If you visit this website, you probably know more about motor vehicle powertrains than most people, but unless you’re actively involved in their development, it’s also likely you know only a small portion of what’s going on in the high speed push to go green. It’s fascinating, but at the same time, far more complex than many believe and certainly beyond the comprehension of the politicians and bureaucrats making rules and regulations that affect what manufacturers are working on and planning to sell.
Lucky for us, there’s a book
You may not follow Formula One auto racing, I don’t know any of the current drivers myself, but the technology in the cars is almost beyond belief and it’s changing at lightning speed in order to make the racing series more “sustainable” and “green” however you define those terms, and much of what they are doing is developing the same technology auto manufacturers are working on for the vehicles we’ll be driving in coming years.
While reading the latest issue of Racecar Engineering, a very interesting magazine that covers exactly what the title says, I noticed a book, Racing Toward Zero: The Untold Story of Driving Green, but it’s not about racecars, it’s about our everyday vehicles and after a little investigation, I ordered it. I’ve spent much of the last week working my way through it and, long story short, buy this book. It’s excellent.
Be ready to learn a lot
It took very little time for me to have the first of many “I didn’t know that” moments. I also wished I had paid closer attention in chemistry class, but don’t worry, you’ll find this book highly informative and surprisingly entertaining, while you make your way through some very complex territory.
Oh c’mon, how complicated can this be?
Well, if your understanding of green powertrains is at the level of Internal Combustion, Hybrid or Electric, you’re in for a shock. The appendix has three and a half pages of acronyms and abbreviations for things like ASC (Ammonia Slip Catalyst), LSPI (Low Speed Pre Ignition) and RCCI (Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition), you know, all of those things you talk about with your buddies while tweaking your TZEV (Transitional Zero Emission Vehicle).
The authors are careful to cover LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) which is really important to any of these options dealing with how the vehicle is made, what fuel is used and how that is made, how efficiently it’s used and what emissions or pollutants are involved in that process, as well as during manufacturing and the recycling process after the vehicle reaches end of life and what the costs are for each step. There’s much more than I just listed, but when you add it all up, which drivetrain is best isn’t an easy choice, and it in fact becomes clear there is no single choice, it all depends on the specific application, or as the authors like to say, “The Future is Eclectic.”
If you’re interested in the future of motor vehicles, this book is for you
Don’t let any of the above comments put you off, you don’t need to memorize anything, there won’t be a test, but if you want to know more than you do now, if you want to really get a handle on the huge changes happening all around the world with motor vehicle manufacturers and what the future may or may not hold for the drivetrain of your choice, your time reading this book will be well spent. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable read. Some chapters are light reading, some a bit more complicated, but I found myself learning a great deal and I have a hunch you will, too.
JP Kalishek says
Don’t get me wrong, I love tech and whatnot, its just that most people and especially those, either in gov’t or NGOs pushing those gov’ts, have either no clue to what any of this takes or don’t care what damages demanding these occur to a timeline might entail, Had discussions recently with some guy who thinks going all electric on all freight trains in the US would be easy as checking off a box on the GE buyers checklist. The fact they no longer make all electric locomotives for freight, and those they did were for lighter trains than run in much of the continent now, just would not sink in. People think TGV is electric, so UP, CN, and BNSF should be as well, because reasons. Easy Peasey. He has massivley downsized (and recommended the LA basin as the best place to have all electric locomotives because brownouts and blackouts will be fun) after I asked for what model replaces a GE 4400hp 6 wheel locomotive and what is the price to electrify just Union Pacific’s rails. What sense is it to have a small subset of locomotives for one small area?
Same with MPG mandates, or especially the “We don’t need any petroleum!” nutters who are often vegans to go with it, who’ve not a clue to what it takes to keep them fed in their apartment in The Big City. Those that do have the idea of what it takes actually actively hate humanity. The metals needed for this are often mined in horrible places in horrible conditions (because the same folks demanding this won’t allow it near them, and going for the lowest price possible means getting it from such places. There also seems little to no consideration for end of life actions on these things. Wind Turbines, certain lithium batteries, NMH batteries, the electronics, composites etc. What happens when they are dead? I see “You can just toss a LiFePO battery in the garbage” claims yet what happens over time after the case is cracked and stuff leaches into the water table? and LiFePO is one of the most benign. The same problem occurred when they forced through banning incandescent bulbs but LEDs were not yet a reasonable replacement. People are allowed to toss the fluorescent bulbs away, but a company has to treat broken or dead bulbs as toxic waste, because they are. Drop a pallet of them from height and best have the right PPE for cleanup to avoid mercury poisoning. LEDs have their own issues (high fault rates, electronics waste again, and some are good at failing and causing fires).
sorry for the rant
Dealing with similar at work.
Paul Crowe says
Well, just to show you how fast things are changing, GE Transportation is now part of Wabtec Corp. and they now have an all electric locomotive. Rio Tinto in Australia just bought four of them. They are placed in a consist with conventional locomotives and reduce fuel usage and can be used in some areas alone for no emission operation.
Everything in green powertrains is changing crazy fast and some things you just shake your head. Take hydrogen, for instance, lots of people have an opinion about hydrogen as fuel in internal combustion engines or to be used in fuel cells, but is it brown hydrogen, gray hydrogen, blue hydrogen or green hydrogen? All of those distinctions have to do with which process is used generating the hydrogen and what power source is used in that process. Nothing is simple. Every nook and cranny of powertrain development is like that. I have to admit, I find it fascinating.
Doug says
Thanks for the book tip, will check it out, especially in light of the holistic discussion – are we going about this with the most emphasis in the right places at the right time intervals?…
1. sources of biggest pollution:
a. are power plants not getting the same relative pressure that the automotive industry is under?
b. disproportionate emphasis on household transportation vs. daily delivery trucks, semis, busses? Would 1MM Camrys running ICE with established 50 mpg benchmarks be better in the next decade while pressuring the bigger polluters more?
2. end-to-end lifecycle of each product, not only in usage but in manufacture:
a. product’s own usage & pollution it creates *cumulatively* (1MM hybrid Camry’s for example)
b. manufacture process to achieve 1MM hybrid Camrys
3. what’s the best way to learn the most about electric/battery technology, hydrogen, etc. for energy, transportation, or otherwise? i.e. we can learn a lot from 1MM ev Camrys, but there’s a lot of mining and geo-political consequences to achieve that analysis.
We don’t want to trade one source of pollution with other significant tradeoffs, while being cognizant time is not in our favor (we can’t do nothing & debate too much). Also realize there’s no free lunch with energy.
p.s. I did an intern at the GE Locomotive plant. Good to see things still moving in North East, PA
A relatively much quieter locomotive? wild.
Paul Crowe says
The driving force behind all of this engineering is the idea that climate change is a crisis, and some of us would take issue with that premise, but no matter where you stand on that issue, these many powertrains are currently being developed nevertheless and any technically oriented person will benefit from gaining an understanding of what’s going on. This book gives an extremely even handed look at the work under way and it is the rare person who won’t come away with a lot of new knowledge after reading it.
Doug says
“idea” of a crisis?
Hold an ice cube under a running faucet. Does the ice cube melt faster than sitting by itself on the counter? Yes or no.
The polar ice caps are not only melting at a faster rate, but the resulting increased water is melting more deep ice simultaneously. This is occurring at a massive, accelerated scale. That delta in ice vs. water at that scale over a short duration has an impact. This scientifically changes the climate more and at a faster pace than any point scientists have measured. These people are more engaged with this topic than arguably anyone on this site is engaged with hotrod topics. It’s like readers on this site being told you don’t know what a crankshaft is, it’s that dumb.
Anyone who doesn’t think we are in crisis mode hasn’t paid attention to the massive receding of ice caps, the droughts that result in insane amount of wild fires. These only add to a similar exponential affect as the melting ice cube anaology. i.e. Billions of acres of trees no longer exist.
Either that or these people are not using their imagination to contemplate the scale, hence the ice cube analogy. If something comparable on a nanoscale were happing in your own backyard, you’d act.
These people likely haven’t (yet) experienced examples Mother Earth is demonstrating…such as, deadly smoke so thick you couldn’t see anything clearly beyond 100 m. So thick it wouldn’t move for days even though the city in which you live is on the coast.
Paul Crowe says
Some years ago, well, about 14,000 or so, the earth cooled for some unknown reason. A glacier descended southward and carved and gouged huge holes in the ground as it did so. After some time, again for some unknown reason, the earth warmed and the glacier receded, melting and leaving a lot of water behind. That water filled those gouges and holes in the earth. The glacier covered the earth right where I live now and the huge holes filled with water from the melting glacier are now called the Great Lakes. Remind me again, when were the coal fired power plants and internal combustion engine invented? I thought it was a bit more recent than when that glacier melted. Isn’t that odd? If scientists never measured that level of climate change before now, maybe they were the ones who weren’t paying attention.
Doug says
Paul
many people are aware of the cooling & warming cycles you describe, including scientists that continue to study them, going back to 800,000 years. They acknowledge the cycles.
The change in chemical composition & the rate of change has been studied in relation to the industrial age.
“Current concentrations of CO2 are about 390 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.”
“Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750. Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic. CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.”
Check the hockey stick chart on the bottom:
Chemistry.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about.html
Paul Crowe says
Amazingly enough, you agree with me. I pointed out the glacier activity that formed the Great Lakes, which I would consider to be rather dramatic climate change. You said scientists are aware of those periods and are studying them. Since you pointed out melting ice to be a sign of climate change today, my example would show rather dramatic climate change then, right?
Your link (which looks like a resource for high school teachers, am I right?) shows a chart of greenhouse gases and the associated text says greenhouse gases have never approached the levels at which they are now, which brings up the obvious and reasonable question, what caused the massive periods of climate change then? Is it possible those same forces are at work today and current global levels of greenhouse gases are coincidental?
A full explanation of the problems with climate alarmism would take an entire book, and lucky for us, there is one, Unsettled. It discusses the unfortunate change of science, particularly climate science, from an objective pursuit of the truth into a progressively political field where uncomfortable questions are suppressed and those who ask them labelled as “deniers.” Climate models can be forced to show almost anything and it takes a great deal of effort to sort through them. We must always remember, anything that cannot be questioned, is not science.
Doug says
The amount of change & rate of change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere is the emphasis (pertaining to climate change catalysts). While the freeze/thaw cycles you are referencing are dramatic climate changes in net end result, what was the time interval?
Did the atmospheric composition change as much and in as short of a timeframe? The answers are no as quoted above.
Your last sentence can be directed at your single book too, agree?
The about link provided was to highlight a non-profit org that has an approach for not only educational pursuits but continued research, which is science. 65 peer-reviewed journals emphatically puts their work on the table for all questions.
Paul Crowe says
Doug,
I referred to a book because it can address many of the issues here and it is filled with references to peer reviewed studies which can point to alternate conclusions as yours. I can fill the comments with many other contrary peer reviewed studies, too, but a constant link battle doesn’t prove much.
The climate issue is one where both sides have dug in and no one seems to be moving. Both sides feel the science is on their side and I have found the debate sometimes enjoyable, but often pointless.
One of your comments takes you on a perilous path. You say questioning those people who are studying the issue is dumb, or not thinking we’re in a crisis means you’re not paying attention.
Just a suggestion: Don’t underestimate those who disagree and I refer again to my statement about asking questions, if you can’t ask, it’s not science.
Doug says
Paul,
fair enough and I like your continued emphasis on raising questions.
Clarification on my comment which started the exchange, which I knew would get attention and I appreciate you not deleting it….I didn’t outright say you cannot question.
My comment, “it’s like readers on this site being told you don’t know what a crankshaft is, it’s that dumb” was directed to the meme writers & readers, the people that get their news from social media, lazy social media companies that ignore their negligent contributions to the misInformation Age, etc.
It was directed at the political alliances based solely on boobtube “news” channels. If those channels have an opinion position, well, that’s theirs too with Zero critical thought to what they zombie-watch or zombie-scroll every day even though very well-informed engineers and mechanics are telling them (metaphorically), that’s a “f-ing crankshaft”. 🙂
To this, we’re on the same page as you noted.
It was more along the lines of looking at the number of scientists who have questioned the research, they’ve done their own work, had their own work questioned, & collectively this process was repeated multiple times, etc.
After all of those dedicated people have raised as many questions as imaginable, the number of scientists who concluded:
1) human activity since the Industrial Age has disproportionately changed the atmospheric composition, (and therefore, we can identify what innovation might combat the climate reactions we set in motion) &
2) human life will not be as manageable as we know it today in a few generations from now if we do not change the methods that triggered the atmospheric change to begin with
…by huge margins, outweigh the scientists that do not agree with that assessment. That is more than an “idea” of a crisis, which is what kicked off this discussion.
Here is a question…
What else does that relatively tiny group of need to research? Surely they’ve reached more conclusions than, “well, the earth has gone through this before, god bless my great-great-great grandkids.”
Aside from that, there’s an underlying distrust in the scientific community. Scientific methods and standards have not changed. The bunk science & research are caught, which also ties back to the numbers raised above.
Paul Crowe says
The distrust is the result of the extremely unfortunate politicization of science and the push to censor opinions that do not agree with the narrative.
The number of scientists who question the narrative isn’t a “tiny group,” but they are reluctant to state so publicly for fear of their research grants drying up or their career being destroyed.
Many predictions of climate disaster made just 20 or 30 years ago have already been proven dramatically wrong, yet the same models that made those predictions are still used today to predict future disasters. Politicians and the media thrive on those predictions because it makes for breathless news stories and justifies huge government interventions in all of our lives and massive spending on programs of dubious value “for our own good and for the children.”
To delve any more deeply into this issue would require a book length answer and an extremely good book is Unsettled, the one I already referred to above in these comments. I can’t begin to summarize the many points the author makes in this comment section, but I highly recommend anyone seriously interested in the issue at least take a look at the Amazon page to see what it’s about and who else is recommending it.
Doug, since it seems unlikely we’ll come to any agreement anytime soon, I’ll leave it here.