Looks like SCR will be very Common

piper1

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
For the next round of engine emissions it looked like there was going to be a bit of a war going to happen between engine manufacturers who were going to use SCR (Detroit,Volvo,Mack,Paccar branded engines, Cummins Light duty) and those who were going to rely on even higher rates of EGR (Cummins M and X engines as well as International branded engines).

Well...in a move that shocked those of us who follow these kinds of things (diesel gearhead supreme), Cummins has announced they will use SCR on ALL of their 2010 engines, reversing a stance they were touting as little as 2 weeks ago.

Truth is SCR engines will provide better fuel economy than ones using EGR alone and Cummins realized at 4-5 bucks a gallon, fuel economy meant more than anything else to it's customers.

I wont get into the specifics of SCR (unless asked) but if your buying a truck after Jan 1 2010, unless you buy an International engine, you will have to get used to filling 2 tanks, Fuel and SCR fluid. It's called AdBlue in Europe and I think it's going to be called DEF in North America.
 

Dispatched

Not a Member
Yes piper, i'd read exactly the same thing. Cummins WAS NOT doing Selective Catalytic Reduction engines for U.S. market. It wasn't like they were sitting on the fence. They had publicly announced their intent NOT to produce.

Couple weeks pass, and their back in the business ?

Good article: Cummins to use SCR in 2010 - eTrucker
 

Jack_Berry

Moderator Emeritus
isn't adblue the same as bluetec from mb? i thought i read that only the dealer could add to adblue.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well... Oh well... pee driven trucks... what's next...

SCR (selective catalytic reduction) reduces nitrogen oxide emissions through injecting an [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]ammonia solution (Urea is one of three) down stream in a second [/FONT]catalytic [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]converter to reduce (and eliminate) the NO2 that is in the exhaust. The reaction [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]4NO+ 4NH3 + O2 = 4N2 + 6H2O ends up obviously with nitrogen and water but the catch is that the amount of ammonia solution must be added precisely to maintain the reaction within the converter.

If there is too low of an amount of ammonia, then the reaction slows or stops, if there is too much then the reaction goes into what is called Ammonia Slip. The ECM is programed to monitor a lot more with these information, the ECM controls things so much, I will expect to see the days of any modifications to the truck gone with the criticality of the systems over the need to "clean" up things.

Want more details?
[/FONT]
 

piper1

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
OK...Phil asked so here goes!!:D

Up until now, engine makers have been dealing with emission challenges by modifying combustion in the cylinder to achieve the desired result. Basically they have 2 main issues to deal with, particulate matter (sooty black exhaust) and NOx (oxides of nitrogen). The earlier emission rules dealt primarily with particulates. The easiest way to clean them up was to have a more efficient combustion event and make the engine run lean (huge surplus of air vs. fuel). This was great as it got rid of the black exhaust and it made the engine more efficient. Anyone that had a 1995-98 Series 60 can attest to that, those engines were the most efficient engines to date as far as getting the most out of a drop of fuel. Problem was, when you had that "hot" of a burn in the cylinder you made a lot of NOx (the nitrogen in the air would actually burn or oxidize). NOx is a contributor to smog.

Starting with the 1998 emission rules, enigine makers had to cut down on the NOx emissions. Most did it by retarding the injection timing a bit, this cooled off the burn but it also hurt efficiency. Most noticed no difference as other truck technology had advanced enough to mask the difference and...the engine manufacturers found a way to "cheat" on the EPA test. All was OK until the EPA figured it out, then the s%#t hit the fan. The penalty the engine makers were given was that the emission rules that they needed to meed in 2004 now had to be met in Oct. of 2002 (we all remember how well that turned out:mad:).

To meet the new rules the engine guys had to further "cool" the combustion event, this was done mainly with EGR. By shooting some exhaust back into the engine it diluted the burn enough to control NOx. Some engines (CAT) needed a catalytic converter of sorts as the "diluted" burn now caused a lot of particulates (sooty black smoke).

The 2007 rules called for even lower NOx, now the engine guys had to really ramp up the amount of EGR (exhaust) going back into the engine (almost double the 2002 rates). Now the engines were really great at NOx control but now the exhaust was really full of soot. This resulted in the DPF or soot trap systems you see on the newer trucks. If you took the DPF off of a new truck (and convinced the ECM it was still there) you would swear the turbo was blown, that's how dirty the exhaust is!

So now comes the 2010 rules, they are incredibly tough to meet. The engine guys know that if they meet the new rules with EGR only fuel mileage will suffer a lot and DPF life will be shortened (they would be burning off or regenerating a lot more often). The engine guys with European links (Detroit,Mercedes,Volvo etc.) decide to use a system they have had in Europe for a couple years called Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). This system does not rely on a "cool' burn in the cylinder to work, in other words, go make the engine efficient again and worry about cleaning up the exhaust after it leaves the engine!

SCR uses a weak urea (ammonia & water) soloution and injects it into the exhaust after the turbo. The urea partially reacts with the NOx in the exhaust and then passes through a catalytic converter that finishes the job. The new engines will still have a DPF soot filter on them (the rules for soot are really tight now) but it will not need to regenerate (burn off) nearly as often. This will save fuel as well as a regeneration uses anywhere between a quart to 2 gallons of fuel. So you get an engine that should give you anywhere from 5 to 10 percent better fuel mileage than what you have for 2007. Some European fleets have said the advantage is upwards of 15% but those results are not scientific.

So, what will you have on the new trucks? You will likely have a 20 or so gallon tank for the new fluid that you will need to fill probobly every second fuel stop depending on your set up. The engine will run without the fluid but will throw a code and de-rate to 50% horsepower. The tank will be heated to keep the fluid liquid while the engine is running, and the fluid will be available at pumping stations or in containers at truck dealerships. There will likely be a few hiccups at the start but it should be available widespread pretty quick. Now that Cummins has said this is how they are going to proceed that will make this even more universal.

Fear not, this time, the new rules will actually help us save fuel!!!!

Anyone want to know what time it is? I'll tell you how a watch works first:rolleyes:!!
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What does the fluid cost and will the cost offset the fuel saving? Can I just empty my pee bottle in the tank? LOL Layoutshooter
 

piper1

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
There aren't any published costs yet although in Europe apparently the benefits are far greater than the cost, mind you they pay 8 bucks a gallon for fuel too.

Dunno about the pee thing....maybe eat a bunch of high spice beef jerky for your own high performance blend? I see a new business opportunity for you layout!
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
It seems that the cost of a 5 litre jug is about

€7.6 for Adblue, which is the trademark name. We will use DEF over here because I understand that the word Adblue is taken as a trademark here.


I heard from DD that the one gallon jug will come in about $5 but that may change if there is not the supply issues that they had in the EU. I asked BP who wants to do some major marketing here with it, and they didn't say either way, just saying that it will add pennies to the cost per mile. But I got something from BP a few months ago about some bulk system that they want to sell over here so trucks can fill up at the pumps instead of having to carry the jugs around.



Who knows, it's like Hydrogen and the GM hydrogen car....no real infrastructure yet....


Piper, do you know what the consumption ration is between Diesel and the Adblue solution? I am hearing 1 to .05 but I have yet seen anything in any report.
 

P51bombay

Expert Expediter
I read somewhere its about 5L per 100L. What is this stuff made of? Not petroleum based is it? so why are the oil companies jumping on it? Perhaps to take even more $$$ from the masses.

Does this mean we actually WANT this technology?
 

piper1

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Does this mean we actually WANT this technology?

Don't know about you but I want it!

Greg, I'm hearing the dosing rate will be anywhere from 2 to 5% depending on the engine load and engine configuration. Each engine will still use some EGR and if you use more EGR you would need less fluid. I think you'll see EGR used in light load and off idle situations and then the fluid ramp up under load. To me this would give the best fuel mileage.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
MMM, high performance pee production, you are right, a great new business opportunity. Let's see, a dimly lit bar, pickled eggs, I like the spicy jerkey idea, tobascco on everything. Gallons of beer and cathater system. BINGO!!!! Layoutshooter
 

piper1

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
All engines made after Jan 1 2010 need to meet the new law. That likely means trucks built after March 2010.
 
Top