Near-zero emissions diesel engine technology is here

Posted: May 28, 2020 by oldbrew in Emissions, innovation, Travel

The focus here is on heavy duty engines. Of course they have to claim that carbon dioxide, vital to plants and vegetation, is a ‘pollutant’ but this is from the crazy side of today’s climate-obsessed world.
– – –
Southwest Research Institute engineers have developed the next generation of clean diesel engine technology to reduce hazardous nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide emissions while minimizing fuel consumption, says Green Car Congress.

Working with regulatory agencies, vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, SwRI combined engine modifications with integrated aftertreatment technology and control strategies to reach near-zero emissions levels (0.02 g/hp-hr NOx emissions).

SwRI developed the technology for the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The work is described in a pair of SAE Technical Papers.

Through the continued efforts of a multidisciplinary team, SwRI has developed one of the most fuel-efficient, low-emission diesel engines in the world. Created to address California’s pollution challenges, this technology could be a solution for communities around the globe dealing with the effects of NOx.

—SwRI Research Engineer Bryan Zavala, a member of the low NOx development team

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, nitrogen oxides are harmful to human health and the environment. The State of California plans to enact tighter emissions standards in 2024 and will require that heavy-duty engines produce less pollutants.

Taking a systems approach to address the problem, SwRI engineers met CARB’s stringent emissions goals to reduce NOx by 90% while simultaneously lowering carbon dioxide emissions.

Full report here.

  1. saighdear says:

    Uhuh, ‘The State of California’ says it all …. just look at the state of it…..

  2. Chaswarnertoo says:

    It’s still diseasel to me, and it stinks. Petrol rulez! 😎

  3. Graeme No.3 says:

    Over 40 years ago there was consternation in the production dept. when a drum of chemical arrived from the USA with a list of the latest warnings including “Known to cause cancer in the State of California”.
    25 years later, while in Health & Safety (in another company using minor quantities) I checked up and found that no other State or Country thought so.

  4. Ron Clutz says:

    You may have heard that coffee gives you cancer. Or that everything gives you cancer—if you live in California.

    The reason: Proposition 65. It’s a California state law that requires businesses with 10 or more employees to provide reasonable warning about the use of any chemicals the state has decided could cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. One of these chemicals is acrylamide, which a rodent study pinned as a possible carcinogen. It’s found in almost everything that’s cooked at a high temperature. And because a particularly litigious law firm recently sued the state for not properly warning residents about acrylamide in coffee, California is now on the verge of requiring all coffee shops and manufacturers to include a warning on the beverage that it may cause cancer.

    The problem, of course, is that coffee doesn’t cause cancer. Acrylamide might cause cancer at very high doses, but the amount that you’ll find in your food is harmless. You’ve actually been unintentionally eating it for your whole life, because it’s in everything from potato chips to roasted asparagus.. .No human studies suggest it’s carcinogenic at any realistic dose.

    But coffee is only the beginning.

    By California’s logic, all sorts of things should have warning labels. We wanted to make a joking list of ridiculous items that would need a cautionary sign according to Prop 65—but then we did our research. Turns out the state of California already slaps a warning on just about everything. Here’s just a small sample of things that could kill you out west:

    Tiffany lamps, amusement parks, boats, tuna, etc., etc.

  5. Curious George says:

    “In 2013, CARB contracted SwRI to investigate potential approaches for achieving an ultra-low NOx target in three stages.” So this is a result of seven years of spending taxpayer’s money?

    Silica is known to the State of California to cause cancer – but no warnings yet on beaches.A dereliction of duty?

  6. Bob Greene says:

    Why are they publishing something that isn’t exactly novel? SCR for NOx reduction has been around for quite some time. Unless it is a large, stationary combustion source the ammonia source is usually urea (Ad Blue, etc) and not ammonia. Their only claim here is that they have diddled with the engine and controls to reduce NOx emissions. Whoopee. Not much new here.

    How they claim to reduce CO2 from combustion of of hydrocarbons is not exactly clear. After treatment by absorption? Generally speaking, the more tail pipe treatment the higher the back pressure and the less efficiently the engine runs.

    I’m not an expert in diesel combustion research but I did manage all aspects of environmental permitting and compliance for a company that had 500 diesel electric generators in landfills. We had a couple of really smart diesel gearhead engineers who were developing practical technologies and I followed the literature in the area. I’m not see much new in this.

    Landfill gas makes low emission combustion products out of the stack doubly interesting.

    I didn’t stay in Holiday Inns, but I could usually see one from where I stayed.

  7. E.M.Smith says:

    As a Californian, I can assure you I’ve not seen a Prop 65 warning for years. Maybe decades. Yes, they are plastered absolutely everywhere, but very rapidly the brain filters them out. Like ever present leaves on trees or license plates on cars. They just become background clutter that is unseen.

    Of the thousands of plates on cars driving to work, how many did you read? Remember?

    Just a huge waste of signage.

  8. Eric Fithian says:

    I was wondering, a few weeks back, how many items exist that the State of California **does not** consider Carcinogenic …!
    As with the WarmList (in which Absolutely Everything is attributed to Global Warming), perhaps it would be simpler (and Much easier!) to make the list of non-(allegedly)-hazardous things!
    … distilled water?
    … fresh-mown lawn grass?
    … butterflies?
    … ??

  9. oldbrew says:

    Few EVs here…

    SUV Sales Exceed 40% Of Global Car Sales For The First Time
    May 28, 2020

    preferences for larger cars have dampened fuel economy improvements and more than offset the gains by EVs.
    . . .
    Last year, the share of SUVs in total global car sales topped 40 percent for the first time, up from less than 20 percent a decade ago.

    A total of 60 percent of the rise in the global car fleet since 2010 is attributable to SUVs.

  10. ivan says:

    A question I have never found a real world scientific answer to – why do we need near-zero emissions on ICE engines or for that matter HELE coal fired power plants?

    By real world science I mean those things that can be reproduced and accurately measured not emotional responses produced by the UN Church of Climatology diktats.

    I also fail to understand how emotional responses can drive government policy that cost too much of the taxpayers money, but then I expect it is because governments rely on X and spurts too much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s