10-4 to Cleaner Trucks?

"The agencies estimate that drivers and operators can expect fuel savings of as much as 20% over the long-term."

Well, I fear that is just more government rhetoric. If there really was going to be any savings the trucking industry would have been all over it, begging for it, in fact, a long, long time ago.

Fuel costs are a very significant factor for the trucking industry. A 2% savings would be taken very seriously, but the claim of 20% probably comes from someone smoking too much medicinal California marijuana.

I would welcome any improvement in air quality from trucks with open lungs, but the reality is that this is going to cost everybody in the pocket.

That cost will be like a giant VAT tax where the cost of doing business will be passed on to the consumer (both foreign and domestic) at every stage of the product cycle where it depends on transportation or use of heavy equipment.

The good news is that this will be three years down the road, so there is hope that an economic recovery will take the sting out of any increase. Over the long term this will be a good thing, but we need to be careful about the real costs, particularly at a time where we are economically stressed and can't even afford to pay our own debts.

The bad news is that this is not the only such program that will tax our economy. These programs are very noble sentiments, but I am not so sure that the architects of these programs fully grasp the costs. The recent health care bill is a good example where the true impact was either not understood or ignored in favor of some idealistic goal.

I am voting against the GA. The trucking industry is still doing business as usual even though it has been shown that some minor modifications to the trucks have a big effect on fuel efficiency. Look at how few truck trailers you see on the interstate with the wind skirts. Look at how many old trucks are being bandaged to keep them on the road for as long as possible because some owner/operator doesn't want to spend the money to buy a newer one. I personally think heavy-duty trucks should have emission testing requirements.

Also, EPA has a list of verified technologies for the trucking industry. Personally, I think it requires regulations in this capitalistic country to get the industries to improve. You would be surprised at how many companies do business as usual until they get inspected by the government and forced to follow the regulations. When I was working as a pollution prevention engineer, it was impossible to get the companies to do any modification that didn't have an ROI of 200% or better or a simple payback period of less than 1 year. And those were the large advanced corporations that tout being environmentally friendly. There were many companies that upper management didn't want to spend anything because of a "we have done it this way since I started here" mentality or a "the machinery does the job" mentality.

What is a 'pollution prevention' engineer?

Sounds kind of like 'community organizer'.

You mean your degree is environmental engineering?

Russ

"I am voting against the GA. The trucking industry is still doing business as usual even though it has been shown that some minor modifications to the trucks have a big effect on fuel efficiency."

I have no problem with voting against a GA, but show me the data where there have been minor modifications that have big effects on fuel economy, yet have been shunned!

That makes no sense and I would bet that you will not be able to dig up any credible evidence to support that claim when you consider the expenses to realize those savings. The EPA is going to be biases.

This article has all of the links that anwer your question. And it appears that the industry is trying to provide accurate information to the owner/operators.

To add to it, my aunt sold her trucking company (she had six truck teams) about 5 years ago to expand her husband's metal building company because the trucking company wasn't making enough money with the rise in fuel prices.

Would seem to be an easy sell to large trucking companies if you could prove the savings, but all that data looks like it has one source - RMI.

I really don't have time to research this, but my instinct tells me that the real savings may not be enough after you factor all of the other costs to implement those changes.

I don't know if this is the case here, but many times there is a large disconnect between academic theory and real-world practice.

RMI is a bit on the loony green side much of the time.

With this administration they have many people in important places that seem to believe that by making a declaration they accomplish something.

It is a bit difficult to believe that all the trucking company owners are so stupid that they need a government organized conference to explain to them how to save money.

The better place to start would be with the new trucks with backward integration of the usable modifications to older trucks.

The article at Green Biz was written by -

Rebecca Cole is the web content manager for Rocky Mountain Institute, she helps drive the direction, strategy and content for RMI's online presence. Toot - Toot!

Yes. Typically agenda driven and science takes a back seat. Or more precisely, they will search for the science facts that fit their agenda and discount anything that doesn't serve.

Well I'll give you a good answer vote. Your post echoes many of my feelings on this. http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/14179#newcomments Just because the guberment legislates something. doesn't make it so. The laws of physics and reality still apply, regardless of some bureaucrat's wishes to the contrary. Sounds like another scheme to make us less competitive and to raise tax revenue to me.

This source is questionable, the 20% figure is seemingly magically produced

here is the root finding from epa http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

a public resource [ air] is being degraded for fun & profit.

So the EPA is filling the void left by the [somewhat] free markets inability to implement technological improvements to mitigate the degradation of the shared [oh my god socialism!] resource