PACCAR to offer Cummins X15N natural gas engine in Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks
16 August 2022
PACCAR will work with Cummins to offer the new Cummins X15N natural gas engine (earlier post) in Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks. The X15N is the first natural gas engine to be designed specifically for heavy-duty truck applications with up to 500 horsepower output. The engine will include the integration of the Cummins Clean Fuel Technologies fuel delivery system.
PACCAR, Cummins and several customers including FedEx Freight and Knight-Swift will demonstrate the ability to achieve lower carbon emissions for long-haul transport using internal combustion engine technology.
The X15N is essential to our commitment to help customers reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and to improve NOx. Importantly for the customer, the X15N will reduce the cost of adopting low emissions technologies for their fleet, and gives them the confidence to do so, built on the strong foundation of more than 30 years of experience with natural gas.
—Srikanth Padmanabhan, Vice President and President, Cummins Engine Business
When operating on renewable natural gas (RNG or biomethane) the X15N engine will be able to achieve major reductions in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks. This can range from a 90% reduction to carbon neutral, or even carbon negative, depending on the bio-source and waste feedstock used to produce the fuel.
The new X15N is capable of lower NOx levels than the 2024 EPA and CARB standards. The 1,850 lb-ft (2,508 N·m) of peak torque output provided by the X15N will provide optimum performance when paired with Eaton Cummins Automated Transmission Technologies HD and XD Transmission.
I wonder what percentage of these engines will be run on biomethane as opposed to fossil methane.
Posted by: mahonj | 16 August 2022 at 07:36 AM
This is a CO2 reduction program; period! no amount of spin can sell it as 'no greenhouse gasses.' The only thing that can do that is not burning fossil fuel in the atmosphere, i.e., electric trucks.
This is clearly greenwashing to keep making profits.
Posted by: Lad | 16 August 2022 at 01:15 PM
@Lad:
' the X15N engine will be able to achieve major reductions in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks. This can range from a 90% reduction to carbon neutral, or even carbon negative, depending on the bio-source and waste feedstock used to produce the fuel. '
Please show with the numbers where this is in error.
Thanks.
But what do Cummins know about heavy transport and what works compared to yourself?
Posted by: Davemart | 16 August 2022 at 01:58 PM
Diesel engines running fossil fuel of any kind is at the center of the pollution problem; Carbon Neutral indeed.
This is greenwashing by including fossil fuel made from low carbon feedstock and including the entire lifecycle in their claims. The numbers mean very little; it's the methodology that is suspect.
We have the same problem on the U.S. electric grid. The U.S. adopted natural gas as an interim solution to reduce emissions; now, the grid is 45% plus running gross polluting natural gas. Better to have spent the money on building windmills, geothermal, solar, and battery sources instead; we would have been miles ahead had we done that instead. Low carbon feedstock is not an answer, it's a problem that is slowing down and delaying the actual work of cleaning up the pollution. Nothing more than companies delaying when possible to continue milking their polluting profit cows; and, slowing down their eventual investments in clean energy. Sad, But True!
Posted by: Lad | 16 August 2022 at 10:50 PM
Your policy ideas are way off, Lad.
First off, clean diesel is far cleaner than the tire and brake dust emitted by all vehicles in terms of particulates.
Secondly, replacing our truck fleet with battery or fuel cell propulsion is cost prohibitive, economically ruinous, and in the end won't make even a small dent in pollution- because most of the world will not comply with this vision. If we comply, we simply lose economic competitiveness and gain nothing. Additionally, only diesel can offer the power density and range needed for large rural cold areas. Also, natural gas fuel represents an excellent option, because it does in fact reduce carbon and particulate emission, and we have plenty of this fuel. You complain about people making profits, but profits actually are part of survival and are not evidence of wrongdoing.
A couple of dirty 3rd world tanker ships can wipe out all the pollution reduction you can contemplate, and all the economic harm that would come with it.
Posted by: The Lurking Jerk | 17 August 2022 at 07:52 AM
Hi Lad.
You are of course perfectly entitled to your own views.
I would however very respectfully like to point out a couple of tests and qualifications which I try to be aware of on my own.
We all know things with various degrees of certainty, and it seems important to me to be always aware of how uncertain so many things are, and what evidence we actually have for them.
This is particularly important when we are seeking to use them in a debate with others.
Our many views have different levels of certainty, and the more absolute they are, the greater the need to be prepared to fully substantiate them, or maybe change our minds if we can't manage that!
So how do we know what we think we know, what is the evidence, and can it be supported?
Mind you, I do not disagree with you to anything like the degree I do with TLJ, and I am not even going to go there! ;-)
Posted by: Davemart | 17 August 2022 at 11:03 AM
@TLJ:
Re-reading what you are arguing, some of it is soundly based.
But:
' A couple of dirty 3rd world tanker ships can wipe out all the pollution reduction you can contemplate, and all the economic harm that would come with it.'
So if there are any difficulties, the solution is to give up?
And I am not sure what 'pollution' you are talking about.
Particulates, which are more regional, CO2, what?
The 'dirty third world tanker' also has to dock somewhere, and if regulations don't allow that, then it is unlikely to be viable.
Sure, your point that there are considerable obstacles is valid enough, but you have to start somewhere.
Posted by: Davemart | 17 August 2022 at 11:18 AM