Slashdot Mirror
MIT Says We're Overlooking a Near-Term Solution To Diesel Trucking Emissions (arstechnica.com)
Despite efforts from Tesla, Daimler, Nikola and Siemens to reduce emissions from heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks, either by producing their own electric- or hydrogen-powered alternatives, "trucking in the U.S. is still driven by diesel-fueled, compression-ignition (CI), internal combustion engines," reports Ars Technica. According to a new paper from MIT researchers, "the best way forward is not to wait for all-electric or hydrogen-powered semis, but to build a plug-in hybrid electric (PHEV) truck with an internal combustion engine/generator that can burn either gasoline or renewable ethanol or methanol." From the report: Such a setup preserves the range and affordability that's expected of diesel long-haul trucks while significantly reducing the emissions associated with diesel. To boot, it's a near-term solution; no waiting for battery weight to fall or hydrogen refueling stations to be installed. [T]here are some distinct problems with all-electric and all-diesel trucks that a hybrid flex-fuel truck could solve. First, freight companies are looking for the cheapest way to transport goods from point A to point B, so expensive electric vehicles don't make short-term economic sense, especially if you're competing with other freight companies using cheaper diesel engines.
Using flex-fuel gasoline-alcohol engines has also been shown to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent, the MIT researchers wrote, if the emissions reduction system on the truck uses a three-way catalyst (TWC) instead of the diesel-focused selective catalytic reduction (SCR). (The paper notes that this isn't theoretical. A 90-percent reduction in tailpipe NOx from diesel has already been achieved in light-duty gas vehicles and in the heavy-duty Cummins Westport 9 liter natural gas engine.) A flex-fuel gasoline-alcohol engine could also help freight companies achieve "both the lowest air pollution and lowest greenhouse gas emissions when the internal combustion engine operates," the paper notes. In addition, "the relative use of battery power, gasoline power, and alcohol power can be optimized for meeting varying prices and availability of these energy sources as a long-haul truck travels through various regions."
Using flex-fuel gasoline-alcohol engines has also been shown to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent, the MIT researchers wrote, if the emissions reduction system on the truck uses a three-way catalyst (TWC) instead of the diesel-focused selective catalytic reduction (SCR). (The paper notes that this isn't theoretical. A 90-percent reduction in tailpipe NOx from diesel has already been achieved in light-duty gas vehicles and in the heavy-duty Cummins Westport 9 liter natural gas engine.) A flex-fuel gasoline-alcohol engine could also help freight companies achieve "both the lowest air pollution and lowest greenhouse gas emissions when the internal combustion engine operates," the paper notes. In addition, "the relative use of battery power, gasoline power, and alcohol power can be optimized for meeting varying prices and availability of these energy sources as a long-haul truck travels through various regions."
Walmart should take the lead
Doesn't that give the best of both worlds? All the torque w/o needing batteries?
It's been a while since we had a both-on-the-front-page dupe!
I feel like I've read this before.
Ethanol may be "renewable" but it certainly is not sustainable. It's a very wasteful ineffcient way to create fuel.
They use diesel because it is considerably more efficient. All this would accomplish is to make a truck that is very expensive and uses a less efficient engine, while also requiring it to be plugged in and charged in order to reach its full potential. I find it highly unlikely that would actually happen.
It is not ideologically consistent with our platform. All electric no fossil fuels*.
* well except those required to make electricity. Shut up.
or whatever your name is
MIT REALLY want to make sure we don't overlook this near term solution.
This seems so familiar...
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
No idea about this 'PHEV', but I have to say, I like trucking!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Shipping companies are only interested in cost and getting the jobs done.
Environmentalists will only accept zero emissions because "we only have 12 years left" (5 months ago).
There's no constituency for half measures and no tolerance for disagreement.
As a former diesel mechanic, I would greatly prefer not to have large gasoline tanks hanging off the side of semi trucks. Gasoline is much easier to ignite and burns more vigorously than diesel. Fuel tanks are frequently damaged in accidents, by tire failure, or by road debris. A switch to gasoline means that people will die by fire if this change occurs.
We already have a solution - switch to Biodiesel refined from biowaste. For example Neste's MY.
Burns more cleanly, but most importantly, the only CO2 output is what was bound by the plants during the growth.
As opposed to fossil fuels, where we dig up old carbon and release it to atmosphere...
Thailand has trucks running on LPG cylinders in a nifty stack like scuba tanks behind the cab. This needs more incentive to take up - thats all.
I cant say nice things about Vietnam, who buy Thailands worn out trucks cheap, or Philippines running dirty ww2 trucks/jeepneys
Stop trash talking to adults kid.
Just aksing, you know...
Why do they never consider using up phosphorous and nitrogen eutrification of waterways with in these scenarios? Why would we use up precious resources (clean water and phosphorous) to drive vehicles, when they should be dedicated to food?
Being in trucking for many decades I have noticed two things. Trucking will reject new technologies that do not save them real money. All electric trucks fail because of the way irregular route trucks run. Many that run 24 hours with team drivers which leave little time to charge batteries. Then you have slip seat companies that save money by having more then one driver use a truck. Alternative fuels are also a problem because they simply are not always available where trucks go. Then there is the obvious one cost to repair, requiring specially trained people to make repairs and availability of parts. In most of these studies the people doing them seem very uneducated about how trucking really works. Why companies do what they do, and why diesel remains the preferred fuel because it does what they need it to. Providing weaker and costlier alternatives that have not been proven won't cut it.
This is a traditional MIT prank, right? Can't find any other explanation for the TLA heaven.
Spilled diesel fuel is a mess. Spilled gasoline is dangerous.
I've always wondered why no one has ever successfully tested a hybrid turbine-electric system for large trucks. It would seem as if the ability to burn almost anything would future-proof the system, and since the turbine would charge the batteries, you could run it at a constant speed.
Make love, not reality television.
for generators to create a sort of 'diesel-electric' powertrain (like a train locomotive, but with batteries and plugin charging as well) for motor vehicles, but i think it would make a nice alternative to pure-electric, as a generator with small fuel tank would increase range and provide that emergency 'get home' (or to a charging station) power, that enables the electric vehicle to be your only vehicle, instead of the second car that's used for very short trips or commutes only because electric-only range is much shorter and charging stations are not near plentiful enough or widely available everywhere (compared to regular petrol stations).
Though a near term solution, expect it to be costly.
The solution to this should be determined via free market. Why? Because people proposing these solutions are not the people who will be paying for them. This represents potential government mandate costing a ton of money. It would likely drive small business owners bankrupt, and then, inefficiencies or hidden maintenance costs would not be learned until later.
Disclosure first former employee and I hold stock in the company.
Hyliion based out of cedar park, TX. Offers a hybrid truck solution that can easily be retrofitted into existing class 8 trucks. The system can offer saving a of 30% of fuel consumption using a combinations of reduced gas usage and reduced idling during hoteling.
Check it here, Hyliion.com
stop worrying and build fission plants by the shedload.
Do msmash and beauhd not communicate?
I have a friend move to Dallas back in 1993 or 1994 to build diesel electric school buses. I lost track of him so I don't know how it turned out but I don't see him on the Fortune 500 so I assume it didn't work out.
I have a better idea. Send the freight by train hauled by electric locos. Most of the main lines in Europe are already electrified (but obviously not in the USA which is decades behind in rail tech).
No the US is not decades behind in rail tech. The US has a very advanced FREIGHT rail network and it is used far more than in Europe. The US rail network for freight is arguably the best in the world. The US does a shit job in passenger rail for a variety of reasons. But electrifying the rails in the US for freight trains by and large doesn't make much sense given the distances and geography involved. Diesel electric works pretty well for the use cases here.
A lot of industry and distrubution depots in the UK are alongside railways already, because they were originally placed there with rail sidings, now closed.
Rail delivery makes sense if you are getting large and routine deliveries or if you are doing intermodal transport. LTL truck freight makes a LOT more sense economically for many companies. Remember that you have to stop the whole train to drop off goods or a car to a rail siding. Trucks can go point to point and don't depend so much on coordination with other deliveries. Believe me that lots of companies have done the math on rail delivery. Sometimes it makes sense but often it doesn't.
Ethanol may be "renewable" but it certainly is not sustainable. It's a very wasteful ineffcient way to create fuel.
Except it isn't actually renewable. In actual practice it is essentially converting diesel fuel into ethanol, often at a net energy loss.
Gee, where would that idea ever have come from?
By the bye, next time the crossbuck comes down, don't try to drive around it to beat the train pulled by diesel-electric locomotives....
(Or maybe we could go back to shipping most stuff long distance on *trains*, which get, lessee, how's their ad go? 1 ton 453mi on a gallon?)
What, and the obnoxious church on 1431, just off 183, doesn't call you Evil?
NH3 is oft overlooked as a replacement for current fuels. It offers advantages like no carbon, its common and cheap, it can be used as a transition fuel by burning it now and using it as a cheap and fairly safe way to store hydrogen for fuel cells.
Gasoline school buses get between 1 to 3 MPG. I imagine gasoline 18-wheelers will be measured in gallons per mile. Diesel is much more suited for efficiency in high torque applications.
What is with all the pie-in-the-sky, replace-everything-at-once plans. A large trucking company will order hundreds of trucks at a time, and spec the exact same engine for the last batch of hundreds they bought. The last thing they want to do is have to stock parts for 50 different models in their service centers.
You wanna get electrics into trucking. Start by selling an axle with an integrated motor and small battery pack. Call it an "overdrive" axle to give it a catchy name. All it would do is help with acceleration from stop, climbing hills, and braking on hills. Create axles for both tractors and trailers. 18-wheelers have a dumb axle on the tractor, and two on the trailer.
Now, introduce larger, bolt-on battery packs. Provides acceleration and hill-climbing power for longer. Saves more braking on longer descents. Stores more of that braking energy for later use.
Now, add solar panels to cover that trailer.
In each instance, an independent operator or a fleet owner can slowly wade a little further into the electric world without obsoleting everything they're currently running. A few thousand dollars for an axle compares favorably with an aftermarket replacement, especially when the replacement can be expected to pay for itself in engine wear, brake wear, and fuel costs.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
And it isn't a pipe dream of an idea:
https://www.trucks.com/2018/05...
https://www.truckinginfo.com/1...
This is going to be the way the industry moves forward.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
>> they dont seem to get if everyone owned electric that means we need more power generation.
Nope. More electric energy generation. (Peak) power remains exactly the same, if not decreasing due to growing storage.
>> that means more plants throwing out junk
Nope. Switching all ICEs to electric "throws out" 2.5 times less CO2, and over an order of magnitude less NOX, 3 orders of magnitude less particles etc etc...
>> more battery's that are made out of some pretty nasty stuff
Car Batteries (Pb) are today pretty close to 100% recycled in a fully closed circle, so they don't pollute. At all. The same with Lithium.
aaaaaaa
What's good for trucks should be good for ships, trains and buses, too.
I don't see the parts he got wrong. We are going to continue to vote though, but it's not gonna be for your people. I know that's got you scared or you wouldn't have bothered mentioning it.
To be fair, Kohath is a shitbird, and always has been so he's earned the hate.
When you use hydrocracking of crude petroleum it breaks down into components like Jet Fuel and Diesel Fuel. What do they purpose to do with all the Diesel fuel created in that process? Store it? Dump it? Pay people to take it away? They want to disrupt an industry. Tell me what that disruption looks like after the fact.
Sure, they're slow... and, yes... the capital costs are high but when you take into account maintenance on the entire highway system I'll bet it's way less in terms of total dollars to cargo ton per mile. Can anyone do the math to see what moving even just 25% of long haul (greater than 500miles) trucking volume to trains would do for the highways in terms of: accident mortality, pollution, traffic congestion and road wear and tear? That would be interesting.
On the other hand, if trains were simply cheaper, then business would already be doing it. So, is it speed of delivery that keeps them from doing it? Or is it freight-rates on trains shoulder the entire cost burden (maintenance and fuel), where the national highway system is more heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
Sure would like to know...