Yahoo headline just posted- with rising diesel costs, truckers see the end of the road

[rvos1979]

vsmith,

  If you  don't think that there has been any change in the design and construction since the 30's, I respectfully suggest that you get your eyeglasses checked.I have been a truck driver for 20 years now come  August, and I have seen  dramatic changes just in those 20 years.

  Aerodynamicly there have been many improvements, and they continue. Look at the KW T2000/Peterbilt387 as an example compared to the cab-over that BJ McKay drove in BJ & the Bear. Cab-overs are a rarity these days, and when they are still used it is  for a reason, usually to reduce the overall vehicle length, but there is a reason besides fashion when they are used.

  Weight reduction is an old battle in the trucking industry, predating fuel conservation as a reason, the less a truck weighs, the more it can haul, the more it hauls the more money it makes.

   Turbos do help save fuel, yes they do boost horsepower, but believe it or not, LITTLE MOTORS DO NOT SAVE FUEL!!!!!  I know this from experience, it is important to MATCH the motor to the work being done. Riduculously oversized motors will cost fuel economy, but so will an inadequate motor.

   I suggest that you do some research beyond looking at a picture of a truck your relative drove in the 30's, because you are entirely out of touch with reality in the world of heavy trucking.

                                                  Doug

I correct this by saying little motors save fuel, but not a lot of it.  I drive for a company that runs basically east of I35, and our loads are right up near gross weight limit.  My '06 Kenworth T2000 is getting about 6MPG with the C15 Cat, but I have driven an '05 that got 7-7.5.  We also have a bunch of '07 T600s with the C13, most of them get about 7MPG.

Right now, the newest Detroit Series 60s in new Freightliner Cascadias are besting the Cats, one driver getting 8mpg, another saying he went from MA to WI on one tank of fuel, loaded to gross.

A smaller motor might get better fuel economy on the flat, but will drink fuel like its going out of style when it gets into the hills of West Virginia.  With shippers trying to put as much weight as possible into our trailers without going over gross or over axle, weights will stay the same (I can haul 46,600 with my current truck and be right at gross, but we have hauled up to 50,000 across DFW, to the chagrin of DOT), a lighter truck means more beer can be piled in the box. 

[challenger3980]

Rant.....on!

Ya know this might be a silly question, but while I feel really bad for the plight of the average trucker, my bro-in-law is one, I am very puzzled: Experts have been saying now for years that oil was going to go nowhere but up in price, and for the last 3 or 4 years the writing has clearly been on the wall that gas and diesel were going to go nowhere but up, some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:

Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?

Isn't it logical when crude goes up because of demand from India and China, gas goes up, diesel will go up also, regardless of how much emission controls or special formulas, it just wouldnt go up quite as much but it would still go up no matter what.

So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's!!!!! I know this cause I have pics of the truck a relative of mine drove back in the 30's!

Why are people are still buying SUVs despite the predictions of $4+ a gallon gas this summer, I hate to say it but this isnt a surprise to me, nor is it a shock, these prices have been anticipated for several years now and anyone with there eyes wide open could clearly see it coming, yet as a nation we have collectivly continued down the garden path blithly ingoring the facts that were plainly in view. Blind faith can do that I guess.

If someone as thick as me could see that when gas hit $3.50 a gallon back in '06, that it was time to hang up the pickup truck and get a gas sipper cause they werent ever going to be under $2.50 a gallon again, you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?

Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?

PS - Were going to see alot of airlines drop like flies this summer. If the trucks are hurting now, how long before the RRs start feeling the pinch.

Rant off, back to reruns of BJ and the Bear...

vsmith,

  If you  don't think that there has been any change in the design and construction since the 30's, I respectfully suggest that you get your eyeglasses checked.I have been a truck driver for 20 years now come  August, and I have seen  dramatic changes just in those 20 years.

  Aerodynamicly there have been many improvements, and they continue. Look at the KW T2000/Peterbilt387 as an example compared to the cab-over that BJ McKay drove in BJ & the Bear. Cab-overs are a rarity these days, and when they are still used it is  for a reason, usually to reduce the overall vehicle length, but there is a reason besides fashion when they are used.

  Weight reduction is an old battle in the trucking industry, predating fuel conservation as a reason, the less a truck weighs, the more it can haul, the more it hauls the more money it makes.

   Turbos do help save fuel, yes they do boost horsepower, but believe it or not, LITTLE MOTORS DO NOT SAVE FUEL!!!!!  I know this from experience, it is important to MATCH the motor to the work being done. Riduculously oversized motors will cost fuel economy, but so will an inadequate motor.

   I suggest that you do some research beyond looking at a picture of a truck your relative drove in the 30's, because you are entirely out of touch with reality in the world of heavy trucking.

                                                  Doug

[Expresslane]

   The engine mfg's are too busy trying to comply with all the antipollution laws that the EPA keeps coming up with. The newer engines are getting less mpg than just a few years ago. Also the ULSD is making us get poor mpg also. The fuel blend this past winter seemed to cause my mpg to drop about 0.7 pre mile.

   The goverment keeps changing the rules. The engine mfg seem to spend all thier time trying to keep up with the law and no one seems to care about how it all effects our mpg. Right now the only way for me to get better mpg isw to drive slower. My last trip from IN to SoCAL I kept the cruise control at 63 to 65.

[Anonymous]

Rant.....on!

Ya know this might be a silly question, but while I feel really bad for the plight of the average trucker, my bro-in-law is one, I am very puzzled: Experts have been saying now for years that oil was going to go nowhere but up in price, and for the last 3 or 4 years the writing has clearly been on the wall that gas and diesel were going to go nowhere but up, some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:

Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?

Isn't it logical when crude goes up because of demand from India and China, gas goes up, diesel will go up also, regardless of how much emission controls or special formulas, it just wouldnt go up quite as much but it would still go up no matter what.

So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's!!!!! I know this cause I have pics of the truck a relative of mine drove back in the 30's!

Why are people are still buying SUVs despite the predictions of $4+ a gallon gas this summer, I hate to say it but this isnt a surprise to me, nor is it a shock, these prices have been anticipated for several years now and anyone with there eyes wide open could clearly see it coming, yet as a nation we have collectivly continued down the garden path blithly ingoring the facts that were plainly in view. Blind faith can do that I guess.

If someone as thick as me could see that when gas hit $3.50 a gallon back in '06, that it was time to hang up the pickup truck and get a gas sipper cause they werent ever going to be under $2.50 a gallon again, you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?

Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?

PS - Were going to see alot of airlines drop like flies this summer. If the trucks are hurting now, how long before the RRs start feeling the pinch.

Rant off, back to reruns of BJ and the Bear...

When auto companies pursue fuel efficiency, whether being mandated by government or on a voluntary basis, the greatest gain comes from making the vehicle smaller and lighter.  When the cargo is only a handful of humans, there is a lot of vehicle weight and size that can be removed while still getting the job done.  Of course, the smaller the vehicle, the more dangerous and uncomfortable it is. 

Unlike private automobiles, which can shed weight, trucks are solely intended to move weight, and their fuel economy limitations run right up against the laws of physics. There is no widespread failure to research fuel efficiency, contrary to a widespread belief that there is.  The limitations of physics are formidable, and research does not guarantee a magic bullet breakthrough in fuel efficiency.  Nevertheless, the reward for such a breakthrough is astoundingly high, so there is plenty of motivation to do research for the breakthrough.

So this is not a matter of research being asleep at the switch while fuel prices have risen according to prediction.  Moreover, I speculate that it is highly inaccurate to say that truck fuel efficiency design has not changed since 1930.

[vsmith]

Rant.....on!

Ya know this might be a silly question, but while I feel really bad for the plight of the average trucker, my bro-in-law is one, I am very puzzled: Experts have been saying now for years that oil was going to go nowhere but up in price, and for the last 3 or 4 years the writing has clearly been on the wall that gas and diesel were going to go nowhere but up, some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:

Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?

Isn't it logical when crude goes up because of demand from India and China, gas goes up, diesel will go up also, regardless of how much emission controls or special formulas, it just wouldnt go up quite as much but it would still go up no matter what.

So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's!!!!! I know this cause I have pics of the truck a relative of mine drove back in the 30's!

Why are people are still buying SUVs despite the predictions of $4+ a gallon gas this summer, I hate to say it but this isnt a surprise to me, nor is it a shock, these prices have been anticipated for several years now and anyone with there eyes wide open could clearly see it coming, yet as a nation we have collectivly continued down the garden path blithly ingoring the facts that were plainly in view. Blind faith can do that I guess.

If someone as thick as me could see that when gas hit $3.50 a gallon back in '06, that it was time to hang up the pickup truck and get a gas sipper cause they werent ever going to be under $2.50 a gallon again, you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?

Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?

PS - Were going to see alot of airlines drop like flies this summer. If the trucks are hurting now, how long before the RRs start feeling the pinch.

Rant off, back to reruns of BJ and the Bear...

[Anonymous]

There is a big demonstration today in Washington, DC about the high price of truck fuel.  Apparently the point of the demonstration is to demand a solution from the federal government.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=6107865

From the article:

"The truckers are calling on Congress to stop subsidizing big oil companies, release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, and end exports of oil from Alaska, among other things."

 

My questions:

1)  How much would these measures do to lower the price of diesel fuel?

2)  What are the economics of exporting oil from Alaska?  Who do we export it to?

3)  Why and how does the government subsidize big oil companies?

4)  What are the "other things" that are being asked for by the protesters? 

[Tharmeni]

Have I told you fellas lately just how much I love my hybrid Honda???????

[Expresslane]

 

  That is what I'm talking about. We pay all this in taxes so the jerks(I'd like to use some other word) in Washington and the state capitols can spend it on other things that do not have anything to to with roads and bridges. All of our transportation infrastucture in one system. We as a country could not be what we are without it.

[Anonymous]

Everyone seems to mention how much money the oil companies are making but never how much the Government hammers us in taxes per gallon. 

Yes, and on each dollar's worth of gasoline we buy, the taxes are greater than the profit made by the oil company that produced that gasoline.  Yet we hear nothing about the greed of taxation.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1140.html

In exchange for the profit made by the oil companies, they risked their own money as capital to look for oil, get it out of the ground, turn it into gasoline, and get it to the dealer.  What do we get from the government's portion of our dollar, other than a wild spending spree on things nobody needs?

[Modelcar]

.....New prices here in Muncie...{Midwest}....Non leaded:  3.66

Diesel:  4.25.....!    We're getting into the price range now where it will be making a difference to the general public....What's next....??

 

[TH&B]

If the oil companys discover that people are still buying gas at these prices, then why should they lower them again ?

[Expresslane]

 Not really off topic. But I want you to understand something about trucks and taxes. Every mile I run in each state I pay a tax to run in that state. All the states are different and some charge a little extra on top of the fuel tax. I also pay $5050 per year in heavy vehicle tax to the federal goverment each year. In my home state they charge .3670 per gallon at the pump. I'm pay by how many gallons I burn running in Illinois. Now when I go to Wisconsin I'll pay .3290 per gallon even if I do not buy any fuel in that state. You do not pay like that with your car. Someday you might. Also in my home state of Illinois I pay again on IL Tollways. Four times more than your car.  To say we ,the truckers do not pay our way is not true. We also pay more to highways in taxes on tires and other things related to our truckes. I almost forgot the registration fee. That is $1650 per year. How about permits. More money down the drain. Now I don't mind paying taxes if I see something in return. Hvae you seen the highways in our country? Yes they are all over the country but the condition is poor at best. Yes trucks are hard on roads but the states need to enforce the weight laws and keep the weigh station open all the time.

Everyone seems to mention how much money the oil companies are making but never how much the Government hammers us in taxes per gallon. 

I know this might be a little off topic but if the airline and trucking industries had to cover their true costs without Government subsidies and rights of way.  They simply couldn't exist in the form that they presently do. 

[passengerfan]

And each time one of the Bay area refineries shuts down for maintenance the price of Gasoline rises in Central and Northern California. Part of the problem is not enough refineries and part is greed on their part. One shuts down and the others all raise their prices until that one comes back in service.

The strategic reserves in Southern California by some estimates is far more than the services would need for the next 150 years at present day consumption so why not use some of that. If we can't come up with alternate fuels or power sources in the next fifty years I don't think we will have to worry about it anyway. I for one am not going to be around long enough to see what happens or much less care. 

TTFN Al - in - Stockton

[wsherrick]

Everyone seems to mention how much money the oil companies are making but never how much the Government hammers us in taxes per gallon. 

I know this might be a little off topic but if the airline and trucking industries had to cover their true costs without Government subsidies and rights of way.  They simply couldn't exist in the form that they presently do. 

[azrail]

Not only UPS trailers are increasingly seen on pig trains, other trucking companies are moving their trailers by rail. On one BNSF train running over the Transcon there were trailers from England, Exel, Yellow, and Stevens Transport.

[RicHamilton]

The gas I just put in at lunch was $4.86/G  ($1.285 per litre)....

[selector]

yahoo headline last evening'''traffic patterns changing due to cost of fuel." (or as close as I can recall it today).

This doesn't necessarily mean permanence, but it does mean that those who remark on such things have detected a significant change in behaviour.  The next 24 months should give us a good idea.  I can tell you that car dealerships on the lower mainland and here on Vancouver Island are lamenting the stone's drop in truck sales.

[chicagorails]

ACCORDING TO ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS REPORT APRIL 17, INTERMODAL VOLUME WAS UP.. TRAILERS UP 3.6% AND CONTAINERS UP 1.5%.. MORE TRUCKS ARE USING RAILS

AND BICYCLE SALES ARE UP ALSO...THANKS TO KING OIL

GASOLINE HERE IN FLA. UP 13 CENTS IN 4 DAYS

[CNW 6000]

According to this MSNBC article, gas and fuel prices have risen largley due to speculation and are due for a correction. If the article is true it could mean fuel prices could come crashing down.

I'm not going to hold my breath.  If the prices "crash down" how are the oil companies going to make as much money?  That would mean that the CEOs aren't making money for their shareholders and thus they'd be in hot water/fired. 

[spokyone]

The pump shut off. I had to pay, then put in another $7.00 in my pickup. This was Saturday

[Modelcar]

....Diesel in Muncie:  $4.199      Non Leaded Reg.  $3.499

The media continued to put out the word it hasn't made any difference and people were swallowing the increases and business as usual.

I will say right now, it is making a difference around here.... It is becoming noticable with less cars on the streets and a different pattern is setting in, in places like restaurants and so on.

[kpolak]

Interesting thread!  Just read thru most of it...Seems to be a common thought that prices will come down with lower consumption...I'm not so sure.  The MSN article says comsumption has been flat in the states for 5-years.

BP and Exon CEO's make no bones about being in business to make money for their investors, gloating over their leadership to record profits.  They need to keep their profits up...somehow.  If the CEO doesn't show profits, the board and shareholders will get rid of them.

I'm suprised that gas/fuel is only about $4/gal.  Remember we were paying $2/gal when oil was at $35/barrel.  Oil prices have risen to 3x the price, so who made up the difference, and how did the oil companies make that much profit?

Seems that personal income needs to rise to acommodate the oil companies, since we all need the gas and fuel, and currently have no choice.  Somehow the carriers need to push back, and make money to feed their families, since they can't cut back on the fuel used to transport goods.

Kurt

[SactoGuy188]

According to this MSNBC article, gas and fuel prices have risen largley due to speculation and are due for a correction. If the article is true it could mean fuel prices could come crashing down.

The problem is that the price is just too high now and is causing motor fuels to start become an elastic (e.g., price sensitive to consumers) commodity. As such, don't be surprised we see a severe cutback in discretionary travel this summer and that could result in gasoline and diesel fuel suppliers "holding the bag" on too much overpriced fuel. 

 

[spokyone]

I drove over to Woodhull IL to meet a friend at the Homestead Travel Plaza on I-74. She had  planned on filling up her truck there. Well. No gas! They still had a couple thousand gallons of diesel. The trucker that had been delivering the fuel, shut down yesterday. He couldn't make it any more with diesel @ $4.13.

[GP-9_Man11786]

According to this MSNBC article, gas and fuel prices have risen largley due to speculation and are due for a correction. If the article is true it could mean fuel prices could come crashing down.

[wsherrick]

In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions.  After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like.  If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country?  It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions.  Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point.  Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants.  But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor? 

Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.

It is true that China's contribution to world pollution is partially the result of manufacturing American products.  But I don't think it follows that the same amount of pollution from producing those products would occur if they were made in the U.S. as opposed to China.  On average, China's industrial processes produce more pollution than U.S. industrial processes.

You mention that to you, national emission arguments are facile.  To me, they seem really hard.  They are especially difficult because they are wrapped up in subterfuge.

The national emission arguments are not born of pride of the richest nations idly boasting that they are the cleanest.  This response is actually the richest nations defending themselves from the world activists' charge that the richest nations are the largest part of the cause of climate destruction because those nations consume more per capita than the poor nations.  While that is generally true, the activists continue the charge by saying that the richest nations also pollute more than the poorer nations.  That is generally true if you compare the emissions of whole nation totals, and if you consider CO2 to be pollution.  However, on a per capita basis, I think you will find that, on average, poorer nations pollute far more per capita than the richer nations.  And if you take CO2 out of the equation, the richest nations are even cleaner.  So the fact that the rich countries consume more per capita is somewhat of a red herring to the blame-for-climate-change argument. 

Motive is everything in this game. And its always a double standard. Until just a few months ago, the United States was a larger exporter than China, and much of that export was to developing countries. But does anyone accuse developing countries of exploiting and causing pollution in the United States by having the audacity to purchase U.S. goods? Of course not.

But just as the poster complains that Chinese air conditioners are merely exporting our own pollution, he will ignore the opposite effect: that our "pollution" is creating high tech and machine tools, advanced electronics and medicines, food and, yes, pollution control technology for export purposes that can make the advances of those nations an easier and more efficient path than our own. And he will ignore the opposite effect because those are the rules of the game.

The nations which tend to be most wasteful of natural resources, and the most unconcerned with environment degradation, tend to be the socialist nations -- recalling the essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" writ large -- and the tyrannies, which are often the same identities oddly enough.

The rich nations are rich because of cultural attitudes about law, about caring for property rights, about recognizing the importance of human capital, and for respecting economic capital.

They can feed their people because they are not busy exploiting their people but, rather, protecting the achievements of their people. Odd how that works.

But those same countries that destroy their own economies and sufficiency are the ones hollering the loudest about "exploitation" -- as though they are not the grandmasters of the idea. And, unfortunately, as oil becomes something more easily exploited as a "bargaining chip" for political purposes, it becomes a greater and more important prize for each Chavez or Quaddafi to control. It is the true "Devil's Excrement" and the so-called rich nations -- which are rich because they respect their own people -- are going to be the ultimate hostages to the short-sighted energy policies of the past 40 years: policies which arose from an agenda driven by the idea that wealth causes pollution and degradation, whereas in fact wealth has created the ability to control pollution and degradation, provided the economic incentive to do so and has done so quite effectively compared to what is passing for the fine experiments in the other approach that characterizes much of the world.

 

Here! Here! Well said Mr. Sol.  I agree 100%.

[SactoGuy188]

One reason why I don't like the idea of using insulated doublestack containers to move perishables is the complexity of the whole idea involved.

Using doublestack containers means:

1) Each container will need its own "clip on" cooling unit.

2) You'll need specialized container carrier cars.

3) The complexity of loading and unloading all those containers with overhead cranes.

The resulting train will need a bigger power consist, and that means more fuel consumed per train.

[Modelcar]

....At a glance of the above info it sure is something to think about and wonder why not....2 six axle engines {just yesterday}, pulled 125 trailers....many {most}, 53 footers, thru here in the Triple Crown consist.

It's easy to see just how many drivers and diesel trucks it would take to equal that if they both were on a cross country run hauling perishables.....

Why would double stacks be more economical than the Triple Crown run.....?  Wouldn't the T C train have far less overall tonnage.....and hence, less fuel usage too...

I certainly don't know the answer, but I think the overall subject and questions {and answers}, might be interesting.

[greyhounds]

I think people are kind of conveniently forgetting that the issue of fuel supply could be solved within the next ten years, especially for diesel fuel.

Two things could make this happen:

1) Growing oil-laden algae on a MASSIVE scale, algae that could be easily processed into diesel fuel, heating oil and kerosene and the solid "waste" processed further into ethanol.

2) New enzymes that could break down an ENTIRE plant into biomass, which can be refined into the same fuels I mentioned. This way, instead of having to grow more corn or sugar cane just to refine into ethanol, we can convert agricultural waste from conventional farming into fuel itself.

Essentially, this will give use pretty much an unlimited, renewable source of motor fuel.

By the way, I think we're going to see massive interest in RoadRailers, since this would allow a single 2-3 locomotive train to move 125 insulated RoadRailer trailers filled with perishable food long distances.

 

 

Well, I don't know anything about algae, and I don't want to know anythig about algae, but...

Generally, if you're moving trains that big (125 units) over long distances then double stack will be more economical than RoadRailers.

There are conditions that can favor RoadRailers, but they'd have to be moved at the end of a train consist that includes other intermodal or the benifits created by those conditions get nulified by the costs of running a RoadRailer only train.

I do agree that trucking a load of onions from Washington State to Boston is rapidly becomming a very uneconomical option. 

[SactoGuy188]

I think people are kind of conveniently forgetting that the issue of fuel supply could be solved within the next ten years, especially for diesel fuel.

Two things could make this happen:

1) Growing oil-laden algae on a MASSIVE scale, algae that could be easily processed into diesel fuel, heating oil and kerosene and the solid "waste" processed further into ethanol.

2) New enzymes that could break down an ENTIRE plant into biomass, which can be refined into the same fuels I mentioned. This way, instead of having to grow more corn or sugar cane just to refine into ethanol, we can convert agricultural waste from conventional farming into fuel itself.

Essentially, this will give use pretty much an unlimited, renewable source of motor fuel.

By the way, I think we're going to see massive interest in RoadRailers, since this would allow a single 2-3 locomotive train to move 125 insulated RoadRailer trailers filled with perishable food long distances.