TRAPPED BY EMISSIONS
Page 5
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Among the comic characters created by the late Kenneth Williams was an antediluvian radio gardener whose catchphrase was: "Well oi think the answer lies in the soil..." Swap "soil" for "combustion chamber" and you're on your way to providing the best solution to cutting down on diesel engine particulates—rather than, as is being suggested by the DOT, particulate traps. Not so long ago truck and bus manufacturers were touting particulate traps as the best way to stop soot coming out of an exhaust pipe. Not any more. If Europe's top diesel engineers are to be believed, the clean burn approach which tackles the problem at source has to be the way forward, rather than dabbling in exhaust gas after-treatment. In any case, some of those engineers suggest that Filters cannot remove the tiny particles believed to cause the worst respiratory problems. That's not to say that particulate traps won't be needed in the future. It's just that truck makers are currently pouring millions of pounds into engine research in order to avoid using them—at least For the next five years. If the Department of Transport really wants to cut emissions it could do what the FTA has been suggesting: allow 44 tonnes for general haulage, which would take some 9,000 trucks off the road. And that's a lot of particulates. Unfortunately the DOT turned that idea down flat. Another way to cut particulates would be to use cleaner fuel. There are plenty of alternatives to choose from—such as Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), hydrogen, low-sulphur diesel and biodiesel. The DOT should encourage hauliers to make the switch by reducing the duty on these options. Sadly it hasn't done that either.
And if by putting the retrofitment of particulate traps on the agenda the DOT wishes to tackle the problem of emissions from older trucks, why not stand the argu ment on its head? Instead of making operators pay anything up to £4,000 to fit such equip ment on well-worn wagons, which have a limited life any way, why not give them ecogrants to help buy cleaner Euro2 engined trucks well in advance of the 1996 deadline?
Still, all praise to the DOT's chief mechanical engineer Malcolm Fendick for stimulating the great particulate debate. When it comes to tackling the problems of vehicle pollution why should the DOT keep its trap shut?