Building a Better Future: HCCI

One of the features, critics might say one of the failings, of technophiles like myself is the idea that all our problems can eventually be solved through new and better technology. Global warming, cancer, pick your issue and somewhere, out there on the bold horizon of the future, is a solution waiting for someone clever enough to discover it. Some new technique or machine or understanding that will enable us to escape from our present situation, the same way increased agricultural efficiency allowed humanity to escape from the Malthusian trap. We'll, of course, create a raft of new problems in the process. But those problems can, themselves, be solved by future ingenuity that we'll never be able to predict – the same way the people who made the Model T could never have dreamt of satellite radio. Then there's something about the Singularity and transformational events lurking on the technological borders but the basic idea is that with enough time, with enough energy, with enough funding, of course, there's nothing humanity can't accomplish. It's an appealing, optimistic message that grows the hope for a future out of despair at the present and you can perhaps see why I might like it.

And it's also the root cause of the anger I feel at things like Who Killed the Electric Car. Or at the various lobbying efforts by car companies to stave off attempts to legislate some improvements. Some advancements. If we, collectively, did something like raise the CAFE standards then, yes, it will cost them some money. But it will also spur some innovation and creativity towards solving the problem of getting cars to run faster, better. And the ancillary benefits of that far outweigh the impact on the bottom line. To those companies alone. The first car maker to come up with a more efficient engine, for example, gets an advantage over their competitors because they'll be able to sell better cars cheaper. At least until those other companies catch up or they license the new technology or whatever.

Well, it seems one car company might just have come up with a new engine after all. It's called the HCCI or Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition. And, as I read in my morning paper, GM's about to demonstrate a working version.

Because it combines the fuel mixing of a typical gasoline engine (Or Homogeneous Charge Spark Ignition.) with the electricity free reliance on heat and pressure to cause combustion of a standard diesel engine (Or Stratified Charge Compression Ignition), I guess that's why it gets called the HCCI. As I understand it, in an HCCI engine there's a large, even mix of the fuel and oxidizing air that's compressed until it, basically, explodes. That drives a four stroke engine that's closer to the Otto cycle or mechanical ideal than the standard spark engine. Here's an illustration:

There are some problems, some issues to be fixed before it can become commercially available, but the upshot is that it burns fuel far more efficiently than the standard car engine. To the point where your average gas burner could, in theory, compete with the mileage that we can get, today, out of a hybrid.

Which would, if true of course, be awesome. Forget switching our infrastructure over to a hydrogen or electric fueling system. We can just build a better car (Doesn't exactly fix the peak oil problem, the fact that we'll eventually be running out of oil, period. But, you know, it's a step in the right direction). Which should meet with a lot less resistance from the general public, I'd hope, as while it might not quite be a hemi, you can at least get the car people excited about the latest and greatest powerful engine block which just happens to be better for the environment.

The HCCI, like the Hybrid, just didn't come out of nowhere. It's been in the works for a while now – check the time stamp on that link (And it's slightly interesting to see the lofty efficiency figures in that article from the past – something like 30%, I believe – have fallen to the still impressive 15% figure being quoted today.). And that's because a car is a very complicated piece of machinery that has to meet very exacting performance and safety standards. The research and testing for a new idea takes a long time. The HCCI, by the way, isn't the only new engine in the works. There's something called the Air Hybrid which I learned about while listening to NPR. And you can, too. There's also a blog for the Scuderi group that's hoping to develop that engine into a workable model you can check out, too. The Free Press article I linked to says that Mercedes Benz is coming out with their own improved engine design, as well. In fact, there are all sorts of new engines and powertrains in the works because not only is there a pressing need for greater fuel efficiency, there's an active competition amongst all these companies to be the first to market with their latest better mousetrap.

It goes to show that the search for a solution can lead to all sorts of interesting places. We don't know which technology is going to be best, not until we try it out. It could be hybrids, it could be a more efficient combustion engine, who knows? And while someone with a more libertarian bent might argue that this is an example of the market working fine, of these private companies working on their own to develop these better technologies to meet a need without the burden of cumbersome regulation, I'd argue the opposite. If these car companies are willing to spend all this time and money researching better fuel efficiency now because they perceive a market, just imagine the incentives they'd have if there were some regulations pushing them forward. And I'd point out that while we haven't touched fuel efficiency regulations in the US for a long time, places like the EU and elsewhere have actually been pressing these companies to get better just as they have tougher emission standards.

The point being that the myopic view towards the present that leads companies to shut down these promising avenues is harmful in the long run. Innovation is risky but it brings it's own rewards. And the sad irony is that these auto companies know that because what got them to the place where they are now was some past innovation or invention that while maybe not revolutionary, was a gamble that paid off. But now that they're established, they've become timid. Conservative. Afraid of taking a chance that might not pay off. That's the easy way, the safe way, the one that doesn't hurt an executive's bonuses or chances for promotions in the old CEO's network of the boardroom. But the way that's headed in the opposite direction from the brave, bold future of better things.