3.4.4.3 Direct Injection Gasoline and Diesel Engines
Direct injection lean-burn gasoline engines have already been introduced in
Japan and Europe, but have been restricted in North America by a combination
of tight emission standards and high sulphur content in gasoline. Fuel sulphur
levels will be drastically reduced in Europe and North America over the next
10 years. The US EPA, for example, has proposed regulations that would set caps
on sulphur content of 30 ppm for gasoline and 15 ppm for diesel fuel (Walsh,
2000). While planned reductions in the sulphur content of fuels to the range
of 10 to 30 ppm will allow direct injection gasoline engines to be introduced,
it is not yet clear that the full fuel efficiency benefits can be retained at
lower NOx levels. Preliminary evaluations suggest that benefits may
be in the 12% to 15% range rather than the 16% to 20% range available in Japan
and Europe, but even this assumes some advances in after treatment technology.
Engine costs, however, seem quite moderate, in the range of US$200 to US$300
more than a conventional engine.
Direct injection (DI) diesel engines have long been available for heavy trucks,
but recently have become more competitive for automobiles and light trucks as
noise and emission problems have been resolved. These new engines attain about
35% greater fuel economy than conventional gasoline engines and produce about
25% less carbon emissions over the fuel cycle. In light-duty applications, DI
diesels may cost US$500 to US$1000 more than a comparable gasoline engine. Tightening
of NOx and particulate emissions standards presents a challenge to
the viability of both diesel and gasoline lean-burn engines, but one that it
may be possible to overcome with advanced emissions controls and cleaner fuels
(e.g., Martin et al., 1997; Gerini and Montagne, 1997; Mark and Morey, 1999;
Greene, 1999). Further improvements in diesel technology also offer substantial
promise in heavy-duty applications, especially heavy trucks but also including
marine and rail applications. Current research programmes are aiming to achieve
maximum thermal efficiencies of 55% in heavy-duty diesels (compared to current
peak efficiencies of about 40%-45%), with low emissions.
3.4.4.4 Automotive Fuel Cells
Fuel cells, which have the potential to achieve twice the energy conversion
efficiency of conventional internal combustion engines with essentially zero
pollutant emissions, have received considerable attention recently, with most
major manufacturers announcing their intentions to introduce such vehicles by
the 2005 model year. The recent optimism about the fuel cell has been driven
by strong advances in technology performance, including rapid increases in specific
power that now allow a fuel cell powertrain to fit into a conventional vehicle
without sacrificing its passenger or cargo capacities. While fuel cell costs
have been reduced by approximately an order of magnitude, they are still nearly
10 times as expensive per kW as spark ignition engines. Recent analyses project
that costs below US$40/kW for complete fuel cell drivetrains powered by hydrogen
can be achieved over the next ten years (Thomas et al., 1998). Hydrogen is clearly
the cleanest and most efficient fuel choice for fuel cells, but there is no
hydrogen infrastructure and on-board storage still presents technical and economic
challenges. Gasoline, methanol or ethanol are possible alternatives, but require
on-board reforming with consequent cost and efficiency penalties. Mid-size fuel
cell passenger cars using hydrogen could achieve fuel consumption rates of 2.5
gasoline equivalent l/100 km in vehicles with lightweight, low drag bodies;
comparable estimates for methanol or gasoline-powered fuel cell vehicles would
be 3.2 and 4.0 l/100 km (gasoline equivalent), respectively. While gasoline
is relatively more difficult to reform, it has the benefit of an in-place refuelling
infrastructure, and progress has been made in reformer technology (NRC, 1999a).
The fuel economy of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is projected to be 75% to 250%
greater than that of conventional gasoline internal combusiton engine (ICE)
vehicles, depending on the drive cycle (Thomas et al., 1998). Primarily as a
result of energy losses in reforming, comparable estimates of the fuel economy
benefit of methanol-powered fuel cells range from 25% to 125%. The GHG reduction
potential of hydrogen or methanol fuel cells, however, requires a “well-to-wheels”
analysis to measure the full fuel cycle impacts. Both sources cited here include
emissions of all significant greenhouse gases produced in the respective processes.
Assuming hydrogen produced by local reforming of natural gas, Thomas et al.
(1998, Figure 8) estimated roughly a 40% reduction in well-to-wheels GHG emissions
for a direct hydrogen fuel cell vehicle versus a conventional gasoline ICE vehicle
getting 7.8 l/100km (about 150 g CO2 equivalent per km, versus 250).
Wang (1999a, p. 4) concluded that direct hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, with hydrogen
produced at the refuelling station by reforming natural gas, would reduce full
fuel cycle GHG emissions by 55% to 60% versus a comparably sized 9.8 l/100km
gasoline vehicle. Hydrogen could also be produced from methane in large-scale
centralized facilities. This could create opportunities for sequestering carbon
but would also require an infrastructure for hydrogen transport. Hydrogen produced
via electrolysis was estimated to produce 50% to 100% more full fuel cycle GHG
emissions, depending on the energy sources used to generate electricity. Methanol
produced from natural gas was estimated to give a 50% reduction in full fuel
cycle GHG emissions. Wang (1999b, Table 4.4) projected direct hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles to be 180% to 215% more energy efficient, and methanol fuel cell
vehicles to be 110% to 150% more efficient. These analyses attempt to hold other
vehicle characteristics constant but, of course, that is never entirely possible.
3.4.4.5 Fuel Cycle Emissions
In considering the impacts of advanced technologies and alternative fuels on
emissions of greenhouse gases, it is important to include the full fuel cycle,
since emissions in feedstock and fuel production can vary substantially. The
same fuel can be produced from several feedstocks, and this too has important
implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, as Ishitani et al. (2000)
have demonstrated, the use of different drive cycles as a basis for comparison
can also change the ranking of various advanced technologies. Hybrid vehicles,
for example, will perform relatively better under congested, low-speed driving
conditions. Table 3.9 shows a sample of results obtained
by Wang (1999a) based on US assumptions for passenger car technologies expected
to be available in the year 2010. In all cases, carbon dioxide is the predominant
GWP-weighted greenhouse gas. Advanced direct injection gasoline engines appear
to achieve nearly the same greenhouse gas emissions reductions as spark-ignition
engine vehicles fuelled by propane or compressed natural gas. Direct-injection
diesel vehicles show a reduction of one-third over advanced gasoline vehicles.
The gasoline hybrid achieves almost a 50% reduction, while the grid-connected
hybrid does no better because of the large share of coal in the US electricity
generation mix. The dependence of electric vehicle (EV) emissions on the power
generation sector is illustrated by the very large difference between EVs using
California versus US average electricity. Fuel cell vehicles using gasoline
are estimated by Wang (1999a) to achieve a 50% reduction in emissions, but hybrid
vehicles fuelled by compressed natural gas (CNG) do slightly better. Fuel cells
powered by hydrogen produced by reforming natural gas locally at refuelling
outlets are estimated to reduce fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions by almost
two thirds, while those using hydrogen produced from solar energy achieve more
than a 90% reduction. Clearly, Wang’s (1999b) estimates differ substantially
from those of Thomas et al. (1998) as noted above. Such differences are common,
as a result of differences in the many assumptions that must be made in fuel
cycle analyses.
Table 3.9: GHG emissions from advanced
automotive technologies and alternative fuels
(Wang, 1999, App. B-II). |
 |
| |
CO2-equivalent grams per km
|
|
|
| |
Fuel cycle stage
|
|
Greenhouse gas
|
| |
Feedstock
|
Fuel
|
Operation
|
|
CO2
|
N2O
|
CH4
|
Total
|
| |
| Gasoline (reformulated) |
15.6
|
52.7
|
228.9
|
|
282.2
|
5.7
|
9.4
|
295.6
|
| Gasoline direct injection (DI) |
12.6
|
42.1
|
184.3
|
|
225.6
|
5.7
|
7.7
|
237.6
|
| Propane (from natural gas) |
19.0
|
13.6
|
197.6
|
|
217.5
|
5.5
|
7.3
|
228.9
|
| Compressed natural gas (CNG) |
30.7
|
21.3
|
174.6
|
|
206.2
|
3.1
|
17.3
|
225.3
|
| Diesel DI |
10.6
|
27.2
|
161.6
|
|
191.7
|
3.3
|
4.5
|
198.4
|
| 20% biodiesel DI |
11.7
|
32.7
|
132.7
|
|
169.1
|
3.7
|
4.3
|
176.1
|
| Grid-Hybrid (RFG) |
9.8
|
63.5
|
88.8
|
|
152.7
|
4.1
|
5.3
|
161.2
|
| Hybrid (RFG) |
8.6
|
27.5
|
123.3
|
|
148.3
|
5.7
|
5.4
|
158.5
|
| Electric vehicle (EV, US mix) |
12.3
|
145.2
|
0.0
|
|
152.1
|
0.6
|
4.8
|
156.6
|
| Fuel Cell (Gasoline) |
7.8
|
26.1
|
112.6
|
|
140.8
|
1.4
|
4.4
|
145.7
|
| Hybrid. CNG |
19.1
|
13.2
|
110.5
|
|
127.6
|
2.7
|
12.5
|
142.0
|
| Fuel cell (methanol. NG) |
8.1
|
17.9
|
83.1
|
|
105.0
|
1.2
|
3.0
|
108.5
|
| Fuel cell (H2 from CH4)) |
11.0
|
97.3
|
0.0
|
|
103.1
|
0.2
|
5.0
|
107.62
|
| EV (CA mix) |
10.4
|
51.1
|
0.0
|
|
58.5
|
0.2
|
2.8
|
61.1
|
| Fuel cell (solar) |
0.0
|
20.3
|
0.0
|
|
18.9
|
0.2
|
1.2
|
20,2
|
|
| |
100-year global warming potentials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
CO2
|
N2O
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1
|
310
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|