This is particularly interesting because to my knowledge there are no actual PR30Cs running for customers at Tier 4. I would like to know if possible what firsthand testing was done on the 3516 to generate these consumption numbers or, as I suspect more likely, how they were calculated from known engine parameters.
The 1 to 3% are as you noted specific to engines that already have been optimized for inherent low-NO emissions, particularly including the use of EGR. I would be suspicious that Progress is using the SCR feed to knock down not only average but also peak NO emissions, net of what may be intentionally hotter peak temps to reduce the need to regenerate the DPF, and this for the 3516 might likely result in the higher consumption numbers Progress proposes.
I am on a phone that does not like the navigation on the Progress site; it would be useful to see the counterpart interpreted figures for the PR43C’s C175 (it may take some work because as I understood it they never run the C175 ‘by itself’; and the C18 has already been reported to do ‘a little too much’ of its programmed running at higher speed and load where conditions might require more fluid…
It would be interesting to confirm that EMD — or people at the AAR — are reluctant to adopt DEF if EGR can do most of the job because they know consumption in some operating regimens would be comparably high. The EPA might think that the incremental cost to provide SCR on top of EGR ‘just to make Spec’ is comparable to the percentage gain: of course it is not, and I suspect detailed if not particularly open-minded analysis has been done by both camps to determine what the cost-effective answer is.
The title of the linked report the PR30C numbers come from is called: Progress Rail PR30C-LoNOx Locomotive with DOC and Urea based SCR: 12-Month Field Demonstration and Emissions Testing at 0, 1500 and 3000 Hours of Operation
Progress Rail provider UP with five locomotives for one year testing. CARB provided funding for testing and evaluating of PRLX 3004. During tests beside emissions fuel and DEF consumption were measured. Without aftertreatment the PR30C was Tier 2 compliant.
I have googled for the same information for the Cat C175-20. All I found were the data for the C175-16 genset. I haven’t found DEF consumption figures on the C175-20. So I settled with the 3516C-HD.
Regards, Volker
(In between incompetence at Apple and at Kalmbach’s ‘programmers’ it is now completely impossible to access the buttons on the ‘insert link’ utility, an achievement even a Doofenschmirtz might have difficulty with, so the link may not be fully ‘live’ for everyone)
What they call the crystalzation temp is the point where the DEF is frozen solid as a brick in your tank. It starts to slush up at 32 and gums the injectors used for it at 25. Hence the reason why at where I work at my boss makes the decision to keep it heated above 40 degrees. Yes SCR works wonders however you better have the infastructure in place to service the needed usage. Also you better have the spare parts and emergency supply when needed.
I cannot read all of the information in some of these posts clearly on the phone. I thought the information you linked had come directly from the Progress Web site. Since you only provided the name of the report in your more recent post, I provided the link to it as a convenience.
As a perhaps interesting aside, a contractor put together a genset proposal for a city in Florida and, as one of his exhibits, included the technical material for the 3000kW version of the C175 (red-x’ed out but still very readable). I think you may find some of the details of practical interest, especially Caterpillar’s somewhat slipshod presentation of the chemistry involved and the role of the DOC in nitrogen oxide emissions.
I also have too bad a migraine to do the necessary extraction and analysis on this dimwit phone, but the proposed Jordan’s Cove LNG terminal is slated to use C175s for its blackstart generation and the resource report (#9) in early September 2017 goes into specific detail of its notrogen-oxide emissions (which in turn set a lower bound on DEF consumption if there is assumed no ammonia slip).
That makes sense. I had been wondering if viscosity was an issue above the freezing point, so keeping the stuff at 40F or higher appears to be a wise move.
The tricks our shop has learned in the last 13 years and then some with both DPF and SCR since they been introduced the railroad chief maintenance officer’s would kill to get their hands on. They’ve learned how to maximise revenue minimize downtime and start to get back reliability and mpg back. All while working with goalposts that kept moving courtesy of the EPA and other government agencies.
Aside from the notrogen typo: You will have to extract the meaningful data from several sections of the Jordans Cove material; it is not just in one place.
You will no doubt realize that by the time Jordans Cove is finished, the blackstart generation will have to be Tier 4, and I believe this is covered in earlier sections, where there are highly interesting interpretations of what a ‘yearly emission’ of NOx from the blackstart facility will be. The point here is that (1) if you know the chemistry and stoich for the catalytic reduction and ammonia slip, which being molar will inherently be by weight, and (2) you have the emissions in lb, which are given at one point in tons/yr, and (3) you have the hours and duty cycle for the devices, you can figure out what the specific consumption of DEF HAS to be regardless of the nominal sfc of each of the generators (remember to account for both of them).
Some of the other details are in the section specific to blackstart generation details, but isn’t it clever that they discussed the emissions long before they start mentioning any ‘technical’ details, and don’t repeat them in the technical-detail section (where I’d at least expect to have seen mention of the amount of NOx mitigation right along with sfc as a ‘necessary’ adjunct to legal operation… It is hard to conceive of a CEM intentionally derating blackstart generation because the DEF tank is inadequate or the injectors slushed up…).
Meanwhile, at Daytona Beach you might note that all through the actual ‘pitch’ nothing is mentioned about the cost of consumables for NOx emission at all – it’s all rosy discussion of pollution benefits. Only if you read down to the patched-in technical discussion – and what purchasing agency or politician actually wants to read all that technical stuff? can’t be very many because the exhibit itself has the chemistry wrong in a couple of places, notably showing NO2 in the final exha
Brings up another discussion EPA laws in other industries utilizing Diesel engines.
Truck industry, Peterbilt, Kenworth and Daimler manufactures “glider kits” which is a new truck with no engine. They can use a certified engine from basically any existing truck that has been taken out of service.
Which now has expanded to 20,000 units annually. Orginally the plan was for Gliders to use GHG phase 2 engines after 2017, Scott Pruitt is leading the EPA to re open this loophole.
Imagine if GE and EMD could sell new locomotives for the railroads to install -9 and SD60 engines in.