A "major breakthrough" in diesel technology significantly reduces emissions

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/951029/diesel-car-breakthrough-emissions-engine-UK-fuel

by montrose • 8 years ago

31 30 8 years ago

express.co.uk

shaqbert• 8 years ago

That article is light on how they tackle the thermal aspects of NOX exhaust.

The key challenge to diesel engines is that the combustion is essentially a chemical reaction in vastly different thermal conditions depending on the outside temperature. Every engine has a "sweetspot" thermal range where they are really efficient in burning diesel fuel and washing out NOX from the exhaust fumes. Once you're outside that sweetspot, there is little you can do.

scrooched_moose• 8 years ago

The article from autoblog is far better:

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/04/25/bosch-diesel-emissions-b...

Everything in this article is pure marketing nonsense.

Bosch says its technology uses a combination of advanced fuel injection, a newly developed airflow management system to recirculate exhaust gases, and intelligent temperature management, and it requires no additional new components. It says the technology drops nitrogen oxide emissions to one-tenth of the amount set under the stricter 2020 limits for Europe, even in real-world driving conditions. Bosch says the results hold consistent regardless of driving conditions, weather or how aggressively the vehicle is driven.

WhompingWindows• 8 years ago

even in real-world driving conditions.

Much like post-market drug evaluation in the USA, we will only see the true real-world driving conditions until the product is released en masse and all of its potential use cases are established to release 10% NOx. Until then, I am skeptical, as we have heard such things about cleaner diesel numerous times.

pmyteh• 8 years ago

The Express is now a seriously disreputable paper, and you should be sceptical about anything they print. It's been losing readers and journalists for years, and is now largely full of sensation and puff pieces.

jabl• 8 years ago

But hey, they publish important world affairs (TM) like https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/950139/jeremy-corbyn-Ka...

(Or perhaps I just don't get the extent to which you English people fawn over your royalty, and a lot of you REALLY think it's OUTRAGEOUS that Corbyn took SEVERAL HOURS before congratulating?)

mojomark3• 8 years ago

Reducing NOx is one a fine and noble effort, but there's not much new in this BOSCH corporate press release. However, there are plenty of technologies for reducing diesel engine NOx (1), including Selective Catalytic Reducers (SCR's), Exhaust Gas Recirculaters (EGR), and even injecting water into atomized diesel.

Further, reducing NOx is one thing, but you still have other harmful emissions notably SOx and black carbon. So to Dr Volkmar Denner, CEO of Bosch, who says: “There’s a future for diesel. Today, we want to put a stop, once and for all, to the debate about the demise of diesel technology." I respectfully argue that until you can make Diesel as clean as H2 fuel cell, the push to eliminate diesel burning engines will go on.

For my money, the best environmentally sustainable 'fuel' is electric via Hydrogen/Air powered fuel cell, in which the hydrogen is generated by electrolysis powered by renewable generators (wind, solar, hydro). We've seen a significant push in the Maritime sector towards conversions of diesel engines to LNG-fueled engines. However, LNG (which may have significant methane slip - a really BAD greenhouse gas - if you're not careful) isn't nearly as clean as H2.

1. http://clean-carbonenergy.com/nox-emissions.html

wallace_f2• 8 years ago

For my money, the best environmentally sustainable 'fuel' is

Of course there's also lots of really cheap, clean fuel, and ways to reduce GHG emissions, such as bicycling, sky sails, stairs/walking, telecommuting, etc.

I've never really seen the evidence that command and control style planned economies work very well.

Since undergrad, I've never heard a good argument as to why we shouldn't do what Musk recently supported: a tax on pollution.

Then let the market figure out where is best to put the money to solve the issue..? Then, if your ideas are correct--and they sound like they are--they would be more-widely adopted, and more efficiently implemented than bureaucrats would, as well.

krageon• 8 years ago

Pollution is a problem for the whole planet - we already know this. What is the sense in "letting the market decide" (whatever that means. Markets don't make any decisions, but I digress) if we already know the outcome we want. Legislate what we want to do and let's move on with our lives.

mojomark3• 8 years ago

I'm all for polution taxing, fines and even shutdowns. I actually find planned polution regulations to be far too lenient.

However, as an engineer with the power to change affect a piece of machinery's design, I don't have to sit back and say "hey, the government doesn't regulate black carbon, so I'll just do the easiest thing and use my budget to integrate diesel engine with NOx and SOx just under regulatory thresholds." Instead, I can decide to use my noggin to design a system that has the same (or even better) performance, OPEX and CAPEX, without burning diesel.

It's really not that hard. We have the technology. Engineers who desire a cleaner environment, just need to buck-up and push back on customers (or venders in this case) who are afraid to do something just because 'that's not how we did it in the past. That's what I do.

The power to change is not purely in the hands of regulators, it's also in the hands of 'doers'.

wereHamster• 8 years ago

There will always be a market for diesel, at least in the US, because the US don't give a fuck about the environment ;)

wil421• 8 years ago

Your statement is incorrect in regards to EU vs US diesel emissions. The US has high standards for diesel. The EU is more lax on NOX and diesel emissions.

Our analysis of the respective emissions standards identifies that (broadly) US federal standards are more ambitious for key local air quality pollutants, particularly NOx, than EU standards. A key difference is that the US applies a single set of standards to petrol and diesel vehicles, while the EU allows higher levels of air quality pollutants to diesel vehicles.[1]

[1]http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/58733...

alexbeloi• 8 years ago

I respectfully argue that until you can make Diesel as clean as H2 fuel cell, the push to eliminate diesel burning engines will go on.

What market are these competing in?

mojomark3• 8 years ago

In my profession (Marine Engineering; ship design), there is a large push to convert from diesel to cleaner fuels (e.g. LNG) due to International Maritime Organization (IMO) tiered emission regulations. LNG has a cost on par with diesel, so it's a no-brainer if you can afford the conversion. However, there is growing interest in H2 fuel cell powered vessels as the installed power cost continues to drop. Interestingly, H2 is being considered for energy storage and transport from deep sea wind farms to shore, vice long-run sub-sea power cables. The transport would be via Liquid H2 tanker. One of the supporting arguments is that the H2 fuel can be used directly in a growing number of H2-fuel cell powered transportation vehicles (Cars, buses) and industrial vehicles (forklifts, etc., which are actually very popular).

So, that's two big markets: Marine and Land-based Transportation.

1. http://www.sname.org/westerneurope/events/event-description?...

btrettel• 8 years ago

Fuel cells interest me more than batteries because I'm not convinced that the materials needed for batteries are renewable. (Yes, I've already heard people argue that future battery technologies may not have this problem. I'd be more convinced by indications of how this problem might be solved than simple assertions that it will be solved.)

I think diesel will have its niche in the future, as the energy density concerns are legitimate and important for many applications. Biodiesel also doesn't have the same limitations in terms of materials the batteries do.

For personal transportation, I'm a strong proponent of human power, particularly walking and biking. No new magic technology is needed as far as I'm concerned. This is not practical in many places in the US, but if someone were to spend as much effort selecting where they live to have a good cycling commute as they do when selecting where they live to have a good driving commute, the problem would be mostly solved. Many people would have to change their lifestyles to do this, but I think those who do would typically find the changes acceptable or an improvement over their current situation.

mtgx• 8 years ago

Does it reduce them as much as EVs do? If not then, it's not enough.

macintux• 8 years ago

Agreed. Pollution management should always be more cost-effective when done at power plants, vs distributed across every vehicle on the road. Let's get there as soon as we can.

billfruit• 8 years ago

How will this tech alter the standing of diesel against petrol in terms of environment friendliness?

bmcusick2• 8 years ago

/Looks at wind power 1/5th the cost of coal, and still falling

/Looks at batteries 1/5th the cost of what they were 10 years ago, and still falling. Just another 1/2 reduction to being cheaper than an ICE engine

Yeah.... even if this made diesel cleaner than baby smiles I don't think this is going to save diesel.

allthenews• 8 years ago

Don't be so sure. The rate of advance of new technology slows over time. Look at processing power.

We are still a ways away from the convenience of chemical fuel because of energy density and refueling time.

But the future is indeed bright, pun intended.

throwaway57522• 8 years ago

You're unlikely to find a bigger proponent of clean and renewable energy than me, but there's a long time before that is going to hit industrial end use where there are certain constraints.

The energy density of li-ion is .05ish mj/l, vs 50ish for diesel. EVs are about twice as efficient at converting that energy than gasoline ICEs but that's still a large gap (and diesel is much more efficient, but I don't have that ratio handy) where weight and volume are constraints. Also, refueling time is hard to get down economically (you can trade out a full set of battery cells for new/charged ones, but more vehicle weight/complexity and infra to accommodate that).

A more efficient diesel is more meaningful to vehicle trends in Europe than the US, but I think regardless of type of hydrocarbon fuel sources, commuter use cases are closer aligned with EVs and you're right there that this development won't stop the trend there (and non-commercial vehicle usage is an enormous, perhaps largest, source of CO2 pollution).

Retric• 8 years ago

IC engines with transmissions take up vastly more space and weigh quite a bit more than electric ones do which limits the impact of energy density.

Electric has ~4,200 lb to work with before weigh for components before you consider the weight of fuel. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-620-april-26-2010-...

Mack trucks get ~6.5 mpg, so a 350 mile range would take ~5 Tesla battery's ~6,000 lbs. That's a little low, but far from useless just add how battery swaps and it's completely viable.

Long term, the move to in road charging means electric trucks will actually save significant weight over IC engines while also having unlimited ranges. http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/18/technology/uk-electric-cars-...

devhead• 8 years ago

I Think Volkswagen already figured this out... all they need to do is have a testing mode that applies more filters and turn it off when you're driving around and can pollute freely w/o government telling you what to do with your freedom. problem solved?

shaki-dora• 8 years ago

If you break it through application of force, then replace it with electric, Diesel actually does pretty well.

Kidding aside: this is a vacuous press release regurgitated by a tabloid, and doesn’t deserve attention.

watertom• 8 years ago

If diesel is less refined than gasoline how is it possible that it could produce less* pollution, than gasoline?

Diesel has always been an illusion to me, like turning lead into gold.

Theodores• 8 years ago

The problem is this :

http://english.gov.cn/policies/infographics/2015/06/02/conte...

China plan to have 80% of the EV market in next to no time with 80% being of all sales globally. If Chinese EV cars are just a better product than diesel banger style cars then diesel is dead. The switchover would happen more like the death of analog film, economics kicks in at some point and the network of fuel stations goes much like how the network of places you could get film processed has utterly vanished.

Film people thought it was all about SLR lenses and film grain, petrol heads are the same except they think about the joys of a manual transmission and the silly fart noises that come out of their exhaust. Much like how nobody would give up the camera on their phone for some 35mm SLR camera it will be the same with electric cars, nobody would give up their electric car to drive exclusively diesel or petrol. That is where that analogy ends, nobody was subsidised to give up their 35mm camera to go digital.

The Bosch press release is indicative of attitude problems, although petrol/diesel may be 98% of the market now that can be changed with a fall from being relevant much like what happened with analog film. It takes a generation to come along and the Luddites eventually shut up or die.

Although Bosch do amazing 'leccy powered systems for cars the manufacturers have not been quick to start using those components. Maybe this is a bit like a new CPU, e.g. when the Z80 came out in '76 it took a few years before the mass market ZX Spectrum came along to use it. Zilog didn't go ahead and make their own complete system, they just waited a few years for others to do that. Maybe this is where Bosch are now with their EV goodies. It is all going to work out fine, we will all be driving Chinese electric cars.

A "major breakthrough" in diesel technology significantly reduces emissions

Related Stories