France Wants To Get Rid of Diesel Fuel 395
mrspoonsi sends this Reuters report:
France wants to gradually phase out the use of diesel fuel for private passenger transport and will put in place a system to identify the most polluting vehicles, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said on Friday. Next year, the government will launch a car identification system that will rank vehicles by the amount of pollution they emit, Valls said in a speech. This will make it possible for local authorities to limit city access for the dirtiest cars. "In France, we have long favoured the diesel engine. This was a mistake, and we will progressively undo that, intelligently and pragmatically," Valls said. About 80 percent of French motorists drive diesel-powered cars. Valls said taxation would have to orient citizens towards more ecological choices, notably the 2015 state budget measures to reduce the tax advantage of diesel fuel versus gas.
Why (Score:3, Interesting)
is diesel such a bad fuel? I thought low sulfur diesel in modern vehicles was pretty OK with great gas mileage?
Re: Why (Score:3, Informative)
Particulates
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this what DPF and DEF systems are for? DPF systems mean that there is a filter which gets clogged every so often so the diesel vehicle is in the shop for a â3000 replacement, especially if the vehicle idles often. The DEF system provides for the vehicle being in the shop for a new engine (or at least a new set of injectors and high pressure fuel pump) when a novice vehicle owner gets confused and pours the AdBlue into the fuel tank and not the piss tank. Since the diesel-engined vehicle is kep
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, every diesel vehicle I've ever had the displeasure of being near stinks terribly, and emits loud, annoying noise from the engine compartment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The cost per mile is relatively awesome, compared to a gas car.
Because if they don't manipulate the market and tax systems to eliminate diesels, electric cars will remain an expensive curiosity.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you factor in the energy required to make the battery and the typical generation of electricity using coal, a modern Diesel-powered car is on par with an electric car in terms of CO2 exhaust.
And you can get a modern one, used for something like 6000 dollars or euros.
Dont use an American Diesel though, they have a history of making shite Diesel engines. I hear Ford has proper ones recently, though.
Ram 1500 Ecodiesel (Score:2)
Check out the Ram 1500 Ecodiesel. 400ft/lbs of torque and gets almost 30mpg highway. Interior and suspension are nicer than the Ford too. Also GM is introducing a Colorado diesel in 2015 that might be worth a look.
Re: (Score:2)
The diesel Fiesta is one of the more fuel-efficient cars of any type that you can buy. Naturally, unavailable in the US, as the only company that seems to bother selling diesels for a purpose other than cargo is Volkswagen.
Seen the e-Golf? (Score:2)
Re: Seen the e-Golf? (Score:3)
These work for a regular daily commute of relatively short distance, nothing more. In the real world you need to own a second car to do anything useful after work, on weekends
Re: Seen the e-Golf? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" less with frequent starting and stopping" - probably not much less, if it has good regen braking, and they don't idle.
In 4 decades of working, I've never lived more than 20 miles from work and while I work with lots of people who live much further away, almost all of them drive but only to the train station.
Most couples and families I know have 2 or more cars anyway so if one's an EV, the long weekend drive is no problem.
Re: (Score:3)
In 2014, I have driven more than 45 miles from my origin on exactly two occasions, and one of those was in a rented long wheelbase van.
Guarantee you've passed by a VW TDI (Score:2)
Re: Why (Score:5, Informative)
And modern diesel engines emit more NO2 than they used to.
So the bottom line is: invisible smoke doesn't mean it's better.
Re: Why (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue is the particulate filters that are nowadays standards seem to be worse for your health: particles are so thin you can't see them anymore (hence no more belch smoke) but they're also so thin they can now enter your bloodstream more easily.
The issue is that there were always fine particulates, and they can't be trivially filtered out. But perhaps you missed it when we discussed here that gasoline engines produce as much soot as diesels [slashdot.org], and it is all of the exceptionally-fine kind. Now that the big stuff is being filtered out of the diesel exhaust, all we have left is a relatively small amount of that PM2.5.
Ideally we'd do away with the ICEs entirely and eliminate all that crap, get down to worrying about how to eliminate it from the tires. But what's really pathetic is that we've had the technology at least since the 1800s to solve all of these problems. It's called electrified rail. With modern levels of traffic, it is worthwhile to have people in packets smaller than train cars, however, yet with the distances which must be covered the vehicles must have their own power storage. Current battery and self-driving vehicle technology permits just this particular use case. We have every piece we need to replace cars entirely with PRT save for the will, starting in the densest city centers and moving outwards in stages related primarily to the availabilty of parking.
AHEM. Back on topic. "invisible smoke doesn't mean it's better" is exactly why diesel is better than gasoline. And yet, soot isn't even the worst emission that cars produce! It's unburned hydrocarbons, also known as raw fuel. And by their nature, diesels which are running properly run lean all the time, that's just how they operate. That means they're burning their fuel. It also means they produce more NOx, but that's why diesels now have catalysts.
Re: (Score:3)
Ideally we'd do away with the ICEs entirely and eliminate all that crap
What a hippie! Ideally, come Paving Day, I'll be cruising the Paved Earth in my Atomic Hypercar under the light of the Chromed Moon, and hippies like you will be Pit Slaves, toiling endlessly to clean the restrooms and stock the vending machines for the driving elite.
Re: Why (Score:5, Insightful)
but that's why diesels now have catalysts.
This reminds me of what I think is the most important bit - identifying the most polluting cars and getting them off the road(or at least out of the cities).
We're to the point that a California emissions car in the USA on average actually CLEANS the air. It's exhaust has fewer pollutants than what's going in. The problem is now things like older cars, lawn mowers, weed eaters and other small engines. A lawnmower running for an hour can emit more pollution in an hour than a modern car will all month.
Get rid of various exceptions if you have to, but go after the actual sources of pollution. If that's older diesels, so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - if we're serious about cleaning up our act, no crappy engines should be grandfathered.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From Euro 4, these have been met by running the engine very hot, which creates masses of oxides of Nitrogen, and then neutralising the NOx by squirting ammonia into the exhaust pipe. his works fine in a laboratory environment. Unfortunately, a truck can go from buring 20 ccs of fuel per hour to burning 2 litres a second* in two turns of the crank shaft, and there's not a bat
Re: (Score:2)
Cummins at least is dealing with particulate in the cylinder, and using after-treatment to deal with NOx. This eliminates the problem with PM2 generated by PM10 particulate filters. It is a pretty elegant solution and generally makes sense (although the DEF is a pain to need in addition to fuel.
It sounds more like a jobs program to disadvantage German cars though.
Re: (Score:2)
>modern diesel engines emit more NO2 than they used to.
While it is true that Modern Diesiel engines produce more NOx than they used to, it doesn't matter, because now they are using DEF [wikipedia.org] to remove N02 converting it to water and pure nitrogen.
> standards seem to be worse for your health
that is completly wrong especially in the US, the exhaust standards significantly restrict (like 50x reduction in the last 10 years) emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), f
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what. If the filters weren't there you would be breathing the thin particles and the large ones too.
So it ain't worse. Plus most of the particles come from sulphur, which is being eliminated from diesel.
Re: Why (Score:5, Informative)
TL;DR
For example, Rushton et al. (Rushton et al. 2012) recently estimated that occupational DEE (Diesel engine exhaust) exposure in the United Kingdom was the third most important occupational contributor to the lung cancer burden after asbestos and silica exposure.
They estimate 6% of people dying of lung cancer do die because of diesel particles...
Re: (Score:2)
Page 85, line Chronic Mortality * Premature deaths...
40000 yearly deaths based on PM
And this: http://www.researchgate.net/pu... [researchgate.net]
They estimate that every increase of 10 micrograms of particulate PM2.5 (2.5 as a 2.5 micrometer particulate) per cubic meter (g/m3) would lead to a 6% increase of death due to illness resulting from these particulates.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/general/pdf/cba_health_impact.xls
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense. Why are you lying?
Modern diesels cannot be told apart from gasoline. They do not stink and belch smoke. I should know, I have two.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you never driven behind a diesel that's belching out a cloud of black smoke in your face every time it accelerates?
Of course, now they've spent years pushing Europeans to drive diesels with high fuel taxes, good luck convincing them to switch to petrol engines that cost far more to run.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck convincing them to ditch the car they bought in 2013, which is rendered essentially worthless by these changes, and buying a new car with a different kind of engine in it.
Re: (Score:3)
The days of the smoke-belching, dog-slow Mercedes turbo diesels which forced people to pass on the breakdown lane in order not to get asphyxiated are long gone, even though those were a scourge of the roads. One can walk behind a Sprinter, Ford F-350, or other diesel vehicle made within the past decade, and there won't be a smell, and there is likely to be no smoke, other than when the engine is started.
Of course, there are coal rollers who deliberately de-tune their engines to run rich and reprogram the E
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The French problem is typically a lack of maintenance, where the northern countries have fairly strict annual safety and emission tests the French are more laissez faire and now it bites them back.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't spill it on his hands. The pump handle gets diesel on it, that then transfers to the users' hands. If using disposable gloves helps eliminate a problem, why the grief that someone figured this out?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Half the vehicles in my jurisdiction, even brand new, have that bypasses by the owner.
Since you are an anonymous coward, your anecdote is worth even less than the usual nothing. Even if your veracity were assured, we have no idea where you are. We know only that you are cowardly, and make both typos and unsubstantiated statements.
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly.
Granted it is not the cleanest fuel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Granted it is not the cleanest fuel.
It is the cleanest fuel. We discussed here on slashdot how (gasoline-driven) cars emit more black carbon than previously thought) and the diesels are more efficient so you actually wind up with diesel as the cleanest fuel once you get the traps and filters and piss injection and whatnot. It's true that gasoline direct injection is close, but it's also true that it takes less energy to make diesel than gasoline, that diesel contains more energy than gasoline per liter, and that diesel is less volatile and th [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel engines also could use gasoline as fuel. It requires some engineering due to the differences in compression, but it could be done.
I agree... diesel is a better all around fuel. Modern ethanol-based gasoline has a lifetime of weeks, while diesel with bug killer can be stores in a tank for much longer and still be usable.
There is also the biodiesel aspect. Biodiesel can be made from almost anything oily/greasy, be it cooking oil, fat from a meat packing plant, waste motor oil that is filtered, or an
Re: (Score:3)
Diesel is more fuel efficient than gasoline. Hence, banning diesel will force people to buy more electric and hybrid cars.
Re:Why (Score:4, Insightful)
Diesel is more fuel efficient than gasoline. Hence, banning diesel will force people to buy more electric and hybrid cars.
Hm? I would have thought, Hence, banning diesel will force people to buy gasoline cars. Why would banning diesel force people to buy electric (very limited range) and hybrid (additional cost) when gasoline cars are more plentiful, have a significantly greater range, and are cheaper?
Re:Why (Score:5, Informative)
Why would banning diesel force people to buy electric (very limited range) and hybrid (additional cost) when gasoline cars are more plentiful, have a significantly greater range, and are cheaper?
Answer:
Energy Minister Segolene Royal announced earlier this year that drivers scrapping diesel-powered cars to buy an electric one would be entitled to a bonus of up to 10,000 euros ($13,500).
The Europeans have never been afraid of using taxes and subsidies to push consumer behavior in the favored direction.
Which is why diesels are so popular over there, since the fuel taxes have favored diesel over gasoline.
IMO, this is a bit nuts, since modern diesels are really clean.
Ultra-low sulfur fuel allows for catalytic converters to limit NOx emissions and particle filters remove most of the carbon soot and fine particles.
I'd be interested in seeing the research the French looked at before making their decision.
Re:Why (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure they simply looked at the research of how well their car industry was doing and decided to come up with any reason to persuade people to buy new cars.
Diesel is a great fuel to use, very efficient, and the modern engines are not the oil-burners of the past, coupled with the catalytic converters in the exhaust, its often said the emissions are cleaner than the surrounding air in many cities. Certainly, diesel engines are cleaner than petrol ones [air-quality.org.uk], and if you consider the biodiesel that many are part running on (I understand the USA runs B20 diesel anyway - that's 20% biodiesel mix in all diesel fuel), even cleaner.
Re: (Score:3)
From your own link:
"However, when compared to petrol cars with a catalyst, diesels have higher emissions of NOx and much higher emissions of particulate matter."
Diesels are bad for human health and keeping cities clean. Even the newer ones are worse than petrol engines for PM2.5.
push consumer behavior in the favored direction (Score:2)
Ignoring the irony that diesel was once such a favored direction...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Diesel is more fuel efficient than gasoline."
The Diesel cycle is more efficient than the Otto cycle. However the main reason diesel engines are more efficient in practice is:
1. Diesel starts off with ~30% more energy (BTUs) per volume
2. Higher compression ratio.
The later is rapidly shrinking, newer technologies (eg: direct injection) mean modern petrol engines have higher compression ratios than they used to. (9:1 -> 12:1, better than older diesel engines)
Once laser ignition (allows better combustion c
Re: (Score:3)
I would be shocked if it weren't the Germans who solved it, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, ummm NO! The Euro market has been waay ahead of the US in this area for awhile. Hell they couldn't bring over their diesels for the longest time because our fuel was too shitty to run them!
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, ummm NO! The Euro market has been waay ahead of the US in this area for awhile. Hell they couldn't bring over their diesels for the longest time because our fuel was too shitty to run them!
NO! They were way ahead of us for awhile. But now they're way behind, because we've mandated low-sulfur diesel and they haven't, at least not all of them.
bio-diesel? (Score:2)
Ignoring for the moment that there is probably not enough bio-diesel by several magnitudes to meet the need, I wonder if bio-diesel would also be phased out.
Re: (Score:2)
It's France, of course they have plenty of French fry grease for biodiesel!
Re:bio-diesel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, french fries aren't... ok never mind. (This could turn into a Hercule Poirot routine.)
I mean, isn't this the same France that decided that since the eye is most sensitive to the middle part of the visible spectrum, that all cars should have lenses over them only allowing that part of the spectrum, requiring French drivers to make their way by dim, mucus-colored light? [1] Point being, they already have a history of making sweeping, ill-advised decisions involving automobiles. I wonder if this one will be rescinded when all the ramifications come to light.
[1] I just looked it up, and it's called "Selective yellow" and was mandatory for all illumination in French vehicles until the 1990's.
Re: (Score:2)
And turkeys aren't from Turkey. (They can't fly but they can dance)
Re: (Score:2)
And turkeys aren't from Turkey. (They can't fly but they can dance)
Not what I meant. "French fries" originated in Belgium, not France.
Pushing the problem onto someone else (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars have a lifetime (10 to 15 years), it is not a huge time to wait to replace them.
I don't know about Europe, but in the US cars typically have a lifetime of 20 or more years. In fact, the average age of cars on the road is a bit over 11 years. Remember, cars do not typically go from 1st owner to scrap yard, but rather to a second owner, and not uncommonly a 3rd.
Re: (Score:3)
The rest of EU already has strict laws agat pollution. E.g. that Diesel engines need a filter against particles. Or have laws that only cars allow into the cities that meet certain cleanness requirements. ... it is the opposite around. Like myself: I export my car t
Paris even had to shut down car trafic last year because of smog. That is very unheared of since decades in europe.
You see very dirty cars in Paris every day, because no one really cared so far.
So, no: the old french cars are not sold into the EU
Re: (Score:2)
About the shutting down traffic being rare in Europe, I beg to differ: it happens quite regularly here in Milan (basically we live in a natural cul-de-sac that accumulater pollutants.
Political nonsense (Score:2)
The reason 80% of percent of French motorists drive diesel-powered cars is because they are the most economical option.
Not just French but in most of Europe you'll find the diesel car is the popular option as it's the most economical choice.
The introduction of the "AdBlue" legislation on goods vehicles, and now private vehicles, has reduced the pollution deficit in comparison to petrol to a point which is even better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid
Take a typical French family car and comp
Re: (Score:2)
'reducing the tax incentives'
You can bet they're not lowering the tax on petrol.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for electric and the end of burning fuel to drive around but you have to ask the question of WHERE that electricity is coming from to charge up your car?
Is the problem just being shifted?
In France, a lot of electricity comes from nuclear power plants, so in terms of CO2 reduction switching to electric driving would help. But that transition is going to take a while; it's unrealistic to expect everyone who now drives a diesel to buy an electric as their next car.
As far as I know, and this seems to be supported by your links, modern diesels don't pollute more than modern petrol cars. So if this would be about reducing pollution, they should crack down on old and poorly maintained diesels.
I do
Re: (Score:2)
As was said in one comment before the real issue has got to do with crude refinement. Not only we use too much diesel and not enough gasoline.. These days, we can generate more gasoline in proportion from the crude. And the demand for diesel fuel from hauling trucks and the like will not go away. So the French have gone too far in favoring diesel cars (from a high amount of diesel cars, the trend has only increased for the past decade or two).
I would favor reducing car use and number of cars but policy will
Tax advantage? (Score:2)
Luckily, the central case is much more benign: since such a measure cannot be adopted by a single EU state, this slimy politician will gain brownie
I've long said this. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
i assumed you meant "Rouen", for readers. (Normandy, place where Jeanne d'Arc's trial happened)
The reasons... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Diesel enjoys great tax breaks all over Europe. If you gas up with diesel, the government receives a smaller share than with Gasoline. Diesel cars are a LOT cheaper to own and operate in Europe. From my experience with the EU, this may be mandated and thus may not be able to be fixed by individual states.
2) Gasoline cars are harder to repair at home and break down more often and sooner. Fixing a diesel, especially the older ones, is easier but that is a lot less profitable to either business or governmen
Title is bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing in the article about France trying to kill diesel. The purpose of those measures are to get rid of OLD DIESEL CARS that are well known source of pollution (for the particules).
Re: (Score:2)
correct! title should say old car...
especially when the french car industry is most advanced in the area of diesel engines - renault nissan decided several years ago concentrate the design of diesel engines within renault and gasoline engines with nissan.... peugeot is even selling complete engines to bmw. some minis and bmw series 1 use peugeot engines.
i doubt very much that the french goverment would give such important area of the french industry
Meanwhile, the US quietly criminalizes veg oil (Score:4, Informative)
Meanwhile, in the US, the government quietly criminalized the conversion of fryer oil into fuel for diesel cars unless the 24.4c gallon federal diesel tax is paid by the person who uses it. There will be a line and worksheet in the 2014 1040 packet for reporting this tax.
FTFY (Score:2)
Valls said taxation would have to orient citizens towards more expensive choices
There! I've thoroughly grammar-corrected the line from the original Surrender Monkey.
The French (Score:3)
Re:It's a trap! (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, in the same way that antique furniture works in place of firewood. If you're not freezing to death waiting for your tank to be refilled, it's a pretty stupid choice.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between the two is the colour used to mark if it's for "fuel use" or "home heating use" it's all about the amount of tax paid. Home heating oil is about 20c/L cheaper than what you can get at the pump.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess they will be raising diesel tax slowly and not lowering gas tax at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess they will be raising diesel tax slowly and not lowering gas tax at all.
Mine as well, since Canada ships a lot of diesel fuel to Europe it really doesn't make any difference to us. It just means a larger stockpile here, I heat with diesel(aka furnace oil), and ever since we increased exports there the cost of oil has gone up every year. So I'm perfectly fine with this.
Re: (Score:2)
That is an overly simplified statement. Some grades of fuel oil are almost identical to some types of diesel fuel, but there are many grades, and they're not all the same. You do have to be careful what you put in your engine.
This page is informative:
http://www.enviroharvest.ca/di... [enviroharvest.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Are there more impurities in home heating oil?
I'm in New England, and like many US states, we have a 25c/gallon tax on '#2 Road Diesel' (tax paid, no dye added), this is always Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD). Generally fuel sold for use in cars is only about 10-15% more expensive than fuel sold for use in a furnace, and most of that is highway tax, not extra distillation at the source.
For Delivery, you can can specify either 'Home Heating Oil" or "Off-Road Diesel". Both are #2 Diesel and contain dye
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. As an automotive enthusiast in the United States, I'm glad that our laws have generally applied such that a vehicle, once it has been certified by the relevant governing body, does not later generally need to meet more stringent emissions standards.
May be for the average Joe, but not for commercial truck drivers in California.
My neighbor for instance, had to trade-in his newer 18 wheeler truck for a refurbished older model in order to save on the huge upgrade cost of complying with the new Californian emissions standard. That combined with the higher fuel costs (at the time) did not make him a happy camper.
Re: (Score:2)
As tough as a pill as that is to swallow, it will save him money as the new truck will be more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Different states have different regulations. California, which has a climate that is very conducive to long-lasting cars (even in the Sierras, they don't use salt on the roads) only tests cars those built in 1975 or later. And there are 6 counties where vehicles registered in only certain zip codes are required to be t
Re: (Score:2)
But the standard is only to the level it was when the car was manufactured. The standard is not raise
Re: (Score:2)
Like the rest of Europe, France is phasing out nuclear for wind and solar.
It is just not big news yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's not happening yet. Actually, they're phasing out nuclear for coal, oil and gas because that's what can take over the load.
Re: (Score:2)
They are phasing out nuclear for wind and natural gas from Algeria. Thing is the extraction is to the south of the country close to where most of the Al-Qaeda thugs who invaded Libya came from. Good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
They are also heavier and more expensive. Nothing comes for free.
Re: (Score:2)
They are also heavier and more expensive. Nothing comes for free.
It does if you're subaru and you've got opposed cylinders and thus it doesn't have to be heavier, and the whole world is moving towards turbocharged gasoline direct injection anyway which means the engines cost just as much as diesels. and guess what? they foul their intake valves more than diesels do! hilarity ensues.
Re: (Score:2)
It has to be heavier to handle the increased stroke and pressures. The Subaru diesel comes at a premium of several thousand dollars, yet it only manages 148 HP from 2.0 L. The gasoline 2.0L can almost do that in it's normally aspirated version, mid-to-upper-200s for the turbo. Yeah, there is torque, but that only gets you so much. If you were towing it would be different. You can buy a whole lot of gas for $5000, or consider that you might do better with a hybrid.
Re: (Score:2)
It has to be heavier to handle the increased stroke and pressures.
It barely has to be heavier to handle increased stroke, and it doesn't have to be at all heavier to handle the increased pressures because of the inherent design of the engine.
Yeah, there is torque, but that only gets you so much. If you were towing it would be different.
We have these things called gears, perhaps you have heard of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a diesel car with similar performance that doesn't weigh more than it's gasoline counterpart and add a significant cost.
Re: (Score:2)
2.0 TDI is 9.2s 0-100kph. 2.0 TSI is 6.5s 0-100. Why would you compare these two engines? Even the 1.4TSI is more powerful than the diesel at 8.5s, and then your comparison is much less favorable:
148 g/km for the gasoline vs. 143 g/km for the diesel. I leave it as an exercise in judgement as to whether the 3% improvement is worth the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
He's talking about emissions and you're talking about 0-100KM?
BTW, my TDI VW has yet to get an MPG as *low* as the sticker claimed and it's over 6years old. Fast it's not but it gets moving okay.
Re:Fast, but not Quick (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's talking about emissions and you're talking about 0-100KM?
Of course I am. You have to look at similar engines. The 1.4L gasoline engine is the one to compare to the 2.0L diesel.
Re: (Score:2)
Try something like 60-100kph or 40-100. Diesel often wins for these real-world accelerations because of torque at low rpms, while the acceleration figures for gasoline is some dragster type of driving revving up to the red zone which no one does unless they're psychopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline engines also emit NOx. The solution for both is to use a catalytic converter. In the past you could not use platinum catalysts with diesels because the sulfur content poisoned the catalyst but that is no longer true with ultra-low sulfur diesel available.
Re: (Score:2)
Not with the latest technology it isn't. About as dirty as gasoline or arguably less.
This is probably the French state trying to get Nissan-Renault to sell more Nissan Leafs.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that smoggy though Paris is and maybe a few more places. Most places are smog free, though highest traffic streets and urban highways are not very nice of course. General lack of fossil fuel burning power plants and widespread electric heating do wonders.
Re: (Score:2)
you forgot what powers those electric heaters.
Power plants.
(OK a lot of France's power comes from nuclear now (39%?), notwithstanding that twat Hollande's stated intention in January of this year to cut nuclear output by a third by 2035 with zero regard for what's going to replace it).