Ram Rebel Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
On Friday, the NHTSA and EPA announced that they are proposing intensifying emissions regulations for medium and heavy-duty trucks. These new regulations are aimed at reducing fuel costs, and reducing costs by about $170 billion.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established the standards that will now face a period during which industry and environment groups will comment. The standards could be revised.

The agencies are asking for a cut in carbon emissions between 2021 and 2027 that would be nearly equal to the greenhouse gas emissions from all U.S. residences in one year. The fuel-efficiency targets would save more oil than what the U.S. currently imports annually from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Feds propose huge carbon emission cuts for heavy trucks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Looking to these vehicles to make cuts is a good move.

Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles currently account for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions and oil use in the U.S. transportation sector, but only represent about 5% of vehicles on the road. Globally, oil consumption and greenhouse emissions from heavy-duty vehicles are expected to surpass that of passenger vehicles by 2030.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I think that trucks have been overlooked a bit in the whole fuel-efficiency trend so this is a good move. Do you think that it would make auto companies do much different in their truck development, or are they basically on track right now anyway?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
I think that trucks have been overlooked a bit in the whole fuel-efficiency trend so this is a good move. Do you think that it would make auto companies do much different in their truck development, or are they basically on track right now anyway?
I bet electric trucks are being looked at, chances are its on the drawing board but not what we'll see them start to talk about in public for some time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
I bet electric trucks are being looked at, chances are its on the drawing board but not what we'll see them start to talk about in public for some time.
problem is the precarious balance. Its not just private HD's included, but all heavy trucks, like big rigs. So the balancing comes from cost of efficiency vs cost of operation. There is a tipping point where new technologies actually serve to increase costs then they do limit them. You can already tell this is exactly whats going to happen, listen to the rationale.

Once upon a time, to be pro-environment you had to be anti-big-vehicles. This rule will change that," said U.S Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "In fact, these efficiency standards are good for the environment – and the economy. When trucks use less fuel, shipping costs go down. It's good news all around, especially for anyone with an online shopping habit."
Nothing happens in a vacuum, yes the trucks will use less fuel but that cost doesn't become instant savings. New technology is needed, could be hybrid or some other new engineering solution but that doesn't change the fact that money is required.

Sure they'll save on fuel, but whats the pay back of those savings, you know the new technology will carry a premium...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
True.

Always a premium attached to a new tech,

it's just how it has to work for the market to make money.

Got to pay to play.
Sure no one said it was a free lunch, but talking about $170 Billion in fuel savings is a fantastic headline but totally decoupled from reality. How much money does it cost to save $170 Billion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Hopefully they did their research to see what the real outcome would be, ultimately that's what it comes down to, would be horrible if they didn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Hopefully they did their research to see what the real outcome would be, ultimately that's what it comes down to, would be horrible if they didn't.
I'm sure they did and I'm also sure thats exactly why that information isn't included.

They'll get no momentum from the public and private trucking corps if they announce it will cost $200 Billion in order to save $170 Million...

We're talking about things like, the cost of buying new emission compliant rigs, but also the lost productivity of rigs retired prematurely because they don't meet regs and then theres the fact that resale on non compliant rigs is going to be trash because there is no longer a potential market for old rigs...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Possible they measure it out long term over years in the 2 figure range.
Chances are we won't find out all the details, what really matters that we'll know is how it impacts us as consumers and the industry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I'm sure they did and I'm also sure thats exactly why that information isn't included.

They'll get no momentum from the public and private trucking corps if they announce it will cost $200 Billion in order to save $170 Million...

We're talking about things like, the cost of buying new emission compliant rigs, but also the lost productivity of rigs retired prematurely because they don't meet regs and then theres the fact that resale on non compliant rigs is going to be trash because there is no longer a potential market for old rigs...
But they usually have grandfather clauses to stop that from happening. It usually phases in over many years. There will still be losses, but they do their best to not make it this huge thing where all the sudden a bunch of businesses have to get rid of their entire fleet and replace them. They can do that work over a number of years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
But they usually have grandfather clauses to stop that from happening. It usually phases in over many years. There will still be losses, but they do their best to not make it this huge thing where all the sudden a bunch of businesses have to get rid of their entire fleet and replace them. They can do that work over a number of years.
It doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is someone is going to have to pay and I want to know how much its going to cost. they can gradfather all they want and if they are going to amortize their savings over that period then they sure as **** better amortize the expenses. Even as the changes come slowly it stil dings your resale as everyone knows this rig will be obsolete in 2 years so we're not paying you fair market value, etc...

Anything short of transparent dialogue is pure rhetoric.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Some very cynical people on here.

Fuel efficiency regulations are really not that new. I think most people agree that they should exist. Auto companies probably know to expect these things and are already working towards them even without the regulations being there. It's good to set standards to stop companies from making those terrible Hummers from a little while ago or just getting lazy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Some very cynical people on here.

Fuel efficiency regulations are really not that new. I think most people agree that they should exist. Auto companies probably know to expect these things and are already working towards them even without the regulations being there. It's good to set standards to stop companies from making those terrible Hummers from a little while ago or just getting lazy.
also uninformed it would seem...This regulation has absolutely NOTHING to do with building Hummers. We're talking about transport trucking, not drive thrus...

No one is arguing that the regulations shouldn't be in place, don't skew what I'm saying. I want to know what the costs are.

The pushers are proud to preach their amortized savings over X years so in the name of truth and transparency they should show us the amoortized expenses over the same period. Any resistance or reluctance to that they know the math doesn't square with logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
also uninformed it would seem...This regulation has absolutely NOTHING to do with building Hummers. We're talking about transport trucking, not drive thrus...

No one is arguing that the regulations shouldn't be in place, don't skew what I'm saying. I want to know what the costs are.

The pushers are proud to preach their amortized savings over X years so in the name of truth and transparency they should show us the amoortized expenses over the same period. Any resistance or reluctance to that they know the math doesn't square with logic.
I mean, I guess we don't disagree then. I just brought up the example of Hummer because it was a notoriously fuel inefficient vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
I mean, I guess we don't disagree then. I just brought up the example of Hummer because it was a notoriously fuel inefficient vehicle.
What's notoriously inefficient are the supertankers crusing on bunker oil, a sludge so thick and unrefined it needs to be HEATED before it can even flow from the tanks.

Whats funny is they're hitting all the right notes to raise the cost of global consumption, in a way that we'll all agree too. Which is powerful because we breeze past the question of do we need all this consumption and cheap crap from China? I mean reduce the amount of superfluous goods imported annually and you'll clear that $170 Billion in no time.

But the conversation can't go there because it jeopardizes growth or whatever so we're stuck with the consensus that consumption won't decrease so we need to find a way to make our consumption more environmentally friendly. Does this not seem absurd to anyone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Absurd but it's what the ones in power seem to want, keeping that flow of consumption going and to build it stronger and stronger, not slowing down even the slightest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
It's much easier to sell more efficiency because people don't have to change their behaviour at all. Changing consumption means telling people to basically stop doing things as much. People don't like being told what to do.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top