|
The 200 new HEV trucks, says the parcel delivery giant, will save 176,000 gallons of fuel and reduce CO2 emissions by 1786 metric tons each year. I haven’t done the math, but I’ll trust UPS when it says that’s like taking almost 100 conventional package vans off the road for a year.
Which raises a tangential point – why am I comfortable writing ‘gallons’ and ‘metric tons’ in the same sentence? Am I wrong in thinking you understand and accept this?
I was around for the great metric switch -- back in the late 1970s, if I remember correctly – and for quite a while I’d write in metric or Imperial with the opposite equivalent in brackets, but that eventually grew tiresome. So for the last 20 years or so I’ve created – like many other Canadians and, indeed, North Americans – a hybrid of my own. A language that combines the two measures.
Fear not, I’m never going to refer to torque in Newton meters.
But getting back to the matter at hand, the 200 UPS hybrid electric vans will hit the road next year, joining 50 others already in use. The 300 CNG vehicles will be added to 800 such trucks in the U.S. fleet now, and will deliver a 20% reduction in emissions compared to the cleanest diesel engines available.
You might want to check all this out, at www.sustainability.ups.com.
BIOFUELS MAY BE GETTING LESS TRACTION these days, especially after a Parliamentary Committee report in the United Kingdom called for an immediate moratorium on the British government’s and the European Union’s biofuel targets (Britain has ordered transport fuel suppliers to deliver 5% of their U.K. road fuel from renewable fuels by 2010).
The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) published its report – ‘Are biofuels sustainable?’ – earlier this year, concluding that:
“Without standards for sustainability and safeguards to protect carbon sinks we believe policies that encourage demand for first-generation biofuels are damaging.
“Although it recognises that some biofuels are sustainable and can be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport, EAC concludes... that the Government and EU should not have pursued targets to increase the use of biofuels in the absence of robust sustainability standards and mechanisms to prevent damaging land-use change.”
The Committee said that without these measures some biofuels could lead to environmental damage in the U.K. and the destruction of environmentally crucial rainforests elsewhere. It urged the government to ensure that biofuels policy balances greenhouse gas cuts with wider environmental impacts.
The EAC report concluded that biofuels are generally an expensive and ineffective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions when compared to other policies. Emissions from road transport can be cut cost-effectively, and with lower environmental risk, by implementing a range of other policies.
I couldn’t agree more, for what it’s worth. I think the EAC is right in arguing that governments should concentrate on the use of sustainable biofuels like waste vegetable oil while investing in the development of more efficient second-generation biofuel technologies.
The British government’s response to the report came early this month, and it looks like they’re not budging from the 5% biofuel target. Not surprisingly, Britain's National Farmers Union applauded that response, calling the report’s conclusions “illogical and ill-informed". But the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, was critical, saying the government directive would do little to combat climate change because it lacked targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Meanwhile, it seems that McDonald’s is successfully using waste cooking oil from 900 of its 1200 restaurants in the U.K. to convert its entire 155-truck distribution fleet to 100% biodiesel. The oil will be combined with rapeseed to produce EN14214 grade biodiesel. The ratio is 85% waste oil and 15% pure rapeseed oil presently, but the intent is to remove the rapeseed component entirely over time.
Testing for the conversion project began in 2006 and was launched last summer. It hasn’t been without its challenges, not least of which was negotiating warranties on the trucks with Volvo and DAF. The fleet is run by Keystone Distribution, incidentally, which found “considerable resistance to the switch” from the two truck makers. In the end, one of those truck makers demanded a warranty premium for using B100 biodiesel but a deal was struck.
Service intervals also had to change, and there are cost increases on that front, but “...compared to the standard price of diesel there are still cost benefits,” says McDonalds.
“We are pleased that reductions in energy efficiency as a result of the move to biodiesel are considerably lower than had been predicted. We had prepared for reductions of between 10 and 15%, but after continuous measuring of the fleet usage, we have found the efficiency reduction to be closer to 3%,” the company says.
It figures the switch will save “in the region of 1675 tonnes [of carbon] annually.” Put another way, it’s like taking 2424 family cars off the road each year. The conversion of all 155 trucks in the McDonald’s fleet will be completed this summer.
ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FRONT, and back on this side of the pond, some thoughts on the potential perils of a road-speed reduction strategy. That’s on everyone’s mind these days, of course, and there are calls for road-speed limiters to be mandated by law – and set at 105 km/h -- in some Canadian provinces and in some corners of the U.S.
I’ll argue vehemently against the idea of a law all day long, though not against the wisdom of slowing down. That’s a no-brainer. Or is it?
Can you just set your trucks at a given speed and be done with it? Absolutely not. You have to think this one through carefully.
Why? Because you run the risk of lowering engine speed to a point where driveability and fuel economy suffer big time. Today's emissions-restricted engines are far more sensitive to rpm than ever before, and they just won't deliver optimum performance or fuel economy if you stray a couple of hundred rpm above or below the so-called "sweet spot". And that spot is lower than it used to be. In fact, there are fleets that spec’d what turned out to be the wrong rear-axle ratio – 3.25 instead of 3.55, for example – with ’07 engines and have actually had to raise road speed to keep the engine at that place on the tach where it’s most efficient.
Consider the following example, calculated with a Mack drivetrain by my colleague Jim Park (other OE drivetrain combinations would yield similar results with similar componentry):
A truck spec'd to run at 70 mph has a 10-speed transmission with an overdrive ratio of 0.74, 11R22.5 tires, and a 3.36 rear end. Running at 70 mph gives us an engine speed of 1425 rpm. Performance is good, as are power, gradeability, and fuel economy.
Now, reduce road speed to 65 mph, and you lower the engine speed to 1323 rpm – well below the engine's sweet spot. Performance and gradeability are marginal because engine speed is too low. Drivers will want to compensate for that by running one gear down, which means fuel economy will suffer. In 9th gear at 1813 rpm, you're way above the point of optimal fuel economy.
Drop road speed back to 60 mph and you get an awful engine speed of just 1221 rpm – dramatically too low, such that top-gear performance will be extremely poor. You'll definitely have to run one gear lower in this case, but the engine speed is 1673 rpm, still well above optimal fuel economy, and your final drive ratio is now less than direct.
"Multi-speed transmissions such as 13- and 18-speeds tend not to be impacted as severely as a 9- or a 10-speed," says Mack's powertrain marketing manager, Dave McKenna. "The top gear step in a 10-speed is 26 to 27%. It's closer to 16% with the multispeed transmissions."
Something to think about.
This newsletter is published every two weeks. It's a heads-up notice about what's going on with trucking technology as well as what you can see at www.todaystrucking.com where you'll find in-detail coverage of nearly everything that's new. Plus interesting products that may not have had the 'air play' they deserved within the last few months. Why not subscribe today?
And while you’re there at www.todaystrucking.com, check out the Decision Centers. They’re essentially libraries on specific subjects like Engines or Braking Systems. We’ve gathered all manner of information from maintenance manuals to research reports – and we’re always finding more – to help you make decisions about spec’ing, operating, and maintaining trucks and truck systems.
If you have comments of whatever sort about Product Watch, or maybe a gizmo I should know about, please contact me at rlockwood@newcom.ca.
|
(May 21, 2008) --
Kenworth adds extended day cab option for C500 vocational model
(May 21, 2008) --
The Set-Back 113 with LNG engine claims fuel and operating cost savings up to $6000
(May 21, 2008) --
GPS unit knows about low bridges, with optional 7-in. screen
(May 21, 2008) --
TrailerTail promises fuel efficiency increase “greater than 5%” but not OK’d in Canada.
