Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
23,726
Location
NH
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2015/0...p;type=headline

Quote:
The Obama administration on Friday proposed tougher fuel-efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks, the latest move by President Barack Obama in his second-term drive to reduce pollution blamed for global warming.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules that would lower carbon dioxide emissions from trucks and vans by 24 percent by 2027. It would cut fuel costs by about $170 billion and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the rule.



24% reduction in CO2 would equate to 24% increase in mpg, give or take. [flame suit on] Couldn’t they achieve that by simply removing the emissions equipment they just added on a few years ago?
 
Originally Posted By: supton
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2015/0...p;type=headline

Quote:
The Obama administration on Friday proposed tougher fuel-efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks, the latest move by President Barack Obama in his second-term drive to reduce pollution blamed for global warming.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules that would lower carbon dioxide emissions from trucks and vans by 24 percent by 2027. It would cut fuel costs by about $170 billion and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the rule.


24% reduction in CO2 would equate to 24% increase in mpg, give or take. [flame suit on] Couldn’t they achieve that by simply removing the emissions equipment they just added on a few years ago?


Nah, for the US Govt to be now focussing on CO2, rather than the energy security of CAFE means that there's more biofuels in the pipeline.
 
Cut fuel costs and drive the price of the vehicles up more, hurting businesses.

Seems like the only thing they are able to accomplish is hurting the American economy.
 
When you get a chance to get away from your hum drum world, just take a tour at a diesel repair shop and ask the shop manager about the new engines and DEF. Go pour yourself a cup of coffee , your gonna be there awhile....miles and miles of problems these days with new big rigs pollution problems brought to you by the United States Government....
 
Yes, and last week, the EPA announced CO2 regulations on airliners. I can't think of any other sectors of the transportation business that are more sensitive to fuel economy than air transport and trucking. The engine maker that has 1% better fuel economy than his rivals dominates the business. The most efficient diesel engines for trucks were built in the late 1980's before the EPA began ratcheting down NOx and particulate standards. Current trucks equipped with EGR and particulate trap systems get much lower fuel economy, yet cost about $12,000 more because of the extra emissions controls. Now the EPA steps in and complains about fuel economy? Duhhh-uh!
 
Couldn't we just truck stuff less? The roads in Hollis, Maine are being pounded by 18 wheelers hauling groundwater away from a Poland Spring bottling plant because people are too cool to drink tap water. Tap water infrastructure is already in place, if you hate the flavor, get a Brita filter!

Poland Spring/ Nestle knows its a public relations flop; the trucks are plain white, unmarked.

The unsung efficiencies will be in better dispatching, more tandem trailers, driving slower, slower lead times, more automated shipping container robotic ports and intermodal facilities, etc. Our "stuff" still comes from insanely far away, most of it.
 
Let's just pollute as much as possible in the name of business.
Last time I checked no manufacturer was concerned about pollution unless pushed by government. And while rest of the world is making engines that are 10 years ahead, we are talking about "government interference" (of course, when govt. needs to bail out businesses bcs of lack of regulation then it is fine for a government to interfere). Then that rest of the world goes so far ahead, that they buy our automotive industry because our CEO's thought that V8 from 1968 is the way to go, all in the name of no interference from government.
 
If society wants less fuel consumption, then be honest and raise the gas tax and lower other taxes an equal amount. Let the market decide. Please don't issue these fiats that so it is said, so it is done.
 
Originally Posted By: Burt
If society wants less fuel consumption, then be honest and raise the gas tax and lower other taxes an equal amount. Let the market decide. Please don't issue these fiats that so it is said, so it is done.

Why not just raising the tax, and not lowering the tax? Aren't we living beyond our means, meaning we do not pay for roads, wars, schools, all in the name of less government. Everyone wants good roads, but god forbid paying for them, everyone wants to go to war bcs of "freedom" but hey, let's put it on credit card. When we are going to finally figure out that we need to pay for c... we want to have or do.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Yes, and last week, the EPA announced CO2 regulations on airliners. I can't think of any other sectors of the transportation business that are more sensitive to fuel economy than air transport and trucking. The engine maker that has 1% better fuel economy than his rivals dominates the business. The most efficient diesel engines for trucks were built in the late 1980's before the EPA began ratcheting down NOx and particulate standards. Current trucks equipped with EGR and particulate trap systems get much lower fuel economy, yet cost about $12,000 more because of the extra emissions controls. Now the EPA steps in and complains about fuel economy? Duhhh-uh!
good write up
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Couldn't we just truck stuff less? The roads in Hollis, Maine are being pounded by 18 wheelers hauling groundwater away from a Poland Spring bottling plant because people are too cool to drink tap water. Tap water infrastructure is already in place, if you hate the flavor, get a Brita filter!

Poland Spring/ Nestle knows its a public relations flop; the trucks are plain white, unmarked.

The unsung efficiencies will be in better dispatching, more tandem trailers, driving slower, slower lead times, more automated shipping container robotic ports and intermodal facilities, etc. Our "stuff" still comes from insanely far away, most of it.


You pretty much nailed it. As a truck driver, I must say that when things were made in the USA, they didn't have to come from across the world to get here to where they're consumed.
 
We have reached the peak of mid sized diesel engine thermal efficiency, at about 44%. Yes, both gas and diesel thermal efficiency has suffered due to emission requirements. However, that trend is improving somewhat.

For example, lean operation of gasoline engines can increase fuel economy by 8% in some RPM operational ranges (not at heavy loads) . Same goes for very high compression gasoline and diesel engines. However, these engines don't meet EPA requirements.

Without hybridization, such lofty fuel economy requirements are going to be exceedingly difficult and expensive to achieve. A given amount of work takes a given amount of energy.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Burt
If society wants less fuel consumption, then be honest and raise the gas tax and lower other taxes an equal amount. Let the market decide. Please don't issue these fiats that so it is said, so it is done.

Why not just raising the tax, and not lowering the tax? Aren't we living beyond our means, meaning we do not pay for roads, wars, schools, all in the name of less government. Everyone wants good roads, but god forbid paying for them, everyone wants to go to war bcs of "freedom" but hey, let's put it on credit card. When we are going to finally figure out that we need to pay for c... we want to have or do.
Raise the gas tax and lower "others" an equal amount.....what does THAT accomplish. I'd still have the same amount of money to spend on gas and the gas tax is a regressive tax. Get someone to read to you about "regressive taxation".
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Couldn't we just truck stuff less? The roads in Hollis, Maine are being pounded by 18 wheelers hauling groundwater away from a Poland Spring bottling plant because people are too cool to drink tap water. Tap water infrastructure is already in place, if you hate the flavor, get a Brita filter!

Poland Spring/ Nestle knows its a public relations flop; the trucks are plain white, unmarked.

The unsung efficiencies will be in better dispatching, more tandem trailers, driving slower, slower lead times, more automated shipping container robotic ports and intermodal facilities, etc. Our "stuff" still comes from insanely far away, most of it.
So ho many people do you want to put out of work? I'd say commercial vehicles are taxed well enough to pay for the "damage" they cause. It's the political hacks who dump the revenue into the "general fund" and use it to coddle neversweats instead of fixing roads. BTW, where is Britta made?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Burt
If society wants less fuel consumption, then be honest and raise the gas tax and lower other taxes an equal amount. Let the market decide. Please don't issue these fiats that so it is said, so it is done.

Why not just raising the tax, and not lowering the tax? Aren't we living beyond our means, meaning we do not pay for roads, wars, schools, all in the name of less government. Everyone wants good roads, but god forbid paying for them, everyone wants to go to war bcs of "freedom" but hey, let's put it on credit card. When we are going to finally figure out that we need to pay for c... we want to have or do.
Raise the gas tax and lower "others" an equal amount.....what does THAT accomplish. I'd still have the same amount of money to spend on gas and the gas tax is a regressive tax. Get someone to read to you about "regressive taxation".

I do not think people understand what is regressive taxation and what is progressive taxation.
If you want to solve the problem let's tax gas higher (so we can pay for roads) and let's increase taxes on pick-pu trucks unless those trucks are bought by farmers or construction workers, meaning, if they are bought for work, fine, if not, pay for being stupid.
 
Last edited:
Is the Britta made in China?
2mze6nn.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I'd say commercial vehicles are taxed well enough to pay for the "damage" they cause. It's the political hacks who dump the revenue into the "general fund" and use it to coddle neversweats instead of fixing roads.


I'd say they don't, and here are some references:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending

http://www.sddot.com/transportation/trucking/docs/SDDOT_Truck_Briefing_2d.pdf

"A legal 20000 lb truck axle consumes as much pavement as 1000 2000 lb car axles."

We need infrastructure, and it's the government's job to run it. But they are subsidizing road use, and subsidizing 18 wheelers more so than passenger cars. If they weren't, the trucking lobby would be all in our face. But since this damage is underreported, the lobby is deathly quiet.
 
They force on a fuel economy problem and then force others to try to solve it. Brilliant.

When they introduced all of this emissions garbage, we were told that the fuel economy loss was and jacked up Co2 were totally worth the emissions reduction. Now that the sale is complete, fuel economy and Co2 is a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top