GM, Ford R&D execs stress importance of improved, advanced fuels for future engine efficiency gains, GHG goals
03 April 2017
In separate presentations at the 2017 SAE High Efficiency IC Engine Symposium in Detroit, R&D executives from GM and Ford each stressed the importance of improved, advanced fuels—among other technology developments—for their future engine efficiency gains and for long-term CO2 emissions goals.
David Brooks, Director for General Motors Global Propulsion Systems R&D located in Pontiac, gave a more medium-term perspective, emphasizing a pragmatic approach toward reducing CO2 with an eye to 2025. Meeting regulatory targets while keeping vehicles affordable will require the synergistic integration of fuels and engine technologies, he noted.
According to Brooks, among the technologies GM is looking to in the gasoline engine area are:
Continued aggressive downsizing. Key enablers are advanced boost systems and increased knock tolerance—meaning more knock-resistant fuels.
Compression rations between 13 and 14 to maximize work extraction. Key enablers are active valve actuation and increased knock tolerance.
Higher levels of dilution to enable EGR lean combustion at low temperatures. An enabler is more reactive fuels.
Brooks ticked off the requirements for future fuels in his talk:
High knock resistance with high sensitivity.
Low variability across the marketplace.
Near zero sulfur (<10 ppm).
Good low temperature catalyst reactivity.
Low propensity to soot.
We don’t need new fuels, we need improved gasoline with high RON, high sensitivity and low variability.
—David Brooks
Thomas McCarthy, Chief Engineer for Powertrain Research & Advanced Engineering at Ford, took a longer-range perspective, looking out to requirements for 2050.
McCarthy stressed the need to take a well-to-wheels perspective, especially on the glidepath to the 80% reduction in GHGs projected to be required by 2050.
In a 2016 paper published in MRS Energy & Sustainability: A Review Journal, Chris Gearhart from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) noted that, given the GHG budget allowable in 2050 with the projected vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) gives a wells-to-wheels (WTW) GHG emissions target of 48 g/km (77 g/mile).
By contrast, however, a 2017 Tesla Model S AWD 90D carries a WTW CO2e intensity (US average) of 190 g/mile. The 2017 Chevrolet Volt extended range electric vehicle has a US average GHG intensity of 200 g/mile; the new 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Hybrid (not plug-in) has a GHG CI of 184 g/mile. (Plug-in vehicle GHG CI vary based on the carbon intensity of the electricity produced in a given region. All WTW GHG figures from fueleconomy.gov.)
McCarthy presented the problem this gap poses in the following slides, taken from a presentation in 2016 at an American Petroleum Institute industry forum:
|
|
| Vehicle technology improvements will only address a portion of the required decrease in GHG intensity to meet projected 2050 goals. Click to enlarge. |
In addition to the benefits that can be obtained from synergies between fuel properties and engine technologies, McCarthy said, there is a need to explore low-carbon fuels. E-fuels and fuels derived from biomass could offer a big contribution from a WTW standpoint, he noted.
Additionally, McCarthy noted, while decreasing emissions from the light duty sector will be significantly enabled by increasing electrification, the same does not automatically hold true for freight and aviation. The CO2 emissions from those sectors will become more important as light duty vehicle emissions drop, McCarthy said, and low-carbon liquid hydrocarbon fuels offer a promising way to reduce WTW emissions in those sectors, for which electrification does not currently offer as large a benefit.
Resources
Chris Gearhar (2016) “Implications of sustainability for the United States light-duty transportation sector” MRS Energy & Sustainability: A Review Journal doi: 10.1557/mre.2016.8
And if you included an optimized E85 or E100 hybrid vehicle burning cellulosic fuel, the percent reduction of CO2 would go into negative territory. Omit the controversial ILUC and were in to deep negative carbon WTW rating.
Posted by: Trees | 03 April 2017 at 04:11 AM
Trump's policies meant to benefit US automotive industries (ICEs) in reality are dealing a "coup de grace".
Posted by: yoatmon | 03 April 2017 at 06:21 AM
He quotes "All WTW GHG figures from fueleconomy.gov.)"
but I couldn't find them. (can anyone ?) They have tailpipe co2 figures, but these make electrics look better than they are, as most are charged from whatever the grid is doing at the moment of charging.
Posted by: mahonj | 03 April 2017 at 11:55 AM
The problem with E85 is the oil companies, they will NOT allow it in their stations and there is NO law that says they have to.
Posted by: SJC | 03 April 2017 at 01:44 PM
Well, they changed the requirement and the qualifications for what is an alternative fuel. Change it around again and we could have second/third generation ethanol and isobutanol be primary sources. They could also target waste to fuels in particular. There is a quota/limit by the government on what makes it into the fuels.
I am a firm believer that electric BEVs in the long term will take a good chunk of the sedan/coupe c/d and smaller market. Leaving hybrids to take the rest of the field.
I would be okay with a nation wide minimum of 87, or even 91 octane. The 85 octane floor in Colorado is awful, and going by my eyes and nose alone I'd say about 50% of the vehicles that I've seen in springs would fail an emissions test.
No matter how good new vehicles are the polution of a few
Older cars negate almost all of the progress. I am for emission and safety inspections. I think that could improve the air quality for the nation rapidly if it were rolled out in all 50 states. Even if it came with some incentive to fix or replace (like cash for clunkers did)
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 04 April 2017 at 12:22 PM
I am currently looking into water/meth injection as an aftermarket modification to my car, other OEMs are looking to add something of the sort from the factory.
Turbo DI motors can benefit a lot from less knock and lower i take temps.
If the fuel standards don't improve, you can wager that OEMs will seek out this route.
Ford and BMW and others have at least tested a Throttle body injector to deliver ethanol or a water or a water meth injection. The system acts as an octane booster, cools the air charge, and can help clean up the burn as the fuel source (menthol and ethanol) contains oxygen.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 04 April 2017 at 12:34 PM
An engine builder took a Ford 3.5l ecoboost then put methanol/water injection on it, HP went from 360 to 600 hp.
Posted by: SJC | 04 April 2017 at 02:26 PM
There are kits made specifically for the 3.5L ecoboost, I have the 1L ecoboost. Which leaves me looking around for a spare intake tube, or an aftermarket throttle body adapter.
The nice thing is that you don't need to tune for it, and it provides tons of benefits while remaining in closed loop. Most of the performance gains (without other mods) come from timing advance, which is enabled by the cooler air charge, and less knocking. A kit all on its own might see 20% increase in performance max.
Water alone can provide a benefit, and methanol or ethanol can richen the mixture(car will correct and lean out the gasoline injectors to keep close to stoichiometric, if not in WOT) and allow more advanced timing with a possibility to clean up the combustion.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 04 April 2017 at 03:49 PM
I do hope there are fair and reasonable goals for fuel economy quotas from the government.
There are several paths we can go down to make our air easier to breath. Like taking advantage of our bountiful supply of natural gas to power high efficiency power plants, or by converting waste/biomass into fuels, or by generating electricity from renewables.
Bigger trucks, and other modes of transportation might do well going with a turbine setup. Turbines can burn a variety of fuel, which could lead to less processing and overall better wtw picture. By nature these turbine vehicles would be range extended BEVs. Same goes with the Fule cells, by going to hydrogen you can go directly from a renewable source to a denser/lighter than battery storage medium. You still need batteries, but you can get by with 300kwh instead of a much higher capacity for large trucks, which would lower the tractor weight, increase the range, and enable round the clock duty.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 06 April 2017 at 06:28 PM