New EPA Regulations On Large Truck Emissions

[salvorone@aol.com]

i wonder what those epa friendly states think of those burning wmo instead of diesel, and how long it will take to impact our hobby ,i think sometimes i think too much, i think go big or go home

 

[Goose2448]

i wonder what those epa friendly states think of those burning wmo instead of diesel, and how long it will take to impact our hobby ,i think sometimes i think too much, i think go big or go home

^^^^WHO CARES!?!?! THIS is Florida, we do what we want how we want. One of the few things I like about this state. There is no mandated crap to deal with, no inspections, no asinine BS to go through. We very could have the worst polluting cars in the nation and guess what, you cant tell. Where I live, its dark, very dark at night. I live in a general area with 500K+ people and have very little haze. Where I used to live the same sized area had maybe 100k people and had a ton of Haze, so bad at times you did not need street lights. And this was in a state with all the inspection and emission BS!

 

[ixpacman]

good thread. Must say though most liberals aren't rich. People who spend money are only making someone else richer. A country that saves its money becomes stronger.If you don't spend money you usually can't be taxed on it. The EPA no longer mandates effective clean air legislation.It is an agency that as of about ten years ago told a friend of mine who is still senior hazardous site investigator and was instrumental in forming the EPA prior to the Nixon administration and invented superfunding, Was lead investigator in love canal and almost every enviromental disaster since, that as of the beginning of the new administration was only to look busy and to suspend all current investigations. The role of that agency is to create and enforce policy that favors politically green corporations for the purpose of huge financial profiteering on the backs of hardworking men and women and small businesses such as us. Global warming will not destroy the earth. It will destroy our ability to survive as we have recently. I don't think the end of the world is going to have anything to do with anyones calendar. I don't discount the astronomical significance of december 21st 2012 though. Definitely going to be cool to be lined up with the center of our galaxy. Might be a good day to have an M35 a 003 lots of ammo and a good assault rifle. A shipping container full of canned goods also maybe. If nothing happens so what I like all those things anyway. Plus we are all ready paying more taxes. What the heck ! The EPA isn't going to make the view any better .Find something that runs on Methane . Cheers Harry

 

[klmartin62]

Having worked in the oilfield for many years, I can assure you that it is not the oil companies slowing down production. A drilling permit is taking between 20 and 30 months to be processed. That would not be a problem had it always been that way, but that all started with this administration. Previously, we included a check for the permit because it was just a clerical issue that took a few days.

The EPA is dedicated to the redistribution of wealth. It was not always this way, but you cannot have a Federal Bureaucracy populated by those who don't know what a real job is, and expect anything good to come of it. When you end the state's largest food production farm's production to save a minnow that isn't even endangered, you get a prime example of total ignorance of values.

No one that I know wants dirty air, water, or land. That is just a talking point by the far left. We are, and should be, responsible for what we have done to this planet. However, you cannot try to rectify it at the expense of all mankind. Regardless of what some people think, this earth was not made for the animals, it was made for man. When you put everything before man and his ability to exist, you make yourself worse than those you are fighting against...at least they didn't hurt anyone on purpose.

I saw the oilfield before all the regulations, and no one wants to go back to that. We also don't want to be speaking Persian because we are afraid to produce our own resources. The EPA regs for Motor Vehicles are a joke. I can get any vehicle to pass, so long as it runs. If they really want to help, look to third world country manufacturing, and put a huge import tax on all products produced by a country that doesn't conform to international standards. That is an action that would clean the environment, create millions of US jobs, give added money to our spend-drunk politicians, and cause manufacturers to stop shipping jobs overseas. Just my opinion, and it's worth about what you paid for it.

Leon

 

[73m819]

The problem with the international standards is that china, India, and some other countries were EXEMPTED from these standards, the very ones that some think WE need to love and die by. IN reality, the ONLY COUNTRY that is expected to abide by these pie in the sky standards is U.S.A.

 

[ixpacman]

no one is exempt from the consequences.

 

[Flyingvan911]

I just found this page while researching out new issue in Missouri. It is from a third party site so I can't say it is or is not accurate. It is something to concider. If it's accurate, it's bad for California first then the rest of us.

Get the facts on Clean and Green trucks and buses. CARB rules,CA emission standards, green trucks, sales, retrofits, service maintainance, Clean Truck Programs and more

 

[wreckerman893]

Looks like an unfunded state mandate that favors one company that had already built an engine that conformed to the regulations being written.

It also gives a big advantage to fleets that can purchase new equipment and puts owner-operators at a disadvantage. At one time owner-operators hauled most of the produce that was grown in CA.

Looks like the big fleets wanted to corner the market on that freight.

CAT already quit making commercial engines, legislated out of it unless they wanted to spend millions of dollars on R&D to meet the standards.

I can see where everybody wants clean air and water....but mindless adherence to idiotic regulations will destroy small business in this country.

In my opinion there is a concerted effort being made by some agencies of the government to get rid of all small businesses and independent thinking people.

"We have met the enemy and he is us". Pogo the opossum.

 

[Bighurt]

The terrorists after 9/11 said they would be back to destroy the US from the inside. Who's running CA and the EPA?

2 Billion to retrofit CA trucks...

Starting to remind me of what GM did to the Red Car and subsequent trucking did to the railroad. Railroads destroyed by greed, replaced by an evil monster.

 

[Speedwoble]

pardon the volatile question, but is the underlying motive for this new legislation merely a slow, downward slide of freedom due to abuse of bureaucratic powers, or...is there an important new technology out that really can save everyone in fuel costs, and improve the quality of life for all? Are there new components available, the use of which will almost certainly guarantee a 10% increase in fuel mileage? And if so, Trevek, does it work?

There are some very easy technologies to save MPG
Auxilary power units so the truck doesn't have to idle to warm the cab.
Aerodynamics -just look at the ugly(IMHO) airfilters hanging out on a Peterbilt and think of the MPG they are costing. This is also why you are seeing more sideskirts on trailers.
You are seeing alot of these technologies applied by big shippers to save money because they pay more attention to the bottom line and the data instead of the feelings and sentimentality of the smaller or independent truckers. I see it happening in Farming as well, the bigger operators focus on the bottom line and use the technology while the others go broke and whine.


I don't know how anyone can think pollution reduction is a stupid. I am annoyed by the mandates, but I applaud the goals.

Like I said before, I think we need higher fuel taxes(they haven't gone up a penny since the 90's) and you hear people complaining about the roads, bridges and infrastructure. Without sufficient road taxes to pay for roads, the general fund is tapped to pay for roads. That is what I call suckling off the public teat. Ditto for using WMO as a fuel and not paying road tax, such drivers are using welfare, depending on everyone else to pay for the the roads they use. I have run methyl ester fuel that I didn't pay road tax on, so I'll point the finger at myself first.

And as to the army driving up-armored Priuses, I guess I can just rely on the army to be smart enough to do so:
Will Military Necessity Push Hybrid Vehicle Development?
U.S. Military Goes For Hybrid Vehicles - IEEE Spectrum

50% of the deaths in Iraq occurred in fuel convoys:
For U.S. Military, More Oil Means More Death - Forbes.com

Fuel costs up to $400/gallon at forward bases:
Using Heat To Cool - Forbes.com

 

[saddamsnightmare]

January 12th, 2011.

More efficient locomotives equals fewer less efficient trucks. The railroads aren't complaining about it.... they are eating most of the long distance truckers lunches...now if we would only stop going with more inefficient roads as the rubber tire on asphalt or concrete is not as efficient as a steel wheel on steel rail. The next step will be electric locomotives and at that time the diesel truck will be relegated to local hauls only, as it should be. A two man train crew can move 10,000+ tons at between 50 and 70 MPH depending on track conditions, a truck how many ton with one man safely and without breaking up the roads with overloads?

My 1955 125 ton-1750 HP locomotive could move about 400 to 500 tons a mile on a gallon of fuel, and compared to today's diesel, it would be a fairly enefficient machine, but it was built when diesel was 10 cents per gallon. Our locomotives today are very efficient and very clean compared to most otr trucks.... I have no problem with fewer trucks, it will free the roads up for better uses, like the TGV in France which can do better then 225 MPH on an alignment and gradient layout not much different then our interstates, but the primitives in the various parties can't handle that little pill....

Just my two cents worth, now to sit back and watch the fur fly....

 

[Speedwoble]

This is far from true, we have more coal then we know what to with, with modern tech, it can be burned as clean as gas, our gas deposits are more then any place in the world (we are the SAUDI in the gas world), our nuke tech is the number one in the world, we build every where but here, our oil reserves are equal to the great world supplies. NO NEW refineries have been built since the early 80s, COMPANIES have be PREVENTED from all of the above in this COUNTRY by kuggers and in turn PC GOV. and their REGS.
HECK we can't even build a pipeline to bring LITE crude south.

Clean Coal? Not yet, They just released the FIRST EVER standards on mercury emissions from coal fired power plants (U.S. rolls out tough rules on coal plant pollution | Reuters) Coal power is the reason they are having to tell pregnant women not to eat any fish.

As to Natural Gas, we have only 11 years of proven reserves. 95 years if you include the gas they are GUESSING will be there.
Fracking: Is there really 100 years’ worth of natural gas beneath the United States? - Slate Magazine
(Liberal website warning) You may be dead by the time it matters, but I will have to deal with it.

 

[73m819]

AS far as fuel taxes not going up WRONG, states raised the tax when the cost of fuel went up and usage went down (less tax income), BUT did not lower when the fuel cost dropped, sorta like the conserve water thing, wanted people to conserve water, people did, now the REVENUE was down, so the WD raised the rates

If thay used the fuel tax as it was intended , roads, bridges, ect, NOT bike paths, walking paths, rapid transit where nobody rides, trains from CA to NA, a train from Macon to Atlanta, Amtrak, green highway space, every thing but road, gov flat out robbing the road tax, there would not be a problem fixing roads and bridges, raise the fuel tax will NOT mean one more road or bridge gets fixed. the bike path users do NOT pay one cent towards the path.

Raising the fuel tax will HURT every AMERICAN and AMERICA and those that can LEAST afford it will be AFFECTED the most. the fuel tax is all hooked together ( fed, state, local), one goes up, that triggers the others, either by % or flat rate comparison
The CURRENT GOV. would like to see high fuel cost to FORCE the sale of HIGH mpg vehicles, no matter if you can AFFORD the HIGH PRICED cracker boxes or not. If the fuel price goes up, people will stop going places unless thay have to, will have less to spend, which will cause other to have less to spend, BUT NOT BUY THE CRACKER BOXES, because MOST WONT be able to afford them with less to spend then before

To get AMERICA going LOWER taxes, this includes fuel tax, this will give the AMERICAN people MORE to SPEND and thay will, thay will go more places in turn more fuel use, hence more fuel tax will come in.. RAISING taxes NEVER has had a positive effect on a economy, no matter what some GOV. GENIOUS say, all raising taxes does is take spending money AWAY FROM the people and out of the ECONOMY, and give MORE to the powers in GOV. to buy votes
Anybody that thinks RAISING taxes is GOOD FOR AMERICA, needs to just look at GREACE, SPAIN, most of EUROPE.

 

[73m819]

Clean Coal? Not yet, They just released the FIRST EVER standards on mercury emissions from coal fired power plants (U.S. rolls out tough rules on coal plant pollution | Reuters) Coal power is the reason they are having to tell pregnant women not to eat any fish.

"Coal power is the reason they are having to tell pregnant women not to eat any fish", the same PRESS HISTERIA that we are used to hearing, anywhere from out and out lies to stretching the truth like a slinky


YES tough new rules by a gov. that said thay would put the coal industry out of business, the same gov that wants to SHUT down drilling, at the same time Send a BILLION $$$$ to BRAZIL so thay can explore for oil, then promise the buy the oil, the same gov that does not want a ENGENY INDEPENDENT AMERICA, the same gov that does with REGS what thay can't do with laws

 

[73m819]

As to Natural Gas, we have only 11 years of proven reserves. 95 years if you include the gas they are GUESSING will be there.
Fracking: Is there really 100 years’ worth of natural gas beneath the United States? - Slate Magazine
(Liberal website warning) You may be dead by the time it matters, but I will have to deal with it.

The guy that WROTE this, is 100% for RENEWABLE ENGERY, I went back and READ his blogs, Long before the the shale oil and gas fields, the U.S.A. had vast NATURAL gas RESERVES, it was said that AMERICA was the Saudi of gas.

I truly do not understand why ANYONE would NOT want this country to be ENGERY INDEPENDANT, because with this independents we can be OUR ON DESTENY, not depended on someone else's CHERITEY

 

[firebuilder]

I say, let's use foreign oil and gas now and save our own for when the other countries run dry.

 

[islandguydon]

Hello,I always thought when the Govt implemented new emissions restrictions it was on new trucks. This didn't sound to be that way.Is this going to effect the vintage MV hobby?

FYI, the new law and or regulations are not retroactive to any pre existing law and or ordinance. Thats common place. They want to insure from the date the law went into effect from then on, the new regs are active.

 

[m16ty]

January 12th, 2011.

More efficient locomotives equals fewer less efficient trucks. The railroads aren't complaining about it.... they are eating most of the long distance truckers lunches...now if we would only stop going with more inefficient roads as the rubber tire on asphalt or concrete is not as efficient as a steel wheel on steel rail. The next step will be electric locomotives and at that time the diesel truck will be relegated to local hauls only, as it should be. A two man train crew can move 10,000+ tons at between 50 and 70 MPH depending on track conditions, a truck how many ton with one man safely and without breaking up the roads with overloads?

My 1955 125 ton-1750 HP locomotive could move about 400 to 500 tons a mile on a gallon of fuel, and compared to today's diesel, it would be a fairly enefficient machine, but it was built when diesel was 10 cents per gallon. Our locomotives today are very efficient and very clean compared to most otr trucks.... I have no problem with fewer trucks, it will free the roads up for better uses, like the TGV in France which can do better then 225 MPH on an alignment and gradient layout not much different then our interstates, but the primitives in the various parties can't handle that little pill....

Just my two cents worth, now to sit back and watch the fur fly....

I think the railroad makes perfect sense. You know they are much more efficient than trucks. Of coarse you still have to have a truck to carry the goods from the rail yard to most places. The problem is that the railroad is just plain hard to deal with. We ship a fair amount of goods and I've tried to use the railroad before. They really don't want to deal with a single rail car of goods and the times I checked they were more costly than trucking (even to businesses that had a track running into their business).

We also own a warehouse that had rail service before we bought it. We have had customers wanting us to accept rail shipments. The line is still there going into the building but the railroad (CSX) took the switch out. They refuse to put the switch back in (even if we pay for it) unless we are taking in several cars a month.

I would be glad to use rail service if they were serious about wanting smaller customer's business.

 

[wreckerman893]

More efficient locomotives equals fewer less efficient trucks. The railroads aren't complaining about it.... they are eating most of the long distance truckers lunches...now if we would only stop going with more inefficient roads as the rubber tire on asphalt or concrete is not as efficient as a steel wheel on steel rail. The next step will be electric locomotives and at that time the diesel truck will be relegated to local hauls only, as it should be. A two man train crew can move 10,000+ tons at between 50 and 70 MPH depending on track conditions, a truck how many ton with one man safely and without breaking up the roads with overloads?

Great in theory.......impractical in practice......they have pulled up thousands of miles of railroad tracks because the truth is that most small railroads never made a dime......only after they were swallowed up by the big guys did a few of them make money. Most short lines were subsidized by the freight being hauled on the main lines.

I wrote a paper for one of my history classes about the building of the Transcontinetal Railroad.

During my research I found that the railroads were the DOT COM's of the late 1800's......hundreds of small railroads were formed and stock sold in them......many went bust taking the investors money with them before moving one load of freight.

I can take you places around here and show you railbeds that were active when I was growing up but are now abandoned and the rails long gone (Tennessee, Alabama & Georgia, Louisville and Nashville, Southern line between Gadsden and Coosa, GA.).

I agree that bulk items such as grain, plastic pellets, coal, etc can be moved more effienciently by rail......but railroads don't go everywhere.......there will always be a need for long haul trucking.

Shipping by rail can be a long process....we rail loaded military equipment at Fort Benning GA and it took it three weeks to get to CA....and a lot of it was vandalized and damaged when it got there.

One problem is that most railroads run right through the major metropolitan areas and have to slow way down to pass through them. Ocasionally you see a freight train highballing it out in the country but the average speed for a freight train in the US is around 40 MPH (due to the slow speeds going through cities and when operating on bad track).

I do foresee hybrid diesel electricl Class 8 trucks....maybe with electrical motors on the trailer axles as well as the cab unit.

I really liked taking the fast passenger trains in Europe......I have never riding a passenger train in the US (I have been on private excursion trains on abandoned lines).

 

[73m819]

I say, let's use foreign oil and gas now and save our own for when the other countries run dry.

This sounds nice as a sound bite, but in reality, that is MONEY going OUT of this COUNTRY that this COUNTRY needs, not just buying the OIL and GAS, but ALL the jobs connected to it, why should AMERICA supply jobs in other countries when we need to put people to work HERE. do not see how it is cheaper to drill an/or buy oil in another country, ship it here, then to produce it HERE, also how can we be depended on other nations that if mad, can SHUT the valve, then where are we
BY keeping the jobs here means The more people that are working, in turn affects more people, that in turn affects more people, ect, ect, ect. A true TRICKLE DOWN ECOMENY