szymizalogowany
04.04.05, 10:29
To jako kontrargument do tezy, że dyzle są ekologiczne:
"Why did Greenpeace have a petrol engine built and not a diesel ?
A number of reasons speak against the diesel:
The cancer risk.
Almost two thirds of the cancer risk created by air pollutants is due to
diesel engine emissions. The particles ("soot") contained in the diesel
exhaust gases and the polycyclics deposited on them penetrate deep into the
lungs because of their small size. A large number of medical publications
proves the cancerogenic effect of diesel exhaust gases.
The exhaust gas problem is not solved.
Even newer diesel engines have 30-40 percent higher nitrogen oxide emissions
system-induced in comparison to petrol engines with catalytic converter. The
planned exhaust gas limits of the European Union for the year 2000 allow the
diesel 2.5 times higher emissions of ozone precursor substances in comparison
to the petrol engine. Concepts which could reduce the exhaust gases of diesel
engines to a level still below the standards applying in Europe as from the
year 2000 (such as the Californian ULEV limits), currently do not exist.
In addition, it is a fallacy to assume a CO2 advantage on the basis of the
lower consumption of diesel vehicles compared with petrol engines. "A litre
of diesel" is not "a litre of petrol". Diesel fuel is more dense than petrol
and has a higher carbon content. The consequence: a litre of petrol produces
2.32 kg of CO2 in combustion, but a litre of diesel 2.63 kg of CO2. If one
relates the additional emission of CO2 and the lower consumption of diesel
vehicles with one another, then the actual CO2 advantage of a diesel tends
towards zero.
Diesel engines are also heavier, more expensive in manufacture and require
batteries of double the strength. The arisings of used oil are twice as high.
An overall consideration therefore produces the result: Diesel engines are
not the environmentally sound alternative of the future.
"
archive.greenpeace.org/climate/smile/faq/faq2.html
