California Set To Require Zero-Emissions Trucks (nytimes.com) 197
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Rebuffing strong opposition from industry, California is expected to adopt a landmark rule on Thursday that requires more than half of all trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions by 2035, a move that is set to improve local air quality, rein in greenhouse gas emissions and sharply curtail the state's dependence on oil. The rule, the first in the United States, represents a victory for communities that have long suffered from truck emissions -- particularly pollution from the diesel trucks that feed the sprawling hubs that serve the state's booming e-commerce industry.
The new rule, which would set sales requirements for zero-emissions versions of everything from big rigs to box trucks and delivery vans starting in 2024, has clear benefits. Under the rule, the percentage of zero-emissions trucks that must be sold gradually increases each year, with a goal that 100 percent of trucks be zero-emissions vehicles by 2045. Transportation makes up 40 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions, and is a major contributor to smog-causing nitrogen oxides and diesel particulate matter pollution, which are linked to health problems including respiratory conditions. Of those transportation sector emissions, as much as 70 percent of smog-causing pollution and 80 percent of particulate matter are from diesel trucks, even though they make up just 7 percent of the 30 million vehicles registered in California. By removing diesel trucks from the roads, California estimates it will eliminate 60,000 tons of hazardous nitrogen oxides, preventing more than 900 premature deaths and delivering at least $9 billion in public health benefits. California also estimates that the rule will lower the state's carbon dioxide emissions by 17 million metric tons, roughly the same amount as pollution from burning almost 100,000 rail cars' worth of coal, and save truck operators $6 billion in fuel costs.
The new rule, which would set sales requirements for zero-emissions versions of everything from big rigs to box trucks and delivery vans starting in 2024, has clear benefits. Under the rule, the percentage of zero-emissions trucks that must be sold gradually increases each year, with a goal that 100 percent of trucks be zero-emissions vehicles by 2045. Transportation makes up 40 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions, and is a major contributor to smog-causing nitrogen oxides and diesel particulate matter pollution, which are linked to health problems including respiratory conditions. Of those transportation sector emissions, as much as 70 percent of smog-causing pollution and 80 percent of particulate matter are from diesel trucks, even though they make up just 7 percent of the 30 million vehicles registered in California. By removing diesel trucks from the roads, California estimates it will eliminate 60,000 tons of hazardous nitrogen oxides, preventing more than 900 premature deaths and delivering at least $9 billion in public health benefits. California also estimates that the rule will lower the state's carbon dioxide emissions by 17 million metric tons, roughly the same amount as pollution from burning almost 100,000 rail cars' worth of coal, and save truck operators $6 billion in fuel costs.
Enforce the idling laws! (Score:2, Insightful)
A bigger help would be if states and cities were to empower the equivalent of parking meter enforcement (usually under revenue departments), but aimed at writing tickets for illegal idling.
Re: (Score:2)
A bigger help would be if states and cities were to empower the equivalent of parking meter enforcement (usually under revenue departments), but aimed at writing tickets for illegal idling.
As long as the vehicle has a "Clean Idle" [pickuptrucks.com] sticker, they can idle as long as they want. As far as I'm aware, all trucks currently manufactured qualify as "clean idle". Therefore, there is no need for enforcement.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, clean idle is fine. The law in most states doesn't allow arbitrary idling even then, but whatever the law says the clean versions are less of a pollution problem. But most (heavy) trucks on the roads do not meet that standard, as trucks have a multi-decade long service life. Hence the need for enforcement.
Re:Enforce the idling laws! (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather than relying on police-based "enforcement", perhaps it would be better to disincentivize idling by providing access to electrical hookups where trucks park.
Idling overnight can burn up 10-20 gallons of diesel. That is expensive. So if truckers have the option of plugging into the grid, they will use it. The electricity can power their accessories, heat (or cool) the sleeping cab, and warm up the glow-plugs to restart the engine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal idling?!?
WTF is that....are there laws in some states that actually tell you you can or cannot let your car idle?
What do you do at a stop light?
If you're dropping someone off or picking them up....?
Re:Enforce the idling laws! (Score:4, Informative)
In NYC, the law is you can't idle a vehicle longer than 3 minutes except emergency vehicles or if the engine is powering something, e.g. hydraulics for a loading ramp or something.
Used to be a lot of trucks would park and idle for 20+ minutes for no particular reason. Lots of noise, lots of pollution.
I have no idea how it's enforced, unless they have someone checking in every few minutes, but hey seems to have had some effect...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have a law, but I try to give people idling in the parking lot the dirtiest look I can manage.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...I learn something new every day.
I have never heard of any such thing before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The laws are aimed at heavy diesel vehicles in parked situations. I don't know if any states have the weight limit set low enough to catch even the heaviest of pickup trucks but I doubt it.
It is worth mentioning, though, that in many northern and midwestern states it is a civil infraction (like a parking ticket) to start your car for a winter warmup, and leave it unattended. I think in that case the original idea was not environmental, but rather to keep an attractive nuisance away from car thieves.
I don'
Re: (Score:2)
Here is some info. [ncsl.org] Basically it is for larger diesel trucks. But on top getting better mpg ratings, anti-idling is also why most new vehicles come with auto start-stop.
Re: (Score:2)
They need worker protections! (Score:5, Interesting)
There's stories from major news outlets of Truck drivers with checks for 100 hours of driving in a week (yes, that's illegal, no, those laws are not enforced, yes, you are driving on the highway with drivers who've been on the road for 100 hours in a week) and the check, after taking out fees for "loans" for fuel and repairs, were around 1 cent. 1 cent for 100 hours of work.
And for the Love of God don't ask "Why don't they go drive for someone else?". They don't own the Truck, they're leasing it. And don't ask, "Why don't they get a new job?". It was 2008. There were no jobs, we were in a massive economic crisis. Just. Like. Now. And don't ask "Why didn't they walk away?". Many of them borrowed money from friends and family to start the lease in a desperate attempt to hang onto the only income they had. We should all know what a sunk cost fallacy is.
So if CA does this and doesn't also back if up with strong worker protections then may God have mercy on those truck drivers and anyone who's stuck on the road with them after 7 days of meth and red bull.
Re:They need worker protections! (Score:5, Informative)
were around 1 cent. 1 cent for 100 hours of work
This ain't some unique CA thing. A lot of farmers in my State, especially in the Chicken industry, are completely upside down in lease schemes. They can sell 5,000 chickens and get paid for maybe about 150 of them, because technically they're leasing the chickens, the equipment, the food, and everything else. And the farming schemes go back centuries so they've had way longer to get more complex than the trucking industry.
So if CA does this and doesn't also back if up with strong worker protections
Nah, this is a US thing. CA is just doing the exact same thing in your case that is done pretty much everywhere else in this country. It's just fun to pick on CA, but every state does this crap.
Oh God I forgot about the Poultry industry (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Alright Jon, calm down.
That can't be JoHn Oliver (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They need worker protections! (Score:5, Interesting)
When they began to tighten the emissions requirements for truckers in 2008 they did zero to help workers. So what ended up happening is that Trucking companies reclassified their employees as independent contractors, sold them big loans and leases to "buy" their trucks and squeezed all their money out of them.
This is more or less true, but some of your statements are not completely accurate.
"Lease to own" trucking "opportunities" (I'd call them borderline scams, personally) have been around significantly longer than 2008 and had nothing to do with emissions laws. Trucking companies did not reclassify employees (there are many, many corporate drivers still around--the leasing "opportunities" are some specific firms, and again, they didn't reclassify people. You had to be dumb enough to take the ads at face value and buy in). The people who were unfortunate to get into these scams really did get fucked by the company store (it's actually worse than what you suggest--in addition to the absurd cost structures, you also typically got locked into an exclusivity contract with the operator, and were reliant on dispatch to offer you bids. Piss someone off? Sorry, no work for you at this time. Don't want to drive coast to coast every week? Sorry, no work for you at this time. You have an issue with the cost structure? Sorry, no work for you at this time.)
"Worker protection" isn't your solution here--someone with a leased truck and an exclusivity agreement still does meet the "contractor" test, and calling them an "employee" is a fiction. Also, CA is limited here in what they can accomplish. Assuming the company was headquartered in some other state and the contract is based on that state's law, CA cannot simply declare the contract void and the contractor an employee.
I had a neighbor who fell for this scam around 2005. He was a good guy, OTR trucker, and was happy to "own" his own truck and be "working for himself." It sucked watching him get overwhelmed by the reality of the situation and have no real way out ("walking away" still leaves you on the hook for the debt, and bankruptcy has its own set of problems).
A ton of truckers were laid off (Score:3)
I know the scams are older than that, but they were just scams on the periphery. When CA raised the emissions standards they forced Truck companies to buy new equipment, which took a periphery scam and turned it into the norm for the in
One last thing about Worker Protections (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, CA is limited here in what they can accomplish. Assuming the company was headquartered in some other state and the contract is based on that state's law, CA cannot simply declare the contract void and the contractor an employee.
It doesn't work like this. If a company receives business income from CA then it can be sued in CA for violation of local employment laws. In a California court.
Re: (Score:3)
You can look up the stories on google (Score:2)
Re:They need worker protections! (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a CDL and used to drive trucks every day.
There's stories from major news outlets of Truck drivers with checks for 100 hours of driving in a week (yes, that's illegal, no, those laws are not enforced, yes, you are driving on the highway with drivers who've been on the road for 100 hours in a week)
Those laws are indeed enforced; maybe they should be enforced more (or at the organizational level), but if you are driving and have a log indicating you've exceeded your driving hours for the day, it's a problem.
FWIW, The rest of your rant is legit.
I guess no more trucks will be sold in California (Score:5, Interesting)
In completely unrelated news, all trucking companies will now be located in other states and will purchase their trucks there.
Re:I guess no more trucks will be sold in Californ (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much what I was thinking. Not like a Nevada trucking company can't do business in CA. And the law just says "sold in CA", NOT "used in CA"....
Re:I guess no more trucks will be sold in Californ (Score:5, Insightful)
"Used in CA" would also likely fall afoul of federal laws and/or be outright unconstitutional. CA would likely be better off to jack the cost of diesel in the state into the stratosphere via taxation which would push in-state business to buy cheaper alternatives and also limit out of state trucks to those with both really big fuel tanks and really good logistical planning. I'm not a fan of high fuel taxes, but it is a power that CA unquestionably has and would help them achieve their ostensible goal.
Re: (Score:2)
CA would likely be better off to jack the cost of diesel in the state into the stratosphere via taxation which would push in-state business to buy cheaper alternatives and also limit out of state trucks to those with both really big fuel tanks and really good logistical planning.
There's something called the Laffer Curve. Basically, at some point you hit diminishing returns as far as taxes go. Get the diesel taxes high enough, and it becomes cheaper for trucking companies to send in a tanker and refuel their trucks with out-of-state diesel.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulating that is also something that CA would have the unquestionable power to achieve (some thoughts would be to tax the imported diesel at in state rates anyway (possible constitutional issue, but they can tax liquor and cigarettes, so maybe fine), tax the fuel when it's dispensed (almost certainly lawful), or outright ban ad hoc fueling operations). One could also do the same calculations as the trucking companies and keep the tax JUST low enough to not make it worth their while.
I'm not advocating for
Re: (Score:3)
Regulating that is also something that CA would have the unquestionable power to achieve (some thoughts would be to tax the imported diesel at in state rates anyway (possible constitutional issue, but they can tax liquor and cigarettes, so maybe fine), tax the fuel when it's dispensed (almost certainly lawful), or outright ban ad hoc fueling operations). One could also do the same calculations as the trucking companies and keep the tax JUST low enough to not make it worth their while.
I'm not advocating for this position, just pointing out that what they ARE doing here is VERY unlikely to meet their state goal.
You do realize most trucking companies have pump stations at their own facilities, don't you? They buy the the fuel at a lower price than you get at the pump. They could almost certainly continue to do that and not pay the CA tax on the fuel being dispensed as it's a private unregulated dispensary used for their own vehicles. Where the fuel comes from wouldn't necessarily be within CA's power to regulate either.
Re: (Score:2)
They could almost certainly continue to do that and not pay the CA tax on the fuel being dispensed as it's a private unregulated dispensary used for their own vehicles
You realize that CA can outlaw private unregulated dispensaries, right?
Or regulate them....as CA already has by requiring anti-pollution features on those dispensaries.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax the fuel when its dispensed seems like it would only work if there's an underlying financial transaction already occurring. Reducing it to a smaller scale:
If I go to Nevada and fill up a gas can, then drive my car and gas can into CA, can CA collect a tax on me when I pour that gas into the tank?
Re: (Score:2)
California probably thinks so, but it wouldn't be enforceable at such a small scale. At a large facility that's a different story altogether. A lot more to lose as well.
Re: (Score:2)
no, but if you do this with 20,000 gallons of unleaded, they can and will regulate you. If the gas you buy is the wrong "mix", they can prohibit your selling/using it all together.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do that. A sane trucking company would shift their depot out of town, in a more rural less useful land area and generate their own electricity to charge their batteries. For trucks of course, you would need a forklift to swap out their batteries and replace them with fully charged ones, and take about 10 minutes, have to be careful with really large battery packs.
The modern way using computers, is to have more depots, to swap drivers and batteries and even the truck itself, to keep the trailer and carg
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess no more trucks will be sold in Californ (Score:4, Interesting)
In 15 years, I don't think it's going to be much of a problem to have 50% of your fleet be 0 emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
CA would likely be better off to jack the cost of diesel
500 gallon saddle tanks. Fill up in NV, drive in to CA, deliver and pick up. Taking the shortest route into and out of the state (Nevada).
This would actually work pretty well for hauling produce out of the state from farms in central CA. No screwing around in LA traffic jams. Local deliveries to large population centers could be made by electric truck operators from warehouses on the outskirts (served by diesel trucks). Sorry about that wilted fresh produce.
Re: (Score:3)
California is 25% of the US transportation market and controls about 75% of the port traffic from Asia. They have Immense influence over the entire transportation sector but probably better than 50% over the goods trucking industry due to the port issue and their influence over e-commerce. Most cars in the US have installed emissions gear that meets California emissions equipment for a reason. But beyond those stats interstate trucking is actually a smaller part of the market than in-state distribution truc
Re: (Score:3)
In completely unrelated news, all trucking companies will now be located in other states and will purchase their trucks there.
Exactly right. Buyers will just buy in a neighboring state.
Good job, California
Re:I guess no more trucks will be sold in Californ (Score:5, Insightful)
In completely unrelated news, all trucking companies will now be located in other states and will purchase their trucks there.
Exactly right. Buyers will just buy in a neighboring state. Good job, California
Yeah, fuck California for trying to fight climate change. They should do what the rest of the US does: ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. It works great for climate change, and it works great for pandemics. Good job, California.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, instead of making laws banning diesel trucks, how about you give a viable alternative. To date there aren't any electric trucks worth their salt and diesel is the least polluting option in this scenario.
So you're saying it's the job of the state to build and sell trucks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess no more trucks will be sold in Californ (Score:4, Informative)
The vehicle can be registered in Nevada when it's bought there. And the trucking company can relocate its HQ in Nevada.
And if CA wants to try to prevent NV trucks from operating in CA, well, that's what we have a Constitution and Federal Government for.
Re: (Score:2)
All CA has to do is ban NV trucks from parking overnight in CA. Free to come in, drop off your load, pick up your next load, and then skedaddle out of the state. As long as the wheels turn, it's perfectly fine. But if you want to stop for the night, you bette
Re: (Score:3)
All CA has to do is ban NV trucks from parking overnight in CA. Free to come in, drop off your load, pick up your next load, and then skedaddle out of the state. As long as the wheels turn, it's perfectly fine. But if you want to stop for the night, you better have CA plates and registration.
Yeah, that won't pass muster in the courts.
BTW, most trucks are registered in various states under US DOT and operate in all states. So it wouldn't be possible for them to regulate that way.
Re: (Score:2)
You wont be able to force the truck makers to comply like you did the car makers.
This is because trucks cost more than a house and anyone interested in buying one is already casting a very wide net for a place of purchase of their mobile house-priced vehicle. Truck buyers don't have any specific
Re: (Score:2)
And then declare independence from the US, and then win a civil war. Because that kind of blatant and direct discrimination against out-of-state commerce is utterly prohibited under Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe they just stop delivering to CA unless they recoup all their government imposed costs via user fees
An enormous portion of trucking in CA isn't delivering to CA. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are how an most stuff enters the US from Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
And if CA wants to try to prevent NV trucks from operating in CA
Let CA stop them watch the price of everything quadruple.
And PG&E? (Score:3)
I'm not against this at all, but if California really goes this way, Pacific Gas & Electric had better get its transmission line and distribution systems in order [washingtonpost.com].
They are idiots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... You mean farm, warehouse and construction equipment?
See Plug Power for THAT solution.
Whether it's batteries (intolerable downtime on VERY expensive equipment for the recharge cycle) for Fuel Cells... It has to be ZERO emission. Right now, it looks to me like H2 fuel cells are the only fit for that bill.
Re: (Score:2)
> See Plug Power for THAT solution.
https://electrek.co/2016/12/05... [electrek.co]
https://modernfarmer.com/2020/... [modernfarmer.com]
https://www.producer.com/2019/... [producer.com]
https://www.aglaw.us/janzenagl... [aglaw.us]
https://www.farm-equipment.com... [farm-equipment.com]
It's an obvious thing to push for. Depending on the type of farm, Agrisolar [wikipedia.org] could make a very nice complimentary tech with medium sized electric farm utility vehicles. No hydrogen required (and, incidentally, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also need rather large batteries)
=Smidge=
After market (Score:2)
Time to invest in some truck aftermarket parts supply companies. My bet is California businesses will hold on to their diesel trucks for as long as possible now. Which could mean trouble for safety standards if they aren't getting regular maintenance.
Re:After market (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our trucking overlords [wikimedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you would link to the Happy Toyz truck from Maximum Overdrive.
https://www.imcdb.org/i011451.... [imcdb.org]
great but what about charging? (Score:2)
I think this is a good idea but unless there is adequate charging infrastructure electric vehicles are always going to be a challenge for many use cases. We need legislation like in Germany to force ( and fund ) all gas stations to have chargers, and all gas stations serving trucks to have chargers suitable for trucks. As an added bonus this would catalyze roadside services, which brings tangible revenue to remote communities.
Tesla, of course, is way ahead on this. I can pretty much drive randomly now knowi
Re:great but what about charging? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Tesla, of course, is way ahead on this."
You mean 45+ minutes to fully charge for every 4 or 5 hours of operation?
Do you know any truck drivers? Do think think that is some way 1.5 hours of downtime for every 8 hours of operation is tolerable (Almost 19% downtime)?
Come on! We're not talking about a day trip. Read up on what truckers have to do to haul fresh produce and get it there in salable condition.
Re: (Score:2)
There could be smarter options for high duty cycle vehicles like swapping in charged pack.
driving laws (Score:2)
Do you know any truck drivers? Do think think that is some way 1.5 hours of downtime for every 8 hours of operation is tolerable (Almost 19% downtime)?
I do. They have firm limits on how long they can drive without resting. Charging for truckers isn't a problem unless they're driving illegally (and dangerously).
Re: (Score:3)
So, here are the parameters: 1 hour to charge followed by 4 or 5 hours of operation. They will need to find an open charging location. They may have to wait to charge. Charging over a sleep cycle will charge the vehicle but they will still need to stop to charge in 4-5 hours. Don't forget to remind them that their tractor is going to be heavier, so that will reduce their loa
Re: great but what about charging? (Score:5, Informative)
Tesla is aiming for a a 400 mile range after a 30 minute charge ( just over 5.5 hours of driving at 70 mph ) of a Tesla Semi. Itâ(TM)s not a random number. A trucker can only drive a maximum of 11 hours a day over a 14 hour period. In a Tesla Semi he or she can drive for 5.5 hours, take a 30-60 minute break for a charge, and then spend another 5.5 hours driving at which point they are done for the day. This is perfectly common pattern for truckers.
I know itâ(TM)s shocking to you but companies like Tesla do actually think charging delays through.
Does it suck to have spend an hour charging when you take a 350 mile trip up into the mountains ( been there, done that )? Yep, sure. Is it worth it to drive 0 emission. I think so.
Re: great but what about charging? (Score:4, Informative)
once sat in Washington DC traffic on the loop for, wait for it, 5 hours. In a Tesla semi, I would have needed to charge before I got on the loop and immediately after I got of the loop, total distance, 75 miles.
No, after driving 75 miles you'd have probably 350 miles of your 400-mile range remaining. Since you were moving slowly, with lots of stop and go, you'd have used less energy per mile than if you were driving at highway speeds, and the energy consumed by powering the HVAC, lights, etc., is negligible.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, by the time you change out the heavy diesel engine, massive transmission, two 40 gallon saddle tanks, DEF tank and all of the related bits you suddenly have a massive weight allowance to use for your battery pack. And with this law, a mere 25 years to improve upon current technology.
I think we will all be just fine on this front. Except the oil companies, but frack them.
2035? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to "Diesel Free by 33"?
Missed it's flight out of Atlanta?
We aren't going to be diesel free until someone comes up with an alternative that does everything diesel fuel can do, and at a lower cost.
This is not something that can be legislated to happen. People will find loopholes in the law, or simply ignore the law. The law has to make economic sense or it won't happen. Mandating the trucking industry to take on this cost will be a case of those that take this hit losing to those that don't. This means early adopters go out of
The only company close to this goal is Tesla (Score:2)
Re: The only company close to this goal is Tesla (Score:3)
Amazon bought 100k trucks from Rivan. They will start rolling into service in 2022. Part of their business model will be selling credits to other companies who donâ(TM)t sell electric trucks thus offsetting their gas sales. This is why electric companies are worth a bundle, they donâ(TM)t need to sell lots of vehicles.
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't the adminstration bar states from having... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they tried to.
However like all things the Trump administration does, they fucked up the details and caused a court case that has/will toss it.
There's laws about how the government can change regulations like that, but following those laws takes time. The administration is lazy and can't keep their eye on a single subject for more than 10 minutes, so they just ignored those laws.
Which then meant their regulatory changes were illegal and thus invalid.
Same with "dreamers" and a host of other administratio
replaced with what, unicorns? (Score:5, Informative)
Considering there are NO commercially meaningful zero emissions trucks today, I'm genuinely curious what they expect to move shit around the state.
I don't think most of you even faintly suspect the impact of removing half the trucks from the roads.
Re:replaced with what, unicorns? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost like laws like this are designed to create demand in a market so that businesses develop products they don't currently sell.
Re: replaced with what, unicorns? (Score:3)
It's worked for the last 30+ years for the auto industry. Cali has been the leader in emission checks that propelled the innovation in fuel efficiency. They are just extending this to trucks.
The reason for this is that it's simpler easier to sell a single fleet to everyone rather than one for Cali and one for the rest.
And we do this across the country _all_ the time in many industries. Solar, wind, natural gas, coal, ethanol, etc etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind that there are zero emission semis heading toward mass production in the next 5 years. Nikola, VW, Tesla, GE, Volvo...
History...
- CARB was created by then Cali Governor Ronald Regan. By 1970 CARB became the first organization to set limits on NOx emissions; basically banning the standard car. Thus the catalytic converter was born; a technology that no auto mfg was interested in at the time. Its now standard across the world for more than cars.
- Ethanol mandates/subsidies are basically there
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A big rig truck has a fuel capacity of 120-150 gallons of diesel. Split the difference, call it 135 gallons. That's 511 liters, or 425 kg of diesel. Replacing the with batteries to replicate the same range-energy co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering there are NO commercially meaningful zero emissions trucks today
Yeah California forgot the golden rule. Let the freemarket solve the problem *first* and then regulate or provide incentives after. ... wait what?
No such thing as zero-emission (Score:2)
A good diesel particulate filter is >95% effective when properly maintained.
But emissions testing in California is "not required for diesel-powered vehicles produced before 1997 or weighing in excess of 14,000 pounds" (DMV)
So why not just test for emissions instead of complaining about trucks polluting?
There is no such thing as a zero-emission road vehicle anyway. Brake and tyre wear contributes quite a bit.
https://publications.jrc.ec.eu... [europa.eu]
"Many researchers report that exhaust and non-exhaust traffic rel
Re: (Score:2)
True for tire wear. Not true for brakes.
Any electric vehicle, either BEV of FC will use regen braking. That is why the brakes on hybrids last so long. My van needs brakes every 12K miles (I live in hills). My Prius every 100K, and most hybrids do even better. Some Tesla's have trouble with brakes in some climates because the calipers get "too little" use.
Re: (Score:2)
Any electric vehicle, either BEV of FC will use regen braking.
And large diesel trucks use jake brakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
These jake brakes (or compression release brakes) have helped a lot in brake wear, or so I've heard. There use can make a lot of noise if the muffler isn't made to compensate for the addition of the jake brake mechanism.
What I believe is coming soon to diesel truck near you is a diesel electric system much like that in trains and ships. The diesel engine drives a generator and then electric motors drive the wheels. Add on a battery
Re: (Score:2)
I think they are just chasing after the carbon though. Aren't most of the other particles heavier and therefore stay lower to the ground? Probably worse for our health then the extra carbon honestly.
CA tried this before, and failed (Score:3)
Back in the 1990's CA's Air Resources Board (CARB) passed a zero emission vehicle (ZEV) requirement for passenger cars sold in the state,
The main response was legal action from auto manufactures and a series of events that set electric vehicles in the USA back by more than a decade. And gave Honda and other Japanese automakers a head start in the US and World Hybrid market..
GM came out with the EV1 electric vehicle to comply with the regulations while they tried to get the regulations overturned. All the while arguing that no one wanted electric cars and that there wouldn't be any demand for them.
Once CARB's ZEV regulations were overturned by the courts and then Governor Schwarzenegger the majority of EV1 electric cars in were destroyed by GM, a few non-functional shells here and there still exist. Afterwards GM's PR department went into spin control and ret conned that the EV1 program was never more than a "feasibility study" that showed people didn't want electric cars at the time.
All the gory details can be found in "Who Killed the Electric Car" [wikipedia.org]. Worth the time to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
That's history. Today EV are here.
Also existing for trucks already, and rapidly growing in that segment, even if still negligible adoption today.
What Counts is Total Emissions (Score:2)
Rigorous life cycle analysis has shown electric cars have larger total life cycle emissions than liquid fuel vehicles.
Better hope the electric/zero emission trucks are NOT made in California or there will be NO emissions Benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Rigorous life cycle analysis has shown electric cars have larger total life cycle emissions than liquid fuel vehicles.
Isn't that highly dependent on the source of the electricity? Other factors come into play as well, such as miles driven, average number of passengers (and other factors that affect weight), climate, and terrain.
I'm not a fan of electric cars. They appear to be very limited in function and utility unless one is able to afford a new top end car like a Tesla, which can sell for as much as many houses around where I live. (That would be suburban Midwest USA.) Then comes that a lot of the electricity in the
Sucks for minorites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh. No.
So all truck dealerships in California close (Score:2)
Problem solved ... plenty of other states to buy your trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they also get to regulate what is considered "road legal" within state borders, don't they? Likewise, they can control taxes on fuel, right?
If people just go out of state to buy non-zero emission vehicles, they can just jack the taxes on fuel through the roof. I'm sure the trucking companies will be eager to switch to zero-emission vehicles when they start getting bills for $50 per gallon for diesel.
And of course, the trucking companies can just load up a tanker and park it somewhere to refuel
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the trucking companies will be eager to switch to zero-emission vehicles when they start getting bills for $50 per gallon for diesel.
They can just pass those costs on to you, the consumer.
That is actually how the real world works.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the trucking companies will be eager to switch to zero-emission vehicles when they start getting bills for $50 per gallon for diesel.
Says the person that doesn't understand how the energy market works.
If diesel fuel hits $50/gallon then that means electricity prices went up to match. Even though very little diesel fuel is used to make electricity today there is still a direct connection between the price of energy regardless of it's source.
What happens if diesel fuel prices go up? Well, natural gas vehicles are a thing. It's not like we don't know how to make them. Plenty of them are sold as fleet vehicles. If diesel fuel prices go
Re: What a bunch of idiots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now this would be possible. School buses make short trips in the morning, park for part of the day and then more short trips in the afternoon.
Just put in some charging stations at the local tavern that the drivers hang out at for lunch. Ha, ha. Just kidding. It's two blocks from the district bus yard.
Re: (Score:3)
You've never been to California, have you?
Yes, there are densely-populated parts. But those areas are nowhere as densely populated as any major European or East-coast city.
But then there's the parts outside the big cities. They resemble Wyoming in density.
2035 is much too late (Score:2)
Yes, 2035 is much too late.