Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Manufacturers Say Industry Needs Effective Fuel Efficiency Metrics and Global Fuel Regulations
13 October 2008
Chief executives of the world’s leading heavy-duty engine and vehicle manufacturing companies gathered last week in New Orleans for the 6th Global Commercial Vehicle Industry Meeting (GCVIM). Participants in the meeting agreed that addressing climate change and fuel efficiency requires require developing effective fuel efficiency measurement metrics and methodologies and global fuel regulations.
The chief executives of the assembled companies agreed to continue working together with governments toward harmonized global standards with an emphasis on uniform measurement and testing protocols. The executives further agreed to meet jointly with the relevant national authorities to stress the need for a speeding progress towards the development of a fully harmonized WHDC (Worldwide harmonized Heavy-Duty emissions Certification procedure) Global Technical Regulation. They also agreed to work to improve fuel efficiency, develop hybrid technology certification procedures, and develop high-quality renewable fuels specifications.
Work on a WHDC has been underway since June 1997, when the UNECE Group of Experts on Pollution and Energy (GRPE) mandated the ad-hoc group WHDC with the development of a “World-wide harmonized Heavy Duty Certification procedure”. The objective of the program is to develop a world-wide harmonized engine test cycle for the emissions certification procedure of heavy-duty engines that would:
Become a uniform global basis for engine certification regarding exhaust emissions;
Be representative of world-wide real life heavy-duty engine operation;
Give the highest potential for the control of real-life emissions;
Be applicable in the future to state-of-the-art technology; and
Match emissions in relative terms for accurate ranking of different engines/technologies.
On the fuel efficiency side, only Japan so far has implemented such standards for heavy-duty vehicles (introduced in 2006), according to a review by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Among the challenges in applying a such a standard to the heavy-duty market is measuring a wide variety of heavy duty vehicles without placing too great a burden on manufacturers. To address that issue, Japan introduced a new test procedure which utilizes computer simulation.
Additional topics addressed at the GCVIM meeting included global air quality emissions standards, renewable fuels, and road and vehicle safety.
The world’s leading commercial engine and vehicle manufacturers recognize the importance of fuel efficiency to our customers and support the global effort to combat climate change. Developing metrics and methodologies to evaluate fuel efficiency and advancing global fuel regulations are key initiatives that will serve our customers and the environment. The executives who participated today are dedicated to working with government bodies worldwide to reduce fuel consumption and emissions from on-road goods movement.
—Tim Solso, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cummins, Inc., 6th GCVIM host
The chief executives discussed how the global harmonization of technical standards affecting heavy-duty engines and vehicles can enhance environmental performance, safety, and efficient goods movement. Among the topics addressed at the meeting were:
Recent initiatives to improve fuel efficiency.
The need for uniform metrics and measurement methodologies to provide an accurate basis for quantifying fuel efficiency of on-road goods movement.
The advantages of using computer simulation to evaluate fuel efficiency of very diverse commercial vehicle configurations and uses.
The importance of harmonized fuel specifications and the need to develop technical and quality specifications for renewable fuels. The participants promoted and supported the hydrogenation processing routes.
Progress in developing methods to certify hybrid electric vehicles.
Development of a worldwide harmonized standard for air quality emissions testing.
Improving road and commercial vehicle safety through a holistic approach.
In addition to the participation of the chief executives, the Global Commercial Vehicle Industry Meeting is attended by member delegates and staff from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA), Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA), and the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA).
The GCVIM meeting in 2009 will be hosted by Daimler AG in Europe.
Resources
Transport and Energy: The Challenge of Climate Change (International Transport Forum, June 2008)
Review of International Policies for Vehicle Fuel Efficiency (IEA 2008)
Development of a World-wide Harmonised Heavy-duty Engine Emissions Test Cycle (Draft) Executive Summary Report (UN TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2001/2)
It's about time they wake up and come up with more efficient vehicles. However,....
Long range ground transportation, of all goods, should eventually be by e-trains + e-trucks at each ends.
That would remove (many or most) heavy, noisy, smelly old trucks from many highways.
Posted by: HarveyD | 13 October 2008 at 09:12 AM
@ Harvey D,
You and I agree on many things. But you haven't looked at a train yard much lately, have you? Containerization has given the RRs a rebirth, that you may have missed.
Virtually all freight train traffic is now containerized except for gross break-bulk like coal and grain. And these items have special trains especially configured with their specialized rail cars. At or near the long distance endpoints, the containers are unloaded/connected to Class 8 tractors and delivered to local destinations within a radius of a few hundred miles away.
In short what you want has already happened, and you apparently never noticed...
Posted by: stas peterson | 14 October 2008 at 12:08 AM
@ stas:
I've noticed what you are saying but almost none of that is ELECTRIFIED in USA.
Many 53-foot trailors still biggy-back on flat railroad cars for long distances A couple of the cuurrent diesel-electric locomotives can transport 120+ trailors more economically than 120+ trucks.
Couldn't we progressively replace the current smoky diesel locomotives with pure e-locomotives (electrifying a busy line is not much of a challenge) and replace current class 7 & 8 diesel tractor trucks with pure e-tractor trucks or at least with plug-in tractors to take the containers to final destinations?
It will happen worldwide. Why not in USA?.
Posted by: HarveyD | 14 October 2008 at 08:38 AM
@Harvey D,
Who says the US RRs are not electrified... where it is economical to do so? The cost of RR electrification is much more than merely stringing wires. It includes putting costs on the electrical resistance losses per foot of wiring, versus the gains that might be achieved. Densely concentrated (mostly Eastern) RRs are electrified.
Simply heating the wires to no constructive end, in the vast empty distances of the West, accomplishes nothing. Don't forget dense western Europe is comparable in size to our East Coast.
Each situation must be decided on a case by case basis, including track usage and IR losses. And they are. That is one of the things that RR engineering departments do, routinely.
In the mid-twentieth century when RR were retrenching, and tearing up lots of no longer justified trackage, there was no capital to do so. But that has not been the case for more than thirty years. The remaining RR are economically healthy.
Posted by: stan peterson | 16 October 2008 at 09:28 AM
stas:
For your information, EU has the longest rail lines (236,436 KM) followed by USA with (226,612 Km), Russia with (87,157 Km) and China with (75,238 Km) etc.
The major difference is in rail lines electrification. In Russia and many EU countries electrification is over 50%, about 33% in China but less than 10% in USA.
USA is 25+ years behind EU, Russia and China in rail electrification.
Electric trains are not new. Technologies used exist for many years (even many decades)., e-trains are much faster, much more efficient, do not use imported oil, require less maintenance and produce a lot less GHG.
Why is USA bucking it?
Posted by: HarveyD | 16 October 2008 at 11:20 AM
There is no reason to electrify the majority of rail lines in the US. CARB decided that fuel cells could work in a year or so at affordable prices.
Almost every new Diesel electric locomotive could be equipped to run without fuel where there was a voltage rail or wire with about 600 volts. Where such was found the fuel could be reduced.
The ease of operation, of the diesel locomotive engines and the fact that many of them can be put anywhere in the train, removed much of the need for electric operation.
Where it was convenient, railway companies could install third rails with about 600 volts ac on them to reduce the use of fuel at almost no cost on the locomotive. Even the rail need not be electrified until a train is connected to take power. Even the transformer to the rail voltage can be turned off.
Until recently in the UK, Chunnel trains ran off of third rail DC. Third rail AC at low voltage is possibly cheaper than catenaries and would not require any conversion stations. The third rail can be interrupted at any point or even missing for many miles because alternate power sources are on the train. This need not always be engines; it can also be batteries. Flywheels were used with great success eighty years ago.
Hybrid diesel electric locomotives with ZEBRA batteries were tested by GE with success several months ago. It was thought that the relatively constant effort of locomotives made hybrid locomotives un-economical, but this was demonstrated to be false. There are many places where regeneration is possible. The battery price needs to be lowered by mass production. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 17 October 2008 at 04:18 PM
HG:
The fact remains that the majority (90+%) of locomotives in use in USA burn diesel made mostly with imported oil.
Fuel cells could eventually replace the ICE gensets but they are still much more expensive and do not last long enough.
Secondly, FC's efficiency (between 32% and 54% = avg 43%) is much lower (about half) the pure e-locomotives. Pure e-locomotives last much longer than ICE or FC types without major maintenance.
The rest of the world is not stupid and must have very good reasons to switch to pure e-locomotives.
Posted by: HarveyD | 18 October 2008 at 11:03 AM
An ISO 9001 compliant quality management system (QMS) provides strong assurance that company’s’ processes are in compliance with documented requirements to fulfill contractual obligations and customer needs. ISO 9001 QMS promotes a systematic approach to effectively manage business operations by providing a structure for processes, focusing on continual improvement and reducing errors and waste.
Posted by: medical device regulations | 27 October 2008 at 09:49 AM