Why the Development of Internal Combustion Engines Is Still Necessary to Fight Against Global Climate Change from the Perspective of Transportation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
applied sciences Editorial Why the Development of Internal Combustion Engines Is Still Necessary to Fight against Global Climate Change from the Perspective of Transportation José Ramón Serrano * , Ricardo Novella and Pedro Piqueras CMT—Motores Térmicos, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 València, Spain; [email protected] (R.N.); [email protected] (P.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 26 September 2019; Accepted: 4 October 2019; Published: 29 October 2019 Internal combustion engines (ICE) are the main propulsion systems in road transport. In mid-2017, Serrano [1] referred to the impossibility of replacing them as the power plant in most vehicles. Nowadays, this statement is true even when considering the best growth scenario for all-electric and hybrid vehicles. The arguments supporting this position consider the growing demand for transport, the strong development of cleaner and more efficient ICEs [2,3], the availability of fossil fuels, and the high energy density of said conventional fuels. Overall, there seems to be strong arguments to support the medium-long-term viability of ICEs as the predominant power plant for road transport applications. However, the situation has changed dramatically in the last few years. The media and other market players are claiming the death of ICEs in the mid-term [4]. Politicians from several G7 countries, such as France, Spain, and the United Kingdom, have announced the prohibition of ICEs in their markets [5], in some cases, as early as 2040. Large cities, such London, Paris, Madrid, and Berlin, are also considering severe limits to ICE-powered vehicles. What is the analysis that can be made from this new situation? 1. What Is the Problem with ICE (Internal Combustion Engines)? The media’s arguments against ICEs range from the need to reduce CO2 emissions (global warming) to the need to improve the air quality in cities (NOx and particulate matter emissions). Much of this debate about the future of ICEs has arisen from the Dieselgate scandal [6,7]. A horrible wrong decision from a management and engineering point of view at a specific time and place has generated a worldwide butterfly effect in the automotive industry. However, making the problem a virtue, Dieselgate has forced new regulations to obtain much more efficient and cleaner ICEs [8–11]. As commonly takes place, old and lax pollutant regulations have now resulted in a pendular effect toward radically contrary positions, delighting the media and generating excessive political reactions without a clear scientific basis. All this is reflected in the look to publish a sufficiently popular or good news novelty. We could define the situation as energy populism. Although new regulations that force ICE technology to be more environmentally friendly must always be welcome, prohibitions motivated by a poor diagnosis of the situation will not help at all, neither to improve air quality nor to mitigate global warming. 2. What Is the Problem with Electric Vehicles? What should be the alternative to the current ICE in the mid-to-long term? Combining the pendulum effect of public opinion with the excellent marketing of new actors in the passenger car sector, a confusion cocktail is served for the media. After all, one might ask if the use of the conventional propulsive systems over 120 years was the right path. How can such an old concept be innovative? Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4597; doi:10.3390/app9214597 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 12 conventional propulsive systems over 120 years was the right path. How can such an old concept be innovative? How can the ICE be great and technologically advanced at burning fossil fuels? An easy but wrong conclusion comes without the need of reflection: Let us welcome “new electric motors and batteries” in zero-emission cars! Appl.The Sci. 2019 bad, 9 news, 4597 is that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. Electric motors2 of 11 and batteries are not new, nor are they clean and, in general, are not free from problems. One can directly identify two relevant problems. HowThe can first the ICEproblem be great is that and vehicle technologically propulsion advanced involves at energy burning transformations fossil fuels? An and easy the but electric wrong motorconclusion does comesnot use without a primary the needenergy of reflection:source but Letan usenergy welcome vector. “new Although electric public motors opinion and batteries” has a clearin zero-emission idea of how cars! some processes like friction can negatively affect transport applications, the understandingThe bad news of the is thatimpact energy of the is neithersecond createdlaw of thermodynamics nor destroyed, only is limited. transformed. The problem Electric motorsis that electricityand batteries must are be notproduced, new, nor most are usually they clean from and, non-renewable in general, areenergy not sources, free from which problems. equals Onearound can 60%directly in energy identify losses, two relevant and then problems. transported, which adds 20% of additional losses. Unfortunately, renewableThe first sources problem are barely is that 10% vehicle of the propulsion global ener involvesgy mix, energy as observed transformations in Figure 1 and [12] thewithout electric a medium-termmotor does not forecast use a primary of significant energy increase. source but an energy vector. Although public opinion has a clear ideaIn of some how some countries processes like likethe USA, friction China, can negatively Russia, Poland, affect transport South Korea, applications, or Germany, the understanding fossil fuels, includingof the impact a good of the percentage second law of ofcoal, thermodynamics remain the largest is limited. source The of problemenergy as is thata raw electricity material must for be produced, most usually from non-renewable energy sources, which equals around 60% in energy electricity production. In a first approach, the only G8 country with real alternatives to CO2-emitting technologieslosses, and then is France transported, due to which its continued adds 20% commitment of additional with losses. nuclear Unfortunately, energy. Therefore, renewable with sources the currentare barely energy 10% ofmix the and global with energy an analysis mix, as of observed the comp inlete Figure life1 cycle,[ 12] withoutthe so-called a medium-term analysis from forecast the of significant increase. cradle to the grave, the alternative to electric motors will not eliminate global CO2 emissions. FigureFigure 1. 1. EvolutionEvolution of of world world energy energy consumption consumption by by origin origin during during the the last last 25 25 years years [12]. [12]. OnIn somethis concern, countries Figure like the 2 USA,[13] which China, takes Russia, the Poland, data from South the Korea, cradle or to Germany, the grave fossil analysis fuels, elaboratedincluding aby good the percentage JEC—Joint of Research coal, remain Centre-E the largestUCAR-CONCAWE source of energy ascollaboration a raw material [13] for effectively electricity showsproduction. how with In a firstthe European approach, electricity the only G8 production country with mix real the alternatives shift to battery to CO electric2-emitting vehicles technologies (BEVs) wouldis France reduce due but to its not continued remove CO commitment2 emissions. with The nuclear reduction energy. of the Therefore, EU electricity with mix the is current estimated energy as 40mix gCO and2/km with (from an analysis 210 to of170 the gCO complete2/km) in life a cycle,total shift the so-calledfrom ICEs analysis to BEVs. from However, the cradle the to European the grave, Unionthe alternative reaches to35% electric of the motors mix willbetween not eliminate renewable global and CO hydraulic2 emissions. energy sources [12], while worldwide,On this it concern, is just Figure10% (Figure2[ 13] which1). If one takes thinks the data that from CO the2 emission cradle to is the a graveglobal analysis problem, elaborated energy policiesby the JEC—Joint on this regard Research cannot Centre-EUCAR-CONCAWE be acceptable being regional. collaboration [13] effectively shows how with the European electricity production mix the shift to battery electric vehicles (BEVs) would reduce but not remove CO2 emissions. The reduction of the EU electricity mix is estimated as 40 gCO2/km (from 210 to 170 gCO2/km) in a total shift from ICEs to BEVs. However, the European Union reaches 35% of the mix between renewable and hydraulic energy sources [12], while worldwide, it is just 10% (Figure1). If one thinks that CO 2 emission is a global problem, energy policies on this regard cannot be acceptable being regional. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4597 3 of 11 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12 Figure 2. Life-cycle CO2 emissions as a function of the energy source [13] with data from [14]. Figure 2. Life-cycle CO2 emissions as a function of the energy source [13] with data from [14]. More recently, in April 2019, the international media echoed a recent study performed by the German IFO (Institute Center for Economic Studies, CESifo GmbH) conductedconducted byby SinnSinn etet al.al. [[15],who15], who calculated that that a a Tesla Class 3 emits from 156 to 180 gCOgCO2/km/km during its lifetime with the German energy mix. This This result result in in CO 22 emissionemission ranges ranges from from 11% 11% to to 28% 28% more more than the modern Diesel E6d Temp engines. In addition, a life cycle analysis of the full electrification electrification of road transport shows that thethe gaseous gaseous emissions emissions would would only only be be relocated relocated from from cities cities to to the the surroundings surroundings of of large large thermal thermal power power plants and manufacturing centers, as pointed out by Messagie [16]. [16]. Unfortunately, global warming cannot be relocated relocated and atmospheric phenomena do not know the boundaries, as acid rain rain and and clouds clouds of particulateparticulate materialmaterial (PM (PM 2.5) 2.5) have have repeatedly repeatedly demonstrated, demonstrated, as shown as shown in Figure in3 [Figure17].