backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Feb 24 at 11:27 AM

President Obama is expected to announce it today

Medium and heavy-duty vehicles are on U.S President Barack Obama's agenda for discussion today in an effort to set new fuel standards
 
Obama today announced the tightened fuel standards for vehicles like semis, garbage trucks, buses and three-quarter-ton pickups at a distribution center for the grocery chain Safeway in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
 
Obama requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) create new fuel-efficiency and greenhouse gas proposals by March 2015 and final standards by March 31, 2016. 
 
The action follows the president's State of the Union Address last month, where he said he planned to set new fuel standards for trucks in order to cut costs at the pump and lessen our need for oil and imports. 
 
In 2011, the EPA and NHTSA finalized the first phase of fuel-efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, saying that they must lower reduce fuel consumption between 10 and 20 percent depending on design.


President Obama wants heavy duty vehicles to reduce their fuel consumption. [Source: Getty Images]

More specifically, big rigs and semi trucks were required to achieve a 20 percent reduction, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans were required to achieve a 15 percent reduction, and delivery trucks, buses and garbage trucks were required to achieve a 10 percent reduction. This affects 2014 to 2018 model years.
 
Trucks and buses built between these model years are estimated to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by approximately 270 million metric tons. 
 
The 2011 rules are expected to save $50 billion in fuel costs, which is equivalent to 530 billion barrels of oil. 
 
However, auto manufacturers will have to pay up $8.1 billion to build the fuel-efficient vehicles.
 
In August 2012, the Obama administration also finalized fuel efficiency standards in cars and light trucks by the year 2025. By pushing for 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency, the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards aim to save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, cut U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the course of the program, and encourage the adoption of autos like electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids.

Sources: USA Today, The White House



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Only 8.1 Billion?
By Spuke on 2/18/2014 3:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
I really thought it would cost WAY more than this. Is this the governments estimate or the automakers?




RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2014 3:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Any numbers coming from this Administration tend to be complete BS. Especially when it comes to how much his half-brained schemes will "save" us.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Spuke on 2/18/2014 5:47:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Any numbers coming from this Administration tend to be complete BS. Especially when it comes to how much his half-brained schemes will "save" us.
Government numbers then. Figures. It MIGHT save us money at the pump (doubt that) but it will most assuredly be made up at the grocery store.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Dorkyman on 2/19/2014 5:00:37 PM , Rating: 3
You know, I think Messiah should "go for broke" and insist that large trucks get 100 miles per gallon. Wow, just think of all the fuel we would save.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/19/2014 9:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. That would save us a cagillion fafillion dollars.

A year!


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By sgw2n5 on 2/20/2014 11:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
Why would Jesus insist that large trucks get 100 mpg? I wasn't aware that he was back already or that he was a politician that really cared too much about fuel economy.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By sgw2n5 on 2/19/14, Rating: -1
RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By wookie1 on 2/19/2014 11:35:44 AM , Rating: 3
Of course the trucking industry and vehicle manufacturers never considered the balance of vehicle cost and improving efficiency. They never noticed that by far the main operating cost is fuel. They would never be so smart as our benevolent masters as to figure these things out.

Also let's not get confused about who bears the cost.
The article says: "However, auto manufacturers will have to pay up $8.1 billion to build the fuel-efficient vehicles."
The manufacturers have to pass most if not all of this cost on to the truckers. The truckers have to pass it on to the store. And the store then passes it on to YOU the consumer. It's just another stealth tax.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By sgw2n5 on 2/19/2014 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
I do not disagree with any of that. Regardless of who will ultimately bear the cost (obviously the end user or consumer)... how is this at all a bad thing?

Better air due to less emissions, less reliance on foreign oil, investment into new engine/vehicle design and manufacturing processes leading to new jobs. Seems like a win all around to me.

As a consumer, I don't at all mind paying my part for any of those things.

quote:
our benevolent masters


How do I get one of those? Did I miss the sign up period or something?


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By wookie1 on 2/19/2014 2:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
Go ahead and pay your part, but the poor get hit the hardest as the cost of their daily needs goes up. I don't mind you paying whatever you want for these dubious benefits, but why should you get to decide for the rest of us? Creating jobs to complete a task with fewer benefits than it costs is not a win. How can you tell that the costs outweigh the benefits? A good indicator is that it requires a government mandate to do it. With a straight face they tell the industry that because they have now weighed in on it, the industry can save more money on fuel costs than it costs to upgrade to new technology for better mileage. Since fuel cost is by far the #1 operating cost, this is absurd on its face.

If you live in the US, we sign up for benevolent masters every 4 years.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Reflex on 2/19/2014 2:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Index minimum wage to inflation/CPI and it costs the poor nothing since food and other costs are part of the inflation calculation.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By JediJeb on 2/20/2014 3:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Until the increased minimum wage costs that poor person their job because the company needs to shave costs to afford the higher wages.

Well I guess it would still not cost the poor any more, since they would just increase my taxes on top of the increased cost of goods so they can give the poor who lose their jobs more subsidies.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By sgw2n5 on 2/20/2014 11:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
Umm... you're arguing that better air quality and less reliance on foreign oil are dubious benefits? Seriously?

quote:
How can you tell that the costs outweigh the benefits? A good indicator is that it requires a government mandate to do it.


Yes, the government mandating that drug companies are required to test for quality/safety of medications or requiring that the beef I buy at the supermarket isn't teeming with bacteria and parasites is definitely a bad thing. Spurious regulations.

GOVERNMENT BAD. OOOGA BOOGA


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By tastyratz on 2/23/2014 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
the ignorance of correlation here is striking in your post.

Do you not think that companies purchasing extremely expensive large commercial vehicles do not have fuel and operating costs as their number one targets as they push their purchase to a million plus miles?

You can't legislate innovation. This is a statistical bragging right. These large vehicles are already actually surprisingly efficient for the workload. Adding unnecessary cost to their target will hurt nobody but the consumer whether they can afford it or not.

And the mandates? They are requiring that manufacturers hit this target beginning THIS model year. How could anyone possibly change and meet their current production year vehicles? They can't... so it's a penalty tax for the government.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Jeffk464 on 2/18/2014 5:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
Cheapest way to decrease diesel usage in Long haul trucking is to get truckers "shore power" make it so you can run the AC, an electric heate,r and electronic devices of an outlet that truckers can plug into at the truck stop. A truck idling overnight can easily burn 8 gallons parked overnight multiply that times every truck on the road and you are talking about some series fuel usage and you also clear up localized but extremely poor air quality


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Jeffk464 on 2/18/2014 5:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
By the way figure a truck goes through 50 - 70 gallons a day so this will get you pretty close to 10% right there.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Spuke on 2/18/2014 5:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
Trucks in CA are not allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes then they're hit with a fine. Some rigs are having large battery banks and inverters installed so they can run stuff without the engine.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/18/2014 6:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
Many trucks today have an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). The generator still burns diesel and adds weight to the truck, but it's more efficient than idling a 13L+ engine.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Spuke on 2/18/2014 7:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The generator still burns diesel and adds weight to the truck, but it's more efficient than idling a 13L+ engine.
Are you sure about that? I have a motorhome and the generator in that is NOT more efficient than the engine (and this is true for most all if not all motorhomes).


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/18/2014 7:56:12 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, but you have understand that the relevant measure of efficiency here is highest !/$, not highest peak thermal efficiency. In other words, what matters is what gets the job done (legally) for the lowest cost.

APUs have lower peak thermal efficiency than the primer mover, but they operate closer to their peak thermal efficiency when providing hotel services. This results in lower fuel consumption and lower emissions. Efficiency is boosted further when you include the decreased wear-and-tear on the vehicle.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Jeffk464 on 2/18/2014 9:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
They actually pollute more than the main engine.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Samus on 2/19/2014 12:01:34 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
A truck idling overnight can easily burn 8 gallons parked overnight


While that may be true, smart truckers are moving away from this trend.

Many trucks, especially owner-operator and leased trucks, where fuel is reimbursed by logistics or dispatch, they have an APU (auxiliary power unit) equiped to run the vehicles climate control, water/engine block heater and consumer voltage. Some are noisy 2-cylinder diesel engines that aren't easy to service, but are pretty reliable and only need oil changes every 1500 hours and burn as little as a coffee cup of fuel an hour maintaining the climate condition of a cab and keeping the shutdown engine "warm".

I expect Obama's new "standards" to require APU's, possibly at the manufacture level, in order to meet set fuel efficiency requirements. For those that don't know, fuel efficiency for large commercial vehicles are not rated in miles per gallon but gallons per hour. Since truckers are only (legally) allowed to drive 12 hours/day, it is presumed 50% of a trucks lifespan is spent idling.

There isn't much competition so they cost $8000+ (taking a long time for return on investment) and no manufacturer bakes them into a platform since no manufacturer actually makes them. That could all change with a federal mandate.

Before somebody says "if they're such a good idea why aren't manufactures putting them in trucks" I'll answer it with one word. Incentive. There isn't one. Knowing this administration, they'll have tax credits for APU's.

Or they'll raise tax on diesel even more...


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By Jeffk464 on 2/19/2014 3:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
Shore power should be more efficient than an APU, you are using the efficiency of the local power plant and you aren't carrying around the extra weight. I would guess the reason truckers want apu's is they can't reliably get shore power and truck AC's currently aren't meant to run of shore power. It really should be no big deal to have a motor rather belt driven compressor, this is very doable. And like I said before the air quality in and around trucks stops is awful because of idling and running 2 stroke diesel apu's.


RE: Only 8.1 Billion?
By RapidDissent on 2/22/2014 11:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
It will. To put it more accurately:

Automakers pay $8 billion >> Industry buyers pay $18 billion >> Consumers pay $180 billion.

Afterall, I am not buying a semi to carry my groceries directly from Kenworth.

Just look what the bank bailout has done for consumer loans... net positive for banks = cost increase for consumer... Now we are talking about a net deficiency for vehicle manufacturers.


New Engine Design
By deltaend on 2/18/2014 4:05:36 PM , Rating: 1
Eventually, these types of requirements will necessitate new engine designs which are more advanced than our current re-re-re-re-redesigned engine models which have been around for over 100 years.

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Disc+Gas+Engine+Looks...

Couple this engine with new battery designs such as potassium or graphene based batteries charged from breaking and even trucks will be getting 100mpg.

Personally, I hope it happens sooner rather than later.




RE: New Engine Design
By fic2 on 2/18/2014 4:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
Waste heat recovery systems such as this:
http://www.enermotion.com/home/index.php?option=co...

will help.


RE: New Engine Design
By Jeffk464 on 2/18/2014 5:16:12 PM , Rating: 1
Have you read about the hydraulic hybrids, they might be heavy duty enough for trucks. You store bread energy as hydraulic pressure rather than stored electricity. Hybrids will probably only save you a little bit for long haul though, it would be more for local delivery.

By the way the biggest fuel savings is to ship the trailers city to city by train and then have city drivers pick up and deliver the load locally.


RE: New Engine Design
By Jeffk464 on 2/18/2014 5:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
eh, break energy not bread energy.


RE: New Engine Design
By mjv.theory on 2/19/2014 4:42:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
eh, break energy not bread energy.

What use it is if it's broken?. Unless of course it were re-generative "braking".


RE: New Engine Design
By mjv.theory on 2/19/2014 4:44:12 AM , Rating: 2
and before you jump on another typo with another spelling mistake:

"What use is it ....


RE: New Engine Design
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/18/2014 7:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
One thing to recognize about train fuel efficiency is that it is measured in ton*miles/gallon.

Trains are very efficient primarily because they have a low rolling resistance coefficient. The problem is that they are also extremely heavy, so their baseline rolling resistance is high compared to trucks. The extremely fuel efficiency ratings you hear bandied about are primarily because trains haul coal, ore, steel and other heavy commodities. Those ratings would tank if their payload consisted of paper towels, frozen food or illegal immigrants like over-the-road trucking.

What you're describing is drayage, which is extremely common with shipping containers. Over-the-road trucking has the advantage of route flexibility, point-to-point service and speed.


RE: New Engine Design
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/18/2014 6:51:39 PM , Rating: 3
Literally hundreds of new engine types have been invented over the past century and only one has ever broken the diesel/gasoline engine oligopoly -- the wankel. In other words, don't count on it.

Semi-truck diesel engines are extremely efficient, with BSFC starting to go below 0.3 lb/bhp*hr. An extremely efficient gasoline piston engine will be ~0.35. The largest piston engine ever built (Wartsila RTA-96) is among the most efficient at ~0.28.

Ironically, the last 15+ years of technology has been spent fighting emissions to the detriment of fuel efficiency. The latest research has been on turbo compounding (e.g. Detroit Diesel DD15, Scania 470) and the Organic Rankine Cycle (Cummins). Other approaches have been clutching the air-compressor, more efficient alternators, super single tires, direct drive transmissions and an increasingly strict diet of decreased weight and increased aerodynamics.


RE: New Engine Design
By JediJeb on 2/20/2014 4:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
strict diet of decreased weight and increased aerodynamics.


The problem here concerning the mandated mileage numbers is that as you decrease the weight of the vehicle, haulers will just increase the weight of the cargo to keep it as close to the legal maximum. While this will increase efficiency as measured by ton*mile/gallon it does little for mile/gallon numbers. You are actually using less fuel to move the same amount of cargo, but the vehicle itself is still using the same amount of fuel to travel the same distance.


RE: New Engine Design
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/20/2014 7:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
True, but...

1) Decreasing the weight of some components has an effect regardless. For example, aluminum wheels have less rotational inertia than steel wheels.

2) The average load trucks carry is less than the maximum GVWR. Reefers and (especially) flatbeds are the most likely to gross-out. Even then, just one "light load" carried (e.g. aluminum doors) means the average will be under gross.

3) Trucks often deadhead between loads.

4) Increasing ton*miles/gallon is the relevant metric for America. The fact that it will increase indirectly is a benefit of the mandate. The independent owner-operator (little guy) will probably lose out since he'll be paying for technology without reaping all the benefits... welcome to 21st century America!


RE: New Engine Design
By sorry dog on 2/24/2014 11:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
I would think the gas turbine would be considered a more realistic occasional competitor to the piston engine than the rotary which is really novelty design.


right numbers?
By Murst on 2/18/2014 6:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 2011 rules are expected to save $50 billion in fuel costs, which is equivalent to 530 billion barrels of oil.

Are you sure about that? That would mean that $1 dollar in fuel costs is equivalent to about 10 barrels of oil.

Now, I'm not sure how a barrel of oil translates to fuel costs, but I doubt you need 10 barrels (which are going for about $100 each on the market) to make about 0.3 gallons of fuel (about $1).




RE: right numbers?
By RU482 on 2/18/2014 8:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=327&t=9

according to this, 1 barrel (42 gallons)of crude yields 10 gallons of diesel fuel.
*plus other products


RE: right numbers?
By Wy_White_Wolf on 2/19/2014 8:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
Can't be right. That would save our total oil usage for 75 years. We only use about 7 billion a year according to this.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6


RE: right numbers?
By ElFenix on 2/19/2014 1:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
the source article (USA Today linked at the end of the post) says 530 million barrels of oil.


What model years again?
By DryHumor on 2/18/2014 3:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's too late for new standards to apply to trucks currently being built.




RE: What model years again?
By DryHumor on 2/18/2014 3:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
Nevermind. Didn't catch how article was mixing 2011 rules and newer rules coming soon.


EREV + aero
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 2/19/2014 1:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what sort of mileage the following could get in a truck:
* 40kWh battery with plugin (for 'shore power' and load smoothing)
* dual electric motors, differently geared, for drive wheels
* ~400kW diesel w/electric supercharger and exhaust-driven 'turbo' generator, with DI, VVT and cylinder deactivation
* modern aero and skirting

And for maximum safety and economy, an ISO container-carrying trailer with motors, attached to the main rig, which could help low-speed starts as well as do regenerative braking in tandem with the truck and thus reduce jackknifing.




RE: EREV + aero
By JediJeb on 2/20/2014 4:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about the mileage but I imagine the truck would go from costing $80k-250k to costing $750K-$1,000,000 each.


What a GREAT IDEA!!!
By half_duplex on 2/20/2014 9:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
Obama does it again!! Fuel efficient big rigs!!!

What an ass hole. How could such a small minded, unqualified idiot be elected to POTUS??

I have an idea, fuel efficient airliners!!! I highly doubt they put much emphasis on efficient when designing those.




savings
By tw33kerloki on 2/20/2014 10:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
lets assume the worse,... that the administrations numbers are just so much balooey... let's assume the actual numbers are a lot worse... meaning savings of $25B and costs to mfrs of $16B...

The benefits of lower emission, higher efficiency, less dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, spurring some job and industry , etc. have got to be worth the costs of one month's F-35 cost overruns, right? And whatever the mfrs learn and gain in new technologies from this can be sold, here and overseas.




Crap
By RapidDissent on 2/22/2014 11:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
Get ready for the price of EVERYTHING to go up. More expensive rigs means more expensive garbage collection, mail delivery, shipping, food, furniture, vehicles, fuel, etc. Lord knows the industries are not going to absorb the cost.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki