Summary

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

In July 2010, the National Research Council (NRC) appointed the Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Phase 2, to conduct an independent review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP). This Phase 2 review follows on the original NRC Phase 1 review of the Partnership conducted in 2007 and resulting in the report issued in 2008 (NRC, 2008). That 2008 review is referred to hereafter as the NRC Phase 1 report. It contains recommendations to which the 21CTP has responded (see Appendix C in this volume for the responses).

The 21CTP is a cooperative research and development (R&D) partnership including four federal agencies (the U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], the U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT], the U.S. Department of Defense [DOD], and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), and 15 industrial partners (Allison Transmission, ArvinMeritor, BAE Systems, Caterpillar, Cummins Inc., Daimler Trucks North America [which includes Freightliner], Detroit Diesel Corporation [DDC], Eaton Corporation, Honeywell International, Navistar, Mack Trucks, NovaBUS, Oshkosh Truck, PACCAR, and Volvo Trucks North America).

Since the Phase 1 review, the Partnership has evolved in the face of changing budgets and new initiatives, such as the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; Public Law 111-5), which injected funds during 2009 and 2010 for technology R&D on heavy-duty vehicles. The main leadership in the Partnership resides with the DOE’s Office of Vehicle Technologies, which manages a number of DOE-funded R&D programs directly related to medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) technologies. The other 21CTP agencies associate their own existing programs that are relevant to the goals of the 21CTP under the 21CTP umbrella.

The other factor, besides changing budgets and new initiatives, that makes budgets and projects involved in the 21CTP challenging to review is that the different agencies receive their budget appropriations from different committees in Congress. Thus, there is no central, overall control over budgets and accountability. Department of Energy staff organize meetings and conference calls, maintain the information-flow infrastructure (such as websites and e-mail lists), and have led the discussions for and preparation of the updated 21CTP Roadmap and Technical White Papers (DOE, 2010a, 2011) laying out Partnership goals. The management of individual projects under the 21CTP umbrella rests with the individual federal agencies that have funded the work. These agencies use the 21CTP information-sharing infrastructure to coordinate efforts and to ensure that valuable R&D results are communicated and that any overlap of activities among their respective efforts is reduced. The NRC’s Phase 1 review of the overall 21CTP helped communicate to the various stakeholders and to Congress the ongoing R&D efforts in the agencies and on the various projects (NRC, 2008). It is anticipated that the present, Phase 2 review and report will help extend that avenue of communication to all interested parties.

The purpose of the 21CTP is to reduce fuel consumption and emissions while increasing heavy-duty vehicle safety by supporting research, development, and demonstration that can lead to commercially viable products and systems. The strategic approach of the Partnership includes the following: (1) develop and implement an integrated vehicle systems R&D approach that validates and deploys advanced technology; (2) promote research for engine, combustion, exhaust aftertreatment, fuels, and advanced materials; (3) promote research focused on advanced heavy-duty hybrid propulsion systems; (4) promote research to reduce parasitic losses (now called vehicle power demands); (5) promote the development of technologies to improve truck safety; (6) promote the development and deployment of technologies that substantially reduce energy consumption and exhaust emissions during idling; and (7) promote the validation, demonstration, and deployment of advanced truck and bus technologies, and grow their reliability sufficient for adoption in the commercial marketplace (DOE, 2006).

The organization of this report is similar to that of the NRC Phase 1 report. The committee reviewed the major



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
Summary BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Congress. Thus, there is no central, overall control over bud- gets and accountability. Department of Energy staff organize meetings and conference calls, maintain the information-flow In July 2010, the National Research Council (NRC) infrastructure (such as websites and e-mail lists), and have appointed the Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck led the discussions for and preparation of the updated 21CTP Partnership, Phase 2, to conduct an independent review of Roadmap and Technical White Papers (DOE, 2010a, 2011) the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP). This Phase 2 laying out Partnership goals. The management of individual review follows on the original NRC Phase 1 review of the projects under the 21CTP umbrella rests with the individual Partnership conducted in 2007 and resulting in the report federal agencies that have funded the work. These agencies issued in 2008 (NRC, 2008). That 2008 review is referred to use the 21CTP information-sharing infrastructure to coor- hereafter as the NRC Phase 1 report. It contains recommen- dinate efforts and to ensure that valuable R&D results are dations to which the 21CTP has responded (see Appendix C communicated and that any overlap of activities among their in this volume for the responses). respective efforts is reduced. The NRC’s Phase 1 review of the The 21CTP is a cooperative research and development overall 21CTP helped communicate to the various stakehold- (R&D) partnership including four federal agencies (the U.S. ers and to Congress the ongoing R&D efforts in the agencies Department of Energy [DOE], the U.S. Department of Trans- and on the various projects (NRC, 2008). It is anticipated that portation [DOT], the U.S. Department of Defense [DOD], the present, Phase 2 review and report will help extend that and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), and avenue of communication to all interested parties. 15 industrial partners (Allison Transmission, ArvinMeritor, The purpose of the 21CTP is to reduce fuel consumption BAE Systems, Caterpillar, Cummins Inc., Daimler Trucks and emissions while increasing heavy-duty vehicle safety North America [which includes Freightliner], Detroit Diesel by supporting research, development, and demonstration Corporation [DDC], Eaton Corporation, Honeywell Interna- that can lead to commercially viable products and systems. tional, Navistar, Mack Trucks, NovaBUS, Oshkosh Truck, The strategic approach of the Partnership includes the fol- PACCAR, and Volvo Trucks North America). lowing: (1) develop and implement an integrated vehicle Since the Phase 1 review, the Partnership has evolved in systems R&D approach that validates and deploys advanced the face of changing budgets and new initiatives, such as the technology; (2) promote research for engine, combustion, America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; exhaust aftertreatment, fuels, and advanced materials; (3) Public Law 111-5), which injected funds during 2009 and promote research focused on advanced heavy-duty hybrid 2010 for technology R&D on heavy-duty vehicles. The propulsion systems; (4) promote research to reduce parasitic main leadership in the Partnership resides with the DOE’s losses (now called vehicle power demands); (5) promote the Office of Vehicle Technologies, which manages a number of development of technologies to improve truck safety; (6) DOE-funded R&D programs directly related to medium- and promote the development and deployment of technologies heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) technologies. The other 21CTP that substantially reduce energy consumption and exhaust agencies associate their own existing programs that are rel- emissions during idling; and (7) promote the validation, evant to the goals of the 21CTP under the 21CTP umbrella. demonstration, and deployment of advanced truck and bus The other factor, besides changing budgets and new initia- technologies, and grow their reliability sufficient for adop- tives, that makes budgets and projects involved in the 21CTP tion in the commercial marketplace (DOE, 2006). challenging to review is that the different agencies receive The organization of this report is similar to that of the their budget appropriations from different committees in NRC Phase 1 report. The committee reviewed the major 1

OCR for page 1
2 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT areas that the 21CTP is addressing. (See Chapter 1 for the components is appropriate to develop new technologies. committee’s complete statement of task). The committee’s Thus, the 21CTP is providing access to the extraordinary work was aided by its review of written materials and through expertise and equipment in federal laboratories, in addi - presentations by 21CTP government and industry partners tion to seed funding that draws financial commitment from on technical progress and accomplishments (see Appendix the companies to push forward in new technology areas. B). In addition, the series of white papers referred to above The Partnership provides the United States with a forum in summarized technical information, barriers, and, in many which the member agencies, in combination with industry, cases, goals and milestones, for six major focus areas: academia, and federal laboratories, can better coordinate their programs. The steady decline in research funding from 1. Engine systems—which also includes fuels, aftertreat- FY 2003 through FY 2007 was threatening the attainment ment, and materials; of program goals. The actual funding and need for R&D 2. Hybrid propulsion systems; are discussed in Chapter 1. The funding level in the years 3. Vehicle power demands—formerly called parasitic prior to the availability of funding through the American losses, which aim to reduce energy losses such as those Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) was not in from rolling resistance or aerodynamics; proportion to the importance of the goal of reducing the fuel 4. Idle reduction—which aims to reduce the amount of consumption of heavy-duty vehicles and providing advanced energy used for truck engine idling; technology for the industry to meet the 2014-2018 and later 5. Vehicle safety—to reduce fatalities and injuries in fuel consumption regulations. The ARRA funds provided truck-involved crashes; and by Congress in 2009-2010 have significantly enhanced the 6. Efficient operations—which is a new area and white ability of the Partnership to meet and demonstrate the goals paper with the aim of reducing fuel consumption in the for reducing fuel-consumption and improving safety in pro- U.S. truck freight-delivery system. totype vehicles. Overall Report Recommendation S-1. The 21CTP should This Summary first presents the committee’s overall find- ings and recommendations from the review of the 21CTP be continued to help meet the nation’s goal of reduced fuel as a whole. It then presents the major findings and recom- consumption in the transportation sector. In addition, the mendations, selected from Chapters 2 through 9, for the Partnership needs to review whether additional partners— following: management strategy and priority setting for the such as major truck and component manufacturers that are Partnership, the first five focus areas defined by the white not currently members—that could contribute to the R&D papers (listed above), the SuperTruck program begun in program should be recruited. Research funding should be 2010, and the new, sixth focus area on efficient operations. commensurate with well-formulated goals that are strategic The findings and recommendations from the chapters retain to reducing the fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles their original numbering to help the reader gain context by while improving safety, and all projects should be prioritized going to the original discussions. The report chapters also so that the 21CTP R&D program can be implemented within contain findings and recommendations in addition to those the available budget. in this Summary. Overall Report Finding S-2. T he 21CTP leadership The new SuperTruck program is funding the development and demonstration of full vehicle systems integrating a num - responded substantively to most of the recommendations ber of technologies into Class 8 heavy-duty, long-haul trucks of the National Research Council’s (NRC) Phase 1 review, with the aim of reducing load-specific fuel consumption (i.e., which helped to contribute to the improved program that was gallons per ton-mile). This new effort follows on the NRC the subject of this Phase 2 review. The committee commends Phase 1 report that called for integrating new technologies, the leadership of the Partnership for this effort. including advanced diesel engines, into vehicle systems. Overall Report Recommendation S-2. The 21CTP pro- gram goals should continue to be established, reviewed, OVERALL OBSERVATIONS updated, related to available funding, and clearly stated in Overall Report Finding S-1. The key benefit of the 21st measurable engineering terms. The white papers defining Century Truck Partnership is the coordination of research the various technical areas of R&D should be reviewed and programs directed toward the goal of reducing fuel usage and revised, as appropriate, periodically and prior to any future emissions while increasing the safety of heavy-duty vehicles. NRC review of the 21CTP. Given the “virtual” nature of the Federal involvement is bringing stakeholders to the table and Partnership among 4 agencies and 15 industrial partners, the accelerating the pace of technological development. Given projects that are considered to be part of 21CTP should be the federal regulatory requirements to reduce emissions better defined and, if part of the Partnership, indicated by a and fuel consumption, it seems the sharing of research and 21CTP notation in any 21CTP documentation. development (R&D) costs between the government and U.S. manufacturers of trucks and buses or heavy-duty vehicle

OCR for page 1
3 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND PRIORITY SETTING and associated budgets that were included under the 21CTP umbrella. This stems in part from the virtual nature of the The NRC Phase 1 report (Recommendation 2-2; NRC, Partnership and partly, particularly within the DOE, from the 2008) recommended the creation of “a portfolio manage- natural overlap in activities on batteries, hybrids, materials, ment process that sets priorities and aligns budgets among and other areas between the activities for light-duty vehicles the agencies and industrial partners.” In response, the Part- and the 21CTP. Many of these activities are reviewed at the nership stated that although this recommendation “will be annual DOE Merit Review and at Directions in Engine- considered … the ability to directly align budgetary decisions Efficiency and Emissions Research (DEER) conferences, across the agencies, however desirable, may be outside the and the new SuperTruck projects include an annual reporting scope of this voluntarily collaborative organization” (see requirement, but there is no dedicated report for the 21CTP. Appendix C). Given the individual control and oversight of the four agencies, the committee concluded that, although Recommendation 2-2. T he DOE should issue a brief indeed highly desirable, such a portfolio management pro- annual report documenting the specific projects within the cess is simply not likely to happen with the decentralized 21CTP and the progress made. The annual report should nature of the Partnership. provide references to published technical reports from Although prioritization of projects across agencies is the involved agencies. This would especially help outside unlikely to happen in any meaningful way, the DOE has groups, future review committees, the Congress, and oth - focused much of its 21CTP effort going forward on three ers to understand the structure, activities, and progress of SuperTruck projects, two funded with ARRA funds and the Partnership. one receiving DOE appropriated funds. These projects are directed toward demonstrating feasibility, fuel efficiency, ENGINE SYSTEMS AND FUELS and emissions compliance with full vehicle hardware for Class 8 long-haul freight trucks, as recommended in the The NRC Phase 1 report includes 12 findings and recom- NRC Phase 1 report (see Chapter 8 “SuperTruck Projects” mendations regarding engines. The Partnership concurred in this report). The committee applauds the prioritization of with many of the recommendations and incorporated several available ARRA and DOE funds on these projects. Although of them in the SuperTruck contracts. It did not, however, improved collaboration and coordination among agencies concur with the two findings and recommendations (NRC, would be welcome, the committee judges overall 21CTP pro- 2008, Findings 3-1 and 3-8 and Recommendation 3-1 and gram management to have improved since the Phase 1 report. 3-8) about the 50 percent brake thermal efficiency (BTE) goal for 2010 and the 55 percent BTE goal for 2013. How- Finding 2-1. The 21CTP is a virtual organization facilitating ever, the committee notes that the 21CTP has now changed communication among four agencies, government laborato- the year for meeting the 50 percent BTE goal to 2015 and ries, and industry, but it has no direct control over research that for the 55 percent goal to 2018.2 activities or funding across the agencies or by its industry partners. The committee continues to believe that the lack of Combustion single-point 21CTP authority is far from optimal, although it recognizes that this is necessary because of the various Finding 3-1. The committee reviewed nine diesel engine congressional committees that the agencies report to and that programs that were funded at a total of more than $100 mil- provide their budgets. lion by the DOE and industry and that included the High Efficiency Clean Combustion (HECC) program, the Waste Recommendation 2-1. The Department of Energy (DOE) is Heat Recovery (WHR) program, and others. Some programs urged to continue to improve the functioning of the 21CTP met or exceeded their goals, for example achieving a 10.2 “virtual” management structure in every way possible. Such percent improvement in brake thermal efficiency (BTE) improved functioning would include strengthening inter- versus a 10 percent goal, whereas others did not quite meet agency collaboration (particularly that involving the Envi- the goals of 5 percent or 10 percent improvement in BTE. ronmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the Department of By combining HECC and WHR, each demonstrating greater Defense [DOD])1 and documenting and publishing specific than 10 percent improvement in BTE, together with other 21CTP activity within all four agencies. technologies, it should be possible to improve BTE by 20 percent to achieve the original DOE target of 50 percent peak Finding 2-2. The EPA, DOD, and Department of Transpor- BTE. However, the DOE target of 50 percent peak BTE was tation (DOT) did not have a well-defined list of the projects not met by the original goal of 2010. 1 Subsequent to the committee’s review of 21CTP programs, the DOE and the DOD entered into the Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance 2 The 55 percent BTE goal in the 21CTP updated white paper, “Engines,” (AVPTA) partnership on July 18, 2011. See, for example, “DOE, Army Al- (DOE, 2011) is for a prototype engine system in the laboratory by 2015, liance Underlines Achieving Energy Security” by Chris Williams, available whereas in the DOE Multi-Year Program Plan, the goal is for 2018 in a at http://www.army.mil/article/62727/. Accessed October 18, 2011. prototype engine (DOE, 2010b).

OCR for page 1
4 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT mendations of this report. Specific plans for achieving these Finding 3-2. The DOE-funded research in advanced engine goals should be established. combustion at the national laboratories, in industry, and at universities is well managed and addresses important aspects Aftertreatment Technologies for achieving an integration of advanced combustion pro- Finding 3-10. The research agenda of the 21CTP is focused cesses that should be important enablers for achieving the 55 percent BTE goal as well as providing ongoing improve- on improving the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) reduction per- ments. There also appears to be good interaction between the formance of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and lean- researchers performing the work and the industry stakehold- NOx-trap systems, improving the efficiency of and reducing ers. Efforts to achieve 55 percent BTE are going to require the fuel consumption associated with particulate matter complex and expensive technologies. It will be some time (PM) filter regeneration, and improving the ability to model before it becomes clear whether there is a production-feasible aftertreatment systems. The DOE Cross-cut Lean Exhaust and cost-effective way to achieve the 55 percent BTE target. Emissions Reductions Simulations (CLEERS) program The committee believes that this target carries considerable does a good job of coordinating the aftertreatment research risk, even at the test cell demonstration stage. programs within the 21CTP and disseminating the results to the technical community at large. Recommendation 3-1. The 21CTP fundamental research Finding 3-11. The demands on the aftertreatment system program should continue to provide important enablers for the 55 percent BTE goal, and the DOE should continue to and its performance are intimately linked to the combustion look for leverage opportunities with other government- and process taking place within the cylinder. Consequently, the industry-funded projects. aftertreatment system must be developed and its performance evaluated in conjunction with the combustion system. The Recommendation 3-2. The DOE should ensure that the 21CTP realizes this, and its new goals for the aftertreatment engine R&D for the goal of 50 percent BTE at over-the-road program specifically state this. cruise conditions and the stretch goal of 55 percent BTE in Recommendation 3-7. The aftertreatment program within an engine in a laboratory that will now be carried out under the SuperTruck program receive the appropriate share of the the 21CTP should be continued, and the DOE should continue SuperTruck funding and benefit extensively from the DOE- to support the activities of CLEERS that interface with the funded research programs in advanced engine combustion. activities of the aftertreatment technical community at large. Emissions and Related Health Effects Fuels Finding 3-13. The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study Finding 3-7. In spite of efforts to reduce the fuel consump- (ACES), the Collaborative Lubricating Oil Study on Emissions tion of light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and to develop (CLOSE), and the project on Measurement and Characteriza- biomass-derived fuels (an effort which, except for corn-based tion of Unregulated Emissions from Advanced Technologies are ethanol, has not progressed as much as had been expected), comprehensive and cooperative projects that are investigating petroleum will remain the primary source of light-duty and important issues related to potential heavy-duty diesel engine heavy-duty vehicle fuel for many years to come. Whereas health effects. Based on the activities reported, the committee future U.S. gasoline demand is expected to be flat for the next finds a high degree of collaboration among government agen- 20 years, diesel fuel demand is expected to grow, necessitat - cies, national laboratories, and industry stakeholders. ing changes in refinery operations. Recommendation 3-9. The DOE should continue funding Recommendation 3-4. The DOE should reinstate its pro- the Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study, the Collabora- gram for advanced petroleum-derived fuels (they will be tive Lubricating Oil Study on Emissions, and the project on transportation’s primary fuels for many years to come) with Measurement and Characterization of Unregulated Emis- the objective of maximizing the efficiency of their use. sions from Advanced Technologies until results are finalized and reported for all three studies. Finding 3-9. The DOE established three different sets of goals for the fuels program from 2008 to 2011, which made an assessment of progress against the goals difficult. In Propulsion Materials total, little progress has been made toward the achievement Finding 3-14. The propulsion materials program is address- of these DOE goals, which were not specified goals of the ing a broad range of materials issues associated with heavy- 21CTP. truck propulsion systems. Many of the initiatives are funded Recommendation 3-6. The DOE fuel goals should be re- as cooperative R&D agreements (CRADAs) with significant evaluated in line with the FY 2012 budget and the recom-

OCR for page 1
5 SUMMARY HYBRID VEHICLES industry cost sharing, showing strong support by industry for this area of work. Finding 4-4. The EPA and DOT‘s National Highway Traf- fic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued their final rules Recommendation 3-10. The DOE should fund programs on September 15, 2011, for “Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the areas outlined in its “21st Century Truck Partnership Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and White Paper on Engines and Fuels” (February 25, 2011) in Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.” Although these stan- the section “Approach to Reaching Goals” covering materials dards contain test procedures for determining fuel consump- R&D for valve trains, major engine components, air-handling tion for heavy-duty hybrid trucks, a manufacturer still needs systems (turbochargers and exhaust gas recirculation [EGR] a certificate of conformity showing that a vehicle’s internal systems), and exhaust manifold sealing materials. combustion engine meets the EPA criteria emission standards for heavy-duty engines (a procedure that does not recognize High Temperature Materials Laboratory hybrid heavy-duty trucks). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is currently drafting vehicle-level test pro- Perhaps just as important as the direct support of the cedures for heavy-duty hybrid vehicles. 21CTP is the extensive benefit to the broader research and development community that comes from the research Recommendation 4-3. As partners of the 21CTP, EPA and conducted at the High Temperature Materials Laboratory DOT’s NHTSA should work with CARB to develop test pro- (HTML). This research covers a wide range of challenging cedures for the certification process for criteria emissions so problems for which solutions require the unique instrumenta- that the emissions benefits of hybridization will be recognized, tion at HTML as well as the expertise of the knowledgeable allowing the reduction in size or simplification of the emission DOE researchers who oversee and operate the facility. The control system of hybrid heavy-duty vehicles to be realized. fact that many academic researchers, as well as industry research specialists, seek collaboration with HTML speaks Finding 4-6. Six new stretch technical goals have been to the value of the facility with respect to the advancement established by the 21CTP for heavy-duty hybrid vehicles. of knowledge on many fronts. The committee agrees with the 21CTP that these are indeed HTML, located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was stretch goals. Specific plans for achieving these new goals, established more than 20 years ago as a National User some of which were carried over from the previous three goals Facility. It was created to provide specialized, and in some that had been set for hybrids, were not provided to the com- cases one-of-a-kind, instruments for materials research and mittee. Nor was the rationale provided for these new goals, characterization of value not only to the 21CTP but also to although they are appropriately focused on fuel consumption other programs needing a fundamental understanding of reductions, cost reduction, and a 15-year design life for the materials properties. technologies. They appear to be reasonable technical goals. The cost and design life objectives in the previous goals had Finding 3-15. HTML continues to be a valuable resource been identified earlier by the 21CTP as being necessary for for materials research for the 21CTP, providing specialized achieving commercially viable heavy-duty hybrid vehicles. and in many cases unique instrumentation and professional It is expected that a significant budget would be required expertise. The expertise of those who oversee the laboratory, through the target dates specified in the new goals, and a sig- and therefore the value of HTML to all users, is enhanced nificant increase from the zero budget for heavy-duty hybrid by the participation of the HTML staff themselves in the R&D over the past 3 years would be required. research. Recommendation 4-5. The 21CTP should establish plans Recommendation 3-10. The DOE should continue to pro- and develop realistic budgets for accomplishing the six new vide 21CTP researchers and other potential users access to stretch goals for heavy-duty hybrid vehicles in accordance HTML, and it should make every effort to maintain support with the committee’s findings, explain the rationale behind for HTML and to maintain the cutting-edge capability of the new goals, and provide the current status of the applicable the facility. Moreover, the DOE should provide sufficient technology for each of the goals so that the magnitude of the funding for HTML, and for the research specialists who tasks for each can be assessed. oversee and operate the facility, to enable continued research collaboration with the academic community, other govern- ment laboratories, and industry. In particular, HTML support VEHICLE POWER DEMANDS should not be reduced to a level that allows only maintenance (FORMERLY “PARASITIC LOSSES”) of the equipment for paying users. Finding 5-7. There is no rolling resistance test procedure with interlaboratory correlation universally employed as an industry standard.

OCR for page 1
6 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT Recommendation 5-4. The 21CTP, strongly supported by to encourage the adoption of idle reduction technologies to the DOT and EPA (the latter through its SmartWay program), meet the goal of reducing fuel use and emissions produced by should conduct an authoritative study of the several barriers idling engines by at least two-thirds by 2017. The EPA and (e.g., related to tread life, truck stability in blowouts, run-flat DOT should work to find incentives for states to promulgate tires, and other topics) to the widespread carrier adoption uniform anti-idling regulations. of next-generation wide base single (NGWBS) tires. The Finding 6-3. The Delphi solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) DOT should specifically support reduction of barriers to NGWBS tire acceptance by requiring the universal use by auxiliary power unit (APU) provides several advantages tire manufacturers of a rolling resistance test procedure like over diesel APUs, but it has significant issues in its current that in ISO (International Organization for Standardization) development status, including the following: low efficiency 28580, to ensure that comparative interlaboratory data exist. of 25 percent versus the DOE’s goal of 35 percent, and low demonstrated output power of 1.5 kW versus 3.0 kW Finding 5-13. Summarizing the committee’s findings on believed sufficient by Delphi and 5 kW of typical diesel vehicle power demands: Project prioritization by the 21CTP APUs; limited demonstrated durability; 2- to 5-hour warm- roughly follows the consumption ranking of the several up time to the 750°C operating temperature; and high cost. heavy-duty truck operating loads in Table 5-1 (see Chapter The 10-year funding for this program expires in 2011. 5 in this report) and technology risk. However, sometimes Recommendation 6-3. T he DOE should reassess the market forces provide considerable impetus for quite good development and implementation—for example, in tire roll- viability of the SOFC APU, particularly for application to ing resistance and, to a lesser extent, trailer aerodynamic the SuperTruck program, considering the following: (1) components. The DOE has identified a strong role in which SOFC APU is still in the laboratory, (2) the low efficiency technology development costs and risks are high, as in its of 25 percent versus the DOE goal of 35 percent, (3) the vehicle systems simulation and testing activities for heavy- low 1.5 kW output compared to the typical 5 kW diesel duty trucks. It has generally followed these principles, to APUs, (4) the disadvantages associated with the require- address high costs and risks, in the vehicle power demand ment for continuous operation at 750°C, and (5) the expira- projects. The SuperTruck projects will provide a unique Part- tion of funding from the DOE Office of Fossil Energy and nership opportunity to provide both further high-risk technol- EERE Fuel Cell Technologies Program of the DOE Office ogy results for certain vehicle power demand reductions and of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy after 10 years real-world validation of numerous integrated systems. of development. The DOE should coordinate more closely with DOD in its fuel cell APU developments to ensure that Recommendation 5-8. Although it is tempting to assume the best technology is being pursued for the 21CTP’s Goal that the SuperTruck projects will address all of the technolo- 7 in the engine idle reduction focus area; that goal relates to gies required to reduce tractor-trailer fuel consumption, in the development and demonstration of viable fuel cell APU practice many technologies may be left behind, particularly systems for military and other users (see Chapter 6 for the those that are not yet very mature. The Partnership should full text of Goal 7). (This recommendation is a follow-on to carefully review the technologies that have been identified Recommendation 6-8 in the NRC Phase 1 report.) and determine whether any technologies to reduce vehicle Finding 6-4. Idle reduction technologies could provide power demand are not being adequately addressed by the SuperTruck program. The DOE should define projects and 6 percent reduction in overall fuel consumption for Class find funding to support the development of technologies 8 long-haul trucks with sleeper cabs, which is nearly 30 beyond the scope of SuperTruck. percent of the 20 percent reduction in the fuel consumption required to meet the proposed EPA/NHTSA 2017 fuel effi- ciency standards. ENGINE IDLE REDUCTION Recommendation 6-4. The 21CTP should review and Finding 6-1. The DOE, EPA, and DOT have funded a wide potentially revise its idle reduction plans and goals in view variety of idle reduction projects focused on implementa- of the fact that the proposed 2017 fuel efficiency standards tion. A consolidated list of the funding provided for these provide an incentive for the adoption of idle reduction tech- projects was not provided to the committee, however, and the nologies as a means for achieving these standards for Class effectiveness of these projects could not be evaluated. The 8 long-haul trucks with sleeper cabs. national patchwork of anti-idling regulations is an impedi- ment to broader use of anti-idling measures. SAFETY Recommendation 6-1. The DOE, EPA, and DOT should Finding 7-3. The DOT has met its heavy-truck safety goals develop a consolidated list of the funding provided for the for the past 4 years. However, the committee observes that idle reduction projects, review the effectiveness of these the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) 2010 study projects, and formulate a coordinated and consistent plan

OCR for page 1
7 SUMMARY Achieving Traffic Safety Goals in the United States: Lessons • Achieve a 50 percent increase in vehicle freight from Other Nations has shown that other nations have estab- efficiency measured in ton-miles per gallon, which lished more aggressive initiatives and goals with impressive translates to a 33 percent reduction in load-specific results, and those results suggest that even greater improve- fuel consumption (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles). ment in highway safety is possible in the United States. The • Achieve at least a 20 percent improvement through committee also notes that overall improvements in highway engine thermal efficiency development, and achieve safety also yield improvements in heavy-duty truck safety, 50 percent BTE under highway cruise conditions. as most heavy-duty truck fatal accidents involve a light-duty • Evaluate potential approaches to 55 percent BTE in vehicle. an engine via modeling, analysis, and potentially also laboratory tests Recommendation 7-3. The DOT should evaluate the con- Finding 8-1. The three SuperTruck projects will be the clusions and recommendations of the TRB study Achieving Traffic Safety Goals in the United States: Lessons from Other flagship projects under the 21CTP for FY 2011 through Nations of highway safety in other nations, and consider the FY 2014; the goals are in concert with recommendations possibility of establishing more aggressive initiatives and made in the 2008 NRC Phase 1 report. A large portion goals for highway safety in general. The DOT should also of the DOE 21CTP budget will be devoted to these three consider establishing more aggressive goals for heavy-duty projects. Each SuperTruck project integrates a wide range truck safety. of technologies into a single demonstration vehicle (engine, waste heat recovery, driveline, rolling resistance, tractor and trailer aerodynamics, idle reduction, weight reduc - SUPERTRUCK PROGRAM tion technologies, etc.), and the contractors are pursuing Three projects have been selected for awards under the sufficiently different technical paths to avoid excessive DOE’s SuperTruck program; they will focus on measures duplication of effort. The results will help determine which to improve the fuel efficiency of Class 8 long-haul freight fuel-saving technologies are ready and cost-effective for trucks. These projects will receive $115 million in DOE o riginal equipment manufacturer (OEM)-level product funding to develop and demonstrate full vehicle system-level development programs. technologies by 2015. Two of the project teams (Cummins, Finding 8-4. The committee believes that the SuperTruck Inc. and Daimler Trucks North America, LLC) received ARRA funding for their projects, and Navistar, Inc. will be project teams have developed plans that address the needs of funded from DOE appropriations: the SuperTruck program and that have a reasonable chance for success. The keys to success include proper implementa- • Cummins, Inc. (Columbus, Indiana): Develop and tion of the plans along with the flexibility to adapt to new demonstrate a highly efficient and clean diesel engine, information and intermediate results during the course of an advanced waste heat recovery system, an aerody- the project. namic Peterbilt tractor and trailer combination, and Finding 8-5. The SuperTruck projects allow each team to a solid oxide fuel cell auxiliary power unit to reduce engine idling. design its own test duty cycle(s) within certain constraints. • Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (Portland, Ore- One negative consequence of this approach is that the gon): Develop and demonstrate technologies including three trucks may never be tested using a common cycle for optimized combustion, engine downsizing, electrifica- comparison. tion of auxiliary systems such as oil and water pumps, Finding 8-6. The SuperTruck projects go beyond the scope waste heat recovery, improved aerodynamics, hybrid- ization, and possibly a fuel cell auxiliary power unit of previous 21CTP projects. Instead of relying entirely on to reduce engine idling. simulations and laboratory testing, each of these projects will • Navistar, Inc. (Warrenville, Illinois): Develop and result in a drivable truck. The committee believes that it is demonstrate technologies to improve truck and trailer important to take technologies that have been developed to a erodynamics, combustion efficiency, waste heat date and implement them in a real vehicle. Often, the appli- recovery, hybridization, idle reduction, and reduced cation of new technologies in real-world applications yields rolling resistance tires. unexpected results, and these results must be explored before any new technology can be considered ready for production The objective of the three SuperTruck projects is to implementation. develop and apply technologies leading to a system-level Recommendation 8-2. The DOE and the SuperTruck con- demonstration of highly efficient and clean diesel-powered Class 8 trucks that: tractors should agree on at least one common vehicle duty

OCR for page 1
8 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT cycle that will be used to compare the performance of all more efficient trucking operations. (See Chapter 9 for other three SuperTruck vehicles. In addition, fuel consumption findings and recommendations.) improvements should be calculated on the basis of the EPA/ Finding 9-1. The DOE-DOT draft white paper proposes “effi- NHTSA fuel consumption regulations. cient operations” as a new direction for the 21CTP. The com- mittee agrees that this is an important area for R&D under the EFFICIENT OPERATIONS umbrella of the 21CTP. It also agrees that cooperation among The 21CTP recently proposed “efficient operations” as a the DOE and DOT and other agencies would be beneficial, new area for work under the 21CTP. The proposal is laid out particularly for assessing the possible effects of removing in a draft white paper titled “Reducing Fuel Consumption in regulatory barriers to the use of fuel-saving measures. U.S. Trucking—A DOE-DOT Joint Study and Whitepaper” Finding 9-10. The DOE-DOT draft white paper on efficient (DOE-DOT, 2011). In this draft, the two agencies explore opportunities to improve the efficiency of trucking opera- operations in its current form does not include any goals that tions, focusing on two areas of opportunity: (1) joint R&D could be used to prioritize and drive R&D efforts on efficient efforts between DOE and DOT and (2) modifications of operations. regulations (primarily DOT regulations). Recommendation 9-7. Specific goals for efficient opera- Besides the many technologies available for reducing the fuel consumption of trucks, there are other ways of tions should be developed, with strong consideration given saving fuel that do not require any changes to vehicle or to exploiting the potential for intelligent transportation sys- engine technologies—involving, for example, the ways tems (ITS) to reduce fuel consumption. In addition, priori- that vehicles are operated and maintained, or the nature ties should be set for the R&D, testing, and data collection of regulations that may constrain or promote technology needed to analyze the benefits, drawbacks, and potential implementation and efficient operations. Infrastructure unintended consequences of removing barriers, including is also important because it can affect fuel consumption regulatory barriers, to the application of fuel-saving features. through factors such as vehicle speed fluctuation and con - The draft white paper on efficient operations should be gestion. Electronic features can be added to a truck that rewritten to take the findings and recommendations of the modify the performance of the engine or vehicle in ways committee into account. The 21CTP partners, trucking fleets, that can save fuel. and major suppliers should be involved in setting goals and The committee identified a number of areas and devel- research priorities oped a number of findings and recommendations on the fol- lowing topics for the 21CTP to consider in its white paper in REFERENCES formulating goals in order to reduce fuel consumption. The DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2006. 21st Century Truck Partnership topics are as follows: Roadmap and Technical White Papers. Doc. No. 21CTP-003. December. Washington, D.C.: Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies. • Improved aerodynamic and rolling resistance perfor- DOE. 2010a. Updated 21st Century Truck Partnership Roadmap and Techni- mance for trailers, cal White Papers. Doc. No. 21CTP-003. September 1. Washington, D.C.: • Exploitation of the use of intelligent vehicle systems, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies. DOE. 2010b. Multi-Year Program Plan, 2011-2015. Vehicle Technologies and Program. December. Washington, D.C. • Assessment of the potential impact of high-productiv- DOE. 2011. Updated 21st Century Truck Partnership Technical White ity vehicles and providing of leadership in getting them Papers. Working draft. February 25, 2011. Washington, D.C.: Office of into trucking operations. Vehicle Technologies. DOE-DOT (DOE-U.S. Department of Transportation). 2011. Reducing Fuel Consumption in U.S. Trucking—A DOE-DOT Joint Study and The following major findings and a recommendation are Whitepaper. 21st Century Truck Partnership Efficient Operations White the result of the committee’s review of the draft DOE-DOT Paper Draft. February 15. Washington, D.C. (2011) white paper on efficient operations. They describe NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Review of the 21st Century Truck what the committee believes should be added to or changed Partnership. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. in the white paper to help the 21CTP promote and enable