This is Peter_XX's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Peter_XX's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
YES, what have I been telling you for the last couple of years.
ICCT runs a campaign against diesel. Of course, they try to argue that nanoparticles from GDI is not a big problem. And perhaps it is not – from a legislative point of view. US EPA does not regulate nanoparticles. It is simply not (seen as) a problem in the USA (???). In Europe, however, nanoparticles from GDI will also be regulated and the same limit values will apply as for diesel (previously 10x higher level was allowed for GDI). Moreover, real-drive emission testing will require nanoparticle control under (basically) any type of driving condition. Consequently, car manufacturers now plan to introduce GPFs. Large-scale production starts later this year. There is simply no other way to make a GDI engine clean. Even with perfect combustion, ash particles from oil will be generated. Such particles are trapped in a filter.
Well, all the real driving emissions (RDE) tests I have seen confirm the low NOx mentioned in the article. Generally, ~50% lower than the limit for chassis dynamometer and ~80% lower than the RDE limit to be introduces shortly. Yet, not all technical features commercially available have been used on this engine, implying that further emission reductions would be possible. Most notably would be a NOx storage catalyst (replacing the oxidation catalyst) and direct ammonia injection (e.g. Amminex concept). This just shows that a modern engine can meet very strict NOx emission limits also in real-driving conditions. Of course, these solutions could be "copied" by any other manufacturer.
So, if you buy an EV version of a big SUV, or a big conventional car, then you are environmental friendly (?). Hypocrisy!
No Lad, new diesel car use DPF that give levels at similar - or lower - than ambient air. Soon, we will also have GPF on gasoline cars. Until this happen, however, I can agree it is a problem for the latter category. Conventional gasoline MPI cars have low PN emissions in the test cycle but off-cycle emissions (real driving conditions) can also be high in some cases.
@Juan EV sales has already stagnated in the EU. They are far more expensive than diesel cars. These are the facts.
You need bigger electric machines if you want to cut one cylinder but of course, it is possible. That option might just come with a somewhat bigger price tag; despite reduced number of cylinders (electric systems and batteries are so darn expensive). Eventually, the concept shown here should be very cost-effective, so we might see something similar in production pretty soon. The synergy with NOx reduction is compelling but Euro 6d can, of course, be met with conventional means (you can already buy such cars). A full hybrid with diesel engine would cost more and thus, the total incremental price might be prohibitively high, in spite of lower fuel consumption than the gasoline counterpart.
Lad, you should realize that the PM levels in exhaust from a Duramax are lower than in ambient air in densely populated cities. This cleans the air from harmful emissions in a way that an EV version of the same truck would not do. For sure, NOx emissions still must be further reduced but engineers should have something to work on in the future. Furthermore, an EV version of the same truck would be more expensive and suffer from all other shortcomings of this technology, e.g. low payload in this application. Let’s face the reality: an EV truck would only be good at transporting… batteries. Moreover, if the electricity is produced as in the current US mix, there is little advantage for CO2 and energy use of the EV option.
Well, mahonj, you can use a mild hybrid on a diesel engine as well. It is not forbidden by law. So, that might be the beginning; not the end.
If I read this correctly, they compare the "new" E-class E 350 e with the "old" E 350 CGI. Thus, it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison. The new body is much lighter, has lower air drag and many other modifications that generally reduce fuel consumption. This kind of comparison is not honest. They also calculate on maximum use of grid electricity, which is hardly a likely scenario in ordinary use. PHEVs are generally heavier (batteries) than their gasoline counterparts and usually have higher fuel consumption when operated on fuel. Thus, realistic in-use operation (with much lower use of grid electricity) might yield radically different results that would be less favorably for the PHEV version. Albeit the “biased” conditions, we can see that CO2 is considerably lower for the hybrid. Good! This also increases the resource base for energy supply. Also good! However, when it comes to NOx, the hybrid does not seem to have an advantage on current EU grid mix. Furthermore, one could suspect that the “basis” for comparison (E 350 CGI, i.e. “Predecessor”) is of an older generation which presumably generally has higher NOx than a new engine generation. They do not even mention if the “Predecessor” is Euro 5 or Euro 6. One would assume the latter. The current focus on EVs and PHEVs is contra productive unless we can clean up electricity generation. We clearly have a mismatch here in timing, since the trend of shutdown in nuclear power plants (which in itself is good because we want to avoid any further incidents) will make the EU grid power even “worse” on the short-term horizon. In summary, we should start by cleaning up our electricity generation.
The housing must simply be strong enough to withstand complete rupture of the flywheel. A turbocharger spins at even higher rpm but we accept these risks, and in fact, the turbocharger does not kill people if it breaks. The same, I presume, applies to e-turbos/e-compressors and the built-in electrical machines. I do not see potential risks of the flywheel as a show-stopper. In comparison, batteries and supercapacitors are also associated with potential risks.
I occasionally travel on this ferry. I doubt that the power from this rotor can do more than perhaps cool a few drinks in the bar.
It looks as this is the beginning to the end for EVs. Cost will be lowest around 2025, and market penetration will peak, but later, the lack of raw materials will increase prices and customers will turn their interest to something else.
Buy two engines and get one for free???
If you also include "upstream" efficiency in the calculation, i.e. take fuel production into account, the diesel bus will be much better than the FC bus. So now you know why they did not do that.
Of course it is a problem, the bigger the engine gets. Balance shafts help (no comment about that in the article) but besides that, engine mounting is the key. The most popular city bus engine in the USA during a period was the 9-liter 4-cylinder engine from Detroit Diesel. Today, I think the market leader is a 6-cyl. engine from Cummins.
You could aim for 0.5% or 99.5% of the market. It is very simple. If the latter is of interest, you need combustion engines.
The real problem with diesel engines in Le Mans car has been the low engine noise. With helmet on, the drivers could not hear the engine. They solely had to rely on the tachometer to know what rpm the engine had. Particularly older drivers, who were used to gasoline engines, had a big problem to adapt. We should not forget that current regulations favor gasoline hybrids. If the regulation was decent and equal, gasoline hybrids would not have a chance against diesel hybrids at Le Mans.
Henrik Batteries do not last as long as ICEs. A HD-BEV cannot transport any payload, only batteries. Batteries cost a fortune. It is that simple. That's why we do not see any HD-BEVs on our roads.
Henrik, you have failed to notice that HDVs already last for more than one million miles. Furthermore, a HD-BEV can only carry... batteries... as payload!
@CheeseEater88 It is due to such ill-founded preconceptions as yours that diesel cars are not accepted in the USA. Furthermore, your comments on technical topics just shows how little you know. Let me just give one example. State-of-the-art injection pressure today is 2 500 bar, with next steps of 2 700 and 3 000 around the corner. 2000 bar is not considered much today. BTW, injectors last the life of the engine, which is much longer than a gasoline engine. This is why diesel engines are used in trucks and buses.
ai_win, you made a stupid mistake. They do not use any energy from fossil fuels. They only use the CO2. CO2 has no energy. Energy input is from electricity and H2. They say: "highly renewable or decarbonized", i.e. the same as most people assume for electric and hydrogen cars. Renewable FT fuel is just another pathway of using renewable/decarbonized electricity AND hydrogen (both are needed as you can see in the block diagram, i.e. you could use some electricity to make H2). Nevertheless, the total WTG efficiency is too low (in my view) and the cost is too high. These are the main findings of the study. Put high cabon tax on fossil fuels and the renewable FT fuel will become more competitive. One could argue that the reduction of WTG CO2 emissions by 75% is substantial. What this study lacks is a comparison in a WTW perspective with other renewable/decarbonized options, such as EV/PHEV/FCV, where electricity and/or H2 are produce from the same resources. Whereas CO2 reduction (in %) will be high in any of the cases (the energy carriers are, per definition, produced from renewable/decarbonized resources), WTW efficiency is the most important tecnical aspect. Cost is also of finterest in this proposed study, where the system boundaries are widened.
I do not care about noble men or rich people (who can buy anything no matter the cost…) and what they would have to do with this topic. My position is very simple. GPF is a cost-effective solution, it works (well perhaps it need some optimization to work as well as DPF but this will come…) and we should have it – if not NOW – at least TOMORROW. We know that the EU is on a right track with upcoming amendment for Euro 6 that includes particle number limits but the US EPA should really start to do something. Unfortunately, the route for more than a decade to come seems to be set by EPA and we see no sign of a particle number limit in those regulations.
Diesel is of little interest in the USA, I guess. Since USA and EU do not respect each other's emission certification, manufacturers would have a lot of additional work to certify a diesel engine for US. Euro 6, which is roughly equal to current US limits, was introduced a year ago, so there would be limited development needed (I suppose mostly regarding OBD, not emissions hardware) to fulfil US limits. Nevertheless, there is not much motivation to do that on a market where customers do not want diesel cars and when fuel prices are lower than ever. I would personally want the 160-hp diesel but it has not been available so far in Civic in Europe. Perhaps this will change soon. I would like to pitch this car in the station wagon version against Toyota Auris hybrid early next year when it is about time for a new car. For a hybrid, I have to admit that Auris pricing is attractive (in contrast to Prius…), so this would be the norm for any other car I would consider.