Proposed London low emission zone.

On the news tonight there is the proposal to have a low emission zone within London bounded by the North and South circular roads. A vastly
bigger area than the existing CC.
But what I'm wondering is as it will apply to petrol cars over 15 years old (and others)
What is different between a 14 year old petrol car and a 15 year old one? Assuming both to maker's specs?
The 6 year old limit for diesels is going to hit hard. That isn't old for a commercial vehicle. Loads of black cabs older than that. And buses.
--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/06/2018 00:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I think the actual proposal is Euro 4 for petrol and Euro 6 for diesel. But you have to devil into the consultation document to find it. It was (unsurprisingly) written to press the maximum number of the Mayor's supporters' political buttons political buttons the maximum number of times.

thin on the economic effects of the charge, But the Mayor plays the politically adept card of calling for a scrappage scheme - to be paid for by _central_ government, not out of the income from the LEZ of course.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure why hitting older petrol cars (which may well be run by Labour supporters) is going to be a good political move.
I do realise that something must be done as regards pollution in our larger cities. But I'd rather see something that would reduce that by a finite and considerable amount. Which is why I'd like some figures about how much better emissions from a 14 year old petrol car are over a 15 year old one.
--
*If God dropped acid, would he see people?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/06/2018 12:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I may be misunderstanding what you want but the emission limits laid down for Euro 4, Euro 3 etc are of readily and freely available. So of course are the in-service limits for vehicles with emissions control systems. But I have no idea how the effects of the proposals have been modelled: I have only skimmed the con. doc. and there are appendices I've not even opened.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/06/2018 07:51, Robin wrote:

So how do I translate the MOT numbers into the standard's g/km ? M 1995 Saab 9000 car must originally have satisfied Euro 1.
The proportional reduction between Euro 1 and current Euro 6 for the g/km measures are according to RAC's website:
CO Euro 6/Euro 1 = 1/2.72 = 0.3676 HC Euro 6/Euro 1 = 0.1/0.97 = 0.1031
CO [1995 Saab car]/[upper limit] = 0.016%/0.2% = 0.08 HC [1995 Saab car]/[upper limit] = 10ppn/200ppm = 0.05
This indicates that my car is also well within the margin of Euro 6.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/06/2018 10:21, johannes wrote:

NO2 is the biggest problem and diesels are the main culprits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/06/2018 12:20, Andrew wrote:

Burning gas is the next culprit. And much worse in the more densely populated areas: https://policyexchange.org.uk/why-london-needs-a-boiler-scrappage-scheme/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/06/2018 13:01, Fredxx wrote:

Nonsense. Boiler flues generally discharge at a high level. They hardly ever blow into peoples faces at ground level.
They also aren't controlled by some clot with a lead right foot on the loud pedal. Mostly they fire up and burn efficiently for a reasonable period then stop.
The static MOT test massively understates the amount of pollution when accelerating away from traffic lights or speed bumps.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/06/2018 13:40, Andrew wrote:

It all contributes. HGV and buses could easily have a vertical exhaust if it made any difference.

Perhaps a good case for timed lights to ensure continuous traffic flow.
And of course removal of speed humps.
Such measures are local council choices, so its only right the pollution is also local.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/06/2018 14:00, Fredxx wrote:

Or removal of clots who need to be slowed down by speed bumps.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/06/2018 19:51, Andrew wrote:

Or implementation of the more expensive option developed many years ago - a hollow, rubber speed-bump, that when hit by a vehicle travelling at or below the speed limit deflates, giving a bump-free ride, but when hit by a faster vehicle, the escaping air is travelling faster and closes the exhaust valves, thus giving a hard jolt. Affect only the speeders and stop the rest of us having to slow to a quarter of the speed limit to comfortably cross.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/06/2018 21:18, Steve Walker wrote:

Still messy and would require regular maintenance. There are also the signs that light up and indicates your speed. OK, so people tend to slow down for those, them immediately speed up. But at least they seem have some calming effect more than if they were not there. This is because some of the drivers then stick to that limit after passing the sign, thereby creating the bottleneck for those who want to speed :) I've seen this many times.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most of them round here, or rather the ones still working, are set to start warning you're going too fast well below the actual limit. So cry wolf too often. The one I go past most often starts flashing at 20mph, in a 30 limit. And on a wide main road.
--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Be interesting to know the cost of installing those. And maintaining them. Given they can't afford to fill in potholes.
--
*Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11-Jun-18 1:40 PM, Andrew wrote:

Many are now modulating. All combi boilers modulate the output to control the hot water temperature. Combi boilers have much higher output than regular CH boiler as they have to supply the full multipoint hot water load. Regular CH heats the hot water in the tank over a much longer time. Problem is unless used promptly stored hot water goes cold and all the heat is wasted.
Then there is the problem with quenched combustion. On start up the heat exchanger is cold, burning gas hits this, combustion ceases with incomplete products. Makes all sorts of nasty NOx and even formaldehyde.
Condensing boilers have much lower heat exchanger temperature as flow and return should be 60/40°C instead of 79-82/-11°C. Condensing boilers are close to 100% efficient and with cold water feed can be over 100% as they act as air source heat exchanger. (gas boiler efficiency is calculated on gas heat input and ignoring fan electrical input). Conventional boilers are at best 80% efficient and have installation efficiency around 70%.
There has been a huge campaign to increase installed boiler efficiency resulting in lots of "condensing combis" being installed.
The real truth is they have burnt all of our domestic "high speed gas" (remember those ads in the 60's and 70's) in closed cycle gas turbine generators and are now having to import 40% of the supply.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/06/2018 10:21, johannes wrote:

I don't know how (if at all) the limits for the MoT in-service tests can be translated to Euro standards.
I can well believe your car has low emissions compared with others of its age, but I didn't follow the methodology of your calculations.
I did look and see that Saab reduced their emissions - as shown by the figures for the MoT test - in time for Euro 4:
Saab 1992 Onwards (with catalyser) Normal Idle    Max CO 0.5% Fast Idle    Max CO 0.3%    Max HC 200 ppm
Saab 2004 Onwards (with catalyser) Normal Idle    Max CO 0.3% Fast Idle    Max CO 0.2%    Max HC 200 ppm
(The 2004 on figures are the same as for my Euro 4 Focus.)
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/06/2018 18:14, Robin wrote:

The numbers you see are for the Euro upper limits in force when the car was first registrered. The mistake made by the powers to be is that they assume the worstcase rather than the actual emmision as measured by latest MOT. My calculation suggests that my 1995 car would also satisfy Euro 6 on CO and HC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thing is that many vehicles already exceeded those specifications when they were introduced. If you can grade vehicles by CO2 output for taxation purposes, why go to an age limit for this?
Does, for example, a state of the art emissions wise small car produced the same amount of pollution as the same age Ferrari, etc?
All cars of this age have an MOT. Why not measure all the pollutants at that time and make those which exceed the limits pay?
--
*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/06/2018 12:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Any evidence for this ?. Labour supporters are more likely to have swallowed the 'diesel good, petrol bad' CO2 bribes offered by T Blair and Co, thinking that they were doing good for the planet.
I would have thought that the really older petrol cars would have been bought by people who don't follow politics, probably don't have English as a first language, so probably don't (or cannot) vote or are buying a cheap first car at 17.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't be silly. 'Saving the plant' isn't confined to any one party. Despite the stereotypes.

15 years ago, there were more petrol cars than diesels by quite a margin. Not got figures as to what percentage of each has survived. Diesels with their more expensive engines and turbos etc may get scrapped earlier though due to uneconomic repairs. But only guessing.
--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.