From the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Auto industry experts predict that more than 50 percent of cars on the road by 2020 will use a relatively new type of fuel-efficient engine. This transition, however, has raised questions about its ultimate effect on the climate. A study published in ACS’ journal Environmental Science & Technology has found that because the newer engines emit higher levels of the climate-warming pollutant black carbon than traditional engines, their impact on the climate is uncertain.
Naomi Zimmerman and colleagues analyzed four scenarios based on reported black carbon emissions from both traditional port fuel injection engines and newer gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines. They determined that installing efficient particulate filters in vehicles with GDI engines — even if they slightly lower fuel efficiency — could likely balance this trade-off and benefit the climate. But this outcome is not a given and depends on a variety of factors that can impact black carbon emissions such as engine design, fuel composition and geographic location.
###
The paper:
Assessing the Climate Trade-Offs of Gasoline Direct Injection Engines
Naomi Zimmerman, Jonathan M. Wang, Cheol-Heon Jeong, James S. Wallace, and Greg J. Evans
Abstract
Compared to port fuel injection (PFI) engine exhaust, gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine exhaust has higher emissions of black carbon (BC), a climate-warming pollutant. However, the relative increase in BC emissions and climate trade-offs of replacing PFI vehicles with more fuel efficient GDI vehicles remain uncertain. In this study, BC emissions from GDI and PFI vehicles were compiled and BC emissions scenarios were developed to evaluate the climate impact of GDI vehicles using global warming potential (GWP) and global temperature potential (GTP) metrics. From a 20 year time horizon GWP analysis, average fuel economy improvements ranging from 0.14 to 14% with GDI vehicles are required to offset BC-induced warming. For all but the lowest BC scenario, installing a gasoline particulate filter with an 80% BC removal efficiency and <1% fuel penalty is climate beneficial. From the GTP-based analysis, it was also determined that GDI vehicles are climate beneficial within <1–20 years; longer time horizons were associated with higher BC scenarios. The GDI BC emissions spanned 2 orders of magnitude and varied by ambient temperature, engine operation, and fuel composition. More work is needed to understand BC formation mechanisms in GDI engines to ensure that the climate impacts of this engine technology are minimal.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b01800
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I drive a Chevy Volt, which is an amazing car. I usually describe it as a short range electric car, and long range hybrid. The all electric range is ~40 miles (less in winter, more in summer), and that is enough to cover the daily commute of most Americans. In hybrid modes, it is less efficient than a Prius, but so much more rewarding to drive. Overall, an 80% reduction in tailpipe emissions of passenger cars is certainly possible with today’s technology, let alone with improvements already in the pipeline (no pun intended). Electric cars are also a perfect fit for a renewable grid, since they can buffer variability. If anyone believes that electric cars will “tax the grid” and lead to blackouts, think again. Only modest grid improvements will be needed to accommodate increased demand.
I suspect a few million people all getting home after work and plugging into the grid almost simultaneously might need a bit more than “modest” improvements to the grid.
Felflames, short sighted reply. Electric cars will be ‘smart’. You would plug them in and they would figure out the best times to charge based on grid capacity, level-loading, etc. Like how Google tracks you. It would know your driving habits, length of commute, days of the week, estimated departure time, travel speed, GPS, etc. Possibly even tied to your phone. Unexpected emergency, there would be an override feature to quick charge. Although I do agree, the grid would need new investments (power and technology) to make it work.
Well Duncan, TESLA made a smart electric car, and it killed it’s non driving rider deader than a door nail, by driving full tilt into the side of a truck; which is “didn’t recognize”.
So much for smart cars.
But then only a total idiot would get into a car which is going to drive him somewhere, but is not on rails.
What fool would not be paying attention to the roads, while his car is driving itself for him ??
G
“and it killed it’s non driving rider”
The electric motor did not kill the driver, the self driving software did. I don’t know the circumstances around the accident. Technology can be great until it does not work. Elevators, airbags, planes, toasters, seat belts, electricity, medications, dams, etc have all killed people. No one would suggest we get rid if these modern conveniences. Many of these items have saved more than they have killed. I think you answered your own question, who would rely on the car to do all the driving, at least not yet.
Electric auto’s are the way of the future, regardless of how they are charged (coal, gas, nuclear, solar, etc). The inherent efficiency and configurable torque, speed and HP possibilities electric motors provide surpass a gas engine by far. For example, I can rotate a 700hp electric motor just by grabbing the shaft with one hand. Only two bearings provide resistance. Try that with a V8. They are more reliable, lighter and basically maintenance free. No transmission, no cooling/radiator, no drive train to worry about. Just waiting on the next leap in battery technology to hopefully provide quick charging, inexpensive, power dense and environmentally ‘clean’ materials. Something like a capacitor.
I guess you have not seen a 1 HP motor at work. You need 700hp, serial?
I was not suggesting cars need 700HP, although it would be nice. Through my work I order fractional into the hundreds of HP, multiple dozens a year. We size them and engineer them into systems. We test them in-house. Yes, I have a lot of respect for them. A non-optimized (off the shelf) 200hp motor is about the size of a 4-cylinder engine. The electric motor could make 200HP, everyday, all year and it would not blink. Design above the duty factor the same motor could make 300-400HP for short periods of time (acceleration). Heat becomes an issue though. They are so reliable motors can be in service for multiple decades, only requiring bearing replacement that only takes a few hours. After that, they can just be rewound.
A friend was in the Navy for some time in the ’70s, and his shipboard task was rewinding very large electric motor stators. He wore special gloves and his main task was to feel for what he called “fishhooks” or nicks in the copper wire as it slid through his hands at a fair clip, one of those monotonous jobs which would at intervals suddenly become rather frantic and not without peril.
I’ll try again, but I couldn’t get past the word “Naomi” on the first pass. My hideousness meter is clearly working well, perhaps too well.
What? You, too? What is it about the name, Naomi, that triggers the stupid gene?
With the same transcription factors also inducing the elitist, fascist, hideous lying propagandist genes too – not that I’m saying this is true of this unfortunately named person, although I probably won’t read it anyway to find out.
“Naomi!” [Cue: Horses whinnying]
Doesn’t this study mean they have now decided reduced albedo due to particulate pollution was the cause of global warming rather than the “greenhouse effect” ?
Or is this in addition to the “greenhouse effect” so expanding the FF “problem”?
Worked professionally on cars for several years and maintain my own. Seems to me a properly maintained and operated intake injected gasoline engine doesn’t produce black carbon. Raising the compression ratio would help, but that produces more NOx. BC is obviously a diesel problem. Another solution to an imaginary problem?
This engine might turn out to work even better.
Chris, is that not a “Wankel ” engine tried by Mazda? Same concept as far as I can see.
Does not look like a Mazda 13B (Single rotor) or 20B (Twin rotor) to me. But interesting none the less.
They turned the Wankel inside out. Wankel has a lozenge shaped cylinder and triangular piston, only fires on one side. This one fires on each corner, 18:1 compression ratio. 20 to 30% more fuel efficient min. 30% weight reduction over conventional engine with same output. They did a 4 pound motor with 3 hp output, replaced a 40 lb motor on a go kart and ran with it. They think they can improve it to 3 lb and 5 hp.
Sounds promising. Maybe it will be the exception to the usual fly in the ointment asterisk, which with the Wankel were the seals. What’s the maintenance schedule and TCO?
The quixotic quest for a Perpetual Motion Machine continues. Free lunch, anyone?
All carbon is a pollutant, therefore we must ban carbon and all of its compounds. Sounds a bit silly but not much sillier than what Bill Clinton (mr Hillary) said about chlorine.
I just had an epiphany. Why not just paint the black carbon particles white as they’re exiting? A paint reservoir and a couple of spray nozzles …
If you thought exploding air bags were a problem, then get ready for a rash of possible car fires from overheating particulate filters. In CA, which mandated them on all new diesel trucks, the trucking industry has experienced numerous fires and destroyed trucks. See http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-diesel-truck-filters-linked-to-fires-explosions-but-officials-unbudged/article/2561122.
And see http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/news/transportation/18646-group-blames-dangerous-diesel-filters-for-truck-fires for the obligatory burning truck photo.
Here’s a potential Deus ex Machina that would be even more remarkable than Rossi’s e-cat “cold fusion” gadget: the Papp engine. It uses, supposedly, some sort of unknown nuclear reaction triggered by a spark in a sealed cylinder containing a mix of noble gases in a modified gasoline or diesel engine to provide 6000 hours of free 150 horsepower. The designer, Bob Rohner, a former assistant to Joseph Papp, wants beaucoup bux before revealing the secret. He & his deceased brother allegedly got it perfected and running in 2012. (An earlier version was supposedly debunked.)
Here’s the link to the home page of his site — click on the tabs at the top for more. It’s worth it just for entertainment value, which I fear may be all it amounts to. Still, you never know . . . . http://www.rgenergy.com/
See also: http://coldfusionnow.org/plasma-engine-reproduced-now-optimizing-for-efficiency/
[Interview + very good article]
Did you see the press release on Brilliant Light Power? They confirmed and cross verified 1million watts of power from water in a coffee cup volume. Worth keeping an eye on!
“What the …! There’s nothing in here but IOUs!”
“Those are just as good as money, sir. Take this one, for example – two hundred and seventy five thousand for a Lamborghini. Might want to hang on to that one.”
Forgot to post link. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160711005351/en/Brilliant-Light-Power-Announces-Validation-Generation-Million
A new form of hydrogen?
As far as I can tell. Patrick. I’m a newbie when it comes to this stuff. so here are the validation papers. http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/
There’s one born every minute. Some people bank on that for their sustenance.
g
We have to save the earth. We must build a new engine. We must build a new engine. We must build a new engine. Hold on. Black carbon?! Dear Zeus (coz God allegedly is a denier) we must burn the new enginre. We must burn the new engine. We must burn the new engine. Hold on what about the ice bergs? We must bury the new engine. We must bury the new engine. We must bury the new engine. Hold on..
..and thats why eco-nut bars should be treated like the father of the brides’ dance moves. With thinly veiled mockery, for as short a possible time so as to not cause a scene & packed away at speed.
Does black carbon behave like biochar?
Call me a silly old green but making cars that last much longer (say twice the mileage) before having to be scrapped would reduce their carbon footprint per mile dramatically.
Nope. It is a numbers game. Have to make more to make more profits. Make more profits, make more, and so on…
As we know does not always work out that way.
I oppose the “Green Agenda” and see it as anti-American, anti-progress, anti-human, anti-Christian and anti-justice but see no connection between how long vehicles last and being “green”. I bought new trucks in 1980, 1988, 2003 and 2013. Change the oil, drive thoughtfully and pay attention and things last.
I use trucks for much over 100,000 US miles and trade them off because salt use in Rockford, Illinois is measured in rail-car loads
Maybe Ford’s aluminum trucks will help but I have replaced brake lines, transmission coolant lines, fuel tank straps and on and on. Plastics seem attractive and fiber and resin stuff may work. Most “Greens” would hate materials progress of that kind.
Longer lasting cars would be good particularly if China, India, Indonesia and a lot of other Nations reject socialist economics and let their people succeed. Selling to more customers, even if less often, helps the bottom line.
A better engine may also be great progress but I too am suspicious of recycled ideas until I see something new in those ideas. Maybe this is a real improvement and maybe this is another “green” red herring. Or six day old carp.
.
brians356 July 13, 2016 at 10:31 pm
I see ambulance chaser ads on TV alleging talcum or “baby powder” causes cervical cancer. Why didn’t I think of that?
There is a possible connection.
Talcum powder is pulverised talc, a micaceous-clay mineral that is commonly found in rocks that contain white asbestos [chrysotile]. Poor quality talc could be contaminated with asbestos.
However no one has been able to show a link between using talc and any form of cancer as yet.
There’s money in it though. Johnson and Johnson have lost two cases where they have had to pay out $72 million and $55 million. I think they lost because they didn’t include warnings that stated that there was a faint risk that talcum powder could be, theoretically, weakly carcinogenic.
So there is no evidence that talcum powder causes cancer but because J and J didn’t include a warning that the possibility was there [I suspect it’s less carcinogenic than eating toast] they got rolled.
Nothing like the smell of money to get a lawyer’s pulse racing
So why would asbestos in talcum powder cause cervical cancer (per the TV ad), not lung cancer?
“…more than 50 percent of cars on the road by 2020 will use a relatively new type of fuel-efficient engine.”
Oh really? How do they figure that? In just four years? Bull. I also have serious doubts about the actual benefits of these engines. Will the fuel-savings outweigh the likely-increased cost of these engines? What about maintenance costs? Adding extra soot to the air we breathe doesn’t sound like such a good idea either. The real bull, and a giant red herring to boot is their obsession with its supposed impact on climate.
I hope this study didn’t get printed out. That would be a big waste of paper. Think of the trees.
Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation of GDI, stratified charge, and the resulting particulates:
“In 2013, a research by TÜV NORD found that although gasoline direct injection engines dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, they release about 1,000 times more particles classified by the World Health Organization as harmful”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection
Stratified charge has been the dream of automotive engineers for many decades but is finally enabled in reliable and cost-effective form by the precise timing and metering of modern GDI.
In a port-injected engine, a fuel-air mixture enters the cylinder and is compressed and then ignited. Some of the fuel is adjacent to the relatively cool metal envelope and in those locations the flame front may be quenched before combustion is complete or else much of the heat of combustion will be rapidly transferred to the nearby “cool” metal. Downstream, the catalytic converter handles any unburned fuel.
In the ideal stratified engine the cylinder is filled with air only. At the right moment, fuel is injected into the center of this compressed air and the compact fuel-air ball is ignited. Combustion progresses outward until the fuel is depleted, before reaching the cool surrounding metal, and resulting heat expands the remaining air within the cylinder.
In theory, stratified charge enabled by GDI results in more complete combustion and less wasted heat. But initial combustion within the fuel ball is typically fuel-rich which can lead to some byproducts which may require special downstream processing. Service experience also indicates that the injectors may be subject to carbon deposits which lead to inconsistent performance as mileage accumulates within large fleets subjected to various gasoline formulations.
Well people still rely on Wikipedia for their facts.
Sure beats the ell out of me.
g
Just guessing … burning liquid fuel creates soot. Maybe in a gasoline direct injection some droplets don’t have time to evaporate completely. With a carburetor there is much more time to evaporate.
Who cares about GW? Black carbon is harmful to health, carbon dioxide is not. Therefore preferring GDI engines to PFI ones is a crime against humanity. It is as simple as that.
Well, really this is about all those pesky humans that think they get to live on the planet.
“black carbon” the new scarecrow.
Personally I prefer white carbon but I have a bit of a problem sourcing it.
Thousands of vehicles in UK run with particulate filters illegally removed. MOT fails to catch filter removal because its body is welded and refitted back without the internal filter.
What if … you were to put a fuel call in a car engine which injected hydrogen into the fuel mix, causing a faster and more efficient burn and a huge reduction in unburnt and particulate exhaust?
That’s what Cgon have done:
https://www.cgon.co.uk/
Unless there’s a hidden catch this looks very promising. Here they are on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/cgonltd/
Sorry – fuel cell (not “call”)
“Launch Price: £699.00”
aka, scam
“The box creates a small amount of very pure, very powerful hydrogen from our special water.”
Oh, the water is ‘special’ so not a scam. [/sarc]
Kit
Talk of different kinds of hydrogen and water I agree doesn’t help credibility. I suspect this was added by PR people. But cold fusion or homeopathy this is not.
If history is any guide you will see the benefits of this technology when an American company markets it claiming to have invented it with the US patent
mafialegal establishment on their side.“The graphs from PM2.5 studies are pretty interesting.”
If you like absurd, unvalidated models. It is all part of the war on coal.
There are no actual PM2.5 deaths in US cities. It is junk science. There are dose response curves for many things. For example, the L/D 50 for radiation is well established. 50% of the people exposed to that level will die from radiation poisoning. A direct cause that can be listed on a death certificate.
The occupational exposure limit in the US is 5 rem/yr and no deaths are attributable. While some ‘claim there is no minimum safe level’, that theory is no more valid than the theory that low doses are beneficial.
The claim of PM2.5 deaths is based on a statistical model linking emergency room visits and air pollution. Deaths only occurred in chronically ill patients over 75. What researchers mean by death is ‘premature death’.
For example, my wife mother was rushed to the emergency room 5 times before she died. While recovering in a nursing home from hip surgery, she had a heart attack and did not have a pulse for 25 minutes. Four other times were for pneumonia.
If she had been playing tennis or mowing the lawn maybe air pollution could be a factor. When I read the research and buried deep in the study is those dying were restricted to bed most of the time.
When the cause of death is obvious, linking it with air quality statistics for 40 years ago is a little absurd.
The EPA has one web site celebrating improved air quality and another discussing statistical ‘deaths’ to justify their existence.
Good stuff, Kit. Keep pointing out the absurdity, it’s like a tonic.
The closest coal plant kills 8 a year according to one model. The model includes cities 250 miles away to get a larger population base. The model does not take into account geological features (aka, mountains). On a road map, rivers through these cities flows past the power plant. I understand how water changes direction flowing down hill. Wind is different. This is why I do not sail down Hell Canyon.
Well yes, definitely MAYBE?
“A study published in ACS’ journal Environmental Science & Technology has found that because the newer engines emit higher levels of the climate-warming pollutant black carbon than traditional engines, their impact on the climate is uncertain.”
Well, I agree the impact is ‘uncertain’ but only because the core claim is rubbish. Black carbon in the exhaust is the result of incomplete combustion. Better combustion and high engine efficiency presupposes better combustion, not worse.
Further, they are not really talking about BC they are talking about BC nanoparticles. Everyone knows that improving the combustion of fuels reduces PM2.5 – when detected by a light scattering instrument which can’t see anything below 0.1 microns. So it turns out the number (not mass) of BC nanoparticles increases as the total mass of PM2.5 is reduced by better combustion. This is the case with diesel engines, for example. Very clean when measured with one instrument, not so clean measured with another. The question is how do these particles influence anything?
There is another core problem with the claim: BC nanoparticles do not interact with light which includes infrared radiation. That is why they are invisible to light scattering instruments. Infrared radiation is long wave light. Big BC particles do interact with light.
Further, the way to deal with BC is to use a catalytic converter which burns them to CO2. I went through a stove factory here in North Carolina that uses catalytic converters in wood stoves to reduce the BC emissions. Cars already have them installed so I am wondering why the recommendation to install 80% efficient ‘filters’. You don’t filter BC, you reduce it to CO2.
Even further, the way to deal with BC is not to generate them in the first place. BC particle are created by interrupting the combustion of carbonaceous fuel. Complete the combustion and presto. Then have a cat converter. Story complete.
The paper and the alarmism it contains are a silly diversion. No one is going to take it seriously.
There is an even further consideration with BC which is that it is an effective shading material that prevents light from reaching the ground, effectively re-radiating energy back into the sky as much as downwards. CO2 doesn’t do that, it allows the shortwave light in. BC doesn’t work like that. It shades coming and going, more effectively incoming than outgoing. Don’t believe everything you read, apparently.
Retired auto research engineer with experience in this area but a person who doesn’t do well at writing.
GDI results in a stratified charge of air and fuel. Gasoline combustion requires a homogeneous mixture of fuel and air at the correct portions of each. There is a range of portions of the two but it is not a wide range. The gasoline engine is a premixed combustion. The combustion begins at a point, the spark plug, and travels through the mixture. Basically when the portions are suitable for combustion the mixture is considered stoichiometric. The vaporized fuel and air must be well mixed.
The diesel is different type of combustion. The combustion is a diffusion burn where the droplets burn as they vaporize after injection. The stoichiometry is correct at the interface between the vaporizing droplet and the surrounding air. Overall the mixture in the combustion chamber can be quite lean especially at low load.
The two advantages of the diesel over the gasoline are increased compression ratio and there is no need for throttling. It is the lack of throttling on the GDI that gives the efficiency gain. The throttling losses that occur because of a need to deliver to the combustion chamber an overall homogeneous premixed charge of fuel and air as with port injection are eliminated. Throttling is a parasitic loss on the net work delivered by the engine. For instance, throttling losses are reduced in overdrive and an efficiency gain because the throttle is opened more than if not in overdrive and the difference between the pressure in the intake manifold and the exhaust manifold is reduced.
With GDI stratified charge the overall stoichiometry in the combustion chamber can be quite lean especially at low load. Too lean for combustion. The ideal of GDI is to directly inject fuel into the combustion chamber and the fuel to vaporize and mix where an area of mixed fuel and air is homogeneous, stoichiometric and therefore suitable for combustion. This is difficult to do. The actual result is there are areas in the mixture that are too lean or rich for combustion. So there is some unburned or partially burned fuel leaving the combustion chamber resulting in an increase in some types of emissions.
BZ Vince. Your writing is great. I would rather hear from an expert on a subject than a silver tongued journalist with an agenda.
My new Lexus RC-350 has both direct and port injection, solving the problem with the valves carboning up. This raises the cost of the engine a little, but prevents very expensive maintenance down the road. This one takes premium fuel to get full performance. It can run on 87 octane but the engine computer down-grades the spark timing to avoid pinging.
“But cold fusion or homeopathy this is not.”
Ptolemy2, it is still as a sc*m. Putting an expensive jug of water under the hood is a classic sc*m. A relative put one on my truck when I was in the navy. He was thinking that he could get a navy nuke to endorse it.
One of the reason it is hard to spot a sc*m is that slick advertising is so prevalent. I thought hybrids were a great idea when they first came out. When I bought a new car in 2007, I did not buy a hybrid. Hauling around batteries is a bad idea because of the way people use hybrids.
Green sc*ms are predicated on ‘feelings’ not life cycle analysis that show it is better for the environment.
“Black Carbon” is that the same as “Carbon” or indeed “Soot”