| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Air pollution in Putney | |
| Posted by: | Roland Gilmore | |
| Date/Time: | 12/05/13 11:37:00 |
| Thanks for the link Tim. The DEFRA documents says "Air pollution is estimated to reduce life expectancy of people in the UK by 6 months on average, imposing a cost of around £16 billion per year." In practice, DEFRA support what the minister believes is the least cost option, regardless of the our health (different ministry). One of the big omissions from the "damage" costs is EU infraction fines. In the case of the Thames Tideway Tunnel, the EU Water Commissioner is pressing for infraction fines on the UK government of 2Bn Euro and that for something that is not life threatening. How much more will infraction fines be for non-compliance with air quality directives for something that IS life threatening? Another conspicuous omission is due to the focus on NO2 rather than the suite of combustion pollutants. Where are the PM cost comparisons'? The cost numbers may seem daunting but not once you analyse them. London has 6,800 buses on scheduled routes carrying 2.337Bn passengers a year; about half the national total. If the DEFRA figures reflect additional capital cost per bus over existing, the additional capital cost of hydrogen over current diesel buses is 6,800 x £72,932 = £493M. A bus will be in service for about 10 years. £493M divide by 2.337Bn is 2 pence per journey. Is that unaffordable to save a large part of that £16Bn? The emission savings number in the table you extracted the £numbers from is obviously wrong. How can a fuel that produces none of the pollutants of diesel save only 282t of NO2 whereas an upgraded diesel bus is said to "save" 1,433tonnes. Doesn't that defy common sense? It's surprising not to see a petro company as joint author and sponsor of this paper. |