Following recent announcements from the UK Government and EU to introduce ‘net- zero’ mandates by 2035, issues have raised over the impact of medium to long-term investments in Internal Combustion Engine Technology (ICET).
Such issues are evident in light of the recent response made by Sigrid de Vries, Secretary General of the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA):
‘We take note of the decision which confirms in principle the de facto ban on the internal combustion engine as of 2035, but does not fully close the door to considering emission reduction using renewable fuels."
In order to make sense of this ambiguous issue, Automotive Magazine spoke to John German from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) for a deeper insight into the future of ICET and LVICI.
Current Implications of ‘NET-ZERO’ on ICET
J.German purports that manufacturers are resistant to investing in ‘conventional ICET’s’ as a consequence of shifting major investments into electrical vehicle development. The extent to which manufacturers are unwilling to invest in ‘conventional vehicles’ has significantly hindered advancing ICET and LVICI.
At current levels, leading up to 2035, J. German forecasts innovations in ICET’s will achieve significant C02 reductions. He stipulates that during this decade companies would see greater ICET reductions than EVB technology. However, in terms of long- term CO2 reductions to ‘net-zero’- within a decade- ICET reductions are expected to ‘hit a wall’.
After which, the shift to electric vehicles, of which he includes ‘fuel-cell’ vehicles, should transition ‘in the long run’. But in the meantime, indicates a reliance on producing hybrid models to meet ‘major increases in the efficiency requirements.’
‘Do we install some of this ICE technology, or do we actually push to that kind of level that quickly?’.
To comply with the ‘performance level targets’ of ‘net-zero’, fuel consumption standards and CAFÉ standards- assuming ‘100% electric by 2035’- raises concerns for J.German over risks of ‘indirect emissions from the upstream emissions’. Such is likely to occur he claims from the ‘ramp up required in materials’ to manufacture the electric vehicles.
To minimise costs, agencies ‘need to give manufactures flexibility to select’ to incentivise developing their own technology. This, he indicates, will provide ‘high improvement’ in ICET’s, despite failing to reach ‘net-zero’ by 2035.
Nonetheless, he insists, it will ‘get close enough’, to reasonably ‘allow you to sell some ICE vehicles with electric vehicles’.
Innovations in ICET for Hybrid?
Recent breakthroughs in ICET development indicate opportunities to further optimise ‘performance’ and ‘environmental’ efficiency, as J.Gordan details.
Commensurate with higher compression and lower bore-stroke ratios on the pistons and crankshaft: increasing cooled exhaust gas, alongside developing variable geometry turbochargers, with electricity-assisted turbochargers, advanced cylinder activation and electrical accessories. All may collectively prove beneficial in developing ‘mild hybrid systems.’
As outlined by Roush’s recent report, using pilot fuel injections, as done with diesel, can significantly improve levels of cooled exhaust gas circulation and combustion stability, resulting in up to 10% improvement in efficiency. With high-energy ignition systems, a potential further improvement of up to 10% efficiency; although he suggests is synergistic from the pilot injections.
Toyota recently incorporated high compression radio engines with cooled exhaust gas recirculation, and Mazda with cylinder deactivation. Encouraging signs, as J.German hints at a necessary technological innovation: ‘Nobody’s done both. It’s the combination of the technologies that hasn’t happened yet.’
Comparing efficiency levels in standard ICE engines, currently around 35%, with a potential increase up to 45% (almost a third), the inherent limit to its maximum emissions reduction (in a 35-45% range) compared to fuel-cells (at least 60%), he forecasts, may render ICE as ‘not a long-term solution’.
Outlook on ICET Innovation?
‘What manufacturers are saying publicly is an attempt to say don’t make us do anything on ICE’.
Despite not achieving ‘net-zero’, innovations in both ‘conventional’ and ‘mild hybrid’ ICET’s can nonetheless prove significant reductions in CO2 emissions by over 30%; equating to 40% efficiency improvement in mpg.
Without factoring in potential future innovations, this only suggests the development available within current technologies.
Recent innovations in ICET’s are only ‘pieces’, not yet ‘adapted (...) at the same time’. These are however, he declares, ‘readily available and in production’, requiring investments to meet necessary ICET design and tooling costs.
What occurs ‘behind the scenes’ of manufacturing leads J.German to speculate: ‘Are they preparing for standards in Europe, are they as a backstop in case electric vehicles do not come across as rapidly as anticipated? Or do they prepare a backstop to comply?’.
As for the future of ICET innovation, De Vries encapsulates the potential ‘hybrid’ solution:
‘We have long argued in favour of a technology open approach, with a smart and sensible technology mix of electric vehicles and a measured use of alternative solutions involving advanced internal combustion engine technology’.
Comments