Making ICEs an integral part of our carbon-neutral approach

We must start to look at other fuels – as a matter of urgency – that could provide a cost-effective approach for everyone using existing converted internal combustion engines running on low or no emission fuels, says Jorgen Pedersen

Over the last two years, I’ve investigated a number of what might be considered the most promising future fuels and technologies, ranging from Battery Electric Vehicles to Hydrogen, Ammonia-based fuels, Synthetic and Biofuels, to Carbon capture fuels.

In doing so, I have also explored a number of different ERS (Electric Road Systems), covering everything from trolleybuses used in San Francisco to larger-scale trials being undertaken in Sweden for heavy freight haulage, and also scheduled to be delivered in the UK on a 20 km stretch of road near Scunthorpe.

While investigating the technologies that could support the delivery of future fuels, I have been astounded at how many technologies are being investigated. Some are quite mature, such as hydrogen fuel cells, while others are in their infancy, such as liquid flow batteries, which seem to have lots of promise but are just not sufficiently mature at this time to be a prime contender to meet our immediate carbon goals.

I passionately believe that we must make the change from being fully reliant on fossil fuels. I passionately believe that we are running out of time, and I passionately believe that we are simply not doing enough, fast enough. While we sit on our hands and pontificate, there is little doubt that our planet is in trouble; our climate is becoming more and more unpredictable.

Just in the last year alone, we have suffered more 20-year weather events than previously encountered. Some might say that the amount of CO2 generated by us mortals is a fraction of that emitted from mother earth, and that might be correct. However, the more we can do to reduce our carbon footprint, the longer we can extend and thereafter improve the well-being of our planet using perhaps, carbon capture technologies to do this.

But I also passionately believe that we are going about this the wrong way. 

While it's brilliant to have an aspiration of being carbon neutral by a set day or date, I believe that goal is getting in our way. We are aiming for the stars in a rocket ship made up of a used washing-up liquid bottle. While our articulated focus is on CO2, we have also extended this to include NOx.

Our current plan is to try to achieve the virtually impossible in one step and achieve CO2 and NOx neutrality by some arbitrary date, which has already been moved because it was already identified as an impossible task. The problem is that we have an aspiration without any identified plan or even an articulated approach.

In my experience as a successful programme manager who has delivered a number of first-in-class projects, the emphasis is always on defining the full scope of the programme, breaking this down into steps/tasks/activities that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound (SMART). Failure to do so is the recipe for an unsuccessful project. In addressing carbon neutrality, we have not done that; we have identified an aspiration without a specification or scope.

We have focused on the goal without providing direction; we have increased the scope to also include NOx, and then we have been led by one technology without understanding the impacts of it or undertaking any semblance of an impact assessment.

Since defining our carbon-neutral goals in 2008, we have moved our carbon reduction program forward by just a few percent. Our current goal is a 100% reduction by 2050 based on 1990 levels, with a 68% reduction by 2030. But to date (2021 figures), we have only reduced our transport carbon footprint by 15% in 16 years, a reduction of a little less than 1% per year.

In order to be successful in our quest, we must address carbon neutrality as a set of achievable milestones. There must be a realisation that carbon neutrality will not happen in a single step; there has to be a realisation that to be successful, we are likely to need to continue to use ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines) for many years to come.

We are likely to continue to need to burn some fossil fuels or some fuels that are likely to continue to emit CO2 and/or NOx but in significantly reduced quantities, which can either be captured or offset.

If we are to accept that ICEs will be an integral part of our carbon-neutral approach, we must therefore also look at the technologies and future fuels that could quickly support the transition to become more carbon-friendly. This would include a number of fuels that have been explored such as synthetic, bio, carbon capture, hydrogen, and ammonia-based fuels.

All of these have the ability to significantly reduce emissions and, in some cases, completely eradicate them. All could use the current ICEs with some modification, and all could use, with limited modification, the current service station infrastructure for distribution.

It's true to say that I have been heavily criticised for suggesting that BEVs (Battery Electric Vehicles) are not our long-term answer, with some suggesting—including some from academia—that I need to accept that BEVs have already won the race and I need to move on. But while I might be a lone voice, the facts simply don’t support that view.

If one looks closely at the technology, the infrastructure requirements, the weight of the vehicle, the additional particulates that BEVs emit due to their size and weight, and the cradle-to-grave cost of carbon in delivering a BEV, we might conclude that they are not necessarily a particularly green option.

Particularly when one takes into account the mining of rare metals for their batteries, the increased energy capacity generation, the infrastructure improvements that would be required to upgrade the national grid, and the fact that at present we only generate about 50% of our power from renewables, we might conclude that we might have pinned our star to the wrong wagon.

It’s also fair to say that I am also less positive about ERS (Electric Road Systems), simply because the amount of infrastructure this would require would be staggeringly high. To be successful, we would need to cover the UK with catenary cables for HGVs—a project that would take many years, cover successive governments, cost perhaps billions, and perhaps never be completed.

While I appreciate that if this technology were to go ahead, the project would primarily focus on the SRN (Strategic Road Network), we have to acknowledge that the SRN only covers about 13% of the UK road system; the remainder is made up of minor roads that would be unlikely to be covered by ERS technologies. To put this into perspective: since starting the Rail electrification program in 2011—some 13 years ago—only 38% of the UK rail network has been electrified.

My view, for what it is worth, is that all the technologies that have been investigated all have merit; this includes ERS systems and BEV technologies. Each has its place in the future landscape of transport. ERS systems could and perhaps should be used for moving freight between fixed-point depots such as they are on our railway systems.

Battery Electric Vehicles could and should perhaps offer first-mile/last-mile light freight services as well as for private use for those who prefer the freedom of that technology.

However, I also think that we must start to look at other fuels as a matter of urgency which could provide a cost-effective approach for everyone that would use existing converted internal combustion engines to run on low/no emission fuels.