Print 80 comment(s) - last by Jedi2155.. on Aug 11 at 11:44 PM

Big rigs need to cut fuel consumption up to 23%

Having high fuel efficiency in a vehicle is a great thing for the driver because they can spend less on fuel. Having higher fuel economy on vehicles across the automotive market will reduce the need to import foreign oil and will help to reduce overall pollution as well. The big downside is that the cost of the tech to improve fuel economy is not cheap and that cost will be passed onto the car buyer.

The Obama administration today outlined its Heavy-Duty National Program [PDF] fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles like semis, concrete trucks, dump trucks, and other heavy work trucks. Rather than targeting a specific mile per gallon rating  for the heavy-duty vehicles – like what has been proposed for passenger vehicles -- Obama is going to target a percentage of fuel savings.

The reason for this significant difference in fuel savings is according to the administration imposing a MPG standard on this sort of vehicle would be very confusing considering that the range of categories is wide and the payload and duties in the segment vary widely.

The administration wants a 9% saving in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for work trucks (fire trucks, garbage trucks, and busses, etc.). Gasoline swilling heavy-duty trucks and vans will need to see a reduction of 10% with diesel versions needing to see a 15% savings. Big rigs have the most stringent cuts at up to 23%.

The regulatory announcement also makes the following claims with regards to recouping the added cost associated with adopting more fuel efficient technologies: 

Using technologies commercially available today, the majority of vehicles will see a payback period of less than one year, while others, especially those with lower annual miles, will experience payback periods of up to two years. For example, an operator of a semi truck can pay for the technology upgrades in under a year, and have net savings up to $73,000 over the truck’s useful life.

The new standards will apply to covered vehicles in the 2014 to 2018 range. The hope is to cut 530 million barrels of oil consumption and $50 billion in fuel costs over the life of the vehicles with the new standards in place.

The cost to meet the new standards on the varying vehicle types are expected to be in the range of hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars per vehicle.

Comments     Threshold

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

Had enough of the dope and chains yet?
By Beenthere on 8/9/2011 4:33:16 PM , Rating: 1
Well hey, let's mandate that the most fuel efficient and practical big rig Diesels get 23% better fuel economy. Maybe Bama can pull that tech outta his arse and provide it to the class 8 engine suppliers?

If fantasy mpg standards aren't enough to make your day how about a 1000 point drop in the DOW in two weeks time? How's Bama-nomics working for ya? Is your standard of living better today than it was two years ago? Do you think the criminals in DC are making an equal economic sacrifice compared to the working class?

RE: Had enough of the dope and chains yet?
By Iaiken on 8/9/2011 5:44:58 PM , Rating: 1
Is your standard of living better today than it was two years ago?

Welcome to the another episode of the blame game. In this episode we'll talk about misplaced expectations and instant gratification.

No president; not even the first, has been able to walk into the oval office to a blank slate. All of them have since had to live with the consequences of their predecessors decisions. In this case, we're looking at a deficit stuffed with around $2 trillion dollars in expenses just from the wars and interest and counting.

When the NeoCons were selling the war, Cheney quoted figures of $80 billion for the initial invasion and $10 billion per year from there for rebuilding. By his math, the country should already have been rebuilt by now at a total cost of only $180 billion dollars. WOW! In actuality, the realized cost if Iraq alone has been at least $757.8 billion to date and growing. That's hardly the walk in the park that Cheney promised Americans.

What I find more interesting is that the GAO has been unable to account for an approximate average of $600 billion dollars of Pentagon spending per year since the war started. The GAO went as far in 2010 as to state "serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DoD) that have prevented DoD's financial statements from being auditable." This has been the case with the DOD's books since 1998! That means that nearly $6 trillion dollars has changed hands via the Pentagon and nobody knows where it came from, where it went or if the Pentagon retained any of those assets.

When I look at this next to the 14 trillion dollar deficit I can't help but think, "well, there's your problem".

RE: Had enough of the dope and chains yet?
By Spuke on 8/9/2011 6:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
When I look at this next to the 14 trillion dollar deficit I can't help but think, "well, there's your problem".
You mean 1.4 trillion. Total debt is 14 trillion with about 68% of that held by you and me.

By Iaiken on 8/9/2011 8:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
I meant debt actually, not deficit.

By Keeir on 8/9/2011 7:40:49 PM , Rating: 2

GAO doesn't really give clean reports on anyone.

For example, in 2010, the GAO believes Medicare/Medicade made over 70 billion in improper payments. Approx 10% of the total cost of Medicare. Over 500 billion in -improper- payments since 1998. (Not just unaccounted for)

GAO also estimates 'poor' tax payment to be around 15% each year. Largely from improper refund credits used by all levels of society. Over the past decade, this has cost an estimated 3 trillion dollars.

The DoD report suggests that a number between 0-6 trillion was improperly used... but the GAO does not know which number. Using 'standard' government models, suggests a number between 600 billion - 1 trillion.

As the Largest Single Segement of the Federal Government over the past 10 years, the largest amount of waste has been with the DoD. But proper tax collection and an overall reduction of government waste from the approx 10% to 5% in all departments would indeed balance the US budget and cut into long-term debt.

By Jeffk464 on 8/9/2011 11:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
Way to oversimplify the economy.

By The Raven on 8/10/2011 1:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Is your standard of living better today than it was two years ago?

I don't leave that to the gov't. I am the captain of my own ship. I just care that the gov't stay out of my way to leave me free to improve the standard of living of my neighbors and myself should I choose to. Unfortunately for people like me, other people don't feel the same and therefore continue to put clown after clown into office at both the state and federal levels.

Short answer: No. But then again the 8 years before that were ever so slightly better.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki