backtop

Print 111 comment(s) - last by corduroygt.. on May 27 at 12:18 PM

  (Source: BUUUUURRRRNING HOT)
Semi-trucks use 2M barrels of oil daily and produce 20% of the greenhouse gasses

President Obama is pushing hard to make the country reduce emissions while at the same time decreasing our need for foreign oil. Most of the focus of Obama and his supporters thus far has been on cars and trucks that the average consumer would drive. 

In April the NHTSA and EPA unveiled new fuel economy standards stipulating that, automakers must meet 34.1 MPG by 2016. Obama signed a new presidential memorandum last Friday that will work at establishing higher fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks in model years 2017 to 2025. The new memorandum also looks to reduce the fuel and emissions produced by heavy-duty semi trucks.

Obama said at the ceremony where the memorandum was signed, "It's possible in the next 20 years for vehicles to use half the fuel and produce half the pollution that they do today." 

Obama says that improving fuel economy in heavy-duty trucks will "bring down costs for transporting goods, serving businesses and consumers alike." Obama also stated, "This standard will spur growth in the clean-energy sector. We know how important that is."

Obama's memorandum seeks to improve the efficiency of tractor-trailers by 25% and he claims that this can be done by using off the shelf technology already available. Obama did not elaborate on the increased efficiency standards for cars and light-trucks to go into effect in 2017. 

Some are concerned at the cost of adding new emission and fuel economy standards. The automakers have had some of their roughest years in their history recently and the cost of the new fuel economy standards to go into effect putting the fleet-wide economy requirements at 34.1 mpg by 2016 will add about $985 to the price of each car sold.

Obama envisions vehicles in the U.S. reaching 50 mpg by 2027.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The laws of physics
By chartguy on 5/24/2010 1:31:51 PM , Rating: 1
The readers of DailyTech tend to be a bit more aware of the laws of physics than the average voter. We have a pretty good idea of how much effort has been expended increasing the efficiency of vehicles, and what the engineers are up against.

It's a shame the POTUS has no clue on that, and thinks it's merely a matter of will.




RE: The laws of physics
By Pneumothorax on 5/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: The laws of physics
By Connoisseur on 5/24/2010 2:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno, I think a lot of the car manufacturers have been doing a pretty decent job keeping up with the mandates recently. Smaller engines, turbocharging, direct injection, diesels. All technologies that have been around for ages but are only recently getting implemented due to mandates by the gov't. And you can't blame the motivation on just rising gas prices. They were crazy high a couple of years ago but none of these techs seemed to come out then. My point is, while consumer sentiment (i.e. rising gas prices) certainly affects change in the type of vehicle, government mandates gave the timelines a swift kick in the pants.

Also, there's nothing technologically "infeasible" about 50+ mpg cars (or even 100+ mpg). Just depends on if it can be accomplished while maintaining safety requirements. If Clinton or Bush Jr had passed stricter MPG standards, it would've probably been more beneficial as consumers would've only had to suck up the "pass down" cost of the new tech instead of that and the high gas prices that we suffer through now. My two cents.


RE: The laws of physics
By ebakke on 5/24/2010 2:56:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
. All technologies that have been around for ages but are only recently getting implemented due to mandates by the gov't.
Unless you have an APUM (Alternate Parallel Universe Machine) that allows you to see exactly what happens in the future for different actions today, you can't really claim the government mandates are what caused the auto manufacturers to utilize these technologies before.

Correlation does not imply causation.


RE: The laws of physics
By ebakke on 5/24/2010 3:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
* to utilize these technologies now.


RE: The laws of physics
By Connoisseur on 5/24/2010 11:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Correlation does not imply causation.


True but how does your opinion differ in validity than mine at that point? We can only go by what HAS happened. What HAS happened is that car makers are finally listening to either consumers or the gov't or both and are utilizing existing tech to make more fuel efficient vehicles without sacrificing much in the way of power. Regardless of how you slice it, that's what's happened (the ford EcoTec engine is the perfect example). My big complaint is people saying "the government doesn't do anything right and regulation is wrong." I hold the opinion that not all regulation is bad and some can actually benefit the consumer in the end.


RE: The laws of physics
By ebakke on 5/25/2010 9:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True but how does your opinion differ in validity than mine at that point?
I thought it was pretty clear. You said the auto manufacturers' actions are due to government actions. I said you can't possibly know that for certain. We both agree on the timeline of events, but you're trying to use that as a case for government regulation. And I'm not buying. :-P

You gotta admit though, the government's track record for doing things right isn't exactly stellar. Not that I can necessarily blame them... there's no incentive really, beyond altruistic personal drive/desire, and that really only goes so far.


RE: The laws of physics
By Connoisseur on 5/25/2010 10:46:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You gotta admit though, the government's track record for doing things right isn't exactly stellar.


Neither is the track record for private companies operating without regulation. One example is the current economic debacle. Not trying to spark a debate on the economic crisis here, but a lot of it points to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act (regulation by gov't) which allowed the big banks to make those funky mortgage-backed securities.

My point is this: On one hand, when unregulated, companies seem to have a tendency to maximize profits without necessarily thinking long term or of the consumer (altruism as you point out). On the other hand, the perception is that the government is incompetent with regulation (although they "try" to be altruistic in most situations). I guess, given these two options, which side would you rather choose?


RE: The laws of physics
By ebakke on 5/25/2010 1:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither is the track record for private companies operating without regulation. One example is the current economic debacle.
If you're trying to claim the mortgage/banking industry isn't regulated, then we might as well just stop now.

quote:
My point is this: On one hand, when unregulated, companies seem to have a tendency to maximize profits without necessarily thinking long term or of the consumer (altruism as you point out).
If they aren't thinking long term or of the consumer, then they're not going to maximize profits. At least not in the long term. Which means they'll make money today, fail tomorrow, and that failure will provide incentive for other businesses to choose a different path.

My point about altruism is that government entities don't have an incentive to be productive or be efficient. The employees have an incentive to do just enough to not get fired. Or just enough to get a raise. Nothing more. The only incentive to work harder than that or to save taxpayer dollars is the personal satisfaction one may or may not receive. So if you have an idealistic/altruistic employee, great. If you don't... :( With private enterprise, if I'm more efficient my company makes more money, which means I make more money. Now that's an incentive.

quote:
On the other hand, the perception is that the government is incompetent with regulation (although they "try" to be altruistic in most situations). I guess, given these two options, which side would you rather choose?
I would unquestionably choose the former. I trust myself to make decisions about where to place my money and which businesses to support. Sometimes I'll biff it and I'll lose, but I'm ok with that. On the other hand, I do not trust the government to correctly make those decisions for me. The political machine has shown time and time again that it's "solutions" are often just as bad as the problems they're attempting to solve. For whatever reason, elected officials cannot grasp the concept of unintended consequences. More often than not they act as experts in whatever field will be impacted by their legislation, yet have no qualifications to do so.


RE: The laws of physics
By corduroygt on 5/24/2010 2:57:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And you can't blame the motivation on just rising gas prices. They were crazy high a couple of years ago but none of these techs seemed to come out then.

Do you think such tech in a car engine that's not supposed to break for 100k miles, while meeting other design criteria for cost, emissions, fuel economy can be designed overnight?

The tech we see now was motivated by the rising gas prices in the last decade. It takes a lot of time to design and manufacture an automobile.


RE: The laws of physics
By Solandri on 5/24/2010 10:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dunno, I think a lot of the car manufacturers have been doing a pretty decent job keeping up with the mandates recently. Smaller engines, turbocharging, direct injection, diesels. All technologies that have been around for ages but are only recently getting implemented due to mandates by the gov't.

Car engines typically operate at about 10% of their peak power output (only takes about 20-25 hp to keep a sedan going 65 mph on the highway). Peak power output is typically only used for accelerating and passing, so it doesn't have to be reliable (i.e. it can be hard on the engine), it doesn't have to be sustainable (an engine which overheats after 15 min at 7k rpm is still feasible), and sometimes it isn't even necessary (you can just cut displacement and use a smaller engine, sacrificing acceleration for fuel efficiency). Another way to improve efficiency is to cut vehicle weight, which sacrifices safety, but not if the average weight for all vehicles drops simultaneously.

Truck engines typically operate at about 75%-90% of their peak power output. There's nowhere near as much wriggle room to squeeze out more efficiency. And you can't cut vehicle weight since the weight is predominantly cargo.


RE: The laws of physics
By Flahrydog on 5/24/2010 3:53:47 PM , Rating: 4
"In this house, we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!"


By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 5/24/2010 4:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: The laws of physics
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2010 3:18:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Obama's memorandum seeks to improve the efficiency of tractor-trailers by 25% and he claims that this can be done by using off the shelf technology already available. Obama did not elaborate on the increased efficiency standards for cars and light-trucks to go into effect in 2017.


So not only is the man a economist, bank expert, and all around know it all...

But now HE, only HE, knows how to increase tractor efficiency by 25%!!! With "off the shelf" parts !? Not that he's going to share the secret mind you. Just that by making it mandated, it will just magically happen.

What a disgusting socialist! He actually believes that the private sector wouldn't think to do this if it was REALLY that easy and "off the shelf"? That we're all just waiting around for Big Government to spur innovation? Does he realize how HUGE 25% more efficiency is?? Trucking companies would be SCREAMING for this to happen if it really were that easy!

I'm so tired of this President and all his Communist minions. Every time one of them opens their mouth, utter stupidity pours forth.


RE: The laws of physics
By corduroygt on 5/24/2010 3:38:46 PM , Rating: 3
I have the design of a new element that will produce virtually unlimited energy. You just have to make a makeshift particle accelerator in your garage and focus the beam onto a triangular shape.

Even Hollywood fiction is more plausible than what Obama's saying...


RE: The laws of physics
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2010 3:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget to NOT aim the focusing beam mirror thing, so you can cut half your workshop in half getting the beam to the triangle element holder thingy :)

Hey maybe Obama saw Avatar and has some Unobtanium laying around to put on the big rigs to make them lighter ???


RE: The laws of physics
By tastyratz on 5/25/2010 11:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is its a catch 22. Big Rigs in service are capable of additional gas mileage through simple improvements and off the shelf parts, yes. The issue is cost which is also why auto manufacturers have been able to meet the cafe standard demands (even though they wouldn't have without our influence) but as a result of a higher consumer cost.
Big rigs are going to get far more expensive to buy.

The biggest issue with them at hand however is not new big rig gas mileage, its that they are designed around incredible feats of mileage and longevity leaving a higher percentage of older vehicles on the road. Far less new rigs are sold and far more old rigs are on the road still. Its more economical to recycle in that respect.

This is a delicate balance as well because increased transportation costs reflect in all commercial goods.

Perhaps a better approach would be a "cash for clunkers" type program offering incentives to get older polluting inefficient rigs off the road?


RE: The laws of physics
By corduroygt on 5/27/2010 12:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike cars, big rigs do about 300k miles per year, so any fuel saving measure in a rig pays of real fast.


RE: The laws of physics
By redbone75 on 5/24/2010 4:06:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Every time one of them opens their mouth, utter stupidity pours forth.

Pot, meet kettle.


RE: The laws of physics
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: The laws of physics
By hr824 on 5/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: The laws of physics
By alphadog on 5/24/2010 5:12:10 PM , Rating: 1
Let's assume that a company could keep making a vehicle the same way with some profit X, or make a new vehicle with "greener" tendencies, the same profit, but a one-time cost to change process.

Assuming that we abide by the free-market, Ayn Rand ideals you love, and we turn to our illustrious stockholders for guidance from above, which will they choose?

It's not socialism to care about the world you live in. And, it's not crazy to think that all decisions should be left up to some corporatist power structure.


RE: The laws of physics
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2010 5:20:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's not socialism to care about the world you live in.


You're right. Nobody cares about the world but Obama. We're all just sitting around doing nothing proactive. Thank god the Government came around to help.

quote:
Assuming that we abide by the free-market, Ayn Rand ideals you love, and we turn to our illustrious stockholders for guidance from above, which will they choose?


Are you retarded? If a vehicle manufacturing company announced a big rig that got a whopping 25% fuel economy increase over a standard rig, they would overnight DOMINATE the entire industry. They would become an instant monopoly. Damn right they would choose to do it! Do you even understand how huge a one quarter increase in efficiency is? Even 10% would be huge, but 25 !!!??

quote:
And, it's not crazy to think that all decisions should be left up to some corporatist power structure.


It's crazy if you think the Government is the answer to every problem too.


RE: The laws of physics
By HotFoot on 5/24/2010 6:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
I do think it's silly and misleading for a politician to come out and say they want increases in efficiency like this. Regulate the emissions - bring down NOx, SO, CO, and VOCs by mandate, but fuel efficiency? That's a problem the market is quite capable of handling on its own.

What I'd like to see is an end to the subsidies in this market. That includes subsidies for electrics as well as oil/gas exploration. I think the government involvement should be more limited - say to research grants - rather than handing out tax breaks or credits.


RE: The laws of physics
By alphadog on 5/25/2010 9:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's crazy if you think the Government is the answer to every problem too.


Right, which is why, unlike you, I believe in a balance of power, whereas you seem to prefer to have corporations only run the Nation.


RE: The laws of physics
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2010 7:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right, which is why, unlike you, I believe in a balance of power, whereas you seem to prefer to have corporations only run the Nation.


I snort at your tired ass Liberal anti business tactic.

Corporations are not autonomous things who seek to ruin your life. Corporations are made up of PEOPLE. And the people were given the power in this country via the Constitution. Not the Government.

Government power can never be "balanced" if the people forget they hold the power in this country. And that is exactly what is happening, and what has been happening, for a while now. The Government does WHAT it pleases, WHEN it pleases, and the people of this country are barely a concern.

So you basically blindly put your faith in Government, which I don't know if you've looked around lately at how they have abused that faith, instead of the people. Choosing to label them this autonomous greedy machine called "Corporations".


RE: The laws of physics
By alphadog on 5/25/2010 9:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and BTW, you did not answer my original question. Instead, you put up a strawman and answered him.


RE: The laws of physics
By room200 on 5/24/10, Rating: 0
By The Raven on 5/24/2010 1:03:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Trucking Companies and Their Customers Want 25% Increase in Fuel Efficiency for Big Rigs


There...fixed it for you. Oh wait! How about...

quote:
Trucking Companies Want Big Rigs to Fly Around Without Any Fuel Costs


That is much better!

Ok enough of my sarcasm. If we really want to eliminate carbon emissions, why don't they just encourage people to live closer together instead of all these housing credits that further spread out the distribution of goods and services. Oh that's right. They are politicians who just want to look like the good guy.

And though I think living closer to major metros would help, I certainly don't think it is an end all answer to our problems and welcome more efficient autos.




By MrBlastman on 5/24/2010 1:06:09 PM , Rating: 5
While living closer together is a nice idea for a solution, there are many of us that enjoy our space--and land. Some of us just want to put some distance between us and the nuts of the inner-city.

The last thing I want is my Government forcing me into housing arrangements.


By AEvangel on 5/24/2010 2:51:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The last thing I want is my Government forcing me into housing arrangements.


Too late...they already did force the entire tax paying public into funding tons of loans for non-normal qualifying buyers which led to this housing bubble we just had. It all started back with Clinton, kept going strong with Bush and blew up with Obama coming in, but don't worry he will continue it.


By raf11 on 5/24/2010 7:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you are referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, your above statement is not true, although I have heard it several times from people. There has been more than one study and analysis by experts saying the CRA had little if any impact on the housing crisis.

Not that I want to demonize any political party, but the above idea was originally proposed by Republicans. (Since the CRA was implemented by Carter I believe, thus the point of blame could pass over Bush for not regulating Wall Street, and rest on a Democrat [Carter])

Most experts that studied the housing crisis do not list the CRA as a cause. Politicians are the ones making that claim.

I'm not into demonizing big business either, but why do we constantly attack our government, and defend big businesses in these situations? Especially since the majority of reports point to greed in the banking system that caused the crash?


By ekv on 5/24/2010 9:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
There is a long line of events and plenty blame to go around. I've seen more than one study suggesting culpability for and against CRA. Typically it is Liberals that are trying to deflect blame away from CRA. At this point, the catastrophe has already hit, despite warnings.

My question is: since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were unquestionably at the center of the catastrophe, why the F are they still being funded? Why haven't they had their ticket punched? Why have the rules been restored to where they were before the catastrophe occurred? Who did that? Do we want this to happen again?

Government mismanagement was at the heart of the problem. Why were not the regulators doing their job? Politics be damned.


By knutjb on 5/25/2010 9:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My question is: since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were unquestionably at the center of the catastrophe, why the F are they still being funded?

Not only are they still being funded they need more money on top of that but are conspicuously missing from the financial reform bill passed by the senate.

Anyone who doesn't think F&F didn't have much to do with our financial meltdown have their head buried deep in the sand. I just heard yet another financial analyst point the finger at F&F. The heads of F&F are political appointees and not mortgage experts...

Back in the late 80s I heard F&F talked about as solid investment because they were well managed and mortgages were only given to those with proven ability to pay. How things change.


By Nutzo on 5/25/2010 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
It's even worse than that.
The Obama administration has actually INCREASED the requirements for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to buy even MORE "low income" loans.

As for why they are still around, Follow the money.
It was Democrats who received most the campain contributions and who stonewalled any new regulations on these "companies".


By Ammohunt on 5/24/2010 3:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
I am in that mode as well you people that like to live stacked on top of each other are insane! Their is an argument however and trend now thanks to companies like Walmart that do everything they can to buy produce and consumer goods locally to reduce transportation costs(thats just good business sense).


By JediJeb on 5/25/2010 10:17:34 AM , Rating: 2
But even then if you look, most of the products at WalMart come from China. Make those products in factories spread across the US and the shipping will be greatly reduced.


By Ammohunt on 5/25/2010 2:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
it would still be cheaper for some goods to be made overseas and shipped here than to make it locally you can thank unions and mandated minimun wage for that


By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2010 6:06:16 PM , Rating: 1
And payroll taxes, mandated company provided insurance plans, paid time off, maternity leave etc etc etc.


By The Raven on 5/25/2010 2:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
Though I personally think that is the cowards' way of 'fixing' a problem re: the inner city, I agree that the gov't shouldn't force us to live anywhere. I don't even want them to subsidize it as an encouragement.

My point is that doing the opposite is definitely part of the problem.


By Hiawa23 on 5/24/2010 2:50:25 PM , Rating: 4
I run a Goodyear Commercial Truck tire Center & we service the big rigs alignment, tires, brakes, suspension needs, 24 hour zservice calls 7days a week & I always wondered, why they make a hybrid for these units, & why was it not a priority to make these vehicles more fuel efficient as they gulp up the most fuel of all our vehicles. Hats off to President Obama as most would like to see better fuel efficiency for the rigs.


By ClownPuncher on 5/24/2010 3:54:49 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure what abortion has to do with it, but...if babies could be used as fuel, damn right I'd be cramming those little buggers into my gas tank.


By bigboxes on 5/24/2010 11:59:13 PM , Rating: 3
You are an idiot. That's why we can never talk about anything. You may as well call Obama Hitler and be done with it. /thread


By Indianapolis on 5/24/2010 9:57:03 PM , Rating: 3
and by "I run a Goodyear Truck Tire Center" he means that he cleans the bathrooms and restocks the hotdog machine.


By albundy2 on 5/25/2010 5:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
no d1psh1t... thats my job.


By Indianapolis on 5/25/2010 1:07:40 PM , Rating: 3
Well, it strikes me as rather strange that somebody who "runs" a big-rig service center would be praising Obama for attacking the industry where you earn your living.

The more he tightens the screws on the trucking industry, the less truckers will be driving, and the less business you will have. So either you're lying about your job, or you're not very bright and therefore not capable of making the connection.

No worries though...when you lose your job you can just go on vacation, er, I mean unemployment, for the next several years.

Now go check the hotdog machine, some of those dogs look like they're about five days old!


By Integral9 on 5/25/2010 10:29:07 AM , Rating: 3
It's my understanding that the Teamsters effectively blocked almost all emissions regulations on semi's for the later half of the 20th century.


By The Raven on 5/25/2010 2:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
If that is true, then the teamsters are ruining the free market. And so now we 'need' a law for this.


By The Raven on 5/25/2010 2:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I always wondered, why they make a hybrid for these units , & why was it not a priority to make these vehicles more fuel efficient as they gulp up the most fuel of all our vehicles.


I think you meant why don't they make a hybrid for these vehicles. Making a rig a hyrid wouldn't make much sense as the main benefit of a hybrid is in the city and not on the long haul highway miles. Plus there is a lot of muscle needed in order to safely operate the things, and electric motors as we know them are an extremely long way from being semi-ready (<--pun).

I also think you missed my point that everyone wants better efficiency here. The guys that can ship at the cheapest rate will get all the business and so trucking companies would buy the most efficient vehicles and the truck manufs would inturn design the most fuel efficient rigs.

So, no. We should not throw our hats off to Pres. Obama. We should be throwing them at Pres. Obama for such puffery. Get back to work on trying to make universal health care look like a cost savings.


Better yet...
By Spivonious on 5/24/2010 1:03:55 PM , Rating: 5
Improve our rail system so that we don't need so many semis on the road.




RE: Better yet...
By Yawgm0th on 5/24/2010 1:45:31 PM , Rating: 4
Beat me to it. We need many more inter-state rail lines. Rail lines are about 333% more fuel-efficient than semi trucks, and trains are far better-suited to using alternative energy sources.

That's just for freight. There would be big benefits to interstate commerce and tourism from better rail infrastructure. It is the fastest, least expensive, safest, most energy-efficient method of transportation in existence.

Honestly, instead of trying to harass the automotive industry into progressing marginally faster, we should be focused on improving our national infrastructure -- something even the most ardent libertarians will generally agree is in the federal mandate.


RE: Better yet...
By AEvangel on 5/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Better yet...
By Spivonious on 5/24/2010 4:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Congress passed a law in 1838 designating all existing and future railroads as post roads, so unless the Supreme Court overturns that law as unconstitutional, yes the federal government does have the power to improve railroads. Trains didn't exist in 1790, so even as a libertarian I'm okay with the federal government being in charge of them.


RE: Better yet...
By AEvangel on 5/24/2010 7:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Congress passed a law in 1838 designating all existing and future railroads as post


Do you know why this was done?? It was done to secure the monopoly that the Govt had on the mail service and to increase the profit of Railroad owners which were mainly their rich constituents at the cost of the consumer.

quote:
"In 1843, the Post Office compiled statistics comparing the price paid for the first year of service on all existing rail lines and the last year of coach service on the line before the railroad took over. On average, railroads cost 87 percent more than the coach service they replaced. The increase in costs was highest in the South, where the price rose 181 percent."


http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-1.html

I'm a libertarian as well and I would never be ok with the Govt managing anything like this since in it's creation it was a private industry and by subsidizing it like they have done they have stifled competition and drove up prices.

As I said do through some creative reading by Congress of the constitution, Congress is giving themselves all sorts of powers the drafters of the constitution never would have allowed and none of them done for our benefit.


RE: Better yet...
By Spivonious on 5/25/2010 11:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
The Congress has an enumerated power of creating and maintaining the Post Office and Post Roads, and railroads are definitely post roads (as are U.S. highways and interstates). Monopoly or not, they have the power to declare what a post road is.


RE: Better yet...
By acer905 on 5/24/2010 9:46:37 PM , Rating: 1
It might be possible to view creation and regulation of rail lines as facilitating and monitoring interstate commerce... just one possibility


RE: Better yet...
By JediJeb on 5/24/2010 5:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
Serious question on this though. If rail is so much better then why are so many local short rail lines being taken up instead of more being laid down?

Rail is better for long distances like say from St. Louis to Chicago, but when it comes to town to town like it was back in the 1800's to early 1900 they stopped that because making so many stops ruins their efficiency. It takes a lot of power to get one moving and up to speed, but once at speed if the grade is level it doesn't take much to keep it moving. If you had to begin stopping at every town, breaking the cars apart to drop off one then back together to move on to the next stop, you would lose all of the efficiency benefit you have over trucks now. When trucks and trains work together you get your best efficiency, believe me if shipping can become more efficient then it will simply to improve profits.

Trucks are also very fuel efficient for what they are. I have family that drives trucks and they want them as efficient as possible because fuel costs go directly to the bottom line. Problem is right now to double the fuel efficiency you would also lose a lot of power, if you lose power you have to carry smaller loads which means more trucks needed to move the same amount of cargo which defeats the purpose. Maybe making them diesel electric like the trains would help, but can it be done in a package that will fit in the current size limitations of the trucks? There are length limits in many states for trucks from front to back, so if the truck has to be longer then the trailer has to be smaller, thus again less cargo per truck.

Best thing to reduce fuel used in shipping would be to bring our manufacturing back into the US and have it in local factories where you didn't need to move the products as far. That would solve the need for more US jobs, the need to reduce fuel to transport goods, and bring in more tax money to the government to reduce the deficit. Seems like a win all around, so why not make companies bring their factories back into the US?


RE: Better yet...
By Zoomer on 5/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Better yet...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2010 6:09:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It works. Look what happened when gas hit $4+/gal.


The economy went to shit? That's what I remember happening. Increasing fuel costs is no solution.


RE: Better yet...
By JediJeb on 5/25/2010 11:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. When gas went to $4+/gallon I just paid more for my fuel. I could not afford to purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle as to make up the difference it would have had to get 36mpg and only cost me $80 per month in car payments. Otherwise I would have been spending more money on the fuel efficient car than I would on the more expensive fuel.

More fuel efficient Trucks would sell like hotcakes so don't think that the companies that make trucks make them less fuel efficient on purpose. How much more will it cost to make a truck 25% more fuel efficient? Will the saving in fuel pay for the increased expense of the truck? If it is not sustainable then it will do more harm than good in the long run.


RE: Better yet...
By FishTankX on 5/24/2010 6:45:30 PM , Rating: 3
Ships are actually stupendously fuel efficent. I imagine it would take more fuel to truck an item from CA to NY than it would to ship it from China to NY.

That being said, an important way to get rail back up to efficiency is to go with electrification of short frequent stop routes and simply hook it up to the electric grid and implement regenerative breaking. That way, most of the energy from stopping merely moves back into the energy grid. This would probably result in a massive boost in efficiency. This would also save on maintenance costs versus standard breaking, as standard breaks take a huge beating from attempting to stop a train and they need frequent servicing.

Combine electrification with wind farms for power when it's available and you've probably dramatically reduced carbon footprint versus a truck.


RE: Better yet...
By Solandri on 5/24/2010 10:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Serious question on this though. If rail is so much better then why are so many local short rail lines being taken up instead of more being laid down?

Rail has to compete with trucks which are subsidized by fuel taxes which are half paid by cars (which barely damage the roads). That is, trucks account for probably about 90% of the wear and tear on roads, while only paying for about half of the maintenance costs in taxes. Rail, despite being about 10x fuel efficient, simply can't compete with that subsidy once you take into account the point-to-point capability of trucks (there is significant cost associated with having to load/unload or move a cargo container).

quote:
Rail is better for long distances like say from St. Louis to Chicago, but when it comes to town to town like it was back in the 1800's to early 1900 they stopped that because making so many stops ruins their efficiency. It takes a lot of power to get one moving and up to speed, but once at speed if the grade is level it doesn't take much to keep it moving. If you had to begin stopping at every town, breaking the cars apart to drop off one then back together to move on to the next stop, you would lose all of the efficiency benefit you have over trucks now.

Agreed. But right now you have stuff regularly being trucked halfway across the country, which is just insane. That stuff belongs on a train.

quote:
Best thing to reduce fuel used in shipping would be to bring our manufacturing back into the US and have it in local factories where you didn't need to move the products as far. That would solve the need for more US jobs, the need to reduce fuel to transport goods, and bring in more tax money to the government to reduce the deficit. Seems like a win all around, so why not make companies bring their factories back into the US?

Because you can't wave a magic wand and make it cheaper to produce goods in the U.S. Economics doesn't work like that. You have to (A) raise the standard of living in third world countries so their labor costs increase, (B) lower labor costs in the U.S., or both.

The ultimate reason why jobs are moving overseas and why we're doing crazy stuff like shipping goods halfway around the world is because the differences in standard and cost of living around the world exceed the transportation costs. Eliminate the differences (preferably by raising standard of living), and the transportation costs start to dominate, eventually causing more factories to be built locally. That was the idea behind NAFTA, which is largely reviled by those pushing for jobs to come back to the U.S. Short term it costs jobs (since the U.S. has a higher standard of living), long term it equalizes the standard of living and brings jobs back.


RE: Better yet...
By JediJeb on 5/25/2010 11:01:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rail has to compete with trucks which are subsidized by fuel taxes which are half paid by cars (which barely damage the roads). That is, trucks account for probably about 90% of the wear and tear on roads, while only paying for about half of the maintenance costs in taxes. Rail, despite being about 10x fuel efficient, simply can't compete with that subsidy once you take into account the point-to-point capability of trucks (there is significant cost associated with having to load/unload or move a cargo container).


Actually trucks have more excise taxes than cars. There are taxes on diesel fuel for highway use, for the tires and for the engines. There is an exemption if the truck is equipped with a device that shuts the engine off if it idles for more than a few minutes that will exempt the truck from a 12% excise tax that is on the truck itself. This also applies to locomotives with the same device. Also they have to pay Usage Tax when you license them that is a lot more than the simple property tax on most cars.

As for bringing more manufacturing back into the country, that is to reduce the amount of fuel spent on shipping, I never said it would make the products cheaper. It was a statement to show that the best way to reduce the amount of fuel used can also be the most expensive option.


And I want...
By MrBlastman on 5/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: And I want...
By MrBlastman on 5/24/2010 12:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
use = he

:(


RE: And I want...
By HostileEffect on 5/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: And I want...
By ksherman on 5/24/2010 1:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
Fart jokes, really? Are you 12?


RE: And I want...
By MrBlastman on 5/24/2010 1:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
You only have to grow up if you want to. :)


RE: And I want...
By rburnham on 5/24/2010 8:36:12 PM , Rating: 3
Farts are always funny, unless you have no soul.


RE: And I want...
By Donkeyshins on 5/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: And I want...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2010 3:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While you are at it, a 50% increase in homophobic Republican gay sex scandals and "family values" Republican extra-marital affairs. Fair and balanced.


Ummm Bill Clinton? Hello?? How about Gary Condit who had a woman murdered to cover up an affair??


RE: And I want...
By Anoxanmore on 5/24/2010 4:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but Clinton and Gary had sex with women... not men. :p


RE: And I want...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2010 5:01:10 PM , Rating: 1
I thought Republicans were the homophobes, not Liberals? So how can you attack a Republican for being gay? Isn't that hypocritical?


RE: And I want...
By Anoxanmore on 5/24/2010 5:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Who said I was liberal?

Also you got it wrong, it is Democrat not liberal, the two do not always go hand in hand, much like conservative and Republican.


RE: And I want...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: And I want...
By raf11 on 5/24/2010 8:19:35 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer, the more I read your posts, the truer the below analogy becomes:

Reclaimer77 is to the Republican Party as reader1 and pirks are to Apple.

Not all Democrats share the same views, neither do all Republicans. Completely siding with one party is the only way to ensure you will eventually be wrong.


RE: And I want...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: And I want...
By rdawise on 5/24/2010 11:06:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sorry but the "blue dog" Democrat is a myth. ALL Democrat's are radical leftists. They might talk a good game, but when it comes to voting, they go right along with the party line almost every time.

Holy hypocrite Batman!!!!

Reclaimer, using your "logic" all Repubs are radical "rightist".

You have never seen Democrats break party line? There were 82 democrat votes for the war on Iraq versus 126. There were democrats who voted for Bush's stimulus package. There where democrats who voted to renew the patriot act.

I could go further, but you seem to have short term memory loss in politics.

Honestly, the other guy is right (pun intended) to liken you (and FitCamaro) to reader1/pirks.


RE: And I want...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2010 2:29:41 AM , Rating: 1
Oh come on that is totally offensive. Pirks and Reader1 don't even try to articulate their case half the time. Me and Camaro do a damn good job of at least stating our case and debating it. That's slander and you know it.

quote:
all Repubs are radical "rightist".


Ugh, if only. It's almost embarrassing that true Conservatives have to turn to this Tea Party thing because the Republican party completely forgot what it used to stand for. No wonder they have so few seats in Congress.


RE: And I want...
By alphadog on 5/25/2010 9:44:57 AM , Rating: 2
> Me and Camaro do a damn good job of at least stating our case and debating it.

Really? All I see is pure vitriol.


RE: And I want...
By Anoxanmore on 5/25/2010 9:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
See, I figured I've give you a chance to explain, but you failed so horribly with it.

Republicans were never originally conservative, that is just your impression. Real Republicans would be turning it their grave seeing what the GOP has done to them.

Makes me sad.


Bring back the trains.
By PAPutzback on 5/24/2010 1:02:05 PM , Rating: 3
While trucks offer a cost advantage on most short hauls and can reach places not accessible by rail, they consume about four times as much fuel to move a shipment as a train does, according to U.S. Energy Department data. Shipping rates are about five times higher for trucks than trains, said Amin of TCI, which is the fifth-largest shareholder of CSX, according to Bloomberg data.




RE: Bring back the trains.
By ImSpartacus on 5/24/2010 1:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not everything can be shipped via rail.

Some products have very fussy shelf lives and require reefer units.

Not to mention, sometimes your customer wants their shipment now, not later.


RE: Bring back the trains.
By ebakke on 5/24/2010 2:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the poster you replied to started off by saying rail isn't for everything. So your exact same point is... well... redundant.

Even though it may not be sufficient for 100% of the freight transporting needs, if it takes 50% of the trucks off the interstates, I'd be tickled pink.


RE: Bring back the trains.
By JediJeb on 5/24/2010 6:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
To take 50% of the trucks off the road, the trains would need to make many many more stops. If the trains make that many more stops then they lose much of their advantage in efficiency because it takes a lot of energy to get one moving but not much to keep one moving. Also you would lose a lot of time making more stops which hurts the overall efficiency too.

Splitting out the main lines we have now into more and more local rail lines would mean more time to stop and reconfigure the cars to smaller local trains. Also you would be running trains with fewer cars on the local tracks which means less efficiency. I believe right now we have a good balance between trains and trucks and planes for moving cargo. The only way to make it much better would be to have the origin of the goods closer to the destination of the goods. The only way to do that is to make more local production of the goods which would mean companies would need to bring their manufacturing back into the US.


RE: Bring back the trains.
By ebakke on 5/24/2010 11:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
I picked 50% as an arbitrary number. I'd be happy with any decrease in semi traffic.


RE: Bring back the trains.
By knutjb on 5/24/2010 5:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not everything can be shipped via rail.
Some products have very fussy shelf lives and require reefer units.

Um.. The railroads DO have very sophisticated refrigerated cars. They take produce from the west coast to the east coast faster than ANY trucker can.
quote:
Not to mention, sometimes your customer wants their shipment now, not later.

Fedex and UPS use rail to transport much of their ground shipments so maybe... Long haul over road trucking will have a hard time coming back to previous levels, this only expedites that.

I don't agree with arbitrary standards from a lawyer.


RE: Bring back the trains.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bring back the trains.
By knutjb on 5/25/2010 10:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ummm yeah, let's take a huge step backwards and start using trains more.
Over 80% of all goods consumed touch a rail car. Your car, unless you live next door to the factory, came on rail. Local services were reduced by bean counters because long haul profits are very high and local is not. That will change, though deliveries will still be done by short haul trucks because you can't drop rail to every store. Trains are not a "huge step backwards" but are far more efficient than other forms of transport.

The local propane distributor in my area is served by rail. It's there you need to look a little harder.


Overheads and Efficiency
By drycrust3 on 5/24/2010 1:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama says that improving fuel economy in heavy-duty trucks will "bring down costs for transporting goods, serving businesses and consumers alike."

Not being an American, I guess I could stand by and watch this, but since I do drive a bus I think it is fair to give my two bits worth. Fuel is just one element of the overheads a large commercial vehicle has. I'm not the company accountant, but my observation is the biggest cost on a vehicle is the mortgage on it, not the fuel.
The cost of the mortgage is influenced by political decisions, which Mr Obama has a huge influence over.
In addition, trucks and large commercial vehicles are easy targets for taxes and the likes (and this whole article is an example of that). As I said, I'm not an American, so I don't know what taxes they attract, but again, Mr Obama certainly could influence those.
Thus improving fuel efficiency will definitely not lower costs if the mortgage interest rates are higher in 20 years time, but a reduction in interest rates and taxes could bring about a lowering of costs right now.
Lastly, unlike a car or motorcycle, a large vehicle will actually make the road bend under its weight. When I first heard this I didn't believe it, but then I saw it with my own eyes one day, so it is true.
So there is little point in Mr Obama demanding better fuel efficiency from heavy vehicles unless he also demands roads that are of better construction (which cost more).




RE: Overheads and Efficiency
By corduroygt on 5/24/2010 2:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
You're from Europe, where distances are shorter and vehicles are taxed much higher (hence the payments on them being more).
In the US, you can get a big rig for about $80-90k brand new, or less than half that used. Payments on that work out to be around $2k/month. In order to make money, it has to be driven 1000 miles/day. At about 6 mpg fully loaded, that's 167 gallons of diesel per day. At $3 per gallon, that's $500/day just for fuel. You can see that in 4 days, the fuel cost will dwarf the actual payments on the truck, and after a week or 10 days it'll probably exceed the payments plus insurance plus maintenance.

You can bet every truck manufacturer is trying to squeeze out extra fuel economy out of their trucks. As one poster said here, if a company had a way of making their trucks %25 more efficient, they'd corner the market and be rich. Thus, manufacturers don't need the government to tell them they need more efficient trucks, you bet they're trying everything they can.


RE: Overheads and Efficiency
By drycrust3 on 5/24/2010 5:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
My thanks for your correcting me. I am actually from New Zealand, and my thoughts regarding costs were based upon buses, not big rigs. I thought they would have been similar, but again, I suspect I was in error.
Here vehicles are taxed upon the distance traveled, as well as the usual business taxes, etc.


RE: Overheads and Efficiency
By JediJeb on 5/24/2010 6:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
I can back this up as my aunt and uncle drive a long haul truck for a living. Back 30 years ago a truck did good to get 3mpg now they get 6mpg or a little better. That is a doubling in 20 years, so I think it is going to be hard to double it again in just a few years. Unless they really tank the power in them, then it just defeats the purpose because you would have to haul less weight because of the lower power which would mean you need more trucks.

That price is probably right for the simpler company trucks, as some of the more personalized long haulers have trucks that cost $120K-$180K new. Those are almost like motorhomes inside as they have practically a small apartment behind the cab. Some of these driver only stop at their house once a month or less, the rest of the time they live in their truck. My aunt and uncle will be gone for two or three weeks at a time.


Autobots, roll out!
By tviceman on 5/24/2010 1:13:29 PM , Rating: 4
Seeing Optimus Prime on the front of Daily Tech just made my day.




RE: Autobots, roll out!
By rburnham on 5/24/2010 8:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Amen.


By jimbojimbo on 5/24/2010 2:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sure the truck has to drag around the trailer so why not make the trailer do some work by producing some nice electricity. I know panels for cars doesn't work since there's not much surface area but the top of those trailers create a huge surface, all of it high and clear, perfect for panels.
Then add in some electric motors to help the transmission along and it should see some improvement right away, at least during the day.




By Nutzo on 5/25/2010 11:47:23 AM , Rating: 3
The energy required to move the added weight of the solar panels outweighs the energy they produce, even in a sunny climate. Adding batteries, electrical motors, etc makes it even worse.


So, more, but smaller vehicles
By piroroadkill on 5/24/2010 4:09:28 PM , Rating: 5
Seriously, you could send the contents of a semi out in a ton of smaller vehicles, and bam, your average mpg has shot up, but you've used a lot more fuel overall and clogged up the roads




comment
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 5/24/2010 4:27:13 PM , Rating: 5
and I want 50% less gravitational pull.




By Schrag4 on 5/24/2010 1:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama's memorandum seeks to improve the efficiency of tractor-trailers by 25% and he claims that this can be done by using off the shelf technology already available.


Sounds like he knows how to obliterate the competition. Why doesn't he set up shop and make a killing?




By Camikazi on 5/24/2010 3:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
Cause they are big words with no meaning :P


Ahhh
By btc909 on 5/24/2010 2:42:36 PM , Rating: 4
Nice to see the REAL Optimus Prime.




Correction...
By iFX on 5/24/2010 1:56:39 PM , Rating: 3
Obama actually wants little rigs.




nice
By Chiisuchianu on 5/24/2010 1:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
And to do it he'll just tax the air you breathe! And expand government with the rest of your tax dollars to oversee the amount of air you breathe!




Hydrogen
By FastEddieLB on 5/24/2010 10:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
So, he's calling for more fuel efficiency after giving Hydrogen the axe? *cough*hypocrisy*cough*




By JDub02 on 5/25/2010 6:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
No one feels the sting of high fuel prices quite like truckers do, especially owner/operators. Profits are directly tied to how much fuel it takes to move their cargo from Point A to Point B. So it's in everyone's interest to increase fuel economy in the trucks.

Unfortunately, our man-child president has been watching a bit too much Moses. He thinks he's Ramses .. "So let it be written. So let it be done." I guess his teleprompter didn't tell him that the market works this stuff out on its own. Fuel economy will increase when the technology is capable and profitable, not when the Bamster decrees it.




By radzer0 on 5/26/2010 1:14:49 AM , Rating: 2
It says emissions on big trucks. Any of the 2010 or newer semis other than a few use DEF or a extreme version of EGR (2nd of which kills fuel economy). I personaly have a DEF diesel truck and it puts out no smell what so ever in the exhaust. You can give it a full throttle rev at stop and beathe the air. Im sure its still not healthy for you to do long term but its 500% better than the old non DEF systems.




By chick0n on 5/25/2010 12:06:57 AM , Rating: 1
Why is it always the government "say" what their people wants ?

I dont want them. So? Im not part of the people now ?

Sick and tired of this Socialism bullshit.




No problem
By Beenthere on 5/24/10, Rating: 0
"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki