Educational Engine; Evaluating the ethics of the planned banning of the Internal Combustion Engine in Stockholm, Sweden

Over the course of the school year, my group mates and I have developed two educational models to explore Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) technology for our capstone technical project. We approached this problem because we believe there is a departmental need to apply classroom concepts to more integrated mechanical designs. ICE technology has been a hallmark of mechanical engineering for over 100 years, making it a useful case study. However, given the issues surrounding climate change and the limited sustainability of the hydrocarbon fuels that power them, it begs the question: “To what extent should engineers learn and propagate this technology?” Initially, this wide scope asking about the role of the Internal Combustion Engine in the 21st century was to be the scope of the research paper, which would have been nebulous. It was more practical to examine the role of ICE vehicles in a small area (in this case Stockholm, Sweden). I used a utilitarian framework to reexamine my initial question under the reduced scope. While the final product connected less to the technical project than planned, the research paper conclusions were still interesting and worthwhile. Our group designed two educational models of a four-stroke, gasoline-powered Internal Combustion Engine. The first model was designed to be fully made and fastened by 3D-printed parts. This part of the project had three major design goals: our group learned to iteratively design for performance and manufacture, we learned more about engine technology, and the final results were published online to educate the public. In the spring, the group pivoted to the more intensive design project of taking a Predator 6 HP engine and transforming it into an educational model for public display. This part of the project required more rigorous analysis and engineering. We worked to spec out the motor, do fatigue analysis and calculations, design and machine connectors and supports for the engine, and configure the electronics. This involved installing a programmable electric motor and also other programmable aids such as lights. My STS paper focused on using the frameworks of utilitarianism and technological momentum, evaluating the benefits and possible costs of a plan in Stockholm to ban ICE vehicles from a zone in the city center. The law is unique for two main reasons: unlike other low emission zones, it would ban lower-emission gasoline cars and buses, and while originally slated to be implemented in January 2025, it is still under review. I looked at the case to evaluate impacts to health, the planet, the economy, and traffic. It was difficult to find comparable situations due to the innovative nature of the policy, and the limited area of enforcement may lower the potential drawbacks. However, the evidence collected made a strong case for implementing the ban. For this reason and the unique potential to have this policy serve as an experiment for posterity, I argued in favor of implementing the ban. While there was a large planned overlap initially between the STS and technical projects, that was not the final result. However, it was interesting to see how easy it is for us as engineers to become divorced from the social and environmental impact of our work. The contribution of the technology to pollution was something that was not a major concern to our group on the technical side, even though the model is fundamentally an educational tool. I think the value of working on both projects at once is that it is important to not lose sight of who benefits, who may not, and who may be worse off from a given engineering project. While all engineering projects have costs and benefits, I want to make sure I never lose sight of the impacts of social, legal, and environmental impacts of the projects I work on in the future.