California Drops Its Pending Zero-Emission Truck Rules (msn.com) 100
In 2022 California's Air Resources Board issued regulations to ban new diesel truck sales by 2036, remembers the Los Angeles Times, and force the owners of diesel trucks to take them off the road by 2042. "The idea was to replace those trucks with electric and hydrogen-powered versions, which dramatically reduce emissions but are currently two to three times more expensive."
But it would've required a federal waiver to enforce those rules — which isn't going to happen: The Biden administration hadn't granted the waivers as of this week, and rather than face almost certain denial by the incoming Trump administration, the state withdrew its waiver request... Trucking representatives had filed a lawsuit to block the rules, arguing they would cause irreparable harm to the industry and the wider economy.
The nonprofit news site CalMatters notes the withdrawal "comes after the Biden administration recently approved the California Air Resources Board's mandate phasing out new gas-powered cars by 2035, but had not yet approved other waivers for four diesel vehicle standards that the state has adopted... California may have to suspend any future rule-making for vehicles over the next four years of the Trump administration and rely instead on voluntary agreements with engine manufacturers, trucking companies, railroads and other industries."
The Los Angeles Times adds that California "could, however, pursue waivers at some point in the future." Under America's federal Clean Air Act, "California is allowed to set its own air standards, and other states are allowed to follow California's lead. But federal government waivers are required..."
But it would've required a federal waiver to enforce those rules — which isn't going to happen: The Biden administration hadn't granted the waivers as of this week, and rather than face almost certain denial by the incoming Trump administration, the state withdrew its waiver request... Trucking representatives had filed a lawsuit to block the rules, arguing they would cause irreparable harm to the industry and the wider economy.
The nonprofit news site CalMatters notes the withdrawal "comes after the Biden administration recently approved the California Air Resources Board's mandate phasing out new gas-powered cars by 2035, but had not yet approved other waivers for four diesel vehicle standards that the state has adopted... California may have to suspend any future rule-making for vehicles over the next four years of the Trump administration and rely instead on voluntary agreements with engine manufacturers, trucking companies, railroads and other industries."
The Los Angeles Times adds that California "could, however, pursue waivers at some point in the future." Under America's federal Clean Air Act, "California is allowed to set its own air standards, and other states are allowed to follow California's lead. But federal government waivers are required..."
Term Limits (Score:1, Troll)
Trump won't be around in 2036, and if he did declare himself Emperor for life, California wouldn't be the only state to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just apply for a California job then? If you have tech skills, you should be able to land a job for at least 65k, which in San Diego will at least afford you a one bedroom apartment.
If your wife and you both work, you could even do better and you wouldn't live where ever you live now.
Re: (Score:1)
> don't have the money to move to California
It's not just the poor that can't afford California. Twice as many folks making 200k or more are moving out than moving in. So it's no wonder you choose to stay in Nazi Georgia with neighbors that you call "retards".
In fact, California is overall trending terribly not just in terms of affordability, but also in crime, K-12, homelessness, and fire prevention.
So consider Florida? It's trending quite well in all of the categories California struggles with. And it'
Re:Term Limits (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, California is overall trending terribly not just in terms of affordability, but also in crime, K-12, homelessness, and fire prevention.
Citation needed. Oh, you can't provide one, because other than affordability, everything you just said is wrong:
Also, almost two-thirds of wildfires in California start on federal lands, where California has no control over the fire management. This is not accidental. California has been complaining about federal fire management for decades. There's only so much you can do when the deck is stacked against you.
So consider Florida? It's trending quite well in all of the categories California struggles with.
How's that? The hurricanes seem to be getting worse and more frequent, and it has the second-highest rate of fraud in the country [miaminewtimes.com], behind only Georgia. (In most years, Florida has been the worst.)
It's also "fascist" and its governor is quite popular on a bipartisan basis, which might lead to fellow democrats improperly altering your world view.
How is DeSantis popular on a bipartisan basis? He has only a 10% approval rating [floridapolitics.com] and a 72% disapproval rating among Democrats according to a poll from a month ago.
If you want a state with a governor that is actually liked by both parties, try Kentucky.
Re: (Score:1)
In fact, California is overall trending terribly not just in terms of affordability, but also in crime, K-12, homelessness, and fire prevention.
Citation needed. Oh, you can't provide one, because other than affordability, everything you just said is wrong:
"The violent crime rate has dropped from being one of the worst states in 1979 to being somewhere in the middle."
California's crime rate is significantly higher than 2019 in virtually every major city. Check out Oakland and LA city crime stats, which you "forgot" to cite. Plus note that you "mysteriously" chose 1979 as the baseline instead of the far more logical 2019 which was just before your failed "defund the police" experiment started.
"California's K-12 schools are only ranked lower than the rest of th
Re: (Score:2)
California's crime rate is significantly higher than 2019 in virtually every major city. Check out Oakland and LA city crime stats, which you "forgot" to cite.
Still near record lows. Minor variations from year to year are not a trend.
Plus note that you "mysteriously" chose 1979 as the baseline instead of the far more logical 2019 which was just before your failed "defund the police" experiment started.
Why would that be "far more logical"? Crime rates vary from year to year. You need to average over five or ten years just to have a number you can do anything with. Your approach involves comparing two noisy values, so you're getting noise as the output.
Most Oakland crime rates are in about the same range as they have been for the last decade or more. Car thefts [sfchronicle.com] are up, presumably because of gentrification.
Thus far, there's no i
Re: (Score:1)
California's crime rate is significantly higher than 2019 in virtually every major city. Check out Oakland and LA city crime stats, which you "forgot" to cite.
Still near record lows. Minor variations from year to year are not a trend.
That word "near" is doing a lot of misleading heavy lifting. Crime in California is undeniably way up since 2019.
Plus note that you "mysteriously" chose 1979 as the baseline instead of the far more logical 2019 which was just before your failed "defund the police" experiment started.
Why would that be "far more logical"? Crime rates vary from year to year. You need to average over five or ten years just to have a number you can do anything with. Your approach involves comparing two noisy values, so you're getting noise as the output.
Not really noisy. There was an undeniably huge leap after "defund". You are so anxious to hide it that you're choosing an ancient 45 year old baseline. Also it's undeniable that Oakland is a disintegrating mess that has nothing to do with gentrification and everything to do with defunding plus lax prosecutions - its mayor was just recalled for a reason.
"California's K-12 schools are only ranked lower than the rest of the country because California has a much larger non-native speaker population. When you exclude scores from people who are still learning English, it is pretty much average."
You're making excuses for the abysmal drop in California's rankings without considering the full context that the drop started after instituting self defeating policies like handing out jobs and diplomas based on identity, canceling advanced classes, deemphasizing standardized testing as "racism", mainstreaming, whole word learning, "Seattle Math", etc -- particularly in inner cities that, in California, have no natural defenses against progressive shenanigans.
Citation needed.
California's education initiatives are heavi
Re: (Score:2)
California's crime rate is significantly higher than 2019 in virtually every major city. Check out Oakland and LA city crime stats, which you "forgot" to cite.
Still near record lows. Minor variations from year to year are not a trend.
That word "near" is doing a lot of misleading heavy lifting. Crime in California is undeniably way up since 2019.
Way up? No. A few percent higher, yes. But what's the normal year-to-year variation?
Look at the trend [ppic.org] not the year-by year, and you see a different picture. After a nearly continuous drop, there was a small increase in violent crime in 2020 through 2022, and then it started going back down again. And a lot of other things were happening during those years. Pandemic lockdowns turned out to significantly increase the rate of domestic violence, and a lot of criminals were released as part of prisons' CO
Re: (Score:1)
That's a bit ridiculous from my viewpoint.
-Chiefly blame the power companies, yet they're arguably better regulated in other states, and there is essentially insignificant impediment to government itself instead directly clearing brush on public and private lands (other than environmentalist foot dragging). As amply evidenced by private entities like the Getty foundation successfully doing mass brush clearance. Furthermore, you agree with me about the SF Eucalyptus debacle yet don't see it is a valid critic
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit ridiculous from my viewpoint.
-Chiefly blame the power companies, yet they're arguably better regulated in other states, and there is essentially insignificant impediment to government itself instead directly clearing brush on public and private lands (other than environmentalist foot dragging). As amply evidenced by private entities like the Getty foundation successfully doing mass brush clearance. Furthermore, you agree with me about the SF Eucalyptus debacle yet don't see it is a valid criticism of chiefly blaming the power companies...
Violating federal law by destroying an endangered species is very different from random people protesting removal of trees that they like. The fact that the Getty foundation was able to do it means that the power companies could, too. State regulators can't easily force the companies to do brush removal (assuming that would even solve the problem, which as noted previously, it likely won't more often than not). They can only punish them when failing to do so results in harm. Changing that would require
Re: (Score:1)
>>As your probably aware, Michael Shellenberger has written extensively and persuasively about California homelessness.
>Never heard of him. Actually, no, the name sounds vaguely familiar, but only vaguely.
He's a democrat that spent years working for Cali homeless folks, then years extensively researching why other states and countries were doing a better job, and then wrote a best selling book about it all.
His research included discovering European countries that tried California's methods and saw
Re: (Score:2)
So consider Florida? It's trending quite well in all of the categories California struggles with.
How's that? The hurricanes seem to be getting worse and more frequent, and it has the second-highest rate of fraud in the country [miaminewtimes.com], behind only Georgia. (In most years, Florida has been the worst.)
Fraud has nothing to do with hurricanes.
I never said it did. But you're saying Florida is great on crime, whereas it's actually a place where the elderly to go get preyed upon by scammers. You're saying California is bad because of natural disasters while Florida is great in spite of them. See why I'm rolling my eyes now?
You're the one that first falsely conflated fraud and hurricanes - and introduced fraud as a red herring to distract from overall crime- not I.
I conflated nothing. You said that it was doing better in all the areas California had troubles with, which included natural disasters (fire). Mentioning hurricanes is entirely on point.
Both states are prone to natural disasters. Florida prepares for them and handles them better.
Florida's natural disasters are something you can actually prepare for.
Your context free reference is simply designed to hide the fact that, for example, Miami is one of the only major cities that didn't "defund", and that saw its crime rate significantly drop since 2019.
I don't disagree that the "defund the police" movement resulted in many cities going too far. But the point remains that the crime rate hasn't gone up *that* much in most of California, even with those questionable decisions. And that was my point. Y
Re: Term Limits (Score:1)
A fatso in his 80's that lives on cheeseburgers won't get to be 90. But maybe he will pass his Presidency down to an heir.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was trending with billionaires to get blood transfusions from their children and grand children, like some kind of freaking ghoul.
Things are going to get especially weird when the singularity comes and we're either ruled by some immortal elders or the AI they lost control of. Luckily for Trump, he's not going to have to face any of those consequences of that very likely future.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he uses one of those goa'uld sarcophagi. Would explain the megalomania and intense notions of superiority...
Tine for Environment Annie again (Score:3, Funny)
The battery tech just isn't there (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get me wrong EV trucks are absolutely fantastic for a lot of use cases. City governments love them when they can afford them because you don't have to spend time and money putting gas in a vehicle the end of the day and you're really just making a lot of short drives around fixing things like the sprinkler systems at your parks and recs. I can see the post office loving EV vans for although I think the current administration is going to stop the deployment of them.
But at least right now if you need to tow stuff long distances, which is a very common use case, an electric truck doesn't cut it.
And then you're left with the same problem 3D TVs have where a substantial portion of your user base can't use your product and so you can't take advantage of economies of scale properly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For class 8 trucks if you have the charging infrastructure on place, electric is viable. There's a guy in Germany documenting on YouTube driving his electric semi for fairly long haul trips (up to 900 km per day). His range is typically just under 300 km loaded to about 40 tonnes gvw. Very interesting to watch. Charging infrastructure has a ways to go. But so far he's pretty happy with how it's working out. He says he's not interested in going back to diesel. Even with EU electrical prices he's spending les
Re: (Score:2)
Make that 1.3kwh per km.
Re: (Score:2)
For class 8 trucks if you have the charging infrastructure on place, electric is viable. There's a guy in Germany documenting on YouTube driving his electric semi for fairly long haul trips (up to 900 km per day). His range is typically just under 300 km loaded to about 40 tonnes gvw. Very interesting to watch. Charging infrastructure has a ways to go. But so far he's pretty happy with how it's working out. He says he's not interested in going back to diesel. Even with EU electrical prices he's spending less than on diesel. And he loves how quiet the truck is and that he can maintain speed going up hills and then get the power back regenerating down the hill. Driving through the castle mountain area I think he said he got averaged about 1.3 kw per km. Anyway his channel is called Electric Trucker.
The problem isn’t batteries don’t work, or electric trucks are impossible, it’s basic physics on a high school level. Trucks weigh alot more than cars, they are larger. They simply get worse mileage as a result. Now my f-150 has the tow package, which nearly doubles the gas tank size to 36 gallons for a reason. When towing a 20+ foot long 8’ wide 7’ tall trailer my gas mileage is about halved best case. A regular car maybe has a 12-15 gallon tank, economical cars smaller
Re: (Score:2)
you describe the problems of EV trucks accurately.
The other basic HS physics problem is that continuing to use ICE vehicles is quite literally causing the slow (in human terms) and lightning fast (in earth terms) destruction of the environment.
The inventions to overcome the former probably don't happen before the latter hits and hits hard; especially since a good junk of that hit is already banked and just starting to affect us.
That's where the real problem surfaces. There are going to be some use cases th
Re: The battery tech just isn't there (Score:1)
See...everything has costs.
Burning hydrocarbons drilled from the ground for transportation fuel has costs.
Allowing a certain privileged class of people to determine what use of transportation fuel is "allowed" and what counts as "work" also has costs. Different kinds of costs, to be sure, but costs nevertheless.
Perhaps before we go imposing those latter costs on ourselves, we should ask, how's that going to work out for human prosperity as a whole, rather than the narrow goal of cutting one kind of pollutio
Re: (Score:1)
There are going to be some use cases that can't be done via EVs and we need to tell people that hauling their skidoos around isn't allowed while still allowing work trucks for 'work'.
So you want to ban all towing that is done for recreational purposes. That'll be boats, campers, ATVs, motorcyles, etc al etc. If it's for fun, too damn bad. Do you have any idea how big a chunk of the economy that is? All of the production, maintenance, and operating expenditures, camping/usage fees, tourism, eating out and such. Just directly you are looking at about 2% of GDP and over 4 million employees (3% of all).
Those people, along with everyone who owns a recreational usage item, are going to w
Re: (Score:2)
Those people, along with everyone who owns a recreational usage item, are going to want to hang your authoritarian ass from the nearest light pole.
I was thinking maybe dragging him behind one of those snowmobiles. A two-stroke one, those are still the best.
Re: (Score:1)
Those people, along with everyone who owns a recreational usage item, are going to want to hang your authoritarian ass from the nearest light pole.
I was thinking maybe dragging him behind one of those snowmobiles. A two-stroke one, those are still the best.
Still the best outboards too. And you won't have to go very fast for him to stay on top of the water. Clothes will quickly become optional.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a thought experiment your moron. I get you probably don't do that much.
Fuck off yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The question is what are the people who want to do 'recreational towing' planning to do in regards to the damage they are causing the rest of us?
As another poster correctly noted, everything has costs. Not addressing climate change is being measured northwards of 40 trillion dollars. Full green conversion would be probably 10-20.
But enjoy your skidoos now so you're kids can foot that bill.
The question was serious. If we can't get rid of ICEs entirely...we have to figure something out. Recreational
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start with cancelling all air travel then. Toss in no more cruise ships or yachts. Also, we need to reduce the size of homes to something like the 50s. That's something around 1000sq 3bed 1 bath.
What? No? Guess the environment gets screwed then.
We'll just adapt to a shittier environment and poorer people will take the brunt of it. Pretty much how all of human history has worked.
You aren't necessarily wrong but humans are our own worse enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
"Let's start with cancelling all air travel then."
Which is sorta funny as China is building a massive high speed rail network to do just that. Basically, NYC to Chicago in just 2-3 hours. People scream they building more coal plants when in reality they're already *retiring* more per year than we are. They installed more solar just last year (2023) than the US has installed in total.
They will be eating our lunch on renewable in short order.
And yes, we've clearly chosen to YOLO it as a species instead of
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe part of the solution is to admit that picking BEV as the winner was a bit of a mistake and not the complete solution. Maybe as much money should have been poured into other solutions like creating hydrocarbons from carbon-neutral sources. It's very hard to beat the energy density and ease of handling of a hydrocarbon liquid. Plus the infrastructure is all there. With emission controls to prevent pollution, and with no net CO2 emissions, Conventional ICE vehicles in certain forms will remain the mo
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is time. We need *something* to convert 1.5 billion ICE vehicles and BEVs exist now. Not perfect but getting more viable every year. Price is definitely an issue, but the gov't should be subsidizing them far more and pay for it by borrowing against lowered nat disasters in 30 years. Obviously that concept is toast for at least the next 4 years in the US.
As the saying goes, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish to have. Nothing else comes close to BEVs at this point.
Re: (Score:1)
The question is what are the people who want to do 'recreational towing' planning to do in regards to the damage they are causing the rest of us?
As another poster correctly noted, everything has costs.
You try to ban people's recreational toys and the cost will be a total loss of political power for "your side". And then things will swing back the other way and become even worse. EV's will have to be phased in. The tech for many applications just isn't there yet and that's without even talking about the charging infrastructure.
What you want to occur and the speed of it's adoption is irrelevant. It's what you can convince the voting public to accept. Push too hard and they will kick you to the curb.
Re: (Score:2)
See what you missing is the unfairness baked into your statement.
'delivering business supplies' ok what if those business supplies are say equipment to build another GPU cluster to scale and trans-code video for a streaming service? The end use is still essentially recreational is it not?
Online gaming according to google (for whatever that is worth as a source) accounts for 3.7 of greenhouse emissions. That is huge when motor fuel is 32%. If it isnt okay of Jim to pull his camper, on what basis is it alri
Re: (Score:2)
Not missing it, It's a thought experiment. Where do you draw the line?
The line *will* get drawn for us before long. We can start mitigating the coming disaster or just keep whistling over the V8s rolling coal while Miami floods.
There are no 'good' options left, but there are very much worse options...that denigrating any question of status quo has us marching headlong into.
That's the tough part (Score:1)
None of these sort of places are that remote so over time they'll probably get chargers, but it's a long ways off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> But at least right now if you need to tow stuff long distances, which is a very common use case, an electric truck doesn't cut it.
Right, everyone likes to ignore 95% of the driving they do to consider the 5% use case. You could drive an EV most of the time and rent a ICE truck when you need one.
Or.....you could just own what you want to. After all it is your money.
Re: (Score:2)
Or I could still own my paid for 12 year old ICE truck that is still in perfectly good working condition and still do whatever I want. With no insanely expensive monthly payments. And no expensive "recycling" of the vehicle, "recycling" that would do more damage to the environment than any EV would ever dream of offsetting.
Anyone wants to tell me I'm going to have to spend $50K+ for some EV that doesn't do half of what I have now does or I can't have anything? They will have a severe case of rapid onset lea
Re: (Score:2)
>You could drive an EV most of the time and rent a ICE truck when you need one.
What if everyone needs one at the same time, like trying to evacuate from a hurricane? Basically the entirety of south florida can never own an EV as an only car for this reason. Oh and also, winter is way shittier on an EV than on an ICEV so there's a lot of places in the north where you can never own an EV as an only car. In both of these cases, the times you would need an ICEV are the exact times when everyone else does,
Lets do the Math... Shall we? ;-) (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
14.7 million Semi trucks registered in California... times the 815lbs of copper for an EV Semi... Equals 11,980,500,000 lbs of copper. (About half of ALL the copper we as humans have managed to mine, SINCE WE STARTED MINING IT commercially, about 125 years ago!) This would toxify approximately 1.2% of the surface of the Earth, to perform that much copper mining. And would bring 100 million pounds of TOXIC heavy metals, to the surface along side it. These are facts. ;-)
That's interesting. Now I'd like to see the math done how much lithium would be needed. And cobalt. And rare earth metals for the motor magnets and such. I've seen some of the numbers and we aren't moving nearly fast enough to expand mining for these minerals. Part of the problem is from states like California that has so many restrictions on mining that they make it impossible to make a profit, if they allow the mining at all. It seems quite contradictory to demand EVs be produced in large numbers bu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well that is the *real* issue; We don't allow that type of mining because it *is* environmentally destructive. Importantly it tends to have very local very acute impacts vs the very dilute not localized impact of focil fuels when done right.
If are really going to move off carbon (I think that is unrealistic) then we need to acknowledge that it will be incredibly destructive somewhere. Now that somewhere can potentially be where virtually nobody is - like Greenland - but that only solves the storage proble
Re: Lets do the Math... Shall we? ;-) (Score:1)
You are describing a trade-off between different kinds of non-ideal alternatives.
The thing about a place like the West, which has been wealthy and effectively post-scarcity (by historical standards of anatomically modern humans) is that the idea of there being such a thing as *only* non-ideal alternatives is alien to the psychology of the average decisionmaker. Perhaps there is still the mythical Everyman who understands that pain, suffering, and choices among bad options are a fact of life, but the upper c
The numbers are wrong [Re:Lets do the Math...] (Score:5, Informative)
But the numbers here are wrong. As far as I can tell, Mr. A.C. just made up figures and assumed nobody would check.
14.7 million Semi trucks registered in California...
According to Forbes [forbes.com], "Approximately 1.8 million heavy-duty trucks on California's roads will be affected by the new regulation."
11,980,500,000 lbs of copper [off by an order of magnitude] is about half of ALL the copper we as humans have managed to mine, SINCE WE STARTED MINING IT
According to the USGS [usgs.gov], "roughly 700 million metric tons of copper have been produced around the world". A metric ton is 2205 pounds. So that's 1.5 trillion pounds, not 24 billion pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
This was done intentionally.
Correct. To intentionally mislead people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then they need to start researching more environmentally-friendly ways to mine, maybe using remote controlled machines below the earth starting at 200-300m down under the soil, as to not only make mining safer, but also to find less toxic ways to do it. Without the research, mining will be just as damaging as it's been, and maybe publicly funding research, which pays off with cleaner ways when licensed by a state dirt cheap with requirements to use it when it leaves no byproduct after mining, might be what
Re: (Score:2)
What's more ironic is we're perfectly okay with China doing exactly what you just said and then we buy it from China. So really, we support it polluting the world, just not our backyard.
It is pretty funny that we're also trying to defacto ban Chinese EVs since our industry can't compete. It's like a double whamy against the American consumer.
Re:Lets do the Math... Shall we? ;-) (Score:4, Interesting)
Cool, Now do it for 500 million passenger cars in North America. Cool? Now do the world... Then you get to 24 billion TONS. (Now that I have your attention. LOL)
ROFL. No. Your math clearly sucks.
A typical battery-electric vehicle (car sized) contains about 183 pounds of copper. There are 1.47 billion cars in the world. That's about 135 million tons of copper to replace every car in the world, which is equivalent to the world's copper mining for a little over five years.
There are only 4 million semi trucks in the entire United States. There are 15.9 million trucks in California, but most of those are pickup trucks, and most of the rest are much smaller than a semi. So most of those are going to contain closer to 183 pounds of copper than to 815 pounds. And I'm pretty sure that at least the pickup trucks are included in that 1.47 billion number.
There are about four million class 8 trucks in the U.S., which likely means there are under 100 million in the world. That's 41 million tons, which is less than the world's copper production for two years. And this is likely to be a high estimate by a factor of two or three.
So you'd likely need less than 176 million tons of copper spread out over 20 years, which is only about 40% of the world's copper mining for EVs. That's a lot, but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
Pro tip: If the industry is telling you that something is possible and your math is showing that it would take orders of magnitude more raw materials than are available, you probably mixed up pounds and tons.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries that use a different chemistry allowing faster charging, longer life, less change of thermal runaway there are several in development that are promising GIY (Google It Yourself)
Better power infrastructure for charging. Renewable are not good enough, Nuclear and hopefully one day Fusion is being worked on
Re: (Score:2)
> 815lbs of copper for an EV Semi
[citation needed]
That's nearly ten times what an EV sedan uses and they do not have that much more horsepower to warrant so much more copper. Show your work.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
What a steaming pile of made up bullshit.
According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), there are more than 400,000 heavy-duty diesel vehicles based in California that obtain registration from the California DMV.
https://www.monitordaily.com/news-posts/california-dmv-likely-to-deny-thousands-of-commercial-trucks-registration/ [monitordaily.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice, now how many come in from out of state?
Total for the entire U.S. is something like 3.6 million class 8 trucks. So not all that many. California has a ninth the population and a ninth of the trucks. Imagine that.
Should have done it in stages (Score:3)
They should have focused on the short-haul industry first. Local deliver vehicles and those that travel less than 300mi per day. Even then the baked in increase in food/items will look like another major price hike due to increased shipping/delivery costs. This is especially true for food producers. Their profit margins are pretty slim comparatively. There wont really be any room to absorb expenses. But at least that shit would be limited to just CA. If they are hell bent on paying $20 for a gallon of milk, let them. Fuck those assholes. If they want to burn their cities to the ground, let them. So long as it doesn’t impact the rest of us. I can already see the feedback loop. Higher shipping costs result in higher prices. Higher prices drive demand for higher wages. Higher wages drive higher overhead costs which drive prices up again. Long haul shipping impacts everyone else. Once it crosses state lines, thats when DoT gets involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There should be little need to force short haul, because it makes so much economic sense. Cheaper to operate, less downtime for maintenance, and the up-front additional cost isn't that great or a big issue for businesses investing in vehicles.
For long haul the tech is developing rapidly and already used in Europe and China. It will happen sooner or later, depending on how competitive the US wants to be.
Re: (Score:2)
im curious about the 'cheaper to operate' and if TCO is considered. Hertz just ditched their entire EV fleet of rentals because maintenance was much higher. In the US we have weigh stations where trucks pay fees based on weight because weight impacts road repairs. If you factor in the weight increase will that drive up road repair and in turn shipping costs because higher tarrifs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hertz bought shitty Teslas, and Tesla couldn't supply parts in a reasonable time. Good EVs are much less work than fossil cars due to being simpler. No exhaust, fuel system, variable gearbox, alternator, radiator, spark plugs, cylinders, engine oil etc. Even the brakes get less wear due to regen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the total weight of the loaded truck won't change because as it stands right now, in California, if your truck is overloaded, you are already breaking the law.
I work for a grocery store and talk with my delivery drivers. The driver (not the company) is responsible for the weight of the truck. When the truck becomes to full, the drive will demand the last pallet or two be taken off the truck so that it's under the maximum legally allowed weight of a loaded truck. We of course have scales at the war
Re: (Score:2)
They should have focused on the short-haul industry first.
Although it's not the way California's regulations require it, many truck manufacturers are starting with short-haul and working their way up to long haul. Many manufacturers are starting with the shortest and lightest applications, school busses. [yale.edu] They are then moving into box trucks, and then tractor-trailer.
When Restrictions Create the Harm. (Score:5, Interesting)
California has no doubt lead the effort to neuter the diesel exhaust pipe for the benefit of all.
That said, any real diesel truck owner will tell you that ever since the modern diesel engine was forced to start breathing through its own asshole (technical description for Exhaust Gas Recirculation), it has killed the traditionally long life of these big engines. Which forces us back through the highly-polluting process of manufacturing engines (and sometimes the rest of the vehicle with it) two to three times more frequently to replace them. Which of course brings us to the don’t-get-me-fuckin’-started topic of pollution caused by our political definition of “recycling”.
Between that and senseless RTO mandates shitting tens of millions of tailpipes back into the atmosphere, I’m not quite sure who’s winning more in the War on Pollution.
Two steps forward, two steps back (Score:2, Informative)
California has no doubt lead the effort to neuter the diesel exhaust pipe for the benefit of all.
I read recently that two of the California 2020 wildfires negated 18 years of climate regulation.
That is to say, two of the 2020 wildfires put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to equal the CO2 savings of 18 years of regulation.
And of course this doesn't count the recent Palisades fire and others around Los Angeles, and the human cost of people losing their homes.
California isn't leading the charge for climate change, they're virtue signaling. There's no principled stance, no bottom-to-top list of actions, no
Re: (Score:3)
Clearing out underbrush, a simple action taken to mitigate the severity of wildfires, would have gone a long ways to prevent a boatload of CO2 from entering the atmosphere.
Tell that to the federal government, which controls fire policy on federal lands, where almost two-thirds of California's wildfires start.
California can only fix what California controls.
Also, it isn't really practical to clear out all of the underbrush on 33 million acres. Conservatively maybe 20 to 30 person hours per acre, you're looking at about a billion person hours. I mean sure, if you could give every person in California a tractor, you'd be done in three days, but in practice, you'd be talking ab
It's about where that pollution goes (Score:1)
For anything made in America it's pretty trivial to prevent the poison from getting into the air. Costly but trivial. And by costly I mean it's slightly impacts the quarterly results for t
Re: (Score:2)
sigh. Fires are common. They are a normal, natural part of nature. Fire in southern California is even more normal and we're still experiencing drought conditions, which makes things worse.
The only reason this fire is such a big deal is because rick folks lost homes. Since those homes were "special" they cost a lot, hence this is the most expensive fire of all time. I'm sure in ten years, that fire will then become the next expensive fire of all time. We call that inflation and it's done on purpose to force
Think globally, act locally (Score:2, Interesting)
They should lead the way and first do something they have 100% control over without Federal waivers.
Going forward they should only buy EV for all government vehicles. Police cars/vans, fire trucks, ambulances, all state owned vehicle staff use, forest service, and whatever boats and planes they have.
Once they've demonstrated how well an all EV fleet works, the rest of the country would naturally just follow.
Re:Think globally, act locally (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bicycle wasn't invented until the 19th century
Re: (Score:2)
According to the Clean Air Act, the government must grant the waivers. They're given no choice in the matter. From https://calmatters.org/environ... [calmatters.org]:
But Congress wrote explicit provisions in federal law about when EPA can reject them: The federal agency can only reject California mandates if they are "arbitrary or capricious," if the state doesn't need them to clean its severe air pollution, or if they are inconsistent with federal law because there is "inadequate lead time" for manufacturers to develop electric cars or other technologies at a reasonable cost.
They cannot legally be rejected for any other reason. But Trump has been very clear that he intends to break the law in this and many other ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the children ?? (Score:4, Insightful)
logistics, warehouses, ports. (Score:1)
They obeyed in advance (Score:2)
truckers (Score:2)
Truck companies have better lobbyists than the avg california joe.
Well, at least that's something (Score:1)
People are so blind (Score:2)