Diesel cars linked to deaths from pollution
It was annoying to read the IMechE president’s defence of diesel engines on the page following the Editor’s comment on spreading the blame for the Volkswagen scandal beyond its professional engineers (News, PE October).
Professional engineers are responsible for these alleged crimes; only they can provide the systems that allow executives to make decisions, and, in Volkswagen’s case as in many German companies, those executives tend to be professional engineers.
The medical facts are that in the UK alone 24,000 people are dying prematurely every year because of NOx emissions. The failure of diesel cars in general to achieve the lower NOx emissions in practice that the standards were aimed at is a direct cause of at least 12,000 of these deaths.
Diesel car sales in the UK were 47.9% of the total in the year to date; that’s more than a million brand-new diesel cars that, for the most part, we now know exceed the Euro 6 limits several times over when driven on the road. The reason that they break those limits is that engineers have designed them to meet a test that they also designed, that has no comparison to how a car has to be driven on the roads.
Those engineers knew that their designs would not achieve the emissions standards when the vehicles were driven normally. They were also aware of the deaths that would be caused by the excessive emissions from them.
It is wrong to state that diesel must remain a key part of the fuel mix, as IMechE president Professor Richard Folkson and the institution’s Philippa Oldham claim. Diesel may be required in heavy transport but petrol engines could substitute for diesel in cars. I leave aside the issue of alternatives such as electric vehicles. The UK would be switching to the US model, where diesel vehicles are a small proportion. The UK could achieve this by raising diesel fuel tax, with a rebate for heavy haulage companies, and introducing a scrappage scheme for older diesel cars.
Isn’t the IMechE’s role to propose a positive way to prevent deaths rather than defend the indefensible? What next, articles on the benefits of cigarette manufacturing? The IMechE does not exist to promote entrenched interests that know that they are killing us but who try to deny it whilst calling for business as usual.
Alan Lowe, Stone, Staffordshire
Let’s lead the debate
The News article “Diesel is essential to combat climate change”, together with the Editor’s comment on the matter, have great significance in the debate about the future of diesel vehicles. Unfortunately, our political friends are prone to demand that “something must be done” and, invariably, this means short-term measures with inadequate or downright poor outcomes.
The IMechE has a responsibility to take the debate into the heart of the political machinery and to influence the outcome as much as possible.
David Odling, Altrincham
We were naive and trusting
Whilst trying to tame my backlog pile of PE magazines, I noted an excellent article called “A clean fight” by Richard Lucas in the April issue. This article, with hindsight, points towards the now revealed VW problems.
It is perhaps a sign of how naive and trusting we have all been that we did not make the connection. Where was there a bright engineer to say “somebody must be cheating”? Who would have believed that an international company of supposedly high repute would do something so stupid. This is engineers acting like bankers!
Colin Warburton, Yarm, Stockton-on-Tees
Who owns harvested energy?
Your article about Lord Drayson harvesting energy from wi-fi and mobile phone networks (News, PE October) prompted memories about a similar enterprise, albeit on a more industrial scale, which ended up in court.
A householder who lived near a transmitter built a collection device which harnessed the signal to induce a current which he could use for domestic power. The transmitter operator identified the loss of signal and the cause. The householder was prosecuted.
So the question is, does even the small amount of energy envisaged by Lord Drayson constitute theft? It starts with a few nano-amps, and before you know it...
Ian Wattie, Edinburgh
Carbon-free claim derailed
I have seen several mentions in PE of Network Rail’s trialling of an electric train, many stating that it is a carbon-free solution. This is grossly misleading as the electricity to charge the batteries comes from the grid and that is made using oil or gas, which necessitate carbon emissions, or perhaps nuclear energy with its associated disposal problems.
I guess there is a possibility of battery charging from wind turbine output but I doubt that comes into the equation.
To convert the oil or gas to grid electricity, to carry that on lines to a charging facility, to charge the batteries and then to run motors all carry efficiency losses, whereas direct use of the diesel has only the usual combustion engine losses. However, one has to admit there are problems with, in particular, nitrogen dioxide from diesel combustion.
One also has to consider the manufacturing ‘carbon cost’ for the batteries and the environmental disposal problems when they have to be replaced.
There is a claim that the railway running costs will be less. That may be the case for the railway companies but that in turn needs a capital contribution and maintenance in plant and equipment in the electricity producing industry. If you will pardon the pun, it seems to be passing the requirements ‘down the line’.
I wonder if the whole picture has really been looked at?
Nick Mayne, Potton, Bedfordshire
Subsidising the rich
Scott Mitchell rightly points out that domestic solar power installations make less sense with the subsidy reductions now planned (Letters, PE October).
We engineers would do well to remind ourselves of the wider perspectives concerning ‘renewable energy’, namely that such energy comes at a price and progress only happens thanks to generous subsidies. Getting the subsidy level right is the problem and in times of low interest rates they must be reduced, otherwise too many climb on the bandwagon. Too bad that private installers of solar power go to the wall; it still makes sense for large institutions and well-heeled farmers.
The industry he refers to was founded on the idea that cash is to be found if attracted by cast-iron investment terms, supported by government subsidies to be repaid through taxes and higher charges for utilities over the years. It was seen as a splendid job-creation scheme. However, it has become a form of redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, hardly a vote winner for a wealthy country like ours; and hence the irony that a socialist government gave it impetus and a Conservative government is now reining it in.
Mitchell can congratulate himself that thanks to his timely investment and the cash he happened to have available to clinch it, he has won himself 25 years of high returns courtesy of hapless utility company customers.
Roger Harris, Shaftesbury, Dorset
Range of energy options
The Editor’s comment on energy gaps was timely as decisions need to be made (PE September). However they need to be based on a holistic approach, including the reduction in energy required to produce electricity.
The costs of decommissioning with nuclear power are high and problematical; thus I believe there is no case for new nuclear stations.
Gas stations are inherently inefficient because of the high hydrogen content/moisture loss in the chimney. Their place is rightly in the need to meet the variable output of wind energy. Biomass has a low efficiency because of the high hydrogen/moisture content and is only useful in reducing the amount of other fuels; other markets can surely be found for the use of biomass.
The resurgence of coal makes us independent of overseas suppliers and provides employment for our own people.
True renewable sources are tidal/lunar, solar cells and hydroelectric. The last requires development of small turbines and integration with local networks where I believe a substantial contribution could be made. Tidal power deserves further investment to solve the mechanical problems; dams need to be amortised over 50 years and not the general criterion of 20.
There are many locations in the world that have ample sunlight for solar installations but I understand that the transmission to centres of use could be prohibitive. Development of the DC grid could solve this problem.
I do not refer to the direct generation of power from atomic or other fields as these developments are a decade away.
The future is not bleak but requires true cooperation between governments and industry.
James Gray, Sevenoaks, Kent
Keep the coal fires burning
So Lee Hibbert wants to know “what will plug the energy gap when our old coal-fired power stations all close down” (Editor’s comment, PE September). Well, the answer is simple – build new ones.
Yes, when you burn carbonaceous fuels you produce CO2. Yes, CO2 affects the climate. But since the total energy consumption in the UK is about 3% of the world total, anything we do has no measurable effect on global warming.
Is it not about time we thought about UK plc for a change? So long as we have coal in abundance, we should use it.
Coal gasification is not a new science so the home fires should also be kept burning. This would make the UK largely independent of the oil and gas producers and give us time to develop sensible alternatives such as nuclear power.
Manfred Engel, Stockton-on-Tees
Unwelcome windfall
How long will it be before the powers that be come to understand that we cannot continue stealing energy from the world’s natural winds with ever-growing chains of windfarms without those losses finally causing total and global weather disruption?
Whilst a tall building simply diverts the course of the passing winds, the wind turbine drives an electric generator, and this removes both energy and momentum. These energy losses are inevitably affecting the weather patterns all around the globe. Unlike solar power, wind power does not come free of consequences.
Brian Kindness, Llanelli, Carmarthenshire
The search for the truth
Iain Siekman’s letter on how climate change will bring a flood of problems well illustrates the nature of the problem we face as educated people who believe in the integrity and professionalism of others (PE October).
Unfortunately things are not really so simple as being able to trust their impartiality or even expertise as certainly as is required to arrive at a definite and correct solution.
Peer pressure, ego, career prospects and failure to see the big picture are all factors in steering towards a ‘standardised’ viewpoint. History shows us the repeated folly in believing this to deliver the truth.
So with regard to Siekman’s comments I would also hope that most of us want to ensure that our presence on the planet does no or minimal harm whilst providing us with an environment in which we and future generations can thrive. I would caution against dependence upon so-called expert opinion and to keep asking questions and retain the open and enquiring mind we hold dear in our institutions of learning. I would maintain that this view is important in all aspects of our life and with respect to climate change would offer the following.
My research so far has led me to doubt the ‘officially’ held view that man-made CO2 is having major impact and that natural cyclic changes are by far the major factors.
We should monitor and correct any effects of our contribution to environmental change but we also need to focus attention on the real causes of those changes.
Useful for further reference by members who still consider the truth worthy of being told are some of the findings of the Global Warming Policy Forum and the University of Lund in Sweden. These are amongst many sources who challenge the conclusions of the IPCC although I would also caution against accepting all that they have to say on the matter.
It’s easy to jump on a bandwagon but maybe we need to think more carefully about jumping on the right one!
John Sharp, Bude, Cornwall
Geography lesson
In the chartered engineer online application form, one of the possible countries for an international interview location is the USSR. The USSR ceased to exist 24 years ago.
Congo is another option but it is not clear whether this is the Republic of the Congo or the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire). Zaire is listed separately but use of that name ended in 1997. How old is the list?
Also listed is Antarctic (Australian Territory). Does the IMechE really conduct interviews in Antarctica? And have Midway Island and Wake Island proven popular?
Alan Todd, Durham