Diesel scrappage scheme could be launched 'within months'

retiredspeedmerchant    on 8 February 2017

Well, I have just ordered a new oil burner! If the government plans to introduce a diesel scrapage scheme, how about this idea? Develop the hydrogen power cell which is non polluting and the waste is water. Then give generous subsidies for trading in diesels against them. Of course, they would then have a problem as hydrogen vehicles are greener than electric when you take into account the battery production!

Spe    on 8 February 2017

I hope 'retiredspeedmerchant' does at least 15000 miles a year because the complexity of modern diesels with their DPF's and EGR's and Ad Blue systems (which are all potentially troublesome if the engine is not used properly i.e. regular 20 mile plus journeys, not short stop start use) , is all but rendering them pointless for the average non business use motorist.
The failure of any one of these systems, due to misuse or lack of use, will wipe out any possible saving over petrol for the life of the vehicle and will not be covered by any warranty.
Diesel cars are yesterdays technology, the car for today's world is a Petrol or Petrol Hybrid.

545    on 9 February 2017

All the above comments are valid. Taxis are a significant part of the capital's problem. Hydrogen appears more ecologically sound and practically viable than electric - see the new Totota Mirai. Albeit infrastructure for refuelling will need to catch up. Lastly new diesel purchases still make sense if intended to cover mileage and not short trips. I bought a 2017 Ford Edge Sport to use for that very purpose and couldn't be more satisfied.

Lord Brasic    on 9 February 2017

Yet another way to boost new car sales. Not that many years ago we were urged to buy diesel cars, now there are so many that have lasted well we are no being scare mongered into thinking that we should buy a petrol car.
What about the pollution of building a new car, nobody is telling us about that are they. I will continue to drive what I want. I have a Saab diesel that does 50+mpg a diesel van, and a Lexus that’s petrol. No doubt there are plenty of idiots out there who will think I am killing the planet and their grandchildren, and these are the ones that will be suckered into buying a new car they don't want and can't afford, just to be seen as doing the right thing. Maybe if we all made our phones TV's and other gadgets last longer that would cut down a lot of very unnecessary pollution.
Nobody is having a go at the gullible who must upgrade these items just so they can look cool, and sometimes its these people who have the nerve to have a go at the motorist.
The Government need to stop attacking the motorist and maybe open their eyes and minds, (that maybe hard for some) to find other ways to stop pollution or should that be to raise more money.

Chris C    on 9 February 2017

Coming soon (or as soon as loads of diesels are scrapped) - carcinogenic benzene in petrol and increased CO2 emission scares, later followed by lithium fires and dangers of fatal electric shocks in hybrids which are in turn followed by scares over explosions in fuel cell cars.

Can we have some joined up and less reactive thinking please?

Jerry Flacks    on 9 February 2017

N-power has just posted an increase in electricity prices of 15% !!! No doubt the other top 5 will follow suit. So when the Government has us all running round in Electric or Hybrid cars and we run out of electricity, which by then will be costing even more as we will also have been relying on an a bit of windy weather to drive thousands of turbines, WHAT THEN ???

HKPhooey    on 9 February 2017

All the taxis in Hong Kong were old Toyota diesels but they were forced to convert to LPG a few years ago. The difference in air quality was immediately noticeable. The taxis were not scrapped.

Alfred Crocker    on 9 February 2017

It takes about 40 times more C02 to produce a new car than it will use in its lifetime. Lets get a reality check here, making all the products we use last longer is the only way to reduce emissions overall. The conversion of existing vehicles to use cleaner technology is practical but scrapage is just a headline grabber that ends up with more of our planet's precious resources being depleted but the tax revenue increases. For motor vehicles in general the way forward is positively encourage car sharing, have a joined up public transport system and for road planners to work out ways of keeping traffic moving rather that stop/start which increases emissions.

Howard Buchanan    on 11 February 2017

The people behind this scrappage scheme told us, just a few years ago, that diesel was less polluting than petrol. Many of us, including me, bought a diesel car on the strength of that declaration. It turns out that the experts were, apparently, wrong. So why should we believe them now?
In today's world of post and alternative truth, any number of pliable facts can be conjured up to support whatever happens to be applauded by the environmental lobby, or is thought to be politically desirable, at any given time. What you can be sure of is that we, the consumers, will be the ones picking up the tab.
And what about the gigantic elephant in the room? The UK is a very minor polluter in the world tables: bottom of the 4th. division. Nothing meaningful is being done by the real polluters. Meanwhile, we bankrupt ourselves with a series of lobby-led " virtue signallings".

D.H.Buchanan.

S Green    on 11 February 2017

No-one every actually thought a diesel was less polluting did they? Lower CO2 is what they were sold on and better fuel economy (not better fuel efficiency) because there's more enery diesel fuel. Surely everyone realised that DPFs were there because they're so dirty. Everyone who's every sat behind a diesel who's tried to dive hard can just see the muck.
So please, you didn't buy a diesel to keep down air polution.

John N    on 13 February 2017

I don't drive in towns, using park and rides instead. Rarely go into High Wycombe by car and always off peak so the car is moving unless there's roadworks etc. Any chance of using this to replace my older dirtier deisel with a newer cleaner deisel?

   on 13 February 2017

I bought a diesel 4 years ago mainly to tow a caravan especially from a torque/kerbweght perspective. I like how a diesel drives. Now that I am aware of the pitfalls I would look for a suitable petrol but they are thin on the ground. I did about 15000 miles now less. I feel betrayed by both manufacturer and government because diesels in practice do not meet needs from the point of repairs.Short runs are unavoidable. Emissions equipment is not fit for purpose. The government promoted diesels and the range of petrol cars was compromised

   on 13 February 2017

Er nobody has mentioned dirty old diesel buses out there, some as old as 03 platers! IN Central areas these and Hgv must surely be the major contributors of noxious NO emissions. you can literally see the soot and oil coming from their exhausts.Yet the new routrmaster buses are all diesels with no sign of any hybrid/electric versions on the cards?

Pedro Mendes    on 13 February 2017

I have no doubt that there is a pollution 'problem' but ..... where is common sense and joined-up thinking? I've just read a road test (not one of HJ's I'll add) where the new Alfa Guilia is being compared with an A4 and a 3 series BMW, they are all diesels and the Alfa is a brand spanking new model. Not that long ago we were being told that diesel is the preferred fuel. Audi, in particular, were blitzing everything in sportscar racing with their brilliant turbo diesel developments. I've just bought myself a Renault Kadjar with a diesel engine and I have no intention of changing it for years to come (it replaced my eight year old diesel Mondeo).
Now, as I have just purchased a brand new car, I feel insulted to be told I am a polluter and I will be furious if I have to pay premiums for the privilege of driving my new car. Governments throughout the world should have looked at tax revenues years ago and driven the development of alternative fuels - water and hydrogen, for example, from a percentage of their income from fuel duty.
The nasty lithium cell stuff that's around at the moment is, in my opinion, not the way forward. A fair amount of my mileage involve journeys in excess of 400 miles so I reckon my diesel Kadjar is just the right car for me. This 'quick-fix', panic strategy is a sticking plaster, what we need of the next decade is major surgery right acrossthe global transport network.

Alfasud    on 13 February 2017

I cannot believe this is even being debated.Never mind what the Government says. The Government said asbestos was safe, the Government told soldiers that nuclear explosions conducted in the 50's were yes "harmless".

L.J.K Setright that doyen of motoring writers said in 1995, that diesel is an oil and petrol is a spirit. If an ordinary person cannot distinguish that burning an oil is more toxic than burning a spirit "they need their heads examined". Imperial College told Government's in 1996 and 1998 that diesels were causing respiratory problems and
asthma. The Americans and Japanese have been very reluctant to produce diesel cars.

No the problem is that German & French car manufactures invested nearly £20 billion in diesel engine technology and the SMMT put pressure on Labour and Tory MP's to go easy on diesel. It is interesting is it not that VW have been fined nearly $16 billion in the US for lying. But that is only part of the story. The next instalment is that VW knew full well that diesels were dirty, which is why they did not contest the fine. Had they fought the US Government by saying diesels had clean burn technology, they would have literally been taking to the cleaners. Which is why VW laid low.
The problem with people who bought diesel cars is "the free meal syndrome". Having bought the car, now know it is polluting are jumping out of their prams to defend diesel. The free meal analogy is, even if the meal is crap, because it was free you say "it was good" rather than admit you were fooled.

Geoffrey Turner    on 13 February 2017

I have a 2005 Volkswagen Passat 1.9 Turbo Diesel, now running well at 102,000 miles. Exhaust is always clean, DPF was cleaned, so maybe better than some petrol cars that I see with dirty exhausts.

It was used for business 25,000 pa & I was encouraged to buy a diesel for low emissions/CO2 and it still does 50 mpg.

I am now retired, 6,000 miles p.a. with no real need to change the car, if I did it would definitely be to a smaller petrol car. I cannot afford a new car, so a government allowance against a new car would not help.I would need at least a £1,500 allowance to convert to petrol or electric!

The car is garaged & in excellent condition, so do I just keep going until it falls apart, not good for the environment!

a forsyth    on 13 February 2017

my friend had a hybrid that claimed 148 mpg,he drove in every mode possible,the batteries did the said 33 miles at first,over a period of less than a year ,this had reduced to 12 miles and also a daily cost of £20 for a small commute journey,so why is mitsubishi not being investigated as was volkswagon for false statements,and before anyone states it must be a one off,i make a point of speaking with other owners of the same vehicle and there replies are all the same.sooner its gone the better.

Dave Nothard    on 13 February 2017

Everything emits CO2 - all combustible fuels that is. NO2 is also an acidic emission. Diesel Particulate Filters do a reasonable job if revs are high enough to keep the heat up. Rather than trying at one stroke to re-invent the engine type, why not put some research into fitting decent absorbers of the acidic effluent such as the big coal power stations were obliged to do when acid rain was the big problem for Scandinavia. Lorries often purge exhaust through liquids to absorb something. Why not cars?

Richard Fyfe    on 13 February 2017

In this era of false news, sensationalism by the media and the blatant scare mongering we must stop and think of the facts. Diesels not fitted with Particulate Filters are the biggest problem (older vehicles, pre 2011). The Bio Fuel Diesel that is vegetable sourced, used in other countries could be developed and used here for all the old engine and new engine vehicles. Government is pressured by the Oil Companies to use their products. On Brexit, many farmers could make a good living by supplying the raw materials for Bio Fuel. As we see from comments, Electric Hybrid is for the future. We need a solution to allow all the new diesel car buyers a sensible and affordable way forward NOW!

peter murtagh    on 13 February 2017

Hmmm ! I traded in a low mileage car because of a brake repair bill /mot failure made it more economic to trade in for the scrappage allowance than shelve out for the repair .

A year later my old car passed me, being driven by a mechanic from the dealership. My understanding was that the car was supposed to be scrapped. Don't get me wrong, in a way I was happy to see that it was still in use, as the bodywaork was ok and the mileage low at the time of the trade. But surely the scheme was to scrap the older more guzzling cars ? How did it manage to avoid the scrappage ; and will the same tricks be used to recycle cars back onto the road ?

Food for thought ?

Emarco    on 13 February 2017

Interesting then that my Skoda Yeti handbook and filler cap specify not to use bio diesel!

Diggerssenior    on 13 February 2017

I continue to wonder if approach to diesel and a scrappage scheme is really a benefit to cleaning the atmosphere.

The equation has to balance in favour of the scrappage but all the factors in producing a new car need to be taken into account. Automotive production is not carbon neutral; whilst great strides have been made in recycling, the production of a new car is a considerable consumer of energy and raw materials. .

So, the carbon foot rint to produce one car has to be offset against the carbon footprint which has already been incurred by the cars which will be legible for the scrappage scheme. There is the energy and material “burn off” incurred at the stage of production.

It is fair to assume that as a car ages its carbon footprint will increase as its efficiency reduces through wear and tear, use of consumables etc.

Given the production foot print must be greater than the scrappage footprint does the equation really favour scrappage?

I would like this so called benefit of the scrappage scheme to be demonstrated objectively.

I am sure its a big plus for the manufactures but are we all benefactors by having clean air.

Nicholas Allen    on 13 February 2017

I would think about encouraging ADblue conversions for people living in or around cities. If designers really concentrated the cost could be driven down and you would eliminate up to 90% of the NoX gases. The Electric car will eventually take over when battery technology gives at least double today's performances. Of course we shall still have the pollution of coal and oil fired Power stations for decades until Nuclear power (Fusion) take over but this will probably be 50 years away. It seems to take forever just to build the current designs.
I can't see diesels disappearing any time soon as they power nearly all shipping, commercial vehicles and diesel driven power stations.
If the Government rush through legislation requiring people to buy new 'clean' cars the pollution generated in building them will considerably offset the advantage although it will benefit those in the cities more quickly.

allan p rhodes    on 13 February 2017

I agree with Nichols Allen. Diesels will not disappear overnight.Get real everyone ! I am not very convinced about he science behind the claims either. Yes Diesels do produce more NoX but how many have died specifically from NoX produced by Diesels? This nothing but a Government ruse by those who have a vested interest in alternatives or have financial interests or even sinister interests. For instance if you have say an electric car how easy it will be to control that vehicle remotely. Be very warey of anything that has "smart" in front if its name
Problem - "Diesel engine exhausts are killing people"
Reaction - "Oh we are going to die from diesel exhaust fumes"
Solution - "We are doing a nice line in electric cars at the moment"
Dont get me wrong. I am all in favour of progress and I am sure that Diesels can be made cleaner and this is the line we should be taking until we come up with a nice clean hydrogen powered car. Now that I will be in favour of. ( did I hear an oil company say over my dead body)?

Oldergit    on 13 February 2017

How about swapping out the engine for a petrol version. Surely that would make more sense instead of crushing all those cars and I am sure the cost of a newer engine will be much cheaper than a new car.

farmideas    on 13 February 2017

Yet another brainchild from Teflon politician Chris Grayling whose mess in the prisons grows each month. As Home Office Minister his bright idea was to get rid of no less than 6,000 prison officers while the numbers in prison was rising. He moves to transport and comes up with another gaffe. We'll all get petrol cars and then find the litre to fill it costs significantly more than diesel, and feel aggrieved. Why the difference? The oil industry has been building diesel refineries to cope with the rising demand over the last decade and more. A sudden shift, which is what Grayling asks for, will test supplies, and of course increase imports - but does anyone care about balance of trade any more? The petrol policy mirrors that for electric cars, which again are promoted with no thought of where the power is coming from. Electricity needs generating and distribution. Move town centres to electric cars etc and another 6 large nuclear power stations will be needed. That won't happen, so the power will be produced by gas fired stations, or even diesel powered ones.

keith40    on 14 February 2017

I'm writing to you today because I have considerable concerns about the poorly conceived ideas around diesel engine cars.

I am deeply worried about the transport ministers lack of basic knowledge around diesel vehicles. I am worried about the persistent lies that all diesel vehicles produce Nitrous Oxide (NOx as it is more commonally known)

The minister seems to be leaving out the fact that Euro 6 &7 diesel engines with adblu or similar urea based products produce Zero Nitrous Oxide NOx

Therefore making his statement and proposed legislation to ban diesel a total lie. Once again a small group of protesters have jumped upon science that is not full understood. NOx is bad for your health in hi concentrate as is low level ozone which is produced by many electrical items and huge amounts by office equipment and the spark every time petrol is burnt, but I do not see these items being band.

The real issue here is older vehicle not diesel vehicle, the biggest problem is HGV coaches buses if they do not run on blue diesel or equivalent then they produce huge amounts of NOx.

The proposed increase in taxes on diesel vehicle fuel is going to hit our nation poorest families hardest. It not the wealth London people who have the burden thrust up on them it the poorest who purchase diesel because they get double the mile per gallon even in city traffic.

Instead of introducing a nation tax why not introduce a badge system like Germany and France, neither of these nations are taking about banning diesels. They are going to prevent dirty diesels from coming into the cities.

Currently diesel cars make the most sense for lower income families they have lower vehicle tax better miles per gallon and longer service intervals.

If there government is seriously considering air quality they need to be removing all fossil fueled vehicle from public transport. Coaches buses taxi Hackney carriage and private hireHGV delivery vans.These should be the first place to start as for the the do not go out well what a load of old t***!

Next honest John why are you staying quit over clean diesel we should be shout from the top of builds clean diesels do not produce NOx the urea based chemical reaction make nitrogen and water.

I propose that the minister should meet with people like myself and should take note and make public statements to this end.

1Firstly they should not be banding all diesel cars

2There should be no increase in diesel or petrol because the people of Britain are not getting the wages to machine the increase in housed bills including the huge rise in food bills.

3 Electric vehicles for family use are well out of the scope of normal UK citizen you are looking at £60000 and rising for a family sized Electric vehicle with help from the government on the £8500 will not made any difference

When it comes to hybrid vehicle please remember that some are diesel (will these be band) you are looking at £23000 and rising for a family car.

There are city cars like the Renault Zoe but these are no good to families and there range is 100 miles or less depending on the weather. Plus with these vehicle you are looking at £75 months on top of the purchase price to rent the battery.

Well that about 600miles worth of diesel.

If you live in a home without a garage or driveway you cannot charge your car at home.

Now we come to the fact that the government have encourage vehicle manufacturers and car buyers to go for clean diesel, no they are turning there backs on use and causing a car price crash. Diesel car are going to be worthless. I have saved for several years to by £41000 clean diesel and over night with bad press the government have taken tens of thousands of pounds of the value of my car. How dare a minister do this.

The problem with the uk Government and it civil servant is they live and work around London they have good transport networks that run 24/7

The rest of the Nation does not have that luxury some are travelling 30 miles to find a post office or bank let a lone food shopping the rest of the Nation needs access to personal cheap transport.

The we have disabled drivers and disable people full stop with the removal of transport by local government all people with pip or DLA mobility at the higher rate have been forced to lease cars via motability. Nearly all wheelchair accessible vehicle are diesel, so once again the poorest are hit.

This could be a real vote loosing policy as the government are going to hit middle Britain, the caravan groups the people who use there cars to holiday, there daily commute many people my self included commute 40 plus miles well electric or petrol hybrid are not economical enough most hybrid cars do not achieve 50% of there alleged mpg (miles per gallon)

Please I beg of you get the ministers to understand get them to talk to real people who live outside the South East of England about travelling

London based civil servants have no real clue about the rest of the Nation people who live in and around London are ignorant and arrogant of the needs of non city living

   on 14 February 2017

And how does the Government help this along. By raising the car duty on all low emission cars from 1st April. Now who are the FOOLS!!!

Davidwb52    on 14 February 2017

Apart from a few spelling mistakes I agree with Keith40. The broad, cause, poorly thought out approach by the government statements issues so far are typical of lack of rigour, thought or process from politicians and civil servants.

The idea of scrapping some diesel, particularly older ones ( lorries, buses, taxis must be addressed) is a good idea, but needs to be targeted and the process thought out to address the real problem vehicles with out exception.

It does stun me that something we who drive have always known for 20 - 30 years, that diesel is a 'dirtier' fuel, has just become 'apparent' to the geniuses that are in government.

Robert H Bamford    on 14 February 2017

To quote the first line from a very well known Bill Withers song, 'Day after day I'm more confused'.

Initially can I mention NOx is a generic term for the mono-nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide). These are produced from the reaction of nitrogen, oxygen and hydrocarbons (during combustion) at high temperatures. NOT, nitrous oxide as mentioned by another commenter, commonly known as laughing gas or nitrous, it is a chemical compound with the formula N2O. (One can only speculate how the world would be if we were enveloped in a cloud of laughing gas).

As a mere hillbilly I am confident we will see a solution to the controversy when Mrs May gets the Brexit sorted and we're again a sovereign nation.

MartyF    on 14 February 2017

Seems like some people are acting like sheep and agreeing with a subject that clearly don't understand. Having driven diesels with DPF for years, not only have they performed faultlessly, but given me more than 60mpg and reduced pollution So as far as I care, I have made the right decision, and will not change. Like so many others, I am sick to death of "experts" and successive governments who are doing all they can to extract cash from the average person. Long live diesel.

Stuart McArdell    on 14 February 2017

I am interested in OlderGit's question:

"Oldergit 20 hours ago
How about swapping out the engine for a petrol version. Surely that would make more sense instead of crushing all those cars and I am sure the cost of a newer engine will be much cheaper than a new car"

Does anyone have an idea about if this is feasible and what the cost is likely to be?

threadbear    on 16 February 2017

Yesterday I purchased a virtually brand new Octavia diesel. I have owned diesels for 25 years and I plan to keep this one for a long time. I know that there is a strong possibility that the car may become worthless in years to come, but I will keep it well maintained and serviced. I do 9000 miles a year and have never had any problems with DPFs. There was never any discussion at the dealer about buying a petrol, just the good driving characteristics and economy of diesels.

Bronan the Brobarian    on 21 February 2017

A discount on a new car is still useless to me, as I couldn't afford a new car - at least not one I would remotely want. If they're willing to give me ten grand for my meticulously maintained, lovely to drive and economical 2L diesel then we could maybe talk.

Edited by Bronan the Brobarian on 21/02/2017 at 17:09

tolabur    on 28 February 2017

I am running a lovely and well maintained 220 Mercedes estate. Lowish mileage Great condition, Lovely to drive and very economical, Comfortable too with good load carrying capacity as its an estate.
Why would I want to get rid of it?
`Cos so t*** in Parliament dreams up a new idea to make himself seem clever and important
.
In your dreams.

Politicians who needs them.

They are like a headache. so nice when they stop working!

   on 13 March 2017

So crushing thousands of useable vehicles, sending the waste halfway round the world so it can be then remade in to new vehicles and shipped all the way back is good for the environment eh?

What a load of nonsense. Looking purely at what comes out of the tail pipe is so short sighted it's scarcely believable that anyone would take it seriously.

I think the so called "dust to dust" emissions are the only realistic ones to go by. In fact the pollution caused by the manufacture and recycling of a car often far exceeds that which it produces in it's lifetime. So in fact the longer a car lasts the better.

But of course there are our leaders' business interests to think about here and you only pay purchase tax on a new car so the cynic in me sees why the government would prefer us to buy new. But inciting fear about the alleged state of the environment and risks to our own health to make us want to pay more tax is absolutely disgusting and patronising.

PS. Wasn't it a Tory government who told us all many years ago that diesel was the green fuel of the future?