NY Times on Diesels in London

vtdog2 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:22 pm **Posts:** 20

Just thought you guys might have an interest:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/worl ... v=top-news

Mountainman · **Posted:** Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:59 pm

I think large cities need better public transportation and electric cars, and the rest of us drive whatever we want... :goink:

mass-hole · **Posted:** Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:05 pm

Looks like Salt Lake City.

Notice the casual mention of wood fires used to heat homes. I would be willing to bet a lot of the scary looking haze in the pictures is caused by that. Just look at what happens when you get forest fires. Fires in Idaho caused the mountains that are 5 miles from my house here in utah to disappear this summer.

olypopper · **Posted:** Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:23 pm

We have the same problem in Fairbanks, Alaska. Wood fired stoves billow smoke all night long and temperature inversions cause the smoke/pollutants to lie close to the ground. No problem if the winds blow or in the summer time but winter can be a real drag.....especially when your neighbor runs a coal fired furnace. Diesels are certainly not a problem here as there are far fewer per capita than London.

Mountainman · **Posted:** Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:00 pm

That is a good point. the newer stoves are not so bad though, and they pay for themselves by using so much less wood, but the old ones are pollution machines. I guess it might not matter where there are large numbers of homes though?
I love my wood heat though :pepper:

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:03 pm

Their problem isn't the increase in Diesels, it's the the increase in people density, but no one wants to come out and say that.

So ultimately urban pollution is a self-mending condition, if let go unaddressed.

thermorex · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:05 pm

GordnadoCRD wrote:

Their problem isn't the increase in Diesels, it's the the increase in people density, but no one wants to come out and say that.

So ultimately urban pollution is a self-mending condition, if let go unaddressed.

Excellent point, those ultra-left loons will ban anything from diesel to farts, rather than addressing the real issues.

flman · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:36 pm

thermorex wrote:

GordnadoCRD wrote:

Their problem isn't the increase in Diesels, it's the the increase in people density, but no one wants to come out and say that.

So ultimately urban pollution is a self-mending condition, if let go unaddressed.

Excellent point, those ultra-left loons will ban anything from diesel to farts, rather than addressing the real issues.

What else would you expect from the fake news.

thermorex · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:50 am

flman wrote:

thermorex wrote:

GordnadoCRD wrote:

Their problem isn't the increase in Diesels, it's the the increase in people density, but no one wants to come out and say that.

So ultimately urban pollution is a self-mending condition, if let go unaddressed.

Excellent point, those ultra-left loons will ban anything from diesel to farts, rather than addressing the real issues.

What else would you expect from the fake news.

You mean "the failing nyt", lol... All these "reasons" to ban stuff, from banning coal for pollution reasons to global warming taxes that don't fix the core problem, crazy world...

dennyb · **Joined:** Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:27 pm **Posts:** 110

In Michigan I hate the outdoor wood boilers. Oversized firebox running cool and smoky. Then only 15ft of steel chimney smoke rolling across yard.

usa591 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:48 pm

Interesting-- there isn't one mention of the US having tighter diesel emissions standards and how using that spec might mitigate the problem discussed in the article?

Isn't that the promise of "clean diesel" tech? Does the rest of Europe use the same Blue Def diesel tech we do in the US or do they save that for "export only"?

NY Times on Diesels in London

Who is online