Volkner just yesterday I had to deal with 3 federal and state agencies that I would rather walk barefoot over red hot razor wire while holding a rabid wolverine on my body than deal with. They are FMCSA EPA and IL Sec of State. Why did I have to deal with the EPA yesterday simple one of our trailers while loading yesterday the valve on the shippers side failed and overflowed the freaking trailer. About 500 gallons of pure Hydrocholric acid hit the ground. I had to file the paperwork with the EPA on the spill and got my butt reamed by 2 idiots on why our spill kit failed to keep it contained. Hello the booms we carry are designed for 50-100 gallons not 500 even the plant got in trouble.
The FMCSA was screaming at me due to our Elog provider losing our last 2 months worth of logs when their backup provider had a failure. Luckily they have them on tape. Still did not keep an auditor from screaming at me for 30 mins nonstop threating us with a fine. An then I get to the IL Sec of State. My boss renewed all the plates fleetwide in person at Springfield almost 3 months ago. We still have yet to get our new cab cards for the trucks. If I do not have them by Monday all my trucks are stopped. They cashed the check but have yet to mail out the new cards that will allow my drivers to keep going. Oh how I love Government workers. He gave them over 500 grand almost 3 months ago and they still have yet to give us the paper cards we need.
VOLKER LANDWEHR It would be easier to discuss these matters if you left your contempt for EPA out of this discussion.
It would be easier to discuss these matters if you left your contempt for EPA out of this discussion.
What concern is it, to a person self-identifying as being from Germany, whether an American trucking company worker is expressing frustration that the existing EPA standards are economically burdensome, and that the proposed even stricter standards could put her out of work? When these standards are admitted to be stricter than those in Germany?
The quoted sentence is a patronizing thing to say about an American complaining about a state of affairs in America, especially for persons outside America who are spared this in their home country?
As to the 10 ppm vs 15 ppm sulfur standard, the one point on which European rules are more strict, Europe imports light, sweet (low sulfur) crude oil from the Middle East whereas U.S. refineries work with heavy, sour (high sulfur) crude oils from Venezuala and parts of Canada?
As to leaving contempt for EPA out of this discussion, it is only on account of discussions like this that I know why my family purchased spoiled eggs from a local store, something that was unheard of in recent times. This store that advertises that by paying a fee to the electric company, they are "100 Wind Powered", this store keeps merchandise requiring refrigeration in "reefer" trucks parked behind their building on account of expanding their retail space faster than their refrigerated storage space.
The refrigeration units on these trucks, powered by small Diesel engines and certainly not by wind turbines, and been the subject of an earlier discussion where the "wrong tone towards EPA" (or CARB) had been taken. Apparently the environmental regulations have affected the reliability of those small Diesel engines, and apart from the unapproved discussion taking place here, I would have had no idea why food fresh from the market had to be thrown in the garbage.
Yes, there are health consequences to even low levels of Diesel emissions, but there are also health consequences to eating spoiled food resulting from unreliable refrigeration units.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
It would be easier to discuss these matters if you left your contempt for EPA out of this discussion. If it were not for EPA and similar agencies in other country it would look like the photos in links if industry, truckers etc would have had their way: Essen Ruhr Area 1985: http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/media/thumbs/8/8a15a9ecd50139e7c5f56b48065336c6v3_max_439x329_b3535db83dc50e27c1bb1392364c95a2.jpg
Los Angeles 1970: http://images.hgmsites.net/med/1970s-los-angeles-smog-depicted-in-the-honda-short-film-never-ending-race_100457095_m.jpg
EPA was implemented by Richard Nixon. The administrator is appointed by the President and approved by congress. Its limits are given in laws. So they can't act freely. It is not long ago that you claimed EPA can't be challenged now you tell they were sued and lost. I wrote this before so what is undemocratic about this procedure.
In the early 1990 a new management method reached Germany coming from the USA. It said to manage a company you don't need to know what it does you just must be able to reed the numbers. So many lawyers became CEOs following experts in the field the company was working in.
That seems to have happened at EPA. Do you really think there are no experts within the about 17,000 employees?
Shadow the Cats owner Let's not forget their Coal power Plant emission regualtions that was not only stopped in court but Overturned for being in the words of the court an Overreach of such outrageous overreach that if it is ever proposed again we are going so far as slap a permenet INJUCTION against it.
Do you mean the Clean Power Plan? It was initiated by than President Obama. As far as I know there was a 5:4 vote by the Supreme Court to stay the rules as they were negotiated in lower Federal Courts. Something completely democratic. I didn't learn of a final ruling. Do you have a link for me? But with the new President a ruling might not be needed.
Shadow the Cats ownerWhat they want out of an engine is physically impossible and can not be done.
I don't know what is possible with diesel engine. You complained the lowering of sulfur content to below 15 ppm. I was surprised that this comes only now as below 10 ppm is German standard since 2008. It is much easier to meet NOx limits with less sulfur in the fuel. So you have to judge perhaps lower NOx limit together with lower sulfur content of the fuel. If diesel engines can meet future limits I don't know.Regards, Volker
Here in the USA emissions limits are changed by unelected officals that all they have are college degrees and not one of them have ever worked a day in the real world. Some of them have declared war on industries they hated to the point they have actually been sued in court and LOST. This should give you an idea of how out of control the EPA was getting until the last election. They had proposed regulation of dust from farmers fields said a puddle on the ground was a navigable waterway their Infamous Waters of the World regulaton. Let's not forget their Coal power Plant emission regualtions that was not only stopped in court but Overturned for being in the words of the court an Overreach of such outrageous overreach that if it is ever proposed again we are going so far as slap a permenet INJUCTION against it. Yeah that was what happened in that court case.
What they want out of an engine is physically impossible and can not be done. So the EPA and CARB has 2 choices either accept the status quo or face reality and they will do neither. But then this is an agency that thinks an OTR truck should get 15 MPG.
Paul you asked about penalties for VW in Germany. Till now none.
As said before we don't have class action. Owner who sued VW or their dealers to take their car back had mixed results depending on courts. Mostly the fraud software were deemed an insignificant defect as it can be rectified with just a software update and the request was rejected. Now there are afew ruling caling it fraud and affirming the request. We'll have to wait for a Federal Supreme Court ruling.
Paul MilenkovicThe discussion on this thread is whether the ever more strict U.S. emission limits, and even stricter limits demanded by California, are beyond a point of diminishing economic returns in balancing the costs to meet them against the ever diminishing increment in health from removing the last amount of pollution.
I started to post in this thread when I read the contempt against EPA and CARB to remind that had a lot good things. I agree there has to be a balance between economy and environment. But where is this balance?
In Europe the components of a yoghurt travel 5,500 miles until they reach the buyer. Transport seems too cheap?
Paul MilenkovicDo you suppose the European emission limits strike a better balance between economic prosperity and clean air? Or are the lower European limits the result of political deals with truck drivers or with business owners, deals putting the health of Germans and the other peoples of Europe in peril?
From my point of view the European limits are not better balanced. Especially as they are not enforced. They are tested on a roller test stand using all tricks of the trade. After VW scandal the EU ordered road tests but our government pushed through higher limits than on the test stand and free choice of proving ground.
The truck manufacturers are not the problem. Passenger cars (Euro 6) emit twice as much NO2 per mile than trucks (Euro VI), per mile not per mile/hp.http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-40446.pdf
As the passenger car industry is the largest in Germany the goverment tries to protect them in any way they see fit. And yes it is partly at the cost of people's health.
I can't judge the influence of the political systems. The limits are established by the EU. The member countries must vote unanimously so one country can block decisions. I think it hasn't much to do with lack information. It is a political priority. While emission limits for industrial works are quite strict the government protects the car manufacturers. The health risk of NO2 are known for a long time at least here in the Ruhr Area. The VW scandal brought to light that the limits not only are not met but exceeded up to 30 times. This made the NO2 - health discussion more public.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Without the software the VW diesel models didn't even match the less strict European emission limits.
Less-strict European emission limits. The discussion on this thread is whether the ever more strict U.S. emission limits, and even stricter limits demanded by California, are beyond a point of diminishing economic returns in balancing the costs to meet them against the ever diminishing increment in health from removing the last amount of pollution.
Do you suppose the European emission limits strike a better balance between economic prosperity and clean air? Or are the lower European limits the result of political deals with truck drivers or with business owners, deals putting the health of Germans and the other peoples of Europe in peril?
Or are the stricter U.S. limits the result of the U.S. having a more democratic political system that better balances the needs of people against business interests? Are the U.S. regulations better informed by medical science?
VOLKER LANDWEHR Shadow the Cats owner RME this is the same state that has spent Billions of dollars trying to save a 2 inch fish that until the last 3 years no one had ever even seen in the area that was deemed its habit. It can sometimes be very costly to restore what humans have destroyed over the years. I have seen costs $1.6 million in three years and $2.5 million per year but not "billions". You you provide a link please?
Shadow the Cats owner RME this is the same state that has spent Billions of dollars trying to save a 2 inch fish that until the last 3 years no one had ever even seen in the area that was deemed its habit.
It can sometimes be very costly to restore what humans have destroyed over the years. I have seen costs $1.6 million in three years and $2.5 million per year but not "billions". You you provide a link please?
An economic impact in the single-digit millions of dollars is simply not plausible. A million dollar annual budget barely pays for the salary plus health care plus pension plus administrative overhead of a handful of middle-class salaried workers.
At the other extreme, the agricultural part of California's economy amounts to about 42 billion dollars per year according to Wikipedia article. So yes, a major reduction in farming from releasing the amount of fresh water in question into the sea instead of saving it for irrigation could easily run into billions of dollars.
That article gives the total annual economic product of California at 2.4 trillion per year, so what is a couple billion dollars anyway to save this little fish? That, along with the concerns of cow methane, however, are no laughing matter -- if you like to eat.
By the way, Volkswagen is paying multiple billions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury for violating the U.S. rules with an automobile model that very few American people drive (100,000 TDI cars sold in U.S. in 2013 -- what is that, between a half and a full one percent of total U.S. auto and light truck sales?) What is Volkswagen paying in fines in Germany, where their violations have a proportionately larger impact on air quality?
BaltACDQuestion? - Did VW cheat on diesel emmisions tests in Germany like they did in the US?
Yes, they used the same fraud software worldwide. Totally 10,800,000 cars are involved. Without the software the VW diesel models didn't even match the less strict European emission limits.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRI won't judge the rules. I only that it can happen in Germany too. Many cities have low-emission zone where cars with low emission standards are banned. It is not as harsh but can be to the same effect.Regards, Volker
Question? - Did VW cheat on diesel emmisions tests in Germany like they did in the US?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Trying to regulate cattle methane emissions seems funny at first. But methane's greenhouse effect is about 20 times higher than that of CO2. Methane's share of the greenhouse effect is an estimated 20%.
Shadow the Cats ownerRME this is the same state that has spent Billions of dollars trying to save a 2 inch fish that until the last 3 years no one had ever even seen in the area that was deemed its habit.
Shadow the Cats ownerThe CARB board states his 1962 truck and 1977 trucks did not exsist anymore. Why because they did not have 14 digit VIN codes.
As far as I have read CARB regulations require 1996 to 2006 built trucks weighing more than 14,000 lbs to be either replaced or retrofitted with diesel particulate filters. It also prohibits older not retrofitted trucks from operating on public roads. There was a lawsuit at a US: District Court but was not able to find a ruling.
I won't judge the rules. I only that it can happen in Germany too. Many cities have low-emission zone where cars with low emission standards are banned. It is not as harsh but can be to the same effect.Regards, Volker
RMEThen again, perhaps the cows will learn to sing.
They already talk on commercials!
RME this is the same state that has spent Billions of dollars trying to save a 2 inch fish that until the last 3 years no one had ever even seen in the area that was deemed its habit. In the last 3 years with state run hatcheries breeding the fish to near adult size then releasing them to attempt to restart the adult population they have recaught a grand total of just over 200 delta smelt at the same time diverting over 800 thousand acre feet of water to the area they claim is their habit. Even the people of CA can not figure this one out. Here is one of CARB refusing to register a truck they claim doesn't EXSIST anymore.
https://youtu.be/nVi54m3pg5U
The CARB board states his 1962 truck and 1977 trucks did not exsist anymore. Why because they did not have 14 digit VIN codes.
Shadow the Cats ownerCARB won't allow that either they already have declared they want to regulate the amount of methane released from dairy farms.
When you look a bit deeper at this, it seems consistent with an approach toward "AGW" that reduces generation of greenhouse gases close to the surface (whether or not you believe that AGW is a significant percentage of general 'climate change'). I also would be interested to see whether methane qualifies as "VOC" that accelerates transformation of anthropogenic NO from combustion to NO2. Perhaps typically, none of the California discussions, pro or con, on the 'cow fart' issue seem to have taken this up, when it might be scientifically relevant and significant.A significant part of the effort appears to be the treatment of the (considerable) manure situation, with much of the objection being that the required 'digester' infrastructure (to optimize methane containment, and only by extension to provide alternative fuel) is too expensive for many smaller dairies.
This immediately suggested to me that an infrastructure similar to that which has evolved for garbage in parts of the East Coast, where trucks feed higher-volume rail runs, might be applicable in California. Then a reasonable number of higher-volume digester plants could handle the, er, throughput, and public subsidy or incentives rather than the typical Californian unfunded mandate might be considered for some of the costs.
Then again, perhaps the cows will learn to sing.
Shadow the Cats ownerthey are also screaming at the makers of Sarichia [sic] for air pollution they are claiming he emits too much gas from his plant
You either have the wrong link or a feeble excuse for reading comprehension.
The linked story involves exposure to capsaicin vapors (or something like them) and it is the local government in Irwindale that is supposedly taking action, on the rather-sensible-to-me basis that the 'pepper spray' effects may indeed be a public nuisance. How this would be different in municipalities in the United States that are outside California, in which a comparable number of people complained about a situation like this, is not immediately clear to me. Are you tagging Californians, in Irwindale at least, as chronic crybabies (a more pointed term here than I originally intended, but it seems to fit)?
Shadow the Cats owner CARB won't allow that either they already have declared they want to regulate the amount of methane resleased from dairy farms. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/29/california-passes-a-new-climate-law-to-regulate-cow-farts/ As we say in the OTR industry if there is a way CA will find a way to regulate they are also screaming at the makers of Sarichia for air pollution they are claiming he emits to much gas from his plant http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0512/Sriracha-plant-leaving-California-Texas-woos-Sriracha-as-neighbors-co
CARB won't allow that either they already have declared they want to regulate the amount of methane resleased from dairy farms. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/29/california-passes-a-new-climate-law-to-regulate-cow-farts/
As we say in the OTR industry if there is a way CA will find a way to regulate they are also screaming at the makers of Sarichia for air pollution they are claiming he emits to much gas from his plant http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0512/Sriracha-plant-leaving-California-Texas-woos-Sriracha-as-neighbors-co
Perhaps you might consider using Beano?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
azrail BaltACD The CARB seems to think a Pirus will be a adequate 'tractor' to pull trailers with the regulations they are creating. Naah, Cali will go back to 20-mule teams to move things...of course that will create a different "pollution" problem!
BaltACD The CARB seems to think a Pirus will be a adequate 'tractor' to pull trailers with the regulations they are creating. Naah, Cali will go back to 20-mule teams to move things...of course that will create a different "pollution" problem!
The CARB seems to think a Pirus will be a adequate 'tractor' to pull trailers with the regulations they are creating.
RMEI think you are dangerously ignorant of the physical characteristics of a substantial percentage of the actual emitted particulates from either light or heavy diesel engines, and by extension of the actual chemical nd physical processes that produce them.
I totally agree. The settling velocity depends on particle size. The time for 1 meter is about 3.3 minutes for PM10, 83 minutes for PM2.5, and 11.5 days for PM100nm. http://sfrecpark.org/wp-content/uploads/PM-Tire4MichaelVestel071408.pdf
Here is a link to simulations that show how particulate matter from ship exhausts in the Enlish Channel moves around in Europe:https://www.dkrz.de/about-en/media/galerie/Vis/regional/feinstaub?set_language=en&cl=enRegards, Volker
Shadow the Cats ownerThe second the EPA got their Consent Decree signed by the OTR engine makers they lost their ablity to appeal in the court system.
They might have lost their appeals but they didn't loose their right to appeal:https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/3136b530b2b455d385256c2f0056e066?OpenDocument
Here Caterpillar and Detroit Diesel appealed and lost.
If you have a Consent Decree and allow exemptions for one manfacturer the remaining manufacturers can have commercial disadvantage.
EPA allowed Navistar to further sell non-compliant engines paying non-conformance penalties. Other engine/truck manufacturers challenged the EPA ruling in court and won.
So I see nothing wrong with EPA enforcing contracts. But perhaps I'm naive in my German law understanding.Regards, Volker
RME In my opinion, it makes little sense to restrict "NOx emissions" for locomotives without carefully considering the actual impact of the 'environmental saving' net of all factors. I have yet to see a mainstream analysis of anthropogenic NO that even mentions rail as a significant contributor. This in spite of some interest in demonstrating 'health hotspots' in close or downwind proximity to facilities like Davis where there are large numbers of operating locomotives.
In my opinion, it makes little sense to restrict "NOx emissions" for locomotives without carefully considering the actual impact of the 'environmental saving' net of all factors. I have yet to see a mainstream analysis of anthropogenic NO that even mentions rail as a significant contributor. This in spite of some interest in demonstrating 'health hotspots' in close or downwind proximity to facilities like Davis where there are large numbers of operating locomotives.
My thoughts exactly.
Back in '90-'91, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority was holding meetings on a proposal to electrify the RR's in the L.A. basin to reduce pollution. SCE had a wildly optimistic estimate of $80 million, but when railroad operating practices were taken into acount along with getting the necessary clerance for the overhead, the cost ended up at $4 billion (half of which was raising highway overpasses and the like).
OTOH, one of the complaints from the state was about areas around yard tracks. Seems to me this might be a good application for hybrid locomotives using ultracaps.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRI completely disagree on the problem with particulate matter, it doesn't stay in the air, it descends to the ground or what ever surface it comes across...not an issue in my book ... As for biodiesel...I don't believe it has particulate matter, if you're talking 100% biodiesel and biodiesel made by combining the biofuel and regular diesel. If it's the combination stuff then it wouldn't help with particulate matter, if it's 100% biodiesel then you don't care about the byproducts, they're completely harmless.
I think you are dangerously ignorant of the physical characteristics of a substantial percentage of the actual emitted particulates from either light or heavy diesel engines, and by extension of the actual chemical nd physical processes that produce them. I think it would be wise to read some of the reference material on these subjects before claiming that all PM 'descends to the ground' or promptly plates out on contact, or attempting to assert that PM from 100% biodiesel is "completely harmless". While the absence of sulfate nuclei in wholly-synthetic biodiesel does have beneficial influence in a number of respects, the nanoparticulates generated, for example, by characteristics of the injection jets will remain highly similar, if in fact not identical, for biodiesel compositions by comparison with their fossil equivalents. Remember that it is the very small nanoparticles that are the true medical concern in PM, not the large aggregated soot chains that fall out as the exhaust plume cools.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRI completely disagree on the problem with particulate matter, it doesn't stay in the air, it descends to the ground or what ever surface it comes across...not an issue in my book. Still, when I was talking about an aluminum tractor or carbone fiber, I was talking about everything except the engine and tires...that means frame, tank, cab...everything, the tensile strength of aluminum in certain shapes exceeds that necessary to pull a trailer, it would reduce tractor weight considerably allowing the trailer to carry more commodity, without increasing GVW. It's been talked about but no one has done it...same with composites, heck, if you can also build an aluminum diesel engine that's more weight reduction. I'd suggest an exhaust containment system as well, but that would only work for a smokestack industry and not a moving vehicle. As for biodiesel...I don't believe it has particulate matter, if you're talking 100% biodiesel and biodiesel made by combining the biofuel and regular diesel. If it's the combination stuff then it wouldn't help with particulate matter, if it's 100% biodiesel then you don't care about the byproducts, they're completely harmless.
As for biodiesel...I don't believe it has particulate matter, if you're talking 100% biodiesel and biodiesel made by combining the biofuel and regular diesel. If it's the combination stuff then it wouldn't help with particulate matter, if it's 100% biodiesel then you don't care about the byproducts, they're completely harmless.
Carbon Fiber, Aluminum and many of the lightweight construction materials and processes are costly. Cutting edge technology is costly
Presuming that current technology OTR trucks are in the $200K range, the technology you are outlining would drive them to the $500K range. On top of the while the materials outlined have strength, they also have weakness when subjected to stresses that weren't accounted for in the design and manufacture of the parts. Over the lifetime of a OTR truck and trailer, there will be many occasions when the truck and/or trailer is subjected to a un accounted for stress.
I have been a fan of F1 racing for a number of decades, as it has progressed from steel space frames to aluminum monoquoce chassis to the present carbon fiber tubs - each of these forms of contruction has their strengths and their weaknesses, of course the weakness's of a carbon fiber tub are many orders of magnitude stronger than a steel space frame.
What I am trying to say is that venturing into new 'high tech' technologies can be a crap shoot when released upon a 'consumer' who may use the product in some manner you had never thought possible.
Gerald we already have all Aluminum cabs fuel tanks wheels. The frames are High Strength Steel and as lightweight as possible. Cummins and Cat both tried aluminum blocks in the 90's with their smaller engines they had a small problem called dimetal corrison between the block and the cylinder sleeves the sleeves would end up with pin hole leaks in the middle of them and Bang blown motors. The 3176 Cat engine was called the boat anchor for a reason same thing with the M11 Cummins. The thing is with OTR trucks you need to realize we need both Compressionable strength and tensile strength at the same time with our frames. Your putting a vertical load of 46K static on it when fully laden plus your having to pull up to 80K total load. Plus throw in torque loads in the low range with multiplication that can exceed over 15K ft lbs of torque trying to twist the frame.
My husband has seen steel frame twist from high HP motors normally the driveline gives first as a failure point. However he has seen it where the frame tweaks to the left where the right front tire is pulled up from all the torque a hopped up engine can create. Our van trailers routinely use aluminum and rails for as much as possible and composites for the roof normally fiberglass for light. About the only things made out of steel anymore on the trucks and trailers are crossmembers axles air tanks rear end housings ICC Bumpers per regulations there and driveline parts. We use as many weight reduction ideas as we can. The DPF filters are Steel due to the fact at 1800 Degrees steel is the only metal that can take the heat it generates. Yeah that is how hot those things get and why at times trucks will burn to the ground from a malfunction. My boss uses every thing he can to remove weight the Emissions and other mandated items add more than we can save end of story.
I completely disagree on the problem with particulate matter, it doesn't stay in the air, it descends to the ground or what ever surface it comes across...not an issue in my book. Still, when I was talking about an aluminum tractor or carbone fiber, I was talking about everything except the engine and tires...that means frame, tank, cab...everything, the tensile strength of aluminum in certain shapes exceeds that necessary to pull a trailer, it would reduce tractor weight considerably allowing the trailer to carry more commodity, without increasing GVW. It's been talked about but no one has done it...same with composites, heck, if you can also build an aluminum diesel engine that's more weight reduction. I'd suggest an exhaust containment system as well, but that would only work for a smokestack industry and not a moving vehicle.
Could they do this today through greenwashing? Use biodiesel made from locally-grown corn or sugar beets. It doesn't solve the particulate problem I guess so maybe not.
The second the EPA got their Consent Decree signed by the OTR engine makers they lost their ablity to appeal in the court system. Caterpillar tried in 2007 when they had a system that did not used DPF filters or EGR and met the emission requirements. The EPA went to court filed contempt charges against them for violation of their consent decree and the Judge had no choice but to agree with the EPA even though Caterpillars system was cleaner than the EPA wanted. That is how powerful the EPA is over here.
The State of California's political establishment wants high speed passenger trains. The State of California's financial situation is putting it politely not good.
High speed passenger trains run on electricity. How to pay for it?
Freight railroads will be utilized for parts of California's high speed passenger system. None of them are electrified. Freight railroads run with diesel locomotives.
Use environmental regulations to force freight railroads to ditch the diesels and go electric.
This will electrify parts of California's high speed passenger system utilizing existing freight railroads. Establishing electrification on frieght lines will create a base of infrastructure and experience upon which the State of California may move forward to close the gaps.
Shadow the Cats ownerLast year my boss Operational Ratio was 3% that is after all taxes and expenses.
I think you meant profit.
Shadow the Cats ownerThe EPA never has to prove what they accuse they accuse you of in court. Why because they hold the power to stop you from selling your product here in the USA and you will do whatever it takes to sell it including agree to their demands and they know it.
The EPA sets rules including penalties. So everybody can know them. I would be very surprised if your justice system wouldn't allow to dispute EPA rulings. There were also nonconformance penalties defined. Their payment allowed manufacturers to sell engines that were not compliant.There have been lawsuit Navistar vs. EPA and other truck/engine manufacturers vs. EPA regarding an EPA Navistar ruling. On the other hand other manufacturers knowing the had violated rules choose VW's way to minimize penalties.Regards, Volker
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.