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."
It's been a while since we had a both-on-the-front-page dupe!
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.
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...
10 years....really depends on the industry. A couple of years ago, the average age of commercial medium and heavy duty trucks was 14.8 years. And it isn't the class 4 or 5 that raise that age. MDTs and HDTs are designed to be serviced and most of the guys I know aren't trading in because the truck is too old, they are doing it because the DRIVER is to old and they want to go to something like a Volvo with iShift to save their knees.
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.
Stop trying to trademark things...
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.
Trucks are already burning it, all diesel in many states is a mix. Itâ(TM)s just about production capacity.
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Walmart is leading on electric, with huge turbines at many DCs they want to power trucks for local runs. Long haul takes hybrid.
I can tell you from driving rigs there are two elephants in the room on waste: 1) idle time 2) wasted kinetic energy. 1 You need to decouple AC & heat from engine, and have it powered through mandated electric plugs at truck stops selling kWh for profit, to save $30 a night per truck in idle fuel. 2 is huge, itâ(TM)s shocking to drive hundreds of miles at 9.2 mpg (at 40 tons) on i5 nb in CA, only to watch your avr mpg for the *whole trip* drop to 6.1 when you get into the mountains. Money bleeding through jake brake that could be saved with Prius style regenerative braking.
The real model you need is something like an 10 liter diesel (shrunken from 12-15 normal size but able to drive) plus electric with maybe 90 miles of range on its own, but mostly doing torque assist and regenerative braking.
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Why not focus on transcontinental hyper-loop shipping lanes.
High costs to build out the infrastructure, maybe? This is a proposal that can be adopted now as opposed to 10-15 years from now. Why should we let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
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.
Diesel electric trains run on diesel fuel. I dont think you understand what the term means.
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). 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. Such sidings could easily be re-instated - only arcane beaucracy (and the associated insane expense) stands in the way.
Why not focus on transcontinental hyper-loop shipping lanes.
High costs to build out the infrastructure, maybe? This is a proposal that can be adopted now as opposed to 10-15 years from now. Why should we let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
I say to both of you.. I seer your hyperloop and raise you one Thundefoot!
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.
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.
they dont seem to get if everyone owned electric that means we need more power generation. that means more plants throwing out junk more battery's that are made out of some pretty nasty stuff. the main reason other country's push for it is because there cost of fuel is stupid. saying its for the trees just make people fell good about it.
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?)
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.
To bad the Boomer's replaced trains for trucks in the 70's to give themselves jobs.
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