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.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














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