Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
UPDATED 21st Century Truck Partnership Detailed Responses to NRC Report Findings
Update: November 10, 2010
= Finding/recommendation was highlighted in presentation of findings and is considered of greater importance by the committee.
| Finding Number and Subject Matter | Finding and Recommendation | 21CTP Response (Updated November 10, 2010) |
 1-1 OVERALL REPORT |
FINDING: The key benefit of the 21CTP is the coordination of research programs directed toward the goal of reducing fuel usage and emissions while increasing heavy vehicle safety. Federal involvement is bringing stakeholders to the table and accelerating the pace of development. Very few U.S. manufacturers of trucks and buses or heavy-duty vehicle components have the R&D resources to develop new technologies individually. Thus, the 21CTP is giving some of those companies access to extraordinary expertise and equipment in federal laboratories, in addition to seed funding that draws financial commitment from the companies to push forward in new technology areas. The Partnership provides the United States with a forum in which the various agencies, in combination with industry and academia, can better coordinate their programs. Research funding of the 21CTP has been declining steadily in recent years, and this decline is threatening the attainment of program goals. The current level is not in proportion to the importance of the goal of reducing fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles. RECOMMENDATION: The 21st Century Truck Partnership should be continued, but the future program should be revised and better balanced based on the recommendations of this report. In addition, more manufacturers should be recruited as participants, such as the major truck manufacturers and suppliers that are not in the Partnership. Research funding should be commensurate with well-formulated goals that are strategic to reducing fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles while improving safety. The 21CTP should also conduct an assessment of heavy-truck research activities overseas and determine if any changes in the future program would be appropriate based on foreign programs. |
The Partnership concurs with the recommendation that it should continue, and the members of the Partnership are committed to conducting the joint research efforts necessary to achieve the efficiency, emissions, and safety goals set forth for such research. Independently of the NRC review, the Partnership has begun to re-examine the Partnership’s structure and processes, and will take the NRC’s recommendations into consideration as part of this assessment. Furthermore, the Partnership has expanded its membership, and welcomes the addition of ArvinMeritor, Inc., and the increased participation by both industry and agency partners. |
 1-2 OVERALL REPORT |
FINDING: Many of the program goals were not met. Some of the goals were not plausible, from either an engineering or funding perspective. Other goals were not met because some of the technologies proposed for meeting the goals were not applied. Notable failures of that kind are discussed in Chapter 3, under the headings of “Goal of Thermal Efficiency of 55 Percent” and “Goals Involving Fuels.” RECOMMENDATION: A clearer goal setting strategy should be developed, and the goals should be clearly stated in measurable engineering terms and reviewed periodically so as to be based on the available funds. |
The Partnership is pleased that the NRC panel pointed out a number of successes within the work of the Partnership, including the work to develop hybrid medium-duty and heavy-duty components and systems and the work done to implement idle reduction technologies in the market. The Partnership would like to highlight the accomplishments by the major engine manufacturers in meeting stringent 2007 emissions regulations with no degradation in fuel economy. The efforts of the Partnership played an essential role in this accomplishment. The Partnership has completed several projects relevant to the program’s goals and recently launched, through the SuperTruck opportunity, a major effort largely in line with those goals. |
 2-1 MANAGEMENT |
FINDING: The 21CTP is operated as a virtual network of agencies and government laboratories, with an unwieldy structure and budgetary process. Agency personnel meet frequently and industry partners meet periodically for limited sharing and communication. This has been the extent of the coordination. Both government agencies and industry partners, per their remarks to the committee, have found the arrangement less than effective. The program was most productive when a full- | The Partnership continues to examine its organization and management structure as part of its ongoing self assessment efforts. The NRC panel’s recommendations are a key guide in this assessment. |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| time person from industry was assigned to coordinate the cross-agency efforts. Oversight of the 21CTP is provided through an Executive Committee with representation from DOE, DOT (the U.S. Department of Transportation), EPA (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), DOD, and the industry partners. Although that committee lacks authority to make cross-agency decisions and implement firm actions, it has been most effective when chaired by a full-time executive. This seemed to be an effective measure to ensure cooperation among agencies and address program challenges. | ||
| RECOMMENDATION: A full-time, technically capable leader with consensus building skills should be appointed to coordinate the 21CTP program among industry partners and government agencies. This person could chair the Executive Committee and would be authorized to make recommendations to the committee on behalf of the entire program on stopping or redirecting existing research, on setting research priorities, and on future funding levels. | ||
| 2-2 MANAGEMENT |
FINDING: As confirmed in meetings with the DOE and other agencies there is no single source of funds for the 21CTP, as perhaps intended by its creators. Instead, each of the four agencies has its own stream of funds. DOE, DOT, DOD, and EPA budget and optimize funding based on their own priorities. In addition, they maintain funding to companies with multiyear cooperative agreements. Thus, managing the 21CTP program and projects across multiple agencies has been challenging. The result has created difficulties in setting program priorities, especially in aligning budgets to programmatic requirements. A result has been difficulty in balancing between near- and long-term projects and setting appropriate metrics and measures. In addition, variation in funding levels year to year has diminished the impact of project achievements and results and reduced the probability of success and commercialization. The result of this complexity and lack of transparency is that some federal funds were spent by industry partners and by other federal agencies in ways that cannot be accounted for in the funding structure by fiscal year.” | The recommendations of the NRC panel on management processes will be considered as part of the ongoing Partnership assessment. Indeed, as the NRC points out, the four federal agencies have very different funding structures in and of themselves. Their participation in the Partnership allows for otherwise unlikely coordination of some research goals and achievements. The ability to directly align budgetary decisions across the agencies, however desirable, may be outside the scope of this voluntarily collaborative organization. |
| RECOMMENDATION: A portfolio management process that sets priorities and aligns budgets among the agencies and industrial partners is recommended. A proposed Table of Project Priorities (Figure 2-5) would provide an objective way of ranking research and development projects according to their expected outcomes. This could evolve into a budgeting process that ensures support for programs of merit beyond a single year. Pre-competitive, collaborative technology and concept development could receive proper focus for successful programs. | ||
| 3-1 ENGINES |
FINDING: Although DOE has concluded that the 50 percent thermal efficiency goal has been achieved, the experimental test results show that none of the industry partners achieved the goal of 50 percent thermal efficiency at 2010 emissions standards with a complete engine system. Each partner either failed to test a complete engine system on an engine dynamometer and used analysis to project results or failed to achieve 50 percent thermal efficiency at 2010 emissions standards with a complete system. Details of the analytical projections were proprietary and were not provided to the committee. Moreover, the work that was accomplished was at the intrinsically more efficient peak torque condition rather than at an engine speed and load representative of 65 mile per hour (mph) road load. RECOMMENDATION: Objective and consistent criteria should be used to assess the success or failure of achieving a key goal of the 21CTP such as the attainment of 50 percent thermal efficiency. Detailed periodic technical reviews of progress against the program plan should be conducted so that deficiencies can be identified early and corrective actions implemented to ensure success in accomplishing program goals. DOE should continue to work toward |
DOE’s public- private partnerships are to facilitate technologies which would demonstrate feasibility of stretch goals. Achieving 50 % engine efficiency for heavy duty engines is an overarching national goal. The industry must also meet prevailing emissions with the efficiency goals. The EPA 2010 near-zero emissions requirements were mandated in the middle of the industry contracts. A goal of 50% engine efficiency was a high-risk goal, especially when concurrent with the near-zero emissions achievement. Looking forward, DOE’s SuperTruck program, launched in 2010, includes the demonstration of 50% thermal efficiency. In effect, it represents the culmination of the modeling, design, analysis, subsystem development and hardware testing completed by both publicly and privately funded efforts within the overall 21CTP umbrella over the past decade. DOE funding |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| demonstrating 50 percent thermal efficiency at the peak efficiency condition as well as at a representative 65-mph road load engine speed and torque condition. DOE should also consider reducing the number of industry contracts on specific engine projects that are funded so that only the engine systems most likely to meet the goal, based on system modeling and analytical projections, will be developed and tested experimentally. | levels have limitations and this therefore represents a significant success. Industry observed that meeting 2002/2004 emissions were at a cost of approximately 3-4 % more fuel use per truck. The partnership reiterates that because of learning from these programs, the industry was able to introduce 2007 emissions compliant heavy-duty products without a fuel economy penalty from the previous year’s products–a major achievement. DOE EERE is placing more emphasis now on demonstration and commercialization activities, and the panel’s recommendations are in line with this new philosophy. The SuperTruck projects involve demonstration strategies for 50 percent thermal efficiency goals and pursuit of real-world demonstration of 50 percent thermal efficiency engines in Class 8 trucks, building on previously-developed technologies and developing new technologies with partners. . Lessons learned from this effort will guide the requirements for a future solicitation involving 55 percent thermal efficiency engines in truck demonstrations. |
|
| 3-2 ENGINES | FINDING: The goal of achieving 50 percent thermal efficiency at 2010 emissions was not clearly specified by the 21CTP. Each of the three industry partners used a different test procedure for measuring thermal efficiency (see Table 3-4). Likewise, none of the industry partners demonstrated 2010 emissions using the required EPA test procedures with aged engine and aftertreatment systems. A goal of this importance should be specified by standard test procedures so that the results are verifiable and compatible with industry standards. RECOMMENDATION: Future work to achieve the goal of 50 percent thermal efficiency at 2010 emissions should be specified by industry standard test procedures. SAE J1349 Engine Power Test Code is the industry standard for net power ratings and should be specified for the thermal efficiency portion of this goal (SAE, 2004). Test results should clearly provide all of the engineering details required to interpret the results. |
Adherence to the full conditions of an SAE standard requires the level of technology maturity beyond that expected from pre-competitive R&D projects. The goal of these pre-competitive research projects was to develop stretch capabilities of engine and emissions systems. It was not intended to reach the preproduction technology level (aged engine and aftertreatment systems). |
| 3-3 ENGINES | FINDING: Some of the technical features used to approach the goal of 50 percent thermal efficiency, as shown in Table 3-4, differed among the three industry partners and no explanation or technical analysis was provided to justify the different approaches. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the individual features used on the demonstration engines could not be determined due to the lack of analysis or system modeling. A validated system model should have been used to compare test data with analytical projections to determine if each feature was performing as expected. RECOMMENDATION: Prior to beginning future test phases of this program to achieve 50 percent thermal efficiency, system modeling should be used so that the preferred technical approaches could be selected and test data could be compared with analytical projections to determine if the expected results have been obtained. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. Each of the industry participants used their proprietary, internal analytical rigor, codes and modeling approaches to choose the technical path that showed the most promise of achieving the target of 50% thermal efficiency. In the SuperTruck solicitation, proposers were “encouraged to make extensive use of modeling and simulation to make technology choices and determine potential benefits.” |
| 3-4 ENGINES | FINDING: Although DOE stated that the 2010 emissions standard was achieved in the demonstrator engines attempting to achieve 50 percent thermal efficiency, only steady state emissions at one test condition were reported rather than test results from the EPA specified test procedures for the 2010 emissions standard. In some cases, the emissions were estimated from engine-out emissions and assumed aftertreatment efficiency. RECOMMENDATION: Achieving compliance with 2010 emissions with a “one-off” prototype |
Industry must ensure feasibility of meeting prevailing emission levels in any thermal efficiency improvement project. Emission compliance is a hard requirement, while thermal efficiency goal is an R&D target. |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| engine designed to demonstrate 50 percent thermal efficiency may be too stringent a goal for the 21CTP. The emission objective levels should be revised to be the demonstration of emissions at a single point, where the emission level selected to be demonstrated should have the potential for meeting the 2010 emissions as specified by EPA test procedures. | ||
| 3-5 ENGINES | FINDING: Although industrial partners reported on their progress, the presentations were high level summaries with critical engineering information omitted, thereby making the assessment of accomplishments relative to goals difficult. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should work to develop a review process that will allow future review committees to evaluate “sensitive” information so quantitative assessments of progress can be made. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. A process developed by the Partnership to address Committee’s recommendation is to include site visits by the Committee members to the Partnership member companies and agencies. This process is being implemented as part of the 2010 NAS review of the Partnership. |
| 3-6 ENGINES | FINDING: Achieving the 21stCTP’s goal of 50 percent peak thermal efficiency is not expected to result in the Partnership’s goal of 50 percent thermal efficiency for a typical Class 8 tractor-trailer combination on a level road at a constant speed of 65 mph and a GVW of 80,000 lbs. Even if 50-percent thermal efficiency were to be achieved at, or near, the peak torque condition, up to a 7 percent improvement (3.4 percentage point improvement) task would still remain to achieve 50 percent thermal efficiency at the 65 mph road-load condition. RECOMMENDATION: The 21CTP should clearly define, in addition to the peak thermal efficiency condition, the specific 65 mph road-load condition for demonstrating 50 percent thermal efficiency. The committee suggests using one of the 13-mode steady state emission test points for approximating the 65-mph road load condition. For typical engines, drivetrains, and vehicles, emission test point A50 (60 percent engine speed, 50 percent load) would be appropriate, although the most appropriate point (or multiple points, if necessary) should be determined for the specific engine, powertrain, and vehicle configuration under consideration, although this should be confirmed for each engine under consideration. The 21CTP should request each of the three current industry partners to test their experimental demonstration engines according to this recommendation. A recent CRC study (CRC ACES-1, July 2007) has proposed new cycles under development that may correlate better with actual in-use emissions and, possibly fuel usage, for heavy-duty diesel trucks). This study found that their in-use operation could be partitioned into the following four modes (with associated maximum speeds noted): creep ( 9 mph), transient (48 mph), cruise (59 mph) and high-speed cruise (65 mph). Each mode was highly transient and only the high-speed cruise mode reached 65 mph. The 21CTP should monitor this work and consider the possible future application of these cycles for assessing thermal efficiency improvements for HHDDEs. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. The SuperTruck solicitation included “the development of a heavy-duty diesel engine capable of achieving 50% Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) on a dynamometer under a load representative of a level road at 65 mph.” Partnership closely monitors CRC ACES efforts. Results of this work, together with other inputs, will contribute to the selection of test cycles for demonstrating vehicle level goals in the SuperTruck projects. |
| 3-7 ENGINES | FINDING: DOE and the industry partners did not appear to address the potential commercial viability of the technologies or the potential costs required to achieve cost effective solutions, as illustrated in Table 3-10. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should request the industry partners to make an assessment of cost objectives required to achieve commercial viability. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. The SuperTruck solicitation included the following requirement: “The vehicle freight efficiency improvement must be achieved while meeting prevailing emission standards and Class 8 tractor-trailers vehicle safety and regulatory requirements. The systems developed shall be validated as cost effective via a business case analysis and will be reviewed for commercialization potential in later project phases as part of the phase gate review process.” |
| 3-8 ENGINES |
FINDING: DOE is shifting prematurely to component research to support the 2013 stretch goal of 55 percent thermal efficiency before completely demonstrating the earlier 2010 goal of 50 percent. | Completion of the demonstration of the 50 percent thermal efficiency would entail a full scale pre-production development of technologies |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| Importantly, after analyzing the results of the lengthy and extensive efforts carried out in the area of Low Temperature Combustion LTC), it is considered unlikely that this technology will be a successful enabler of the 55 percent stretch goal at any time in the near term, as it cannot be adequately controlled over the full range of operating conditions of heavy-duty engines and has not demonstrated inherent fuel-consumption advantages. Based on the open literature, the chances for success of LTC as a practical technology appear limited. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should complete the demonstration of the 50 percent thermal efficiency goal before embarking on the 55 percent goal. With respect to ongoing work on Low Temperature Combustion, DOE should objectively analyze the potential viability of this combustion concept for heavy-duty engine applications, recognizing the many issues that would need to be resolved to achieve commercial viability. |
expected to perform across the wide range of engine speeds and loads including 65 mph representative points. A project of such magnitude is deemed financially prohibitive, outside DOE’s mandate of public–private partnerships, and well beyond the pre-competitive R&D supported by DOE. Heavy Truck Engine program budgets have been well below industry recommended levels for many years. The feasibility of reaching a 2013 stretch goal of 55% thermal efficiency demonstration goal may need to be reconsidered, and the partnership has commenced the process to revise the program goals. The original 21CTP timeline will also be re-evaluated. A feasible, while stretch thermal efficiency demonstration, goal for the next set of projects may well be somewhere between 50% and 55%. Such stretch goal will encourage continuing introduction of high risk, high reward technologies into the program, while allowing each company to leverage its individual technical strengths and teaming capabilities. With respect to Low Temperature Combustion (LTC), DOE agrees that LTC may not be a sole enabler for the efficiency targets. Rather, DOE has stated that advanced combustion approaches will be a critical element, along with other engine and aftertreatment advances, of the path toward simultaneously higher efficiency and emission compliant heavy-duty engines (See 21CTP Roadmap). Engine manufacturers (world-wide) continue to strongly support the need for LTC research and pursue implementation. The advances that have already resulted from the combustion R&D have been an essential part of achieving 2004 and 2007 emission goals with minimal degradation of engine efficiency, and were an important part of reaching 2010 emission goals. |
|
| 3-9 ENGINES | FINDING: Information on the effects of fuel formulations on LTC operation was not presented to the committee by the 21CTP. However, the Committee’s opinion is that any single diesel fuel formulation is unlikely to optimize LTC over all modes of operation. The optimum fuel for light-load operation will likely have different properties than the optimum fuel for heavy-load operation. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should try to specifically confirm whether or not a single non-specialty diesel fuel formulation will optimize LTC over all modes of operation and, modify its priorities accordingly based on the data. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. Currently, such work cannot be prioritized since DOE’s petroleum based fuel budget has been zeroed out. One example of the relevant work in this area is modeling of fuel kinetics at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. |
| 3-10 ENGINES | FINDING: Even if LTC is successful at light loads, traditional diesel operation will likely be necessary at cold start and higher loads. Due to the different emission issues at light loads and heavy loads, it is very implausible that heavy-duty diesel engines will require no aftertreatment. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should undertake an analysis of a mixed-mode scenario to determine whether unburned HC and CO control in the LTC regime and DPF and NOx control in the traditional diesel combustion regime is not more complex and costly than aftertreatment for traditional diesel alone. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. As part of the SuperTruck projects, DOE will compare potential of mixed-mode operation to that of the traditional aftertreatment-supported combustion. |
| 3-11 | FINDING: At the reduced budget levels for FY 2008 and beyond, the inclusion of five engine | Recovery Act has afforded DOE an opportunity to fund three new cost- |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| ENGINES | manufacturers as cost-sharing participants reduces the ability of funding projects of “critical mass,” which is not in keeping with the national interest. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should fund only one or, possibly, two manufacturers during the next phase of the program so that only the most promising projects of a significant scope can be accomplished. |
shared vehicle and engine efficiency R&D projects – two teams under Recovery Act funding, and one team under regular program budget. |
| 3-12 ENGINES | FINDING: The thermoelectric conversion systems are at a very basic stage and seem to have been “lumped” into the 21CTP as a matter of budgetary convenience for more basic work going on primarily at the National Laboratories. RECOMMENDATION: The thermoelectric conversion research should be removed from the 21CTP program until a more advanced level of technical maturity is attained. At the very least, a technical analysis of the candidate waste energy recovery systems is needed to determine if future efforts on thermoelectric conversion systems within the framework of the 21CTP are justified. |
While the majority of DOE’s thermoelectric work is done on light duty vehicles, we have seen continuing interest from the heavy-duty community in this technical area. Therefore, DOE will consider funding heavy-duty thermoelectric work on a case-by-case basis. Currently, the only heavy duty project is a work with Michigan State University and Cummins. |
| 3-13 FUELS |
FINDING: It is unlikely that the goal of identifying and validating nonpetroleum fuel formulations, optimized for use in advanced combustion engines, will be achieved by 2010. DOE’s nonpetroleum fuels effort is focused on resolving biodiesel operational issues and commercialization barriers, but DOE did not provide a timetable for successful resolution of these efforts. DOE is also investigating oil sands and shale oil as other sources of petroleum fuel replacement. DOE did not present a plan for 5 percent replacement of petroleum fuels. The Renewable Fuels Standard of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is likely to have a role in accelerating the availability of non-petroleum fuels. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should continue to work with biodiesel developers and users to assure compatibility when biodiesel is blended with conventional diesel fuel and problem-free use of biodiesel fuels in diesel engines. Successful deployment will require resolving operational issues and updating the biofuel specifications. Development of refining technology to make acceptable diesel from shale oil or tar sands is not high-risk research suitable for federal funding and should be left to the private sector. DOE should develop specific plans, including key actions and timetables, for 5 percent replacement of petroleum fuels. |
Much emphasis is being placed on resolving issues and remaining questions with utilization of biodiesel. With respect to non-conventional petroleum sources (e.g., oil sands and shale oil), the DOE Vehicle Technologies Program (wherein 21CTP resides) has no mission to sponsor research in fuel production processes and has no plans to do so. The national labs under DOE funding are studying the effects of blended fuels utilizing oil sands to determine whether there could be impacts of non-conventional petroleum fuels on combustion and emissions from advanced LTC strategies for high-efficiency engine combustion systems. |
| 3-14 FUELS | FINDING: DOE is exploring fuel properties of petroleum-based fuels that could have beneficial effects on engine efficiency and emissions, including aftertreatment. The committee is concerned about the viability of low temperature combustion regimes used in this effort, and that the applicability of the results of this project may be of limited value. The committee is also concerned that DOE’s work may define optimum fuel properties for an engine with a new combustion regime that are not consistent with the properties of conventional diesel fuel defined in the ASTM specification for No. 2 diesel fuel. A potential implication of such a result is that a future engine with a new combustion regime may require a separate fuel, which would entail significant problems in the refining, distribution, storage, availability and cost of a special diesel fuel for these engines. RECOMMENDATION: The committee recommends against assuming that specialized fuels will be commercially available for future engines with new combustion regimes. Due to the issues concerning the viability of low temperature combustion regimes and commercially available specialized fuels, DOE should consider redirecting these efforts towards work with greater probability of contributing to the overall goals of the 21CTP. |
The DOE efforts to understand the effects of fuel properties on combustion support two principal objectives; first to assess the robustness of combustion strategies to fuel property variations found within modern commercial fuels, and second to develop better understanding of fuel effects to support longer term co-development of fuels and engines by industry. There is a third potential benefit in defining improved combustion rating criteria. The committee report referred to FACE for example. FACE is administered through CRC, chaired by an energy company representative, and controlled by a mission statement that prohibits optimization objectives. The engine and energy industries have been participants in FACE and related projects for several years. The projects have been generally well-received in previously conducted peer reviews. |
| 3-15 FUELS | FINDING: DOE provided little insight into the scope and magnitude of the effort to address the goal of developing non-petroleum fuel formulations beyond biodiesel that could provide | Most of the DOE-sponsored efforts in this area have been focused on biodiesel as the committee noted. Otherwise, the emphasis has been on |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| additional fuel economy improvements and near-zero emissions. DOE did not report any specific work plans, results, or timetables addressing this objective. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should reaffirm that this goal should continue to be pursued. If the goal is considered to strongly contribute to the overall 21CTP goals, DOE should develop specific work plans and timetables for addressing this goal. |
developing a fundamental understanding of a wide range of fuel property effects on combustion and emission controls, encompassing the expected properties of non-petroleum fuels. Note the goal says “identify and validate” and not “develop.” One intent was to look for non-petrol fuel property effects that would incentivize their use (eg, the apparent DPF regeneration advantage with biodiesel). Going forward, DOE and the partners will re-evaluate this objective and will need to bring plans in line with the EISA. | |
| 3-16 AFTERTREATMENT | FINDING: No specific goals have been outlined for 21CTP diesel engine aftertreatment systems but some goals have been set for eliminating aftertreatment. However, as discussed in this chapter, the goal of eliminating aftertreatment does not appear to be achievable in the foreseeable future. RECOMMENDATION: Specific goals should be set for aftertreatment systems (improved efficiency, lower fuel consumption, lower cost of substrates, lower cost catalyst, etc.). |
Engine manufacturers’ selection of aftertreatment system components depends on trade-offs of many technical and commercial factors, including combustion strategy, available fuel injection equipment, supplier preferences, etc. This leads to different approaches selected by different manufacturers, as happened with each of the recent emission regulations in 2004, 2007 and 2010. The Partnership prefers not to constrain manufacturers’ technical choices. Therefore, we have technical goals for the overall engine/aftertreatment system, rather than for its individual sub-systems. |
| 3-17 AFTERTREATMENT | FINDING: The CLEERS, DCT, and CRADAs have contributed to many successful projects and programs. RECOMMENDATION: The 21 CTP should continue with the CLEERS, DCT and CRADA activities for aftertreatment systems. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. |
| 3-18 HTML | FINDING: The High Temperature Materials Laboratory is a valuable resource, providing specialized instrumentation and professional expertise in support of materials research. 21CTP projects have utilized the laboratory extensively; it has provided support to 35 different 21CTP projects since 2001. Whereas few advanced materials were actually utilized in the 21CTP project to demonstrate the major 50 percent thermal efficiency goal, it is expected to contribute to the 21CTP in valuable ways in the future. RECOMMENDATION: The DOE should continue to provide 21CTP projects access to the HTML. Although HTML’s budget is not explicitly linked to the 21CTP, DOE should make every effort to maintain a stable budget for the HTML, in order to keep it at the “state of the art” level, and able to respond to the needs of the broader research community. |
We appreciate the recognition and agree that these collaborative projects and working groups have been effective and productive. The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. In 2007 the HTML discussed a five-year plan with the director of the Vehicle Technologies Program that addresses the needs of the HTML and the HTML User Programs to effectively support the missions of the Vehicle Technologies Program. Specifically the plan included recommendations for investments in instrumentation and human resources that are both related and relevant to the goals of the Vehicle Technology Program. |
| 3-19 HEALTH EFFECTS | FINDING: ACES is a cooperative, multi-party effort to characterize the emissions and assess the safety and potential health effects of new, advanced engine systems, aftertreatment, fuels and lubricants. It is an animal study using rats and not focusing on the direct effects on humans. DOE is providing the major funding for this program. RECOMMENDATION: The committee endorses the DOE funding of this study and recommends that this continue for the remainder of the study until results become available in the 2012-2013 time period. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. We appreciate the endorsement of the ACES project and agree with the NRC panel on its value. |
| 4-1 HYBRIDS |
FINDING: Challenges with lithium-ion anode/cathode materials and chemical stability under high power conditions will likely preclude achieving the 15-year durability targets by 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Much closer interaction between military and commercial suppliers is recommended to identify the highest-priority areas for further research in an attempt to expedite the development of commercially viable battery or battery/ultracapacitor systems that can |
The Partnership agrees that more R&D in this area - especially in the area of Power Density and Battery Life, is needed. Indeed, subsequent to the NRC’s first report and as part of the ARRA 2009, battery research, development and production capacity have greatly increased through DOE. The Partnership would be happy to provide additional |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| accomplish the unique high-power needs of heavy-duty vehicles. | documentation with regard to these technologies. | |
| 4-2 HYBRIDS | FINDING: There are significant differences associated with the use of battery energy storage systems in heavy-duty vs. light-duty applications. RECOMMENDATION: Due to these differences and the much lower production volumes for heavy-duty applications, it is appropriate to continue funding and conduct sufficient research and development to demonstrate prototypical success in heavy duty applications, or identify areas for continued research. |
The Partnership concurs with this finding. Current research focused on Light-duty applications may not necessarily apply to Heavy-duty applications. A crosscut light-duty / heavy-duty meeting on energy storage is planned for January 2011. |
| 4-3 HYBRIDS | FINDING: The information exchange between DOD, DOT, DOE appears to be rather casual due to completely separate funding mechanisms, priorities, and testing methods. RECOMMENDATION: Jointly-funded programs that prioritize research, build upon the success of each agency’s programs and thereby necessitate technology transfer between the partners would significantly improve the technology transfer and reduce the chance for “reinventing the wheel,” or duplicating other’s mistakes. |
The Partnership works within the constraints of current funding mechanisms, which differ among the member agencies. These limitations make it difficult to devise a jointly-funded R&D program. We believe that our role in fostering communication among agencies goes a long way toward improving technology transfer and learning from each other’s mistakes and successes. |
| 4-4 HYBRIDS | FINDING: The metrics used for comparing battery technologies differ from manufacturer-to-manufacturer, agency-to-agency, and even for different evaluations within a given agency. Terminologies also vary in definition. Many existing standards for measuring battery parameters are technology specific, making accurate comparison of different technologies difficult or impossible. RECOMMENDATION: Metrics should be standardized or modified to enable more accurate comparisons across different battery technologies for transportation use. Universal terminologies should be defined, published, and recommended for adoption by the various battery manufacturers. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. It is our intent to increase activities in Codes and Standards for hybrid components including battery storage. |
| 4-5 HYBRIDS | FINDING: Very little data are published about batteries when used in conjunction with ultracapacitors for heavy-duty HEV applications in this program. Recent developments show great promise with this technology, especially for heavy-duty applications requiring high power output for acceleration and fast charging for braking energy recovery. RECOMMENDATION: Expanded research effort and associated funding focus should be focused on ultracapacitors or supercapacitors as “hybrid” storage systems, in combination with batteries. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. Additional power density needs associated with heavy-duty applications could benefit from this technology. |
| 4-6 HYBRIDS |
FINDING: R&D on heavy-duty hybrid trucks and buses has demonstrated significant progress, achieving 35 to 47 percent fuel economy improvements in hybrid-electric delivery vans and urban buses, with specialized applications and the hydraulic hybrid delivery van in the 50 to 70 percent range (60 percent is the present 21CTP target). Commercial success has already been achieved with hybrid urban buses, albeit with major governmental subsidies. Despite the promising progress, significant hurdles still remain to achieving the fuel economy improvement targets for a broader range of heavy-duty hybrid vehicle (HHV) applications, reducing the cost, and improving HHV reliability sufficiently to achieve broader commercial success. In addition, there are opportunities for achieving significant system-level improvements that would make HHVs more attractive to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and users, such as the merging of hybrid propulsion and idle reduction features, including start-stop operation and creeping under all-electric power. RECOMMENDATION: Development and demonstration of heavy-duty hybrid truck technology should be continued as part of the 21CTP program in order to reduce barriers to |
The Partnership agrees with this finding. The SuperTruck demonstration projects may be an excellent venue to develop and commercialize hybrid technologies. Hydraulic hybrids could also use additional research funding to achieve their maximum system level performance. Furthermore, the Partnership is in the process of bringing together the hybrid electric vehicle energy storage experts from light vehicle and medium & heavy vehicle industries for a crosscut discussion to identify possible research areas of mutual interest. A meeting is planned for October 2010. |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| commercialization. These development projects should include efforts to capitalize on opportunities for system-level improvements made possible by HHV technology in order to extract the maximum possible value from any new hybridized propulsion equipment that is installed in future trucks and buses. | ||
| 4-7 HYBRIDS |
FINDING: Progress in the development of HHV technology under the 21CTP program has been hindered by the decision to focus on component-level technology rather than on systems. Successful development and commercialization of HHV technology requires coordinated, customized development of the combustion engine, electrical/hydraulic drive equipment, mechanical powertrain, and controls, as components of an integrated system, in order to realize its full potential. In addition, the coordination of HHV project activities among the 21CTP’s federal partners (DOD, EPA, and DOE) has not matched the level achieved in other 21CTP programs such as nighttime idle reduction, making it more difficult to achieve ambitious HHV technology targets. RECOMMENDATION: Coordination of all 21CTP heavy-duty hybrid truck development and demonstration activities should be strengthened across components, programs, and agencies to maximize the system benefits of this technology and to accelerate its successful deployment in commercial trucks and buses. In addition to improved cross-agency coordination, HHV stakeholder-based organizations including the Validation Working Group and the Hybrid Truck Users Forum should be engaged more aggressively to assist in identifying and overcoming key hurdles to the successful commercialization of HHV technology. |
The Partnership concurs. The Partnership is exploring strategic alliances with HTUF as part of the ongoing assessment of its operations. DOE VTP director Pat Davis will be presenting at the HTUF event in late September. This will be an opportunity for engaging HHV component suppliers and hybrid truck users. DOE has met for a series of meetings with CALSTART to discuss and consider a number of areas where there is opportunity for cooperation. Likewise, DOE has met with representatives from the U.S. Army to consider cooperative research opportunities. A memorandum of understanding between the Department of Defense and the DOE was established. As was presented September 8, the U.S. EPA has a hydraulic hybrid vehicle demonstration effort that complements 21CTP hybrid efforts. Finally, DOT has been funding the purchase of heavy duty hybrid electric vehicles. |
| 4-8 HYBRIDS |
FINDING: Emissions of heavy-duty trucks are currently measured and certified by EPA for each engine type rather than for any truck as a complete unit. Since current procedures do not allow either the fuel economy or emissions of complete hybrid propulsion systems to be certified, neither the fuel economy or emissions gains of hybrid trucks are recognized by this procedure. This approach serves as a deterrent to commercialization of HHV technology since there is at present no practical way for truck purchasers to derive any direct tax credits for buying hybrid trucks as called for in the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005, which expires in 2009. Developing the necessary test procedures to address this shortcoming is expected to be a complex and lengthy process, and EPA has not been able to devote sufficient resources to resolve this problem in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION: Since tax credits for hybrid trucks established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 expire at the end of 2009, DOE should work with EPA and stakeholders to accelerate the development of fuel economy and emissions certification procedures for heavy-duty hybrid vehicles so that the benefits of hybridization can be rewarded to encourage commercial adoption |
The Partnership agrees with this finding. In fact, we believe that 21CTP, EMA, TMA and SAE organizations should be utilized in an advisory capacity during the development of these new regulations. The Partnership is exploring the possibility of developing strategic alliances with several of these organizations. It is appropriate for EPA to maintain responsibility for developing these types of procedures based on the Agency's past experience with fuel economy and emission measurement protocols. EPA agrees that DOE involvement in this process would be beneficial and could help accelerate development of procedures more suitable than the interim procedures currently specified by the IRS for obtaining tax credit certification. Under the SmartWay program, the EPA is working on drive cycle development for different vocations. DOE participated in this effort through the workshops held by EPA. |
| 4-9 HYBRIDS | FINDING: Recent statements by representatives of some heavy-duty truck OEMs have reported that there are opportunities for fuel economy improvements between 5 and 7 percent in hybridized versions of Class 8 long-haul trucks, yielding annual fuel cost savings exceeding $9,000 per year. This result runs counter to generally-held opinions about the low potential of hybrid versions of | The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. Two of the three SuperTruck projects include hybridization as part of their work. This effort will include a combination of analytical simulation and |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| Class 8 long-haul trucks for substantial fuel savings, and no documented study results have been made available to the committee to firmly substantiate the recent claims. RECOMMENDATION: The committee recommends that the potential benefits of hybrid Class 8 long-haul trucks be evaluated as part of the 21CTP program by conducting a documented study using a combination of analytical simulation and experimental data. If the results of the study confirm the recent claims of substantial fuel economy opportunities in hybrid long-haul trucks, the 21CTP program management is encouraged to find ways to contribute directly to the accelerated development of the necessary hybrid technology and its successful demonstration in prototype vehicles. |
experimental prototype work. In appreciation of the growing importance of hybrid work to the Partnership, we have accepted a request of ArvinMeritor (one of the leading players in hybrid technology for heavy-duty applications) to join the Partnership as a member. |
|
| 5-1 PARASITICS |
FINDING: The More Electric Truck program demonstrated an integrated system to reduce idling emissions and fuel consumption. The test program showed significant progress toward achieving the objectives of both Goal 2 in Chapter 5 (“Develop and demonstrate technologies that reduce essential auxiliary loads by 50 percent, from the current 20 hp to 10 hp, for class 8 tractor-trailers) and Goal 6 in Chapter 6 (“Produce by 2012 a truck with a fully-integrated idling-reduction system to reduce component duplication, weight, and cost.”). It did so by demonstrating 1 to 2 percent estimated reduction in fuel use including significant truck idling reductions. According to DOE, this translates into an overall fuel savings for the U.S. fleet of 710 to 824 million gallons of diesel fuel (about $2 billion per year at 2.75 per gallon). RECOMMENDATION: Given the potential of this program to save fuel, the committee recommends that the 21CTP continue the R&D of the identified system components that will provide additional improvements in idle reduction and parasitic losses related to engine components that are more efficient and provide better control of energy use. The program should focus also on the cost-effectiveness of the technologies. |
DOE is exploring the cost and benefits of continuing R&D in this area compared to the potential for efficiency improvements by other heavy truck technologies. DOE funded an effort through Oak Ridge National Laboratory to characterize Class 8 duty cycles by recording over 100 parameters from six tractors and ten trailers for a 15-month period. DOE and DOT jointly funded a similar Class 7 duty cycle assessment. DOT led a cooperative effort to establish an idle reduction equipment weight exemption. DOE also funded a project to develop a factory integrated and installed idle reduction auxiliary power unit to efficiently prevent unnecessary truck idling. |
| 5-2 PARASITICS | FINDING: The 21CTP lightweight materials research was terminated as a result of the 2007 budget reduction. RECOMMENDATION: The committee agrees with the decision to terminate lightweight materials research in order to provide as much budget resource as possible to continue research in engine efficiency and emissions reduction technologies, as improvements in engine efficiency offer greater potential for overall gains in vehicle fuel efficiency. |
Thanks to the availability of Recovery Act funding to support two SuperTruck teams, DOE program budget is now available to support continuation of lightweighting efforts in heavy-duty area. |
| 5-3 PARASITICS | FINDING: Prior to termination of the lightweight materials program, several lightweight material projects demonstrated weight reduction potential for truck components. However, the program did not achieve the longer term objective (planned for 2012) of demonstrating a 5,000-pound weight reduction for a complete class 8 tractor trailer combination. RECOMMENDATION: Due to the termination of the project in 2007, it will be the responsibility of truck manufacturers to take the next steps of system integration, product validation, and ultimately production of a lightweight truck. Although an interim step of system integration at the pre-production stage would have been useful, it is not inappropriate that the OEMs now assume responsibility for continuation of the work, as the next steps will require development of a business case which comprehends material costs and the costs of modifying existing manufacturing systems to accommodate the introduction of advanced materials. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. Integration of new materials into commercial offerings is the responsibility of the industrial partners. |
| 5-4 PARASITICS | FINDING: The committee noted that the above list of research areas was extensive and comprehensive. However, the list appeared to be significantly more ambitious than the budget for | The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| the 21st CTP could fund. The committee assumed that this was the case since no projects or results from any of the above research areas were provided. RECOMMENDATION: In addition to identifying a list of research areas that could provide solutions to thermal management challenges, DOE should develop, fund and implement plans for pursuing the key areas that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the specific 21st CTP Goal 4A. DOE's first step should be to assess the candidate technology, or technologies, that have the highest potential for meeting the requirements of Goal 4A. This goal and its status were briefly discussed with the committee and the following information was provided: “Track and laboratory tests met or exceeded goals, validation test is underway.”Unfortunately, a description of the track and laboratory tests that had been performed, the engineering details and the results from these tests, or a description and timetable for the validation test reported to be under way were not described for the committee. |
This technical area has been renamed “Power Demands” in the current list of Partnership goals to reflect broader range of the relevant technologies and stronger emphasis on those technologies that are capable of reducing engine power requirements and may lead to engine downsizing. | |
| 5-5 PARASITICS | FINDING: Based on the above observations, the committee was not able to accurately assess the progress on this goal or the expectation of whether this goal can be successfully achieved. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should provide periodic status reports on the 21CTP goals that include the technical status vs. the program plan, funding vs. budget, and the expected future accomplishments vs. the program plan. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. We will examine methods for providing status reporting for projects as part of its overall assessment of the Partnership’s processes and methods (as outlined in the Management responses above). |
| 5-6 PARASITICS | FINDING: The achievement of present program targets would require the involvement of a wide range of new program participants and the sharing of responsibilities among new program partners, inherently incorporating higher technical and durability risks than the present approaches. Truck manufacturers are assemblers of components specified by the truck buyer, and cooperative design and development relationships may not exist between suppliers. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should determine if the above approach for achieving Goal 4A is feasible within the scope of the 21CTP and containable within the available budget. DOE should take a strong leadership role with appropriate funds to bring manufacturers and suppliers together for systems research and development for Goal 4A and Goal 3. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. The SuperTruck projects for the first time integrate vehicle, engine, and component goals into an integrated set of objectives. The SuperTruck teams bring together manufacturers and suppliers for coordinated systems R&D. |
| 5-7 PARASITICS | FINDING: The committee noted that the DOE list of research topics in friction, wear and lubrication was extensive and comprehensive. However, the list appeared to be significantly more ambitious than the budget for the 21CTP could fund. The committee assumes that this was the case since no projects or results from any of the above research areas were provided. RECOMMENDATION: In addition to identifying a list of topics addressing friction, wear, and lubrication technologies, DOE should develop, fund and implement plans for pursuing key areas that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the specific 21CTP Goal 4B. DOE's first step should be to conduct detailed friction testing of a range of heavy-duty diesel engines, transmissions and final drives to determine those with best-in-class friction. With respect to engines, previous industry light- and heavy-duty engine friction reduction investigations that included lightweight-low friction piston and piston ring designs, low friction coatings and surface finishes, reduced engine bearing sizes and other design modifications should be reviewed to determine opportunities for reducing engine friction below best-in-class levels. From this assessment, other candidate technologies with the highest potential for meeting the requirements of the engine portion of Goal 4B should be identified. Likewise, the efficiencies of transmissions and final drives on heavy-duty trucks should be measured and compared with the efficiencies of best-in-class light-duty vehicles, normalized for load differences, thereby providing insight for friction reductions in heavy-duty truck transmissions and final drives. From this assessment, other |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. The SuperTruck projects will continue the research in the areas of friction, wear and lubrication. This work will include efforts in reducing engine and transmission losses. |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| candidate technologies with the highest potential for meeting the requirements of the driveline portion of Goal 4B should be identified. | ||
| 5-8 PARASITICS | FINDING: In contrast to the report by DOE to the committee, the analysis of the basis of this goal by the committee indicates that it is very unlikely that this goal can be achieved within the scope of the 21CTP. The achievement of the goal’s projected fuel savings appears to be very unlikely with accompanying high risks relative to component life. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should reassess the basis of this goal and determine if 50 percent reductions in powertrain and drivetrain losses are technically feasible. Based on this assessment of technical feasibility, DOE should determine if this goal should be pursued based on its potential fuel savings vs. other competing programs within the 21CTP. If DOE determines that this goal should be pursued, they should then develop specific program plans, timing and funding. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. The SuperTruck teams will conduct three independent assessments of the Parasitics reduction goal. Based on the results of this work, the partnership goal will be reassessed. |
| 5-9 PARASITICS | FINDING: There is a precedent for government to establish performance measures for tires as illustrated by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System (UTQGS) adopted by NHTSA in 1980 [Part 575.104 of the Consumer Information Regulations]. The UTGS applies to passenger car tires and requires manufacturers to grade new tires for tread wear, wet traction and temperature resistance. Tread wear is graded on a numerical scale, while traction and temperature resistance are graded on an alphabetic scale. There is no current requirement for grading rolling resistance, or for grading truck tires. RECOMMENDATION: DOE, EPA, and DOT should arrange to gather and report information on the influence of individual truck tires on vehicle fuel consumption; to convey such tire information to both buyers and sellers; and to periodically reassess the effectiveness of this consumer information and the methods used for communicating it. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. EPA’s SmartWay Transport Partnership tested and publicly reported the fuel savings impact of low rolling resistance truck tires. Tire impact on fuel consumption is also part of the Agency’s criteria to designate the most fuel-efficient heavy-duty trucks and trailers as “SmartWay.” EPA supports the continued assessment of methods to assess tire rolling resistance and its impact on heavy truck fuel efficiency. DOE recently conducted similar evaluations of the use of new generation wide base single tires and is sharing this information with the 21CT Partnership. |
| 6-1 IDLE REDUCTION |
FINDING: Idle reduction is one of the most effective ways to reduce pollutant emissions (especially locally) and improve fuel consumption. As a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the authority for this effort now rests with EPA and DOT. Several important lines of research are carried on in the 21CTP. In addition, the EPA SmartWay Transport Partnership voluntary program is effective at promoting the use of electrified parking spaces. The 21CTP, in cooperation with several major shippers, has demonstrated a number of cost-effective technologies (such as fuel-fired cab heaters and coolers) that are being used by existing fleets. (One fleet is installing more than 6,000 heaters, and another is installing more than 7,000.) One trucking company reported that diesel-fired heaters provided 2.4 percent fuel savings and a payback in less than 2 years at $2.40 per gallon. RECOMMENDATION: The 21CTP should continue to support R&D for the technologies that reduce idle time and address the remaining technical challenges (including California emission requirements, completely integrated APU/HVAC (auxiliary power unit/heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning) systems, and creep devices). |
The Partnership concurs with the NRC panel’s recommendation on continued R&D efforts for idle reduction technologies. It should be noted that EPA, through its SmartWay Transport Partnership, does not promote, recommend, or endorse idle reduction technologies. Rather, the SmartWay program demonstrates and deploys idle reduction technologies through its grant authority under the Clean Air Act, Section 103, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 791. The SmartWay program has demonstrated and deployed both mobile and stationary idle reduction technologies. As discussed in the 5-1 response, DOE also funded a project to develop a factory integrated and installed idle reduction auxiliary power unit to efficiently prevent unnecessary truck idling. |
| 6-2 IDLE REDUCTION | FINDING: An effective government-industry cooperative program has been established to examine idle-reduction technologies, which have been successfully employed for nighttime truck operation. RECOMMENDATION: The success of the nighttime anti-idling measure and deployment should be the basis for expanding to technologies that can be applied for daytime operation, which will then lead to greater fuel savings than nighttime operation. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. Both nighttime and daytime idling contribute to avoidable non-productive use of fuel. Truck drivers will idle for a variety of reasons, but the primary reason for long duration idling is to rest comfortably during the driver’s federally mandated rest period. |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| Long duration idling (more than 6 hours) occurs during the driver’s rest period. Short duration idling occurs while truck drivers are waiting to load or off-load cargo. Cargo loading or unloading wait times can last up to 3 hours. Technologies that are appropriate for long duration idling might not be cost-effective for short duration idling. For example, a $7,000-$9,000 idle reduction device that supplies heat and air conditioning will provide a much faster payback for a truck operator who idles 8-10 hours per day, than for one who idles only 3 hours per day. Additionally, conventional idle reduction devices (e.g., auxiliary power units) designed to reduce long duration idling supply heat or air conditioning to the sleeper compartment. However, many truck drivers whose operations involve short duration idling do not have sleeper compartments that justify the need for such technologies. Reducing short-duration idling can be achieved through operational strategies, rather than necessarily with technologies. For example, improved logistics can reduce idling times by scheduling loading/unloading during non-peak hours, or contacting the truck driver when the loading dock is available. Instead of waiting in a line idling, the truck driver can find a more convenient location and wait without the need to idle. |
||
| 6-3 IDLE REDUCTION | FINDING: DOE has built an effective outreach instrument in its monthly publication, “The National Idling Reduction News.” This publication and education through conferences and other agencies such as the EPA provides stakeholders with significant information and guidelines for idle reduction. RECOMMENDATION: DOE should continue its current successful education and outreach program as currently operated. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. The Partnership appreciates the acknowledgement of its success in education and outreach related to idling reduction, and agrees that this work has been useful to the community. |
| 6-4 IDLE REDUCTION | FINDING: Progress on the incentive part of this goal has been excellent as evidenced by the SmartWay Transport Partnership between EPA and industry. The patchwork of anti-idling regulations nationally is an impediment to broader use of anti-idling measures. RECOMMENDATION: EPA should renew its efforts to promulgate national anti-idling regulations, and DOE should review whether additional R&D is needed to implement those regulations. |
EPA has no legal authority to promulgate anti-idling laws, or any time or behavioral limits on truck drivers. EPA’s legal authority rests with promulgating emission standards for vehicles and engines. The idle reduction efforts of the EPA SmartWay Transport Partnership, which resulted in a model for a state or local idling law, are part of a larger educational campaign for states and local governments. The purpose of this campaign is to inform the public about the need for more consistent and practical anti-idling laws. EPA intent is to educate stakeholders, rather than to promulgate national legislation on idle-reduction. |
| 6-6 IDLE REDUCTION | FINDING: The DOE-sponsored demonstrations with two major trucking fleets resulted in deployment of several idle-reduction devices. Greater success was achieved with cab heating than with cab cooling. It appears that only one device met the goal of less than 2-year payback. It is unclear whether the emissions requirement of the goal was met. RECOMMENDATION: Given that funding and responsibility for idle-reduction technologies was redirected in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to EPA and DOT, there is no requirement for DOE to pursue this area. However, given the progress to date and potential attractive returns on investment, it would be desirable for DOE, EPA, and DOT to continue to advance this aspect of |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. EPA’s SmartWay Transport Partnership program has a robust deployment program for idle reduction technologies. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, coupled with recent Congressional appropriations, EPA intends to fund many grant projects to deploy both mobile and stationary idle reduction technology projects nationally. The wide variety of idle reduction technologies offers many options. Since trucking operations |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| fuel reduction and environmental mitigation. | vary widely, no single technology addresses all idle situations; many companies will employ a variety of technologies and strategies throughout their fleet. The federal government organizations involved in this area should coordinate efforts so as to avoid duplicative projects. Navistar has recently completed a DOE-funded APU development project. | |
| 6-7 IDLE REDUCTION | FINDING: The More Electric Truck program demonstrated an integrated system to reduce idling emissions and fuel consumption. The test program showed significant progress to achieve the objectives of goal 6 by demonstrating 1-2 percent estimated reduction in fuel use including significant truck idling reductions. According to DOE, this translates into an overall annual fuel savings for the U.S. fleet of 710 to 824 million gallons of diesel fuel (about $2 billion/year at $2.75/gallon). RECOMMENDATION: Given the potential of this program to save fuel, the committee recommends that the 21CTP continue the R&D of the identified system components that will provide more improvements in idle reduction and parasitic losses related to engine components that are more efficient and provide better control of energy use. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. Electrification of accessory loads is being pursued by the SuperTruck project teams. This task becomes even more relevant in light of the efforts by manufacturers to develop waste heat recovery (WHR) technologies. Availability of electricity consumers onboard will allow WHR devices to avoid the losses involved in converting electricity obtained from exhaust heat energy into mechanical energy. |
| 6-8 IDLE REDUCTION | FINDING: The work on fuel cell APU is being carried out by the DOD and a number of contractors are being supported. There is no evidence that goal 7 has been met at this time. RECOMMENDATION: The DOE’s 21CTP should continue to monitor and interact with the DOD program. As DOD reaches its goals, DOE should explore with major truck operators the possibility of bringing appropriate fuel cell APU technologies into commercial use. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. DOE will coordinate more closely with DOD to track progress in this area. |
| 7-1 SAFETY |
FINDING: The program manager of the 21st Century Truck Partnership has little or no direct authority for heavy-duty truck safety projects because there is no budget in the program itself to support safety projects. The program manager will need to continue to work with DOT, because DOT has several initiatives with the goal of making improvements in heavy-duty truck safety. They range from driver education to accident avoidance technology. However, the committee was unable to determine whether the goals would be met as a result of these initiatives. RECOMMENDATION: DOT should develop a complete and comprehensive list of current and planned heavy-duty truck safety projects and initiatives, and prioritize them in order of potential benefit in reducing heavy-duty truck-related fatalities. The list should provide quantitative projections of fatality reduction potential attributable to each project. The list should also be used to prioritize budget and resource allocation, in order to expedite heavy-duty truck safety progress. |
The 21st Century Truck (21CT) Partnership agrees that a main factor to be used to determine research priorities in the safety area of the program is potential benefit in terms of fatality reduction. For DOT, improving safety is the Department’s No. 1 goal. Specific to the 21CT program, potential safety benefit is a main factor used to determine safety focus areas. These areas include braking, rollover, vehicle position (safe following distance and in-lane tracking), visibility (driver vision enhancement), and tire safety. These areas were identified in 21CTP first safety white paper. |
| 7-2 SAFETY |
FINDING: Programs are underway to develop and implement technologies and vehicle systems to support safety goals. Indeed, private industry, through internal research and commercial product development has produced commercially available systems for enhanced braking, roll stability, and lane departure warning. They are beginning to be used in the field. It is now important to determine to what extent these accident avoidance technologies will reduce the number of accidents and therefore fatalities and injuries. RECOMMENDATION: DOT should continue programs in support of heavy-duty truck on-board safety systems, with emphasis on accident avoidance and with priority set by a comprehensive potential cost/benefit analysis (Recommendation 7-1). Particular emphasis should be placed on monitoring the accident experience of heavy-duty trucks, as these systems begin to be deployed in the field (for example, as electronic stability control systems begin to penetrate the fleet). It is the role of the manufacturers to develop safety systems for commercial application. DOT can play |
The Partnership agrees with the recommendation. Within the priority areas identified for 21CT in the safety area, these steps are largely being implemented. However, similar to the above recommendation, as currently written, this recommendation is too broad and seems to be for DOT research as a whole. Again, it is not within the scope of the 21CT program to monitor and coordinate all DOT programs related to onboard safety systems. |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Update: November 10, 2010
| important roles in (1) providing support for field tests (known to DOT as Field Operational Tests, in (2) monitoring field data to help substantiate benefit analyses used to prioritize resources, and (3S) implementing regulations that would require the adoption of safety systems that were proved to be effective. With adequate field data, DOT should refine and more rigorously specify and prioritize goals for accident avoidance technologies. | ||
| 7-3 SAFETY | FINDING: In spite of extensive improvements in light vehicle crashworthiness made during the past decade, the number of fatalities caused by heavy-duty truck accidents has remained nearly constant, at approximately 5,000 per year, although the fatality rate has decreased showing that progress is being made. In most cases, the occupant(s) of the light vehicle is the one fatally injured. It appears that to make significant safety progress, it will be necessary to reduce the number of accidents substantially by implementing accident avoidance technologies as well as methods for improving driver behavior. In light of this need, DOT future plans have been directed largely at accident avoidance technologies. RECOMMENDATION: The committee agrees with the apparent decision by DOT to put more emphasis on accident avoidance technologies than on additional crashworthiness research. In additional, DOT should continue to focus on driver education and law enforcement. Furthermore, DOE and DOT should work collaboratively, as there often are trade-offs between vehicle safety and fuel economy, for example, as new fuel efficient systems emerge. There are obvious tradeoffs between safety and fuel economy in many areas of research such as tire mechanics, braking (especially with respect to hybrid vehicles). Of course, any additional work in aerodynamics or weight reduction might alter the vehicle configuration and therefore its crashworthiness. Moreover, as new fuel efficient systems emerge, such as hybrid electric systems, and vehicles using alternate fuels including, for example, hydrogen, it will be imperative that DOE and DOT work closely to ensure continued progress toward more fuel efficient vehicles but without compromising highway safety. |
The Partnership concurs with this recommendation. Opening up lines of communication between DOE and DOT has been one of the very positive outcomes of the program. It provides a great opportunity to exchange information such that the various areas within the program can be discussed and coordination among DOT and DOE. DOE and DOT will continue to share information and coordinate on various topics such as hydrogen, hybrid electrics, and additional alternative fuels, as they relate to tradeoffs between safety and fuel economy. |
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Responses from the 21st Century Truck Partnership to the Findings and Recommendations from the National Research Council Phase 1 Review." National Research Council. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13288.
×
