In general no it's not a load of tosh, there are real issues of throwing crap into the environment from whatever source, basically if you throw any kind of rubbish in to the world somebody somewhere has to spend time and money cleaning it up, increasingly because the environment itself doesn't have the capacity to do so.rmunns wrote:Am I simple or is this all a load of tosh regarding emissions?
As I see it, if this container becomes absolutely full of soot particulates then it only represents a litre or two in volume (or whatever the volume of the tank is).
Eco-wise we've gone too far and I think, with my cynics hat on, that much of the complexities on modern cars are there for profit through servicing.
I worked in the Energy field (mostly conservation) from 1966 to 2003 (now retired).
The arguments are always about who and how much. At the end of the day making the polluter pay seems quite a reasonable way of doing it, however whether we are being asked to pay too much for others to clean up our mess is a justifiable question.
With respect to the issue under discussion here i.e Diesel Particulate emmisions i.e soot this what the FAP systems handles.
Now as an individual I suffer from the results of diesel soot fallout in the rain, being acidic it has over the years played havoc with the fibreglass on my boat and cost me considerable time and money to control and the greater motoring public have who caused the problem have not paid one iota in compensation.
Additionally there is little doubt in my mind that now an increasing amount of heavy traffic no longer emits clouds of noxious gas and soot our towns are becoming pleasanter places to live and visit I am willing to pay something so that this may continue.
The FAP system doesn't actually collect soot as such, it creates the conditions such that the soot burns by adding cerin to it, the carbon soot burns, the cerin doesn't, the cerin gets trapped in the filter together with residual non carbon ash by products of oil additives etc.
The cost of doing this works out by my conservative reckoning being £1000.00 per 60000 miles say 0.2P a mile to take into account the slight reduction in engine efficiency as well.
Is there an alternative way that we can get to more acceptable aerial pollution levels without forcing the whole of the motoring population to fit such devices?
Well yes there is, reduce the human population to a more sustainable level, if the U.K had 1950's level of traffic then anti pollution devices probably would'nt be needed, levels of pollution would be significantly lower and nature could probably cope with any clean up required.
We might also have somewhat lower fuel prices as well!
I will sign off leaving that last paragraph as food for thought.
cachaciero