Internal Combustion Engine has a future?

[ERD50]

Who'da thunk it?

Conventional (popular?) wisdom says the ICE is on its way out, to be replaced by the electric motor and batteries for our vehicles. And the electric motor sure has some attractive features: simplicity (basically one moving part), efficiency in converting battery power to motive power (but there's a catch there), quiet, the torque curve of the electric motor provides great acceleration without the need for a transmission in most cases, and no “tailpipe emissions” (but there's a catch there, too).

OK, range and cost of battery pack are issues for the EV, but those are improving.

Compared to a modern ICE, with all it's moving parts, fluids for lubrication and cooling system, electric system required to run and start, catalytic converters, spark ignition system, variable valve timing, turbocharger, air cleaners, fuel injectors, sensors everywhere feeding a computer to maintain this delicate balance, etc. Wow, what a mess! I'm actually amazed every time I think about this controlled combustion process, rolling along at ~ 2,000 RPM as we cruise down the highway - it almost seems impossible!

And yet, the modern ICE is extremely reliable. Oil changes are an annual thing for many people, and by that time you probably want to take it in to get the tires rotated, the same as an EV. Spark plugs and many other old-time maintenance components are good for 100,000 miles. Seems we rarely ever have an actual engine/drive-train problem. Our auto problems are far more likely to be in one of the other many systems in our cars, which are common to an EV anyhow.

Despite this complexity, using hybrid technology, we get some very good gas mileage w/o range concerns and less of a cost issue with the much smaller battery pack (just enough to absorb and utilize braking energy). But this is just a stop-gap to full EVs? It would seem so, but...

The engineers and material scientists are not not done improving the ICE. One advance that has been understood for a while, but beyond being ready for “prime time”, is the HCCI mode. But it may hit the road in 2 years. In simple terms HCCI is a gasoline powered ICE that combines the efficiency of a diesel engine, and is cleaner than a gasoline engine. HCCI is kind of a hybrid of gasoline spark ignition and diesel compression ignition, but it is neither.

See this video for more detail, but I think that getting another boost in efficiency, with simpler/lower emissions means the ICE will be around for a long time.

Engineering Explained : Mazda Creates The Holy Grail Of Gasoline Engines - HCCI SkyActiv-X

https://goo.gl/sYT4UG

But what about the efficiency and emissions of an EV? Sure, an EV is efficient in getting battery power to the wheels, but that battery is charged from the grid. And to produce the extra kWh to charge EVs, most grids will need to draw on their fossil fuel plants (the renewable energy is already fully utilized, as its 'fuel' is 'free') for that energy. And power plants use turbines for their simplicity and low maintenance - but turbines aren't as efficient as diesel/HCCI engines. And there are losses in the grid and charging process. So more fossil fuel will be burned doing all this electrical conversion, than will be burned in a high efficiency HCCI-hybrid.

So yes, I expect the ICE to be a part of our future for a very long time. You just can't get these efficiency improvements from EVs, as they are already, by their nature, very efficient. The ICE keeps moving the goalposts forward, and I think material advances will give some incremental improvements as well.

Surprised? Thoughts?

-ERD50

 

[GrayHare]

Batteries are the Achilles' heel of EVs. Until battery tech improves we'll need ICEs around because the known supply of battery minerals is limited and insufficient to convert all ICEs to EVs.

 

[ERD50]

Except a better battery doesn't change that efficiency and emissions issue.

Efficiency is already very good in present batteries, so there isn't much room/need for improvement. It's getting the power to them that is the overall issue.

Better/cheaper batteries will make EVs more affordable and more practical for many. But these ICE advances mean that these new hybrids will use less energy than an EV, and likely lower emissions, overall.

Isn't that what we want? We should remain technology agnostic, and let the best solution prevail, regardless if it is old (like the wheel!), or 'modern'.

-ERD50

 

[euro]

Batteries are the Achilles' heel of EVs. Until battery tech improves we'll need ICEs around because the known supply of battery minerals is limited and insufficient to convert all ICEs to EVs.

I'm thinking so too - despite the remarkable pace of EV development, ICEs will be with us for quite some time

 

[NW-Bound]

... So yes, I expect the ICE to be a part of our future for a very long time...

+1

There will always be applications where ICEs are needed. Can anyone imagine the Army EV tanks needing a charge in the middle of a battle? Or an industrial vehicle gets stranded in Alaska because its charging cable cannot reach a charging station 500 miles away?

The question is how soon the individual passenger vehicles are converted to EV. It will be interesting to see. Yes, as GrayHare pointed out, we are still waiting for the battery technology to catch up to produce cheap batteries.

When that happens, people will be doing street drag racing all over town with the "incredulous" or "stupendous" acceleration mode or something like that. Will need laws to slow them down.

The ICE keeps moving the goalposts forward, and I think material advances will give some incremental improvements as well.

My "superior memory" reminded me of an article I saw recently about ICE R&D. I searched and found it here.

Continental, which makes regulators for exhaust gas cleaning systems in diesel cars and nitrogen oxide-measuring sensors, expects German carmakers to abandon efforts to develop combustion engines from about 2023.

"A new generation of combustion engines will again be developed but after that (around 2023), a further development will no longer be economically justifiable because more and more work will switch into electric mobility," finance chief Wolfgang Schaefer said on Thursday.
​

See: http://europe.autonews.com/article/...ill-stop-developing-combustion-engines-in-six

 

[Mdlerth]

Plenty of miles left in Ol' Reliable

I can think of at least three reasons why ICEs have a long life ahead of them:

1. Momentum... and I don't mean mass*velocity. The existing technology performs its function; users understand it; and there are trillions of dollars of infrastructure supporting it. A competing technology would need to offer a compelling financial and utility advantage to overcome these barriers. (When Elon Musk delivers a Star Trek transporter, let me know.)
2. There is plenty of 2nd Law efficiency left to be wrung out. If you are interested in one such method, consult the proceedings of the 1993 Annual Fall Technical Conference of the ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division.
3. They sound really, really cool. Vroom!

 

[ERD50]

+1

There will always be applications where ICEs are needed. Can anyone imagine the Army EV tanks needing a charge in the middle of a battle? Or an industrial vehicle gets stranded in Alaska because its charging cable cannot reach a charging station 500 miles away? ...

True, I was really thinking (but didn't say it) about passenger cars first, where many people expect the ICE to be a relic.

... My "superior memory" reminded me of an article I saw recently about ICE R&D. I searched and found it here.

Continental, which makes regulators for exhaust gas cleaning systems in diesel cars and nitrogen oxide-measuring sensors, expects German carmakers to abandon efforts to develop combustion engines from about 2023.

"A new generation of combustion engines will again be developed but after that (around 2023), a further development will no longer be economically justifiable because more and more work will switch into electric mobility," finance chief Wolfgang Schaefer said on Thursday.
​

See: http://europe.autonews.com/article/...ill-stop-developing-combustion-engines-in-six

Interesting - but apparently the Japanese don't agree. They are the ones doing work on HCCI and free-piston engines and maybe some others. There's also the Achates engine (out of USA), where two pistons share a combustion chamber for reduced heat loss - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achates_Power

and the FreeValve engine, out of Sweden -

Some of these technologies might be able to be combined, for some further incremental improvements (no, we won't get 30% improvements summed from 4 different advances!).

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Here's an older video (2013) of the Freevalve design, near the end he says something I had not heard of:

This could be modified and an air tank added. When braking, the valves could be arranged to pump up the tank, absorbing the energy. The stored energy could be used later, driving a cylinder as an air engine.

Storing air has its problems, during storage it loses the heat it gained from compression. But for short term use, maybe this isn't an issue? But no added electric motor and battery. Hmmm....

-ERD50

 

[38Chevy454]

To paraphrase poorly "they will have to pry my ICE from my cold dead hands"

Basic physics is behind the energy. It does not matter the source of that energy, it takes some defined amount to go from point A to point B. Right now the best solution is ICE technologies. Of course the Tesla fanboys and others will be on here shortly to say why the electric car is the solution to transportation issues

 

[nativenewenglander]

I see a hybrid type of car a the only workable solution over the next few decades. Should the Mazda engine tech gain speed along with improved battery technology it's will be a win win. Humans will come up with solutions when they need too.

 

[ERD50]

...

Basic physics is behind the energy. It does not matter the source of that energy, it takes some defined amount to go from point A to point B. Right now the best solution is ICE technologies. ...

Yes. I might post this question on another, more technical forum, but I wonder why an ICE piston engine is able to be more efficient than a turbine engine?

The power plants use a turbine because they can make them very big and very maintenance free. A mega-horsepower piston engine just can't compete with a turbine when you have to run long hours. I just saw some figures for gas turbines, they talk about inspections (not repairs, not maintenance, inspections) at XX,000 hours!

Obviously, big turbine operators want fuel efficiency too. I guess it just isn't practical to keep increasing the size of those blades to capture the lower energy density as the gasses cool.

There's the co-gen plants, but there seems to be limited opportunity to use the waste heat, especially as most turbines are used to do some peaking, so the heat output isn't a constant.

It really does seem counter-intuitive that a piston engine can remain competitive in cars and trucks, but that seems to be the case. And as I mentioned, I expect material advances (ceramics?) to keep making incremental improvements.

And here in the cold climates, we get the heating in our car for 'free'! Hmm, I guess a car could use an absorption chiller to turn the waste heat into 'cool' in the summer (commonly used in RVs to power a fridge with propane). But those aren't efficient, so probably need to be big for a car A/C, and we'd have to wait for the engine to warm up before we could start cooling - not good with a car parked in the sun on a hot day!

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

One thing that makes modern (post 1990) ICE's in automobiles a popular choice for consumers is their durability in the face of ignored maintenance. Unless you run it out of oil or coolant, it will continue to run with vacuum leaks, excessive blow by, inoperative EGR valves, leaking exhaust piping, worn motor mounts, oxygen sensor failure, etc, etc.

 

[Spock]

tick tock..
"Britain will ban sales of new gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040 as part of a bid to clean up the country's air."

Logic, technology, and reason as to the longevity of ICE does not apply when legislation can be invoked.

Britain bans gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040 - Jul. 26, 2017

 

[aja8888]

tick tock..
Britain bans gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040 - Jul. 26, 2017

How about summarizing this for us rather than posting a link?

 

[Spock]

How about summarizing this for us rather than posting a link?

Head line in the link looks pretty self-explanatory

 

[aja8888]

Head line in the link looks pretty self-explanatory

Naked links are discouraged here without a summary paragraph by the poster, especially from newer members.

 

[Walt34]

Head line in the link looks pretty self-explanatory

Perhaps, in this case but that is by far the exception. Nonetheless, from the CR's, a link is at the bottom of every page:

Posting standards: Forum members may use standard fonts available on the forum. The standard font size is 2. The use of bold, large or colored fonts should be used sparingly. Posts containing inappropriate formatting will be removed or modified at our discretion; e.g. all caps or excessive color. E-mail addresses, url's and business names are not appropriate forum user names. Please do not post “naked” links, defined as links posted without explanation, interpretation or context.

 

[Huston55]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought the recent Economist article on the "Death of the ICE" was what prompted it. But, even though it was HCCI, the discussion points are pretty much the same.

1. As a class, electric & hybrid vehicles emit ~50% less CO2 equivalent than ICE vehicles in the US (US States vary, as do other countries, based on electric grid fuel source) but, the pattern holds. So, it's beneficial to convert from the current ICE model.

2. Virtually all of the emissions reduction is at the driving end from more MPG. IOW, it's not because batteries are the primary vehicle motive force versus gasoline or diesel. [Note: This is because most of our electricity comes from CO2 emitting fossil fuels (electricity production is the leading CO2 emissions source in the US, slightly ahead of transportion) and, because the energy losses incurred to produce electricity are amazingly only marginally smaller than the tremendous losses from using fossil fuel for transportation.

3. New & improved infrastructure (as noted by an earlier poster) is key to the conversion. Improvements are required primarily in two areas: (1) the support of all-electric & hybrid vehicles with quick-charging stations, etc. and, (2) dramatic efficiency improvements in the production & transmission of electricity.

4. Lastly but, perhaps most interestingly, is the possibility (probability?) that the entire "individual driver/vehicle" model will give way to a "ride sharing & driverless car" model; see Economist article excerpt below. Now that would be a game changer.

Assuming, of course, that people want to own cars at all. Electric propulsion, along with ride-hailing and self-driving technology, could mean that ownership is largely replaced by “transport as a service”, in which fleets of cars offer rides on demand. On the most extreme estimates, that could shrink the industry by as much as 90%. Lots of shared, self-driving electric cars would let cities replace car parks (up to 24% of the area in some places) with new housing, and let people commute from far away as they sleep—suburbanisation in reverse.

 

[samclem]

Interesting topic, thanks.

HCCI is kind of a hybrid of gasoline spark ignition and diesel compression ignition, but it is neither.

My Dad had one of those engines in his 1975 Mustang II: Turn off the conventional spark ignition and it would keep running as a diesel.

And there are losses in the grid and charging process. So more fossil fuel will be burned doing all this electrical conversion, than will be burned in a high efficiency HCCI-hybrid.

To be apples-to-apples, we'd also need to include the losses in our present petroleum distribution system that allows the ubiquitous IC engines we enjoy. I've never seen a number comparing electrical grid/charging losses to losses from production, storage, transportation, pumping, evaporation, etc of our retail liquid fuels (though I'm sure someone has done the calculation).

 

[Bamaman]

I can see where a family will have a city electric car and a road car/SUV that is gas powered or hybrid.

We have a Ford Explorer road vehicle that gets 25 mpg on the open road. My new 2018 Camry hybrid will be built next week and they're looking to get EPA 52 mpg--48 mpg real world. The gas version Camry has greatly improved economy with an all new 2.4 engine of 39 mpg EPA. I know the.payback on the hybrid will be nonexistent at $2 gasoline, but it will be.a source of conversation.

Toyota engines have new technology with direct injection, new head/valves that swirl the.charge and a 40% heat usage which is substantially more efficient than any other engine on the market. They are doing away with the Atkinson Cycle on new hybrid designs. The new tranny is a conventional 8 speed and CVT on hybrids. The competition is going to.1.5/turbo and CVT trannys on future vehicles. Toyota is making a big bet on their technology.

 

[ERD50]

Interesting topic, thanks.
My Dad had one of those engines in his 1975 Mustang II: Turn off the conventional spark ignition and it would keep running as a diesel. ...

Hah, I had one of those too! But more seriously, it is a challenging thing to maintain HCCI combustion. What Mazda has done is kept spark ignition, and use HCCI when the conditions permit, and use valve timing to control effective compression ratio, and probably a bunch more stuff. It's complicated, but I've learned that when complicated stuff is done over and over again, it becomes routine.

... To be apples-to-apples, we'd also need to include the losses in our present petroleum distribution system that allows the ubiquitous IC engines we enjoy. I've never seen a number comparing electrical grid/charging losses to losses from production, storage, transportation, pumping, evaporation, etc of our retail liquid fuels (though I'm sure someone has done the calculation).

True. It gets complicated and there seems to be a lot of biased/conflicting info out there. I'll dig it up later, but I think the chart I posted a while back from the NAS covers these issues.

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought the recent Economist article on the "Death of the ICE" was what prompted it. But, even though it was HCCI, the discussion points are pretty much the same.

1. As a class, electric & hybrid vehicles emit ~50% less CO2 equivalent than ICE vehicles in the US (US States vary, as do other countries, based on electric grid fuel source) but, the pattern holds. So, it's beneficial to convert from the current ICE model.
....

This is the myth that a few of us have been working to bust. No, the average 'green-ness' of an EV really doesn't depend upon the electric grid fuel source. The fact is, it is the marginal electrical production that matters. Just like with a financial calculation, your average tax rate doesn't matter to additional marginal income, only the marginal tax rate matters.

So if you are on a grid that is, say 40% renewable (a very high number for the US), well, almost all of that renewable energy is consumed, as the 'fuel' (wind/solar) is 'free'. So when 10,000 people come home and charge their EVs, the grid has to supply that additional marginal power. And if the wind/solar is already being used, then they fire up their fossil fuel plants. The power can't come from anywhere else. Evs are running on (mostly) fossil fuel.

There are occasional bursts of excess wind at night, so that helps. But they are not consistent enough to offset it much on average.

But the ICE just keeps gaining in efficiency with it's use of fossil fuels.

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

I see a hybrid type of car a the only workable solution over the next few decades. Should the Mazda engine tech gain speed along with improved battery technology it's will be a win win. Humans will come up with solutions when they need too.

In fact if you read the details of the releases Hybrids are included as non ICE cars. It is really the car that has only an ICE that will fade away. Now what IMHO is needed is a car that unlike the volt does not connect the engine to the wheels directly, but rather the engine runs at a constant speed hooked only to a generator. This of course kills the transmission and differential off completely. It is sort of like taking a portable generator along on a bolt (probably on a trailer), but integrated. BTW I read that the volt does require that the engine run at least once a month.

 

[samclem]

What Mazda has done is kept spark ignition, and use HCCI when the conditions permit, and use valve timing to control effective compression ratio, and probably a bunch more stuff.

Off topic: Mazda is an interesting beast. They've done some tremendously dogged, and money-losing, engineering work for more than four decades to improve the Wankel engine. Today, it is the best small engine in the world by some measures. No, it's still not as fuel as piston engines, but it bests any piston engine in smoothness and HP to weight (which is why it was basically banned from most racing use by the various governing bodies). Continually refining that engine has been a big money loser for Mazda, but they won't let it go, and the managers of the company, many with engineering backgrounds, are willing to keep funding the project despite the red ink.

BTW (somewhat more on topic), Mazda developed a tiny Wankel for use as a range extender for primarily-electric cars. Small size and weight, high output, and it will happily and quietly hum along at 6K for hours (which reduces gearing demands for the associated generator). It's a good fit for occasional use. There's also a LOT of energy in the typical Wankel exhaust (no exhaust valves to slow it down, the exhaust flow is hot and fast). This high-energy exhaust is a reason the Wankel isn't as fuel efficient as a piston engine, but it also makes them fantastic candidates for turbocharging, or turbo-compounding. And in this application, the turbo can just drive a generator and make more juice for the electric car.

Here's an article from a few years ago that mentions the little Wankel range extender (as well as their HCCI work).

 

[ERD50]

In fact if you read the details of the releases Hybrids are included as non ICE cars. It is really the car that has only an ICE that will fade away. Now what IMHO is needed is a car that unlike the volt does not connect the engine to the wheels directly, but rather the engine runs at a constant speed hooked only to a generator. This of course kills the transmission and differential off completely. It is sort of like taking a portable generator along on a bolt (probably on a trailer), but integrated. BTW I read that the volt does require that the engine run at least once a month.

Yes, Volvo recently released some very twisty worded PR that made it sound like they were going all electric, but it really said that new models introduced after 20XX would include some form of electric propulsion (IOW, hybrids - not really big news).

Hybrid makes sense (if you drive enough miles to justify the extra cost, or embodied energy - and we personally don't), because they can recoup energy from braking, and smooth the response form the ICE.

Like you, I thought a pure series hybrid was the way to go ("engine runs at a constant speed hooked only to a generator"). But there is a catch to that. There is an efficiency loss to generate the electricity and turn around and use it to run a motor. So it does make sense to also provide a way for that ICE to drive the wheels directly - a transmission has lower loss than the mechanical>electrical>mechanical chain.

I'll dig it up later, but the 'engineering explained' guy has a video on a plug-in hybrid (2018 Honda Accord, IIRC), that runs full EV mode, then starts the engine as a generator/range extender (like the Chevy Volt), and also connects the engine directly to the driveshaft (automatic clutch only - no transmission), but only has the ICE direct at ~ 30 mph and above, and uses the electric motor for acceleration. So that range is limited enough to get by with a single speed.

So many clever ways to approach this, and I doubt they've found the optimum yet.

-ERD50

 

[Huston55]

To be apples-to-apples, we'd also need to include the losses in our present petroleum distribution system that allows the ubiquitous IC engines we enjoy. I've never seen a number comparing electrical grid/charging losses to losses from production, storage, transportation, pumping, evaporation, etc of our retail liquid fuels (though I'm sure someone has done the calculation).

The attached chart, published annually, depicts what you're describing. Per my earlier post, losses in electricity production (66%) are in the same neighborhood as those for transportation (79%). Thus, my comment that the significant improvements for now are at the "user end" or, MPG for vehicles.

This is the myth that a few of us have been working to bust. No, the average 'green-ness' of an EV really doesn't depend upon the electric grid fuel source. The fact is, it is the marginal electrical production that matters. Just like with a financial calculation, your average tax rate doesn't matter to additional marginal income, only the marginal tax rate matters.

So if you are on a grid that is, say 40% renewable (a very high number for the US), well, almost all of that renewable energy is consumed, as the 'fuel' (wind/solar) is 'free'. So when 10,000 people come home and charge their EVs, the grid has to supply that additional marginal power. And if the wind/solar is already being used, then they fire up their fossil fuel plants. The power can't come from anywhere else. Evs are running on (mostly) fossil fuel.

There are occasional bursts of excess wind at night, so that helps. But they are not consistent enough to offset it much on average.

But the ICE just keeps gaining in efficiency with it's use of fossil fuels.

-ERD50

What's the basis of this claim regarding timing of EV charging? It sounds very much like motivated reasoning to me.

The best proxy for the 'clean-ness' of EV fuel is the overall 'clean-ness' of grid electricity where the EV user charges (typically by State). And, the most informative analysis is of future use, not present use, which would bring grid energy used by EVs even more in line with total grid 'clean-ness.' Here's a link for the US, with State by State comparisons.

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

BTW, I'm not an EV driver or advocate (I drive a good old ICE vehicle; one of the most power-dense ones made). I'm just describing the data & my thoughts regarding it.