Co-optimization of Heavy-Duty Fuels and Engines: Cost Benefit Analysis and Implications

Longwen Ou, Hao Cai, Hee Je Seong, Douglas E. Longman, Jennifer B. Dunn, John M.E. Storey, Todd J. Toops, Josh A. Pihl, Mary Biddy, Matthew Thornton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Scopus citations

Abstract

Heavy-duty vehicles require expensive aftertreatment systems for control of emissions such as particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) to comply with stringent emission standards. Reduced engine-out emissions could potentially alleviate the emission control burden, and thus bring about reductions in the cost associated with aftertreatment systems, which translates into savings in vehicle ownership. This study evaluates potential reductions in manufacturing and operating costs of redesigned emission aftertreatment systems of line-haul heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) with reduced engine-out emissions brought about by co-optimized fuel and engine technologies. Three emissions reduction cases representing conservative, medium, and optimistic engine-out emission reduction benefits are analyzed, compared to a reference case: the total costs of aftertreatment systems (TCA) of the three cases are reduced to $11,400(1.63 ¢/km), $9,100 (1.30 ¢/km), and $8,800 (1.26 ¢/km), respectively, compared to $12,000 (1.71 ¢/km) for the reference case. The largest potential reductions result from reduced diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) usage due to lower NOx emissions. Downsizing aftertreatment devices is not likely, because the sizes of devices are dependent on not only engine-out emissions, but also other factors such as engine displacement. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the price and usage of DEF have the largest impacts on TCA reduction.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)12904-12913
Number of pages10
JournalEnvironmental Science and Technology
Volume53
Issue number21
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 5 2019

Funding

The research reported in this paper was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), and Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) under the DOE Co-Optimization of Fuels and Engines Initiative. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and direction of Alicia Lindauer at BETO, Kevin Stork at VTO, and the Co-Optima leadership team. This work was supported by U.S. Department of Energy contracts DE-AC02-06CH11357 at Argonne National Laboratory, DEAC36-08GO28308 at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and DE-AC05-00OR22725 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The authors acknowledge helpful inputs on design and development trends of engine technologies and aftertreatment systems from John Wall and Roger Gault of External Advisory Board of Co-Optima, Tim Johnson, and three other anonymous industrial engine and aftertreatment experts. This work was authored in part by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, the manager and operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government.

FundersFunder number
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
DOE Co-Optimization of Fuels
U.S. Department of Energy contracts DE-AC02-06CH11357 at Argonne National LaboratoryDE-AC02-06CH11357, DEAC36-08GO28308
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
National Renewable Energy LaboratoryDE-AC05-00OR22725
Bioenergy Technologies Office

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Co-optimization of Heavy-Duty Fuels and Engines: Cost Benefit Analysis and Implications'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this