6

Engine Idle Reduction

INTRODUCTION

Overnight and workday idling of trucks is estimated to consume well over 2 billion gallons of fuel annually in the United States (DOE, 2011). Extended idling by commercial trucks costs truck owners about $6 billion annually and wastes more than 1 percent of the petroleum used in the United States. Much of this petroleum use could be avoided by installing idle reduction technologies, adopting more efficient freight-scheduling policies, or in some cases simply turning off the engines. In addition to the fuel consumed, idling produces emissions and noise. Overnight idling is used to keep a truck’s cab and/or sleeper heated or cooled, to keep the fuel and engine warm in winter for easier starting, to provide power to operate electrical appliances, and to keep the batteries charged. A long-haul truck idles an estimated 1,800 to 2,400 hours per year when parked overnight (DOE, 2011). Workday idling includes creeping along in queues at ports and depots. Every hour that a truck idles unnecessarily is equivalent in fuel consumption to about 4 to 5 miles of driving and adds an estimated $0.15 in maintenance costs.1

Solutions to eliminate overnight idling are shown in Table 6-1. They include engine controls (for automatic shutdown/start-up systems), fuel-operated heaters (FOH), auxiliary power units (APUs), battery-powered heating and cooling systems, and shore power or truck stop electrification (also called Electrified Parking Spaces [EPS]) (NRC, 2010). The attributes provided by each of these idle reduction technology solutions are shown in the table. The cells in Table 6-1 are shaded light green to indicate favorable attributes, yellow shading indicates mild drawbacks, and dark orange indicates major drawbacks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its SmartWay program’s contacts with truck manufacturers and fleets, estimates that approximately 30 percent of the existing fleet has some type of idle reduction technology.2 The most prevalent onboard technology, determined by a survey conducted by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) of 55,000 truckers, was direct-fuel-fired heaters (32 percent), followed by battery-powered air conditioners (24 percent), while auxiliary power units APUs were used by 12 percent of the respondents (American Transportation Research Institute, 2006).

The overall goal of the engine idle reduction portion of the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) is to reduce fuel use and emissions produced by idling engines. The metric for this goal, which was provided to the committee in a November 2010 presentation and in previous versions of 21CTP white papers since 2007, was an 85 percent reduction in idling fuel consumption in the period 2002 to 2017.3 An August 2010 white paper draft revised the goal to a two-thirds reduction, based on discussions with industrial partners on the most appropriate and achievable goals using a variety of factors (DOE, 2010). However, in the February 2011 “21CTP White Paper on Idle Reduction,” the quantification of this goal was deleted (DOE, 2011). To date, the 21CTP has not been able to carry out surveys to measure quantitatively the progress being made toward the previously stated goal owing to the absence of funding for such studies. Only qualitative observations can indicate the increased adoption rate of these devices for which the primary drivers have been (1) the high cost of diesel fuel and (2) the regulatory measures adopted in some states and cities to reduce idling.

There are restrictions on engine idling in 46 states and jurisdictions. Many states have strict regulations in more than one city, whereas the regulations of other states are statewide. Sometimes the regulations for a city are different from those of the state. Some of the localities have started enforcing

_____________________

1 Glenn Keller, ANL, “Idle Reduction Accomplishments,” presentation to the committee, November 15, 2010, Washington, D.C.

2 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technologies, to committee questions 5(b).

3 Glenn Keller, ANL, “Idle Reduction Accomplishments,” presentation to the committee November 15, 2010, Washington, D.C. This overall goal has been used to formulate the 21CTP technical goals.



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 92
6 Engine Idle Reduction INTRODUCTION type of idle reduction technology. 2 The most prevalent onboard technology, determined by a survey conducted by Overnight and workday idling of trucks is estimated to the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) of consume well over 2 billion gallons of fuel annually in the 55,000 truckers, was direct-fuel-fired heaters (32 percent), United States (DOE, 2011). Extended idling by commercial followed by battery-powered air conditioners (24 percent), trucks costs truck owners about $6 billion annually and while auxiliary power units APUs were used by 12 percent of wastes more than 1 percent of the petroleum used in the the respondents (American Transportation Research Insti- United States. Much of this petroleum use could be avoided tute, 2006). by installing idle reduction technologies, adopting more The overall goal of the engine idle reduction portion of the efficient freight-scheduling policies, or in some cases simply 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) is to reduce fuel use turning off the engines. In addition to the fuel consumed, and emissions produced by idling engines. The metric for this idling produces emissions and noise. Overnight idling is goal, which was provided to the committee in a November used to keep a truck’s cab and/or sleeper heated or cooled, to 2010 presentation and in previous versions of 21CTP white keep the fuel and engine warm in winter for easier starting, papers since 2007, was an 85 percent reduction in idling fuel to provide power to operate electrical appliances, and to keep consumption in the period 2002 to 2017.3 An August 2010 the batteries charged. A long-haul truck idles an estimated white paper draft revised the goal to a two-thirds reduction, 1,800 to 2,400 hours per year when parked overnight (DOE, based on discussions with industrial partners on the most 2011). Workday idling includes creeping along in queues at appropriate and achievable goals using a variety of factors ports and depots. Every hour that a truck idles unnecessarily (DOE, 2010). However, in the February 2011 “21CTP White is equivalent in fuel consumption to about 4 to 5 miles of Paper on Idle Reduction,” the quantification of this goal was driving and adds an estimated $0.15 in maintenance costs.1 deleted (DOE, 2011). To date, the 21CTP has not been able Solutions to eliminate overnight idling are shown in Table to carry out surveys to measure quantitatively the progress 6-1. They include engine controls (for automatic shutdown/ being made toward the previously stated goal owing to the start-up systems), fuel-operated heaters (FOH), auxiliary absence of funding for such studies. Only qualitative obser- power units (APUs), battery-powered heating and cooling vations can indicate the increased adoption rate of these systems, and shore power or truck stop electrification (also devices for which the primary drivers have been (1) the high called Electrified Parking Spaces [EPS]) (NRC, 2010). The cost of diesel fuel and (2) the regulatory measures adopted attributes provided by each of these idle reduction technol- in some states and cities to reduce idling. ogy solutions are shown in the table. The cells in Table There are restrictions on engine idling in 46 states and 6-1 are shaded light green to indicate favorable attributes, jurisdictions. Many states have strict regulations in more than yellow shading indicates mild drawbacks, and dark orange one city, whereas the regulations of other states are statewide. indicates major drawbacks. The U.S. Environmental Pro- Sometimes the regulations for a city are different from those tection Agency (EPA), through its SmartWay program’s of the state. Some of the localities have started enforcing contacts with truck manufacturers and fleets, estimates that approximately 30 percent of the existing fleet has some 2 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo- gies, to committee questions 5(b). 3 Glenn Keller, ANL, “Idle Reduction Accomplishments,” presentation 1 Glenn Keller, ANL, “Idle Reduction Accomplishments,” presentation to the committee November 15, 2010, Washington, D.C. This overall goal to the committee, November 15, 2010, Washington, D.C. has been used to formulate the 21CTP technical goals. 92

OCR for page 92
93 ENGINE IDLE REDUCTION TABLE 6-1 Comparison of Attributes of Idle Reduction Systems Infrastructure Avoided per Service Fee Emissions % Benefit Idle Time Recharge Fuel Use Requires Needed? Cooling Heating Electric Control (gal/hr) Idle Reduction Year Cost Technology Engine Control 1,500 to $1,000 to Yes Yes Yes No No No ~0.5 3% 2,400 $4,000 Heater $1,000 to Yes No No No No No 500 to 800 0.2 to 0.3 1.3 to 2.3% $3,000 Auxiliary Power In 1,500 to $6,000 to Yes Yes Yes No No 0.2 to 0.3 4 to 7% Unit California 2,400 $8,000 Battery 1,500 to $3,000 to Yes Yes Some Yes No No — 5 to 9% $8,000a 2,400 Shore power 1,500 to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — 5 to 9% ~$100 2,400 NOTE: Green: Favorable Attribute Yellow: Mild Drawback Dark Orange: Major Drawback a May require a diesel particulate filter, at an additional cost of $3,000. SOURCE: NRC (2010), Table 5-24, p. 125. anti-idling regulations more aggressively (DOE, 2011; items addressing these goals provide a path toward accom- Delphi, 2010). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) plishing the overall goal of the idle reduction portion of the adopted a rule that since 2007 has not only limited idling 21CTP. The status of action items addressing each of these to 5 minutes, but also requires automatic shutoff devices. goals is discussed in this section. Philadelphia bans the idling of heavy-duty diesel-powered 21CTP Engine Idle Reduction Goal 1. Continue industry/ motor vehicles, with exceptions made during cold weather. government collaboration to promote the development and deployment of cost-effective technologies for reduc- FUNDING ing fuel use and emissions due to idling of heavy-duty engines. The NRC Phase 1 report did not contain a breakdown of the 21CTP budget for idle reduction through 2008 (NRC, 2008). Likewise, the 21CTP budget for idle reduction efforts For more than a decade, the Department of Energy was not available for FY 2009 and FY 2010 and the FY (DOE) has carried out cooperative research and development 2011 President’s Congressional Budget Request (see Table (R&D) to characterize and address the reduction of fuel 1-2 in chapter 1 of this report). Similarly, a budget forecast use and emissions during the idling of heavy-duty engines. for meeting the idle reduction goals that extend through The NRC (2008) Phase 1 report discussed the R&D work 2017 to reduce fuel use and emissions produced by idling focused on idling reduction technologies. All of the 21CTP engines was not provided to the committee. Therefore, an partners, both government and industry, have ongoing roles assessment of the probability of achieving the goals for idle in developing and implementing a coherent program of idling reduction technologies cannot be made at this time. However, reduction, as described below: as noted in the section, “Goals,” the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 did provide funds for • The DOE analyzes technology needs and performs the idle-reduction related projects. appropriate R&D to help make cost-effective technol- ogy available for implementation. The results of the analyses enable a systematic comparison of potential GOALS strategies, including emission credits, positive incen- In the NRC Phase 1 report, seven 21CTP goals for engine tives, and regulations to install appropriate idle reduc- idle reduction were addressed (NRC, 2008). In its November tion technology. 15, 2010, presentation to the committee, the 21CTP slightly • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the modified these goals for 2010 and added one new goal. Those Department of Transportation (DOT) have been named goals are presented in bold type in this section. The action to lead the effort in implementation.

OCR for page 92
94 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT The ARRA of 2009 has provided the following funding • A major goal of the DOD is to reduce the logistical for idle-reduction-related projects (DOE, 2011): footprint of deployed forces, primarily though savings in fuel consumption. • $65 million for the purchase and installation of idle • The 21CTP industrial partners and their suppliers need reduction equipment for on-road diesel vehicles and to work together to make idle reduction technologies educational outreach about the benefits of idling reduc- an affordable and cost-effective part of their vehicles’ tion (see Goal 2). This project includes APUs, fuel- design, seamlessly integrating their choice of technolo- operated heaters, battery-powered air conditioners, gies into their products. engine block heaters, and engine start-up/shutoff idle • Local, state, and regional air quality agencies have control systems and other emission reduction projects, teamed up with the EPA and DOE’s Clean Cities coali- such as engine re-powers (the replacement of an in-use, tions to form regional collaboratives to address diesel existing engine with a remanufactured engine or a new engine emissions, with idling reduction as a major engine with lower emissions), replacements, or instal- component of their efforts. lation of diesel oxidation catalysts in cases where these 21CTP Engine Idle Reduction Goal 2. Expand the cur- projects were bundled with idling reduction projects. Examples of projects funded include the following:4 rent educational programs for truck and bus owners and operators to implement enabling technologies and opera- —Installing 163 diesel-fired heaters in the city of tional procedures to eliminate unnecessary idling. Chicago fleets and 155 units in the city of Portland, Oregon, fleets; —Augmenting state funding for the installation of 562 The DOE has established or encouraged the following idle reduction technologies by the Wisconsin Depart- initiatives to educate stakeholders on the benefits of idle ment of Commerce program that competitively awards reduction and the opportunities to implement technologies money for APUs to truckers; and procedures to eliminate unnecessary idling: —Providing funding in Nebraska to equip approxi- mately 187 vehicles with EPA-verified idling reduction • The EPA, through the SmartWay Transport Partner- equipment; ship, has sponsored numerous idle reduction outreach —Adding fuel-fired heaters to school buses in Mis- efforts and events, including technical papers, articles, sissippi, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Maryland, and presentations. South Dakota, and North Dakota; and • The DOE Clean Cities Program has sponsored out- —Retrofitting of 180 long-haul trucks with APUs by reach activities to educate Clean Cities’ coordinators the Colorado Department of Public Health and Envi- and fleet managers about the benefits of idling reduc- ronment 5,6 tions and the technologies available, through white • $32 million for truck stop electrification (TSE). The papers, webcasts, and presentations at various profes- funds will provide for the purchase and installation sional meetings. The DOE has produced idle reduction of wayside single-system (no onboard equipment fact sheets and other educational materials. required) and dual-system EPS (DOE, 2011). • Through the Clean Cities Program, the DOE has broad- —A single-system EPS supplies all needed services ened its involvement in idling reduction to include through a duct inserted into the cab window. Single- light- and medium-duty vehicles in addition to heavy- system electrification requires no retrofit on the truck, duty vehicles. and therefore minimal upfront cost by the user; • The “National Idling Reduction Network News” is —A dual-system EPS is simply a plug at a parking spot a DOE-sponsored electronic newsletter whose pri- that enables the trucker to tap into the electric power mary distribution each month reaches almost 1,500 grid to power onboard electrical devices. Dual-system readers. electrification involves installing some combination • The DOE has produced idling reduction fact sheets and of an inverter/charger, electric engine block heater, other educational materials to make drivers and fleet electric fuel heater, and electric heating/cooling device owners aware of reasons not to idle. for the cab and sleeper conditioning, and electric idle • The following DOE and industry publications address control on the truck. idling reduction: Argonne National Laboratory’s Currently, the single system is more widespread. Idling: Cruising the Fuel Inefficiency Expressway (ANL, 2009) and Cummins’ Idle Talk: How the Regu- lations Affect You (Cummins, 2008). 4 21CTP response to committee questions from its March 31-April 1, 2011 meeting. 21CTP Engine Idle Reduction Goal 3. Investigate a mix of 5 Glenn Keller, ANL, “Idle Reduction Accomplishments,” presentation incentives and regulations to encourage trucks and buses to the committee, November 15, 2010, Washington, D.C. to find other more fuel-efficient and environmentally 6 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo- friendly ways to provide for their power needs at rest. gies, to committee question 20(a).

OCR for page 92
95 ENGINE IDLE REDUCTION Approximately 165 electrified parking spaces have The patchwork of anti-idling regulations nationally has been completed to date. Examples of TSE projects that been an impediment to broader use of anti-idling measures. are being funded include the following: The EPA has no legal authority to promulgate anti-idling —30 AirDock units on the Maine Turnpike ($1.2 laws, or any driving time or behavior limits on truck drivers. million from EPA ARRA); The EPA’s legal authority rests with promulgating emissions — 90 Shorepower TM u nits off Interstate 10 in standards to vehicles and engines. (21CTP Response to NRC Arizona; [2008] Recommendation 6-4; see Appendix C in this report.) —14 CabAire units in New Haven, Connecticut; However, the regulatory environment is currently changing. and Specifically, as noted later in this chapter, the proposed EPA —CabAire units on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.7 and NHTSA, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and • Cascade Sierra Solutions has received a $22.2 mil- Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty lion grant for a 3-year program known as Shorepower Engines and Vehicles” (EPA/NHTSA, 2010a) contain a Truck Electrification Project (STEP) for the construc- provision indicating that, if a manufacturer chooses to use tion of approximately 1,200 electrified parking spaces idle reduction technology to meet the standard, then it would at 50 truck stops across the United States. These DOE require an automatic main engine shutoff after 5 minutes to ARRA funds are matched with private-sector funds. In help ensure that the idle reductions are realized in-use. addition, approximately $10 million is being provided Finding 6-1. The DOE, EPA, and DOT have funded a wide in purchase rebates of up to 20 percent of the cost of idle reduction equipment for users of the STEP net- variety of idle reduction projects focused on implementa- work of electrified parking spaces.8 tion. A consolidated list of the funding provided for these • Grants from the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act projects was not provided to the committee, however, and the (DERA) of 2005 funds have been used at the DOE and effectiveness of these projects could not be evaluated. The EPA to fund a variety of idling reduction projects, such national patchwork of anti-idling regulations is an impedi- as the following: ment to broader use of anti-idling measures. —$1.13 million each to Cascade Sierra Solutions, Recommendation 6-1. The DOE, EPA, and DOT should Community Development Transportation Lending Services, and Owner-Operator Independent Drivers develop a consolidated list of the funding provided for the Association for revolving loans and low-cost financ- idle reduction projects, review the effectiveness of these ing for emission- and idling-reduction equipment for projects, and formulate a coordinated and consistent plan trucks (EPA DERA). to encourage the adoption of idle reduction technologies to meet the goal of reducing fuel use and emissions produced by The EPA, working with the DOT, states, and private lend- idling engines by at least two-thirds by 2017. The EPA and ers, is developing innovative, market-based, and sustainable DOT should work to find incentives for states to promulgate funding opportunities, such as low-interest loans through uniform anti-idling regulations. EPA’s SmartWay Program, to replace traditional grants to 21CTP Engine Idle Reduction Goal 4. Facilitate the allow the truck and rail industries to purchase and use idle establishment of consistent electrical codes and standards reduction technologies. Low-interest loans are expected to that apply to both on-board and stationary electrification be a more sustainable incentive than grants, which typically technologies. expire after a period of time. Low-interest loans allow truck owners who are unable to make initial investments because of limited capital to pay over time with their fuel savings. The NRC Phase 1 report on review of the 21CTP described While all of these developments were under way, a major the status of the relevant electrical codes at that time (NRC, provider of EPSs, IdleAire, filed for bankruptcy in June 2008 2008). The report focused on changes or additions that were and shut down operations. However, by the summer of 2010, needed in two areas: (1) onboard wiring for the truck and Convoy Solutions, LLC, dba IdleAire, began reopening EPS (2) Electrified Parking Spaces. The onboard wiring codes sites. The DOE indicated that all new efforts directed toward were established in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) EPS are focused on locating the EPSs along major freight Standard J2698, finalized and published in 2008 and titled corridors.9 “Primary Single Phase Nominal 120 VAC Wiring Distribu- tion Assembly Design-Truck and Bus.” This SAE standard has addressed the known issues with onboard wiring for the 7 Glenn Keller, ANL, “Idle Reduction Accomplishments,” presentation truck identified in the NRC Phase 1 report (NRC, 2008). to the committee, November 15, 2010, Washington, D.C.; and answers The National Electric Code (NEC) Part 626, titled provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technologies, to com- mittee question 20(b). “Electrified Parking Spaces,” was approved in 2008 and 8 21CTP response to committee questions from its March 31-April 1, addressed these topics: how to plug in, the voltages to sup- 2011, meeting. ply, and a suggested common plug style. Part 626 clarifies 9 Glenn Keller, ANL, “Idle Reduction Accomplishments,” presentation that automobile parking areas are not subject to Part 626, so to the committee, November 15, 2010, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 92
96 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT that the SAE J1772 coupler to power a truck is allowed but system ranges from $5,295 to $6,595, depending on whether not required. Part 626 states that the receptacle needs to be an Airtop 2000 heating unit is also provided. a three-wire grounded type and that each truck stop parking A team consisting of Espar, Navistar, and Walmart spot needs both 208 vac and 120 vac receptacles.10 This evaluated 20 trucks with Espar (2010) Airtronic bunk heat- NEC standard has addressed the known issues with station- ers, Espar engine preheaters, and Bergstrom Nite battery- ary electrification technologies identified in the NRC Phase powered, electric A/C units, and 5 trucks with ThermoKing 1 report (NRC, 2008). Tripac APU systems for heating, cooling, and accessory power. Both configurations provided acceptable perfor- 21CTP Engine Idle Reduction Goal 5. Promote the mance. Following this evaluation, Walmart retrofitted its development and demonstration of cost-effective add-on entire fleet of 7,000 trucks with Thermo King TriPac units idling-reduction equipment that meets driver cab com- as a result of Walmart’s settlement in 2006 with the EPA for fort needs, has a payback of 2 years or less, and produces clean air violations related to idling trucks at stores in Con- fewer emissions of NOx and PM than a truck meeting necticut and Massachusetts. The TriPac unit includes a Tier 2010 emission standards. IV-compliant 2-cylinder diesel engine with a diesel particu- late filter (DPF) for state of California operation, an alterna- The NRC Phase 1 report noted that Webasto Airtop tor for truck battery charging, an A/C unit, and a fuel-fired 2000 diesel-fueled cab heaters tested by Schneider National heater (Thermo King, 2010). The TriPac unit is designed provided a 2.4 percent improvement in fuel economy and to meet anti-idling and emissions regulations nationwide, a payback of less than 2 years for a fuel price of $2.40/gal. including CARB requirements and is claimed to be the sales The current list price of the Webasto cab heater is $1,745. leader of APU systems in the industry (Thermo King, 2010). Although the DOE has not worked with Schneider since With the tightening of diesel emissions regulations in the initial testing program, Schneider has indicated that 2010, some of the diesel APUs are no longer available; oth- all 6,000 trucks purchased since 2003 had been retrofitted ers, like the truck diesel engines, have had to be equipped or factory installed with cab heaters, and 80 percent of its with particulate filters and NOx traps, thereby increasing their fleet, or 8,000 trucks, were to be retrofitted by the winter costs and making the achievement of the 2-year payback goal of 2007/2008 (Maronde and Slezak, 2006). Webasto and more difficult (DOE, 2011). Bergstrom battery-powered cooling systems based on phase- The military needs APUs to reduce in-field fuel consump- change medium that is charged during normal operation of tion and related logistical costs and to reduce thermal and the truck’s air conditioning system were also evaluated by audible identification signatures during silent watch. APUs Schneider National. It was concluded at that time that these are quieter than idling primary engines, and they have a cooling systems needed further work, which was not speci- reduced thermal signature, making them less detectable on fied, before they could be widely deployed. the battlefield. The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics DOE’s earlier development of phase-change materials for Research, Development, and Engineering Center (CERDEC) stand-alone cab cooling had identified deficiencies with this Laboratory is working to demonstrate the feasibility of a diesel concept. Subsequently, the resolution of these deficiencies engine APU on the M915A5 long-haul tractor. Diesel APUs has led to the commercial release of the Webasto Blue Cool are being considered since “silent watch” is not a requirement product. The Blue Cool product was reported to be the first for these trucks. In FY 2008, contracts were awarded to Dewey thermal storage APU with shore power connectivity. Cab Electronics and Cummins Power Generation to develop stand- comfort and electrification are provided without idling. Tests alone APU/environmental control unit (ECU) prototypes. A confirmed that Blue Cool provided sufficient cooling under contract to Red Dot Corporation is expected to conclude in most ambient conditions. The in-cab-mounted air handler FY 2011 with the demonstration of two APU/ECU prototypes delivers chilled air to the bunk for up to 10 hours without integrated onto two M915A5 tractor trucks. The resultant consuming any fuel. Blue Cool charges itself while the system design is projected to save up to 870 gal/yr and to vehicle is in motion and does not require additional batteries. achieve a simple payback period of less than 5 years (assuming The electrical load of the circulation pump and fans during fully burdened fuel cost of $15/gal). Reducing fuel use is key cooling is 3.5 to 10 A. Webasto claims that Blue Cool has the because approximately two-thirds of the ground fleet is used shortest return on investment among idle reduction products, to deliver fuel to the other third in the battlefield. although the DOE did not perform testing or analysis to con- With $500,000 funding from the EPA, the North Carolina firm this claim, and sufficient information was not available State University (NCSU) conducted a 34-month Truck OEM to determine if this system met the 2-year payback objective APU Prep Kit Design and Installation Project that was con- (Webasto, 2010). The current price of the Webesto Blue Cool cluded in August 2008 (Tazewell et al., 2008). In this project, Volvo was awarded a contract to develop a Prep Kit to facili- tate idle reduction technology installations and demonstrate APUs in at least 20 trucks in the field study and to track idle 10 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo- reduction usage, truck idling, and driver acceptance. The gies, to committee question 19(d), March 1, 2011.

OCR for page 92
97 ENGINE IDLE REDUCTION FIGURE 6-1 Payback time versus fuel price, by device, used 2,000 hours per year. Acronyms are defined in Appendix I. SOURCE: L. Gaines and D. Santini, Economic Analysis of Commercial Idling Reduction Technologies, Argonne National Laboratory. Available at http:// 6-1.eps www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/372.pdf. bitmap The economics of APUs are sensitive to initial APU costs, APUs consisted of three components, a Kubota Z482 2- idling time, actual APU usage, and fuel costs. The NCSU cylinder water-cooled diesel engine, a generator, and a heat- study found engine idle fuel flow rates of approximately 0.6 ing, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. gal/h instead of the 0.8 gal/h that has been quoted by the The field study was divided into two fleets: the first, Fleet EPA and NHTSA, and APU fuel flow rates of approximately A, had a self-reported annual idling rate of 2,500 hours using 0.32 gal/h instead of the 0.2 gal/h that has been quoted by the Volvo’s largest cabs, with predominately single drivers; the EPA and NHTSA (EPA/NHTSA, 2010b, 2011b). Using an second, Fleet B, had a self-reported annual idling rate of 800 initial APU cost of $8,400 and an annual idle time of 2,130 hours using Volvo’s midsize cab with predominately team hours and $4.00/gal fuel cost, the simple payback period is drivers. The key results from this study were as follows: 3.5 years. The Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has studied pay- • Annual fuel use was reduced for all stops by 22 percent back periods for several idle reduction systems and provided and 5 percent for Fleets A and B, respectively. the graph in Figure 6-1 showing the payback time versus fuel • NOx emissions were reduced for all stops by 46 percent price.11 For a $4.00/gal fuel price, the top-of-the-line APU and 14 percent for Fleets A and B, respectively. that has an initial cost of $10,000 and is used 2,000 hours per • Research concluded that 100 percent usage of the year has a projected payback period of 2.2 years. Other APUs APU instead of the base engine could result in a 36 to with lower initial costs have a projected payback period of 47 percent reduction in fuel use, an 80 to 90 percent less than 2 years (approximately 1.8 years). reduction in NOx emissions, and a 10 to 25 percent These projections by ANL show shorter payback peri- reduction in particulate matter (PM) emissions. ods than the projections made by NCSU, because NCSU found that measured base engine idle fuel flow rates were The study concluded that driver behavior plays a sig- lower than generally assumed and that measured APU fuel nificant role in determining APU benefits. The data showed that APUs were used by single drivers for an average of 59 percent of the idling time and by team drivers for an average 11 See Gaines and Santini at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/ of only 25 percent of the idling time. TA/372.pdf. 2010.

OCR for page 92
98 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT flow rates were higher than generally assumed. The NCSU heater met the 2-year payback goal, but full-function systems report (Tazewell et al., 2008) concluded that APUs generally (with heating and cooling) had payback periods extending used more fuel than the published amounts, whereas the 20 beyond 2 years, owing primarily to high initial cost and less newer trucks in this study used less fuel than the commonly than 100 percent usage during idling. Recent studies of the published 1 gal/h at idle. The DOE cites ranges for the base payback period by the EPA and NHTSA, ANL, and NCSU engine fuel flow rates between 0.64 and 1.15 gal/h, depend- have provided a range of results related to different assump- ing on the idle speed and use of air conditioning. The 21CTP tions for initial costs, truck engine idle time and APU fuel has not as yet determined the representative values for the flow rates, and actual usage times. These studies have pro- payback-period calculation, because this would require more jected simple payback periods ranging from 2 to 3.5 years. study with a wider range of truck models, ages, and fleets.12 Recommendation 6-2. The DOE should conduct a study The EPA and NHTSA, in the regulatory impact analysis for the “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Effi- that includes wide ranges of truck models, ages, and fleets ciency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and to determine payback periods for the range of commercially Vehicles,” have provided the following values for an APU available add-on idle reduction systems. The DOE should that can be used to calculate payback period (EPA/NHTSA, continue to encourage the deployment of add-on idle reduc- 2010b, 2011b): tion systems through communications to manufacturers and end users. • Annual idling hours: 1,800 hours; 21CTP Engine Idle Reduction Goal (New). Reduce the • Base engine fuel usage: 0.8 gal/h; and thermal load of the truck heating, ventilating, and air • APU fuel usage: 0.2 gal/h. conditioning (HVAC) system during driver rest periods through implementation of efficient cab insulation sys- The annual fuel savings for an APU were calculated as tems and low thermal transmission glazing. follows: Annual Fuel Savings = 1,800 h × (0.8 – 0.2 gal/h) A reduction of cabin energy load, through the addition × $4.00/gal = $4,320/yr. of insulation and window glazing, coupled with controls to reduce peak energy loads, could enable the downsizing Therefore, assuming an APU capital cost of $8,400, as of APUs and battery-powered systems to reduce cost and before, a simple payback period of approximately 2 years weight while enhancing their performance. To assess the results. At a lower fuel cost of $3.00/gal, the payback period HVAC load reduction potential in truck sleeper cabins, the is extended to 2.6 years. DOE funded the development of CoolCalc, an analysis tool An annual maintenance cost for an APU was not pro- that allows users to create sleeper cabin models and predict vided by the DOE, so net maintenance cost savings was not cabin temperatures in different environmental conditions. included in the calculation of the simple payback period. Net The main objective of the project was to identify and evalu- maintenance cost savings, consisting of maintenance cost ate design opportunities to reduce the thermal load inside savings for the main engine (1,800 h/yr × $0.15/h = $270) the truck tractor cabs and to enable advanced idle reduction offset by maintenance cost for the APU, would affect the technologies. The DOE has released the software to industry payback period by approximately 6 percent, depending on partners. the APU maintenance cost and fuel cost. The DOE also funded the National Renewable Energy The DOE informed the committee in March 2011 that it Laboratory (NREL) CoolCab project that investigated insu- does not currently have plans to address production-level sys- lation and reflective glazing to reduce the thermal load and tems not meeting the 2-year payback period, because market improve the cab’s climate-control efficiency. This project forces will likely drive improvements in these systems. For included the thermal testing of Volvo 770 and Kenworth new technology development, the DOE is working with the T660 cabs. The results of the Kenworth T660 cab thermal SuperTruck program participants on various idle reduction soak test were used to validate the CoolCalc model of the concepts and will encourage the participants to consider the vehicle. Predicted peak soak average air temperature on potential costs and paybacks of these concepts wherever sunny days was within 0.4°C of the measured value. Devel- possible.13 opment of a CoolCalc model of the Volvo 770 cab is under way. Thermal test results show the heating load in a cab Finding 6-2. A variety of add-on idle reduction systems are sleeper could be reduced up to 20 percent with high R-value commercially available. In earlier studies, a diesel-fuel-fired insulation. For FY 2011, the CoolCalc models will be used to quantify the impact of thermal load reduction technolo- 12 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo- gies, such as insulation and reflective glazing, on cooling and gies, to committee question (25). heating thermal loads. These results will be used to determine 13 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo - gies, to committee questions, March 1, 2011.

OCR for page 92
99 ENGINE IDLE REDUCTION TABLE 6-2 Status of Navistar Auxiliary Power Unit System Versus Program Goals Parameter Unit Goal Status RP-432a Temperature TMC Maintain temperature Met in range for 10 hours <200 Truck idle time Hours per year Met <0.25 Idle fuel consumption Gallons per hour Met Emissions Tier 4 Comply Met <0.2 Particulate matter Grams per hour Met <25 NOx Grams per hour Met $5,000 Price 18 month payback Not met Maintenance Service interval 500 hours Met 5-year life B10 10,000 hours Met aSpecifies minimum 68°F/maximum 78°F sleeper temperatures at 0°F/100°F ambient temperatures. SOURCE: Data from Casey (2008). the reduction in sizing of the APU or other idling reduction In addition, Navistar also developed an aftermarket APU technology.14 wiring accommodation kit as an alternative to its factory- installed APU system. 21CTP Engine Idle Reduction Goal 6. Produce a truck Navistar had a goal at the beginning of the program to sell with a fully integrated electrically powered truck cab 2,000 factory-installed APU idle reduction systems under HVAC system to reduce idling-reduction system compo- this program. The goal was not met with the factory-installed nent duplication, weight, and cost, by 2012.15 APU systems; only 65 units were sold. However, Navistar did sell 2,628 trucks with wiring accommodation kits for The DOE recognizes that costs could be reduced through aftermarket APUs, indicating that the goal of 2,000 trucks the complete, nonduplicative integration of idle reduction with APUs installed by the end of 2007 was achieved. The equipment into the original truck design. Effectiveness in goal of 2,000 factory-installed idle reduction systems was reducing workday idling could be improved by hybridization exceeded by the 4,325 factory-installed fuel-fired heater sys- and by development of systems that reduce idling during tems. However, these factory-installed idle reduction systems creep modes. did not address the nonduplicative aspect of this goal. To address this goal initially, the DOE funding helped The status of the Navistar APU system versus the goals Navistar to complete engineering development to provide for the program are shown in Table 6-2. Fuel savings were the option of ordering factory-installed APUs as original tracked on five fleet vehicles, and fuel economy increased factory-installed equipment (Casey, 2008). Navistar’s idle from 6.38 mpg to 6.99 mpg, providing a 9.6 percent improve- reduction system had four elements: ment. The Navistar factory-installed APU system did not meet the 18-month payback goal. The cost advantage of • Auxiliary power unit: 2-cylinder water-cooled diesel aftermarket APU units was likely due to the addition of fed- generator-set generating 6 kW of power at 120 V A/C, eral excise tax applied to factory-installed APUs as well as purchased from Mechron; margin added by Navistar for purchasing and installing the • Electric air conditioner: A stand-alone system mounted unit. However, following this project, the Energy Improve- in the sleeper compartment; ment and Extension Act of 2008, which is a part of the • Cab and engine heater: Fuel-fired coolant heater Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law purchased from Espar and integrated into the truck’s 110-343), modified the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code existing coolant loop; and and allows for APU units to be exempt from paying the 12 • Improved cab insulation. percent federal excise tax. At the conclusion of this project, Navistar announced in March 2008 that it was developing the MaxxPower APU, a 1-cylinder APU to provide a more cost competitive APU offering while meeting California’s 2008 APU emissions requirements. 14 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo- To address the goal of a fully integrated, electrically gies, to committee question 19(d), March 1, 2011. powered truck cab HVAC, the DOE, through the ANL, estab- 15 “Produce a truck” was interpreted by the committee to mean to design, lished the Caterpillar More Electric Truck (MET) program engineer, and manufacture a truck for sale.

OCR for page 92
100 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT generation.20 Cummins plans to use Delphi’s SOFC APU (Lane et al., 2004), which was initiated in 2000 and ended in 2007. The objective of the program was to reduce loads for hotel loads for idle reduction as part of its SuperTruck on the engine by using electrically powered accessories program. This fuel cell will use ultralow-sulfur diesel fuel. including the HVAC, water pump, brake air compressor, oil Similarly, Detroit Diesel has also shown a fuel cell APU as a pump, and cooling fan with revised cooling system (Stone et component of its SuperTruck program. Navistar is not plan- al., 2004). The results showed a 1.3 percent reduction in fuel ning to use an APU for the SuperTruck program, because a consumption on the road due primarily to the electric water hybrid drive system will be used to charge the large-capacity pump and electric brake air compressor, and a 2.7 percent batteries to provide power for idle reduction functions. reduction in fuel consumption during steady state conditions Delphi Corporation and Peterbilt Motors recently due to the electric cooling fan with a revised cooling system. a nnounced the demonstration of a Delphi SOFC APU powering a Peterbilt Model 386 truck’s hotel loads.21 The The DOE concurred with Recommendation 6-7 from the NRC (2008) Phase 1 report (see Appendix C)—to continue Delphi SOFC APU provided power for the vehicle’s electri- R&D of the system components used in the More Electric cal system and air conditioning and maintained the truck’s Truck program in order to provide further improvements in batteries while the diesel engine was turned off. Recently, idle reduction. In 2007, additional work was anticipated to Delphi demonstrated the SOFC APU to the public during reduce fuel consumption further in the following areas: the November 2010 Hybrid Truck Users Forum (HTUF) conference in Dearborn, Michigan.22 • Mild hybrid energy storage using nickel metal hybrid The key subsystems of the SOFC are the SOFC stacks, batteries (NiMH); the fuel reformer, the system controller, and the output power • Advanced cooling system components (electric ther- conditioner (Shaffer, 2004). The SOFC stacks operate at a mostat valve and cooling fan, high-efficiency after- temperature of 750°C, which results in long warm-up times, cooler); and currently ranging from 2 to 5 hours, with a goal of 1 hour. • Decoupling the air compressor from the engine. With the high operating temperature, the exhaust energy is expected to be sufficient to heat the sleeper compartment at The DOE was not able to apply any funding to this pro- close to no-load idle, and possibly the entire passenger cabin gram, so as a result, no significant activity toward achieving when it is used for a break. The electrolyte of the SOFC is yttria-stabilized zirconia, a zirconium-oxide based ceramic.23 the 2012 goal of a fully integrated, electrically powered truck cab HVAC system to reduce idling reduction component The SOFC contains no precious metals. Delphi is currently duplication, weight, and cost has been conducted.16 However, developing the fourth-generation SOFC stack. The A-Level the SuperTruck program is expected to pursue the concept of design APU, currently operating, contains the Gen 3 stack, integrated systems similar to the More Electric Truck pro- while the latest B-Level design APU, which contains the Gen gram. All three of the SuperTruck program teams, Cummins- 4 stack, was being assembled as of May 2011. The reformer, Peterbilt, Detroit Diesel, and Navistar, will be addressing idle which uses a proprietary, automotive formulation catalyst reduction, as discussed in Chapter 8 of this report.17,18,19 containing precious metals, was developed to produce car- bon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) under non-carbon- 21CTP Engine Idle Reduction Goal 7. Develop and dem- forming conditions. The output power conditioner converts onstrate viable fuel cell APU systems for military and stack voltage (22 volts for a 30-cell stack module) to the requested output voltage.24 other users, in the 5-30 kW range, capable of operating on JP-8 fuel with 35 percent efficiency (based on the fuel’s The fuel flow rates and specific fuel consumption values heating value) by 2015. for the SOFC APU in its typical operating mode are shown in Table 6-3 and compared to a two-cylinder diesel APU and Delphi’s solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) APU converts to the truck’s diesel engine continuously idling. Previously, chemical energy in conventional fuels directly into useful the NRC (2010, p. 122) reported that, for carbon-based fuels, electrical power without combustion, resulting in mini- mal criteria emissions. Delphi has been developing the 20 Dan Hennessy, Delphi, “Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Development at Del - SOFC since 2000, and is currently working on the fourth phi,” presentation to the committee, January 31, 2011, Washington, D.C. 21 Delphi, Peterbilt Test Solid Oxide Fuel Cell APU. Available at http:// www.ccjdigital.com/Delphi-peterbilt-test-solid-oxide-fuel-cell. Accessed December 7, 2010. 16 Answers 22 Delphi Demonstrates Solid Oxide Fuel Cell, Showcases Capability provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo- gies, to committee questions, March 1, 2011. to Save Fuel and Cut Emissions During Truck Stops. Available at http:// 17 Donald Stanton, Cummins, “Cummins-Peterbilt SuperTruck Program,” www.Delphi.com/news/pressRelesaes/pr_11_11_001/. Accessed December presentation to the committee, November 9, 2010, Washington, D.C. 7, 2010. 18 David Kayes, “Detroit Diesel’s Super Truck,” presentation to the com - 23 Personal communication from Thomas Peffley, Delphi, to committee mittee, September 9, 2010, Washington, D.C.. member W.R. Wade, July 7-8, 2011. 19 Anthony Cook, Navistar, Inc., “Navistar’s Super Truck Program,” pre - 24 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo - sentation to the committee, September 9, 2010, Washington, D.C. gies, to committee questions 8(a), 6(a), and 7(a).

OCR for page 92
101 ENGINE IDLE REDUCTION TABLE 6-3 Comparison of Fuel Consumption Rates for Various Types of Idle Operation Power Fuel Flow Specific Fuel Output Rate Consumption Type of Operation at Idle (kW) (gal/h) (gal/kW-h) References Engine idle 0.8 EPA/NHTSA (2010b) Two cylinder diesel APU 5 kW 0.20 to 0.33 0.04 to 0.066 Table 6-4 in this chapter SOFC APU typical A-Level design 1.5 kW 0.156 0.11 NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix I. SOURCE: Personal communication, Thomas Peffley, Delphi, July 7-8, 2011. the fuel-cell-powered APU can achieve the same fuel con- when operated with ultralow-sulfur diesel (ULSD) sumption improvement as that of conventional APUs. More fuel. importantly, because of the lower power output of the SOFC • Weight of 500 lb, which exceeds Delphi’s target of APU relative to the diesel APU, the specific fuel consump- 400 lb and equals that of a diesel APU. On a specific tion (gal/kW-h) of the SOFC APU is approximately twice pounds per kilowatt/kW basis, the Delphi SOFC APU that of the diesel APU. is 3.3 times heavier than a diesel APU. Delphi is work- Relative to diesel APUs, the SOFC APU provides the ing on weight reduction of all major subsystems of following advantages: the SOFC APU and the truck interface and mounting structure. • Projected to meet 2010 EPA emissions regulations (even though the reformer produces emissions), The 25 percent efficiency of the A-Level design of Del- • Very quiet (<60 dBA), and phi’s SOFC APU was obtained at a reported fuel flow rate of • Projected longer maintenance intervals and better 0.156 gal/h of ULSD fuel and 1.39 kW output. The B-Level durability. design APU is expected to improve efficiency to 30 percent, while further improvements are expected to achieve the DOE’s goal of 35 percent.26 Delphi indicated that changing The SOFC APU also has a number of issues, including the following: from diesel fuel to JP-8 would lower efficiency because of changes in fuel processing and the fuel’s high sulfur content, although tests on JP-8 have not been conducted.27 Although • Warm-up time of 2 to 5 hours to reach an operating temperature 750°C. Delphi has a goal of 1.5 hours. JP-8 is the standard military fuel, diesel fuel is expected to • The SOFC APU to be kept operating at idle throughout be used by the APU in commercial truck applications. the workday to maintain temperature and requires an Delphi told the committee that it is trying to move the idle fuel flow of approximately 50 percent of the typi- SOFC APU out of the laboratory, but it did not provide a cal operating condition fuel flow. Delphi is evaluating production date. The first B-Level design APU is expected the use of the SOFC APU to power part of the truck to be installed on a truck that will be used in fleet service in electrical loads when the truck is being driven. the fall of 2011. Delphi is now focused on the commercial • Output of 1.5 kW for an A-Level build design, which viability of the SOFC APU and is emphasizing the follow- is significantly below the DOE’s goal and competitive ing areas: 5 kW diesel APUs. Delphi is forecasting that a B-Level design will provide 3.0 kW output. Delphi has stated • Manufacturability and cost reduction (with the objec- that its SOFC could provide up to 5 kW of power, but tive of being competitive with a diesel APU; significant it believes that 3.0 kW output is sufficient, based on cost reductions of the SOFC stack are needed). discussions with truck manufacturers.25 • A 25 percent efficiency (using diesel fuel), which is significantly below the DOE’s goal of 35 percent. 26 The status of the technology and efficiency for SOFCs was based not • The continuing need for a desulfurizer bed with a car- only on presentations to the committee and answers supplied by the 21CTP tridge that requires maintenance every 6 months, even to the committee, but also through personal communications between Wallace Wade, committee member, and representatives of Delphi (Dan Hennessy on May 18 and June 23, 2011, and Thomas Peffley on July 7 and 8, 2011). 25 Answers 27 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo - provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo- gies, to committee question 15. gies, to committee question 17(c).

OCR for page 92
102 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT • System-level durability on a test bench for the Gen 4 cooled by the vehicle’s engine-powered air conditioning. stack (currently 60 thermal cycles completed; issues With only 20 to 40 percent of the performance of an APU, are being addressed, particularly seal degradation, they generally are not capable of initial cool-down. If they prior to continuing to the goal of 400 thermal cycles).28 are used in areas where winter heating is needed, a diesel- • System-level durability and validation (440 hours and fuel-fired heater is a necessary additional cost. 2,200 miles of operation on a truck have been obtained As discussed in the NRC Phase 1 report, the DOD was as of January 2011; extended durability operation on a supporting a variety of companies with various (1) fuel truck is the next step). Accelerated tests will be run to reformers, (2) SOFC, and (3) polymer electrolyte membrane simulate the durability goals of 28,800 and 1 million (PEM) fuel cells. At that time it was reported that the DOD miles for heavy-duty truck applications. had two fuel cell APU programs under way: Delphi did not provide an estimated cost of the SOFC • The U.S. Army CERDEC fuel cell APU program APU when it met with the committee. However, Delphi was focused on testing and evaluating prototypes. later indicated that the life–cycle cost of the SOFC APU During FY 2007 through FY 2010, several JP-8, (including initial cost, fuel cost, and maintenance costs) is ULSD, and DF-2 compatible desulfurization/reforma- expected to be competitive with “midrange” diesel APUs that tion subsystems were evaluated from the following contractors:31 are compliant with 2010 emissions standards (Delphi, 2010). The DOE has provided funding for the development of — IdaTech: Stand-alone desulfurizer and steam the SOFC program at Delphi through the Solid State Energy reformer integrated with low-temperature PEM fuel Conversion Alliance (SECA) (Office of Fossil Energy) and cell; through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable —Altex Technologies: Stand-alone organic sulfur Energy (EERE) Fuel Cell Technologies Program. The SOFC trap with steam reformer and coupled with a high- program began at Delphi in 2000. After initial studies, the temperature PEM fuel cell; DOE, through the National Energy Technology Laboratory —Precision Combustion Inc.: Stand-alone autothermal (NETL), entered into a 10-year, $138 million cost-sharing reformer designed for use with an SOFC; and program with Delphi and its partner Battelle to develop and —Aspen Products Group: Second-generation desulfur- test an SOFC APU that can be mass-produced at low cost for izer integrated with an autothermal reformer for use commercial and military applications.29 Early development with an SOFC. focused on the use of gasoline, natural gas, and synthetic coal gas before switching to diesel fuel. In addition, Delphi Although feasibility and modest fuel efficiency benefits has received government funding that has been used for were demonstrated, the long-term reliability of components general system development as well as component develop- and catalyst durability remain challenges. A system develop- ment, including the SOFC stack. Most recently, Delphi has ment contract with Altex Technologies will conclude in FY received the following SOFC APU-specific awards:30 2011, resulting in the delivery of a 5 kWe/10 kWt co-gener- ation system (e = electrical, t = thermal) that is compatible • Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engi- with field kitchen applications. neering Center (TARDEC) Fuel Cell Based Ground Vehicle Auxiliary Power Units ($2.9 million; project • The U.S. Army TARDEC fuel cell program had two completed February 2009); contracts awarded under a Broad Agency Announce- • DOE Cummins/PACCAR SuperTruck program ($1.0 ment to Altex Technologies Corporation for a high- million, current program); and temperature PEM fuel cell and United Technologies Research Center for a SOFC.32 The contracts are for • DOE R&D Demonstration of Fuel Cells (Delphi part- nered with PACCAR) ($2.4 million, current program). a 3-year effort to deliver a fuel cell APU that operates with JP-8 that fits under armor on the Abrams tank in A battery-operated air-conditioning system is a lower- FY 2013. priced competitor to the Delphi SOFC APU. However, since The U.S. Army TARDEC’s National Automotive Center these systems typically produce 3,000 British thermal units (NAC) demonstrated a fuel cell APU system in a Peterbilt (Btu) to a little over 6,000 Btu cooling, they can maintain 385 tractor. SunLine Services Group was the prime con- comfort in a cabin or sleeper compartment only if it is already tractor, and Southwest Research Institute was the technical integrating contractor (Montemayor, 2006; DOE, 2011). 28 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo- gies, to committee questions 8(a), 6(a), and 7(a). 29 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo - 31 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo- gies, to committee questions, March 1, 2011. gies, to committee question 27(a). 30 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo - 32 Answers provided by Ken Howden, DOE Office of Vehicle Technolo - gies, to committee question 5(a). gies, to committee question 27(b).

OCR for page 92
103 ENGINE IDLE REDUCTION Three different configurations of fuel cells were alternatively Following the reassessment called for in Recommenda- installed in the truck: tion 6-3, the DOE will need to determine, if the viability of the SOFC APU is reconfirmed, whether the additional • A 5 kW solid oxide fuel cell from General Dynamics/ development work required to meet the SOFC APU goals Acumentrics (which failed after 40 hours), can be contained within the Super Truck program, because • Two 1.2 kW Ballard Nexa PEM fuel cells to provide the funding for the SOFC APU over the past 10 years of power for the air-conditioning system and the coolant development expires in 2011. Delphi also expects funding pump, and from SECA and other contracts with the DOE, DOD, and • A 20 kW Hydrogenics PEM fuel cell to provide power state sponsors to continue. for the air-conditioning system and radiator cooling fan. SUMMARY OF IDLE REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES The fuel cells used onboard compressed hydrogen, because The EPA’s SmartWay program has evaluated the fuel-sav- liquid fuel reformer systems were not available when this ing benefits of various devices through grants, cooperative program began in 2000. With the Hydrogenics system agreements, emissions and fuel economy testing, demonstra- installed on the truck, a 13 percent improvement in diesel tion projects, and technical literature review. As a result, fuel economy was measured, but the amount of hydrogen the EPA has determined that the following idle reduction used was not available. technologies provide fuel-saving and/or emissions reducing The final report for the Sun Transit Agency program stated benefits when used properly in their designed applications: that a diesel reformer fuel cell hybrid electric truck remains an elusive goal. However, SOFCo, a company specializing • Electrified Parking Spaces (truck stop electrification), in the development of SOFC and fuel processor technology, • Auxiliary power units and generator sets, and Delphi were identified as leading the effort to develop a • Fuel operated heaters, diesel reformer/fuel cell unit. • Battery air-conditioning systems, • Thermal storage systems, and Finding 6-3. The Delphi SOFC APU provides several • Automatic shut-down/start-up systems. advantages over diesel APUs, but it has significant issues in its current development status, including the following: low A listing of specific products that the EPA has verified for each of these categories can be found on the EPA website.33 efficiency of 25 percent versus the DOE’s goal of 35 percent, a low demonstrated output power of 1.5 kW versus 3.0 kW The listing is quite extensive and illustrates that the commer- believed to be sufficient by Delphi, although typical diesel cialization of idle reduction technologies is well under way APUs provide 5 kW output, limited demonstrated durability, and has accelerated since the NRC Phase 1 report was pub- 2- to 5-hour warm-up time to the 750°C operating tempera- lished in 2008. The 21CTP has not conducted any detailed ture, and the need to keep it operating at idle throughout the analysis of the individual idle reduction products, and so it is workday to maintain temperature. The 10-year funding for not able to comment on the performance of these products. this program expires in 2011. The functionalities and costs of the idle reduction tech- nologies discussed in this chapter that are under development Recommendation 6-3. The DOE should reassess the viabil- or in production are summarized in Table 6-4. ity of the SOFC APU, particularly for application to the SuperTruck program, considering the following: (1) SOFC EFFECT OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS APU is still in the laboratory, (2) the low efficiency of 25 STANDARDS AND FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS percent versus the DOE goal of 35 percent, (3) the low 1.5 kW output compared to the typical 5 kW diesel APUs, (4) The EPA and NHTSA addressed idle reduction tech- the disadvantages associated with the requirement for con- nologies in their final rules for “Greenhouse Gas Emissions tinuous operation at 750°C, and (5) the expiration of funding Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and from the DOE Office of Fossil Energy and EERE Fuel Cell Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles” issued on September Technologies Program of the DOE Office of Energy Effi- 15, 2011 (EPA/NHTSA, 2011a). The final rules recognize ciency and Renewable Energy after 10 years of development. the following idle reduction technologies (with EPA and The DOE should coordinate more closely with the DOD in its NHTSA considering that the baseline Class 8 vehicle con- fuel cell APU developments to ensure that the best technol- sumes 0.8 gal/h of diesel fuel) (EPA/NHTSA, 2010b): ogy is being pursued for the 21CTP’s Goal 7 in the engine idle reduction focus area; that goal relates to the development and demonstration of viable fuel cell APU systems for mili- tary and other users. (This recommendation is a follow-on to 33Available at http://www.epa.gov/smartway/transport/what-smartway/ Recommendation 6-8 in the NRC Phase 1 report.) verified-technologies.htm.

OCR for page 92
104 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT TABLE 6-4 Cab Comfort Technology Summary Elements Charge Fuel Consumption Installed Maintenance System of System Cooling Heating Batteries Rate Cost Cost/Yr Nonea Vehicle engine idling Yes Yes Yes 0.77 gal/h cooling $0 $150/30,000 miles for oil changeb (2001 truck) 0.98 gal/h heating Nonea Vehicle engine idling Yes Yes Yes 0.53 gal/h heating $0 $150/30,000 miles for oil changeb (2007 truck) 0.72 gal/h cooling Automatic Vehicle engine idling Yes Yes Yes 0.8 gal/h if on $1,200 $150/30,000 miles for oil changeb start/stop 0.0 gal/h if off Cab bunk heater Diesel fuel burner, heat No Yes No 0.04 to 0.06 gal/h $1,300 $110 exchanger, and fan Evaporative cooler Thermal storage using Yes No No 0.015 gal/h $1,800 $100 graphite matrix (3.5 to 10 amps from vehicle batteries) Battery- powered Battery, motor, vapor Yes No No 0.15 gal/h $4,000 $200 air-conditioning compression air without systems conditioning components battery upgrade Diesel APUa Diesel engine, generator, Yes Yes Yes 0.20 to 0.33 gal/h $8,000 $400 particulate filter, NOx trap (add $1,000 for DPF) Electrified parking Heating, cooling module Yes Yes Yes 0 $10 $1.00/h -$2.45/h space (single on pedestal connected to ($9,000 to usage cost system) window-mounted module $16,700 infra- (includes communications structure cost) entertainment) Onboard equipment (e.g., ($2,500 to Electrified parking Yes Yes Yes 0 $1/h usage cost inverter/charger, electric $6,000 infra- space heating/cooling device) structure cost) (dual system) powered by extension cord SOFC APU Solid oxide fuel cell, Yes Yes Yes 0.2 gal/h $8,000 to N/A reformer, output power $9,000 conditioner NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix I. a May not be available due to local regulations and/or non-compliance with new 2010 emission regulations. b Possible reduction in overhaul time. SOURCE: Based on L. Gaines and D. Santini, Economic Analysis of Commercial Idling Reduction Technologies. Available at http://www.transportation. anl.gov/pdfs/TA/372.pdf, and L. Gaines, Which Idling Technologies Are the Best? See references. • Auxiliary power unit, which powers the truck’s heat- reduction technology to meet the standard, then it would ing, cooling, and electrical system and typically uses require an automatic main engine shutoff after 5 minutes 0.2 gal/h of diesel fuel; to help ensure that the idle reductions are realized in-use. • Fuel operated heater, which provides heating services However, the agencies are not mandating the use of idle to the truck and typically uses 0.04 gal/h of diesel fuel; reductions or idle shutdown but rather are allowing their use • Battery air-conditioning systems, which provide cool- as one part of a suite of technologies feasible for reducing ing to the truck; and fuel consumption and meeting the proposed standards. • Thermal storage systems, which provide cooling to the The EPA’s and NHTSA’s value (0.5 gal/1,000 ton-mile truck. saved) for the idle reduction technologies was determined using an assumption of 1,800 idling hours per year; 125,000 Another alternative involves Electrified Parking Spaces with miles traveled; a baseline fuel consumption of 0.8 gal/h; and or without modification to the truck. an APU fuel consumption of 0.2 gal/h ((0.8 – 0.2) gal/h × The final rules include extended idle reduction technology 1,800 h/(19 tons × 125,000 miles × (1,000 tons)/1,000 tons) as an input to the Greenhouse Gas Emission Model (GEM) = 0.5 gal/1,000 ton-miles saved). Relative to the 2,500 idling for Class 8 sleeper cabs. The manufacturer would input a hours for single drivers and 800 idling hours for team drivers value (see below) based on the idle reduction technology found in the NCSU (Tazewell et al., 2008) study mentioned installed in the truck. If a manufacturer chooses to use idle earlier, the EPA and NHTSA used 1,800 idling hours per year

OCR for page 92
105 ENGINE IDLE REDUCTION GOALS FOR FY 2012 for Class 8 trucks with sleeper cabs, which, the committee assumes, may have been a blending of idling hours for single In the February 2011 “21CTP Draft White Paper on Idle and team drivers. As an example, for a Class 8 mid-roof, Reduction” (DOE, 2011), the 21CTP no longer recognizes sleeper cab with a 2017 proposed standard of 7.2 gal/1,000 the previously reviewed goals that extended from the NRC ton-miles, idle reduction technology could provide nearly Phase 1 review through 2010. Instead, the 21CTP is recom- 30 percent of the reduction required to achieve the standard mending the following five goals for FY 2012. (assuming a total reduction of 1.8 gal/1,000 ton-miles to meet the 7.2 gal/1,000 ton-miles standard, by assuming the • 21CTP Goal 1 Recommended for FY 2012: Work with standard is a 20 percent reduction [which is within the EPA/ OEM truck manufacturers to obtain data on the num- NHTSA range of 9 to 23 percent] from the 2010 status, sub- ber of new trucks being ordered with idle reduction sequently calculated to be 9.0 gal/1,000 ton-mile). The 0.5 options. gal/1,000 ton-mile reduction in fuel consumption amounts • 21CTP Goal 2 Recommended for FY 2012: Conduct to a 6 percent reduction in overall fuel consumption (0.5 a fleet survey to gather data on the amount of in-use gal/1,000 ton-mile/9.0 gal/1,000 ton-mile × 100 = 6 percent). idling hours that are accumulated by type of heavy- duty vehicle. Finding 6-4. Idle reduction technologies could provide • 21CTP Goal 3 Recommended for FY 2012: Acquire 6 percent reduction in overall fuel consumption for Class data from the EPA SmartWay Program to measure fuel 8 long-haul trucks with sleeper cabs, which is nearly 30 savings and emissions reductions associated with the percent of the 20 percent reduction in the fuel consumption various types of idle reduction equipment available. required to meet the EPA/NHTSA proposed 2017 fuel con- • 21CTP Goal 4 Recommended for FY 2012: Establish sumption standards. a nationwide multi-mode idle reduction education program. Recommendation 6-4. The 21CTP should review and • 21CTP Goal 5 Recommended for FY 2012: Promote potentially revise its idle reduction plans and goals in view the incorporation of idle reduction equipment on new of the fact that the proposed 2017 fuel efficiency standards trucks as fuel saving devices as they are identified provide an incentive for the adoption of idle reduction tech- through the DOE SuperTruck program. nologies as a means for achieving these standards for Class 8 long-haul trucks with sleeper cabs. The 21CTP stated in the February 2011 idle reduction white paper: “Without funding dedicated to this effort [i.e., RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM NRC the above goals], it is quite difficult, if not impossible, for PHASE 1 REPORT the 21st Century Truck Partnership to accomplish these goals” (DOE, 2011). The white paper states: “Assuming Seven findings and recommendations were made regard- there is funding, the action items [previously identified as ing idle reduction technologies in the NRC (2008) Phase 1 goals through 2010] . . . lay out a path to accomplishing the report (Findings and Recommendations 6-1 to 6-4 and 6-6 stated objective.” In contrast, the committee finds that the to 6-8) (Finding and Recommendation 6-5 was omitted in new goals, which focus on measuring the usage and benefits the Phase 1 report). The DOE concurred with all of the rec- of idle reduction and the incorporation of idle reduction ommendations except Recommendation 6-4 (see Appendix technologies on new trucks, are generally not supported by C in this report), thereby reconfirming the 21CTP engine the “action items,” which focus on cost-effective add-on idle idle reduction goals that are directed toward substantially reduction technologies; the development of some specific reducing energy consumption and exhaust emissions due to technologies such as electrically powered HVAC systems, heavy-duty-vehicle idling. cab insulation, and fuel cell APUs; and education programs Recommendation 6-4 suggested that the EPA renew its and incentives to encourage the deployment of cost-effective efforts to promulgate national anti-idling regulations. The technologies to reduce fuel use and emissions due to idling. 21CTP commented that the EPA has no legal authority to promulgate anti-idling laws, or any time or behavior limits Finding 6-5. In February 2011, the 21CTP deleted the on truck owners. However, as noted above with respect to quantification of the overall goal to reduce fuel use and emis- Goal 3, the patchwork of anti-idling regulations nationally sions produced by idling engines. The 21CTP issued five have been an impediment to the broader use of anti-idling new goals for idle reduction and designated the goals that measures and efforts. Finding 6-1 and Recommendation 6-1 had been in place through 2010 as “action items.” The new in this chapter address this issue by recommending that the goals are generally not supported by the “action items.” A EPA and the DOT should work to find incentives for states separate budget for idle reduction for FY 2012 has not been to promulgate uniform anti-idling regulations. proposed, although idle reduction will be addressed by the SuperTruck program. The 21CTP has stated that, “without

OCR for page 92
106 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT funding dedicated to this effort [the idle reduction goals], EPA/NHTSA. 2010b. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, Proposed Rule- making to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Ef - it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish these ficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. goals” (DOE, 2011). EPA-420-D-10-901. October. EPA/NHTSA. 2011a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Ef- Recommendation 6-5. The 21CTP should revise its new ficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. idle reduction goals to include metrics, funding, and tim- Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 179, September 15. Available at http:// www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2011-20740.pdf. ing for the overall goal of reducing fuel use and emissions EPA/NHTSA. 2011b. Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas produced by idling engines. The associated “action items” Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and should be supportive of these goals. Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA- 420-R-11-901. August. Gaines, L. Which Idling Reduction Technologies Are the Best? Argonne REFERENCES National Laboratories. Available at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/ pdfs/EE/533.pdf. American Transportation Research Institute. 2006. Idle Reduction Gaines, L., and D. Santini. 2006. Economic Analysis of Commercial Idling Technology—Fleet Preferences Survey. February. Reduction Technologies. Argonne National Laboratory. Available at ANL (Argonne National Laboratory). 2009. Idling, Cruising the Fuel http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/372.pdf. Inefficiency Expressway. Center for Transportation Research. Septem- Lane, W., S. Diamond, and J. Routbort. 2004. More Electric Truck. FY2004 ber. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/idling_ Annual Report. reduction_primer.pdf. Accessed October 23. Maronde, C., and L. Slezak. 2006. Idle Reduction Demonstration Proj- Casey, C. 2008. Release of Factory-Installed Idle Reduction Systems ects. SAE Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress and Exhibition. for International Sleeper Trucks. Final Scientific/Technical Report November 1. DE-PS26-05NT42485. International Truck and Engine Corporation. Montemayor, A.F. 2006. Phased Introduction of Fuel Cells into a Class 8 September 5. Tractor. SWRI Project No. 03983. January 31. Cummins. 2008. Idle Talk: How the New Regulations Affect You. February. NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Review of the 21st Century Truck Available at http://www.Cumminsnorthwest.com/PDF/IdleTalk.pdf. Partnership. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Accessed October 23, 2011. NRC. 2010. Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consump - Delphi. 2010. Delphi truck fuel-cell APU to hit road in 2010. Automotive tion of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: The Engineering Online. Available at http://sae.org/mags/aei/SEEWC/8222. National Academies Press. Accessed December 7, 2010. Shaffer, S. 2004. Development Update on Delphi’s Solid Oxide Fuel Cell DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2010. 21CTP Draft White Paper on Idle System. SECA Review Meeting. Boston, Mass. Reduction. August. Washington, D.C.: Office of Vehicle Technologies. Stone, L.M., J.F. Birkel, R.D. Nine, and L.A. Slezak. 2004. Advanced Elec- DOE. 2011. 21CTP Draft White Paper on Idle Reduction. February. Wash- tric Systems and Aerodynamics for Efficiency Improvements in Heavy ington, D.C.: Office of Vehicle Technologies. Duty Trucks. Final Report. Contractor: Caterpillar, Inc. Contract No. Espar. 2010. Worldwide Leader in Marine and Vehicle Heaters. Available at DE-FC26-04NT42189. http://www.espar.com. Accessed December 7, 2010. Tazewell, A., H.C. Frey, P. Kuo, and J.R. Stone. 2008. EPA Truck OEM EPA/NHTSA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/National Highway APU Prep Kit Design and Installation Project. Final Report. August. Traffic Safety Administration). 2010a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions North Carolina State University. Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Thermo King. 2010. Thermo King Website. Available at http://www.ther- Engines and Vehicles. Dockets No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 and No. moking.com/tripac/. Accessed December 6, 2010. NHTSA-2010-0079. October 25. Available at http://www.regulations. Webasto. 2010. Webasto Website. Available at http://www.webastoshow gov. room.com/bluecooltruck/product_infor.html. Accessed December 6, 2010.