BETTER ENGINES: Simply improving the efficiency of gas-burning internal combustion engines could help cut greenhouse gas emissions from a growing global car fleet.
Image: ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Projected carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars could remain level at three gigatons through 2050 despite many more personal vehicles on the road with only minor and affordable changes to existing engines, chassis and systems, according to a new report.
The study, unveiled today at the Geneva Motor Show in Switzerland, challenges auto- and policy-makers to push for technology and design changes to existing autos that could double today's average gas mileage of 26 miles per gallon (11 kilometers per liter) in the U.S. to 52 mpg (22 kpl) .
Those modifications include stop–start (idle-off) systems in which the engine shuts down when the car is stopped during driving; low rolling-resistance tires (which are harder and thus less flat, reducing friction); variable valve timing for engines, which increases gas consumption efficiency; and fuel economy computers or displays to encourage eco-driving, such as such as those in the Toyota Prius, which show miles per gallon averages for that moment, hour, week or month, or when riding downhill, so that drivers are more aware of how their driving impacts fuel efficiency.
Among other adjustments that could help double fuel economy are turbocharging with smaller, more efficient engines that produce the same level of power; advanced heat management and cooling systems, which reuse the heat produced in the engine for energy; weight reduction, including broader use of high-strength steel that is already in some cars today; better aerodynamics; more efficient air conditioners, transmissions and lighting devices (including headlights); and increased electrification leading to full hybridization with electric motor and regenerative breaking—all of which currently exist.
"We need to move towards new technology vehicles like EVs," or electric vehicles, says Lew Fulton, a transport energy specialist at the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), which issued the report along with the U.N. Environmental Programme, International Transport Forum (ITF) and the FIA Foundation, an organization based in England that promotes environmental protection, road safety and sustainable mobility as well as funds specialist motor sport safety research. "But we can also can make today's vehicles more efficient, by speeding the uptake of existing technologies. This is relatively low-cost stuff."
The consortium’s call to action is based on IEA's analysis of studies by engineers at Aston University in Birmingham, England, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other organizations, and suggests that by 2050 two gigatons of CO2, six billion barrels of oil and $600 billion in fuel costs could be saved without radical reengineering, or half of what is consumed and emitted by cars in the European Union today.
The initiative strives to trigger action among automakers that are rolling back plans for greener cars amid the economic crisis, particularly in fast-growing emerging markets like the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), a regional bloc that includes Indonesia and the Philippines and purchases as many cars as India today. The plan also proposes incentives like rebates, taxes, testing, labeling, import controls, emissions standards and conditional financing for struggling auto companies to make cars with many elements of niche hybrids like the Prius more mainstream and affordable. Data dissemination and workshops to develop national fuel economy policies with key stakeholders are on the consortium’s agenda, too.
"We already have the technology and the means to get us on the road to making our cars 50 percent more fuel efficient," ITF Secretary General Jack Short said at the press conference releasing the report. "All that is needed are coordinated efforts and actions from both industry and governments."
The world's car fleet is set to triple by 2050 to two billion autos with 80 percent of that growth coming from rapidly industrializing nations like India that currently do not have fuel economy rules (although the fastest growing car market—China—has tougher regulations than the U.S.). Over that time, CO2 output from autos is projected to double to six gigatons if it follows its current path. Cars account for nearly half of all CO2 emissions from transport.
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add CommentThis is a self-serving myth, devoid of hard numbers. It would be nice but foolish to think that a mere tweak or two will allow everyone to keep pigging it up internal-combustion-car-wise, and thus living the American dream. The CO2 rise is already so far down the disaster path that limiting this requires major reductions worldwide, especially among wasteful car drivers, and soon. That can only be addressed with high gas prices and electric vehicles powered by less-polluting tech.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe internal combustion engine is dead and nothing the oil companies can do or say can refute this fact. Get out of the way and let let the new technologies take the lead to our future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this80% of our electricity is generated by burning gas or coal. So we're talking about shifting our CO2 from the tailpipe to smokestack.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr else, maybe you gotta suggestion about powering the grid?
And don't suggest nuclear--the green-weenies won't go for that.
A friend from the States, mailed me your link this morning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I have a say:
Last August, the Londoner Andy Pag made the first trip from London to Athens, with a group of eight other cars, burning only waste cooked oil and waste salad oil collected from restaurants during the trip.
He calls the journey Grease to Greece and he is going to make it again the summer ahead ( http://www.biotruck.co.uk ).
With only vegetable oil in the fuel tank the team of Andy Pag made it to Athens from London, without adding a single gram of CO2 in the air of Europe.
After the first trip, the stronger argument against replacing fossil diesel with vegetable and waste cooked oil in the existing Diesel engines is the shortage of such oils and the cost of the production of great volumes to fill the tanks of the millions of the existing cars, moto, boats, flying machines etc.
With a little modification, little more than turning it up-side-down, the state-of-the-art Diesels can burn oil with improved efficiency, because of mechanical friction, pumping loss, combustion completeness, heat loss, weight, bulk, higher revving, power density etc.
The engine at http://www.pattakon.com/pre/OPRE4.MOV is burning cooked oil and the prototypes are currently proving that 3 (of renewable waste oil) liter per 100 km, for a medium size/weight car is well within reach.
Burning Ethanol is easier and the engine even lighter and really powerful.
There are other ways, too: the engine at http://www.pattakon.com/vvar/OnBoard/A1.MOV makes it peak power at 9000 rpm on the road. The same engine idles at 300 rpm for 3 hours per litter of gasoline.
Yesterday the automakers were too busy making money and too snob to take a look at alternative ways coming for outside.
Manousos Pattakos
I saw this post about <a href="http://www.europe-autos.com/eco-car-hire-helps-fight-climate-change/">eco car hire</a> and thought it was a step in the right direction - by hiring a car only when you really need it you will inevitabley reduce your emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe internal combustion engine's problem is that it is extremely efficient . It's so efficient that no one has found a replacement for it. Where else are you going to find a device that can move a car load of people twenty miles on one gallon of fuel. Or a railroad engine that can move a ton of freight almost 200 miles on one gallon. People have been trying for years to build electric or hydrogen engines that can compete. The problem with those engines continues to be that they are so inefficient that to produce the alternative fuel requires burning more fossil fuel than the alternative fuels produce in power. A solution is still no where in sight despite what the liberal press would like for you to believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real reduction in pollution has been and continues to be making the internal combustion fossil fuel engine more efficient . The technology is here today. I'm glad Scientific American is willing to report the truth.
Why doesn't anybody mention limiting the size of both the car weight and the motor size? Or limiting the size of the car by the needs of the user. I live in Japan where the "K class" cars are very popular. They have a max displacement of 660 cc. I think these cars would serve the transportation needs of a very large segment with a big reduction in the negative factors associated with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommenter: “Why doesn’t anybody mentioned… I live in Japan…”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did it yesterday, by asking you to go and see the size you are talking about.
Take a look at:
http://www.pattakon.com/pre/opre1.htm
It doesn’t take an expert or a skilled in the art to see how lightweight and slim a powerful and fuel-effective engine is, but a skilled-in-the-art can tell all of us about the downsizing these arrangements provide.
If Japan automaker are supposed to be the leaders of the technology, could some skilled-in-the-art engineer tell us the drawbacks of these technologies:
http://www.pattakon.com
as compared to theirs?
Or they are too snob to speak to Scientific America ?
Manousos Pattakos
I am astounded that some people still think the internal combustion engine is the most efficient power engine. It may have tripled its efficiency since its invention. But it is inherently inefficient due to;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, most of the petroleum energy is wasted as heat, and secondly the fuel is never fully converted to energy.
In theory it can never go beyond 30% efficiency, and an automobile is never maintained through out its life for maximum efficiency.
Last but not least, the cars is the greatest cause of world pollutions these days. We can not simply ignore it anymore.
The era of electrical and electronics cars are almost possible now. I believe newest technologies in superconductivity, hightech batteries, nanotech, can help us leapfrog our current problem.
Instead of keeping alive the current class of vehicle manufacturer of today, lets start the equivalent of Worlds Manhattan Project for our near future vehicles. All high tech nations should partipate and unite to comfront in unison this pollution, climate chance, and to phase out this hydrocarborn
economy.
For once, lets learn to trust each other. We got only one Earth.
I am astounded that some people still think the internal combustion engine is the most efficient power engine. It may have tripled its efficiency since its invention. But it is inherently inefficient due to;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, most of the petroleum energy is wasted as heat, and secondly the fuel is never fully converted to energy.
In theory it can never go beyond 30% efficiency, and an automobile is never maintained through out its life for maximum efficiency.
Last but not least, the cars is the greatest cause of world pollutions these days. We can not simply ignore it anymore.
The era of electrical and electronics cars are almost possible now. I believe newest technologies in superconductivity, hightech batteries, nanotech, can help us leapfrog our current problem.
Instead of keeping alive the current class of vehicle manufacturer of today, lets start the equivalent of Worlds Manhattan Project for our near future vehicles. All high tech nations should partipate and unite to comfront in unison this pollution, climate chance, and to phase out this hydrocarborn
economy.
For once, lets learn to trust each other. We got only one Earth.
manousos: I make no claim that the Japanese technology is the top. What I'm saying is the Japanese have been making these 660 cc (originally they were 600 cc) for around 30 years. There are millions in Japan and in other countries and the current versions have been safety verified and easily keep up with city traffic. They are solid little cars. Information is easily available from major Japanese manufacturers. But I support your OPRE engine. I hope it works out to be an efficient addition to man's transportation needs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough I agree with "green and scientific" and most other posts in that we need to get rid of the combustion engine, the fact is, most people in the U.S. and developed nations are not ready to do so. To rid the world of something it depends on so dearly would be to rock the San Andres fault to 10.5. The shift would be catastrophic. The U.S. and other governments have injected billions of dollars into the auto industry not because they think they can save it, but because it will cushion it's phase-out. I like this article in that it moves our green technology a step forward for everybody, including the poor that depend on foreign made, non-ecological products, cheap plastics and older cars that are less than environmentally friendly. The environmental savings are huge for those who would otherwise do nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first step we need to take is fuse the bests of technologies: Diesels and Hybrids. The former is great on the highway and the latter is great in the city. Diesel fuels in the US don't have sulfer anymore and are cutting NOx emissions to nothing, and they already get under .80 lbs-CO2/mile and under .20 with biodiesel. And hybrids have the potential to emit no CO2 around the city for a very long time. Both have instant torque, too. If American car companies want to survive they'll need two things: Nationalized Healthcare and to supply the demand for cleaner, more economical cars by combining the best of technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdonjud:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Or a railroad engine that can move a ton of freight almost 200 miles on one gallon”.
“ The technology is here today. I’m glad Scientific American is willing to report the truth”
Today there exist engines, a few prototypes so far, that copy and scale-down (downsize) these large railroad engines and the even larger marine crosshead engines (those with fuel efficiency over 50%), well suitable for cars, motorcycles, boats, even for flying machines.
Is Scientific American willing to REPORT the truth ?
Without advertisements?
With the risk of losing the ads of the Big Guys, the Big Three … and all the Big Bankrupted beggars for public money?
Manousos
Commender, I myself said that Japan is the leader today because, unless I miss something :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWasnt Mitsubishi (and Toyota) that initiated and patented all this work of GDi (Gasoline Direct Injection) that the others are today proud of & paying royalties ?
Isnt Porsche paying royalties to Toyota for Hybrids ?
Isnt Peugeot paying for Toyotas three-in-line 1 liter new engine ?
Wasnt Hondas VTEC engines for years the best performers ?
And why a 600 cc engine has to be a weak one?
As long as the pistons, rods, and crankshaft can stand 12,000 rpm, we can milk over 90 PS out, at 10k rpm, without loosing anything of the efficiency, fuel economy and driver and environ friendliness you are enjoying.
You may never use the extra power, but it will be there, under your foot, standing by for acceleration and active-protection, without any fuel cost.
The Variable Valve Actuation VVA is supposed to provide better fuel economy and easier and safer driving and more power on demand. Only, to do so it ought be the correct VVA.
For lack of this 600 cc engine here, the Toyotas new 3-in-line 1000cc is going to undergo a head-surgery, (to install a DVVA) and see how much more power with how much better fuel economy and driver friendliness.
Take a look at the videos and tests of the Honda Civic in the site, compare its VVA with the DVVA, see the idling quality and economy.
Manousos
The top manufacturer introduced the terms:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFuel efficiency, well-to-tank,
Vehicle efficiency, tank-to-wheel,
Overall efficiency, well-to-wheel.
And made use of these terms to compare the fuel economy of its Hybrids with the fuel-cells, the plug-in, the Diesel, the spark engine.
In laymans terms, the manufacturer is miss something basic, is screwing-up if not deliberately cheating.
The customer who, under the pressure of global warming, is going to replace their car with a promising Hybrid, or whatever new technology;
Even if the cost of the new car is not an issue for him;
Will have added to the earth green house gas CO2, by the time of the purchasing, all this huge CO2 and energy spending for the manufacturing of the new car.
The question of the layman has always been:
Why a new car, when a little modification, less than a little head-surgery, can revolutionize the performance and the economy and friendliness of my own car ?
Manousos
Regularly, car manufacturers here in France report that they have prototypes that will divide petrol consumption by three. But they are never put on the market. As directors in these firms are also directors of oil companies and road-construction firms, a handful of people effectively have the car market in a stranglehold to keep their personal profits as high as possible. The poor consumer has but one choice : Pay, pay,pay...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are some hard numbers and a reply to the ".. internal combustion engine is [not] the most efficient power engine..." comment. This article didn't claim to be the best answer, just a stopgap until other things are worked out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly, Detroit has dragged its feet on using efficient engines that not only exist, THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE.
Two examples (hard numbers) that I have experienced personally.
1. I owned a 1986 Honda Civic CRX/HF. The HF stands for high fuel economy. It got OVER 50 mpg on the road - it had a 1400cc engine and mpg savers like real light wheels and narrow tires that carried high pressure.
2. I observed the introduction to the first Ford Focus in Germany quite a few years back. It had a 1500 cc engine and had plenty of power to go 110 mph (that's NOT kph) on the autobaun. Came back to the states and waited to buy one for 3 years - when it finally arrived it was ONLY available with a 2400 cc engine. Who the hell really needs that much bigger engine except the greedy American car companies? And ALL the American companies are guilty of the same, while SCREAMING that they can't possibly adhere to the proposed mpg standards.
My conclusion, and agreement with this article, is:
Short term it is not only doable to tune up what we already have - it has been proven in the past by the Japanese here in this country and by Ford (and others) in Europe.
I think EVERYONE is missing WHY we drive...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican cities are laid out by drunken monkeys. I live in a town of <30,000 people where a simple trip to the grocery store is 15-25 miles, round-trip for 3/4 of the population.
Pre-superwalmart, it was 3 blocks... walking distance for several hundred people and less than 1 mile for 9,000 people.
90% of our office space is on the far side of the adjacent town... and 100% of those jobs are "9-5"... and could be done from about ANYWHERE... yet their employers require they drive every day.
I feel the BIGGEST CO2 savings could be realized by REQUIRING all employers to have telecommuting plans.
Allowing workers to work from home would save millions of sq. ft of office space per city from having to be heated or cooled...
Finally ARCHAIC ZONING... many cities require lots of >9,000 SF and require homes built to be of a certain size. (Our city is no less than 2,000 SF...). The result is hundreds of single people living in huge homes with huge yards designed for families of 3-4... with our only other option being run-down low-income, cramped section 8 apartments.
Because of this, I need 40,000 gallons of water PER MONTH to be pumped over 10 miles. (Because our city zoning essentially forces one to maintain grass... because you can be fined for it being too dead, too weedy or too tall).
Of-course... this also requires a large lawn mower, gas trimmer and other gas-powered tools to maintain.
So - there's a lot of other ways we could improve things besides just pick on the car makers....
I think we could "encourage" more efficient vehicles with a $2,000 a year "waste tax" on hummers and suburbans... instead of the current single-time guzzler tax.
Just my $.02 worth...
There are certainly an abundance of conspiracy theorists and those who believe that automotive engineers are a bunch of idiots whose biggest crime is not to read Scientific American and get all their innovations from the discussion boards. "Run the car on water? Why didn't I think of that?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd when these same idiots try to apply a bit of science to the subject and recommend fuel cells or hydrogen or electric, there is a host of naysayers willing to cackle incessently about how it can't be done, it's too dangerous, nobody will pay for it and that it's all a con. I tell you, being a scientist or engineer in this industry is a thankless job. Unless you're Japanese, then you've already got all the answers and you're years ahead of the rest of the universe and have cars capable of running on positive thought and pixie poo.
I have to agree with Pokester... reducing polution from transportation is not just about changing the technology it also needs to be about changing the way society thinks and acts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe reducing polution needs to be approached from our educational system, government policies and taxes. Simply puting the ownus on the car companies will achieve little or nothing. Everyone needs to take responsibility and the only way to achieve that is put more emphasis on changing the way we think and act.
Things like city planning, educational planning, transportation planning and government funded deceminiation of information about the why's and the how's would go much further than simply improving the efficiency of our cars.
... food for thought!
Is Sciam subsidized by big oil and coal. Every article on energy by sciam is an attack on new technologies and how they can't possibly work (despite the fact that in reality, the new technologies are being used successfully, now, on larger and larger scales). Gas and diesel engines are not the answer. We must retool and build electric, hybrid, and other engines now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismanousos: You are mistaken in your history of the direct-inject engine. Mitsubishi finally came out with one in 1996 and it was Volvo, Peugeot, and Hyundai that used that specific engine design. The first car to use Direct-Injecting was the Mercades 300 of the mid-50's, then VW/Porsche followed suit. Frankly, the highests standards for safety, handling, and performance are set by Germany. The Japanese car companies should be nodded for their standards and technology in emissions, but no market has a complete upper-hand as far as the perfect vehicle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo we really need cars at all? I was born in 1948 and lived in Plymouth which the german airforce bombed flat during the blitz. The town was replanned in the form of outlying suburbs whereas the old town had dense housing around the commercial city centre. The suburbs had small local shops but also regular mobile stores (lorries) from which you could buy anything. Factories were built in the heart of the suburbs, so you could walk or cycle to work. If you did need to go to the City Center there was a good regular bus service.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobody had cars because nobody needed them. And everybody was happy! Of course we can do it again...
Pokester, I might add that the USA is a very large country (population 308m), about twice the area of the entire European Union (population 500m): Japan, 125 million people in less than 1/10 the area (477,000 square miles) of the US (3.8 million square miles). Plus the GDP of the USA equates to about 1/5 (or 1/4?) of the World Domestic Product. And we consume about 1/5 (or 1/4?) of the world's energy? That sounds about right, in a certain sense. Regarding transportation, with a population density of only about 1/4 to 1/5 of Japan and the EU, it should be insanely obvious that it's not nearly so easy (or cheap!) to replace or even supplement existing infrastructure with something besides cars and trucks. Also consider that just one interstate corridor, I-95, carries 75,000-300,000 cars and trucks every day over its 1900+ miles, and about 99.9% of those (and all other) autos are still powered by fossil-fuel-tuned, internal-combustion engines, and which are still being cranked out of Detroit (and Japan) at a rate of hundreds per day. And all of that should also suggest the sheer enormity of our current state of affairs, and like it or not, we're gonna be stuck with automobiles as our primary transportation for many years to come. Thus, what choice do we have but to do the best with can, today, with what we've got? Good article. We need to be constantly thinking about what we can do to make these millions of cast-iron beasts (metaphorically speaking) as eco-friendly as possible, as long as we're still stuck with them. Ditto for the rest of the industrialized world. Btw, if my figures are a little off, humble apologies, but I'm confident that the general point is valid and appropriate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing a passionate lover of trains (e.g. Europe), I truly believe the USA has wasted a lot of time over the past 40 years, in not keeping up and expanding a nationwide rail network. We are WAY behind the curve here. We don't even know how to do trains or other mass-transit systems, not as engineers or as consumers. It's high time that we learn, adapt, and preserve the environment and the future of this otherwise amazing country, and this fantastically beautiful world, before it's too late. Meanwhile we keep trying to make something better out of what we have, not because we have some kind of crazy-irresistable love affair with a pollution-belching tailpipe, but again because we're stuck with it for some undefined period of time.
My previous comment evolved into a "shotgun" response to several posts and posters, just for consideration within the very agreeable premise that the internal combustion engine should NOT be our future. But it is unfortunately our present, to the extent that it will take many years and trillions of dollars to replace. For that reason alone, new-fuel and efficiency developments are absolutely critical considering our present state of affairs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this