Obama seeks fuel efficiency standards for large trucks

[jpd80]

LINK

Washington --President Barack Obama on Friday ordered work to begin on setting first-ever fuel-efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks. He also called for progress toward establishing higher standards for cars and light trucks in model years 2017 through 2025.

 

"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 said at a Rose Garden ceremony where he signed a presidential memorandum.

 

A 2007 energy law requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2016. Obama's directive also requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set limits on tailpipe emissions. Obama wants the rules done by July 2011.

 

 

Does this also include Ford's Super Duty F Trucks, Dodge Ram, ect?

 

If so, this could significantly change manufacturers' existing plans or would

they have some fore knowledge of Obama's near future intentions?

 

I thought diesel semi trucks were already pretty fuel efficient......

Edited May 22, 2010 by jpd80

[billyk24]

Did anyone question this politician on how he "knows" it is possible for vehicles in the future to use 1/2 the fuel and produce 1/2 the emissions? Does this mean no large vehicles and trucks? What fuel(s) was he referring to? Or is this another way of saying Plug in hybrid electric vehicles will dominate the market?

[jpd80]

Did anyone question this politician on how he "knows" it is possible for vehicles in the future to use 1/2 the fuel and produce 1/2 the emissions? Does this mean no large vehicles and trucks? What fuel(s) was he referring to? Or is this another way of saying Plug in hybrid electric vehicles will dominate the market?

No, the article indicates a 25% improvement on heavier vehicles - I'm skeptical of this as most heavier trucks are already pretty fuel efficient and their fuel consumption is tied more directly to the weight carried. so how is consumption/emission testing done on heavy commercial vehicles, with full loads?

A better way would be to improve driving routes and provide more truck and transit lanes to reduce the amount of traffic interference that transport vehicles endure, allow them to travel at efficient speeds avoiding traffic jams with cars - that would save a lot of fuel.

 

With regards to tightening CAFE for cars and light trucks:

While it's true that regulations improved the CAFE for cars from an estimated 13.5 mpg in 1976 to 27 mpg 20 years later, that figure only looks at the highway cycle of EPA fuel economy tests. Perhaps future assessments of vehicles beyond 2016 will include city or combined driving test cycles...

Edited May 22, 2010 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Just dumb.

 

I, for one, am sick of supply-side rules targeted at one sector of industry being held out as a panacea.

[suv_guy_19]

Canada adopted pretty much the same rules on the same day.

[nelsonlu]

Just dumb.

 

I, for one, am sick of supply-side rules targeted at one sector of industry being held out as a panacea.

 

Do you have a better solution?

[RichardJensen]

Do you have a better solution?

 

Have you any idea how much air pollution comes from unfiltered restaurant exhaust?

 

Trains?

 

Ships?

 

Factories and powerplants that have not been upgraded?

 

---

 

Furthermore, if fuel economy increases without a corresponding increase in fuel prices, consumers will do exactly what they did during the 80s and 90s:

 

They will buy bigger vehicles and drive farther.

 

Remember when you figured the 'average' person drove 12,000 miles a year?

 

Well, now it's 15,000 and there are more drivers.

 

Supply-side solutions that do NOTHING about demand DO NOT WORK.

 

Furthermore, there is not a single source of pollution that has been regulated to anything approaching the level that the automobile has been regulated.

 

You could drive from New York City to Los Angeles and back in a 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid and emit as much pollution (excl. CO2) as a 1965 Ford Galaxie would emit driving from Los Angeles to San Diego and back.

 

There is not another source of pollution in the country that has been brought to bear more than the automobile, and, frankly the only meaningful gains to be achieved in that quarter at this late date are political.

[timmm55]

 

 

1)Have you any idea how much air pollution comes from unfiltered restaurant exhaust?

 

Trains?

 

Ships?

 

Factories and powerplants that have not been upgraded?

 

---

 

Furthermore, if fuel economy increases without a corresponding increase in fuel prices, consumers will do exactly what they did during the 80s and 90s:

 

They will buy bigger vehicles and drive farther.

 

2) Remember when you figured the 'average' person drove 12,000 miles a year?

 

Well, now it's 15,000 and there are more drivers.

 

Supply-side solutions that do NOTHING about demand DO NOT WORK.

[3) b]Furthermore, there is not a single source of pollution that has been regulated to anything approaching the level that the automobile has been regulated.[/b]

4) You could drive from New York City to Los Angeles and back in a 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid and emit as much pollution (excl. CO2) as a 1965 Ford Galaxie would emit driving from Los Angeles to San Diego and back.

There is not another source of pollution in the country that has been brought to bear more than the automobile, and,5) frankly the only meaningful gains to be achieved in that quarter at this late date are political.

 

 

1) Yes, there are other areas that are not as heavily regulated...and should be. Some just seep between the cracks because they aren't as visible as cars are.

 

One giant container ship pollutes the air as much as 50 million cars. Yes, that's 50 million. Which means that just 15 ships that size emit as much as today's entire global "car park" of roughly 750 million vehicles.

http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1020063_pollution-perspective-one-giant-cargo-ship-emits-as-much-as-50-million-cars

 

2) Cars are much more reliable. They are driven more and longer.

 

3) Automobiles are the most visible and obvious sources of polution.

 

4) I'd think the hybrids, especially, would be a lot cleaner than that????

 

According to the EPA, cars are getting cleaner and cleaner. New cars today are capable of emitting 90% less air pollution on a per-mile basis than the unregulated models of 1970, and every year they are getting "cleaner". The EPA has found that each year, the average car causes over 600 pounds of air pollution. Transportation sources (including highway and off-highway vehicles) now account for 77 percent of national total carbon monoxide emissions. Motor vehicle exhaust contributes about 60 percent of all carbon monoxide emissions nationwide. Approximately 3.8 grams of volatile organic compounds are emitted by every car every day, even when they are not driven

 

http://www.wunderground.com/auto/ksby/health/pollutionfaq.asp

 

5) You've never lived in Los Angeles in the 70s! I moved to LA in the late 70s/early 80s. It was BAD then, but better than the 60s. Now, with a lot more cars.....it's a LOT better. You can see, smell and breath the difference. It's a huge difference!

Edited May 23, 2010 by timmm55

[94bronco]

Just another example of the government trying to control the market, This will bring the death of Classic Style Trucks ( Real Trucks) and will help out Companies like Volvo who build Aero trucks while just about shutting down Peterbilt. No one wants to ride around in an Aero trucks and even though the Classics (Pete 389 & Kentworth W900) use more fuel they make up for it at resale time as the Classics hold up much better over the long run that Aero trucks ( Why most owner opperators still buy Classic Style Trucks). These Assholes (Politicians) will tell you about the fuel savings till your ears bleed but won't mention the fact that the truck price will just keep going up and up.

[RichardJensen]

NY to LA is roughly 2,800 miles by car, LA to San Diego is roughly 130 miles by car; for that statement to hold true, the Escape Hybrid would have to emit 5% of the pollutants per mile of that '65 Galaxie. I'm pretty sure that, with its sealed fuel system, it's in that 5% range.

[jpd80]

From the EPA's website:

 

Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions, 1970-2008

 

 

Edited May 24, 2010 by jpd80

[nelsonlu]

Have you any idea how much air pollution comes from unfiltered restaurant exhaust?

 

Trains?

 

Ships?

 

Factories and powerplants that have not been upgraded?

 

 

The fact that you cannot control all sources of air pollution shouldn't mean that you shouldn't try to control what you can control.

[NickF1011]

The fact that you cannot control all sources of air pollution shouldn't mean that you shouldn't try to control what you can control.

 

Which one of the things that Richard mentioned cannot be regulated?

[jpd80]

The fact that you cannot control all sources of air pollution shouldn't mean that you shouldn't try to control what you can control.

Europe has emission regulations for ships and trains, pretty sure businesses are monitored and regulated too...

 

In the overall scheme, trains and ships are much more efficient forms of transport than trucks and cars so their output in respect to work done is fairly good.

 

I'd see upgrading coal fired power plants as a much higher priority than continually squeezing transport vehicles, perhaps the government is aware of the political and financial backlash, involving the community and cars is just a feel good that something is being achieved.

 

Makes you wonder whether the priority is pollution or reducing consumption of oil...

[NickF1011]

Makes you wonder whether the priority is pollution or reducing consumption of oil...

 

Neither. The priority is on getting re-elected.

[Pioneer]

Neither. The priority is on getting re-elected.

 

 

I nominate this for POTW.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Pioneer

[RangerM]

Neither. The priority is on getting re-elected.

I nominate this for POTW.

It should be common knowledge.

[351cid]

I drive one of those "Heavy trucks". After the 2007 cluster f*ck; my 2000 Kenworth went from 6.5 mpg to 6.0 mpg...all because of the change to low sulfur fuel.

 

Trains & ships may be more efficient as hauling bulk goods; but there will always be trucks bringing your freight to the store for you to buy.

 

Have you ever wondered why trucks still run coast to coast? Two reasons...1) I can leave the east coast now and be in CA on Thursday. Lets see a train do that for the same money. 2) Trains are rough as hell on the freight. Most all trucks are air ride now and the freight has as easy of a ride as you do in your Lincoln.

[nelsonlu]

Which one of the things that Richard mentioned cannot be regulated?

 

"Cannot" as in "not regulated right now," not as in "impossible to regulate." Regardless, Richard's post was still a strawman; the fact that there are other sources of pollution doesn't mean that we shouldn't regulate this one, any more than the fact that many carcinogenic chemicals exist should mean that we shouldn't regulate asbestos.

Edited May 25, 2010 by nelsonlu

[sprtch06]

Just another example of the government trying to control the market, This will bring the death of Classic Style Trucks ( Real Trucks) and will help out Companies like Volvo who build Aero trucks while just about shutting down Peterbilt. No one wants to ride around in an Aero trucks and even though the Classics (Pete 389 & Kentworth W900) use more fuel they make up for it at resale time as the Classics hold up much better over the long run that Aero trucks ( Why most owner opperators still buy Classic Style Trucks). These Assholes (Politicians) will tell you about the fuel savings till your ears bleed but won't mention the fact that the truck price will just keep going up and up.

I wouldn't say it is the end of classic trucks. About a month ago I was tasked with tracking fuel mileage in our fleet for about a month. We run 5 different makes of truck, including the latest aero models. I can tell you that no one make controlled the fuel mileage race. The single biggest factor in fuel economy is the guy holding onto the steering wheel. I can also tell you that the Heavy truck side doesn't need the "great one" to set fuel economy standards for us. When fuel hit 4 clams a gallon, the industry tried everything under the sun on it's own to increase fuel economy without any help from Uncle Sam. In the heavy truck side, increased fuel economy is directly tied to our profits and your costs as a consumer. Better fuel economy is a competitive advantage. If Pepsi's fleet is averaging 8mpg and Coke is only getting 6mpg, who do you think can win a price war at the grocery store? It just goes to show how out of touch with the real world the "great one" is with reality. Here is to hoping he can get some of his change back in November!

[RichardJensen]

Richard's post was still a strawman;

How so?

 

I pointed out that CAFE has not reduced fuel consumption (true), and it is reaching a point of diminishing returns per dollar invested.

 

Cars are regulated because it's easy, not because it's the most efficient management of pollution.

 

Furthermore, all the regulation is supply-side because that's politically far more palatable than demand side regulation.

the fact that many carcinogenic chemicals exist should mean that we shouldn't regulate asbestos.

Yes.

 

But you're living in a house with lead plumbing from which most of the asbestos has been stripped--and you're suggesting that what remains of the asbestos should be a higher priority than the lead plumbing.

 

You're saying that if you have a choice between regulating auto pollution and some other source, that you would prefer that cars be regulated.

 

Because by outspokenly supporting the status quo over the last 30+ years (CAFE), you're suggesting that CAFE has been effective at reducing fuel consumption, when the typical American driver now puts 33% more miles on his car per year than he did 30 years ago.

Edited May 25, 2010 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Because by outspokenly supporting the status quo over the last 30+ years (CAFE), you're suggesting that CAFE has been effective at reducing fuel consumption, when the typical American driver now puts 33% more miles on his car per year than he did 30 years ago.

 

As the population grows, people's commute distances increase as they become housed further from work places. Maybe the average American travels 33% more miles because they have to, not because they want to...

 

I get the point you're making though, what's the point of having fuel efficient vehicles if drivers then travel more miles and negate any fuel savings?

Edited May 25, 2010 by jpd80

[nelsonlu]

Because by outspokenly supporting the status quo over the last 30+ years (CAFE), you're suggesting that CAFE has been effective at reducing fuel consumption, when the typical American driver now puts 33% more miles on his car per year than he did 30 years ago.

 

Since when have I "outspokenly supporting" CAFE? What I am suggesting is that it's better than nothing. I'd rather see a hike in vehicle license fees and a hike in gas taxes, but having CAFE is better than nothing.

 

As for "typical American driver now puts 33% more miles on his" (or her) car, are you seriously suggesting that CAFE caused it?

[RangerM]

Maybe the average American travels 33% more miles because they have to, not because they want to...

I'd say it's largely because their increased wealth has allowed them to get out more.

 

People eat out and seek external (outside the home) entertainment in far greater numbers than they used to.

Edited May 25, 2010 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

As for "typical American driver now puts 33% more miles on his" (or her) car, are you seriously suggesting that CAFE caused it?

 

To some degree, absolutely. Would people be willing to travel 33% more miles if it cost them significantly more to do so? I'd sure take my Cobra for fewer joy rides if it got half the fuel economy it does.