Edward Lyford-Pike, Cummins Inc.Edward.J.Lyford-Pike@Cummins.com, 812 377-4407

U.S. DOE Industrial Distributed Energy Portfolio Review Meeting Washington, D.C.

June 1-2, 2011

The objective of the Cummins / Department of Energy (DOE) ARES Program, is to develop advanced gaseous fueled engines and technologies for power generation that combine high efficiency, low emissions, fuel flexibility and reduced cost of ownership.

The ultimate goals of the project are to demonstrate engine systems achieving 50% Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE), <0.1 g/bhp-hr NOx, improved durability and reliability. The program is planned in multiple phases. Key deliverables for each phase include: Phase 1 targets of 44% BTE and 0.5 g/bhp-hr NOx, Phase 2 targets of 47% BTE and <0.1 g/bhp-hr NOx and Phase 3 targets of 50% BTE and <0.1 g/bhp-hr NOx.

Cummins has successfully completed Phase 1 developing advanced lean burn technology increasing BTE from 36 to 44% with more than 200 MW in commercial applications. For Phase 2 Cummins has demonstrated ultra low emissions of 0.023 g/bhp-hr NOx with Stoichiometric combustion, Exhaust Gas Recirculation, Advanced Three Way Catalyst Technology and is working towards the efficiency demonstration. Also developed advanced technologies, modeling tools, and capability to operate with non-std gases (renewable fuels).Phase 3 is planned to be completed by Q3 2013.

Executive Summary

2

Project Objective

Increase engine system fuel efficiency at lower emissions levels while attaining lower cost of ownership

Demonstrate 50% Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE)

Baseline engine efficiency at 36% BTE

<0.1 g/bhp-hr NOx System Out Emissions Baseline NOx at 2 to 4 g/bhp-hr NOx

10% Lower Operating Cost No Reliability Penalty Increased Fuel Flexibility (operate with non-

std gases: landfill gas and other renewables) Non-std gases characterized by varying BTU, Low

Methane Number, Varying Diluents/Composition

Typical Cost Breakdown8,000 hrs/yr

FuelMaintenance

Capital

Typical Cost Breakdown8,000 hrs/yr

FuelMaintenance

Capital

Typical Cost Breakdown8,000 hrs/yr

FuelMaintenance

Capital

Efficiency is key

3

State of the Art Pre-ARES Engines Characterized by the following:

Limited investment in natural gas engines, based on derivatives of larger volume diesel engines

Low combustion systems efficiency, high NOx, high CO2 Limited controls Max power limited by thermal issues, poor performing

and unreliable ignition systems Limited operation with non-std fuels Lack of:

cost effective aftertreatment technology dedicated modeling tools optimal integration of key sub-systems such as advanced air

handling, power cylinder, fuel systems, waste heat recovery4

Technical Approach: Architecture Phase 1: Lean Burn Spark Ignited (SI)

This ARES technology is in production with the 60/91L engines

Phase 2: Stoichiometric Spark Ignited (SI) w/ Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR), Three Way Catalyst (TWC), and Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) Projected to be the most cost effective engine solution for

low emissions markets (<0.1 gNOx) Phase 3: Advanced Stoichiometric SI w/ EGR, TWC and WHR

Further development of Advanced Combustion Systems, Analytic Models, Air Handling, Aftertreatment, Control/Sensor , and Ignition Technologies

5

Technical Approach: Strategy

Improve closed cycle efficiency Explore advanced combustion concepts

Improve open cycle efficiency Improve air handling

Improve predictive models Improve controls/sensing Long life ignition system Advanced aftertreatment Waste heat recovery

6

Technical Approach – New Technologies Base Engine

Combustion Air Handling Ignition EGR

Aftertreatment Air Fuel Ratio Management Advanced Three Way Catalyst

Waste Heat Recovery Thermo Chemical Recuperation (TCR) Conservation of Exhaust Energy

Controls / Sensors Development Sensors TCR / Aftertreatment Algorithms

Analytical Tools Development KIVA-SI GT-Power

7

Transition and Deployment ARES technology:

Improved reliability Improved air quality Reduces customers Life Cycle

Cost (LCC) Reduces fuel consumption

Increased reliability of power grid due to decentralization

Distributed power creates the opportunity for waste heat utilization through CHP

Positive impact on Distributed Energy Program

8

Key Market Driver – Life Cycle Cost Total LCC is key

Fuel efficiency Maintenance cost Initial capital cost

Relative importance of each LCC element for a particular customer depends on the duty cycle

For high hour applications, efficiency is critical

Total Cost by Hour Usage

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Hours/Year

Tota

l Cos

t ($/

MW

-HR)

Capital Cost Driven

Transition Operating Cost Driven

Typical LCC Breakdown - 1200 hrs/yr

Maintenance12%

Capital53%

Fuel35%

Typical LCC Breakdown - 3400 hrs/yr

Maintenance19%

Capital27%

Fuel54%

Typical LCC Breakdown - 8000 hrs/yr

Capital14%

Fuel65%Maintenance

21%

9

Measure of Success

The combination of high efficiency low cost of ownership low NOX emissions

makes it more attractive for customers to purchase natural gas fueled reciprocating engines. This is expected to have a direct positive impact on distributed power generation.

Expected >10 % /yr worldwide market growth ARES Phase 1 in production with over 200 MW operation North America and International expansion expected to be

driven by renewable fuels and increase in Natural Gas availability

QSK60G

10

Benefits

Increased utilization of natural gas produced in the USA Increases benefits of shale gas production

Lower cost of ownership shortens payback period and broadens the potential market

Lower emissions improve air quality Decentralization reduces transmission loss Can use natural gas in locations where diesel fuel cannot be

stored Increased reliability of power grid due to decentralization Reduced CO2 emissions vs. diesel or coal Distributed power creates the opportunity for waste heat

utilization through CHP

11

0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.555 105×

6 105×

7 105×

8 105×

9 105×

1 106×

1.1 106×

1.2 106×

1.3 106×

1.4 106×

1.5 106×

1.6 106×

1.7 106×

1.8 106×

1.9 106×

2 106×

Natural Gas (CH4)Diesel (C12H26)

lb/hr CO2 per GWATT versus BTE

BTE

lb/h

r C

O2

per

GW

AT

T

CO2 Production Comparison of Natural Gas and Diesel Power Generation Applications

ARES Phase 1 Technology reduces CO2 by 23% relative to DieselARES Phase 3 Technology reduces CO2 by 32% relative to Diesel

Diesel

Nat Gas

Benefits (cont.)

12

Benefits: Renewable Fuels

High BTE using “renewable fuels” Improve BTE by 4 points over engines operating with renewable

fuels today Lower net CO2 and CH4 emissions

Maintain lower NOx while varying fuel composition Lower net NOx emissions

Potential Savings After first 10 years of commercialization

Will save 74 MTherms of Natural Gas per year Equivalent to 40,000 rail cars of coal per year Reduce CO2 emissions by 5M tons per year

13

QSV91

QSK60GQSK19G

Cummins Power Generation Business (CPG)Energy Solutions Business (ESB) Lean-Burn Gas Generator Sets

– 300 to 2000 kW – Continuous Power

G-Drive Business (NPower) Stoic/ LB Gas Generator Sets

– 200 to 800 kWe – Standby Power

Oil & Gas Business (O&G BU) Gas Compression

– Wellhead (< 500 hp)– Gathering (< 1000 hp)– Pipeline (> 1000 hp)

Engineering & Manufacturing CSS : Columbus, IN (Eng’r Only) CIC : Seymour, IN DAV : Daventry, England CNGE : Clovis, New Mexico CIL : Pune, India

Commercialization Approach

GTA8.3SLB

KTA 19GC

14

Project Management & BudgetARES 2011 2012 2013

DOE Investment $2.7M TBD TBD

Cost Share $2.0M TBD TBD

Project Total $4.7M $4.6M $2.9M

Critical Milestones 2011 2012 2013

Phase 2 Design Completed – Target Demons. Q3 Q2

Phase 3 Design Completed – Target Demons. Q3 Q3

2010

Phase 1:44% Efficient,

0.50g NOx

Phase 2:47% Efficient,

0.1g NOx

Phase 3:50% Efficient,

0.1g NOx

Concepts

Platform BaseTechnical Base

Field DemosCommercialization

2000 2005 2008 2013 15

Phase 1: Developed new Lean Burn

Technology Achieved 44% BTE and 0.1

g/bhp-hr NOx (w/SCR) Applied to 60/91L Platforms Field test completed In Production

NJ Mountain Creek Resort field test

Results and Accomplishments High compression ratio piston Miller cycle camshaft Long life spark plugs Low loss exhaust valves

High efficiency turbo Compressor bypass valve Advanced controls Reduced engine speed Increased BMEP

16

Results and Accomplishments (cont.) Phase 2

Stoichiometric Spark Ignited w/ EGR Demonstrated engine performance targets

Advanced Three Way Catalyst Demonstrated ultra low NOx 0.023 g/hp-hr

Controls / Sensors Demonstrated system for Stoich. w/EGR oper.

Engine Combustion Recipe Modeled and designed unique piston bowl

Ignition System Demonstrated system for Stoich. w/EGR oper.

Renewable Fuels Capability Demonstrated 500 hr cyclic endurance test

varying methane number and BTU fuel content while maintaining 0.5 g/hp-hr Nox

Demonstrated engine performance targets with Hydrogen rich fuels

Brake Specific NOx - (grNOx/bhp-hr)

Bra

ke T

herm

al E

ffic

ienc

y - (

%)

Design #3

Design #2

Design #1

Design #4

> 3% BTE Improvement

Lower NOx (more EGR)

HigherBTE

17

Results and Accomplishments (cont.) Phase 2 (cont.)

Analytical Tools Development Developed a combustion predictive tool

with the Wisconsin Engine Research Consultants (WERC) for gaseous fuels SI engine modeling

Published two papers describing application of advanced modeling techniques @ ASME Congress

Waste Heat Recovery w/Thermo Chemical Recuperation TCR did not perform up to expectations

most probably due to carbon poisoning of the catalytic reformer

Advanced Waste Heat Recovery system to replace TCR Integrated on-engine Leveraging on-road engine program

18

Path Forward Maintain the Stoich. w/EGR and TWC engine technology Incorporate Advanced Integrated Waste Heat Recovery

Demonstrate 47% / 50% efficiency targets Phase 2 completion at end of Q2 2012 Phase 3 completion targeted at the current budget and timing Q3 2013

Confident that this path will achieve program goals

19

Questions?

20