VOLKER LANDWEHRThe 20,000 TEU container ships going to European port have engine output of 100,000 bhp, not easy to obtain with turbines. I know of a few warships having turbines but the last mearchant vessel that comes to mind was the Finnjet (1977-2008). Turbines need high quality fuel and can't compete with HFO fueled diesel engines.
Mr. Landwehr could add to this argument that ship gas turbines are no less wasteful away from rated load than other comparable-cycle turboshafts. So a strictly turbine 'fastship' that doesn't involve comparatively many engines (even sized differently to give a range of shaft-available powers) will often be running far away from comparable consumption (and mass emissions) from a large multiinjector ship diesel of current best practice.
Ships can also package and carry appropriate equipment to filter nanoparticles with comparative ease, for the time that Europeans mandate strong restrictions on that relatively injection-specific pollutant.
I was delighted when the high-speed steam-turbine containerships were built in the 'last gasp' of speed optimism before the oil embargo and all that. The fuel issues are a bit less onerous for external-combustion turbine power, even if using once-through boilers (which I wouldn't favor for large marine use) but even there a large ship-optimized diesel is likely to be preferable for any speed modern commerce actually demands and is willing to pay for.
Turbines need high quality fuel and can't compete with HFO fueled diesel engines.
Just out of curiosity, why would the technology in, say, the Siemens SGT-500 (an excellent German design} be unsuitable for ship propulsion using HFO?
M636CBut I understand that turbine powered ships are allowed in European ports where diesel ships are actively discouraged through emission regulations.
It would interesting to know where such information can be found.
Shipping emissing regulations come from Marpol. Currently on the oceans usually Heavy Fuel Oil (a residue) is burnt. The sulphur content is currently limited to 3.5%. Than there are Emission Control Zones: Baltic Sea, North Sea, North American coast etc. Here 0.1% are allowed. Than there are NOx standards higher in the USA than in Europe thar require use Marine Diesel Oil.
Does that means discouraging? There are so many countries involved that it has no influence on shipping. With the huge overcapacities in the container shipping market the ECA emission standard had only very limited influence on prices.
The 20,000 TEU container ships going to European port have engine output of 100,000 bhp, not easy to obtain with turbines. I know of a few warships having turbines but the last mearchant vessel that comes to mind was the Finnjet (1977-2008). Turbines need high quality fuel and can't compete with HFO fueled diesel engines.Regards, Volker
Shadow the Cats owner... where is the excess power coming from 2nd your only moving the emissions to another spot.
To answer this in appropriate political terms, it comes from the same source used for zero-emission passenger vehicles. If California (or another CARB state) has trouble with the electricity fairy starting to go the way of Tinker Bell, they can come up with some combination of additional renewables, natural gas or nuclear generation, or whatever that supplies the specific marginal charging and operation power where it needs to be used, in acceptable form, as the politicians decide it will be needed. (And I hear you snort 'Yeah, right!' and I deeply sympathize, but that's what you'd get with appropriately responsible rather than expedient politicians...)
The smallest Cummins engine that my boss would run weighs in at 4000 lbs. Our current one is about 6000 lbs. That is wet weight aka ready to work.
But how much of this engine capacity is actually "needed" for acceleration, or essentially providing compression to accelerate engine speed into a load, or even for steady-state primary propulsion under grade or adverse wind loading? The engine I was discussing is in a full-parallel configuration, like the ones in those bus designs, where the engine never connects for direct drive to the wheels at all. It can be sized proportionally to the (sleeved-down and staged-turbocharged diesel Rabbit) engine in our Karman test prototype (incidentally a Lehman-Peterson limousine) with the energy storage and recovery sized and operated to do ALL the loading above baseline operation as much as possible on the torque peak.
Of course, the percentage reduction in a practical diesel engine is much less than the horsepower and size reduction; think of the 'sustainer' engine in that two-engine prototype (was it one of the Wal-Mart projects?) that engaged when the main diesel was shut down or idled for cruising at 55mph. That wouldn't be fully practical for general OTR operation away from the special charging architecture ... unless using a higher state of tune or charge pressure, etc., than is typical for long engine life in the wise part of the trucking industry. Still, I think the case can be made (I have seen it made already in a couple of creditable proposals) that the net carried weight of the 'hybrid' with smaller engine can be kept reasonably close to the alternative 'regular drive' net of all pollution equipment necessary.
We are dealing with over 2000 ft lbs of torque normally 400-500 hp and 80k lbs moved. Even as stout as we build our drivelines at times we still break parts. Plus we have to shift weight on and off these things by moving tandems or the fifth wheel the shock loads there are when you can break a rear end drive shaft in 2.
The key here is that the drivelines are not optimized for the torques and loads encountered -- the same general sorts of situation that for so long spelled the end of disastrous attempts to use "road-style" mechanical drives or components from trucking practice for rail applications. Even in trucking applications you see the evidence of bad design, one example being the torque windup of lightweight 'energy-saving' frames when drivers shift outside the powerband or horse the power too much. My experience with shaft drive of 6000hp or greater indicates that a comparatively simple set of magnetorheological clutches in the driveline can deal withpractical shock loadings within the structural limits of all the driveline components (in other words, the driveline is practically tire-limited, as for existing braking and steering/guidance).
I think there are ways to design cost-effective truck suspension that properly accommodates moving the fifth wheel (or keeping proper adhesion, compliance, etc. going from bobtail all the way to improper nose-heavy lading) -- it might even involve proportional deflection or preload of normal metal load and resonance-snubbing springing.
[/quote]
schlimmIf this concept has some potential on highways, why not on the rails? If the concept (and realization) of driverless taxis, cars and trucks are on the near horizon, why not apply it to the rails?
Both of them do, to an extent, apply, and I have some experience with them. In particular the use of intermittent magnets in track acting on a superconducting armature structure on a train is a useful external power system for high-speed railborne trains -- in the early Seventies it was "common knowledge" that there would be insufficient coefficient of friction for wheel-driven speed above about 310mph, and most of the contemporary LIM systems had intrusive reaction rail structures imcompatible with standard rail equipment. It woild not be too difficult to adapt the 'hardened' enclosures and peripheral wiring for such a thing to perform modern high-frequency close-contact inductive coupling for charging and energy transfer.
The problem is that the energy density that has to be transferred for typical freight HP loadings requires a larger area that can be conveniently accommodated between standard-gauge rails, so it works better as an assistance system than a full zero-emissions substitute for road or even heavy transfer power. I think there are several projects looking into addressing this issue.
One likely scenario for the road-coil system is for additional energy transfer only on upgrades, which dramatically lowers the initial installed cost and provides a controlled environment and easy support during rollout and experimentation. A catch here, of course, is that specific equipment to receive the power, and then use it for propulsion, needs to be provided on any truck (cf. Kim Stanley Robinson's 'tracker' system) and --STCO can correct me ifwrong -- it is precisely the low-dollar or penny-pinching operators whose trucks and drivers can't pull grades at road speed that can't or won't pay for the additional expense to be used only on helper districts or regions that have air-management districts and the money to wire up and power the roads. (I expect them to kick even more when current RFID is extended to start billing them for the pro-rata traction power and all the fees Democrats will start tacking onto the bill -- see that very funny lemonade commercial to get a feel for some of the likelier ones)
Autonomous technology is another matter. The primary issue, of course, is that consequences of a technollgical failure are so much greater; associated with this is that current railroads have a relatively enormous exposure to malicious interference or even cyberterrorism in ways that permit easy escape. Remember we live in a world where engine crews can't play stereo music in their cabs while running, can't take naps except in specific constrained circumstances when in the cab, can't use their phone or digital device at any time when running. Now you propose substituting a computer with a million gates all supplied by a lowest bidder, running AI/ES code written by our current generation of H1B and outsourced providers, to do some, but not all, of the vigilance and compliance with the PTC environment ... until it crashes and dumps control back to them at a moment's notice, under what by definition will be alarming or unusual circumatances, or worse does not notice or respond to something and causes or permits death.
Where I intended the 'autonomous vehicle' to be used was in direct helper service (whether wired-contact or inductive). For the road system, the truck would be fitted with appropriate contact 'hardpoints' (I won't give a distracting discussion of some of the potential ways) and the vehicles would be directed using familiar old PRT control and scheduling approaches to "be" where needed for boost or dynamic braking (at bottom or top of the grade respectively). It is technically feasible to have the vehicle attach itself to or contact the truck at speed, but politics might determine a stop and inspection -- probably best in conjunction with a typical state truck inspection station, or on a dedicated roadway far from passenger or lighter-freight traffic. The principal object might be keeping 'one-speed' operation on the grade, in any weather, in practice rather than just putative energy savings or pollution reduction, but the system would likely be spun to the public for some combination of the latter reasons, probably involving that old demonized carbon.
The chief concern with electrified helpers for railroads can be immediately identified: it assists private railroads, for private-railroad gain, at a cost private railroads can't or won't undertake unless mandated. (And you can hear the screams starting very early, perhaps even louder than the ones over mandatory ECP adoption)) The inductive alternative requires installation on either a large number of locomotives or on special road-slug-like vehicles (with the additional energy-storage, or extra fuel a la MATEs, additionl braked axles or TMs, etc.) to be added or removed from the consist at appropriate points, if you want any more "zero-emission" payback on the investment than would be derived from eliminating emissions from just helpers in helper district service... which is valuable to some of the public 'affected' by nearby idling helpers that then emit all sorts of stuff when throttled up for use ... but that is an awful lot of bucks for the bang.
Paul MilenkovicGiven the amount of high-value freight on the Interstates, this may even be a better cost-benefit ratio, perhaps much better, than electrified rail lines. While the rail lines are fretting about their double stacks and overhead wire clearances, the highway people may be putting these coils into the cement, without any other infrastructure changes.
If this concept has some potential on highways, why not on the rails? If the concept (and realization) of driverless taxis, cars and trucks are on the near horizon, why not apply it to the rails? I defer to your opinion and that of others, such as RME.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There is some problems with this idea. Again were is the excess power coming from 2nd your only moving the emissions to another spot. Lastly the smallest Cummins engine that my boss would run weighs in at 4000 lbs. Our current one is about 6000 lbs. That is wet weight aka ready to work. A hybrid setup for what we need would be over 4000 lbs for the motor and gearcase and battery. Who says that heavy Eaton Fuller that make over 90 percent of the drivelines used in our industry. We are not moving a Toyota prius here. We are dealing with over 2000 ft lbs of torque normally 400-500 hp and 80k lbs moved. Even as stout as we build our drivelines at times we still break parts.
Plus we have to shift weight on and off these things by moving tandems or the fifth wheel the shock loads there are when you can break a rear end drive shaft in 2.
tldr: California being California, Californians being Californians, Californian ranting about it all...
I'm not familiar with the economics of rail, but I am a native Californian, so I'm not surprised. The entire state is heading squarely towards electric transportation, even though we haven't exactly addressed how we're going to generate that much electricity in an ecologically-friendly manner. The essential goal of this initiative, though, like the recent LA Metro expansions, is to reduce overall emissions from freeway traffic. Commuter lines do not yet compete with the freeways, at least from a public interest standpoint.
Urban rail systems like LA Metro and BART are fairly competitive within their service areas, but even so they remain heavily reliant on a variety of bus modes and commuter systems like Caltrain and Metrolink which are still strengthening their competitiveness against commuter bus lines and freeway commuting; this is especially the case in Southern California. Metrolink stations are generally as much as half the distance to common destinations (usually one or two valleys over) and the entrenchedness of driving means that we will almost always choose to do so for even further trips. Metrolink's recent fare reductions to make it more cost-competitive are not well-known, and for single-valley hops (Antelope to Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita to San Fernando, etc) commuter buses are still quite popular with individuals who are already utilizing local buses run by the same agencies. These outlying suburbs being generally higher-income with regards to commuters, the TAP Card being more convenient makes it competitive despite the significantly higher cost of a monthly commuter pass over Metrolink's monthly.
For single trips, I can give an example: it's $1 to get to the transit center if you cannot ride directly to one of the Metrolink stations, another $1 in that case; Metrolink is at least $3 if you're only going one station down, at most $15~ to get to Union Station, from any point on the line, including riding even further down Metrolink, you get free fare on Metro Rail and basically any local bus in the entire metropolitan area, but not express or commuter; from the transit center the commuter bus will be another $2.50, then Metro Bus (commuter buses from here run to Warner Center, UCLA, and a pair of Metro stations) is another $1.75. What this means is that in the Greater Los Angeles Metro, which is the vast majority of Southern California by both area and population, public transit is very clearly delineated between buses for local and short (up to about 40mi) trips, Metrolink for longer commutes and trips paralleling but not competing with commuter bus lines in the outer suburbs, Metro Rail fulfilling this same longer commute role in the metro proper, Amtrak California lines primarily targeting anyone with two places of residence. The same, to my understanding, is largely true of the San Diego and Bay metro areas, but with more well-developed light rail services instead of the LA metro's vast bus networks.
The reason for these buses being the hills and somewhat poorly planned nature of the coagulation of the metro, also being the reason why most of us prefer to drive. One of the primary motivators for ridesharing and utilization of public transit, then, is environmental conscientiousness; this meaning that, in the face of what is now a nearly universal adoption of Compressed Natural Gas buses, rail lines will need to either convert to LNG or pure electric power to be politically and popularly competitive. It doesn't matter to the average Californian that Tier IV is already highly efficient, it matters that we can buy cars that say "hybrid" or "electric" and that our buses say "CNG" or "hybrid electric." A good advertising agency could probably come up with a wonderful branding for Tier IV locomotives and make it just as popular, but they haven't. Until then, zero-emissions is another thing that some Californians will push for until it eventually becomes profitable and universal, while almost everybody else in the country just thinks it's a nice idea. For some reason we seem to produce the loudest idealists and the quietest realists (nobody ever really talks about the swaths of California which remain staunchly conservative and house a lot of the national aerospace industry.)
Great post!!
M636CSo if the hybrid turbine-battery locomotive could qualify as "zero-emissions" it could become the switcher of choice in all the California yards trgeted by the CARB. If that wouldn't do, a fuel cell-battery hybrid might work.
"Zero-emissions' is a political definition, including the usual-suspects "pollutants" and also, now, CO2. I do not believe there is an exception for 'renewable' sources of emitted CO2, so a locomotive burning, say, 100% biodiesel would not be considered 'zero emission' even though there is no technical overall increase in CO2 as in anthropogenic release of fossil carbon or whatever. Compare the definition for PZEVs and pure BEVs on the automotive side.
A turbine-electric would have to use a nonpolluting fuel (e.g., one with no carbon) to fit the zero-emission requirement. The characteristics of the Brayton cycle do not make this a particularly happy convergence of minimal fuel burn and easy maintenance under conditions where the turbine is being run at reduced power or idle for an appreciable part of its duty cycle, or is shut down and restarted with all the hot-soak, turning-gear, and transient emissions at startup that have so characterized turbine-engine experimentation on railroads in the past. I have sincere doubts that a good hydrogen carrier fuel turbine is going to be anyone's practical answer to zero-emission locomotives, any more than I expect to see conversions of well-car sets with turbine gensets to recreate some of the premise of Kneiling's '60s integral trainsets. There are still nominal advantages to positive-displacement expansion (as in piston engines) for applications that run at "high turndown" a considerable part of their duty cycle, or that are unpredictable in the timing and duration of their turndown. Those are both salient characteristics of most normal locomotive service...
Overherd at Railroad Hobbies (located 1 block from the Roseville yard) An UP Engineer/Model Railroader is supposed to have said "A diesel and a Genset working together could do the work of the diesel alone"
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
"Fuel Cells may be viable someday, but current state of the technology are very expensive, often inefficent, not always reliable and the infrastructure to service them (fuel and maintenance) very limited. The advanages of using hydrogen in fuel cells is often touted. There is a well developed distribution system although only adequate for current uses. Hydrogen is the most abundent element, most of it is locked up in non usable forms. Freeing the hydrogen, usually using electricity is expensive and generation of the electricity needed and is often poluting."
Could we PLEASE never ever have mention of electrlysis of water as a source of hydrogen again? And while we are at it never ever mention hydrogen as a fuel?
A gallon of hydrogen at 5000 PSI has 1/24 of the fuel value of a gallon of gasoline, and about 1/30 of a gallon of diesel fuel. So now you have a fuel 1/30 of the value of that you want to replace and this does not even begein to cover the production of it. To produce this wonderful useless "fuel" you would propose to electrolise water at an effiency of around 60%. You want to do that with electricity produced at a max efficiency of 45%. So .45X.60X.041+.011% return in useable energy.
RME [Then we can start discussing test 'autonomous helper' districts for those severe California grades that only expensively high-powered hybrid trucks could climb, and determine how to pay for them and the power they'd consume ... but that's another story, only peripherally connected to its analogue on railroads...]
[Then we can start discussing test 'autonomous helper' districts for those severe California grades that only expensively high-powered hybrid trucks could climb, and determine how to pay for them and the power they'd consume ... but that's another story, only peripherally connected to its analogue on railroads...]
Actually, there is a plan to do something like that --
http://evr.usu.edu/
This professor named Regan Zane came here to the U to talk about this only I couldn't attend his talk because there was this other talk I was expected to attend. I discussed this with the Administrative Assistant of the group of researchers here interested in this sort of thing and she told me, "Yeah, I just met the guy -- he looks like he is 12 years old." (His picture is under the tab People.)
I viewed the video of his talk. The idea is to put magnetic coils in the road to either power the truck electrically or to do that and also top off a storage battery for when the truck leaves this electrified road. He and other researchers have figured out how to transfer the required amount of power between the road and the truck using these coils embedded in the cement -- no contact, no third rail, no catenary, no collector shoe or pantograph needed.
They claim pretty good efficiency. This work stems from mag-lev research where you would need non-contacting power transfer between guidway and vehicle. Professor Zane also claims that the vast majority of OTR trucking by ton-miles is on Interstates and the costs for electrifying the Interstates are "plausible." He said the drawback is the chicken-and-egg problem as to where do you start, because you would have to electrify a lot of route miles before truckers could get interested in electric trucks or electric trucks supplemented by batteries for the last mile.
Given the amount of high-value freight on the Interstates, this may even be a better cost-benefit ratio, perhaps much better, than electrified rail lines. While the rail lines are fretting about their double stacks and overhead wire clearances, the highway people may be putting these coils into the cement, without any other infrastructure changes.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
To get back to the subject of zero-emissions locomotives:
Presumably the "zero" refers to specific measured gases, rather than no emissions at all. So hydrogen fuelled fuel cell powered locomotives, which emit water would be considered zero emission by the regulators.
Presumably it would be possible to add such a unit of enough power to enter and depart a yard (the "last mile" referred to in conjunction with overhead electric locomotives in Europe fitted with auxiliary diesels) to an otherwise standard Tier 4 road unit to target emissions in defined areas.
Years ago I had some discussions with a manufacturer of hybrid switcher locomotives. They were talking about using a small gas turbine to recharge batteries since this would have more acceptable emissions.
(Quite a bit of our discussions were about British Railways 18000 and its recuperative gas turbine, and Rolls Royce's problems with the WR-21 recuperative turbine. The WR-21 is so bad still that fitting bigger "auxiliary" diesels to WR-21 equipped ships is now a priority.)
But I understand that turbine powered ships are allowed in European ports where diesel ships are actively discouraged through emission regulations.
So if the hybrid turbine-battery locomotive could qualify as "zero-emissions" it could become the switcher of choice in all the California yards trgeted by the CARB. If that wouldn't do, a fuel cell-battery hybrid might work.
A lot of these hybrids were built with standard diesels but were not considered reliable or economical, but if the standards get tougher, they might find a niche and be developed into a reliable unit.
I've only been to Roseville a couple of times, but on my last visit, one of the state funded genset switchers was dead at the locomotive facilities while one hump had two GP38s and the other two GP39s. I didn't ask any of the local population how they felt about this.
But with Trump talking about rolling back regulation will a Tier 5 actually happen?
Peter
schlimm VOLKER LANDWEHR RME ........,it would not be difficult to build up a critical mass of 'improved' tractors for OTR trucking (including fleets for "intermodal" tractor exchange near California's borders I think it might not be just California. As of 2009 13 states (CARB states) had adopted the CARB emision standards: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. There might be more states now.Regards, Volker States adopting the California standards include Arizona (2012 model year),Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico (2011 model year), New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.
VOLKER LANDWEHR RME ........,it would not be difficult to build up a critical mass of 'improved' tractors for OTR trucking (including fleets for "intermodal" tractor exchange near California's borders I think it might not be just California. As of 2009 13 states (CARB states) had adopted the CARB emision standards: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. There might be more states now.Regards, Volker
RME ........,it would not be difficult to build up a critical mass of 'improved' tractors for OTR trucking (including fleets for "intermodal" tractor exchange near California's borders
I think it might not be just California. As of 2009 13 states (CARB states) had adopted the CARB emision standards: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
There might be more states now.Regards, Volker
States adopting the California standards include Arizona (2012 model year),Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico (2011 model year), New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.
The legendary Soviet Chief Rocket Designer Sergei Pavlovich Korolev and the engineers and workers of OKB-1 had many accomplishments to their credit -- first orbiting satellite, first photos of the far side of the Moon, first man in space, first woman in space, first space walk, and so on.
Even so, Korolev wanted to motivate his senior engineers by showing them a film of American rocket accomplishments that came from the U.S.. He invited his translator to provide the narration in Russian for this event.
The translator got into the spirit, perhaps even a little carried away with what was admittedly an American propaganda film, speaking with enthusiasm about the American accomplishments depicted in the film. This was perhaps not hard to do given the style of Russian language narration for Soviet propaganda films.
All accounts describe Korolev as an engineer first and foremost and not an apologist for the Communist System -- he was a Party Member, yes, but that was the price of being able to pursue his technological dreams. That said, even an engineer has an ego and a sense of professional pride. When the film viewing was all over, the Chief Designer took his translator aside and chastized her, "You narrated this film with such triumphalism . . . don't ever do this again!"
erikemThis is where I wonder if some sort of hybrid diesel-electric drive makes sense, especially if coupled for electric drive for the superchargers.
That is the point I was making a bit earlier: that not just assisted, but primary acceleration will have to be made from stored or onboard power.
That doesn't have to be electric: I did research on the Karman hydraulic transmission in the '70s and it represents a reasonable way to produce high propulsion force for the time needed for practical acceleration of a class VIII truck at relatively small additional mass (over a Tier 4 or higher installation of combustion engine capable of similar acceleration directly) and allows the engine to run at constant rpm when loaded or to transition between constant-rpm states only minimally loaded.
Electric drive for the turbochargers (not superchargers in the normal automotive sense of a crankshaft-driven device) became a practical thing with the advent of relatively cheap Li-ion battery strings operating at 36 or 48V. Research into the motor types appropriate to high-speed turbochargers took place in what is now far tech antiquity -- Ford was experimenting with Satcon motors (which have no breaks or weak points in the armature structure, and can be spun up to the necessary high rpm) in a thermal-break turbo interstage many years ago -- and it was only the provision of the necessary energy density that made the idea of 'electrically assisted turbos' practical. (Note that this is not adapting a ducted fan or 'leaf blower' to pressurize airflow into an engine's airbox; this is spooling a turbocharger up to effective speed and hence achieve appropriate boost pressure in advance of sufficient exhaust mass flow to accelerate the turbine -- an electric version of what EMD did with gears and an overrunning clutch in the '50s, and I trust Alco fans are watching and learning...)
If companies like Wal-Mart are willing to spend enormous sums on 'trucks of the future' to identify all the Wrong Development Paths and at least take steps toward costing down the appropriate technologies for good performance at the intersection of all the green priorities, and if governments would use incentive programs and strategically-applied grants rather than coercion and unfunded mandates to get both development and production of the alternatives done, it would not be difficult to build up a critical mass of 'improved' tractors for OTR trucking (including fleets for "intermodal" tractor exchange near California's borders!)
RME Paul Milenkovic I had heard about smoke generation from gasoline direct-inject, well nigh 40 years ago at a major North-American manufacturer of automobiles. Remember that direct injection was not really practical for gaoline engines before you had a combination of high pressure, very precise metering and timing, and very fast load following (particularly on commanded acceleration). The avoidance of kernel and flame-front issues with spark initiation of combustion in the injection plume was another fun can of worms. Why spend all the money for metering and timing needed for a diesel motor without getting the heat-content and reasonably complete combustion of compression ignition? In a discussion of then-current Volkswagen DI a few years ago, it was pointed out that a given injection charge at steady-state cruise might involve no more than 35,000 MOLECULES of fuel, which must combust smoothly and reasonably progressively in the expanding chamber volume following reliable kernel ignition close to the spark source, in the dramatically short time implied by what may be very high engine rpm to make power. I can't imagine controlling this without multiple capable sensors on a fast interconnect bus, with substantial processing power and speed -- we haven't even gotten into prediction and fuzzy logic for control -- meanwhile keeping the overall vehicle market-priced, maintainable and supportable, etc. Is it even possible to avoid nano-particulates even burning a liquid fuel, either to heat a boiler, in a gas turbine combustor, or in a direct-injection engine, whether burning gasoline injected prior to combustion or Diesel injected during combustion? Don't combine the options like that -- nanoparticulates can form for a number of reasons, in at least some cases via after-heat attenuation of larger, "less unhealthy" particles generated from power combustion. The key thing to note, and I wouldn't have predicted it to the degree that seems to apply, was that a DI gasoline engine makes a comparable mass of nanoparticulates to a diesel alternative.That tells me there are complicated things about the combustion that are not as simple as many who like the word 'stoichiometry' would want to admit.
Paul Milenkovic I had heard about smoke generation from gasoline direct-inject, well nigh 40 years ago at a major North-American manufacturer of automobiles.
Remember that direct injection was not really practical for gaoline engines before you had a combination of high pressure, very precise metering and timing, and very fast load following (particularly on commanded acceleration). The avoidance of kernel and flame-front issues with spark initiation of combustion in the injection plume was another fun can of worms. Why spend all the money for metering and timing needed for a diesel motor without getting the heat-content and reasonably complete combustion of compression ignition?
In a discussion of then-current Volkswagen DI a few years ago, it was pointed out that a given injection charge at steady-state cruise might involve no more than 35,000 MOLECULES of fuel, which must combust smoothly and reasonably progressively in the expanding chamber volume following reliable kernel ignition close to the spark source, in the dramatically short time implied by what may be very high engine rpm to make power. I can't imagine controlling this without multiple capable sensors on a fast interconnect bus, with substantial processing power and speed -- we haven't even gotten into prediction and fuzzy logic for control -- meanwhile keeping the overall vehicle market-priced, maintainable and supportable, etc.
Is it even possible to avoid nano-particulates even burning a liquid fuel, either to heat a boiler, in a gas turbine combustor, or in a direct-injection engine, whether burning gasoline injected prior to combustion or Diesel injected during combustion?
Don't combine the options like that -- nanoparticulates can form for a number of reasons, in at least some cases via after-heat attenuation of larger, "less unhealthy" particles generated from power combustion. The key thing to note, and I wouldn't have predicted it to the degree that seems to apply, was that a DI gasoline engine makes a comparable mass of nanoparticulates to a diesel alternative.That tells me there are complicated things about the combustion that are not as simple as many who like the word 'stoichiometry' would want to admit.
Rocket engines are perhaps the epitome of this. The chemical makeup of the exhaust can change dramatically between the combustion chamber and end of the nozzle, simply due to the very pronounced difference in temperature and pressure leading to different termodynamic equilibrium. Engineering thermo isn't all that bad, chemical thermo - Gott in Himmel...
At least some of the problem likely comes from early quench of the 'combustion' reaction for some reason -- contact with a cooled surface, low spot oxygen content, etc. -- that prevents complete carbon reaction while the 'system' still facilitates that. The role of sulfur providing preferred condensation nuclei has been pretty well laid out, and the explanation does not trigger by honed BS detection. Problem is that to get the liquid-phase fuel droplets finely enough divided that they will burn to completion with litmited free oxygen requires comparatively expensive injector nozzle fabrication and finishing, and any suboptimal fuel can ruin all the good intentions in lighting off and scrubbing the 'layers' of carbon from a droplet before it flashes off into a particle of soot (with fractal effective dimension) in the health-critical emitted size range. If there is enough TOF in the radiant zone, all the carbon sources that would form nanoparticles will either react with oxygen or remain at a more visible 'soot' size. I expect that a continuous Brayton-cycle engine, especially one with regenerative reheat, would show limited nanoparticle generation.
At least some of the problem likely comes from early quench of the 'combustion' reaction for some reason -- contact with a cooled surface, low spot oxygen content, etc. -- that prevents complete carbon reaction while the 'system' still facilitates that. The role of sulfur providing preferred condensation nuclei has been pretty well laid out, and the explanation does not trigger by honed BS detection. Problem is that to get the liquid-phase fuel droplets finely enough divided that they will burn to completion with litmited free oxygen requires comparatively expensive injector nozzle fabrication and finishing, and any suboptimal fuel can ruin all the good intentions in lighting off and scrubbing the 'layers' of carbon from a droplet before it flashes off into a particle of soot (with fractal effective dimension) in the health-critical emitted size range.
If there is enough TOF in the radiant zone, all the carbon sources that would form nanoparticles will either react with oxygen or remain at a more visible 'soot' size. I expect that a continuous Brayton-cycle engine, especially one with regenerative reheat, would show limited nanoparticle generation.
One of the notable differences between a compression ignition engine running with excess air and a typical mixture engine is the much higher exhaust gas temperature with the mixture engine (bad for turbocharger bearings, perhaps good for buring carbon nanoparticles.
One possible benefit of longer combustion chambers/shorter flues/tubes in steam locomotives was the increase of radiant versus convecting heating.
I have heard that engines using propane as fuel run much cleaner than gasoline engines - circa 1980 truck engines could run 15,000 to 25,000 miles between oil changes, with the oil almost as clean as new, spark pluges would last 75,000 miles, etc. On of the reasons given is that the propane would enter the cylinders as a dry gas, with part of the benefit in not diluting the oil film on the cylinder walls. Propane is a much smaller molecule than what's found in either gasoline or diesel fuel, presumably being easier to completely burn. In addition, it is almost entirely a single hydrocarbon, so the combustion properties should be very uniform compared to gasoline.
Yeah, yeah, a gasoline engine with a proper carburetor, with "throttle body injection" or with "sequential port injection" is dealing with an aerosol and not a pure vapor, but I presume the lack of smoke stems from the fuel ending up completely vaporized prior to ignition? A "carbureted" system is supposed to work by vaporizing the charge, and at least some of the DI work seems to assume that mechanical atomization, promotion or preheat from pilot injection, etc. are doing this for enough of the plume to react completely (and liberate enough heat and light prompt energy to promote 'the rest) to go completely to reasonably transparent gases in the very limited time and changing environmental conditions. I have generally followed a slightly different assumption: that at least some of the combustion involves reaction at the periphery of droplets and then a somewhat smaller carbon 'core' that must be scrubbed of CO2 after the hydrogens have combusted. Any high-speed DI engine is likely to have some percentage of fuel react in such a way (and yes, at least some of the research on pulverized-coal combustion should be applicable here) and, for engines that approach measured stoich, the distribution of available oxygen may not match the 'oxidation requirements' (with or without the regenerated heat and motion of "spent" recirculated exhaust to help other things out)
Yeah, yeah, a gasoline engine with a proper carburetor, with "throttle body injection" or with "sequential port injection" is dealing with an aerosol and not a pure vapor, but I presume the lack of smoke stems from the fuel ending up completely vaporized prior to ignition?
A "carbureted" system is supposed to work by vaporizing the charge, and at least some of the DI work seems to assume that mechanical atomization, promotion or preheat from pilot injection, etc. are doing this for enough of the plume to react completely (and liberate enough heat and light prompt energy to promote 'the rest) to go completely to reasonably transparent gases in the very limited time and changing environmental conditions.
I have generally followed a slightly different assumption: that at least some of the combustion involves reaction at the periphery of droplets and then a somewhat smaller carbon 'core' that must be scrubbed of CO2 after the hydrogens have combusted. Any high-speed DI engine is likely to have some percentage of fuel react in such a way (and yes, at least some of the research on pulverized-coal combustion should be applicable here) and, for engines that approach measured stoich, the distribution of available oxygen may not match the 'oxidation requirements' (with or without the regenerated heat and motion of "spent" recirculated exhaust to help other things out)
Sounds reasonable to me.
I'd wonder how a DI engine running on dimethyl ether would do in regards to particulates? This might be similar to running mixture engines on propane.
Or is there smoke even in a gasoline engine? This is a difficult thing to gauge properly. Of course there is some smoke on speed and load change -- this is easily observed when you see someone hit their accelerator too hard in an older car. In proper steady state there should be no "smoke" at the exhaust ports, even if conditions would allow subsequent oxidation or provide catalytic action further down the exhaust tract that got rid of visible smoke. The fun question in the past -- and it is about to become a much, much more fun question with Tier 5 and above -- is how to make the speed and load changes 'gradual enough' that they do not cause any change in combustion-created emissions.
Or is there smoke even in a gasoline engine?
This is a difficult thing to gauge properly. Of course there is some smoke on speed and load change -- this is easily observed when you see someone hit their accelerator too hard in an older car. In proper steady state there should be no "smoke" at the exhaust ports, even if conditions would allow subsequent oxidation or provide catalytic action further down the exhaust tract that got rid of visible smoke. The fun question in the past -- and it is about to become a much, much more fun question with Tier 5 and above -- is how to make the speed and load changes 'gradual enough' that they do not cause any change in combustion-created emissions.
This is where I wonder if some sort of hybrid diesel-electric drive makes sense, especially if coupled for electric drive for the superchargers.
Paul MilenkovicI had heard about smoke generation from gasoline direct-inject, well nigh 40 years ago at a major North-American manufacturer of automobiles.
Your carbureted gasoline engine (I would count the various "injection" schemes other than direct injection as carbureted) are burning a liquid that has been vaporized.
The key here is not just 'vaporization' but time that the injected droplets have had to 'evaporate' into the charge air and mix with it either to give a good mixture or provide a reasonable-enough kernel density for reliable ignition (and then combustion of any lean part of the charge). TBI is, like Holley Pro-Jection, a substitute of precisely-metered fuel feed for the 'default' action of metering jets; port injection more precisely meters the fuel closer to where it goes into the chamber -- but there are limits in how much closer you can get.
Note that this verges over into the effective diesel analogue of "port injection": IDI in something like a Ricardo Comet chamber. Here the fuel 'injection' is purposely made into heated air that is being squished for high turbulent mixing, with enough time for polynucleate combustion to become well-established if not go reasonably to completion, for gas generation. The gas then is transferred to the actual cylinder (with, by then, a likely high concentration of chemical promoters for combustion) where the burn can reasonably complete. You will get considerable soot out of such a thing if you overfuel it, but we leave that aside for the moment.
I changed out my "downstream" O2 sensors in response to a Service Engine Soon code, and they were pretty sooted up. On the other hand, the car is using about a quart of oil in about 700 miles, so it is burning oil droplets?
The thing I'd want to look at is your catalytic converter, both inside and outside. Very few sources of "oil use" produce actual oil drops -- the blue puff from worn valve guides being one example -- so what you have is most likely lube oil starting to be laid more heavily on the cylinder walls and evaporating into the exhaust gas with little or no actual 'combustion' of it necessarily taking place.
I would consider this reasonably unlikely to form 'sooting' on the O2 sensor noses (instead of gum/varnish-like brown substance) but when it gets into the cat most of it will react, exothermically, perhaps enough to overheat the casing. Now, not all of oil is combustible; it has "ash" components in it, which remain in and progressively clog or poison the catalyst in the honeycomb. It may not take long for this to build up to the point there is actual backpressure on the exhaust sufficient to induce a number of interesting things...
Yoho1975 wrote:
As for energy production. I've actually not heard of rolling brownout problems in years. The natural gas leak in SoCal caused problems, but that's unrelated to the issues we're discussing. And CA's electricity rates are problematic for a number of reasons not all related to a lack of production.
California's explosion in Rooftop solar has actually caused a new problem, energy surplus during peak sun. What is now needed is a storage solution...or perhaps more users.
A little late in replying, I don't remember the specifics, but it seems it was either last summer or the summer before, the TV news reported brown outs, in I believe either Phoenix, or Las Vegas. It was in a land, far, far away from where I live and work, so not being personally affected, I don't remember the details, but OCASSIONAL rolling black outs do happen, though not frequentl, it does indicate that our production capacity and demands are close, without a lot of surplus.
As to California having surplus solar capacity, yes either finding storage solutions is needed, or finding ways to shift demand to better match production peaks, which in the past, have not been very effective.
"More User's" is exactly what is NOT needed, that would only make the problem being discussed worse. Utilizing the power when it is produced is the answer, how to accomplish that, is the $64,000 question.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
I am entering the discussion to make the following two points:
1. The trucking discussion is relevent to this Forum because the technical problems discussed are related to those involving diesel locomotives and because the trucing industry is both the major transportation partner with the railroads and its main competitor.
2. Again I ask that people be as polite as possible with each other, that ideas but not people should be criticized. Thank you.
RME Natural gas in compression-ignition engine designs might not be your answer, especially if relatively-moronic CNG fueling has to be used. I was a bit distressed to observe that nanoparticulates from practical gasoline DI engines were also high in some studies, leading me to worry that very,very slow engine speed and load changes (anyone remember that ghastly VW thing from the '70s with dashpot on the throttle linkage, making a GE locomotive look positively sprightly in response by comparison?) will become "the way of the future" for just a couple of environmental reasons (one reasonably immediate consequence being that some sort of primary energy-storage transmission becomes essential for any over-the-road operation not on dedicated truckways)
Natural gas in compression-ignition engine designs might not be your answer, especially if relatively-moronic CNG fueling has to be used. I was a bit distressed to observe that nanoparticulates from practical gasoline DI engines were also high in some studies, leading me to worry that very,very slow engine speed and load changes (anyone remember that ghastly VW thing from the '70s with dashpot on the throttle linkage, making a GE locomotive look positively sprightly in response by comparison?) will become "the way of the future" for just a couple of environmental reasons (one reasonably immediate consequence being that some sort of primary energy-storage transmission becomes essential for any over-the-road operation not on dedicated truckways)
I had heard about smoke generation from gasoline direct-inject, well nigh 40 years ago at a major North-American manufacturer of automobiles.
Your carbureted gasoline engine (I would count the various "injection" schemes other than direct injection as carbureted) are burning a liquid that has been vaporized. Yeah, yeah, a gasoline engine with a proper carburetor, with "throttle body injection" or with "sequential port injection" is dealing with an aerosol and not a pure vapor, but I presume the lack of smoke stems from the fuel ending up completely vaporized prior to ignition?
Or is there smoke even in a gasoline engine? I changed out my "downstream" O2 sensors in response to a Service Engine Soon code, and they were pretty sooted up. On the other hand, the car is using about a quart of oil in about 700 miles, so it is burning oil droplets?
Shadow the Cats ownerWhy Germany did what they did after WW2 was simple for them they never wanted to have to remember what happened.
Not true at all. Germany banned Nazi paraphernalia and symbols so that that era could not be glorified in the present. The evils of the 3rd Reich are taught in schools. Monuments to victims of and to the resistance to the Nazis can be found in most cities and towns. We have taken an opposite path with a very dark period of our history.
Paul MilenkovicIf ultra-fine particulate matter (PM) emissions generated by Diesels are the serious health problem, especially by high injection pressure common-rail engines, is this even solvable? Are these emissions even trapped by particulate filters?
It is not an easy issue to solve. I trust you read the EPA document I linked, which has some interesting information about nanoparticulate generation and at least an introduction to the biological reasons the size and composition of these nanoparticles are significant.
To my knowledge little to none of the nanoparticulates are trapped, except incidentally, by any practical DPF architecture. While I, personally, think that current DPF implementations are a feel-good technology against visible soot (the kind of thing that does largely settle out quickly and stick to things in the environment) there are some health hazards from chronic exposure to that stuff and I won't say DPFs don't have value. Regeneration at the cost of higher fuel burn is another issue entirely: tha appears to be largely ignorance creating costs in pursuit of feel-good environmentalism. (A bit like the way certain engine manufacturers have implemented EGR in high-speed diesel engine design, but I won't digress there now...)
Note in particular that a very major reason for ULSD is that the sulfate particles are nuclei for nanoparticulate generation, and yes, this is good reason to get fuel suppliers to install the appropriate process equipment to remove the sulfur. Unfortunately at least some of the processes used also materially degrade the lubricosity (or associated characteristics) of the resulting fuel, meaning that additives need to be provided for precise injector construction to survive. When fuel providers don't provide those additives (perhaps in part pretending that ULSD is "the same" as the previous fuel) then truckers have an unfunded-mandate cost which can't be allocated appropriately to Government (or even social welfare) and will be unrecognized as the heroic albeit indirect support of 'the general good' that it is.
Will we need to bring back steam locomotives? At least grate-fired, because pulverized coal combustion, even with particle filters, has the same problem?
Not really an answer; the full 'well-to-wheel' costs, let alone any ash handling and disposal concerns, are almost impossibly large given the low practical efficiency for normal railroad operation cycles. There are modern versions of external-combustion that might be practicable for some niches in railroad propulsion, but they would require development of a critical infrastructure of some size (and portability!) to be useful to working railroads concerned with real-world overall costs.
Now, Government mandates, and adherence to mandatory red tape and so forth, have become 'accepted' costs of doing business, treated just like actual engineering or resource cost factors in OR and analysis. I myself have a strong preference for incentives vs. making orders and rules for everything and then imposing 'anything that is not mandatory is forbidden' controls on industry, let alone society. Either way, there are in fact some legitimate goals that can only be served through influencing company management away from ordinary of 'least-cost' administrative procedure -- a good EPA example, in my opinion, was the original restriction on CFC emissions in the '90s. The problem for practical steam is that the amount of additional cost and complexity for steam is as considerable as it was in the early '70s (when 'steam' was a perceived answer to the first rounds of Clean Air reductionof pollutants from carbureted IC engines)and an appropriate framework of carrots and/or sticks would have to be put in place with reliable consistency over a long-enough period of time to justify the major capitalizations required. I don't really expect that, and Tom Blasingame's answer (outsourcing all the support as a third-party contracted 'package') doesn't address a couple of the most whopping issues.
Seriously, are the ever more strict emissions regs making a dent in the real health problem? Will we need to switch to natural-gas engines on trucks and locomotives?
This was an original major question in this thread before it got sidetracked into personalities. A question that I have still not seen properly answered is whether the NO emission standard (framed as "NOx" but combustion-derived) in Tier 4 final -- which kept EMD very expensively out of domestic locomotive production for so long -- actually provided anywhere near a commensurate health benefit to 'the public' net of the very limited hours at very small marginal percentage difference in relatively small geographical areas involved. Personally, I found the determination of the specific NOx "number" for Tier 4, and by extension "Tier 5" and above, to be more politically than scientifically imposed, and to be hearkening back to an era in which far less controlled NO, converted into NO2 by far more prevalent HC/VOC, was a greater issue. On the other hand, I am not a fan of permitted atmospheric concentrations of NO2 itself at even small focal levels -- the question becoming more whether increasingly small marginal health benefits are (1) legitimate things for expensive government action, and (2) legitimately the subject of cost-benefit analysis in "bottom-line cost" terms.
I am working on a technology that can modulate timing, expansion rate, and chamber volume more or less continuously - and there is no guarantee even there that nanoparticulate generation with injected liquid fuel can be avoided.
The fallback has been, and remains, catalytic steam generation with 'high-test' hydrogen peroxide and methanol/ethanol fuel. Society will either have to provide high safeguards against diversion, or be willing to suffer a much higher incidence of state-explosive terrorism, if that 'revolution' becomes cost-effective or economically justified.
Why Germany did what they did after WW2 was simple for them they never wanted to have to remember what happened. For us we need to remember that our history while it was brutal over 150 years ago it is our nations history and it can not be changed. Yes this nation fought one hell of a war over it hundreds of thousands died fighting for what they believed in. However we can respect those that want to remember what happened to their ancestors in the South along with their Heros from there. Just remember this about most of the Heros of the South in the Civil war less than 20 years before they were all part of the US Army in the Mexican war and served with the Utmost Honor in it.
I take no offense in what Volkner said to me heck I hear worse from my drivers on a daily basis. I have a very nice thick skin it is called 3 kids at home 250 of them at work and for more fun I have to deal with government agencies all day for a living. If I let everything get under my skin that could I would have gone insane 5 years ago. There are times when my boss comes in and goes how do you deal with the stress I just say it is easy.
Paul: There are limits on free speech in the US as decided by the process of judicial review. The limits vary by nation and topic. In the US we decided it is ok to display symbols many find offensive such as the swastika and the Confederate battle flag. In Germany, display of symbols related to the Nazis is prohibited. Which is a better policy is a matter of debate.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm Perhaps those interested in discussing aspects of the truck business unrelated to railroading can take their discussions to a more appropriate forum? I am a self-appointed gate keeper whereas you are not?
schlimm Perhaps those interested in discussing aspects of the truck business unrelated to railroading can take their discussions to a more appropriate forum?
Perhaps those interested in discussing aspects of the truck business unrelated to railroading can take their discussions to a more appropriate forum?
I am a self-appointed gate keeper whereas you are not?
Put simply, you decided that a foreigner has no right to criticize an American's remarks on here simply because he is a foreigner. That is gatekeeping based on nationality. I simply expressed the wish that we could keep the topic on rail-related subjects, a wish expressed by members and moderators many, many times. Big difference.
Paul MilenkovicOur friend in Germany has expressed an opinion that an opinion expressed by a fellow Forum participant is "inappropriate." Our friend does not have the power to control Forum content and neither do I, but our friend as much as said that opinions expressed criticizing U.S. and California regulatory agencies do not belong here.
Every discussion lives from different opinions. I haven't called an opinion inapproriate but the tone. Regards, Volker
Paul MilenkovicA stand-up comic in Germany was brought up on charges, recently in Germany, for saying that the President of Turkey has relations with farm animals.
As I said in my latest post there a limits to the freedom of art. We have an ancient § in the criminal code that penalizes insults of foreign heads of state. Our goverment has to authorize the use. And that is what Mrs. Merkel did. As it is in the law a court has to decide. The criminal charge was rejected by the prosecutors and didn't reach the court. The civil charges a not finally decide but Mr. Boehmermann lost the first level of jurisdiction. The people were divided as is the judiciary.
As the public opinion was devided it was very important to have a judicial and not a political (not to allow the charges) ruling. The civil charges couldn't be prevented. BTW there is an other paragraph dealing with insult independent of goverment approval.Regards, Volker
This reminds of an experience on my first visit to the USA in the late 1970s. We talked with two fishers at a lake in Colorado about our rental car, a Buick. It was a nice car but when we traveled a gravel road with a few serpentine I would have prefered my own car with independent wheel suspension. When I mentioned it the "audience" was over.
I brought up being a German for others to better understand the shortcoming of my English. If you hadn't known would have accepted? Weird.
Paul MilenkovicYou brought up being German and how everyone in Germany "accepts Climate Change" whereas not everyone in the U.S. does, with a whole chain of implications and insinuations that follows from that,
There is climate change there always has been. We think a significant part is man-made and should be reduced. Many Americans do too, many Amercans don't. What you make of a simple statement is up to you.
Paul Milenkovic Perhaps there is a social-cultural-traditional difference on Free Speech, the First Amendment, lawful protest, and expression of grievances?
There might be differences. Here the free speach or the freedom of art are held very high though they are limited by laws. When personal dispraise or insult come into play the border might be crossed. But that is a fine line so often courts have to act.
Paul MilenkovicBeing German and the fact that Germany has less strict regulations has everthing to do that you have "no skin in this game" regarding the problems that a truck driver in the U.S. has to stay in business.
To set things straight, we talked about cars (VW), when I talked about our lower emission limits. I have looked up the truck emession limits of Euro VI since 2013:
CO:1.1 g/hph; THC:0.10 g/hph; NOx: 0.30 g/hpH; NM3: 10 ppm, PM: 0.08 g/hph
It seems quite close to current EPA standards. Differences might come different prioritiey in the conflict of aimes between NOx and CO.
Paul MilenkovicBeing German has to do with the strict regulations in the U.S. leading to billions of dollars being transfered from your fellow citizens to the U.S. Treasury, collective punishment against German stock holders and German workers.
We seem to have a very different legal understanding. When going on a foreign market you play to their rules and laws. You don't like it stay away.
The German engineers didn't develop the fraud software for sport. And no the EPA didn't have backs to the wall. The problem was a company culture of fear. The engineers didn't dare to confess that they were not able to meet the EPA standard in the given time and cost frame and without use of SCR.
Going to jail is never a good thing but there are laws aren't they?
Sure there are trade-offs and economic costs. But as I said before it is a political decision how to wheigh costs against health benefits. I looked into the final rule of the Clean Power Plan. And there EPA just did this. I wanted to link it here but all links to the CPP are cut. The individual values are disputable for sure.
In Germany agreements as you describe never worked only government regulations. Those who were askes do to something volontarily always feared commercial disadvantages as other might not follow.
I personally think the rules should be as strict as technically feasible. And that might change over time. In the first step Europe should adjust the light vehicle rules to the truck rules. I have too many friends here with lung deseases from long exposure to industry, car, and truck exhaust over a long time to ignore the health implications.Regards, Volker
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.