Ricardo’s Head of Engine and Emissions Control Products, Phil Hopwood explains why, when it comes to sustainability, the internal combustion engine still has an important role to play.
Ricardo is confident that Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) will continue as a central element within propulsion systems for future road transport. Their position will be maintained via further development focused on sustainability measured on a full life-cycle basis.
ICE based propulsion systems are well established in all road transport sectors due to a strong balance of attributes including low cost, high power density, proven durability, and fuel use flexibility with established fuel networks. These attributes are strengthened by a wide range of electrification options.
Electrification is growly rapidly within the light-duty sector where solutions range from low-voltage mild hybrids, through high-voltage full hybrids to battery and fuel cell electric vehicles. The next generation of light-duty ICE products for dedicated hybrid applications are being designed in line with more sustainable requirements including operation with ‘zero impact’ to air quality for urban operation, operation at high efficiency and suitability for future fuels.
ICEs benefit from being a mature product with a low-cost, high-volume supply base
The combustion system, at the heart of the ICE, has a higher optimisation potential when the operating boundaries can be constrained by the hybrid architecture. Ricardo’s Magma xEV is an example of a high efficiency combustion system designed specifically for series hybrid or range extender ICE applications. The Magma xEV combustion system is designed to achieve up to 50% peak thermal efficiency via a focus on reducing heat losses with ultra-lean combustion ignited by an active pre-chamber and waste-heat recovery.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY CONTENT
Electrification is less established within other transport sectors such as heavy-duty long haul as the attribute requirements continue to favour non-hybrid ICE solutions. Although there is significant development ongoing for fuel cell electric propulsion, the total cost of ownership remains in favour of the well proven ICE even with a price premium for more renewable fuels in comparison to fossil fuels. The next generation of heavy-duty ICE products will deliver increased sustainability via thermal efficiency gains and renewable fuel types. Research in the field of future fuels includes increasing bio content and developing new e-fuels which make use of excess renewable electricity. The most promising e-fuels are those which have the lowest energy cost for production allied to the highest energy and storage densities and most favourable combustion properties. In particular, Ricardo is focusing on synthetic methane (with a manageable transition via natural gas) and green hydrogen from electrolysis and is developing optimised spark-ignited combustion systems for these fuels.
When considering the sustainability of vehicles due to their Green House Gas (GHG) impact, it is critical to compare on a product life-cycle assessment basis to include the contribution from vehicle and fuel production and vehicle disposal as well as the vehicle use phase. There are many studies comparing GHG emissions for different vehicle segments, propulsion system architectures and fuel types. It is instructive to compare when an ICE-based vehicle with higher in-use emissions exceeds the GHG contribution of a battery electric vehicle with higher production emissions. This point of parity will depend on many factors including battery size and embedded carbon factor, ICE efficiency, hybrid architecture, vehicle duty cycle, electricity and fuel carbon intensity and the lifetime mileage. The transport industry already considers the life-cycle impact of its products within corporate strategies but GHG legislation is yet to shift on this basis meaning consumers are not informed on the true impact when comparing products.
ICEs benefit from being a mature product with a low-cost, high-volume supply base. Significant development opportunities still exist to increase sustainability, enabled via electrification, continued technology evolution and the advent of renewable fuels.
To find out how Ricardo expertise in future ICE can be applied to your products, visit: https://automotive.ricardo.com/ or contact us: info@ricardo.com
The key to carbon zero is not digging any more oil out of the ground. Leave the carbon in the ground and it is not in the atmosphere.
ICE technology could be used, but only if it does not use mineral oils.
Surely this focus on the large manufacturing base for oil-fueled ICEs is just another example of how the entrenched players will fight to maintain an industry that is helping cause global warming.
The article makes that point, John, that e-fuels (i.e. hydrocarbon fuels not from fossil sources) are the way forward. Once we are all using li-ion electrified transport and nobody is making engines, people will inevitably squ
The article makes that point, John, that e-fuels (i.e. hydrocarbon fuels not from fossil sources) are the way forward. Once we are all using li-ion electrified transport and nobody is making engines, people will inevitably squeal that lithium is dirty and carbon-intensive. If engines burned synthesised fuels and we could take CO2 out of the atmosphere to make the fuel, wouldn’t that be preferable to using Li-ion batteries? I think so.
No doubt the fight is on and is sustained. Phil, glad about the achievement in better efficiency. ICE is a beautiful creation. It has been modified inside out. It had fuelled many an innovation. Now, it has turned out that this fuel is what the underlying problem of the world. Electric vehicles are just circumventing the fuel and introducing the hidden issues of the battery! Let this revolution go on. But Phil, we have to come out something really fast with alternate fuels. Maybe another innovation is due to bring down the number of components and propel with an altogether different fuel from the Periodic table that does not hurt the mother earth!!
This does look like a last ditch attempt, but if an IC engine can run on H2 then why not? Let’s compare the efficiency of suck-squeeze-bang-blow engines running on H2 with fuel cells powering electric motors. What bothers me is the short life of the Lithium alternative.
With Li your car will be worthless after eight years then they will have to make another one with all the environmental costs that entails.
Hydrogen, I think, is the future. How we burn it remains to be seen.
ICEs based on hydrogen would be much better for the environment than battery power or hybrid engine based ev power. You could have a small reservoir tank that holds enough hydrogen to keep the engine going whilst the main tank has water in it. You have an electrolysis system on board to convert the water into hydrogen. Engines need to be optimised to run on hydrogen more efficiently thereby competing with present diesel engines.
As remarked in the Tuesday poll:
«Gaseous fuels are rated for internal combustion engine performance according to a “methane number” (analogous to octane number for liquid fuels). The scale is 0=hydrogen to 100=methane. So a fuel gas with a methane number of 80 would have the same ‘knock’ performance as a binary mixture 80% methane, 20% hydrogen (and incidentally this is regarded as the maximum hydrogen % for acceptable IC engine performance )»
Until the governments start taxing vehicles on the total lifecycle carbon cost of ownership, we are all running around pointlessly chasing the false goal of low fuel consumption. Without the correct incentives, we are probably fiddling down the wrong road, whilst the world burns. The carbon calculation needs to include leakage to be meaningful. That is battery current leakage, which may come to dominate power grid demand as batteries age, and hydrogen leakage, which is alarmingly difficult to control. There should also be a large landfill tax on any difficult to recycle materials.
To all those crying that lithium is carbon intensive: if we use neutral co2 fuels then lithium extraction becomes carbon neutral as well… You are using circular logic.
It reads like another last ditch ICE bid for a reprieve I am sorry to say
It is essential to consider the total life cycle emmisions and energy costs. Let’s keep an open mind on all options. I am concerned about this aspect with offshore wind to charge the Li batteries. All those gear boxes with melting and heat treating! Plus life only 25 years per site!
There is a role for ICE if and only if it can use a fossil-free fuel (not H2 made using fossil fuel electricity). But just replacing a petrol/diesel engine with an H2 powered ICE would still mean that you need to carry about a gearbox/differential because the torque/power curves require the engine to work within a given rev range for optimal performance. Therefore an H2 ICE should be used as a (big) pony motor charging up a battery (or electrolysing water) so that the final drive is always electric. By electronically managing the motor and with individual drives for each wheel (inboard with drive shafts), both gearbox and differential can be dispensed with, saving a lot of weight and providing a much smoother ride. The car/van/lorry then becomes much simpler to make, the clever stuff is in the science and software and this should cut prices substantially. It’s the way to go I think. For the moment, petrol hybrid is best, pure EV is a battery nightmare as trillions of 18650 batteries will need to be made and ultimately disposed every year. At least hyrid batteries are rather smaller – say 15kW vs 100kW.
What happened to the “two cams and a triangular follower” variable valve timing patent from Ricardo in the 1980’s. This simple but highly stressed design was suposed to revolutionise engine efficiency. Indeed it was so good that they were not interested in looking at other designs for variable valve timing! NIH (not invented here) still holds back progress in even the best companies.
I’m glad to see that finally someone has mentioned “whole of life” energy consumption and pollution produced, because for the planet this is all that matters. Removing pollution from cars by simply moving it elsewhere is not a green solution at all
@ Peter T – I agree, few people ever look at “whole of life” anything, they only look for the short term benefits (for them).
You say “because for the planet this is all that matters”
Sorry, but as much as we like to think ‘we control things’ nothing we do will alter the long term fate of our planet one iota; the planet will just carry on spinning, moving tectonic plates, erupting, heating & cooling, there will be lots of extinctions & new life forms will evolve & die; as has happened for billions of yrs.
In a few million yrs the only trace of humans will be a thin line in the rocks, the planet’s fate is to be consumed by the expanding sun… not determined by arrogant idiots fuelled by caviar & champagne sitting in conferences, we cant even control a simple virus !!!
cue – George Carlin – best philosopher ever !!! (sadly now dead) Crude but absolutely nails it…enjoy – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&feature=emb_title