South Africas Diesel Exhaust Emissions the next step

The Beginning

Smog is the common International term for the forms of air pollution involving haze and oxidants such as ozone. Smog
was identified as a serious problem in the Los Angeles Basin in the 1950s. As university scientists and US government
health scientists investigated the problem, they found that vehicle emissions were a significant source of smog precursors.
Acting on this information, the California Legislature established emissions limits for 1966 model year cars and 1969
model year diesel trucks.
Roll on two decades, and a rising, and ever more affluent, population burning ever more fuel saw Californias problems
become a world wide phenomenon in cities and countries with high density populations.
Welcome then, in 1988, to the first of the European emission regulations that were to be popularly named EURO 1-6


South Africas air quality

If it ain't broke don't fix it!
Measures that California found necessary to solve their pollution problems way back in the middle of the last century were
not necessary for the rest of the States for decades. Similarly, South Africas forests, fire damage apart, continue to
remain intact, unaffected by the acid rain that was destroying European forests and that was a major signal for the need
for Europe to act.

We quote from National Association for Clean Air (NACA):-

South Africa is plagued by a number of pressing and persistent air pollution problems in addition to facing various new
emerging air pollution issues. High ambient sulphur dioxide and fine particulate concentrations experienced in many urban
areas are due primarily to fuel burning within the household, industrial and power generation sectors.
More than 90% of South Africa's electricity is generated from the combustion of coal that contains approximately 1.2%
sulphur and up to 45% ash. Coal combustion can lead to particulate matter in the air, as well as contribute to acid rain.
Total respiratory hospital admissions across various South African conurbations were calculated to be in the order of 120
000, with total direct health costs due to respiratory conditions related to fuel-burning emissions being estimated to be in
the order of 2002 cases, which is equal to a cost of R3.5 billion. Residential fuel burning was estimated to result in the
greatest health risks accounting for approximately 70% of all respiratory hospital admissions due to fuel-burning
exposures.
Many new and emerging air pollution issues relate to the transportation sector, particularly road transportation.

Beware that statements such as the last sentence are not quoted out of context. Sure exhaust emissions are the main, if
not only, emerging pollution, but that still does not mean that exhaust emissions should be prioritized over long standing
and much larger polluters

[If one wants to polish ones marbles by quoting selectively we can pick out from the University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of
Sciences document
http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/7993/K.G.%20Sekonya%209811024j%20Final%20thesis2.pdf?sequence=1
whereby air samples from sites in the Western Cape and Gauteng were broken down far more than in normal analysis (into 16
individual elements) in order to zone in to their true source:-

Source apportionment show that the major sources of atmospheric aerosols at the Khayelitsha sampling site were sea salt
and wood burning. The soil dust and gasoline emission contributes little percentages. This is also in agreement with the
previous study undertaken at the site, which shows that PM10 contributes to air pollution (Wicking-Baird et al., 1997;
Walton, 2005).

Source apportionment shows that the main contributors of air pollution at the Ferrobank site are soil dust and coal burning.
Gasoline contributes only 0.913 %]



The above, opening, statement from NACA then brings one to suppose that the National Environmental Management:
Air Quality Act, Act No. 39 of 2004 has not been enforced to restrict the major atmospheric polluters, and rather than
address that, the South African legislators will continue their practice of churning out more legislation without reference to
the fact of non enforcement of previous. Legislating the full might of European vehicle emission control, a control designed
to maintain air quality on countries that use 15 times more diesel per square kilometre than South Africa.




Europe v South Africa



.
Diesel
With a density of +/- 0.832 kg/l, some12% more than petrol at +/ 0.745 kg/l, diesel fuel offers a higher volumetric energy
density (typically 35.86 MJ/L ), which, combined with the intrinsic efficiency of the diesel engine, results in the better fuel
economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions that makes diesel power the standard for freight movement, and a rising
favourite in the car market
(While diesel's higher density results in higher greenhouse gas emissions per litre compared to petrol the 2040% better
fuel economy achieved by modern diesel-engined vehicles offsets the higher per-litre emissions of greenhouse gases,
and a diesel-powered vehicle emits 1020% less greenhouse gas than comparable petrol-powered vehicles)
The processing required to remove sulphur results in a fuel that has a lower energy content compared to the higher
sulphur fuel; fleets could see a fuel economy penalty of 1 % to 2% percent.

The road to clean diesel is already the subject of Government Gazette 35393, although the Countrys legislators confuse
all, by referring to the diesel as low sulphur diesel a term which in the real world refers to diesel with more than 50ppm of
sulphur.
The Gazetted target date of 2017 for introduction of SFD has already been deferred to 2020.
The accepted world-wide (except South Africa!) terminology for diesel cleanliness is

Low Sulphur Diesel (LSD) > 50 ppm
(Upper cut off appears to be anything from 300ppm to 3000ppm)
Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) < 50ppm
Clean Diesel or Sulphur Free Diesel (SFD) < 10ppm

The reduction of sulphur in diesel is a stand alone programme, there is no such thing as Euro 1, or Euro anything, diesel.
Clean diesel does not make an engine perform better, it does give better oil life because of the cleaner burning, and it
does, in itself, reduce emissions (tests have shown about 8% in going from 2000 ppm to SFD, < 10ppm). The real need
for it though is to prevent contamination of the expensive exhaust system that is very necessary for the higher stages of
the Euro programme.
In essence view it as a mirror of the move, a decade or more ago, to un-leaded petrol in order to stop poisoning of the
catalytic converter.

Population
2010
Land
Area
Population
Density
Vehicles
Vehicle
Density
Diesel
Consumed
Diesel
Consumed
(Sq Km) (per Sq Km) (per Sq Km) (KiloTons 2009) (Kg/sq km )
South Africa
49,991,000 1,219,912
36
10,979,208
9
6699
5491
Euro
(5 Country sample)
222,750,000 974,871
228
112,312,034
115
80,212
82279
Belgium 10,827,000 30,510 339.71 4,668,030 153.00 7113 233148
Germany 81,758,000 357,021 230.89 44,270,604 124.00 26408 73967
Italy 60,340,000 301,230 192.89 34,641,450 115.00 22688 75317
United Kingdom 62,042,000 244,820 246.88 24,726,820 101.00 21777 88950
Switzerland 7,783,000 41,290 181.39 4,005,130 97.00 2226 53910
Much has been speculated about how much we will pay for clean diesel, but the international industry estimates that the
whole process journey, from 3000 ppm to < 10 ppm, to add, only 2.5/3 US cents per litre. Considering that our current
diesel price has already absorbed the move from 3000 ppm to 500ppm, and that the current regulated wholesale price
difference between 500 ppm and 50 ppm is less than 1 US cent, it would seem difficult to charge more than a few local
cents for clean diesel - without moving away from the country's current Basic Fuels Price policy of pricing based on world
markets. (BFP relies on spot [cash] F.O.B prices quoted in Platts which tracks actual daily fuels trading prices at export
refineries)



The Euro Exhaust Emission Programme

With the final, sixth stage, of the Euro programme coming into force in January 2013, we have benefit of a full picture of
what has been necessary to get there, the problems, pitfalls, and the necessary ongoing management necessary to
maintain compliance.

Whilst there is no difficulty finding the emission standards for the various Euro levels, it is difficult to find emission levels
before the programme started. But the UKs RSSB carried out some well documented tests on a variety of 200-300Kw
Perkins and Cummins engines, testing the effect of, and the differences between, fuel at 2000 ppm & SFD diesel. Their
averaged emission figures for 2000ppm diesel have therefore been used in the following table to set the pre Euro
emission level.

All
Quantities
gm/kw/hr
Nitrogen
Oxides
% over
previous
Total
Hydro
Carbons
% over
previous
Carbon
monoxide
% over
previous
Particulate
Matter
% over
previous
Averaged %
improvement
% move
towards
Euro 6
Pre Euro 11.17 2.13 2.67 0.59
Euro 1 8.00 28.36 1.10 48.43 4.50 0.36 38.98 28.94 35
Euro 2 7.00 8.95 1.10 0.00 4.00 0.25 18.64 6.90 43
Euro 3 5.00 17.91 0.66 20.63 2.10 21.25 0.10 25.42 21.30 69
Euro 4 3.50 13.43 0.46 9.38 1.50 22.50 0.02 13.56 14.72 86
Euro 5 2.00 13.43 0.46 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.02 0.00 3.36 91
Euro 6 0.40 14.33 0.13 15.47 1.50 0.00 0.01 1.69 7.87 100


Whilst there is no suggestion the above table is clinically correct (with arguments existing for weighting one pollutant
against another in averaging figures), the straight mathematical average of emission reduction from stage to stage does
enable the establishing of an overall percentage move towards the current, and generally considered ultimate, stage 6.
From which an approximation of the progress towards Euro6 achieved by each stage, and the identification of diminishing
returns against escalating costs of Euro 4 onwards, can be shown.
(The recent November forum held by the IRTE, with a panel representing manufacturers from the 5 world wide sources of
our new truck supply, China, Europe, India, North & South Americas, did little to suppress the widely reported view that
trucks to the highest European emission standard would carry a 10% price premium - the only caveat being that in the
medium to long term, with volume production and development costs recovered there could be a normalizing of prices).

Progress up to, and including, Euro 3 was achieved through advances in engine design; substantially combustion
efficiencies through higher and higher injection pressures, multi phase injection, modest increases in Exhaust Gas
Recirculation (EGR), and the fuel consumption increasing penalty of retarding ignition to reduce peak flame
temperatures. Costs were largely development, with little in the way of additional components, and with Euro3 having
been introduced many years ago in Europe, those costs have long since been absorbed.
Euro 4 saw the manufacturers forming 3 distinct camps, those opting to achieve it by high levels of EGR, those
introducing Exhaust Gas Treatment (EGT), and those already taking the road that was to become the definitive route for
Euro 5 & 6, a mix of the two.
In the move from Euro 5 to Euro 6 internationally renowned Ricardo suggests manufacturers will achieve somewhere
between equal to Euro 5 and a small, up to 3%, fuel consumption increase.

Both these routes to progressing beyond Euro 3 have problems over and above the expense of introducing extra
components, problems which only become magnified in an African situation.

EGR

Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) is a process whereby some of the engine exhaust is fed back into the intake.
Since NOx formation is extremely sensitive to temperature, by replacing some of the intake air with inert exhaust gas, the
flame temperature can be reduced by a small amount and the NOx emissions can be reduced without seriously affecting
the combustion efficiency.
EGR as an emission reduction solution is not new, with both diesel and petrol engines being so modified some 50 years
ago in order to satisfy early Californian regulations, but for many years it was fairly small volumes of exhaust gas that
were being reprocessed, most certainly no more than 15%.
As with the early, low boost, days of turbo charging, there was no requirement to cool the gas before entering the cylinder.
But with current techniques demanding 40%, or more, of EGR, cabs have had to be redesigned, even in temperate
climates, in order to provide space for the now necessary additional cooling.
Local temperatures just magnify the problem, and at least one local manufacturer is on record as saying EGR at these
levels is a no go in Africa.
High volume, cooled, EGR allows a more controlled burn at lower combustion temperature and reduces NOx emissions
levels, but the lower combustion temperature creates more Particulate Matter (PM) which has to be captured by a Diesel
Particulate Filter (DPF) in the exhaust system. Unavoidably creating a higher back-pressure on the engine and a fuel
consumption penalty of, typically, about 1%.

It must be remembered that little more than 2 decades ago the space at the front of a truck was only needed to cool the
engine, then power went up and the radiator grew bigger; then the gearbox manufacturer wanted a slice of the action with
a need to cool his gearbox; then as turbo charging boost levels increased, intake air had to be cooled; radiator four came
next as the driver overheated and in went air conditioning; and now the need to accommodate for the cooling of red hot
exhaust gases!
Cooling problems apart, EGR offered the more attractive way forward, with no complications of additive injection and
reservoirs and, being part of the engine package, offering long life, minimal opportunity to abuse, and little, if any,
additional maintenance. Effectively a "Just Diesel, Nothing Else" solution.


EGT

EGT alone (at Euro4), or together with EGR (Euro5+), requires the complexity of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR).
Against the EGRs just diesel solution, the addition of the SCR system has been described as akin to bolting on a mini
chemical treatment plant.
With the SCR solution to emissions, the higher combustion temperature in the engine (compared to SGR) creates less
PM but more NOx. SCR technology then uses a chemical fluid called Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF), or urea, and a catalytic
converter to reprocess the exhaust gases and reduce the NOx emissions. The injection of the urea resin (known as
AdBlue in Europe) into the exhaust system permits the conversion of NOx into water vapour and nitrogen, which is
harmless. AdBlue is added to a special tank generally attached alongside the fuel tank.
SCR is more convenient for the manufacturer because it requires little, or no, actual engine development, allows injection
timing to be re-advanced, typically to the optimum Euro 1 settings, cutting soot levels dramatically and extending oil
changes to 200,000 kilometres. Against that is the need to find chassis space for the chemical treatment plant and urea
tank, the cost and weight penalty of up to 140Kg, increasing back pressure considerations, and, since NOx stores on the
surface of the exhausts platinum coated catalyst during low power, stop/start type operations, it needs to be regenerated
by frequent short spells of rich running imposing a consumption penalty of at least 2%, (with 4% or 5% not uncommon),
negating the promised fuel consumption improvement through combustion optimisation.
Lubricating oil manufacturers who have in the past focused development entirely on how oils perform in the engine, now
have to be concerned about how properties of the oil may affect emission control technology downstream of the engine.
This is going to place new physical and chemical limits on oil.

The operational weakness of the EGT/SCR solution is that failure to refill the DEF reservoir has, in itself, no effect on the
vehicles performance, unlike the fuel tank, where the driver has the incentive of keeping diesel in order to get home.
Thus since failure to fill the DEF reservoir has only the effect of ruining a R 100,000 exhaust system and leaving the
driver/owner open to prosecution for a dirty exhaust, legislation, even the disciplined world, has had to specify the
complexity of on board computers (OBCs) to monitor the reservoir level, the actual injection into the exhaust, and warn
drivers of an impending problem; and then, failing any remedial action, shut down the engine.
Given the local climate of removing, or by-passing, anything that causes a problem, and the lack of law enforcement, one
sees little but a lot of very expensive exhausts being negated in little time?

Conclusion

At the previously mentioned IRTE forum the SA truck suppliers warned of a situation whereby their principals could force
the issue by disproportionately increasing the price of specials for our 1.5% of the world market But it is noted that:-

MAN is already supplying modified Euro5 vehicles that can run on 500ppm diesel, and
Volvo is on record of saying that the Euro6 complaint FH14 will be brought to SA as a pared down offering
meeting Euro 3 criteria.

It is therefore suggested that market forces (not withstanding our limited 1.5% of world share), will see this situation
continuing in the medium term, allowing the importation of Euro3, which, together with the already announced clean
diesel, will provide a 70%+ emission reduction.

Increasing, artificially, the Countrys diesel consumption by 30% to 7138 Kg/sq km in compensation for the less than
perfect, Euro3, 70% emission level, we would still record a fuel burn density of less than 10% that of an Europe operating
with the expense, and not inconsiderable problems, of Euro6 levels.

IPIECA, - the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues, notes in their discussion
document:-.

it is not always feasible, or appropriate, for countries to jump to the most stringent fuel and vehicles standards;
the nature of air quality problems, as well as the primary contributors to those problems, may vary from country
to country; and
government/private resources are limited and should be directed at programmes that improve public health in
order of public need and cost-effectiveness.


With our current economic situation, that currently exhaust emissions are not our greatest pollutant, and
the benefit of the countrys large land mass relative to vehicle/population/diesel usage, it is suggested that
this decade is not the one in which to legislate further than the mechanically achieved, and already
funded, Euro 3 level


And finally Global Warming
This matter can not be left without comment on the confusion that exists, among professionals as well as with Joe Public,
in linking global warming carbon emissions, with the 'noxious' exhaust emission that have been the focus of legislation in
this, and for near 50% of the last, century. For any given circumstances the most fuel efficient engine will have both the
least carbon and, the least 'toxic' emissions, but that is where any similarities stop.

One cannot escape from some 86% of fuel mass being Carbon, and a litre of diesel burnt in an engine is a litre equivalent
of carbon emitted, period. This Irrespective of whether it comes out of a clean EURO-6 exhaust, or a pre-Euro dirty
banger.
In fact there is a strong argument that had circumstances been such that manufacturers had been able to concentrate
development time and expenditure over the last two decades solely on improving engine efficiency (ignoring what came
out of the exhaust pipe), and vehicles had remained free of back pressure inducing particle filters in the exhaust pipe, we
would have an even more fuel efficient, and less global warming, vehicle park today.
Two US sourced quotes of interest:

Though engine manufacturers have refused to release details of the effect of EGR on fuel economy, the EPA
regulations of 2002 that led to the introduction of cooled EGR were associated with a 3% drop in engine
efficiency, bucking a trend of a 0.5% a year increase
The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) process allows for the optimization of the diesel engine, resulting in
increased diesel fuel-efficiency of 3-5% in Class 8 heavy duty trucks
(read this statement carefully SCR is not some magic fuel consumption improver. By emission treatment it does
not require the engine to be detuned, and thus made more inefficient, in the search to limit NOx and other
emissions

Witness then, with the 'Euro' and similar world wide programmes having reduced emissions to close to the measurable
limit , and thus no expectations of a Euro 7, the current plans of engine manufacturers to re-focus on fuel efficiency by
improving mechanical efficiency.

Reducing internal friction, with better piston materials allowing rotating component redesign.
Higher boost pressures making for smaller capacities (again = less friction for given output.
Engine auxiliaries driven by on demand electric motors, rather than them absorbing engine power, and thus
increasing fuel consumption by being continually rotated, whether required or not.

These improvements will combine with the continuing onward march in increasing injection pressures to see a forecast
8% reduction in consumption in the next 5 years. A significant average annual improvement on the estimated total 10 to
20% achieved over the last 2 decades, when focus on noxious emissions was taking priority.

Carbon emission reduction, purely and simply fuel consumption reduction, has been delayed, not, improved, by
the 'Euro' and allied emission programmes?


Jim Mason
2 December 2012
(updated with additions 2 October 2014)