a lot of underground parking garages because they fear your tank might leak LPG which will turn that underground parking in a open-air-bomb which can ignite the moment somebody walks in with a cigarette, turns the lights on or create any little spark from static electricity or car-ignition... (it's sad that bad-maintained cars caused this and the people that do maintain their cars properly are also the victim of this)
Great video Sabine. Im from South Chile and I can confirm that almost everybody uses firewood for heating and some algo for cooking.
Diesel is much more efficient and gives a very good range. With particulate filter and DEF the exhaust gasses should be much cleaner than older engines. This is a big subject and your video covers much in great detail.
Modern diesel filters are so good they "scrub the air" i.e. the air comes back cleaner at all particle sizes than what came in through the engine's intake. This technology is also possible in gasoline cars they aren't politically pressured to do so just yet, beyond being "EURO 6". Subaru stopped selling diesels AFTER making a EURO 6 because they could see what was going on - the EU wants to stop selling diesels, even if they can be made clean. Why? Because hybrids are actually the best cars. Engines only operate at max efficiency at near-max rpm and load. Electric wheels are the best wheels, even if your engine is a diesel-electric. But batteries that need constant external servicing/recharging are better than diesels that can burn biofuel, i.e. olive oil, which many VWs can. We were about to head into a "grow your own fuel and travel for thousands of km" utopia but instead we're going into managed electric "fuel points" and "software upgrades" the absolute state
@@John-rw9bv Petrol engines have moved ahead though. I have a automatic 3 cylinder 1 litre turbo Skoda Kamiq and I am getting 50 mpg on any 15 mile or more journey which matches some hybrids. I have plenty of power also which surprised me. The problem with these diesel particulate filters is they need a good fast run to clean out and many urban drivers just cannot do this. If you look up information on these particulate filters they can be a bit of a handful to maintain. Petrol cars still give good value in cost price and seem the least bothersome to fuel and maintain. My car just has an oil change every year and a 5 minute stop to completely refuel for the next 500+ miles so it is little bother to run. Eco technology is not really here yet and is clumsy and expensive. I am not against electric cars and would sort of like one really but charging points are not exactly numerous and a big switch to electric would overwhelm the infrastructure and the cars at a premium.
@@michaeld5888 The Kamiq is a nice SUV, i've often though about getting one since it's big and fuel efficient for it's size. But we can't act like a 1.3Mg (Megagram) car with a 100-140hp 1L-1.5L engine and a 6 speed manual is the future (BTW the automatic DSG does much worse than the manual Kamiq, real-world suggests 38mpg opposed to 50mpg), that's a big car with a small engine driven by conservative adults rowing through possibly 6 gears, there's a lot of trade offs. But alternative fuels have no tradeoffs. If you LPG converted your car, you'd probably get 60mpg, you'd pay less for fuel, get a small HP increase, and your car would last longer as the fuel is cleaner. Conversion would cost 3000-5000€. Propane (LPG) puts out barely any particulate matter whatsoever. LPG can even be added to diesels, as a modification or as part of the initial engine operating design. It's been here for ever, it's cheap and reliable, but the only reason yourself and many others think it's expensive and unreliable is manufacturers don't want you running on alternative fuels, period. But particularly not fuels you produced yourself over the weekend.
@@John-rw9bv It has 7 gears. Actually I pull away at traffic lights from most cars without even trying as there is no gear change time. The gear is ready on the other shaft in an instant. I suspect they slam the manuals through the gears in the road tests and they are not the real world. I wonder how long a manual gear box in the hands of your average driver would last if driven in a test drivers 0-60 racing changes drag. A freebie car handed back after a week of possible abuse is not a real world scenario. The DSG is clutch driven and not an old oil driven box which did sap power and performance. I suspect the profiling of gear change optimisation in standard drive mode is a lot more efficient than the average driver can manage. Where do you think the inefficiency is in a DSG box which is just an automated manual clutch system with no change lag as you have 2 friction clutched boxes which can be manually shifted?
LPG is being phased out anyhow in the UK and that is the problem as technology gets obsoleted so rapidly and todays total solution to all our problems is tomorrows damp squib. Of course in 5 years time LPG may be all the rage again. The eco advocates do tend to talk about these large capital outlays with long often indeterminate return periods with transient technology as something trivial and often ignored.
@@michaeld5888 Every time i post my comment gets garbled up :/
I'll keep it short this time - manuals can shift into neutral and can stay in gears optimised for Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) not torque, which is what the driver usually fees as power. In other words the automatic has to make a compromise between performance or efficiency, but the kind of person who cares about fuel consumption can easily beat it by driving differently/efficiently. They can also beat it in performance by shifting earlier. I recommend googling "hypermiling" and "pulse and glide", which can even be combined with "Engine Off Coasting" EOC, two techniques manuals can safely do to get better mpg under certain conditions. Automatics can have lots of computer wizardy to help, but a driver knows if they are about to speed up or slow down, at least with reasonable probabilities, and so if they drive in accordance with this, they can do better than the computer. The actual mechanical losses between the two are pretty negligible. Dual-clutches are amazing and I think if you have a way to manually shift in your car, even into neutral, you could do some amount of hypermiling to get the car back up to 50mpg. You should get into logging it because your car is new, less than 100,000 sold world wide, and if it's the kind that can shut down cylinders that could be really good/interesting. But even looking through the stats that people have put up, it's
Personally I would start at looking for second hand Evs (Not that it expect to find one within budget, but we can always hope), and then second hand hybrid engines. In terms of petrol vs diesel, I think it matters more how well they run than what fuel they use at this point.
But then, my plan for buying my next car is winning the lottery, without buying a ticket, so I haven't given it much thought.
Wow, what a surprise! Thats my plan, too!
Me too, or, at least the "win the lottery without buying a ticket" part. It's a lot cheaper and the odds aren't that much worse.
Or maybe I can calculate how much money I've saved by not buying lottery tickets and use that to buy a car.
@@2ndfloorsongs Good plan!
Second hand EVs are often pretty cheap. If live somewhere where you can charge it and you can deal with the limited miles from an older battery this can be a good solution.
Second hand EVs are cheap due to limited range batteries that may already be highly degraded. My used Nissan LEAF was only a quarter of its price when new due to having lost a quarter of its original battery capacity. Knowing you can live with the reduced range and the expected future degradation is key to the decision to purchase.
Hi I am now on my second electric car and this has 400k range (it’s a Renault Megane e tech) Range is not an issue for us any more. We live outside Brighton so a big mix of open road and city driving
I've been driving diesels for many years now. When I got my current one, I chose to lease it for three years with a plan to get an electric car at the end of my lease. I have since retired, but at the time my daily commute was 120km. You lived in Canada, so you know what Canadian winters are like and what impact they can have on an EVs range, nonetheless at end of my lease there were several cars that would have met my requirements, but here's the thing: my diesel SUV did not use enough fuel or require enough maintenance for an EV to make sense. Both my province (Québec) and federal governments offer generous subsidies on EVs, a combined total over $13k. Additionally, electricity in Québec is both cheap and clean. Nonetheless, when I calculated the total cost of ownership (ie. vehicle cost, fuel, maintenance, insurance) it was no contest: it was just a lot cheaper to buy off my lease. Bonus, though my car (Mercedes GLK250) is now 8 years old, Mercedes has just replaced the entirety of the emissions control components free of charge.
Not to be "that guy" but the emissions control component was probably a tweak to the EGR and you probably now want to go ahead and delete that to save your engine from eventually filling up with soot.
@@John-rw9bv If you were "that guy" you'd be wrong. They literally changed every last component of the emissions control. Several thousands dollars worth of parts. They had to; it's part of a class action lawsuit settlement here in Canada.
You should have considered the CO2 emissions from your continued use of an ICE car rather than being selfish.
@@rogerphelps9939 Being retired I no longer drive much. How long would I have to keep a putative EV before the environmental impact of its manufacturing would be offset by its cleanliness of use and would continuing to drive my ICE ever produce as much impact as manufacturing a new car, EV or ICE, for me ?
Edit: CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned. In that department my GLK is exemplary. It is one of the very few vehicles that actually gets better mileage than either Transport Canada and the EPA claim. It's a mid-size AWD SUV that sips fuel, and therefore generates CO2 emissions, at the same rate as a good economy car.
@@rogerphelps9939 Who cares,it's a bloody scam anyway....I don't swallow the WEF narrative ...
Weirdly enough, I was building some PM2.5/PM10 sensor units today!
Data goes to 2 open source projects - OpenSenseMap & Luftdaten (both started in Germany, but are global projects).
Given I was soldering things, the irony of generating PM to create things to detect/log PM wasn’t lost on me, particularly when I logged the baselines with/without proper ventilation of the solder fumes (use proper ventilation/filtration kids!)
Yep, I understand the problem. Have done a fair bit of soldering in my life (though not as much as my dad, whose career was based around it, and hobby was, too, LOL!), as well as welding of many kinds (even plastic welding, too), so I can understand needing ventilation. I also spent multiple decades painting (automotive paint with air paint cups/pots), so I can understand filtering out particulates, too!
Great work, thank you for your effort. There is one piece of critical information about motors I want to add. As far as I know these fine particulate emissions are for the most part a problem with direct injection systems. The joke here is, that my 1992 car with a naturally aspirated motor and catalytic converter only produces 5ppm of particulates (tested) while a modern direct injection model (diesel or gasoline) will easily produce 10000ppm of particulates or more (unfiltered). Automobile companies traded better fuel efficiency for the higher particle emissions to comply with stricter emission standards put into place over the years (these standards did not include particle emissions until recently). As there are other ways of making a car more fuel efficient (direct injection lowers fuel consumption only around 5%), we should probably step away from direct injection yet again. Fun fact is, that historically this has been one of the reasons why direct injection never made it into production vehicles for such a long time as it was not only unreliable and put a lot of strain on the motor, but has always been horribly dirty, due to the imcomplete burning of the fuel.
Wow, I've heard none of that! You sound like you know what you are talking about. Direct injection has a hell of a lot of problems for sure. I wonder why particulates increased so much with DI? Poorer mixture mixing compared to inlet port injection? Dunno.
@@frequentlycynical642 I´m no expert either, maybee there is someone out there who can say more about the topic? From what i understand, with port injection the fuel has time to fully vaporize before it is sucked into the cylinder. With DI you´ll have a little portion of the fuel that does not vaporize before burning what results in the higher particle emissions?
@@AB-eg3ei Sounds right to me, but then we are just guessing.
@@frequentlycynical642 wot if I run on vegetable oil
@@andrewfingerjammer3358 you can't run a petrol engine on vegetable oil, but I'd sure like to watch you try
FYI: the fuel is not "exploded" in a gasoline engine. It burns. An explosion causes damage to the engine, called pre-ignition.
So about getting a new car…
You kind of danced around the real problem: when is it more environmentally friendly to get a new car (whether fuel, electric or hybrid) vs. getting a used car with worse emissions. Producing new cars is expensive and has a lot of impact, but older cars pollute more. Where’s the tipping point?
It just takes time, older cars break down more and will then be replaced with newer cars. There is always someone buying a new car and passing it on to the next.
The answer depends on you location and main use cases of the car. In the Netherlands, you could get by renting a car for some occasional trips for which you really need a car.
Unless you're like me, and live in a rural area, and have to drive both short-ish but still long distances (7 - 25 miles, 11¼ - 40¼ km) and actual long distances (80 - 175 miles, 129 - 281½ km) during a month. So... yeah. Rental would be prohibitively expensive for me.
I love how you breakdown the issue from different angles.
Things to take in consideration:
1. Do you really need a car?
2. How much and where do you commute? Long drive/short drive? City or rural?
3. What is your budget. Electric if you can, then hybrid, small petrol engine car (cf 2 for the appropriate choice.and consider secondhand.
One thing with the diesel particulate filters is that you need to regularly do some uninterupted high speed drivrng in order for them to enter the reburn cycle. If you don't the filter will clog. So if you live in the city and rarely drive on the freeway diesel is not a good idea.
They are not, as Sabine claims, by any means ' cheap'.
Even when driven for big distances they cause a lot of problems.Rural people in Australia absolutely hate them with good reason.
Just checked, my AQI is 2.
is the car velocity a requirement? if it need high heat can't people just rev up the engine in Neutral gear?
@@xponen Active afterburning of the particulate filter does not require the car to be moving, but of course an engine running under load while afterburn is the best option.
regen happens at 50mph
you are wrong
I am amazed at how easily people with little knowledge like to spread false rumors. Why can't you be just a bit more humble...like "I think that....". FYI, each of your three sentences is wrong, at least with modern engines.
I'm glad you touch on the dangers of these smaller particles.
What type of car to get will depend on several factors. Diesel engines can have problems with their fuel waxing if left out in cold temperatures for a long period of time. The solutions to that problem would be either getting an engine block heater with a suitably long extension cord so you could leave it plugged into an outlet when the vehicle was not being used. Keeping the vehicle in a heated garage where the temperature was maintained above 0C would be another solution. Gas engines do not have that problem.
The bigger factors may be the price and availability of the various fuels where you live as well as how many miles per gallon (kilometers per liter?) the vehicle gets. If the diesel in question is efficient enough the higher cost of that fuel may not be that much of an issue.
Another consideration is that diesel engines have a reputation for lasting longer in use than gasoline engines. Because diesel engines operate using higher compression pressures than gasoline engines the diesel engines are built more robustly and thus tend to have a longer service life. However, diesel engines also require that you strictly adhere to the guidelines regarding getting their oil changed at the proper intervals.
Hope that helped.
In that case, you also have to add in the cost and source of that electricity in the total particulates the vehicle creates. Not everyone has access to clean energy; many of us are still stuck using nasty coal. 😒
It doesn't get that cold in Germany ... she might need to drive to Sweden or Siberia in winter to experience that problem.
Gas engines? She said she couldn't afford a car, so she's certainly not going to get a jet!
There are additives for diesel to keep it from gelling. I've had a diesel truck (Ford F-250 Superduty) for many years and only once did that happen. I forgot to add the additive. I waited a couple of days for warmer weather, changed the fuel filters and it was back to normal.
Never getting rid of my 03 Jetta ALH! Bone stock getting 45mpgs. Can't beat it. Especially with how screwed we are all getting with fuel prices!
We bought a diesel powered tractor last year. It does not have any particulate filtering. I’m happy about this as it’s something less that can go wrong.
Doesn't need a filter on the country side. The diesel pollutants are mainly a problem in a dense city with huge amount of car traffic.
With you or with the tractor? Farmers are counterintuitively not a very heathy subgroup
@@madeinengland1212 with the tractor. Over two years it has been in operation for 50 hours. So both its effect on the environment and my own health is minimal. Its a fairly clean running modern machine that doesn't put out clouds of diesel smoke.
In regards to farmers being less healthy than average is it due to them driving dirty diesel tractors? I think one of the main reasons farmers are an unhealthy group is farmers are generally fairly old. In the country I live the average age of farmers is around 56 and it is going up. The average age of a worker is 39. So that in itself will account for poorer health outcomes for farmers.
Just a correction - in the Lancet Oncology paper (quoting the 18% increase in lung ca with PM2.5) the 95% confidence interval does NOT support this conclusion. As it crosses 1, there is no association between PM2.5 exposure and odds of developing lung ca (unlike PM10). Otherwise, great video as usual!
If you don't need to drive too far daily, get a second hand Nissan Leaf (2013-2017) - cheap, reliable electric car and they drive really well too.
Doesn't this model have an issue of low battery lifespan since it doesn't have a cooling mechanism for the battery?
@@vr5076 There are plenty of them around in the UK still - mine is a 2013 model and still has 11 out of the 12 bars of battery life.
In my opinion , if you have a garage or a easy access to a plug in and do not drive more that the range and can afford it an ev around town and short drives could work . If you drive long distances with heavy loads Diesel , just remember almost every Diesel built after 2010? has a lot of VERY EXPENSIVE exhaust equipment that costs in some cases $10,000 per YEAR or less to maintain , if you are stuck with deft and it freezes there goes many $ if you can find and pay for the parts . So for most people I think Gas or Hybred . Thank You . As we all know Everybody must make there OWN choices and MAINTAIN them
You can mount Diesel-LPG system (I have one in my car), this will make it cleaner than any gasoline car. This is perfect match:) Exhaust gases are much cleaner, driving is cheaper (car is using 50:50 mixture of diesel and LPG), and engine is about 30% stronger.
Where do you fuel up a rig like that??
@@decibel333 In Europe on regular gas stations. LPG - Liquefied Petroleum Gas (basically propane-butane mixture with additional taxes). This system need to be mounted in the car by certified workshop and officially registered.
How does the propane not boil right out of the tank?
liquid can only hold so much gas in solution and the pressure as the volatiles come off would get rediculous and filling up a bit like opening a pressure cooker.
@@mykeprior3436 maybe just, oh, I don't know, look up how it works before you declare that it can't work... just a suggestion. 🙄
@@mykeprior3436 You are not putting LPG to regular tank, there is special second pressurized tank (usually mounted in the spear tire place). In the system you have also e.g. special heater to safely heat up LPG to normal temperature (expanding gas is cooling down), pressure regulator, gas injectors, and computer which is measuring state of the engine and regulating proper amount of LPG. That's why you are not mounting it yourself.
The UK government once said "Buy a diesel,save the planet"! I did,still driving it until they refund the full price I paid,until then couldn't give a ...........!!!
I heard that half of a car's life time emissions come from its production, so to my layman ears it sounds like buying a used car is more environmentally friendly than buying a new one almost regardless of the car.
also, maintaining a car to stay in optimum condition (eg regular oil/consummable changes, tyre pressure) means it runs better for a longer time. efficient driving also reduces wear and tear as well as fuel consumption (and hence pollution).
And there fore electric cars are NOT 0 emission.......
And they are running on 85% fossil fuels and nuclear still.
The electric car is a complete fraud, because mining and manufacturing the batteries produce even more emissions then burning patrol or diesel in a regular car or truck.
However there is a niche market for them in cities in short range driving.
I lived in a major city from age 6 to age 38 and suffered badly with asthma from age 15 years, at age 38 I moved to the countryside and my asthma went away for good, I have driven diesels ever since I passed my driving test in my 20s and my asthma has not returned.
Hey Sabine, great episode!
About the car - what's your budget and how much do you drive per year?
Based on the last few years, I'd not base anything on what the WHO puts out... or any other UN organization, actually.
Here in Canada, we recently did away with the emission tests for vehicles. At least in Ontario.
There was a well known trick that the mechanics would tell you about (because if they failed your vehicle it is they who got your ire, not the provincial government)
In essence, when you arrived for your test they told you to drive on the highway for 20 minutes first, (or they did it for you) and then immediately tested the vehicle while it was warmed up. Because it was an older model, they also did some cardboard trick where they shoved cardboard in front of your radiator to let the heat build up.
it worked, and my old SUV always passed.
overall, it wasnt great and i always felt at least a little guilty with every pass.
You should feel guilty. It's cheating and morally wrong.
You shouldn't feal guilty fuck the eco-hippies
@@twinwankel your absolutely right, spot on 👍.
I'll feel MORE than just a little guilty when trillion dollar industries such as the shipping industry, airlines, car manufacturers and petrochemical plants and industrial agriculture companies stop making up 99.9% of the global emissions that are killing the planet.
(Or in other words when a single SUV contributing .0000000001% to the problem becomes a notable contributor.)
Heck, I'll settle for feeling more than just a little guilty once companies stop being environmentally negligent by shipping customers 5 shirts to try on at home and then they ship the other 4 back for free (aka stitch fix's model).
Until then 🤷♂️
lol just like a cardboard "justin trudeau "
Nothing to feel guilty about. ICE engines need to reach their optimal operating temperatures to run properly and running your engine at high revs for 10-20 minutes once a month is recommended anyway, in order to burn the buildup of soot in the engine. That's just how diesels work.
I have worked repairing petrol and diesel pumps for thirty four years on forecourts I am 70 .I have friends who have done the same ,one lived to 90 years of age one is 88 years and still going strong none of us have had any breathing problems. Years ago there were people saying you would get cancer if you breathed in a lot of fumes well up till now I'm ok
Thanks Sabine for such a comprehensive deep dive into the science behind the diesel debate. As for which car, I would also consider driveability and long-term reliability. On these two criteria, diesel is the answer. Assuming you are not into long road trips or hauling tons of stuff around, I'd recommend a small (1.5L -2.0L) turbo-diesel linked to a manual transmission. Seems like a VW Golf would fit the bill but then again, perhaps that would not be politically-correct. Not sure if they are available in Germany, but Hyundai produce some nice diesels.
I’m no expert in Diesel combustion but I’d be skeptical of one off comparisons of emissions between spark and compression ignition engines. My question as a combustion engineer would be at what conditions those measurements were taken? One thing I know for sure is that every Diesel car I’ve ever followed even the most modern pumps out a lot of smoke (ie particulate) when they accelerate. A lot more than any spark ignition car. It is one thing to consider steady constant load operation but rarely do cars sit at a constant load unless they are driving down a straight road with no hills and cruise control maintaining constant speed.
As far as I know, this is definitely true, and the particulate filters are supposed to catch those. A brand new diesel-powered car (or truck) will not emit any visible smoke even outside of "ideal" conditions. However, a five year old vehicle is a very different story, especially when people don't take care of those filters - and why would they, really? :)
There was a study that compared air quality in large European cities before and after diesel cars became common on the streets. For the most part, after decades of steady improvements in air quality (especially in the post-com countries), there was a marked drop - exactly because of particulates and nitrogen oxides. Non-hybrid diesels are quite a pain when they are concentrated in large cities and bad traffic.
I got a Honda Insight in 2009 when I was commuting 94 miles per day. It's a "mild hybrid," i.e. it uses "Integrated Motor Assist" to use the electric motor to add power when accelerating or going up hills, and regenerative braking. In warm months I got about 47mpg and in the winter around 42mpg. It still runs great, but the valve stems for a couple of my tires have slow leaks (they are the original units) and my tires are perpetually a bit low, so I'm only getting about 43mpg recently.
When gas goes up to $4/gal it's about $40 to fill up the tank - a big jump from the $25 to $30 it normally takes. But then I see the folks with SUVs and pickup trucks easily blowing past $80 to fill up and I try not to laugh so I don't hurt their feelings.
smart purchase. Honda Jazz, civic, and accord hybrids are similar.
@@quicknumbercrunch8691 Indeed. The only bad part about them is that it is really hard to find a good price on a used one. The first time I went looking for a used Civic or Tercel, it quickly became apparent that you might as well fork over the extra 10% for a brand new one. Fortunately they'll last a long time if you keep up on maintenance.
@@Cynthia_Cantrell Yes, best to go new when used prices are crazy high. If one can wait six months supplies might improve?????
@@Cynthia_Cantrell but a new one loses that 10% value the very moment you drive it off that lot.
@@MaryAnnNytowl That doesn't matter if you need your car to get to work every day, you keep it well maintained, and drive it until "the wheels fall off." There is a reason the small Japanese cars are called "econo-boxes." Keep them oiled up, and you will have a reliable car to drive for many, many miles at a very reasonable price.
Being a 73 year old pensionist I've purchased what presumably will be my last car and I've chosen a diesel. I live in a rural agricultural area and most of my driving is and will probably be on country roads. Particles and NOx is, according to science, negligible there and my strongest argument is that diesel engines are much more efficient and releases a lot less CO2. I can also choose synthetic diesel made from waste from food industries and the likes and this way the net CO2 footprint will be very small. Some say even smaller than EV's taking into account the pollution related to production of the cars and the electricity. Thank you for a very informative video!
@Larry Butler ..I should add that the car I now have takes around 0.5 liter per 10 km and I will probably drive about 10,000 km a year from now on. That equals approx 500 ltrs (415 kg) a year. A 737 will take about the same taxing and lining up for take off, once - roughly... maybe with a couple of meters on the runway.
I've been following you for little time. I particularly like and enjoy your way of putting all in perspective and using verifiable data. Thank you very much for your effort, and long live your chan !
More on the topic of which to chose, gasoline or diesel, the average (i.e., not rich) people have to take into account i) the fuel price, say, for 100 km and ii) the number of km one will be able to operate the car before it dies. It seems to me that on this ground only, diesel cars fare much better than gasoline ones. If I may elaborate:
i) diesel engines generally need less liters per 100 km than gasoline engines (I'd say about 30% less) and diesel costs about the same as gasoline. It is true that the difference in fuel cost decreases, with gasoline engines that are more and more frugal BUT this comes at the cost of the newest gasoline engines being less and less reliable (to put it bluntly, they either have to undergo very expensive repairs quite early during their "life" or are deemed dead)
ii) there is less wear in a diesel engine by construction, because it operates at lower RPMs, so by definition a diesel engine will last longer. This is less true as the euronorm class increases (i.e., with newer engines) but it has nothing to do with the engine being a diesel engine and everything to do with all the nonsense devices imposed by the euronorm, because as the number of parts increases so does too the probability that something will fail.
I'd be exasperated if I had to pick a newish car today, all are pretty unreliable, be they gasoline- or diesel-based. I'm happy my 2006 diesel car has an engine that is still going strong after more than 374000 km. Oh, and I also have another engine in storage, just in case. Only question is: is the car body withstand 1 million km? ;)
Engine out NOx on a petrol engine is actually usually quite a lot higher than on a diesel. But petrol engines are equipped with a three way catalyst and an engine management system that can keep the air fuel ratio ‘perfect’ for the catalyst to both oxidize hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and also reduce nitrogen oxides. I often see 1500-2500 ppm engine out NOx and 10ppm NOx post-catalyst, this is on a spark ignition engine. Diesels these days need to use urea which is then converted to ammonia and then used to reduce the NOx. Petrol engines have their own reducing agent built-in (carbon monoxide).
I was under the impression that diesels were pretty good for long journeys but useless for short, round town journeys. Their performance tapers off with stopping and starting in slow traffic flow.
Exactly backwards. Low end torque is optimal for stop and go traffic and diesels produce peak torque in the 2000rpm range. Gas engines produce peak hP and torque above 4000rpm. When’s the last time you revved your engine past 4000rpm? Means that most of the energy being used is just to spin up the engine so it can then spin the torque converter. Electric engines would be the best for stop and go high torque applications, but until then diesel is good for stop and go and freeway driving. Where a slight incline can make a gas engine have to downshift to maintain speed burning more gas and putting west and tear on components, the diesel torque just powers through at the same power input. Most important advantage to diesels, because they have to be overbuilt for high pressure, they last 350k to 400k miles before catastrophic failure. Most gas engines require major overhaul at the 200,000 mile mark.
@@Billsbob Not according to the RAC.
There is a big problem with the filtering technique in diesel engines. They only operate properly when the engine is running at nominal temperature. If it gets too hot or cold, the filters get deactivated or are inefficient. So while they look much cleaner on paper, they are anything but clean in most real world applications.