EPA Proposes New Rules To Cut Heavy Truck Emissions (autonews.com) 67
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday said it was proposing new rules to cut smog-forming and greenhouse gas emissions from heavy duty vehicles. From a report: The agency is proposing to require cuts in nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy trucks of 47 percent to 60 percent by 2045. The new standards would begin in the 2027 model year. Separately, the Transportation Department is announcing nearly $1.5 billion in funding for 2022 to help state and local governments purchase U.S.-built electric transit buses and low-emission models. The department is also announcing $2.2 billion in funding to 35 transit agencies across 18 states. The EPA is also proposing stricter new greenhouse gas emissions standards for some types of heavy vehicles.
Re: (Score:1)
You are NOT helping the stereotype that conservatives are a bunch of ADHD troglodytes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a human troll, a trollBot would do better
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:2)
California did this (Score:2)
John Oliver has a video on the scam, and it's horrifying. He had a guy who worked 100 hours and got paid something like $0.37 cents. The rest of the money went to pay for the gas and maintenance on the new truck. This was 2008 and he had zero job prospects in the crashing economy so he signed a bad contract out of desperation.
I'm no
Re: (Score:2)
The scam had little if anything to do with the California law.
The California law achieved it's goal of reducing emissions. The fact that some some Truck companies suckered a bunch of people is an entirely different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On a very different note, California did this, and now the feds are doing it too... much later.
But even California is really behind where we really need to be, we've just done what's realistic given all the powers that are profiting from the current situation, who fight change.
Heavy trucks are actually an ideal case for electrification because they can reasonably carry big heavy batteries, and have good frame access so those batteries can be swapped. So what matters is not so much energy density or weight a
Re: (Score:1)
Un-elected bureaucrats essentially making "law" needs to be reigned in.
It'll be interesting to see if this next case does that somewhat.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules on the coming cases soon, about the EPA and their ability to come up with rules/laws on their own without the rules coming directly from congress.
Un-elected bureaucrats essentially making "law" needs to be reigned in.
It'll be interesting to see if this next case does that somewhat.
Un-elected CEOs essentially making "law" needs to be reigned in too, but LOL at that ever happening when Bribery is legal because it's "lobbying"
Re: (Score:2)
Then tell your congressman and senators to change the law that enables the bureaucrats making "law" (read: regulations). Then, after a while, you can instead complain about how necessary changes are not getting done and how congress-critters don't know anything about the environmental laws they are voting on.
Re: (Score:1)
That's what I am doing.
And those congress critters can have experts come in and brief them, and make recommendations.
Considering how little time those congress critters actually spend IN Washington a
Re: (Score:2)
On a very different note, California did this, and now the feds are doing it too... much later.
But even California is really behind where we really need to be, we've just done what's realistic given all the powers that are profiting from the current situation, who fight change.
Heavy trucks are actually an ideal case for electrification because they can reasonably carry big heavy batteries, and have good frame access so those batteries can be swapped. So what matters is not so much energy density or weight as it is price. Why don't we have EV trucks with hybrid batteries (pairing a small high C rate battery with a big cheap low C rate battery) rolling around right now, at least in California?
Because a truck cannot weigh more than 80,000# without an overweight permit, a generic semi truck and enclosed "van body" trailer weighs 38,000-42,000# empty (more if its a refrigerated trailer and/or a sleeper cab truck, less for a non-insulated trailer or a day cab truck).
Every pound that the battery pack that adds to the truck empty weight is one less pound that the truck can haul from point A to point B, so a heavier truck means that the truck driver cannot haul as much and thus cannot make as much per
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy trucks are actually an ideal case for electrification because they can reasonably carry big heavy batteries.
Only if you are willing to accept being able to put less goods on them. There are maximum legal weights a truck can be, in the UK its 44 tonnes, any weight of the batteries gets taken off that so if you up the unladen weight of the truck by 4 or 5 tonnes which you'd need to, that's 4 or 5 tonnes less goods it can carry. The road infrastructure, particularly things like bridges, is designed to cope with a maximum gross weight of a vehicle. In order to exceed that weight limit the truck becomes an abnormal lo
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you could get a "marginal" increase in weight carried by not filling your fuel tank. Some trucks have 1,000 liter fuel tanks, which is basically a metric ton of fuel. If you fill only 1/4, you magically can carry another 750 kg of load (in exchange for needing to refuel more often).
You can't do that with electrics.
Re: (Score:2)
Long haul trucking should all be done by RAIL, not trucks driven by one guy. And, that should be ELECTRIFIED rail.
Self-driving trains is a much easier problem than self-driving trucks.
Last mile is a different story.
Re: (Score:1)
> Self-driving trains is a much easier problem than self-driving trucks.
But it saves less as a proportion. A crew of just few can pull hundreds of railroad cars. The ratio of crew to cargo is much higher with trucks, and thus driver automation pays off more.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah sure, this is bad and all, but what are these stories doing on slashdot... Also, it's just a proposal, nothing has actually happened yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Because everything is related to everything else. Wake up.
Re: (Score:1)
I really don't think we want want government to own and plan means of production [wordnik.com]...that generally hasn't worked out that well in the past.
Well, at least not for the ordinary citizenry.
Re: (Score:2)
The USPS has worked out quite well for over 200 years before the GOP set their sites on it being privatized and started sabotaging it to try and make it unsuccessful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There was a regulation which had a loophole. Fix the loophole don't pretend regulations can't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In line with GOP Theology. (Score:4, Interesting)
The GOP keeps saying that new tech will solve our emissions problems. This law is saying, great, we got the new tech, now we just have to get people to use it. So we will restrict new emissions, encouraging people to buy trucks made with the new, less polluting tech.
Of course, they will yell and scream about it, making false accusations of communism and excess regulations, but this is basically what the GOP has been asking for.
We got the new tech, now we just have to use it.
Re: (Score:3)
The rich spend billions pushing the agenda that such regulations "kill jobs and make things more expensive". However, a bleeped up planet is also expensive, perhaps more so. The CA wildfires were not cheap, for example.
Further energy dependence on other countries puts us at ask being oil-kicked during a war, as we are seeing now. Even if USA drilled more here, OPEC can still yank us around because USA oil is still sold on a world market at world prices.
When I try to get into the actual math of weighing the
Re: (Score:2)
My conservative mom believes it's because their religion makes them honest. But when I point out church members doing bad things, it's "because the Devil works harder to tempt church members".
Seems like you oughta be able to work out the math on how their supposed religious superiority is balanced or overriden by the Devil's efforts
Re: (Score:2)
I'm conservative in the plain English sense of the word: it it ain't broke, don't fix it; don't buy it unless you have the money to pay for it; don't start a fight, but be prepared in case someone else does.
"Conservative" politicians and their followers are not conservative in that sense, and Trump is one of the least conservative presidents we've ever had.
Re: (Score:1)
> Trump is one of the least conservative presidents we've ever had.
He's certainly flip-flopped on a lot of things over the years. The only consistency seems to be forms of bigotry and/or xenophobia. He likes the idea of a master race, master country, master dictator, etc. He's addicted to ranking, and has to rank everything, which means ethnic groups MUST be ranked.
Re: (Score:1)
Some are more Hitlerier than others.
Re: (Score:1)
Look at the body work of their dog-whistle-esque quotes. Don wins hands down.
Re: (Score:1)
Don's comments are public record. If you care, you can easily look them up yourself. If you don't care, then keep your head in the sand.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the claims themselves are more elements of battle than of belie
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP keeps saying that new tech will solve our emissions problems.
They also say that if you actually buy any of it then you're a commie liberal who hates bald eagles and the American way..
Re: (Score:2)
The regulation needs to be paced such that technology can keep up. This wasn't done in the 70's and 80's and we ended up with two decades of extremely shitty cars. Now that manufacturers have caught up, the end result is that new cars are way more expensive than they should be. But now EVs are here and on the way to being mainstream. So it's working out.
Push. But not too fast. If EPA declares "Thou Shalt Eliminate 95% NOx by 2027" (what they did in 1970 - 1975), there will be unintended consequences.
I
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, we had less than a decade of the problem, but it was there in the '70s. My dad had a problem car.whose solution was to disengage the new-fangled electronic emmission controls - worked great after that. However, I don't think that was because the technology couldn't keep up, I think it was because the big three didn't keep up w
Finally! (Score:1)
Those truck drivers can stop wearing those pesky masks they've been complaining about! :-)
(Might even save them some fuel, instead of convoying all over the place to complain ...)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, at least the truckers were actually mostly peaceful, and weren't looting, committing arson and actually killing people like the BLM summer of love just a short while ago when they were complaining.
I'm guessing those burning courthouses and other buildings across the US contributed a fare bit of carbon emissions to the atm
Re: (Score:1)
Well, at least the truckers were actually mostly peaceful, and weren't looting, committing arson and actually killing people like the BLM summer of love just a short while ago when they were complaining. ... burning courthouses and other buildings across the US ...
Seems like you forgot (or misspelled) "Jan 6th Insurrectionists", who trashed the US Capital Building and threatened to "hang [Vice President] Mike Pence", specifically harm other elected federal officials and interfered with an official federal election process -- events which were actually more recent. Unless you're okay with all that ...
Re: (Score:2)
I paid attention in my city, partly because the riots were close to my workplace (though I was working from home most of that time) The looters and rioters were definitely not the BLM protesters. They were gang-bangers hanging on after the peaceful protesters went home. I'm sure that was the case in most
Re: (Score:1)
Potato....PoTAHto.
Sigh (Score:2)
You guys don't really understand that US trucking has been a sub-replacement industry since 2009, and that this is one of the reasons we're in the shipping crisis today?
And that the regulations for "safety" and "the environment" issued by fiat the LAST time a dem president was currying favor made that radically worse?
And that there is no electrical vehicle replacement for the *vast* majority of the semi-trucks on the road today? No amount of hand-waving will make them exist by 2027 and and attempt to do so
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost as if you didn't even read the summary before typing all that.
New trucks must meet the standards in 2027.
The target for all trucks is in 2045. That means you can keep on truckin' your old truck until then. Hopefully the prices will have come down by 2045 thanks to all those massive conglomerates paying for the initial R&D.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if you didn't even read the summary before typing all that.
New trucks must meet the standards in 2027.
The target for all trucks is in 2045. That means you can keep on truckin' your old truck until then. Hopefully the prices will have come down by 2045 thanks to all those massive conglomerates paying for the initial R&D.
Hopefully they can at least make the existing emissions reliable by then because (so far) they haven't figured that part out with the existing mandates, let alone adding more onto it.
Also, remember that its a tradeoff, currently we reduce particulate emissions at the expense of burning more diesel fuel.
Aaron Z
UnSigh (Score:1)
> And that there is no electrical vehicle replacement for the *vast* majority of the semi-trucks on the road today?...No amount of hand-waving will make them exist by 2027
You make it sound like TFA said most or all trucks are to be replaced by electric trucks by 2027. I don't see that in the article. Did I read it wrong? It's a combination of measures, some via adding better filters to existing trucks, and may not apply to all trucks.
Example quote:
"The EPA is also proposing stricter new greenhouse gas em
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that unless the US trucking industry can push the costs of dirty diesel engines and unsafe practices onto general society (known as privatizing profits and socializing costs) then they can't stay viable. Then there is something wrong with the industry model. Everyone is paying for increased medical costs for this. Not to mention the damage done to publicly funded roads by heavy trucks, not fully paid for by truck registration and fuel taxes. Yes, everyone benefits to some exten
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that unless the US trucking industry can push the costs of dirty diesel engines and unsafe practices onto general society (known as privatizing profits and socializing costs) then they can't stay viable. Then there is something wrong with the industry model.
Indeed and that problem with the industry model is that the consumer wants goods for as cheap as possible which means costs have to be cut and most often the case it is the transportation of those goods that end up bearing the brunt of the cuts. Walmart for example will pay its hauliers the absolute bare minimum it can and try to scew the mileage rates down to less than cost if possible. If a trucking company cannot make sufficient profit to be able to invest in new trucks then it can't buy them.
Biden admin seeking oil from Iran and Venezuela (Score:1)
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Apparently buying oil from countries that hate us is "environmentally friendly."
@ShellenbergerMD
There are people out there talking about how more renewables could have prevented Putin's invasion. That's ridiculous. Only more nuclear and natural gas could have.
The West needs to pull its head out of its ass or the green Rousseauians are going to get us all killed
Re: (Score:2)
Until we get the infrastucture in place for shipping Liquified Natural Gas, more natural gas won't help Europe avoid Putin's pipelined gas.
Also ... (Score:2)
Sounds great! I am sure this (Score:2)
Fewer trucks, more trains (Score:2)
While curtailing tailpipe emissions is definitely a good idea, providing incentives for shifting long-range transportation onto the energy-efficient rail system will do even more good. Not only will we, as a society pollute less from emissions, there will be fewer tires ground to dust on the roads, less traffic overall, and, perhaps most importantly, fewer traffic accidents and deaths.
Rail is the way to go for long-distance shipping, not trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Overdue - OSHA Lists Hazards (Score:2)
Back door (Score:2)
As I understand it, the primary pollutants from trucks that affect people's health are still particulates and sulfur oxides.
NOx maybe is an issue for gasoline powered trucks, but it pales in comparison to the ones above.
I suspect that this rule is a way to leverage a less important pollutant as a back-door way to cut down on CO_2, like Obama did with power plants, that Trump negated, that Biden has reinstated.
Scotus may soon put an end to these games.
Missing the point (Score:1)