Unless of course you want to do something silly like towing or drive the miles to get a diesel up to temperature.
As a man more educated on the subject than any of us says:
</div>Professor Graham Hargrave, one of the study’s leaders, says that NOx is only the first step. “NOx is serious,” he said, “but it’s really a point-source problem. It only matters in a tiny minority of locations. Solve it and you can get on with reducing CO2, which is important everywhere.”
<div>
Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/diesel/diesel-no-nox-its-possible#ixzz5C6hvWGeA
And whoever mentioned Fischer Tropsch, lol, SA only seriously started that nonsense during Apartheid-era trade blockades. It's a WW2 relic (pioneered by Germany who were under similar restrictions) and seriously inefficient. Sure, recycling biomass is fair enough but basing an entire system on it? Madness.
The fundamental thing none of you seem to grasp is that there is no one answer. The future lies in diversity, splitting resources to suit their given application. Whether that's ethanol, hydrogen, EV, diesel, biomass or whatever each has an advantage for a given situation. Brazil has an abundance of sugar waste to make ethanol, Finland pulps trees, sunny places get benefits of EV and can power electrolysis plants for hydrogen production (actually good for heavy vehicles even using conventional IC engines). We shouldn't be concentrating on one source as that's just not sustainable.