Timing, as has often been said, is everything in life. And it looks as if the timing might just work out quite nicely for Navistar.
As the lone North American truck and engine manufacturer not using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx control in 2010, Navistar has been pummeled from a lot of corners of the industry, the press and the financial community for its position. Quite reasonably, the thinking goes that if everyone else goes in one direction and Navistar goes another, well, Navistar has got to be wrong, right?
Of course, being Chicago guys, Navistar has given as good as its gotten from a marketing standpoint, much of it through the salesmanship and take-no-prisoners attitude personified by Jim Hebe. Love him or hate him – and there are a lot of people who would walk through fire for him and probably as many who would like to set him on fire – he has been an indelible part of the heavy-duty truck market in North America for the better part of two decades.
But the question really comes down to whether or not Navistar can make its no SCR strategy work over the long term.
And it’s becoming more apparent that the answer is clearly yes.
How?
By going to SCR.
But not SCR as it has been used in Europe for some years and that has made “DEF” the newest TLA (three-letter acronym) du jour.
And certainly not the SCR that would result if Navistar just threw in the towel and started putting Cummins ISX 15 engines into its trucks. That was one of the more out-there conclusions floated by an industry analyst not too long ago.
No the SCR Navistar will likely employ is likely to be one of the interesting SCR technologies that Tenneco (and some other companies) have in the latter stages of development. The technologies from Tenneco (shameless plug incoming!) are covered in some detail in the July issue of Diesel Progress, and I won’t repeat myself (too much) here.
But in brief, Tenneco will go into production in 2012 with two forms of SCR, neither of which use liquid urea as a reductant. For the most part, Navistar has been precise in always slamming urea-based SCR as “onerous” to the user. It was always the liquid urea factor – the price, the consumption, the fact that it can freeze, etc. – that Navistar took some issue with.
Tenneco is offering two systems that eliminate liquid urea altogether. One incorporates a solid substance that is sublimated into gaseous ammonia which is then sent into the SCR catalyst.
The far more interesting technology is a SCR system that uses a hydrocarbon – either diesel fuel or E85 – as the reductant. The benefits of using diesel are obvious: no additional tank of anything, just basically run an additional line from the fuel tank to the aftertreatment. Out of the box, it provides a NOx reduction of about 60%, with a fuel consumption of about 1%. So if Mr. Engine Manufacturer can develop combustion strategies that get him 40% of the way to compliance, this system can take him the rest of the way.
Using E85 is even more effective, providing NOx reductions greater than 90%. There is an additional tank, but the dosing is small enough to make it a service item – replenished in the shop at 50,000 miles when the oil is changed, for example – and unlike aqueous urea, E85 doesn’t freeze, meaning there is no need for heaters.
There is no hard indication that Navistar is definitely planning on adopting either of these technologies, though Tenneco officials noted that Navistar is a longtime customer. In 2009, Navistar did invest in Amminex, a Danish technology company that is in development with a metal ammine-based NOx reductant delivery system. And certainly, there are other companies out there that are in development with similar technologies.
Skeptics might (might?) still skewer Navistar for going this route after such a long time appearing to fight against SCR (though again, usually mentioning the aqueous urea kind). But such a move would certainly be in keeping with the company’s “compliance is our responsibility” mantra. And I’m not sure the truck market at large would much care if Navistar chose an alternative SCR path.
The only question that remains is whether or not Navistar, which is using a combination of earned emissions credits and its enhanced EGR technology, can make those credits last until 2012, when Tenneco and others will have their systems available. Navistar Chairman Dan Ustian appeared to put that concern to rest recently when he recently stated that Navistar had anywhere from “two to five or six years” worth of credits – with the range being a function of sales. By that reckoning, when Navistar decides which direction it’s going, a way to get there will be available.
So as has been said in other venues, the rumors of Navistar’s imminent demise (or a sudden U-turn) are greatly exaggerated. Maybe the company did take a chance with its all-in strategy. But it looks like now, that bet has a real chance to pay off.
Great info and options for that up-start company(in Emissions tech.) Why not use the OTHER , documentable Selective Catalytic Regeneration technology ,which is electronically recorded and dispensed directly into the Combustion chamber ,via the fuel source,and which accomplishes all the additional compliance levels needed ,AND which has a dramatic R O I , all during the life of the engine and compliance requirements in the future.
Europe used it also,especially in Large marine vessels,and is enviornmentally friendly. Somewhere there is a marketer which can solve ANY problem,if the impedimentary decisionmakers are left out of the equation. Check with one old-one,who has done it before.
Sorry — Not true! If you were at the 20009 DEER (Diesel Engine Emission Reduction) conference , Dr. Ning Lei, combustion expert at Navistar, herself stated that in the long run (2013+) this “No-SCR” strategy of Navistar will NOT work and they “will have some challenges”! Navistar has recently invested in a non-liquid (non-urea) SCR technology, developed by the Danish company Amminex, which essentially does use a SCR catalyst, and is under heavy considerations at Navistar now. So, this says it all.
Mr. Duffey, I guess I’m not grasping what’s “not true” here and I respectfully suggest you read the blog again. Specifically, the part that said:
“But the question really comes down to whether or not Navistar can make its no SCR strategy work over the long term.
And it’s becoming more apparent that the answer is clearly yes.
How?
By going to SCR.”
There has never seemed to be much question that over the long haul, Navistar was going to have to use something beyond its EGR-only strategy. But the company’s position has been that liquid urea-based systems were not the long-term solution. Amminex or Amminex-type technology, which is in development by several manufacturers, would seeem to be the likely path and it avoids using liquid urea (key word here being “liquid), which has to be refilled, kept within a specific temperature range, etc.
If in the 2012 timeframe, Navistar is able to implement that in some form, it would allow it to comply with clean air mandates while staying true to its belief that the owner or user of a truck should not be responsible for compliance.
Now it’s likely that if Navistar does go in that direction, some will crow to the effect of “See? They’re using SCR! They were wrong all along!” But if liquid-based SCR is a transitional technology and solid or other forms of SCR are indeed the future, I suspect Navistar will end up being happy to be “wrong.”
We’ll see.
Mr. Duffy;
Your comments are specifically addressed in my Nov’10 response to Mike’s good thoughts. All cooments thusfar have directed toward Navistar’s dilemma,which as I have stated,is very easily accomplished by “in the Cylinder Technology’,as opposed to SCR directed at the Exhaust stream,with a complementary Catalyzer technology. And that is what they are pursuing in Denmark.
All they need to do is open their knowledge base to the U.S.Industrial Complex to accomplish their needs which fits the American Mind-set and quite easily. But the fact is that their beaurocracy won’t allow it.Talk to one of their HD truck dealers and you will know why all this verbage is just that;Verbage.
Regards and Thanks for that input.