Safety; is diesel safer than gasoline?

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Despite the extra maintenance and other expenses for my turbo diesel Mercedes Benz, I'm finding that diesel not only has better fuel economy than gasoline, but, it's also less combustible than a typical gasoline powered vehicle.

Sure, every now and then you hear about a fuel tanker accident, but, how many times have you heard about a diesel vehicle catching on fire.

Diesel fuel doesn't ignite as easily as gasoline.

Plus, other things you might not be aware of..

https://rentar.com/diesel-engines-get-better-gas-mileage-burn-cleaner-petrol-engines/

Maybe, aside from an electric vehicle, diesels are actually a good alternative for the environment?

[mkguitar]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Maybe, aside from an electric vehicle, diesels are actually a good alternative for the environment?

absolutely not


byproducts of petroleum diesel combustion at the tail pipe are numerous and harmful
especially the particulates



the manufacturers are engineering cleaner burning vehicles only when regulated
and sometimes they cheat



mike

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Compared to what? Are you saying that gasoline pollutes less?

The answer is not that simple...did you read the article..


https://rentar.com/diesel-emissions-...0than%20diesel.

Takeaway-

Diesel engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline for several reasons. However, all the reasons come down to the qualities of diesel fuel. Because diesel fuel has high energy density and because diesel fuel has high compression resistance, diesel engines are more fuel efficient than other engine types. And, because diesel fuel burns more efficiently — more completely — diesel engines pollute less.

[avanti]

The referenced article is garbage. I got to the following, and then stopped reading:

the combustion of gasoline produces large quantities of carbon monoxide. Diesel produces almost none.

This claim (provided without evidence) is nonsense. Let's look at science instead of click-bait:

The levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides emitted are similar for light-duty diesel and for gasoline engines with catalytic converters. The particulate emission levels from light-duty and heavy-duty diesels are two to ten and eight to 40 times greater, respectively, than the emission levels from catalyst equipped light-duty gasoline engines

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531294/

It is true that raw diesel combustion produces less CO, but "almost none" is just wrong. More importantly, catalytic converters are very good at converting at CO to CO2, and it is emissions at the tailpipe that matter. At the tailpipe, both fuels are very clean these days.

If you read the whole paper, you can find out a lot more about the garbage that is produces inside a Diesel engine. Both engine types can be made clean at the exhaust pipe. But, we are a lot more skilled at doing this with petrol than we are with diesel.

The Internet is a wonderful thing, but it does require a modicum of basic scientific literacy, or at least a dash of healthy skepticism.

[mkguitar]

the best comparison you might find is to look up the allowable emissions
for different types of vehicles


a good standard will be per mile or per hour which evens the differences in MPG


Mike

[Bud]

Originally Posted by avanti

The referenced article is garbage. I got to the following, and then stopped reading:



This claim (provided without evidence) is nonsense. Let's look at science instead of click-bait:



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531294/

It is true that raw diesel combustion produces less CO, but "almost none" is just wrong. More importantly, catalytic converters are very good at converting at CO to CO2, and it is emissions at the tailpipe that matter. At the tailpipe, both fuels are very clean these days.

If you read the whole paper, you can find out a lot more about the garbage that is produces inside a Diesel engine. Both engine types can be made clean at the exhaust pipe. But, we are a lot more skilled at doing this with petrol than we are with diesel.

The Internet is a wonderful thing, but it does require a modicum of basic scientific literacy, or at least a dash of healthy skepticism.

This assumes that the person 'Wants' to 'Discern the Truth'.

Bud

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Avanti,

You think this article as well is garbage? I'd really like to know.. An excerpt,

5. Diesel’s not that dirty.
The U.S. EPA now requires diesel engines to meet the same pollution criteria as gasoline engines. Carmakers added a device called a diesel particulate filter, which removes visible smoke. ​“If you’re buying a diesel car from 2007 or later, it’s no dirtier than a gasoline-powered vehicle,” says Argonne mechanical engineer Steve Ciatti.

7. Diesel’s an interesting option for the environmentally minded.
Since they produce less carbon dioxide, run more efficiently, get high mileage to the gallon, and have their emissions cleaned, diesel-powered cars are an alternative for those who wish to reduce their carbon footprints. Since the technology is already well-developed, they tend to be relatively cheap, too.

https://www.anl.gov/article/7-things...gnite%20diesel.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Avanti,

You think this article as well is garbage? I'd really like to know..

Puff piece.

Science, please...

[Bud]

It seems that every square inch of my monitor (34 inch, ultrawide, 4K) has some click bait. I can easily find plenty to support my position. "A gas engine is only about 20% efficient." What is that ? A mistake, a lie, a.....................

Bud

[mkguitar]

Just because I have it handy- here are the results of the tailpipe emissions on my 2005 Chev chassis w/ 6.0 l 109842 miles
few months old costco 87 gas w/ 10% ethanol.
test station at about 1300'



AZ testing for this GVWR is on the chassis dyno ( rollers) testing at nominal 35 MPH and at idle


Idle: 1 ppm Hydrocarbon- standard 300
00.00% Carbon Monoxide- standard 4%


35 MPH ( Loaded) 2 ppm HC- standard 300
00.00% CO- standard 3%


these are great numbers-


note 00.00% carbon monoxide



Diesel has real particulate emissions which are physically harmful to the lungs, and also remain airborne for weeks, months


as touched on by another member, controls for diesels have been introduced later than for gas vehicles- so there is some catching up to do
these emissions results for a motor over 100k show the advances applied


manufacturers cheating test results harmed the public and themselves.
it is estimated that correcting the diesel cheat will reduce power by about 15% and reduce mpg by 15% on some of the VW/Audi vehicles




the 1st california mandated gas vehicle emissions control was 1963

I have literally hundreds of thousands of miles operating both gas and diesel vehicles.
I choose gas for my own vehicles ( lacking a better alternative for my typical use)


mike

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Bud

"A gas engine is only about 20% efficient." What is that ? A mistake, a lie, a.....................

Heh.
Properly-so-called, it is a "factoid".

N.B. -- contrary to popular usage, the suffix "-oid" does not mean "little". It means "Resembling or having the appearance of".

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Avanti,

Hmm, you really think it's just a "puff piece"?

I don't know?? Do you? I mean, it looks like these people have some credentials.

What's yours?


https://www.anl.gov/profile/laurent-c-chapon

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

You're actually doubting that diesel engines are less efficient than gasoline!

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Avanti,

Hmm, you really think it's just a "puff piece"?

I don't know?? Do you? I mean, it looks like these people have some credentials.

What's yours?


https://www.anl.gov/profile/laurent-c-chapon

Facts are not determined by "credentials". Someone probably got paid to lie, that simple.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

I don't know?? Do you?

That is exactly the point. We DON'T "know".

If you would post things with citations to primary sources instead of clickbait, we could both know.

Call me old fashioned.

"Truth against the world."
--Frank Lloyd Wright's family slogan".

[booster]

One of the most important piece of "research" you can do is to find out what varied interest or ties the person giving the information has. For instance if the guy shows up as a "research" associate for the diesel engine company's advocate association one might assume he is biased (as in bought and paid for) regardless of his MIT doctorate.


The emissions test results Avanti posted are typical of what I saw in our gas powered vehicles before they stopped testing here in Minnesota.


My opinion is that both fuels in newest tech engines are pretty clean as long as the controls are working well. The particulate problem with diesels is highly tied to how well the DPF filters work and if they have been bypassed, which I here is fairly common among the "deleted" diesel engine crowd.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Avanti,

Did you bother to even peruse this website or are you too disinterested to find out something...?

What exactly is your knowledge on this subject?

A company that has been around for 75 years is not an annomoly.



https://www.anl.gov/argonnes-leadership

https://www.anl.gov/our-history

[booster]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Avanti,

You think this article as well is garbage? I'd really like to know.. An excerpt,

5. Diesel’s not that dirty.
The U.S. EPA now requires diesel engines to meet the same pollution criteria as gasoline engines. Carmakers added a device called a diesel particulate filter, which removes visible smoke. ​“If you’re buying a diesel car from 2007 or later, it’s no dirtier than a gasoline-powered vehicle,” says Argonne mechanical engineer Steve Ciatti.

7. Diesel’s an interesting option for the environmentally minded.
Since they produce less carbon dioxide, run more efficiently, get high mileage to the gallon, and have their emissions cleaned, diesel-powered cars are an alternative for those who wish to reduce their carbon footprints. Since the technology is already well-developed, they tend to be relatively cheap, too.

https://www.anl.gov/article/7-things...gnite%20diesel.

OK, I just read that article and it could have been written as a science paper by a sixth grader with internet access in 15 minutes. The 20% efficiency for gas is even lower than the normal 30% we hear and it does not say if it is thermal efficiency, by mass or volume, at the crank, at the wheels, etc. The 40% for diesel is another old trope that has been around forever and varies a huge amount between engine designs. I ask you this. If the diesel is 40% efficient and gas is 20% why do diesels not get double the mileage, plus some more because the contain more BTUs of heat per gallon? The claim does not stand up to simple math.


The high altitude performance thing is just plain stupid to come to the conclusion that diesel is better at not losing power at high elevations when you compare a turbo diesel to a normally aspirated, non turbo, gas engine. Turbo gas engines don't lose power either.



If that is the best that the research company with 70 years experience and a stack of PHDs can come up with, I would suggest they just quit trying to prove anything, but that is just my opinion.

[Bud]

"OK, I just read that article and it could have been written as a science paper by a sixth grader with internet access in 15 minutes."

You exaggerated booster. It was not that good.

It reads like some kind of really horribly written propaganda maybe?

Maybe the person was drinking and tried to see what they could get by the editor. Except that the editor never read it.

[GeorgeRa]

Advantages and disadvantages of any technologies change in time. Diesels on passenger cars were very popular in Europe but no more. Controlling exhaust is more difficult on diesel than on gas engines. Recent sanctions could push Europeans back do diesels.

Only a few great technologies from the past come back, most get forgotten. I had an RCA video player with mechanical needle in early eighties, this technology is very dead. Simple watches with digital display getting pushed out by smart phones but mechanical watches are coming back with force, folks don't like changin batteries. I like mechanical watches but opted for convenience of “absolute do nothing” Seiko with time close to cesium atomic clock standard.

Diesel engines will likely follow two cycle engines demise for similar reason, pollution.