HYDRAGEN™ REEFER
TESTING 2017
dynaCERT Inc.
November 17, 2017
Report by: Olivia Maier Chemical Engineer
Table
of Contents
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Figures............................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Tables................................................................................................................................ iii
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ 1
Test Plan.......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1
Purpose................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2
Test Plan Summary........................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1
Replication
of Results.................................................................................................... 5
1.3
Equipment......................................................................................................................... 6
1.4
Milestones......................................................................................................................... 6
1.5
Procedure......................................................................................................................... 6
1.6
Expected Results............................................................................................................... 7
1.7
Costs................................................................................................................................. 7
Results............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.8
Phase 1 Test Results: Steady State........................................................................................ 9
1.8.1
32°F Set point................................................................................................................ 9
1.8.2
0°F Set point................................................................................................................. 14
1.8.3
-15°F Setpoint............................................................................................................... 18
1.9
Phase 2 Test Results: Full Load........................................................................................ 22
1.9.1
0°F Set point................................................................................................................ 22
1.9.2
HydraGEN™ Unit
Removed............................................................................................ 24
4.0 Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 25
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Reefer testing
set-up, with reefer
unit, trailer, HydraGEN™ unit, ladder, and ECOM emissions analyzer.................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Rear
doors of reefer
trailer with reefer
temperature sensor indicated in red...................... 3
Figure 3: Rear view
of reefer trailer, doors open (as in Phase
2 trials).............................................. 5
Figure 4: ECOM Emissions Analyzer..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Reefer
unit engine exposed
with HydraGEN™ unit connection hose
(gas inlet to engine)
visible........................................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 6: Open-door view
of reefer engine
with HydraGEN™ unit
connection hose.......................... 8
Figure 7: Fuel Consumption (pounds per hour)
over time for
nine Phase 1 trials at 32F, compared to the baseline data
(black) It should
be noted that
after day 4,
the HydraGEN™ unit was removed until fuel
consumption levels returned to the baseline levels. It was reinstalled on day 5, and by days 8 and 9, levels returned to the
previous low levels seen on days 1-4. Average percent change from
baseline is shown
labelled in percentages........................................................................ 10
Figure 8: CO2 Emissions (grams per hour)
over time for
nine Phase 1 trials at 32F, compared to the baseline
data (black). After day 4, the HydraGEN™ unit was removed until emissions levels
returned to the baseline. It was reinstalled on day 5, and by days 8 and 9, emissions returned to the previous low levels seen on days 1-4. Average
percent change from
baseline is shown labelled in percentages.......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 9: CO Emissions (grams per hour) over time for nine Phase 1 trials at 32F, compared to the
baseline data (black). After day 4, the HydraGEN™ unit was removed until emissions levels
returned to the baseline. It was reinstalled on day 5, and by days 8 and 9, emissions returned to the previous low levels seen on days 1-4. Average
percent change from
baseline is shown labelled in percentages......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 10:
NOx Emissions (grams
per hour) over
time for nine
Phase 1 trials
at 32F, compared to the baseline
data (black). After day 4, the HydraGEN™ unit was removed until emissions levels
returned to the baseline. It was reinstalled on day 5, and by days 8 and 9, emissions returned to the previous low levels seen on days 1-4. Average
percent change from
baseline is shown labelled in percentages........................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 11: Fuel Consumption (pounds per hour)
over time for five Phase
1 trials at 0F, compared to the baseline data (black). Average percent change from
baseline is shown labelled in percentages............................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 12: CO2 Emissions (grams per hour) over time for five Phase 1 trials at 0F, compared
to the baseline data
(black). Average percent
change from baseline is shown labelled in percentages.
....................................................................................................................................................................
15
Figure 13: CO Emissions (grams
per hour) over time for five Phase 1 trials at 0F, compared to the
baseline data (black).
Average percent change
from baseline is shown labelled in percentages.
....................................................................................................................................................................
16
Figure 14: NOx Emissions (grams per hour) over time for five Phase 1 trials at 0F compared
to the baseline data
(black). Average percent
change from baseline is shown labelled in percentages.
....................................................................................................................................................................
17
Figure 15:
Fuel Consumption (pounds
per hour) over
time for six Phase 1 trials at -15F, compared
to the baseline data (black). Average percent change from baseline is
shown labelled in percentages................................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 16: CO2 Emissions (grams
per hour) over
time for six Phase 1 trials at -15F, compared
to the baseline data
(black). Average percent
change from baseline
is shown labelled
in percentages.
....................................................................................................................................................................
19
Figure 17: CO Emissions (grams
per hour) over time for six Phase 1 trials
at -15F, compared
to the baseline data
(black). Average percent
change from baseline is shown labelled in percentages.
...................................................................................................................................................................
20
Figure 18: NOx Emissions (grams
per hour) over time for six Phase
1 trials at -15F, compared
to the baseline data
(black). Average percent
change from baseline is shown labelled in percentages.
....................................................................................................................................................................
21
Figure 19: Fuel
Consumption (lb/hr) over time for three Phase
2 trials at 0F, compared
to the baseline data (black). Average percent change from baseline is
shown labelled in percentages. 23
Figure 20: Fuel Consumption
(lb/hr) over time for three Phase 2 trials with the HydraGEN™ unit removed at 0F (blue, green, yellow),
compared to the baseline data (black) and to the Phase 2 trial
average with the
HydraGEN™ unit (red)........................................................................... 24
Figure 21: Reefer
testing set-up...................................................................................................... 26
Table of Tables
Table 1: Summary of average and maximum savings
calculated for each
phase and separate set of conditions.................................................................................................................................. 1
Table 2: Reefer
engine properties..................................................................................................... 2
Table 3: Phase 1 testing plan
– doors closed.
Each trial was repeated three
times............................. 4
Table 4: Ambient maximum,
minimum, and mean
temperature on each
day of Phase 1 testing
at 32F.
......................................................................................................................................................................9
iii
dynaCERT Inc.
| 501 Alliance Ave | Toronto | Ontario | Canada | M6N 2J1 www.dynacert.com | [email protected] |
+1 416-766-9691
Executive Summary
With the support of Loblaw Cos, dynaCERT conducted testing of its
proprietary carbon emission reduction technology. The plan is to develop
a new HydraGEN™ unit specifically sized to be used
on smaller diesel engines
with a focus on the refrigerated trailer
(Reefer) market.
The testing was conducted to evaluate the use of HydraGEN™ Technology to reduce carbon emissions and improve
fuel economy of a diesel–powered reefer trailer that is used to haul perishable goods
in a cold climate environment. These trailers are used around
the world in both
truck-hauled units and container units moved by large ocean-going ships.
A summary of
the most significant findings can be found in Table 1 below.
Please note that the temperatures were recorded per the trailer control system
in Fahrenheit degrees.
Three months of testing and data collection were performed to date on a reefer
trailer as provided by Loblaw Cos. This trailer was equipped with a Thermo-King 4-cylinder, 2.1L engine
operating an air conditioning
chiller system. The engine controller had two operational levels, a low speed
to maintain the set temperature and
a high speed
to reach the set temperature. Engine properties can be
found in Table 2 below. The test location was the outdoor parking lot at 501
Alliance Avenue Toronto ON Canada
with uncontrolled environmental conditions that ranged
from low temperatures and rain to cloudless sky
and high temperatures.
As the engine operated in the different
climatic conditions and for different operating set points,
the changes to the fuel consumption, reefer temperature, and
exhaust properties: temperature, excess air, burn efficiency and losses, and gas composition (oxygen, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, total
NOx, and sulphur
dioxide content) were monitored on an hourly
basis for 8hr periods per day.
Table 1:
Summary of average and maximum savings calculated for each phase and separate
set of conditions.
|
Conditions
|
Property
|
Trial Max Savings
|
Trial Average Savings
|
|
Phase 1.1
Set Temp 32°F 15A current Doors closed
|
Fuel Consumption
|
28%
|
26%
|
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
49%
|
44%
|
|
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
|
55%
|
51%
|
|
NOx
|
35%
|
30%
|
|
Phase 1.2
Set Temp 0°F 15A current Doors closed
|
Fuel Consumption
|
15%
|
13%
|
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
31%
|
24%
|
|
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
|
45%
|
41%
|
|
NOx
|
14%
|
11%
|
|
Phase 1.3
Set Temp -15°F 15A current Doors closed
|
Fuel Consumption
|
17%
|
13%
|
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
34%
|
24%
|
|
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
|
36%
|
29%
|
|
NOx
|
22%
|
12%
|
|
Phase 2.1
Set Temp 0°F 15A current
Doors open
|
Fuel Consumption
|
17%
|
16%
|
Test
Plan
1.1
Purpose
·
To determine the impact of the HydraGEN™ unit producing approximately 2 L/min of H2/O2
gas on fuel consumption and economy, as well as exhaust properties including temperature,
diesel burn efficiency, and carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, and nitrous oxide exhaust content.
·
To determine the extent of engine cleaning
because of HydraGEN™ usage.
·
To determine the
effect of changing
the operating current
and gas output
of the HydraGEN™
unit.
·
To verify that the design
will meet the operational requirements for a reefer
engine.
·
To improve the design, performance, and
understanding of the HydraGEN™ units
and applications.
Table
2: Reefer engine properties.
|
Engine Property
|
Value
|
|
Manufacturer
|
Ingersoll Rand – Yanmar
|
|
Family
|
8Y7XL209K4N
|
|
Model
|
TK 486V
|
|
Displacement
|
2.091L
|
|
Fuel Rate
|
27.2 mm3/stroke at 253kW/2200 rpm
|
|
Year
|
2004
|
|
Engine operating setting
|
High Speed, Low speed
|
|
Engine automatic set
temperatures
|
32F, 0F, -15F
|
1.2
Test
Plan Summary
To verify and
gauge any performance changes made by the HydraGEN™ system, a baseline of the
reefer units’ (RU) normal operation will need to be established. For the
baseline and operational performance, testing will
monitor the fuel
consumption, reefer temperature, and exhaust properties: temperature, excess air, burn efficiency and losses, and gas composition (oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, total NOx, and sulphur
dioxide content).
Figure 1: Reefer testing set-up, with
reefer unit, trailer, HydraGEN™ unit, ladder,
and ECOM emissions analyzer.
Figure
2: Rear doors of reefer trailer with reefer temperature sensor indicated in
red.
The test will consist
of 2 phases. Phase 1 takes place
with the doors
of the trailer closed, ensuring that the reefer can reach and maintain the set temperature; the first hour of testing
was allotted for this. Trials were conducted at three different set point temperatures: 32, 0 and -15°F, repeated
three times at each condition to ensure consistency of results. Trials
were also conducted at different HydraGEN™ unit current set points.
Data was collected each day at once per
hour or eight
readings per trial. A baseline performance was established by running the reefer for three complete
trials at each temperature
set point without a HydraGEN™ unit
attached. To ensure accurate results, all baseline data must be collected on a
‘dirty engine’ before the unit is installed. Table 3
below summarizes all scheduled trial condition.
Table 3: Phase 1 testing plan – doors closed. Each trial
was repeated three times.
|
Set
Temperature (°F)
|
HydraGEN™ Maximum
Current (A)
|
|
0A – no unit (baseline)
|
15A
|
|
32°F
|
3 baseline trials at 32F
|
3 trials at 32F, 15A
|
|
0°F
|
3 baseline trials at 0F
|
3 trials at 0F, 15A
|
|
-15°F
|
3 baseline trials at - 15F
|
3 trials at
-15F, 15A
|
Phase 2 takes place with
the trailer doors
open; this prevents
the reefer temperature from reaching the set
point and keeps it running at maximum load (high speed) throughout the trial.
It will be performed at 0°F, first for 3 trials
without the HydraGEN™ unit (baseline), then 3 trials each at 15A and 12A.
Figure
3: Rear view of reefer trailer, doors open (as in Phase 2 trials).
Performance changes will be determined by comparing the baseline data
over against the test data. This testing is to prove that
the HydraGEN™ system can be applied
in a steady state mode
to improve the performance of a diesel engine that is also operating in a steady
state mode.
1.2.1
Replication of Results
To reduce external variables and ensure that the improvement in engine
performance is a direct result of the HydraGEN™ unit,
the unit was removed once a completed set of results had been acquired (over
four or five full days for each trial). The reefer trailer
engine was then run for several
days until fuel consumption and emissions levels returned to baseline. The HydraGEN™ unit was then reinstalled, and the trials were repeated. It was found
that the engine performance again improved with time, reaching the levels of
the initial trials in 3-5 days.
1.3
Equipment
·
Trailer with Reefer unit (RU) and internal thermocouple
·
HydraGEN™ system
·
Mass Flow Meter
·
Ladder
·
Workbench
·
Multi-meter
·
Weight Scale
·
ECOM Emissions Analyzer (Figure 4)
Figure
4: ECOM Emissions Analyzer
1.4
Milestones
·
Test preparations to the trailer complete
(isolate fuel system for measuring)
·
Phase 1
baseline complete
·
Phase 2
baseline complete
·
Phase 1 testing complete
·
Phase 2 testing
complete
·
Trailer ready for normal operation (fuel tank
re-filled and re-secured)
·
Data analysis performed on results
1.5
Procedure
1.
Set up testing and fuel weighing equipment.
Record initial fuel weight.
2.
Set up HydraGEN™ unit,
unless performing a baseline test.
3.
Turn on reefer.
Set desired temperature. If performing a Phase 2 test, open the trailer
door.
4.
Perform an emissions
analysis. Record emissions data and reefer temperature.
5.
Record emissions data, fuel weight,
and reefer temperature each hour for a total
of 7 hours (8 readings).
6.
After 8 readings over 7 hours, turn off reefer engine.
7.
Put away all equipment.
1.6
Expected Results
The expected results
are a reduction of carbon
emission of 10%
and a fuel savings of at least
5% for the reefer
unit’s general operation from day to day. The results are to show an improvement in the fuel efficiency of the reefer
when the trailer
temp is being
maintained below the ambient temperature outside. Phase 1 and 2 results
will be from an equilibrium (as best possible)
environment and will reflect the bulk of the RU’s operational life cycle, either
at steady state or maintained at full load.
1.7
Costs
·
Diesel Fuel - $1,000
·
Weight Scale - $200
·
Worker Wages -
$10,000
·
Gas tanks - $200
·
Trailer Rental – N/A
Figure 5: Reefer unit engine exposed with HydraGEN™ unit connection hose (gas inlet to engine) visible.
Results
The following results
provide an analysis and discussion of the results
of each phase
of testing. The change in engine performance from baseline is quantified by the following factors: fuel consumption, reefer temperature, and exhaust properties: temperature, excess air,
burn efficiency and losses, and gas
composition (oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitric oxide,
nitrous oxide, total NOx,
and sulphur dioxide content). The
most significant findings are documented in the following sections. It should also be noted that the ambient temperature on each day of testing
is included as this has a direct impact on the engine load.
Figure 6: Open-door view of reefer engine with HydraGEN™ unit connection hose.
1.8
Phase 1 Test Results: Steady State
Phase 1 tests the engine performance at steady state
with and without
the HydraGEN™ unit. By keeping the trailer
doors closed, the engine can reach steady
state at the set temperature, at which point the
engine load is reduced and engine load reduces.
Each of the Phase 1 trials were compared to a baseline
test performed at 32°F with
no HydraGEN™ unit attached and the doors closed. Ambient
temperature on the day of the baseline
was 23°C with a high of 26°C.
1.8.1
32°F Set point
Removal of the HydraGEN™
unit and consistency of
results
In order
to verify the consistency of results, the HydraGEN™ was removed
after day 4 and the reefer
was run sans unit until
emissions and fuel consumption values
returned to the baseline. Then,
the unit was reinstalled on day 5. Over days
5-9, the levels
gradually decreased to duplicate the excellent
results seen on days 1-4.
This further corroborate the beneficial results
of HydraGEN™ technology.
Table 4 below summarizes ambient temperature on
each test day.
Table 4:
Ambient maximum, minimum, and mean temperature on each day of Phase 1 testing
at 32F.
|
Test Day
|
Temperature High (°C)
|
Temperature Low (°C)
|
Temperature Average (°C)
|
|
Baseline
|
26
|
20
|
23
|
|
Day 1
|
23
|
21
|
23
|
|
Day 2
|
20
|
11
|
17
|
|
Day 3
|
22
|
11
|
16
|
|
Day 4
|
21
|
10
|
16
|
|
Day 5
|
27
|
20
|
24
|
|
Day 6
|
27
|
20
|
24
|
|
Day 7
|
28
|
17
|
22
|
|
Day 8
|
18
|
13
|
16
|
|
Day 9
|
19
|
11
|
15
|
Fuel Consumption
Improved fuel economy
means significant financial savings and a better return
on investment for
the
HydraGEN™.
Figure 7 below shows the plot of the fuel consumption (measured in fuel lb/hr) over time. The black
line represents the baseline values.
On average, throughout the course of the trials
fuel consumption was reduced
by 25%. The highest fuel
consumption savings were seen on day 2, which showed
28% average savings. The lowest savings
were seen on days 1, 4 and 9, at 22% savings
from baseline as would be expected with a low ambient
temperature (see Table 4). It is clear from
the graph that HydraGEN™ stabilizes the engine
operation and resulting readings. Days 5-7 show a high fuel consumption close
to that of baseline, but days 8-9 return to the levels seen on days 1 through 4. This suggests that HydraGEN™ technology may help to clean out the engine and
improves fuel consumption over time.
These are significant savings.
Figure 7: Fuel Consumption (pounds per hour)
over time for nine Phase
1 trials at 32F, compared
to the baseline
data (black) It should be noted that after day 4, the HydraGEN™ unit was removed until
fuel consumption levels returned to the
baseline levels.
It was reinstalled on day 5, and by days 8 and 9, levels returned
to the previous low levels seen
on days 1-4. Average
percent change from baseline is shown labelled
in percentages.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions
Reducing CO2 emissions is part of reducing air pollution and
environmental impact which
is a priority for most governments and employers.
Figure 8 below shows the plot of the fraction
of CO2 (g/hr) in the exhaust over time. The black line represents the baseline values (without the HydraGEN™ unit). This is a representation of the total mass of carbon dioxide emitted in
the exhaust over time (g/hr).
On average,
throughout the course of the trials the carbon dioxide content of the exhaust
was reduced by 44%.
The highest CO2
reduction was seen
on day 3, which showed
49% average savings. The lowest savings were seen on day 1, at 39% savings from
baseline. Days 5-7 show high
levels of CO2 emissions close to those
of baseline as expected after
several weeks without
the HydraGEN™ unit,
but days 8-9 return to the levels seen on days 1 through 4. This suggests
that HydraGEN™ Technology helps
to clean out
carbon deposits from the engine
and decrease emissions over time.
These are significant savings.
Figure 8: CO2 Emissions (grams per hour)
over time for nine Phase
1 trials at 32F, compared
to the baseline data (black). After day 4, the HydraGEN™ unit was removed until
emissions levels returned
to the baseline. It was reinstalled on day 5, and by days 8 and 9, emissions returned to the previous low levels seen on days 1-4. Average
percent change from baseline is shown labelled in percentages.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions
Reducing CO emissions is part of reducing air
pollution and environmental impact, a priority for most
governments and employers.
Figure 9 below shows the plot of the fraction
of CO (g/hr) in the exhaust over time. The black line represents the baseline values.
This is a representation of the total
mass of carbon
monoxide emitted in the
exhaust over time.
On average,
throughout the course of the nine trials the carbon monoxide content of the exhaust was reduced by 51%. The highest
CO reduction was seen on day 3, at 55% average savings.
The lowest savings were seen on day 8, at 43% savings from baseline both days. Days 5-7 show high
levels of CO2 emissions close to those of baseline as expected after several
weeks without the HydraGEN™ unit, but days 8-9 return to the levels seen on days 1 through 4, which suggests
that HydraGEN™ may help
to clean out carbon deposits
from the engine
and decrease emissions over time.
These are significant savings.
Figure 9: CO Emissions
(grams per hour) over time for nine Phase 1 trials at 32F, compared
to the baseline data (black). After day 4, the HydraGEN™ unit was removed until emissions levels
returned to the baseline. It was reinstalled on day 5, and by days 8 and 9, emissions returned to the previous low levels seen on days 1-4. Average
percent change from baseline is shown labelled in percentages.
NOx Emissions
NOx refers to a group of nitrogen
oxides that contribute significantly to air pollution and depletion
of the ozone layer. Reducing NOx emissions is a high
priority for most
governments and employers for these reasons.
Figure 10 below
shows the plot of the mass of NOx emissions
over time. The black line represents
the baseline values. This is a representation of the total mass of NOx gases emitted in the exhaust over time (g/hr).
On average, the HydraGEN™ reduced NOx emissions by 30%. The highest reduction was seen on day
2, at 35% average savings.
The lowest savings
were seen on days 1 and 4, at 26% savings from baseline. Days 5-7 show high levels
of CO2 emissions close to those of baseline as expected after several weeks without the HydraGEN™ unit, but days 8-9 return to the levels
seen on days
1 through 4, which
suggests that HydraGEN™ may help to decrease
emissions over time.
These are
significant savings.
Figure 10: NOx Emissions (grams per hour)
over time for nine Phase
1 trials at 32F, compared to the baseline data (black). After day 4, the HydraGEN™ unit was removed until emissions levels
returned to the baseline. It was reinstalled on day 5, and by days 8 and 9, emissions returned to the previous low levels seen on days 1-4. Average
percent change from baseline is shown labelled in percentages.
1.8.2
0°F Set point
The table
below summarizes ambient temperature on each test day.
|
Test Day
|
Temperature High (°C)
|
Temperature Low (°C)
|
Temperature Average (°C)
|
|
Baseline
|
26
|
20
|
23
|
|
Day 1
|
23
|
16
|
20
|
|
Day 2
|
17
|
8
|
14
|
|
Day 3
|
21
|
14
|
16
|
|
Day 4
|
19
|
10
|
14
|
|
Day 5
|
18
|
11
|
14
|
Fuel Consumption
Improved
fuel economy means
significant financial savings
and a better return on investment for
the
HydraGEN™.
Figure 11 below shows
the plot of the fuel
consumption (measured in lb/hr) over
time. The black
line represents the baseline values.
On average, the HydraGEN™ reduced
fuel consumption by 13%. The highest fuel consumption savings were
seen on day 2, which
showed 15% average
savings. The lowest
savings were seen on
day 3, at 11% savings
from baseline. It is clear from the graph that HydraGEN™ results in a more regular, constant fuel consumption.
Figure 11:
Fuel Consumption (pounds
per hour) over
time for five
Phase 1 trials
at 0F, compared to the baseline data (black). Average
percent change from baseline is shown labelled
in percentages.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions
Figure 12 below shows the plot of the fraction of CO2 (g/hr) in the
exhaust over time for five trial days. The black line represents the baseline
values. This is a representation of the total mass of carbon dioxide emitted in
the exhaust over time (g/hr).
On average, throughout the course of the five trials the carbon dioxide
content of the exhaust was reduced by 24%. The
highest CO2 reduction was seen on day 4, which showed
31% average savings. The lowest savings were seen on day 2, at 18% savings from baseline.
Figure 12: CO2 Emissions
(grams per hour) over time for five Phase 1 trials at 0F, compared
to the baseline data (black). Average percent change
from baseline is shown labelled
in percentages.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions
Figure 13 below
shows the plot
of the fraction of CO (g/hr) in the exhaust
over time for five test
days. The black line represents the baseline values.
This is a representation of the total
mass of carbon monoxide emitted in the exhaust over time (g/hr).
On average, throughout the course of the three
trials the carbon
monoxide content of the exhaust was reduced by 41%. The highest
CO reduction was seen on day 1, at 45% average savings.
The lowest savings were seen on day 3, at 38%. This suggests
that HydraGEN™ helps to burn diesel more completely, as CO is a
product of incomplete combustion.
These are significant savings.
Figure 13: CO Emissions
(grams per hour) over time for five Phase 1 trials at 0F, compared
to the baseline data (black). Average percent change
from baseline is shown labelled
in percentages.
NOx Emissions
Figure 14 below shows the plot of the mass of NOx (g/hr) emissions
over five test days. The black
line represents the baseline values. This is a representation of the total mass
of nitrogen oxides emitted in the exhaust over time (g/hr).
The baseline point
at hour 3 is an outlier and should be disregarded. On average, accounting for this point, the
HydraGEN™ reduced NOx emissions by 11%. The highest reduction was seen on day 4, at
14% average savings.
Figure 14: NOx Emissions
(grams per hour) over time for five Phase 1 trials at 0F compared
to the baseline data (black). Average percent change
from baseline is shown labelled
in percentages.
1.8.3
-15°F Setpoint
The table
below summarizes ambient temperature on each test day.
|
Test Day
|
Temperature High (°C)
|
Temperature Low (°C)
|
Temperature Average (°C)
|
|
Baseline
|
26
|
20
|
23
|
|
Day 1
|
21
|
11
|
16
|
|
Day 2
|
20
|
10
|
15
|
|
Day 3
|
18
|
11
|
14
|
|
Day 4
|
22
|
12
|
17
|
|
Day 5
|
21
|
13
|
17
|
|
Day 6
|
14
|
8
|
11
|
Fuel Consumption
Improved
fuel economy means
significant financial savings
and a better return on investment for
the
HydraGEN™.
Figure 15 below
shows the plot
of the fuel consumption (measured in lb/hr) over
time. The black
line represents the baseline values.
On average,
the HydraGEN™ reduced fuel consumption by
13%. The highest fuel consumption savings were seen
on day 6, which showed
17% average savings. The lowest savings
were seen on day 1, at 8% savings from baseline.
Figure 15: Fuel Consumption (pounds per hour)
over time for six Phase
1 trials at -15F, compared
to the baseline data
(black). Average percent
change from baseline
is shown labelled
in percentages.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions
Figure 16 below shows the plot of the fraction
of CO2 (g/hr) in the exhaust over six days. The black line represents the baseline values.
This is a representation of the total mass of carbon dioxide emitted in the
exhaust over time (g/hr).
On average,
throughout the course of the six trials the carbon dioxide content
of the exhaust was reduced by 24% for all six trials. The highest CO2 savings were seen on day 6, which showed
34% average savings. The lowest savings
were seen on day 1, at 12% savings from
baseline. This suggests that HydraGEN™
technology may help
to clean carbon
buildup from the
engine and further
reduce emissions over time.
Figure 16: CO2 Emissions (grams per hour)
over time for six Phase
1 trials at -15F, compared
to the baseline data (black). Average percent change
from baseline is shown labelled
in percentages.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions
Figure 17 below shows the plot of the fraction
of CO (g/hr) in the exhaust over time. The black line represents the baseline values.
This is a representation of the total
mass of carbon
monoxide emitted in the
exhaust over time (g/hr).
On average, throughout the course of the three
trials the carbon
monoxide content of the exhaust was reduced by 29%. The highest
CO reduction was seen on day 3, at 36% average savings.
The lowest savings were
seen on day 5 at 16%. This
suggests that HydraGEN™ helps to clean out carbon
deposits from the engine and decrease emissions over time.
Figure 17: CO Emissions
(grams per hour) over time for six Phase 1 trials at -15F, compared
to the baseline data (black). Average percent change
from baseline is shown labelled
in percentages.
NOx Emissions
Figure 18 below shows the plot of NOx emissions by mass over time. The term NOx represents a group
of nitrogen oxides
including NO and NO2. The black line represents the baseline values.
On average, the HydraGEN™ reduced NOx emissions by 12%. The highest reduction was seen on day
6, at 22% average savings. The lowest savings
were seen on day 1, at 5% savings from
baseline. This suggests that
HydraGEN™ helps to clean
out the engine
and improve engine
performance over time.
Figure 18: NOx Emissions (grams per hour)
over time for six Phase
1 trials at -15F, compared to the baseline data (black). Average
percent change from baseline is shown labelled
in percentages.
1.9
Phase 2 Test Results: Full Load
Phase 2 tests the engine
performance at full
load with and without the HydraGEN™ unit. By keeping
the trailer doors open, the engine is prevented from ever reaching
the set temperature of 0°F, so it
stays at maximum load for the duration of the trial.
Each of the Phase 2 trials was compared to a baseline
test performed at 0°F with no unit attached
and the doors open. Ambient
temperature on the day of the baseline
was 22°C with
a high of 27°C.
1.9.1
0°F Set point
The table
below summarizes ambient temperature on each test day.
|
Test Day
|
Temperature High (°C)
|
Temperature Low (°C)
|
Temperature Average (°C)
|
|
Baseline
|
26
|
20
|
23
|
|
Day 1
|
23
|
21
|
23
|
|
Day 2
|
20
|
11
|
17
|
|
Day 3
|
22
|
11
|
16
|
Fuel Consumption
Improved fuel economy
means significant financial savings and a better return
on investment for
the
HydraGEN™.
Figure 19 below shows
the plot of the fuel
consumption (measured in lb/hr) over
time. The black
line represents the baseline values.
On average,
throughout the course
of the three trials fuel consumption was reduced by 16%. The highest fuel consumption savings
were seen on day 2, which showed
17% average savings.
The lowest savings were seen on day 3, at 10% savings from baseline. It
is clear from the graph that HydraGEN™ stabilizes
the readings.
These are significant savings.
Figure
19: Fuel Consumption (lb/hr) over time
for three Phase
2 trials at 0F, compared to the baseline
data (black). Average percent change from baseline is shown labelled
in percentages.
1.9.2
HydraGEN™ Unit Removed
After running
the reefer unit for 3 days with the HydraGEN™ unit, the unit was removed and
the reefer was run again for 3 days to evaluate change in performance.
The table below summarizes
ambient temperature on each test day.
|
Test Day
|
Temperature High (°C)
|
Temperature Low (°C)
|
Temperature Average (°C)
|
|
Baseline
|
26
|
20
|
23
|
|
Day 1
|
24
|
19
|
22
|
|
Day 2
|
24
|
16
|
20
|
|
Day 3
|
24
|
19
|
22
|
Fuel Consumption
Figure 20 below shows the black line representing the original baseline
used to evaluate the unit performance in Phase
2.1. The red
line represents the
average fuel consumption over the course
of all 3 trial
days in Phase 2.1. It is clear from the red line that HydraGEN™ technology improves the fuel economy significantly.
The blue, green, and yellow lines represent each day the reefer was run
after removing the HydraGEN™ unit. There
is a clear increase in fuel consumption over time without
the HydraGEN™ unit, where
the average daily fuel consumption of day 3 is higher
than day 2, which is an increase over day 1. This suggests that
not only does
HydraGEN™ technology decrease
fuel consumption, but that it cleans out the engine so
that fuel consumption does not immediately return to the original baseline
value. The peak value seen at hour 5 is likely due to the ambient temperature
peaking around this time (between 1:00PM and 2:00PM daily).
These results
suggest that fuel consumption will continue to increase, eventually returning
to the values seen during
the baseline testing
given sufficient time for the engine to become dirty again.
Figure 20: Fuel Consumption (lb/hr) over time for three
Phase 2 trials
with the HydraGEN™ unit
removed at 0F (blue, green, yellow), compared to the baseline
data (black) and to the Phase 2 trial average
with the HydraGEN™ unit (red).
4.0 Conclusions
The results of the reefer testing
indicate that the HydraGEN™ unit has a significantly positive effect on engine
performance, improving fuel economy and lowering NOx,
CO, and CO2 emissions.
The most significant and
promising findings are summarized in the table below.
|
Conditions
|
Property
|
Trial Max Savings
|
Trial
Average Savings
|
|
Phase 1.1
Set Temp 32°F 15A current Doors closed
|
Fuel Consumption
|
28%
|
26%
|
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
49%
|
44%
|
|
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
|
55%
|
51%
|
|
NOx
|
35%
|
30%
|
|
Phase 1.2
Set Temp 0°F 15A current Doors closed
|
Fuel Consumption
|
15%
|
13%
|
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
31%
|
24%
|
|
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
|
45%
|
41%
|
|
NOx
|
14%
|
11%
|
|
Phase 1.3
Set Temp -15°F 15A current Doors closed
|
Fuel Consumption
|
17%
|
13%
|
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
34%
|
24%
|
|
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
|
36%
|
29%
|
|
NOx
|
22%
|
12%
|
|
Phase
2.1
Set Temp 0°F
15A current Doors open
|
Fuel
Consumption
|
17%
|
16%
|
Figure 21: Reefer testing set-up.