Emission Controls - Technical Thread

[marshmat]

NOTE- this thread is for TECHNICAL discussion. Politics-like commentary on this issue should go to: Emission Controls - Politics Thread

It is looking increasingly likely that stricter emission control standards, of the sort now applicable to cars, trucks and factories, may eventually be imposed on boat engines. Already, many classes of engines in many jurisdictions are subject to restrictions on what can come out in the exhaust.

It seems about time that we, the members of boatdesign.net, sit down and share what we know about how emission control systems work and what problems will have to be overcome if car-like controls become mandatory in boat engines.

This thread is for sharing answers and experience on questions like:
- What emission control systems are showing up on new mass-market (car/truck) engines?
- Which of these systems could be adapted to marine use, if required?
- What challenges will we encounter if we try to do so?

Since many of our members seem to thrive on politics, there's a political counterpart to this thread. Political debate- anything relating to "is this really necessary," "my government is doing this..." etc.- should go there: Emission Controls - Politics Thread . Let's try to keep the discussion here to the technical issues that would be encountered if stricter emission controls were to become mandatory on boats.

[marshmat]

Among the talking points to get things started:

Exhaust gas recirculation. Reduce NOx by lowering combustion temperature. Already in use on many engines. Any possible improvements to the technology?

3-way catalytic converters. Reduce NOx, CO, unburned hydrocarbons. Downsides: High temperature operation required, near-stoichiometric combustion required for catalyst to function (thus needs computer-controlled fuel injection). Any way to make it work on a boat engine?

Diesel particulate filters. Mandatory on new truck engines in many places. Can they be adapted for boats, or are there better ways to handle particulate matter in a marine duty cycle?

Urea injection. Popular on new light diesel cars and trucks. Is it adaptable to marine diesels? What else would have to change to make it work?

[fasteddy106]

The egr & cat converters are more like janitors than emission control devices. The egr slows down (cooling) the burn in the combustion chamber by introducing enert exhaust gases into the mix, thus reducing NOX which is a function of temp, higher the combustion chamber temp the more NOX. As far as HC & CO are concerned, reductions there can be best achieved by going from carbs & obsolete fuel injection systems, to computer controlled systems as with your later model cars. This will of course raise engine costs and make maintenence so much more fun. Exhaust systems will have to be redesigned or adapted to accept O2 sensors, I don't see the current style O2 sensors working well when exposed to fresh or salt water. Ditto with cat converters. The platinum oxide would probably get a bit pissy when doused with salt water. So I think our best bet to achieve cleaner burning engines is on the intake side rather than the exhaust.

[mydauphin]

The quality of fuel get my vote.
Recently, in US there is a new diesel with almost no sulphur. It is super clean. It is transparent I can even see in sight glasses. Also biodiesel mix like 75/25 Biodiesel works really good and reduces emissions. Make the fuels cleaner... that is my vote. Although I am sure there are limits on it. Also I find boats overpowered for day to day use. Having boats with three motors, a smaller single motor for puttering and generation. It is crazy to have two 1000hp engines for idle speed.

[gonzo]

Emisson controls forced two stroke engine manufacturers to produce engines that don't dump oil on starting and don't smoke. In the US diesel fuel is of lesser qualitiy than Europe. This causes loss of performance. I am not sure id there are changes in the emissions with different fuels

[Ad Hoc]

Matt

well a basic starting point would be a quick review of the current legislation.

Marpol - annex VI
max NOX is 17g/kWh and 4.5% sulphur content of fuel

Marpol - annex VI (SECA), 6.0g/kWh max sulphur emissions, 17g/kWh max NOX and 1.5% sulphur content of fuel.

EC Directive 2005/33/EC (from july 2010) max sulphur content in fuel 0.1%.

[kistinie]

i love simple solutions

Solution 1
Dual fuel
Diesel particle are drastically lowered (close to 80%) when butane or propane or H² is added as a second fuel to the air used for the combustion of the oil. But this impose to manage a second fuel. This solution for LPG is now sold in USA and Australia. Having dual fuel is an average complexity device, but the bonus is that you will also get important torque and power increase. By example : http://www.dieselgas.com.au/emissions.htm
H² production from tap water, on the fly is certainly not as idiot as you could think as cold nuclear fusion and sonoluminescence understanding is doing giant steps. Nucleus strong forces appearer to be an ultra close casimir effect that hold the nucleus from the outside, surrounding fields putting pressure, rather than a "glue" effect like bonding. This was learned thanks to carbon electrode plasma water electrolyse i mentioned in Diesel/Hydrogen Hybrid Trawler post 105, running a 5 HP motor
Much more details can be found by example at the Louis de Broglie foundation.http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/ ordering their "Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 29, Hors série 3, 2004" it is in english :-), but this is not the only document, the net is full of very nice information about zero point energy. Potential vortex, scalar waves from Konstantin Meyl is clearly demonstrating that overunity is a realistic option. http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=...e=1&sublevel=0
Étienne Klein's books are another easier way to discover this world but i am not sure they are translated. The Louis de Broglie fondation and Etienne Klein from the CEA are not UFO or free energy dreamers :-)
It will be our responsibility to be careful, following these kind of works if you do not want to have a second "Mc Cornnnick water effect" as detailed later
And it will be difficult as if it was easy for the average joe to see his tractor was running better with water, quantum physics effects based new products are much more difficult to detect and understand, especially when hidden to the public.

Solution2
Water in fuel
A much easier solution than previous is water doping of the fuel.

Permanent water emulsion with additive added
Water is mixed to the fuel as an emulsion (aquazol diesel fuel by ELF but they are not the only one)

By example here are figures obtained with Elf aquazol diesel. Test are from adem, a state agency, that experimented several different diesel engines :

- NOx - 15 to - 30 %;
- Fumes and soot - 30 to - 80 %;
- particles - 10 to - 80 %.

Direct water-diesel emulsion without any additive
You can also do direct emulsion of diesel fuel with water only by fast (7500 Rpm) mechanical agitation without any additive.
The device is already an industrial concept for large diesel engines, that will lower pollution but to the cost of power lost. The system can be by passed when full power is needed.
Extract"This technology has been developed to produce an emulsified fuel of diesel + water, without the use of a surfactant. The technology will provide an emulsified diesel fuel to the engine’s injector pump, with a water content ranging from 0 to 40% that can be controlled as required by the operator. The emulsification of the fuel is created mechanically in a fuel-mixing chamber. The diesel fuel (including Marine diesel oil or Heavy fuel oil) is pumped to the fuel-mixing chamber from the fuel tank where water is added to the fuel through a probe controlled by a microprocessor with controlling software. Downstream of where the water is added to the fuel, application of a mechanical agitation technique results in the breakup of the water into small droplets that are dispersed throughout the diesel fuel, representing an emulsion. The fuel emulsion then leaves the fuel-mixing chamber and enters the injection pump where it is directed to the individual combustion chamber fuel injectors. "
More on
http://www.etc-cte.ec.gc.ca/organiza...ication_f.html

Solution 3
Water injection in inlet
The simple and efficient solution for simple de-pollution but... buried ...Why buried ?
In my opinion, the BIG PROBLEM is WATER.
Water CANNOT BE ASSOCIATED to ENERGY or propulsion for the public.
It is just like opening pandora's box of "free" matter. So any technical device using water is politicly incorrect. So no future whatever the effect and the results...except if you cannot see it is water. Renault is working on water injection and recycling it from the exhaust. In this case the system is blind too the user. Not seen , not caught = Acceptable

A solid proof of this statement ?
Renault patent : N° 05300443.8 - 01/06/2005
https://publications.european-patent...=1617069&ki=A1

You will note that the purpose of this invention is to limit pollution by water injection in inlet. the word "water" with the word "pollution reduction or nox reduction" is present more than 30 times...strange
You will also notice the family air with Gillier Pantone device. Paul Pantone being now in a psychiatric hospital.
You will also find another cousin link with Apex keeping systematicaly repeating to me " idiot, your mad, non sense" to any of my ideas that could help to change a little the existing order. And i am nothing compare to inventors like this.
It must be good way to steal the others ideas and protect big business. Looking at the results on Pantone's life, very smart and efficient, i must say.

Why am i so upset about this water injection ? Maybe the discovery of the anti pollution effect of water is new, we need to give time to time ...
Really ?
Water injection is 100 years old.
An example from USA ?
Does the McCormick-Deering 15\30 model 1929 tells you something ? Crisis year, yes but not only.
This tractor is water injected, and it was working great. More than this, it was a low compression very efficient diesel starting with light fuel and then once hot running on kerosene.
In 1929 we already knew how to make very high efficiency diesel, very low on pollution with water and dual fuel...in 2009 No, 2010 may be !
In 1942 this tractor (50.000 ex produced) was loved in occupied Europe because it was much more economical than the others said to me a neighbour that is 91 years old
So how can i accept to see this is not compulsory to any ICE 80 years later ?
Sorry i cannot find this acceptable...unless you give proof it doesn't work and Renault is wrong with this patent.
Till this moment, or if you feel like doing the test, here in France a Gillier-Pantone product is already available now here http://fr.ecopra.com/index.php?/Kit-Ecopra
I suggest you have a close look to the simplicity of this ECOPRA kit using no electricity, and to the pollution and fuel gain results...

You will probably hate me for this but i cannot prevent me from asking this question : How such skilled specialists of ICE engines like a lot of you are, can ignore or accept this swindle ?

Now hopping this is the past, we need to go head and forgive the mistake, innocent or more likely fraudulent, so , do you think such a close circuit could be adapted to a boat or isn't it easier to get water from, rain, desalt or air conditioning without recycling ?


Other aspects:

Good bonus side effect of less particles and soot:
Above the ecological aspect would help reliability of new diesel, full of captors that get dirty and fail when the diesel is not loaded correctly. And diesel are often not loaded correctly because high price of fuel tend to make full throttle use very rare, CPP absent and users not skilled.
Now this could be even more simple as with water injection and lpg injection, you do not need that much captors, so the problem of the water cooled exhaust cohabitation with captors and filters is reduced. But this is much too simple to be marketed ?

Possible problem
For old engine this is an easy upgrade, but i suspect that ideal timing could be affected as combustion speed may be modified.
This aspect can be be also a limiting factor underestimating the real potential gain possible.

Other problem
The main problem is the distribution of the LPG often absent of harbour, and long term stability (over 4 month) of aquazol (emulsion).
Aquazol presentation is now 10 years old since then ...only the molecule is available http://www.polychemistry.com/products_aquazol.php, but not the fuel


I know my statements upset a lot some of you mainly because I'm forcing open door like here about the pollution reduction effect of water , so please as it was said in the beginning, remain technical about your answer , or just ignore courageously these water statements, but remain gentlemen

Tag : pollution water Nox CO2 fuel saving Pantone Gillier JL NAUDIN reactor économie carburant eau moteur réacteur émulsion diesel diesel overunity hydrogen surunitaire hyydrogene butane propane GPL saving fuel zero point energy HHO

[Boston]

Originally Posted by mydauphin

The quality of fuel get my vote.
Recently, in US there is a new diesel with almost no sulphur. It is super clean. It is transparent I can even see in sight glasses. Also biodiesel mix like 75/25 Biodiesel works really good and reduces emissions. Make the fuels cleaner... that is my vote. Although I am sure there are limits on it. Also I find boats overpowered for day to day use. Having boats with three motors, a smaller single motor for puttering and generation. It is crazy to have two 1000hp engines for idle speed.

the thing I find interesting is that the form of clean diesel your talking about is only going to be used by the small time pleasure boater
bunker #6 I think it is ends up being burned by the ton in massive engines designed to move cargo vessels. Its these huge cargo vessels unique to the present ( sorry to mention it ) world economy that are the huge issue when it comes to marine co2 emissions

thing is that residual fuels are not likely going to getting much cleaner ( its not economical )
maybe Jimbo will chime in with some info on that one
so if your going to have to clean up the emissions its going to end up being in the combustion faze or the exhaust faze and a wet exhaust isnt exactly conducive to that plan as Eddie pointed out.

should be an interesting read what solutions you gear heads might come up with

B


so

[marshmat]

Cleaning up the heavy bunker oils would be a good step, no doubt. The engines they power may be some of the most efficient in the world, but a great engine burning sulphur-laden fuel is still going to emit sulphur oxides and other pollutants. These may be easy to ignore in the open ocean, but in port towns with many ships, the resulting smog can be quite dense.

Of course, cleaning up heavy oil is more of a political issue than a technical one- we have the chemical processes and the equipment to do it, we just don't have anyone saying we have to spend the money to do so. Likewise, we have the technical knowledge to scrub particulates and sulphur compounds on the exhaust side- this is already mandatory for many land-based installations, but the equipment is not commonly fitted to ships. I'm not aware of any technical reason why it couldn't be; it's more a question of cost and regulatory requirements.

On the small-boat front, recent improvements in the quality of fuel in Europe, the US and Canada are expected to lead to a new generation of computer controlled car and truck diesels. (There are, of course, still many countries that sell murky sulphurous mystery liquid as diesel fuel.) Heavy trucks are now fitting regenerative particulate filters to their exhausts- definitely not an option for a water-cooled marine exhaust, but virtually a drop-in installation for a dry stack. These do increase fuel consumption very slightly- an extra litre every few thousand kilometres, I've been told, to power the regeneration cycle- but they are proving effective at controlling particulate release under heavy load. Of course, a boat engine isn't subject to transient overloading like a truck is, and we might be better off to reduce our particulate emissions through better propeller selection and engine maintenance to prevent overloading in the first place.

Some of the lighter, more powerful and higher-revving car diesels are now adding urea injection to the exhaust to decompose nitrogen oxides. This may be a viable technology for the more high-strung marine diesels as well- except that someone has to refill the urea tank. Mercedes gets away with it because they promised the regulators that their own dealers would top off the tank at every scheduled maintenance check. The EU regulators refused to trust the end user to do so.

On the spark-ignition side, probably the most significant automotive emission-control technology that hasn't found its way to the marine side is the 3-way catalytic converter. The main problems here seem to be temperature and combustion control. The 3-way catalyst needs to be hot- really hot- and the gas stream going into it must be within a few percent of perfectly stoichiometric combustion exhaust. Any excess oxygen and the thing can't handle the NOx, but if the engine's burning even a little rich, the catalyst gets overwhelmed and can't handle the CO and unburned hydrocarbons. In cars, this requirement has pretty much necessitated computer-controlled fuel injection, with oxygen sensors to monitor the exhaust composition. There are still a lot of marine engines with carbs, or with very basic EFI systems. And, again, there's the temperature issue- any water injection would have to be downstream of the catalyst.

[mydauphin]

Question for pollution genius out there... What is better from a pollution point of view. Wet exhaust or dry. It seems wet exhaust act like scrubber, just stuff gets sent into ocean, any problem with sulphur in ocean?

[kistinie]

Big and small volcano under ocean spit tons of sulphur...
Now in an harbour or in a non volcanic area ...

More particle in the atmosphere make climate dryer and poison your lungs
In the sea, poison sea life...

Just like noise, better to cut at the source

[CDK]

Originally Posted by mydauphin

Question for pollution genius out there... What is better from a pollution point of view. Wet exhaust or dry. It seems wet exhaust act like scrubber, just stuff gets sent into ocean, any problem with sulphur in ocean?

Difficult to answer that short question.....

The way exhaust gases are treated in cars does not work for common marine engines with a water cooled exhaust because they require a much higher temperature. An "afterburner" like used in cars like the Mazda RX-7 might work, but the exhaust gas probably must be reignited and 2nd stage cooling must be provided.
A dry exhaust could have a catalytic converter, but the immense heat will be a problem in any confined space. There will probably come a new generation of exhaust manifolds with an internal converter and a cooling jacket around the whole, so conventional exhaust hoses can be used, but the size of such a contraption might be prohibitive.

Sulphur in fuel is always bound to organic molecules. After burning, part of it will be converted into SO2 or SO3 and evaporate, or ionized in water to form H2SO3 or H2SO4, making the ocean a tiny little bit more acid. There are bacteria who love sulphur and digest it.

Most probably the amount of sulphur in the total oil reserve on this planet is very small compared to what is freed by volcanic activities.

[mydauphin]

Originally Posted by CDK

.

Most probably the amount of sulphur in the total oil reserve on this planet is very small compared to what is freed by volcanic activities.

Actually this is answer to it all....

[kistinie]

Are you sure ?
If i spread 10 tons of sulphur around you boat when you swim or in the middle of pacific, do you think it is the same ?

[CDK]

Originally Posted by kistinie

Are you sure ?
If i spread 10 tons of sulphur around you boat when you swim or in the middle of pacific, do you think it is the same ?

What sort of sulphur did you have in mind, rhombic, monocline, organic or anorganic composites?
Please do your homework first and refrain from making senseless remarks.