Argonne National Laboratory to lead US consortium for new CERC medium- and heavy-duty truck technical track; 50% boost in efficiency
23 July 2016
The US Department of Energy (DOE) selected Argonne National Laboratory to lead a consortium of university, private sector and national laboratory partners for a new, medium- and heavy-duty truck technical track under the US-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC) Truck Research Utilizing Collaborative Knowledge (TRUCK) program.
The multidisciplinary consortium includes Cummins Inc.; Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation; Ohio State University; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Purdue University; and the University of Michigan. The program will address cost-effective measures to improve on-road freight efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty trucks by greater than 50% compared to today’s vehicles.
In the United States, freight hauling by truck accounts for more than 15% of our oil use, and nearly 60% in China. The US consortium will work with counterparts in China to leverage the technological research capabilities of both countries.
Freight hauling by trucks is a significant source of energy consumption and pollution around the world, and the fuel savings promised by the technology advances under this CERC-TRUCK program will help to combat climate change while advancing low-carbon economies. Working collaboratively with China will accelerate solutions to drive down technology costs that will improve transportation efficiency in both countries.
—US Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest Moniz
Once the award is finalized, the non-Federal partners in the US consortium will match or exceed DOE funding of $12.5 million for a total effort of $25 million or more.
The consortium and its Chinese counterparts will bolster collaborative efforts for state-of-the-art technologies to improve freight efficiency that will reduce carbon emissions and lower fuel costs for companies and drivers. The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, with its consortium partners, has pledged an equivalent amount of resources, bringing the total bilateral effort to $50 million over 5 years.
CERC-TRUCK program was announced in September 2015 by President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping. This track will expand on the current CERC efforts that focus on the development and deployment of clean vehicles, building energy efficiency, advanced coal technologies for carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, and the water-related aspects of energy production and use.
The team’s work will focus on advanced internal combustion engines and powertrain systems; energy management (such as system-level efficiency improvements); hybrid electric powertrains; key truck technologies such as light weighting and aerodynamics; and applied research, testing and evaluation to better explore and improve the operating efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
CERC is a Presidential initiative launched in November 2009. Its mission is to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies for the benefit of both countries, and to facilitate technical collaboration in mutually agreed areas and accelerate transition to an efficient and low‐carbon economy, while mitigating the long‐term threat of climate change.
It is still a conventional diesel program. We need zero emission solar powered trucks like the Semi Tesla is also developing. I expect the Tesla Semi to look very much like a diesel powered heavy duty Semi truck and it will have a cabin with a human driver. The problem is that Tesla needs to make a conventional looking Semi with a human driver to develop the special Auto Pilot system for that heavy duty truck. Driving a heavy duty truck is a very different experience than driving an ordinary car like a Model X. I know because during my military duty I got a driver license for a heavy duty truck with trailer. The autopilot for the Semi will be based on quite different algorithms. So Tesla needs to start with a conventional design with a human driver and that also can be used with existing infrastructure for semi trucks. I also expect the semi-truck to come with a 400 kwh battery that can transport a standard 12 ton semi-trailer for about 100 miles before a new semi-truck with a fully charged battery is required. The business model is that Tesla will make the supercharger stations available and service the vehicles and the Transportation companies will buy the trucks and operate them. Once the semi-trucks gets fully autonomous Tesla will take over the operation of the trucks but they will still be owned by the transportation companies that now uses Tesla’s system to book the transport for their customers. If a transportation company cannot book their autonomous trucks 100% of the time they can make them available for Tesla that will used them for other transportation companies that need capacity beyond their own fleet and so forth. Again the beauty of this business model is that Tesla does not need to tie up precious capital in their own fleet of trucks but can spend the capital they make to expand production for their battery electric and autonomous semi-trucks.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 23 July 2016 at 03:50 AM
Changing e-tractor every 100 miles seems to be a good solution but it is not so. A run from Mexico or California to Eastern Canada would require 25 to 30 e-trailer changes and would not be the most acceptable way to electrify long haul heavy trucks.
You might as well load the refrigerated trailers on existing rail flat cars from point A to Z and do the first and last miles with simple e-tractors.
An on-board bio-fuel FC + 50 to 100 KW of quick charge batteries could do the same trips without changing the tractor. It could go all day on the same bio-fuel tank without creating all the pollution and GHG from current diesel units. It may become one of the best solution by 2020/2022 or so.
AWD in wheel e-motors could increase the overall efficiency by 15%. Better tires, tractor and trailer design could easily supply another 30+%.
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 July 2016 at 10:49 AM
Harvey starts sensible and then goes off the rails. If I had nothing else to do I'd try to catalogue this to see if it's more like a propaganda effort than dementia, but my plate is already full.
We've already got more than 1 way to put tractor-trailers on rails, and overhead power can run locomotives, reefer trailers and everything else. If the electricity is supplied carbon-free, the transport is carbon-free. A mere 50% improvement (1/3 reduction in emissions) is far too small and should be viewed as grossly inadequate and unworthy of serious pursuit.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 23 July 2016 at 11:02 PM
So let us do the math for the cost of changing semi tractors versus the savings from not using diesel on a typical 700 miles transport. We need to spend 5 min more changing the semi-truck at the charging station. It can be done fully automatically by the Jost KKS system see link below for video. We need to change tractors 7-1 = 6 times so 5min*6=30 min. A truck driver is paid about 20 USD per hour so the extra cost is 10 USD for the time spend changing the semi. A heavy duty Semi gets at most 7 miles per gallon so 100 gallons of diesel is spend driving 700 miles and at 3 USD per gallon that is 300 USD spend. Electricity will be 150 USD at most assuming 0.1 USD per kwh and 1500 kwh spend to go 700 miles. So we save 150 USD on diesel and must pay the driver 10 USD more for 30 min of extra work. That is obviously not a problem.
However, we also need a fully charged semi to be available always at all of Tesla’s charging stations. This will cost extra and the BEV semi will be more expensive than the diesel semi for sure because of that 400kwh battery pack. But the electric semi can also be made to last at least one million miles and I suspect the diesel semi is worn out at 500,000 miles. Tesla has done de detailed math or they would not make this BEV Semi.
I assume Tesla will need to make their first generation BEV Semi with a human driver because that driver is needed to oversee an autopilot that is not fully autonomous until a few more years of development. I expect Tesla to make a fully autonomous semi without the need for a human driver no later than 2025 if Tesla can launch a BEV semi with a human driver by 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM_vMXThvHQ
EP if it requires special infrastructure it will only be used where that infrastructure is available. The beauty of an electric semi is that it will only require the electric semi and a network of superchargers that Tesla has build already. It is just as flexible as a diesel semi. You can transport stuff from door to door.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 24 July 2016 at 01:10 AM
I was thinking of something more like continuous overhead power or charging-in-motion from overhead power in a dedicated lane of the road.
Suppose you have some super-battery which can charge in 10 minutes (6C). The truck slows to 45 MPH for the charging lane, so 7.5 miles long. The truck is entirely powered by the overhead plus the battery is charged. Put one of these every 100 miles, so 92.5 miles of open road between chargers.
If the truck speed limit is 70 MPH, it takes 85.7 minutes to go 100 miles. Cut that by 7.5% and add 10 minutes for the charging segment and you're up to 89.3 minutes, adding 3.5 minutes per 100 miles or about 24 minutes ($8 in labor) for 700 miles. This is faster than the tractor-swap and you don't need a second fleet of tractors to sit charging while the other is on the road.
Wal-Mart has been pushing drag reductions to double the mileage of tractor-trailers to roughly 13 MPG. At 13 MPG, 140,000 BTU/gallon and 45% thermal efficiency, energy consumption at the transmission is about 5.1 MJ/mile or just under 1.5 kWh (allowing for losses). 700 miles at 13 MPG is 53.8 gallons; @$2.50/gallon (about today's price where I am) this is $134.60. Buying 1050 kWh at $0.10/kWh is $105, not a huge savings. At $0.15/kWh, the savings are negative.
All these numbers change with anything like a carbon tax.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 24 July 2016 at 01:52 PM
Cummings has already built a medium duty van with -90% carbon reduction as compared to the competition of diesel or gasoline. That was switching to E85 fuel and an optimized engine and transmission. Engineers claimed if they added a turbo inter cooler the mileage would improve again. Another substantial bump up in carbon efficiency, they tested for, was utilizing straight E100 fuel. The E85 engine easily met air pollution standards with the typical low cost converter setup. Mileage surpassed gasoline and fuel cost per mile was field tested to be less than diesel.
So, I'm guessing the US led consortium is tasked with improving the use of diesel fuel and not with optimum solutions. The support/financing probably has that legal restriction.
Posted by: Trees | 24 July 2016 at 04:43 PM
You don't give a citation, but I will bet dollars to donuts that the ethanol fraction of the fuel was assumed to be zero-carbon. EtOH made in the USA isn't remotely so, and can't come close so long as nitrate fertilizer and distillation still come from natural gas.
Electric propulsion can be powered by emissions-free nuclear power, and the farmland freed from corn-growing duty could be returned to prairie or forest as a net carbon sink.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 24 July 2016 at 06:51 PM
Well luckily for you EP, the EV car race (plugin or otherwise) will make a large demand for base loads at night... perhaps with all that cheap solar, make the night time the high point for electricity.
Renewables need EVs and a smart grid to work well, EVs to balance the grid in times of fluctuation.
Nuclear might be needed.
It would be interesting to see if they could hybridize trains(add a battery sink and some regenerative braking)/ put in a third/overhead rail for high grades.
Trucks could use some hybridization, something to save their brakes/help start out from a stop.
I'm with you on the overhead wire thing, I think it could work... but its just how to go about implementing it, like how do you bill for it??
and as you point out... the cost benefit is getting rather abysmal from current diesel to electric; but... in the near future ,<15years autonomous trucks will probably be a thing. If you could run the truck 23hrs a day at 65mph that's $60 a day roughly in just fuel cost, plus the absence of a driver(s) would net ~$800 for the time running. The autonomous truck could possibly make $310,000 in savings a year. Meaning it could enable BEV trucking/ expensive pantographs or what ever technology you'd want on it.
and if the tractor is fully automated... it could drop off one trailer, and leave with an empty/finished goods one and deliver. switch trailers around constantly without tying up the tractor waiting for loading and unloading.
I do think that autonomous vehicles will be the enabler of this type of expensive technology. BEVs and otherwise.
Electric vehicles fascinate me by their simplicity, they make ICEs look like a rube golberg machine.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 24 July 2016 at 08:35 PM
Hey, did any of you guys notice this line: "This track will expand on the current CERC efforts that focus on the development and deployment of clean vehicles, building energy efficiency, advanced coal technologies for carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, and the water-related aspects of energy production and use."
Must the farce of clean coal find its way into every energy program?
Posted by: ai_vin | 24 July 2016 at 08:47 PM
EP diesel will cost more than 2.5 USD. Current oil prices cannot support the development of new oil fields so the production will eventually fall as it already does in the US and then the price of diesel will go up to between 3 to 4 USD per gallon. Also the 13 mpg is an aspiration goal by Wallmart it has not yet been achieved on the fleet level if it ever will be. I would be surprised if the US fleet average for heavy duty tractor-trailers is much better than 7 mpg.
Moreover, the Middle East will collapse within a few years if the US stops its war against IS and AQ in that area. The free world may pursue another strategy and build walls to keep unwanted people out and save the money and lives of our troops to maintain stability in the Middle East. The people in the Middle East do so not deserve our help anyway. When AQ and IS take over their economies will go back to the stone age and they will no longer be a military threat to the free world as long as we build some walls to keep them from entering our world. My point is without Middle East oil the price will be higher and that will speed up the transition to a zero carbon economy and we also need that to stay independent and safe from countries with fascist religious belief.
Tesla has of cause done the detailed math and they know that in the commercial market only economics matters. A cool looking tractor-trailer is irrelevant for whether it sells. I quote from Tesla’s Master Plan “..heavy-duty trucks and high passenger-density urban transport. Both are in the early stages of development at Tesla and should be ready for unveiling next year. We believe the Tesla Semi will deliver a substantial reduction in the cost of cargo transport, while increasing safety and making it really fun to operate.” Even at 2 USD a gallon I believe an electric semi will have significant fuel cost savings versus a diesel semi if it can be operated with over 100,000 miles per year. It will not be economical with just 50,000 miles per year and 2 USD a gallon. For a super good economy for BEV semis fully autonomous drive is needed so we can operate them 24/7 and over 150,000 miles per year and also not need to change tractors at the charger stations. They just drive one hour and charge 30 min nonstop all year round. In that way they could actually approch 300,000 miles per year.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 25 July 2016 at 02:23 AM
Cummmings -90% CO2 reduction was based on cellulosic ethanol. The corn ethanol was -50%.
Carbon soil sequestration is currently gaining much attention. Woodland is good, but the wood decay not so good. Old forests are rated carbon neutral. Grassland are more efficient. Miscanthus and switchgrass for biofuel now rated a carbon sink. Corn and sorghum's soil carbon is scheduled to boost ethanol's carbon efficiency.
Ethanol plants are converting to biomass (avoid NG) to gain a big bump. Nitrogen fertilizer is expected to be generated from renewable hydrogen. By the way the carbon cost per bushel for farming corn is not the problem. The process plants are not efficient. I read a DOA report claiming the current 3:1 energy return of corn ethanol would change to 427:1 if processing plants adapted CHP processing equipment. Their continuous processing heat requirements are a natural for CHP. Some plants are already converting. California plants put a premium on carbon rating and the first to convert some equipment.
Posted by: Trees | 25 July 2016 at 03:47 AM
CE88 fully self-driving tech will become the key enabler for BEVs of any sort and the argument is easy to understand.
Long-range BEVs cost more to make than gassers but they cost less in fuel and maintenance and they also last longer than gassers (and diesels) so the more miles you can put on them the more economical they get versus the gassers.
Fully autonomous BEVs will make it as easy as a click on a Smartphone to rent your BEV to others thereby making money when you do not need the vehicle yourself. Light duty vehicles should easily be able to do 100,000 miles per year for the average BEV car owner when it is fully autonomous and commercial vehicles should be able to do at least 150,000 miles per year and potentially 300,000 miles per year when the Semi is fully autonomous.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 25 July 2016 at 06:51 AM
Have you actually worked the numbers on solar? Absorbing Germany's peak PV generation would need something like 1/2 of a Chevy Volt per capita to buffer it. This begs the question, what would everyone do when PV takes a day off?
This is the backwards thinking which pervades talk about ruinables. The advocates demand that the grid, and the economy which depends on it, be re-engineered to serve unreliable energy sources. The grid exists to serve the economy, and if ruinables ever stop meriting the pejorative they need to serve the grid and not vice versa.
Ruinables need EVs, but nobody asks if EVs need ruinables. If your EV is tied down to buffer wind and PV, it can't do its primary job of getting you around.
Nuclear is absolutely required to meet even the completely inadequate emissions targets of the so-called "Clean Power Plan". There is growing recognition that it is the only scalable, dispatchable zero-emissions energy source we have.
Ever heard of Speedpass?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 25 July 2016 at 07:04 AM
Yeah, but when? The shale drillers have run well down their learning curve, so it'll be a while before their wells deplete enough to be unprofitable.
The relative economics don't change based on MPG, because the electric consumption goes up based on vehicle drag.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 25 July 2016 at 07:05 AM
I think Kemper is going to be the last nail in that particular coffin. Decades after the Wabash River Repowering Project, Southern Company can't manage to keep a coal gasification train running. Maybe this is due to too much affirmative action hiring, but regardless of the cause it won't prompt any follow-ups.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 25 July 2016 at 07:06 AM
For new NPPs to be built in large quantities, many pre-conditions will have to be met, such as:
1) Much shorter Design, construction and commission times, from 12+ years to 6 years or less.
2) Construction cost have to be reduced by 66% to 75% to deliver electricity below $0.09/kWh, not $0.22/kWh. .
3) Public acceptance have to be increased to 80% or so.
4) NPPs have to be properly (fully) insured.
5) Used fuels have to be better managed or fully reprocessed.
Meanwhile, a mix of NGPPs, Wind and Solar, with flexible storage units, will continue to grow and take more of the energy market.
Posted by: HarveyD | 25 July 2016 at 08:24 AM
Tesla's idea is clean as always. Majority of heavy veahicle trips in Europe is below 50 km. In optimistic scenario loads long distance shall be transported by railways. 100 miles for basic load road transport is more than enough. Clear and simple.
The same core understanding Musk has about fast charging. Fast charging as very expensive tool shall be used seldom and when realy needed i.e. on intercity highways. Basic case shall be overnight slow charging.
Posted by: Darius | 26 July 2016 at 07:08 AM
Ultra quick 'FLASH' charging facilities could become an acceptable way to recharge combo batteries/super caps in a few seconds/minutes.
With guided quick mechanical connections, drivers could stay in their seat while picking up electrons and/or take a quick visite to the washrooms.
Posted by: HarveyD | 26 July 2016 at 08:10 AM