Does this trap need to be serviced at some point to maintain its effectiveness?

That looks like it will be an expensive system. I'm also wondering if fuel economy will be lowered by it, and what kind reliability it will have.

t2b1 would mean no emissions

Stan,

I dont know where you get off with your statements.

"That is why I fully support the T2B5 standards here in the USA. Even though EU apologists assert loudly for their "cleaner" diesels; and say that EU cities do NOT stink of diesel, when it is plain to any visitor whose nose hasn't adopted to diesel STINK, can smell that they do."

Plain you say? I'm an American and have spent plenty of time in Euro cities, heavily populated with diesels. The cities dont stink of diesel, period. In some areas, sure, there may be odors, especially in dense urban areas with high traffic, but it's hardly horrible, and that's generally the exception. Also, it only takes a few older diesels to cause issues - you can't conclude anything about having a fleet of purely late model diesels.

"NO the EU4 and EU5 diesel standards are NOT better than an unregulated 1960's vintage gasoline car."

Who do you think youre kidding? You think our air would be much better off with say all 60s era unregulated gassers, vs all EU5 diesels?? Especially assuming any reasonable engine aging process??

I don't know where these attitudes come from.

And who "purports" EU6 to be equivalent to t2b5??

For someone who recognizes how backasswards CARB is, you sure seem to cling to the notion that gasoline standards are "the standard" of reference. It doesnt take binoculars to see the questionable emissions regulation compromises made for gas engines. Are you really that naive?

For example, apart from soot, the mostly-uncontrolled exhaust on my late-90s USA-spec TDI is cleaner than a lot of 80s-era cars, especially over engine life (i.e. in current running condition).

I also wonder if you consider the important and direct reduction in critical evaporative emissions that would result from having diesels in "substantial numbers." I dobut it even crossed your mind.

"The Dumbocrats in Congress working on an Energy bill are all stupid lawyers, who wouldn't be able to find their own ass with both hands, so they are oblivious to the possibilities."
Sweet! More partisan political rhetoric taking the conversation to the breathtaking intellectual heights of a debate between Anne Coulter and Cindy Sheehan.

Re the Dumbocrats comment:

Stan, pretty clear you don't have the facts on your side. What would be the state of play without regulation of emissions and mileage?

What is your recommended policy regime?

All I said is that the air from the from the current American auto fleet is cleaner than it would be if
diesels were common. And that would be true, even if every one those diesels were all T2B5 compliant.

In other words "cleaner diesels" of the EU4 or EU5 European idiom are an environmental clean air exageration. They are "dirtier" than earlier gasoline autos; even some emission uncontrolled ones of the pre-catalytic converter era.

I do not advocate going back wards, when today's technology was so hard to develop and deploy.

We worked hard to cleanse the air; we should not cast that effort aside. Many true believers think our current air is polluted. It has been a side effect of constant advocacy, that the great progress we all have painstakingly made, is not appreciated. The job of cleaning the air is near being completed, and a great accomplishment by people of all political stripes over the past 30 years.

I,for one, would not agree to repealing the current SULEV II or EPA LEV II emission technology to return to first generation cat converters or pre cat ICEs.

I might compromise and let so-called "clean diesels" of the T2B5 variety proliferate. But only as long as I knew it was a temporary condition on the way to Nissan-like SULEV II diesels. Diesels that really are pretty clean, and not just a hoax and advertised to be so.

But I would do it with my eyes open; knowing that I am consciously going backward, making the air dirtier now, and for the interim period, for some other future gain.

OTOH, publishing a requirement by CARBite true believers is not the same as succeeding in developing the technology and meeting it. Mandating impossibilities, like hypothetically repealing the Law of Gravity can be handled two ways. Repeal or Ignore the new law. Meanwhile the fact of gravity cannot be ignored. Wishing does not mean the technology just popps into use.

JB,
Everyone's nose is different. I can't smell a trace of second hand cigarette smoke, unless it is dense, but I do smell diesel stink right after deboarding in an EU city. Soon I acclimate, and don't notice it. But my spouse could smell the smoke on my clothes if I had been in a room that a smoker used. Her sense of smell is even more acute.