Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Maybe this belongs in non-boating tech, but since it also involves economics, and because I want to, I am posting here.

I have mentioned these applications before and even posted a picture or two, but this may put what the company I work for does into a little more focus. We manufacture fuel systems that convert heavy-duty diesel engines into Dual-Fuel. Basically, Dual-Fuel allows the engine to run primarily on natural gas and we use the diesel injectors as a kind of "liquid spark plug" for ignition. It is still a diesel cycle engine, but uses natural gas for most of the total energy required. And of course cuts diesel use down to the remainder . . . In the case of this application that normally burns over 80,000 gallons of diesel a year, our customers are saving over $100K USD per truck per year. This conversion costs about $60K USD, tanks, our fuel system, labor and all the stuff to take a diesel truck and give them back a Dual-Fuel truck.

Here's a couple of pictures of one of our latest projects. Kenworth T604 (built in Australia) Caterpillar 15 liter engine, 90% liquid natural gas (LNG) and 10% diesel. Pulls 140 gross metric tons in Western Australia. US trucks gross around 36 tons and use basically the same engine . . .

I will offer that the Aussies definitely need high peak torque although we actually cut torque by about 200 lb/ft. compared to diesel (we leave the top end horsepower alone). 500 bhp and 1650 lb/ft on Dual-Fuel and 500 bhp 1850 lb/ft on diesel. An 18 speed tranny obviously helps and it is one of the experiences that leads me to fight the "all you need is torque" BS ;) BTW, many of these truck transmissions are fully automatic, electronic shifting, manuals. Basically, electronics handle everything from engaging the clutch to shifting through non-synchromesh gears. The transmission and engine communicate and match RPM and load etc. :cool:

1zxqo07.jpg


That is 18 axles as opposed to eighteen wheels for a typical US truck. They haul iron ore and also crude oil with these same tractors. Some have "tri-drives" which is a third differential that splits all the power to six sets of double wheels instead of four like US trucks and the one above.

2wh2l2g.jpg


This pic shows the Cryogenic LNG tanks on the back of the cab. The LNG is stored at -250F :eek: and is the only real safety concern . . . freeze burns. Fire is probably less of a concern than diesel. Oh, and we use some of this "excess cold" to add a supplemental aftercooler that is cooled by a coolant circuit that is VERY similar to closed cooling on a boat . . . literally waaaaay cool ;)
__________________
 

bootle

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
1,028
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Way cool, What is your estimate as to how long would it be before this system becomes common to the American roads?
 

Limited-Time

Vice Admiral
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
5,820
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Great post QC..................How does the conversion affect the trucks range?? Unrelated to cost or consumption.
 

tashasdaddy

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
51,019
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

and i bet they smell better when you are behind them.
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Well . . . hmmmm. The range discussion is basically answered that we need twice as much space for tanks as equivalent diesel. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) requires 4 times the space. These trucks can run about 400 miles, but consider they only get 2 MPG compared to 6 for a US truck . . . In the US we get 450 miles with a single LNG tank (smaller) added. They can be extended to over 700ish with no tanks up the back but kind of a long story. We cost the truck about 300 lbs in weight penalty here. The Aussies really don't care . . . ;) :D

I have about 500 of these running in the US, but the last new ones were 2002 model year. We were too early, frankly and are trying to scratch our way back in. We had a license agreement with Cat that has now gone. We are trying to attract an OEM with almost all of the energy and effort that we can muster. VERY flippin' hard despite the fact that FedEx, UPS, Swift, Knight etc. etc. etc all want our stuff very badly.

An interesting note: We offer the lowest operating cost and lowest Greenhouse gas emitting heavy-duty vehicles in the world. You'd think I'd already be retired . . . :rolleyes:

I am sure many of you have seen the T. Boone Pickens adds lately. What he says is actually pretty darn true and they are one of our biggest supporters. Converting cars just doesn't get it done though. Trucks are where the fuel use is . . .

33xf2wk.jpg


This truck is a 250 bhp version and picks up my trash every Monday . . . There are 20 of these, and I have 250 at the City of Los Angeles. Most of our units are in CA, but there are some in Texas and Arizona as well.
 

kenimpzoom

Rear Admiral
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
4,807
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Pretty cool man. Natural gas is definately a future fuel and I know the Aussies are way more anvanced on it than any other country.

My only concern is a BLEVE. I am sure you guys had redundant pressure relief in case of a fire.

Ken
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Definitely redundant reliefs . . . We burned a truck to the ground a few years ago, long story, but it was an SHT as opposed to an equipment failure. Let's just say that pulling a head and not shutting off the fuel along with a space heater in an enclosed building don't mix well . . . :eek:

Anyway . . . the fire (boom) happened Sunday at 9:00 AM (head pulled Friday night). When somebody that knew what they were doing finally inspected the truck on Monday after being towed out of the shop by the Fire Department, there was fuel still venting and the tank's vacuum was intact. Pretty funny actually cuz nobody got hurt. Picture this black melted truck blob thing, and a pretty little white ball of snow at the tank vent . . .
 

Tacklewasher

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,588
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Out of curiosity, do you deal at all with a company based in BC that did research into CNG diesels? My father in law worked for them for a while, more as a handyman than a tech. Can't remember the name but they were based on or near the University of British Columbia.
 

angus63

Captain
Joined
May 20, 2002
Messages
3,726
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Since common diesel injectors only work with liquids and LNG flashes to a gas at very low temps with moderate fuel pressure, are you using a separate method of introducing LNG (not the diesel injector), or are you using a high pressure emulsion? I'm doing something similar with ammonia/diesel for a gov't experiment to reduce marine industry emissions. We should talk sometime, we may have funding for incorporating/exposing your product on the east coast and the marine industry.
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

We use multi or single point EFI into the intake stream through gas "injectors" that we manufacture. They are really valves as they allow the gasified LNG (or CNG as is) regulated to 115 PSI to flow but do not "inject" anything.

There is another company that makes a combo diesel/gas injector and is our closest competitor. Because they direct inject a gaseous fuel (nobody directly injects cryogenic liquid anything) they require 4000 PSI (not a typo) at the cylinder :eek: Pressure like that is not free and the failure potentials are scary.

Since we leave the stock injector in place and do not change any of the core diesel components our vehicles can run at full power on 100% diesel if necessary, driver doesn't have to do anything, it is automatic. The other guys literally send technicians out on a helicopter in the Aussie outback . . . They have five delivered and we are up to 150 there . . . :D

Tacklewasher, I do not recall a research company there although BC Ferries has a dual-fuel ferry that is not our stuff (lower tech, but still works). I have also been to Kelowna to visit Western Star who we almost delivered some trucks with years ago.

Edit: I just realised the company you are thinking of is probably the competitor I mentioned. They are in Vancouver and called Westport Innovations. Their stuff is sexier but twice our cost and no diesel back-up. We are Clean Air Power. BTW, I HATE our stupid name . . . :rolleyes:
 

angus63

Captain
Joined
May 20, 2002
Messages
3,726
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Do you have data/info/website you can send me? We are looking for ideas to reduce marine diesel emissions. Your description sounds like you are puffing gas in the air intake, yes? Are you metering the fuel or increasing the air flow to compensate?
 

kenmyfam

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
14,392
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Very impressive.
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Angus are you with NYSERDA? . . . cleanairpower.com It is as easy as a PM to me as I would be your contact . . .
 

achris

More fish than mountain goat
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
27,468
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Those trucks in the first post... They are in WA.. Not Washington ya goose, Western Australia!!! I recognize the plates... Thanks for nice photos of a typical WA road train.....

Cheers,

Chris..........
 

Dunaruna

Admiral
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
6,027
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

In light of this thread, I'm guessing that the boat restoration is complete?
 

Uraijit

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
884
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Way cool. I'm actually importing CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) kits for vehicle conversions. Right now, I can only import them for off-road use, due to the ridicules EPA garbage that you have to wade though.

It basically boils down to me not being prepared to pay them $50,000 for every year, make, model, and engine size of kit that I want to sell. And then having to do it all again the next year, even for kits that have ALREADY been certified the year before. :mad: Talk about bureaucracy gone wild! :eek:

Anyway, for now, I'm just importing them for off-road apps (planning on experimenting with my boat as well).

I'm glad to see that the industry is slowly growing, and picking up speed (a LOT over the past 6-8 mos).

Maybe you guys do it differently for LNG, but with CNG, your system would be called a "Bi-Fuel" system, because it utilizes two fuels at the same time. What we call "Dual-Fuel" is where you have the option to switch between two different fuels (gasoline, and CNG).

Hoping to get a "Tri-fuel" system worked out, that will allow selection between CNG, Propane, and Gasoline. Just gotta figure out where to put all those different storage tanks!

I can't wait for Adsorbed Natural Gas technology to become more prevalent. Storage has been, and continues to be the primary limiting factor (Aside from Government interference) for Natural gas solutions. Both for space considerations in the vehicles, as well as the cost of infrastructure for compression and storage. Once we can get away with only compressing to 500PSI or so, there won't be any stopping the Natural Gas revolution!
 

angus63

Captain
Joined
May 20, 2002
Messages
3,726
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Angus are you with NYSERDA? . . . cleanairpower.com It is as easy as a PM to me as I would be your contact . . .
Nope
I'm with Uncle Sam at the USMMA. Sent PM
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

In light of this thread, I'm guessing that the boat restoration is complete?
Heck no!!! Once I lost the beginning of the season here in April/May I have slowed considerably, I've been running the other boat instead of working on this one . . . She is still upside down. New target . . . next season!!! :eek: :D

Yup achris, those trucks are the reason I know my way from the Burswood to Coco's to Freo to Rotto . . . ;)
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

Maybe you guys do it differently for LNG, but with CNG, your system would be called a "Bi-Fuel" system, because it utilizes two fuels at the same time. What we call "Dual-Fuel" is where you have the option to switch between two different fuels (gasoline, and CNG).
Actually this is another beuraucratic issue. Most places in the world (not all) use the term dual-fuel for diesel cycle engines that run on natural gas but require diesel fuel as an ignition source i.e. two fuels simultaneously . . . Otto cycle (spark ignited and throttled) engines that can switch back and forth are usually called bi-fuel. However . . . our "Dual-FuelTM" engines' EPA and CARB Certifications say bi-fuel on them, and bi-fuel kits made by some and previously vehicles sold by GM and Ford are called dual-fuel . . . :confused: :eek: :D Just one of the fun things about my honkin' job . . . keeping that straight.
 

SS MAYFLOAT

Admiral
Joined
May 17, 2001
Messages
6,372
Re: Why I post in fuel savings and torque threads . . .

With the use of natural gas, will it prolong or lengthen oil change cycles? I know in gasoline/diesel engines, it is the impurities that contaminate the crankcase oil. I've heard that with natural gas that the oil remains cleaner longer. Is this true? If so, that would be another area of cutting back on usage of crude.......SS
 
Top