The three big Es of transportation are Energy, Efficiency, and the Environment. As the clouds of global climate change and the desire to rely less on Mid-East crude builds, how do manufacturers and refiners reconcile the needs of consumer acceptance and governmental regulation? How can policies and practices be united so that everyone involved works to the common goal of personal mobility? This lecture traces recent events that have resulted in paradox on top of paradox. As industry continues to react to the latest round of air pollution regulations, where are we headed as far as new CAFE limits and the potential for additional longer term controls related to the greenhouse effect? These are issues that will affect those in the equipment and oil industry, as well as the consumer, in the days ahead.

Global what? is a frequent response by those who first hear of the potential for global warming, global climate change, and global catastrophe, potentially brought on by excessive greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. The principal greenhouse gas, CO 2 , is joined by methane, N 2 O, and other trace gases in absorbing infrared radiation, which would otherwise escape into space, a process thought to be responsible for gradual increase in temperature that will melt ice caps and raise ocean levels. This paper discusses control possibilities that could be considered once there is agreement that CO 2 must be controlled. Many of the responses to the energy crisis of 1974 are applicable for CO 2 control. A variety of technologies, energy sources, and ideas are offered that, in combination, could be the basis for a global energy policy. Conversion and replacement of coal, oil, and eventually natural gas fired electric power plants with other energy sources such as nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal, could significantly reduce CO 2 emissions. There are, however, no good alternatives to fossil fuels used in transportation that significantly reduce CO 2 emissions. Of all the fossil fuels, natural gas has the least CO 2 production. Electric vehicles and hydrogen-fueled engines are future possibilities, but the electricity for the electric cars and for making hydrogen must be from nonfossil fuel driven generators. Conservation, efficiency, and tax incentives are other parts of a control strategy, once the amount of control considered necessary is established. Renewed interest in nonfossil fuel energy sources and their research and development is obviously needed.

Periodically, there is discussion between engine and vehicle manufacturers and petroleum companies regarding fuels with new and different characteristics to match the needs of spark and compression-ignited engines. The most recent discussions are related to legislation and regulations that will possibly require fuels to be reformulated in the future. The objective will be to make fuels that, when burned in IC engines, emit pollution no greater than alternatives such as methanol or natural gas. The thesis of this paper is that a national fuel qualification could result in motor fuels that, when used in cars and trucks, would be environmentally acceptable. A speculated series of tests to qualify the fuel, one unleaded grade of gasoline, one type 2-D fuel for on-highway diesel trucks and buses, and one type 1-D fuel for city bases, is described. Once qualified, the refiner would certify that the fuel dispensed is in all material respects identical to the prototype fuel qualified. The industry qualification would be good for, say, five years or until the fuel was reformulated. Such a procedure would be industry regulated through periodic audit as well as self-audit provisions to assure fuel quality is maintained at the dispensing pump. Most of the needed procedures are available for such qualification. It remains for the manufacturers and refiners to agree on the need to reformulate gasoline and diesel fuel, develop pass/fail limits for acceptance, and establish a qualification approval protocol. An approach to demonstrate improved performance and emissions is suggested.

Particulate emission control, for the HD diesel engine, has previously been considered a three-dimensional problem involving: (1) combustion of the fuel by the engine, (2) fuel modification, and (3) exhaust aftertreatment. The lube oil contribution may be considered a fourth dimension of the problem. Historically, the heavy-duty engine manufacturer has met emission standards for smoke (1968 to present), CO, HC, and NO x (1974 to present) and particulates (1988 to present) through changes in engine design. This paper uses the allocation method to estimate the reduction in lube oil consumption needed to meet 1991 and 1994 U.S. particulate emission standards. This analysis places the contribution of lube oil as a source of exhaust particulates into prospective with the contributions from fuel sulfur and fuel combustion. An emissions control strategy to meet future regulations is offered in which reductions from fuel modification, combustion improvement, reduced lube oil consumption, and exhaust particulate trap-catalysts are all involved.

A low-emission diesel fuel (LEDF) is proposed as a way to help the HD diesel engine manufacturer meet stringent U.S. particulate limits beginning in 1991. A new LEDF fuel specification would include sulfur reduction to less than 0.05 percent and a new specification putting a cap or maximum on aromatic content. Additive treatment to control injector deposits for less engine deterioration with time and a combustion improver could also be helpful. A two-fuel strategy would permit orderly phase-in of LEDF. As with unleaded gasoline, a smaller filler neck and nozzle and separate storage tank for dispensing would be required. Unlike the sale of unleaded fuel, the prices of DF-2 and LEDF must be equalized to prevent fuel switching.