Upload
others
View
12
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Locomotive Emissions Technology: Progress & Direction
Michael Iden ~ Union Pacific Railroad Company
West Coast Diesel Emissions Reduction Collaborative Seattle, WA
March 21-22, 2005 1
2
Jim Young, president
3
US EPA Loco. Emissions Reg’s
‘00 ‘02 ‘05
10
8
6
4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
9.5
7.4
5.5 0.60
0.45
-22%
-26%
-55%
-25%
- 56%
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) grams/bhp-hr
Particulate Matter (PM)
grams/bhp-hr
1973-1999 pre-Tier 0 engines rebuilt (when overhauled) to Tier
0 after 12-31-1999 All newly-manufactured locomotive engines > 12-31-1999
Tier-0 Tier-1 Tier-2 Tier 3~4
- 67%
Jan 01, 2000
Jan 01, 2002
Jan 01, 2005
Original chart courtesy of Roy Primus, GE Global Research Center
0 . 20
4
HD Diesel Truck v Loco emissions
HDD ‘74
HDD ‘78
HDD ‘90 HDD ‘91
HDD ‘04
Loco ‘00 Tier 0 Loco ‘02 Tier 1
Loco ‘05 Tier 2
Original slide courtesy of Roy Primus, GE Global Research Center
5
Charge-air cooling (front rad.)
Automotive derivative technologies
Hi-speed design (lower NOx tendency)
Lower fuel efficiency (gallons/GTM)
Mechanical transmissions
25+ years federally-funded R&D
Typ. 5 yr. Lifecycle
22 million produced over 3 decades
No charge air cooling, more complex system
Large locomotive-size designs & technologies
Medium-speed design (higher NOx tendency)
2x-3x better fuel efficiency (gallons/GTM)
Diesel-electric transmissions
R&D funded mostly by railroads & suppliers
25+ yr. Lifecycle
21,000 ~ 3 decades
Auto/Truck v Locomotive engines
6
N. Am. new locomotives ‘72~’04 (est.)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
'72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05
Uni
ts d
eliv
ered
switcher DC-4 axleDC-6 axle AC-6 axlepassenger
AC-6 axle
DC-6 axle
Passenger &
Commuter
DC-4 axle
Yard switchers 21,000 locomotives built over 3+ decades (versus 22 million+ diesel powered trucks)
UP-only acquisitions shown for ’05
EPA 40 CFR 92 loco. emis. regulations
T0 T1 T2
7
Transcon., Int. & Inter-RR operations
60-day GPS route log for one Union Pacific EPA Tier 0
locomotive in 2001
Photo courtesy of www.railpictures.net
CP Rail: Banff, AB
UP: Cajon Pass, CA
NS: Raleigh, NC
8
Very little “unused” volume on locos Maint. space above engine Muffler (office desk-size volume)
Component removals Exhaust Radiated heat
4400 HP road freight locomotive 76’ long x 15’3” high x 10’ wide 425,000 pds. weight
(“maxed out” dimensionally & by weight) 20+ year asset life
Radiators
Electronics Crew cab & Power Alt. Diesel Engine Cooling System Motors 5,000 gal. fuel tank Motors
9
Union Pacific RR
Locomotive fleet Total 5,400 high-HP (>3000 HP) & 2,000 low-HP (<3000 HP)
1800+ new EPA Tier 0-1 road acquired since ‘00 =25%
700+ engines overhauled to Tier 0 since ‘00 = 9%
315 new Tier 2 on order for 1-2Q 2005 = 4%
Mid-2005, 38% of fleet will be EPA Tier 0, 1 or 2 UP loco acquisitions since January 2000 are equivalent to
an exceptional 10 year HHP fleet turnover … versus 20 to 30 year asset life.
10
UPRR emissions R&D LNG road & switch in ‘90s ($15M) 4 road units & 2 switch
6000 HP road units ‘96-’00 ($312M) 142 road units
Diesel particulate filter (DPF) program ($2.5M) BNSF+UP thru AAR-TTCI at SWRI, for EMD
non-turbocharged switch engines
New technology switch engines ($1.0M)
OEM R&D funded thru acquisitions Tier 0-1-2 redesigns, GE’s new
Tier 2 engine, etc.
11
Yard switchers (2) 1200 HP units in LA-Commerce Yard
Maintenance, fueling constraints, safety concerns, high cost & low availability
2 each high-HP EMD & GE road units (2) EMD 3800 HP units (produced ~3300 HP) and (2) GE
4150 HP units (produced ~ 3600 HP)…Requires more locos
Materials limitations in nozzles, cryo pumps, et al
Never operated outside OEM factories, ~5 hours max. time
UP LNG project ‘93-’98
Diesel emissions are now converging on LNG because of technological improvements.
12
Technology: from idea to use. Basic discovery & “concept-to-device” SCR, Nox/PM filters, EGR, VGT, engine designs, etc.
R&D including “field hardening” Laboratories > Test cells > Test locos > In-service locos
Integration Loco. reliability, maintainability, onboard space, etc.
Infrastructure Fuels & fueling system, shops, route (track, yards,
bridges, tunnels, etc.) and train operations
Practical & affordable … in use
13
Locomotive emissions technologies
SCR (urea)
PM filters (switchers)
Fuel cells
LNG fuel
Common rail injection
EGR & VGT.
Simple hybrid switcher
Truck-engine switcher
Pwr. asm. retrofit kits
Regen. hybrid road loco
Tier 2 production loco.
< Tier 2 locomotive
PM filters (high HP road)
Tier 0 & 1 NOx upgrades
Biodiesel fuel
Regen. flywheel storage
O2 enrichment (N2 filter)
Limited-to-impractical
Previously attempted
R&D or engrg. underway
R&D long-term
Test or Prototype stage
In production
14
New road technology: Tier 2 units
315 Tier 2 units arriving in 2005 (115) 4300 HP (EMD) & (201) 4400 HP (GE*)
* UP is “launch customer” for new GE engine design
15
CA’s 1st hybrid switcher in service!
“Hybrid” light-medium duty switcher 2000 HP batteries recharged by 290 HP EPA off-road Tier 2 diesel gen set
“Ultra-Low Emitting Locomotive” (ULEL, <4 g NOx) status from CARB at LA-Commerce thru March 31st then goes to Fresno for 5 years
16
All-diesel non-hybrid ULEL prototype
“Truck-engine” heavy-duty switcher (2Q’05) ~1400 HP powered by twin EPA off-road Tier 3 diesel gen sets
projected “ULEL” status by CARB delivery in June 2005
1974 EMD 1500 HP yard switcher
17
Hybrid road locomotive R&D At least one OEM actively investigating
Recapture “dynamic braking” energy retarding train on downhill movements DB energy now dissipated to atmosphere as heat
Huge potential for storage and use of that energy for traction power
Major technological issues being investigated
“May be in production within next 5 years” Dynamic Braking energy is now
dissipated downhill
Tractive power exerted going uphill
18
Loco. aftertreatment space reqm’ts. “Engine displacement”: total swept volume Displacement of a Tier 2 engine (EMD 710
& GE “Evolution”) is ~6.7 feet3
Volume of entire eng. ~ 510 feet3
Based on typical applications* ...
NOx aftertreatment ~ 70-80 x sw. vol. Est. NOx requirement ~~ 469-536 feet3 (= 1 entire engine!)
PM aftertreatment ~ 3-4 x sw.vol. Est. PM requirement ~~ 20-27 feet3 (= “an office desk”)
* aftertreatment + “packaging”
19
SCR plus oxi catalyst on EMD engs.
SCR scrubber on Santa Catalina Island … EMD stationary engines
(8’x8’x8’ SCR scrubber plus mixing flue plus stack plus urea tank)
SCR + oxi cat package + flues = 78x swept volume
Photos & text courtesy of Steve Fritz, Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)
20
Projected SCR on a locomotive
750 gallon urea storage volume (12-15% of fuel) … reduces operating range of
locomotive by 12-15%
Nominal 512 cubic feet for SCR scrubber & oxy catalyst (est. 6’ wide x 4’ high x 21’ long) … 15’ urea mixing stack pipe … oxy cat
This is not a practical (realistic) locomotive!
21
The “double stack height” fallacy
Double-stack cars are “excess height” permitted only by special agreement on specific routes … locomotives operate
across the entire continent
22
RRs & locos: customer infrastructure There are GT 75 electric generating plants in the US with rotary dumpers for unloading unit coal trains.
All of these rotary dumpers have “end plate openings” shaped to accommodate locomotives meeting the AAR clearance diagram!
Steel end plate
Rotational center point for dumper allows cars to be rotated (dumped)
without being uncoupled
End plate opening meets AAR loco.
clearance diagram
23
NOx v PM: targeting both is unlikely! Very divergent aftertreatment space required NOx & PM devices ~ 1 entire engine + “office desk”
Restricted from making locos longer, wider or higher NOx + PM? NOx only? PM only?
24
US “emissions tender” concept 24” high-temp. exhaust ducting over locomotive radiator (still “violates” AAR clearance requirements … exh. temp. drops greatly)
24” high-temp. flexible exhaust ducting between locomotive-and-tender moving at up-to-75 MPH … designing, building and maintaining such flexible ducting will be a monumental R&D and engineering task in itself!
“Tender” car behind locomotive containing aftertreatment devices and supplies (loco+tender must be matched for movements)
Emissions Tender
Emissions Tender
• >12 loco. carbody configurations since ‘95 (i.e., tender interface)
• loco movements become highly restricted (reduced asset utilization)
• Engrg. demands of this approach are not trivial and carry major risks of failure
25
Eurotunnel “emissions tender” Special-purpose 2000 HP diesel-hydraulic locos for “tunnel rescue” and maintenance service
Based at the Calais, France, terminal at east end of Eurotunnel … locos see only occasional use, very low mileage
Wet scrubber on tender, typically becomes “loaded” within 30 minutes of operation
This is NOT a practical configuration for US railroads!
26
Hamburg
Hamburg DE 2-11/12
Kiel DE 2-11 (Vossloh Locomotive)
Frankfort DE 2-06
Stuttgart DE 2-06 (Mahle Piston) & 2-07 (UIC emissions staff) Glatten DE 2-07
(L’Orange)
Friedrichshafen DE 2-10 (MTU Engine)
Winterthur SZ 2-08 (Hug Engrg.) Biel SZ 2-09
(SBB Railway shop)
Zurich SZ
London 2-12
Seattle, San Antonio and Chicago 2-05-05 (departure), 2-13/14-05 (return)
Travel mode: Air Autobahn Deutsche Bahn ICE train Swiss Railway train “ “ ferry boat & train City Night Line train
27
Germany & Switzerland Feb. 6-13 … Switzerland & Germany … Hug
Engrg. AG, SBB Railway, Vossloh Locomotive
Hug technology favorable in AAR DPF testing at SWRI (see following slides)
Assess European direction re loco PM
One big difference: smaller diesel engines in Europe (high-speed) v US (medium-speed) … more room inside European carbody … medium-speed engines critical to US operating environment
28
Vossloh diesel-hydraulic 2000 HP Cat 3512 engine
Hug particulate trap with burner
29
AAR PM reduction program: 4th year
We’ve been doing PM trap R&D for 4 years!
Union Pacific & BNSF co-funding up-to $5M
Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) contract
EMD non-turbocharged switcher engines
First, “clean up” EMD engines (reduce lube oil SOF), then do basic DPF technology screening
Verify DPF technologies in engine test cell
Field test on 4 switchers in CA (mid-late 2005?)
AAR CA. Emissions Program: PM Reduction from EMD Switcher Locomotives
by
Steven G. Fritz, P.E.
Southwest Research Institute® (210) 522-3645 [email protected] [email protected]
and
Brian E. Smith Transportation Technology Center, Inc.
(719) 584-0558 [email protected]
31
General technical approach Task 1: Install EMD 16-645-E switcher engine Task 2: Reduce lubricating oil consumption Find & verify low-oil-consumption power assemblies determine baseline recirculated crankcase oil blowby Apply (new) exhaust valve stem seals and ... Rebuid engine with (new) low-oil-consumption power
assemblies
Task 3: Screen candidate DPF and oxidation catalyst systems on test engine in SWRI test cell … then on 4 switchers in field
ProjectTask 1 - EMD 16-645-E Engine Installation
Task 2 - Reduced Lubricating Oil Consumption
Task 3 - Aftertreatment System Screening
2001Jan'01 Jul'01
2003Jan'03 Jul'03
2002Jan'02 Jul'02
2005Jan'05 Jul'05
2004Jan'04 Jul'04
32
Test engine at SwRI
Engine Model EMD 16-645-E
Cylinder Arrangement V-16
Bore 230 mm
Stroke 254 mm
Displacement/Cylinder 10.6 L
Compression Ratio 16:1
BMEP 5.9 bar @ 900 rpm
BSFC @ Rated Power 254 g/kW-hr
Air Charging Gear Driven RootsBlower
Fuel Injection Cam Driven UnitInjectors
Crankcase Ventilation Crankcase FumesReturned to Blower
Emissions Level EPA Tier 0 - SwitchCycle
• Electro-Motive Division (EMD) 16-645-E non-turbocharged 2-stroke cycle diesel engine
• About 3,400 of these in Class 1 railroad switcher operation across US
• About 300 in California
EMD 16-645-E Engine Specifications
33
Technical challenges ...
Exhaust temperatures are very low
Compounded by switcher duty cycles 60% of the time at Idle
Idle shutdown system will likely be needed
Will likely require active regeneration Electrical heating possible – lots of electrical power
available on the locomotive
Increased cost & complexity over passive systems
Additional fuel consumption penalty
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Low Idle Idle DB4 N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8
Throttle Notch
Exha
ust T
emp.
, °C
Soot ignition temp. = 600 °C
JM CRT w/< 50 ppm S fuelCatalyzed Traps
Oxy Cat (HC, CO, 50% of SOF)
29.9% 29.9% 0.0% 12.4% 12.3% 5.8% 3.6% 3.6% 1.5% 0.2% 0.8%
EMD switcher exhaust temps 2,000 hp @ 900 rpm
94% of operating time <250°C
Exhaust temperatures are too low for passive systems
35
Candidate DPF & oxycat evaluations
Original plan was to screen “truck size” samples 135 hp / cyl = 100 kW/cyl
Briefed MECA, solicit potential suppliers Jan. 2002 and again in Nov. 2003, very
limited interest from MECA members
• Challenging application (cold exhaust, low duty cycle, high SOF) … Potential market size too small to justify R&D cost … Busy with near-term, higher volume projects
EMD exhaust manifold section for 4 cylinders
36
Locomotive space limitations
Need to be able to service engine without interference from exhaust manifolds or aftertreatment system
Valve covers open for access to power assemblies
37
DPF & Oxycat Screening Tests 8 systems or variations tested so far System OxyCat or Filter Description
A Oxycat Flow-through Ceramic MonolithB Filter Electrically regenerated PM filterC Oxycat Corregated metal foil
D Filter Diesel-regenerated SiC soot filterE Filter Diesel-regenerated SiC soot filter
F Oxycat"brillo pad" media - close coupled + main chamber of exhaust manifold
G Oxycat"brillo pad" media - close coupled in legs of exhaust manifold
H Oxycat + filter + oxycatCorregated metal foil oxycat + some kind of soot filter
38
“D & E”: soot filters SiC soot filter, catalyst
coating lowers soot ignition temp. to 450°C … 1 unit handles only 4-of-16 cylinders!
Diesel burner for active regeneration Line-Haul PM = 0.02 g/hp-hr,
limited durability testing looks good – 24-hour Idle & 24-hour N2 test
Now testing latest SiC filters
Diesel burner location
Soot filter housing
Oxycat
HC CO Corr. NOx PMEPA Switch Cycle (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr)Engine-Out 0.73 2.0 12.8 0.45System E 0.45 2.4 10.3 0.05Pct. Diff -39% 21% -20% -88%
HC CO Corr. NOx PMEPA Line-Haul Cycle (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr)Engine-Out 0.57 3.5 11.9 0.48System E 0.27 7.0 10.3 0.02Pct. Diff -53% 103% -13% -95%
39
AAR program summary/conclusions
Engines must be “repacked” for low-oil usage This is where most of the PM is coming from, reduces the
burden on the aftertreatment system
Lab screening test of candidate aftertreatment systems essential Suppliers rarely “get it right” the first time … this is a
challenging application
If it fits … will it work? Technology path is not certain: oxycat vs. DPF … Capex? Durability? Maintainability? Many unanswered Qs remain.
40
AAR DPF test program: what next?
Engine shock and vibration analysis and continuing screening tests
System E soot filter is being equipped with the latest SiC elements
Assess: If it works … will it fit? Will it last?
Phase II plans: Procure systems for 4 demonstrator locomotives
41
Where is AAR program after 4 years?
42
Lessons from AAR CA. Program ...
(1) Valid technological progress takes time.
(2) Technology cannot simply be “scaled up” from one application to another … especially truck to locomotive!
(3) Big difference between over-the-road truck and locomotive environments.
(4) A lot of PM reduction work has already been done (under RR funding).
… and ...
43
(5) Consider Clearair’s comments about “packaging” four “Longview”TM cannisters on a 1000 HP Amtrak HEP engine …
Locomotive prime movers are 1500-to-6000 horsepower!
44
Overall loco engine emissions: next Continuing “in engine” R&D will likely
produce even more reductions in NOx and PM than T2
Ongoing discussions with EPA re locomotive Tier 3 regulations. NOx & PM? NOx only? PM only?
“Offboard” developments reducing emissions Road loco consist control schemes; hybrid & truck-
engine switchers
Regenerative hybrid road loco capturing downhill dynamic braking energy
Etc.
45
Summary UP & RR industry commitment to environment UP massive fleet investment since ‘00
Long history of engine-related R&D (rail industry R&D historically self-funded) thru new locomotive acquisitions
UP funding significant R&D for yard switchers
Solid embracement of EPA Tiers 0 and 1 ‘00-’04 UP committed to new EPA Tier 2 technology ‘05
Fleet emissions are declining!
Major technology decisions req’d. re future locomotive emissions reductions
46
Recap … US loco emissions tech. Continuing evolution of road loco designs
More “in engine” progress remaining
New switcher concepts, hybrid & truck-engines
DPF application R&D for older EMD switchers
Hybrid road loco R&D for dynamic braking regeneration
Aftertreatment possible but not yet ready for production … no easy “up sizing”
47
Questions & comments questions
Lanny A. Schmid Director Environmental Operations
Union Pacific Railroad 1400 Douglas Street, Mail stop 1030 Omaha, NE 68179
402-544-2262
Michael Iden, P.E. General Director Car & Loco Engineering
Union Pacific Railroad 5050 W. Lake Street Melrose Park, IL 60160
708-649-5899